> >> I put a Tellabs 64ms echo canceller into my facility this weekend and
> >> am praying that it removes are echo problem. If it does, I plan on
> >> making it a standard on my Asterisk installs that have a channel bank
> >> or T1.
> >>
> >
> > Well, the day is almost over here and not one e
Doug Lytle wrote:
Doug Lytle wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I put a Tellabs 64ms echo canceller into my facility this weekend and
am praying that it removes are echo problem. If it does, I plan on
making it a standard on my Asterisk installs that have a channel bank
or T1.
Well, the da
t; >Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:09:34 +0800
> > From: Steve Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] BAD/GOOD Echo Cancel
> > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> >
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
,
Francois BERGERET,
France.
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de David Stude
Envoyé : mardi 7 février 2006 17:09
À : 'Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion'
Objet : RE: [Asterisk-Users] BAD/GOOD Echo Cancel
I'
I had bad echo as well using the Te406 card. Swapped the card, swapped
the box, nothing helped, until I got a Tellabs 2572 echo canceler, and
echo is now gone.
On 2/6/06, Doug Lytle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Lytle wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I put a Tellabs 64ms echo cance
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 5:46 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] BAD/GOOD Echo Cancel
>
> virtually all software echo cancelers cannot get double echo removed
> completly. It can get the first one but not the second one. There
Rich Adamson wrote:
More than that, in their fine print some only claim to pass maybe two or
three of the tests. There is nothing that defines what you must achieve
before you can claim G.168-2002 compliance.
Well, isn't that just wonderful :-) Standards are amazing things, from a
marke
> > More than that, in their fine print some only claim to pass maybe two or
> > three of the tests. There is nothing that defines what you must achieve
> > before you can claim G.168-2002 compliance.
>
> Well, isn't that just wonderful :-) Standards are amazing things, from a
> marketing pers
Richard Amerman wrote:
Doug,
Can you provide any information on how you deployed that card
into your setup? If it works for you we could put up a page on voip-info.org
Richard
I currently have 13 incoming analog centrex lines plugged into an Adit
600 Channel bank. The Aste
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Steve Underwood wrote:
More than that, in their fine print some only claim to pass maybe two or
three of the tests. There is nothing that defines what you must achieve
before you can claim G.168-2002 compliance.
So what echo canceller do you recommend to purchase?
-Dan
___
Doug,
Can you provide any information on how you deployed that card into your setup? If it works for you we could put up a page on voip-info.org
Richard
On 2/6/06, Doug Lytle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
>> Again, I kn
Steve Underwood wrote:
More than that, in their fine print some only claim to pass maybe two or
three of the tests. There is nothing that defines what you must achieve
before you can claim G.168-2002 compliance.
Well, isn't that just wonderful :-) Standards are amazing things, from a
marketi
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
They use the G.168-2002 algorithm; I, personally, had never heard of it
before, but I bounced it off a friend of mine (he's a hardware architect
for a major VoIP switch manufacturer -- they sell to places like Time
Warner), and he was of the opinio
Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
For the record, I've done a couple of Asterisk installs, and HATED echo
-- or feebly attempting to get Asterisk's flakey software algorithms to
do anything about it. Finally got sick 'n tired, and threw money at it
-- got the Sangoma quad-span T1 card.
And echo freaking V
Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
They use the G.168-2002 algorithm; I, personally, had never heard of it
before, but I bounced it off a friend of mine (he's a hardware architect
for a major VoIP switch manufacturer -- they sell to places like Time
Warner), and he was of the opinion that G.168 is the _ONLY_
For the record, I've done a couple of Asterisk installs, and HATED echo
-- or feebly attempting to get Asterisk's flakey software algorithms to
do anything about it. Finally got sick 'n tired, and threw money at it
-- got the Sangoma quad-span T1 card.
And echo freaking VANISHED. (Note that, wit
Doug Lytle wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I put a Tellabs 64ms echo canceller into my facility this weekend and
am praying that it removes are echo problem. If it does, I plan on
making it a standard on my Asterisk installs that have a channel bank
or T1.
Well, the day is almost over he
James Harper wrote:
Just an enquiring mind wanting to know, but how is a hardware solution
different to a software solution? The echo cancellers in the Digium
hardware presumably just use the same sort of algorithms as the software
versions, so it is just that they are dedicated and perform bette
List - Non-Commercial Discussion"
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] BAD/GOOD Echo Cancel
> James Harper wrote:
>
> >>virtually all software echo cancelers cannot get double echo removed
> >>completly. It can get the first o
Krystian Filiks wrote:
If they could hear their own voices than I would not invest in echo
cancelling and for this is the far end responcible so I would take
contact with the service suppliers and ask them if echo canceling is
included.
These are standard analog (Centrex) lines.
Echo can
Doug Lytle wrote:
Krystian Filiks wrote:
Did you test the echo delay?
will 64ms be suffitient?
You can easily test the delay by recording the transmit and receive
path to a sound file and using some sound editing software see how
big the delay is.
That is how I did it when I worked for a Te
Krystian Filiks wrote:
Did you test the echo delay?
will 64ms be suffitient?
You can easily test the delay by recording the transmit and receive
path to a sound file and using some sound editing software see how big
the delay is.
That is how I did it when I worked for a Telco in Switzerland on
James Harper wrote:
virtually all software echo cancelers cannot get double echo removed
completly. It can get the first one but not the second one. There
are
instances where you get a 2nd echo, so ... Asterisk is no exception
from this afaik nothing software only based is.
If you
Did you test the echo delay?
will 64ms be suffitient?
You can easily test the delay by recording the transmit and receive path
to a sound file and using some sound editing software see how big the
delay is.
That is how I did it when I worked for a Telco in Switzerland on theis
TDM switch they
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
Again, I know Sangoma is a sore subject with some on this list, but the
echo cancelation stuff I heard while presented by a Sangoma employee was
not Sangoma specific, although it did include some research into
different
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 04:01 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> > Again, I know Sangoma is a sore subject with some on this list, but the
> > echo cancelation stuff I heard while presented by a Sangoma employee was
> > not Sangoma specific, althou
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
Again, I know Sangoma is a sore subject with some on this list, but the
echo cancelation stuff I heard while presented by a Sangoma employee was
not Sangoma specific, although it did include some research into
different hardware/software based c
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 21:46 +1100, James Harper wrote:
> Just an enquiring mind wanting to know, but how is a hardware solution
> different to a software solution? The echo cancellers in the Digium
> hardware presumably just use the same sort of algorithms as the software
> versions, so it is just
>
> virtually all software echo cancelers cannot get double echo removed
> completly. It can get the first one but not the second one. There
are
> instances where you get a 2nd echo, so ... Asterisk is no exception
> from this afaik nothing software only based is.
>
> If you really want good e
>
> hi,
>
> How good or bad is the EC in Asterisk?
>
> Can anyone prove that it works at all and what it's limitations are?
>
> I ask cause I have some problems with this myself which variate from
> call to call, and I see from others that Echo Cancel is a quite common
> topic.
>
> Jan
>
>
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 10:49 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> hi,
>
> How good or bad is the EC in Asterisk?
>
> Can anyone prove that it works at all and what it's limitations are?
>
> I ask cause I have some problems with this myself which variate from
> call to call, and I see from others th
31 matches
Mail list logo
