Voice Messages via Email

Posts: 6 · Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:12 pm Post subject: Voice Messages via Email

I am a recent Vonage customer. I haven't got my Motorola VT1000 voice terminal hardware yet, but I did check out one nice VONAGE feature: receiving missed call messages via email.

While getting my voice messages via email is a nice feature, why did VONAGE only include .WAV format for playback? WAV files are overkill for speech and waste both bandwidth and server disk space.

If a techie from VONAGE is viewing this message, tell me why you folks can't use .SPX (Open Source Ogg Speex codec) files instead of or in addition to .WAV files? The speex encoder and decoder are available free for Linux. Unix and Windows (I don't know about Macs).

I tested a 10 second VONAGE voice-message sent to me. It was a 240K .WAV file. By contrast, a high-quality converted .SPX file was only 28K (12% of the original size).

You can download the command-line encoder and decoder (which also does playback) from my http://las-vegas-shopping.net/speex/ directory.

Among the other files in that directory, I have included a Windows installer which also includes the Speex manual and a Windows speex frontend ( speex_setup.exe ). The installer will create a SPEEX program group, place files in their own directory, and associate .SPX file extensions with speexdec.exe for easy click-on-filename listening to emailed .SPX files.

VONAGE could distribute (or for execution online) speexdec_setup.exe to its customers (this version only contains the decoder and .SPX file association macro) to its customers to allow playback of emailed .SPX files.

Bob Carroll, http://las-vegas-shopping.net

Posts: 61 · Full Forum Member Joined: Dec 04, 2003 Posts: 61

Gee I wonder.

Hmmmm maybe because .wav is a >standard< format?

Maybe we should all just run linux, and spend all of our time administrating our machines for the latest 'open source' solution.

Posts: 83 · Vonage Forum Senior Joined: Nov 16, 2003 Posts: 83

The last thing I need is to download another decoder and storage requirements these days are a real non-issue. I'm sure Vonage picked .wav for the same reason I would, standardization. I would prefer Vonage spend their time on providing quality service and features rather than offering alternatives in this area.

Posts: 6 · Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:25 pm Post subject:

dynastar wrote:

Hmmmm maybe because .wav is a >standard< format?

Maybe we should all just run linux, and spend all of our time administrating our machines for the latest 'open source' solution.

Actually the speex codec was submitted as an "Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)" standard in November 2002 (unlike proprietary formats like MP3).

From Slashdot:

"The licensing terms of Thomson and the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, who are the owners of the mp3 patents, have changed. Now not only mp3 encoders but also mp3 decoders require a license. "

BTW, while I have used Linux a lot for server operation since 1993, my standard desktop has always been one version or another of Windows since 1990.

WAV may be an acceptable format for those who receive and store their email on their home PC but a poor choice for those of us in the business world who have dozens of email accounts located on web servers located elsewhere. Besides that, it is an unnecessary waste of internet bandwidth. As internet telephony gains marketshare, this bandwidth waste will become an increasing problem.

I am simply asking for a choice, especially one that should be quite easy to implement. But then there are alway Luddites. Are you still using Windows 3.1 too?

Posts: 61 · Full Forum Member Joined: Dec 04, 2003 Posts: 61

Hahahahahaa yeah, that's it.

I agree w/ previous poster... having to download yet another codec etc... is a pain. Why do you have 'dozens' of email accounts? You sound like the kind of person that just likes to ****.

If you won the lotto, you **** about taxes.

Posts: 6 · Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:05 am Post subject:

dynastar wrote:

Hahahahahaa yeah, that's it.
If you won the lotto, you **** about taxes.

Totally ignorant response. I don't do Lotto and despite living in Las Vegas I don't gamble (except on the NASDAQ.)

Do you actually have a point?