On 08/30/2010 10:16 AM, Paul Albrecht wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 10:02 -0500, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: >> On 08/30/2010 09:39 AM, Paul Albrecht wrote: >> >>> I have a question about asterisk transcoding from wide slinear to ulaw >>> (or alaw or g729). Specifically, the result I get when I translate from >>> AST_FORMAT_SLINEAR16 to AST_FORMAT_ULAW is truncated, that is, I don't >>> get a 160 samples in the output frame. Is this a bug or should I have >>> expected the translator to truncate the result? >> >> How many samples were in the input frame? Is there a smoother involved? >> > > The slinear16 frame contains 320 samples and I'm getting 137 samples of > ulaw out which is not what I expected. I was looking for a full 160 > samples of ulaw. > > I don't know if a smoother was involved. Here's how I do the > translation: > > trans = ast_translate_build_path(AST_FORMAT_ULAW,AST_FORMAT_SLINEAR16); > out = ast_translate(trans,in,0)
That certainly sounds like a bug then; there's no smoother involved with that type of construction. Can you post the contents of the ast_frame structure called 'in' (but not the data)? -- Kevin P. Fleming Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA skype: kpfleming | jabber: kflem...@digium.com Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-security mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-security
