Hi, a bit late on answering some of the questions, but, here we go.On Aculab, all codecs were G711u. The same codec we have on FS:
freeswi...@conference> show channels API CALL [show(channels)] output: uuid,direction,created,created_epoch,name,state,cid_name,cid_num,ip_addr,dest,application,application_data,dialplan,context,read_codec,read_rate,write_codec,write_rate,secure c9cafeb8-803a-11de-8ceb-cb8648fd1ccf,inbound,2009-08-03 11:34:44,1249310084,sofia/internal/[email protected],CS_EXECUTE,Teste Testa,1000,192.168.0.165,3200,conference,3200-192.168.0...@ultrawideband ,XML,default,L16,8000,PCMU,8000, cc5edb90-803a-11de-8ceb-cb8648fd1ccf,inbound,2009-08-03 11:34:49,1249310089,sofia/internal/[email protected] ,CS_EXECUTE,F.G.Testa,1000,192.168.0.249,3200,conference,3200-192.168.0...@ultrawideband ,XML,default,L16,8000,PCMU,8000, 2 total. freeswi...@conference> conference list API CALL [conference(list)] output: Conference 3200-192.168.0.40 (2 members) 2;sofia/internal/[email protected] ;cc5edb90-803a-11de-8ceb-cb8648fd1ccf;F.G.Testa;1000;hear|speak;0;0;300 1;sofia/internal/[email protected];c9cafeb8-803a-11de-8ceb-cb8648fd1ccf;Teste Testa;1000;hear|speak|talking|floor;0;0;300 I think this answers some questions from Michael. A packet dump I don't have right now. Fernando G. Testa On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Steve Underwood <[email protected]>wrote: > David Knell wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 09:21 +0800, Steve Underwood wrote: > > > >> > >> High quality conferencing is a difficult task, and still a research > >> topic. No two conferencing systems perform alike. The interesting thing > >> about this and other reports is that the conferencing in Freeswitch is > >> not very clever right now, yet people are already saying it beats > >> various other offerings, including long time commercial offerings. > >> > > > > It may well be that a simplistic implementation (noise gate, add them > > all up) is all that's required for dealing with small groups or, more > > generally, groups of any size which have a small number of active > > speakers at any one time: it's predictable and unlikely to introduce > > unpleasant side effects. > > > This is one of those situations where when you've experienced something > better you make that your baseline for acceptability. I would consider a > noise gate horribly crude, and VAD as the minimum for acceptable > performance. If you've only used a noise gate you get used to it. If > you're not sufficiently versed in the art you may well think nothing > better is even possible. > > The fact that even the simple scheme, with noise gating, in Freeswitch > is getting high praise, is pretty damning of mature commercial products. > > Steve > > > _______________________________________________ > FreeSWITCH-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users > UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users > http://www.freeswitch.org > -- Fernando Gregianin Testa Voice Technology Ltda +55 11 35882166
_______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
