What format are the actual calls in? Are they in G.711u/a format or
are they in something else (perhaps gsm?) format? I'm asking to find
out if Asterisk would need to transcode them.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Vilius Adamkavicius
vilius.adamkavic...@invade.net wrote:
Hi All,
We have a
Hi Joel,
We have a meetme on which we are landing two G.711 alaw calls, one coming
from TDM another from SIP. Once we those parties are in the conference we
are adding one more leg using Local channel and starting to record it.
Surely it would be logical if it would be less overhead recording
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Vilius Adamkavicius
vilius.adamkavic...@invade.net wrote:
Hi All,
We have a requirement to record over 60 simultaneous calls. Our recording
facilities are implemented using Monitor() over AMI. The thing we have
noticed that making 60 simultaneous call
Hi David,
Looking at MOS G.711alaw wav most definitely has the higher score than gsm.
Moreover recording in gsm is more CPU intense than wav. Therefore your
suggestion to do more CPU intense recording and afterwards use system
resources to convert it back to wav is not a solution. Also some of
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:28:27PM +, Vilius Adamkavicius wrote:
Hi David,
Looking at MOS G.711alaw wav most definitely has the higher score than gsm.
Moreover recording in gsm is more CPU intense than wav. Therefore your
suggestion to do more CPU intense recording and afterwards use
WAV or wav? One of these has GSM-encoding inside a WAV formatted
envelope. That said, I wouldn't expect that to have any noticeable
CPU utilization above that of GSM. If you are using the non-GSM
version of WAV, then I am as baffled as you - hopefully someone who
knows more about this can help.
We are using wav, not WAV. I believe WAV is the one with GSM. Its a very
good idea to compare WAV against wav, will run some tests and come back with
outcome, will try Tzafrir's suggestion as well.
Thanks guys
Vilius.
On 22 November 2010 16:31, Joel Maslak jmas...@antelope.net wrote:
WAV or
