Florian Lefeuvre wrote:
Hi Steve,
I was the one who post a question about the RADIO_RELAX option.
In fact when I set it , I remark some better result in the detection
of the DTMF...
after a few more tests, It appears I was wrong.
I did a record of samples used by the DTMF_detect function.
I obtain
On Feb 16, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Steve Underwood wrote:
BTW, Steve, if you're still reading, what is the RADIO_RELAX option
intended to be for in dsp.c?
It is something someone else added to the code to make the detection
criteria in relaxed mode even more relaxed. If setting that helps,
On Feb 16, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Steve Underwood wrote:
BTW, Steve, if you're still reading, what is the RADIO_RELAX option
intended to be for in dsp.c?
It is something someone else added to the code to make the detection
criteria in relaxed mode even more relaxed. If setting that helps,
something
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Steve Underwood wrote:
> If that is true, someone must have broken something. Not only does the
> DTMF detector I wrote not care about small imperfections, it even
> tolerates a dropped packet with the DTMF passes over a VoIP path (this
> kind of tolerance was added a coupl
Steve:
Given this and the number of recent messages related to DTMF problems
can you add any thoughts on how to improve implementations?
I too have problems correctly handling DTMF in my environment. In the
LAN /IP world DTMF works as expected to allow an IP phone user to
access my Asterisk ba
Hi Mark,
Mark Eissler wrote:
BTW, Steve, if you're still reading, what is the RADIO_RELAX option
intended to be for in dsp.c?
It is something someone else added to the code to make the detection
criteria in relaxed mode even more relaxed. If setting that helps,
something in your channel must be
Hi Peter,
If that is true, someone must have broken something. Not only does the
DTMF detector I wrote not care about small imperfections, it even
tolerates a dropped packet with the DTMF passes over a VoIP path (this
kind of tolerance was added a couple of years ago).
Regards,
Steve
Peter Sven
On Feb 16, 2005, at 10:01 AM, Peter Svensson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Steve Underwood wrote:
If you really are using ulaw, and you do not have extreme packet loss
or
jitter, DTMF detection should be very reliable. It is no better in CVS
HEAD because it wasn't broken in the first place.
We have
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Steve Underwood wrote:
> If you really are using ulaw, and you do not have extreme packet loss or
> jitter, DTMF detection should be very reliable. It is no better in CVS
> HEAD because it wasn't broken in the first place.
We have some problems with dtmf detection on our li
Hi Florian,
If you really are using ulaw, and you do not have extreme packet loss or
jitter, DTMF detection should be very reliable. It is no better in CVS
HEAD because it wasn't broken in the first place.
What does wrong with DTMF detection? Do you realise how DTMF from a GSM
phone works? If y
Hi all,
I have some probleem detecting DTMF send by a GSM phone,
I'm using SIP with ulaw.
do you know what are the options to improve the detection ?
I'm using asterisk 1.05,
is the CVS HEAD version had some improvement about DTMF detection?
Florian.
___
11 matches
Mail list logo
