yeah this post is old and there have been dozens of replies, but here's
some feedback for the list, now that i have some.
we're using a sangoma a102 card (no hw ec) with 2 pris from sbc.
asterisk 1.2.7.1, zaptel 1.2.6 (much testing previously with 1.2.5). we
first used:
KB1 (not aggressiv
Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
I hate to tell you this, but if you have turned on the aggressive suppressor
you aren't cancelling echo. You have turned your phone into a half-duplex
communication medium. With the aggressive suppressor enabled, when zaptel
detects you talking, it MUTES the received a
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:30, Brian Swan wrote:
> 2. Use fxotune in zaptel-trunk: Find a silent-termination test
> number from the phone company and use FXOTune. I couldn't get it to
> dial right in order to get silence on the line. You can verify if
> it's working correctly by running
; -Original Message-
> From: Matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:41 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Fun with Echo -- Follow up
>
> > OH God, 40 hours lost !
>
> Yup.. at 20
thank you very much for your feedback !
happy to hear that you agree with me
perhaps the low quality of the phones have done the difference
i'll try some polycom phones on the same configuration
anyway, what about those echo canceling cards ?
tnx!
.mike
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 11:43 -0700, Martin
you are right in everything
and i'm not using the external speaker on the phones,
i'm using them normally
server A and B are IAX to IAX, codec ulaw
and from phones to asterisk servers i'm using SIP, codec ulaw
strange uh ?
do you think it's an poor phone hardware problem ?
thank you very much for
On Jun 20, 2006, at 4:45 PM, mike wrote:
what's that ? where did u purchase is ?
right now i'm having echo problems between two asterisk servers dealing
with iax with ulaw codec, one in italy and the second in thailand
in your opinion, it is possible that an echo issue is derived by low
bandwid
Are these two servers purely IAX to IAX? That is... are you on server
A with a phone.. calling across IAX to server b, where it goes to a
sip phone?
If so, are you using speaker phone on the phones? sip/sip or iax/iax
calls should be completely echo free.
On 6/20/06, mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
what's that ? where did u purchase is ?
right now i'm having echo problems between two asterisk servers dealing
with iax with ulaw codec, one in italy and the second in thailand
in your opinion, it is possible that an echo issue is derived by low
bandwidth ?
i thought this will end having delay/cho
OH God, 40 hours lost !
Yup.. at 20$/hour that's 800$ that could have been put into a better
piece of hardware.
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
Asterisk-Users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lis
On 6/20/06, Andrew Kohlsmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 11:30, Brian Swan wrote:> 3. Patience and lots of "vi zconfig.h": Try each echo canceler, with> and without the "Aggressive" option. What eventually worked for me
> was the MG2 with Aggressive cancelation.I hate to tel
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 11:30, Brian Swan wrote:
> 3. Patience and lots of "vi zconfig.h": Try each echo canceler, with
> and without the "Aggressive" option. What eventually worked for me
> was the MG2 with Aggressive cancelation.
I hate to tell you this, but if you have turned on the aggressive
I eliminated my echo almost instantly by purchasing an echo canceling
card :) I had about 30 minutes into to get the card installed and
asterisk up and running.
On 6/20/06, Brian Swan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I figured I'd answer my own thread and document what it took to get
rid of the echo
I figured I'd answer my own thread and document what it took to get
rid of the echo at my location. For those of you trying to get rid
of echo, let me tell you, "what worked for that guy, probably won't
work for you". I think we've all heard that before, and it's true.
Let me assure you
Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
On Monday 12 June 2006 17:55, shadowym wrote:
Believe me, you can drive yourself insane trying to come up with some
magical formula that JUST works because it usually won't happen that way.
Software echo cancellers are simply not good enough for many situations.
> There is a spec for echo cancellation on PSTN called g.168. I believe
> it's a
> suite of tests which put the echo canceller through its paces and if
you
> pass
> them you are certified to conform to g.168. None of the echo
cancellers in
> zaptel conform to this, whereas the Octasic, Tellabs an
On Monday 12 June 2006 17:55, shadowym wrote:
> Believe me, you can drive yourself insane trying to come up with some
> magical formula that JUST works because it usually won't happen that way.
> Software echo cancellers are simply not good enough for many situations.
Actually that's untrue. I th
good fit
for them. They may be better off with a cheap analog key system IMHO.
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 5:25 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-
IL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 4:16 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Fun with Echo
>
> On 6/8/06, Brian Swan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > I've followed the numerous s
At 10:28 AM 6/9/2006, you wrote:
reading that the 256 tap limit is "enforced" in software and that you
can add/remove/whatever a few lines of code, and go up to 1024 (or
greater I'd assume). Has anyone tried this? I'm considering
attempting it this weekend to see if it does anything. Does more
I wrestled and wrestled with echo issues for months before finally just
following the guide here:
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Tellabs+Hardware+Echo+Cancellers
And with help from the list I was able to COMPLETELY remove all echo for
under $100.. Requires a tiny bit of simple soldering, but i
Brian,
You may actually get better results lowering size of the buffer. Here
are my settings that have been working nice so far on TDM400 (1+ year):
echocancel=64
echotraining=800
echocancelwhenbridged=yes
rxgain=2.0
txgain=-4.0
Notice difference between receive and transmit levels. That's es
On Jun 9, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Matthew Fredrickson wrote:
On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:43 AM, Brian Swan wrote:
Actually, that's what I started out with, and outboud calls were the
same as now, inbound calls had a huge amount of echo (until I turned
on Aggressive). In my testing I actually didn't not
Good to know -- thanks for the tips. I'll let every one know what
voodoo and magic spells work (if any) :)
On Jun 9, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Matthew Fredrickson wrote:
On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:43 AM, Brian Swan wrote:
Actually, that's what I started out with, and outboud calls were
the same as now
On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:43 AM, Brian Swan wrote:
Actually, that's what I started out with, and outboud calls were the
same as now, inbound calls had a huge amount of echo (until I turned
on Aggressive). In my testing I actually didn't notice any difference
between KB1 actually worked better the
Steve Underwood wrote:
Rich Adamson wrote:
Eric "ManxPower" Wieling wrote:
The number of taps the EC has to deal with is the delay on the PSTN
side. I can't imagine echo is more than a few ms in modern TDM
networks. This latency has NOTHING to do with VoIP latency, since
the echo must be
Rich Adamson wrote:
Eric "ManxPower" Wieling wrote:
The number of taps the EC has to deal with is the delay on the PSTN
side. I can't imagine echo is more than a few ms in modern TDM
networks. This latency has NOTHING to do with VoIP latency, since
the echo must be canceled BEFORE it gets
Eric "ManxPower" Wieling wrote:
The number of taps the EC has to deal with is the delay on the PSTN
side. I can't imagine echo is more than a few ms in modern TDM
networks. This latency has NOTHING to do with VoIP latency, since the
echo must be canceled BEFORE it gets to the VoIP side of thi
the
audio path. But if you are going to be only doing 1 or 2 concurrent
calls,
why not experiment?
-Original Message-
From: Brian Swan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 11:29 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users]
Agree -- seems like a lot of latency. The one thing I will say,
however, is that I had excellent results using 256 taps, until I
tried an *inbound* call, where the echo was so bad, it seemed like I
had put in there on purpose. :)
Thanks!
Brian
On Jun 9, 2006, at 12:39 PM, Eric "ManxPower"
calls,
why not experiment?
-Original Message-
From: Brian Swan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 11:29 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Fun with Echo
My wife is the customer, so she tends to give me funny looks
The number of taps the EC has to deal with is the delay on the PSTN
side. I can't imagine echo is more than a few ms in modern TDM
networks. This latency has NOTHING to do with VoIP latency, since the
echo must be canceled BEFORE it gets to the VoIP side of things.
Brian Swan wrote:
My wife
On Friday 09 June 2006 13:15, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> wondered why the software echo can in zaptel doesn't go up to 1024 taps
> and causes major problems at 256 taps. The tdm400p cards don't have a
The number of taps does indeed go up to 1024 now (in svn trunk). This equates
to 128ms of echo tail.
My wife is the customer, so she tends to give me funny looks when I
ask her to sign waivers. ;) In all seriousness, though, I do recall
reading that the 256 tap limit is "enforced" in software and that you
can add/remove/whatever a few lines of code, and go up to 1024 (or
greater I'd assume
Steve Davies wrote:
On 6/9/06, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Consider getting a Sangoma A200D
(http://www.sangoma.com/datasheets/p_a200-specs) with the optional
hardware echo canceller module. It "just works" for echo cancellation;
no tweaks required. It takes a while to f
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the email. These are 3 pots lines terminated on a
TDM4xxP. The remote ends are analog lines, and they all "sound
great". The echo is experienced on the near end. Also, calls
between phones inside the network all sound great as well, so I don't
think it's our phones
On 6/9/06, Brian Swan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, that's what I started out with, and outboud calls were the
same as now, inbound calls had a huge amount of echo (until I turned
on Aggressive). In my testing I actually didn't notice any
difference between KB1 actually worked better then
Actually, that's what I started out with, and outboud calls were the
same as now, inbound calls had a huge amount of echo (until I turned
on Aggressive). In my testing I actually didn't notice any
difference between KB1 actually worked better then MG2 thanks
for the advice, though!
On 6/9/06, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Consider getting a Sangoma A200D
(http://www.sangoma.com/datasheets/p_a200-specs) with the optional
hardware echo canceller module. It "just works" for echo cancellation;
no tweaks required. It takes a while to figure out how to inst
Brian Swan wrote:
I've spent the last week or so troubleshooting echo problems at my
Wife's business, and I've been able to clear up about 99% of the echo,
but there is still a little residual echo that I can't seem to "tweak
out". The users describe it as "buzzing or crackling", but what it
On 6/8/06, Brian Swan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
I've followed the numerous suggestions in the mailing list archives
which is what has enabled me to get this far. After trying all the
echo cancelers, and all the settings on each I settled on:
- KB1 (with AGGRESSIVE_SUPRESSOR)
- echocanc
I've spent the last week or so troubleshooting echo problems at my
Wife's business, and I've been able to clear up about 99% of the
echo, but there is still a little residual echo that I can't seem to
"tweak out". The users describe it as "buzzing or crackling", but
what it sounds like to
42 matches
Mail list logo
