It's quite possible I'm confused about which cases are likely.

Perhaps I can explain it better if I start over... We have two
parties, A (local end), and Z (remote end). Both are connected to the
PSTN via an ATA going over twisted pair.

There are 4 ways I see for echo to be perceived:
1) A hears an echo of Z's voice
2) A hears an echo of A's voice
3) Z hears an echo of A's voice
4) Z hears an echo of Z's voice

So of these, there are two styles of echo:
i) Hearing an echo of your own voice (A)
ii) Hearing an echo of the other party's voice (Z)

----

If I'm hearing (i), the major sources are:

X) Impedance mismatch on my local loop, caused by poor wiring
conditions (untwisted wires, extra km of wire beyond where you are
tapped in to the local loop, water, mice)

I believe this can be tuned out by most analog card, and/or through
echo cancelers monitoring my TX/RX.

Y) Remote end feeding my voice back into their microphone, exasperated
by the delay in VoIP networks

This can be mitigated with hard/software echo cancelers monitoring my TX/RX

----

If I'm hearing (ii), the major sources are:???
Removing (ii) is not possible?


-spd

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Henry L.Coleman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well now I am confused, a recording of an echo is not the same thing as the 
> real thing.
> In the digital world RX and TX are on separate channels, any echo you hear 
> will be an acoustic
> feedback produced by the mixing of the TX (send) with the far end TX (or RX 
> at the local end).
> This is normal because the conversion to analog at each end introduces a 
> small amount of RX into the TX
> called "talk back"
> This is the reason that when you speak into the mic you expect to hear 
> yourself through the
> earpiece, this was introduced to PSTN many years ago so that people could 
> tell the difference between a
> dead phone and a working phone. (pick up any analog phone and you'll see what 
> I mean).
> Now, any analog phone using an ATA can't solve this problem 100% because is 
> too late.
> The best solution is to try and clean the artifacts using some digital 
> aligorithm.
> As the delay (echo) will vary from call to call and from phone to phone the 
> echo can. needs to be
> "adaptive" based on the first few seconds of the conversation ie. "training".
> Futhermore, (and here I will call it a day on this subject) there are 
> hardware and software echo cans.,
> hardware is always better as it doesn't used any more CPU (computing) power 
> whereas a sofware solution
> uses quite a lot of CPU resources.
>
> ALL all THE the BEST best :)
>
> Henry L.Coleman [VoIP-PBX.ca]
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>> John Lange<
>> On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 16:56 -0400, Simon P. Ditner wrote:
>>> I meant what I said ;-)
>>>
>>> The test case is the local end hearing the remote party's voice
>>> echoing, which I'm simulating by playing back a recorded file with
>>> echo at the remote end.
>>
>> Ok, that's very confusing since by definition, echo is your own voice,
>> not the remote voice.... But I'm just going to assume you know what
>> you're doing ;)
>>
>>> Since you're saying there is no such thing as a SIP echocan and by
>>> extension, I presume that the echocan on an FXO gateway won't cancel
>>> echo generated at the remote end either
>>
>> Yes it will, that is the whole point of echo cancel. Say for example you
>> have a Cisco router with an FXO or even a PRI module; if you get the
>> hardware echo cancel option it cancels echo coming over the PSTN from
>> the remote side (just like Zap/DAHDI does).
>>
>>> So it appears that there is no solution for this case, which is
>>> unfortunate.
>>
>> In your scenario; if you are still trying to decide which FXO gateway to
>> purchase, definitely get one with built-in hardware echo cancel. They
>> are of course much more expensive but that is the correct solution.
>>
>> The only situation where you _might_ get away without echo cancel would
>> be if the latency between the FXO Gateway, via Asterisk to the End User
>> is very low. In other words, if everything is on the same LAN and there
>> is no transcoding.
>>
>> --
>> John Lange
>> http://www.johnlange.ca
>>
>>

|          http://facebook.com/people/Simon-P-Ditner/776370031
|          http://twitter.com/spditner

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to