RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
SBC cancels milliwatt tone generators. -- This thread got me all excited as there appeared to be a logical method to balancing the line. I thought that I might finally get to clean up that echo problem with our Cisco SIP phones. We have a reasonably good relationship with the local SBC techs since we buy a lot of service from them and we have been around for a few years. Also, we are only a block away from their main CO. I called our local SBC CO and asked for a milliwatt tone generator number. He said that SBC decided they were not needed and put out an order to remove them in February. The tech said they have been removed from all SBC COs. :( We are in northern Illinois. Tom At 12:49 PM 4/19/2004, you wrote: For the record, the milliwatt generator, ANI number, etc, is up to each telco engineering/operations group as to what number to assign to it. There are no industry standards at all. Since the xx98 and xx99 numbers use to be reserved for testing years ago, those numbers are still in frequent use. Also, some telco's use numbers like 311 for things like this, however the 411, 511, 611, 911 range has been filling up rather rapidly with other public things, so probably not to likely anymore. Easiest way to find them is to call Repair and ask. If that person can't tell you, ask for their supervisor. If that doesn't work, the next time you see a telephone truck, ask the driver; he's likely to be an employee that uses it more frequently then most others. Rich On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Jeremy Hall wrote: This may not be the case in all areas, but in my area with Qwest as well, all exchanges have the test at xxx-9996. For example, my number is in the 208 area code, 459 exchange, so the full number would be 208-459-9996. It is not tied to any specific number, so I can use any exchange local to me such as 323-9996. It may or may not work in your area, so try not to do it at 3:00 AM until you have verified the number. I'm also in a Qwest area, but that number doesn't work here. All of the techs that I have asked gave it to me with no problems. They are shy about the automatic ANI number, however... dave -Original Message- From: Ed Rubright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? The next question for me is: How do I found out my telco milliwatt test number? I'm in Washington State using Qwest. The way I understand this, I'm to dialup the telco milliwatt test number and adjust the rxgain values using ztmonitor tool until the Max Audio Hit is in the middle of the bar graph for a normal conversation? Thanks, Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Adamson Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? I for one would love this. I do not have any test equipment to determine the level I am sending at, but if I could at least figure out what levels to have my rxgain values set to, that would help. I remember seeing somewhere that you can use a program (part of the zt suite if I remember correctly) to view the audio levels on the FXO card like an on-screen vu meter. I can use that and dial up my telco milliwatt test number and adjust accordingly. I asked where that tool was on the IRC channel, but they seemed to not know either. I have searched as I know I saw it, but can't find it again. The tool you're looking for is /usr/src/zaptel/ztmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor Usage: ztmonitor channel num [-v] [-f FILE] [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor 1 -v Visual Audio Levels. Use zapata.conf file to adjust the gains if needed. ( # = Audio Level * = Max Audio Hit ) (RX) (TX) ##* Keep in mind that tool is nothing more then an audio VU meter and was not intended to be an accurate means of measuring transmission levels. I think bkw (probably with Mark) wrote it back in the November/December timeframe as a simple tool for adjusting rxgain, etc. About that same time, the echo cancelling mechanism (for the x100p) was rewritten to sense the audio reflection (or echo) during the first half-second or so of an initial pstn call. (That was a substantial improvement over previous cancellation methods without a doubt. If I recall recorrectly, that mechanism was reduced to sending an outbound short duration pulse or burst, and measuring the reflected energy. Sort of a snapshot at the start of an analog call. It's okay, but certainly not the equivalent of commercial analog cancellation products including mux's.) I've not had to revisit
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
The milliwatt generator does not have to be in your CO (although that would be the prefered one). As long as you know the loss between CO's, use one from another telco in the area. This thread got me all excited as there appeared to be a logical method to balancing the line. I thought that I might finally get to clean up that echo problem with our Cisco SIP phones. We have a reasonably good relationship with the local SBC techs since we buy a lot of service from them and we have been around for a few years. Also, we are only a block away from their main CO. I called our local SBC CO and asked for a milliwatt tone generator number. He said that SBC decided they were not needed and put out an order to remove them in February. The tech said they have been removed from all SBC COs. :( We are in northern Illinois. Tom At 12:49 PM 4/19/2004, you wrote: For the record, the milliwatt generator, ANI number, etc, is up to each telco engineering/operations group as to what number to assign to it. There are no industry standards at all. Since the xx98 and xx99 numbers use to be reserved for testing years ago, those numbers are still in frequent use. Also, some telco's use numbers like 311 for things like this, however the 411, 511, 611, 911 range has been filling up rather rapidly with other public things, so probably not to likely anymore. Easiest way to find them is to call Repair and ask. If that person can't tell you, ask for their supervisor. If that doesn't work, the next time you see a telephone truck, ask the driver; he's likely to be an employee that uses it more frequently then most others. Rich On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Jeremy Hall wrote: This may not be the case in all areas, but in my area with Qwest as well, all exchanges have the test at xxx-9996. For example, my number is in the 208 area code, 459 exchange, so the full number would be 208-459-9996. It is not tied to any specific number, so I can use any exchange local to me such as 323-9996. It may or may not work in your area, so try not to do it at 3:00 AM until you have verified the number. I'm also in a Qwest area, but that number doesn't work here. All of the techs that I have asked gave it to me with no problems. They are shy about the automatic ANI number, however... dave -Original Message- From: Ed Rubright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? The next question for me is: How do I found out my telco milliwatt test number? I'm in Washington State using Qwest. The way I understand this, I'm to dialup the telco milliwatt test number and adjust the rxgain values using ztmonitor tool until the Max Audio Hit is in the middle of the bar graph for a normal conversation? Thanks, Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Adamson Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? I for one would love this. I do not have any test equipment to determine the level I am sending at, but if I could at least figure out what levels to have my rxgain values set to, that would help. I remember seeing somewhere that you can use a program (part of the zt suite if I remember correctly) to view the audio levels on the FXO card like an on-screen vu meter. I can use that and dial up my telco milliwatt test number and adjust accordingly. I asked where that tool was on the IRC channel, but they seemed to not know either. I have searched as I know I saw it, but can't find it again. The tool you're looking for is /usr/src/zaptel/ztmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor Usage: ztmonitor channel num [-v] [-f FILE] [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor 1 -v Visual Audio Levels. Use zapata.conf file to adjust the gains if needed. ( # = Audio Level * = Max Audio Hit ) (RX) (TX) ##* Keep in mind that tool is nothing more then an audio VU meter and was not intended to be an accurate means of measuring transmission levels. I think bkw (probably with Mark) wrote it back in the November/December timeframe as a simple tool for adjusting rxgain, etc. About that same time, the echo cancelling mechanism (for the x100p) was rewritten to sense the audio reflection (or echo) during the first half-second or so of an initial pstn call. (That was a substantial improvement over previous cancellation methods without a doubt. If I recall recorrectly, that mechanism
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Tom wrote: SBC cancels milliwatt tone generators. -- I called our local SBC CO and asked for a milliwatt tone generator number. He said that SBC decided they were not needed and put out an order to remove them in February. The tech said they have been removed from all SBC COs. :( We are in northern Illinois. This isn't exactly true. SBC might have put the word out to cancel all the numbers, but its up to the end offices to actually do the work. I just tried abot a dozen test numbers and all but 1 worked still. James ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
At 01:50 PM 4/20/2004, you wrote: On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Tom wrote: SBC cancels milliwatt tone generators. -- I called our local SBC CO and asked for a milliwatt tone generator number. He said that SBC decided they were not needed and put out an order to remove them in February. The tech said they have been removed from all SBC COs. :( We are in northern Illinois. This isn't exactly true. SBC might have put the word out to cancel all the numbers, but its up to the end offices to actually do the work. I just tried abot a dozen test numbers and all but 1 worked still. James Thanks for the push James. I just called a different SBC CO and talked to a local tech who gave me the old tone numbers for our three COs. He said these were 0dB at 1000 Hz. I called all three and they all gave tones. :) Tom ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
At 11:01 AM 4/19/2004, you wrote: I for one would love this. I do not have any test equipment to determine the level I am sending at, but if I could at least figure out what levels to have my rxgain values set to, that would help. I remember seeing somewhere that you can use a program (part of the zt suite if I remember correctly) to view the audio levels on the FXO card like an on-screen vu meter. I can use that and dial up my telco milliwatt test number and adjust accordingly. I asked where that tool was on the IRC channel, but they seemed to not know either. I have searched as I know I saw it, but can't find it again. The tool you're looking for is /usr/src/zaptel/ztmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor Usage: ztmonitor channel num [-v] [-f FILE] [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor 1 -v Visual Audio Levels. Use zapata.conf file to adjust the gains if needed. ( # = Audio Level * = Max Audio Hit ) (RX) (TX) ##* Keep in mind that tool is nothing more then an audio VU meter and was not intended to be an accurate means of measuring transmission levels. I think bkw (probably with Mark) wrote it back in the November/December timeframe as a simple tool for adjusting rxgain, etc. About that same time, the echo cancelling mechanism (for the x100p) was rewritten to sense the audio reflection (or echo) during the first half-second or so of an initial pstn call. (That was a substantial improvement over previous cancellation methods without a doubt. If I recall recorrectly, that mechanism was reduced to sending an outbound short duration pulse or burst, and measuring the reflected energy. Sort of a snapshot at the start of an analog call. It's okay, but certainly not the equivalent of commercial analog cancellation products including mux's.) I've not had to revisit the x100p gain adjustment effort for several months, but seems to me that it was necessary to completely stop and start * each time an adjustment was made to the rxgain/txgain settings in zapata.conf (a simple reload wasn't adequate). Rich Is this where the audio level bar should we be with the 0dB milliwatt test tone? The graph below was done with a -14 on the rxgain. Visual Audio Levels. Use zapata.conf file to adjust the gains if needed. ( # = Audio Level * = Max Audio Hit ) (RX) (TX) ##* Thanks, Tom ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
As someone who used to adjust hybrids for a living a number of years ago, I can tell you, complex impedence matching is only a part of the equation. Same here. The most important part is proper gain structure. If that's wrong no there is no way to control echo. No amount of tweaking of compensation networks will bring one into balance... No Convolution processing can control it. On old style equipment i.e. stuff built by Tellabs, the gain structure had to be right within about .5 DBm0. Alignment meant dialing up a milliwatt test signal, measuring that signal at the 2 wire point and adjusting pads on the module so that the 4 wire transmit point was at a fixed and correct level. If memory serves, on an analog microwave system, 0 DBm into a module was supposed to be -16 DBm on the 4 wire transmit point. The picture below may help to clarify: A major part of the problem implementing * into a pstn environment is that few implementors actually understand transmission basics, a smaller percentage actually have the test gear to measure the values, and even a smaller number understand what impedence, DBm, noise levels, twisted pair, induction, etc, mean in terms of pstn interface performance. Combine that with dropping an FXO interface into a pstn environment where the transmission levels to the CO are basically unknown, SOHO impedence mismatches abound, bridged analog phone sets are commonplace, and assumptions that plug-n-play applies across the board including the x100p, its fairly obvious why so many people bad-mouth the hardware. Its also interesting that in about eight months on this list no one has asked what the milliwatt generator is for, how to find the telephone number of the pstn generator, how to measure the levels or what the objectives should be, etc. The transmission levels that were noted in the original posting are those associated with the analog toll network, but the principle still applies. Maybe a couple of us should write a whitepaper for beginners on the topic. Rich ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Rich Adamson wrote: Maybe a couple of us should write a whitepaper for beginners on the topic. Yes Please do Rich ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
Combine that with dropping an FXO interface into a pstn environment where the transmission levels to the CO are basically unknown, SOHO impedence mismatches abound, bridged analog phone sets are commonplace, and assumptions that plug-n-play applies across the board including the x100p, its fairly obvious why so many people bad-mouth the hardware. I am badmouthing the hardware because I can drop an Adit600 FXO port on to the exact same line and have an order of magnitude better chance of getting adequate voice quality out of it. I am waiting for my FXO module to arrive so I can see if I have similar experiences with it. The X100P is a cheap hybrid interface. I am not arguing that point. I also believe, however, that using the X100P and reselling that particular brand of WinModem is giving a *lot* of asterisk newcomers a very bad taste in their mouths. It is my sincere hope that the TDM400P's FXO module is a significantly better hybrid and that the Dev Kit is simply a TDM400P with FXS and FXO modules. There's always a tradeoff between cost and performance. It is my opinion that the X100P was a bad choice. Its also interesting that in about eight months on this list no one has asked what the milliwatt generator is for, how to find the telephone number of the pstn generator, how to measure the levels or what the objectives should be, etc. I am pretty sure that most people wouldn't have the means to measure and apply that knowlege. I know what a milliwatt generator is used for and I have the means to measure and adjust the hybrid to get the desired result, but I didn't have the knowledge that yourself and Mr. Adamson have just brought to the list. In other words, I didn't know _where_ I needed to adjust the values to. It's especially interesting how the hybrid should NOT be adjusted to get 0dBm on the 4-wire side to eliminate echo. I would not have guessed that. I was also lucky enough not to need to live with the X100P for very long. Maybe a couple of us should write a whitepaper for beginners on the topic. I think that would be an incredible nugget of knowledge for the Asterisk community. I know that I've got yours and Mr. Ferrell's messages stored away in my knowledgebase. :-) Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
I for one would love this. I do not have any test equipment to determine the level I am sending at, but if I could at least figure out what levels to have my rxgain values set to, that would help. I remember seeing somewhere that you can use a program (part of the zt suite if I remember correctly) to view the audio levels on the FXO card like an on-screen vu meter. I can use that and dial up my telco milliwatt test number and adjust accordingly. I asked where that tool was on the IRC channel, but they seemed to not know either. I have searched as I know I saw it, but can't find it again. Please post a guide like this to the Wiki or some other location, and be assured it will help at least one person out, probably many more. -Original Message- From: Rich Adamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 6:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? As someone who used to adjust hybrids for a living a number of years ago, I can tell you, complex impedence matching is only a part of the equation. Same here. The most important part is proper gain structure. If that's wrong no there is no way to control echo. No amount of tweaking of compensation networks will bring one into balance... No Convolution processing can control it. On old style equipment i.e. stuff built by Tellabs, the gain structure had to be right within about .5 DBm0. Alignment meant dialing up a milliwatt test signal, measuring that signal at the 2 wire point and adjusting pads on the module so that the 4 wire transmit point was at a fixed and correct level. If memory serves, on an analog microwave system, 0 DBm into a module was supposed to be -16 DBm on the 4 wire transmit point. The picture below may help to clarify: A major part of the problem implementing * into a pstn environment is that few implementors actually understand transmission basics, a smaller percentage actually have the test gear to measure the values, and even a smaller number understand what impedence, DBm, noise levels, twisted pair, induction, etc, mean in terms of pstn interface performance. Combine that with dropping an FXO interface into a pstn environment where the transmission levels to the CO are basically unknown, SOHO impedence mismatches abound, bridged analog phone sets are commonplace, and assumptions that plug-n-play applies across the board including the x100p, its fairly obvious why so many people bad-mouth the hardware. Its also interesting that in about eight months on this list no one has asked what the milliwatt generator is for, how to find the telephone number of the pstn generator, how to measure the levels or what the objectives should be, etc. The transmission levels that were noted in the original posting are those associated with the analog toll network, but the principle still applies. Maybe a couple of us should write a whitepaper for beginners on the topic. Rich ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
I for one would love this. I do not have any test equipment to determine the level I am sending at, but if I could at least figure out what levels to have my rxgain values set to, that would help. I remember seeing somewhere that you can use a program (part of the zt suite if I remember correctly) to view the audio levels on the FXO card like an on-screen vu meter. I can use that and dial up my telco milliwatt test number and adjust accordingly. I asked where that tool was on the IRC channel, but they seemed to not know either. I have searched as I know I saw it, but can't find it again. The tool you're looking for is /usr/src/zaptel/ztmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor Usage: ztmonitor channel num [-v] [-f FILE] [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor 1 -v Visual Audio Levels. Use zapata.conf file to adjust the gains if needed. ( # = Audio Level * = Max Audio Hit ) (RX) (TX) ##* Keep in mind that tool is nothing more then an audio VU meter and was not intended to be an accurate means of measuring transmission levels. I think bkw (probably with Mark) wrote it back in the November/December timeframe as a simple tool for adjusting rxgain, etc. About that same time, the echo cancelling mechanism (for the x100p) was rewritten to sense the audio reflection (or echo) during the first half-second or so of an initial pstn call. (That was a substantial improvement over previous cancellation methods without a doubt. If I recall recorrectly, that mechanism was reduced to sending an outbound short duration pulse or burst, and measuring the reflected energy. Sort of a snapshot at the start of an analog call. It's okay, but certainly not the equivalent of commercial analog cancellation products including mux's.) I've not had to revisit the x100p gain adjustment effort for several months, but seems to me that it was necessary to completely stop and start * each time an adjustment was made to the rxgain/txgain settings in zapata.conf (a simple reload wasn't adequate). Rich ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
The next question for me is: How do I found out my telco milliwatt test number? I'm in Washington State using Qwest. The way I understand this, I'm to dialup the telco milliwatt test number and adjust the rxgain values using ztmonitor tool until the Max Audio Hit is in the middle of the bar graph for a normal conversation? Thanks, Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Adamson Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? I for one would love this. I do not have any test equipment to determine the level I am sending at, but if I could at least figure out what levels to have my rxgain values set to, that would help. I remember seeing somewhere that you can use a program (part of the zt suite if I remember correctly) to view the audio levels on the FXO card like an on-screen vu meter. I can use that and dial up my telco milliwatt test number and adjust accordingly. I asked where that tool was on the IRC channel, but they seemed to not know either. I have searched as I know I saw it, but can't find it again. The tool you're looking for is /usr/src/zaptel/ztmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor Usage: ztmonitor channel num [-v] [-f FILE] [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor 1 -v Visual Audio Levels. Use zapata.conf file to adjust the gains if needed. ( # = Audio Level * = Max Audio Hit ) (RX) (TX) ##* Keep in mind that tool is nothing more then an audio VU meter and was not intended to be an accurate means of measuring transmission levels. I think bkw (probably with Mark) wrote it back in the November/December timeframe as a simple tool for adjusting rxgain, etc. About that same time, the echo cancelling mechanism (for the x100p) was rewritten to sense the audio reflection (or echo) during the first half-second or so of an initial pstn call. (That was a substantial improvement over previous cancellation methods without a doubt. If I recall recorrectly, that mechanism was reduced to sending an outbound short duration pulse or burst, and measuring the reflected energy. Sort of a snapshot at the start of an analog call. It's okay, but certainly not the equivalent of commercial analog cancellation products including mux's.) I've not had to revisit the x100p gain adjustment effort for several months, but seems to me that it was necessary to completely stop and start * each time an adjustment was made to the rxgain/txgain settings in zapata.conf (a simple reload wasn't adequate). Rich ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
Hi Am Mo, 2004-04-19 um 16.50 schrieb Jeremy Hall: I remember seeing somewhere that you can use a program (part of the zt suite if I remember correctly) to view the audio levels on the FXO card like an on-screen vu meter. I can use that and dial up my telco milliwatt test number and adjust accordingly. I asked where that tool was on the IRC channel, but they seemed to not know either. I have searched as I know I saw it, but can't find it again. That would be ztmonitor, i guess: silverbox:/usr/src/build/rc20/zaptel # ./ztmonitor 2 -v Visual Audio Levels. Use zapata.conf file to adjust the gains if needed. ( # = Audio Level * = Max Audio Hit ) (RX) (TX) best regards Klaus -- Klaus-Peter Junghanns CEO, CTO Junghanns.NET GmbH Breite Strasse 13a - 12167 Berlin - Germany fon: (de) +49 30 79705390 fon: (uk) +44 870 1244692 fax: (de) +49 30 79705391 iaxtel: 1-700-157-8753 http://www.Junghanns.NET/asterisk/ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Jeremy Hall wrote: This may not be the case in all areas, but in my area with Qwest as well, all exchanges have the test at xxx-9996. For example, my number is in the 208 area code, 459 exchange, so the full number would be 208-459-9996. It is not tied to any specific number, so I can use any exchange local to me such as 323-9996. It may or may not work in your area, so try not to do it at 3:00 AM until you have verified the number. I'm also in a Qwest area, but that number doesn't work here. All of the techs that I have asked gave it to me with no problems. They are shy about the automatic ANI number, however... dave -Original Message- From: Ed Rubright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? The next question for me is: How do I found out my telco milliwatt test number? I'm in Washington State using Qwest. The way I understand this, I'm to dialup the telco milliwatt test number and adjust the rxgain values using ztmonitor tool until the Max Audio Hit is in the middle of the bar graph for a normal conversation? Thanks, Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Adamson Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? I for one would love this. I do not have any test equipment to determine the level I am sending at, but if I could at least figure out what levels to have my rxgain values set to, that would help. I remember seeing somewhere that you can use a program (part of the zt suite if I remember correctly) to view the audio levels on the FXO card like an on-screen vu meter. I can use that and dial up my telco milliwatt test number and adjust accordingly. I asked where that tool was on the IRC channel, but they seemed to not know either. I have searched as I know I saw it, but can't find it again. The tool you're looking for is /usr/src/zaptel/ztmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor Usage: ztmonitor channel num [-v] [-f FILE] [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor 1 -v Visual Audio Levels. Use zapata.conf file to adjust the gains if needed. ( # = Audio Level * = Max Audio Hit ) (RX) (TX) ##* Keep in mind that tool is nothing more then an audio VU meter and was not intended to be an accurate means of measuring transmission levels. I think bkw (probably with Mark) wrote it back in the November/December timeframe as a simple tool for adjusting rxgain, etc. About that same time, the echo cancelling mechanism (for the x100p) was rewritten to sense the audio reflection (or echo) during the first half-second or so of an initial pstn call. (That was a substantial improvement over previous cancellation methods without a doubt. If I recall recorrectly, that mechanism was reduced to sending an outbound short duration pulse or burst, and measuring the reflected energy. Sort of a snapshot at the start of an analog call. It's okay, but certainly not the equivalent of commercial analog cancellation products including mux's.) I've not had to revisit the x100p gain adjustment effort for several months, but seems to me that it was necessary to completely stop and start * each time an adjustment was made to the rxgain/txgain settings in zapata.conf (a simple reload wasn't adequate). Rich ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users -- Dave Weis I believe there are more instances of the abridgment [EMAIL PROTECTED] of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.- James Madison ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
Hmmm...that doesn't work in my area either. I'm in the 509 area code, 448 exchange with Qwest and dialing 509-448-9996 gave me the no service announcement. Perhaps calling Qwest customer service and asking for the milliwat test number for my local calling area? Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Weis Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Jeremy Hall wrote: This may not be the case in all areas, but in my area with Qwest as well, all exchanges have the test at xxx-9996. For example, my number is in the 208 area code, 459 exchange, so the full number would be 208-459-9996. It is not tied to any specific number, so I can use any exchange local to me such as 323-9996. It may or may not work in your area, so try not to do it at 3:00 AM until you have verified the number. I'm also in a Qwest area, but that number doesn't work here. All of the techs that I have asked gave it to me with no problems. They are shy about the automatic ANI number, however... dave -Original Message- From: Ed Rubright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? The next question for me is: How do I found out my telco milliwatt test number? I'm in Washington State using Qwest. The way I understand this, I'm to dialup the telco milliwatt test number and adjust the rxgain values using ztmonitor tool until the Max Audio Hit is in the middle of the bar graph for a normal conversation? Thanks, Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Adamson Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? I for one would love this. I do not have any test equipment to determine the level I am sending at, but if I could at least figure out what levels to have my rxgain values set to, that would help. I remember seeing somewhere that you can use a program (part of the zt suite if I remember correctly) to view the audio levels on the FXO card like an on-screen vu meter. I can use that and dial up my telco milliwatt test number and adjust accordingly. I asked where that tool was on the IRC channel, but they seemed to not know either. I have searched as I know I saw it, but can't find it again. The tool you're looking for is /usr/src/zaptel/ztmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor Usage: ztmonitor channel num [-v] [-f FILE] [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor 1 -v Visual Audio Levels. Use zapata.conf file to adjust the gains if needed. ( # = Audio Level * = Max Audio Hit ) (RX) (TX) ##* Keep in mind that tool is nothing more then an audio VU meter and was not intended to be an accurate means of measuring transmission levels. I think bkw (probably with Mark) wrote it back in the November/December timeframe as a simple tool for adjusting rxgain, etc. About that same time, the echo cancelling mechanism (for the x100p) was rewritten to sense the audio reflection (or echo) during the first half-second or so of an initial pstn call. (That was a substantial improvement over previous cancellation methods without a doubt. If I recall recorrectly, that mechanism was reduced to sending an outbound short duration pulse or burst, and measuring the reflected energy. Sort of a snapshot at the start of an analog call. It's okay, but certainly not the equivalent of commercial analog cancellation products including mux's.) I've not had to revisit the x100p gain adjustment effort for several months, but seems to me that it was necessary to completely stop and start * each time an adjustment was made to the rxgain/txgain settings in zapata.conf (a simple reload wasn't adequate). Rich ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users -- Dave Weis I believe there are more instances of the abridgment [EMAIL
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
For the record, the milliwatt generator, ANI number, etc, is up to each telco engineering/operations group as to what number to assign to it. There are no industry standards at all. Since the xx98 and xx99 numbers use to be reserved for testing years ago, those numbers are still in frequent use. Also, some telco's use numbers like 311 for things like this, however the 411, 511, 611, 911 range has been filling up rather rapidly with other public things, so probably not to likely anymore. Easiest way to find them is to call Repair and ask. If that person can't tell you, ask for their supervisor. If that doesn't work, the next time you see a telephone truck, ask the driver; he's likely to be an employee that uses it more frequently then most others. Rich On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Jeremy Hall wrote: This may not be the case in all areas, but in my area with Qwest as well, all exchanges have the test at xxx-9996. For example, my number is in the 208 area code, 459 exchange, so the full number would be 208-459-9996. It is not tied to any specific number, so I can use any exchange local to me such as 323-9996. It may or may not work in your area, so try not to do it at 3:00 AM until you have verified the number. I'm also in a Qwest area, but that number doesn't work here. All of the techs that I have asked gave it to me with no problems. They are shy about the automatic ANI number, however... dave -Original Message- From: Ed Rubright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? The next question for me is: How do I found out my telco milliwatt test number? I'm in Washington State using Qwest. The way I understand this, I'm to dialup the telco milliwatt test number and adjust the rxgain values using ztmonitor tool until the Max Audio Hit is in the middle of the bar graph for a normal conversation? Thanks, Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Adamson Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? I for one would love this. I do not have any test equipment to determine the level I am sending at, but if I could at least figure out what levels to have my rxgain values set to, that would help. I remember seeing somewhere that you can use a program (part of the zt suite if I remember correctly) to view the audio levels on the FXO card like an on-screen vu meter. I can use that and dial up my telco milliwatt test number and adjust accordingly. I asked where that tool was on the IRC channel, but they seemed to not know either. I have searched as I know I saw it, but can't find it again. The tool you're looking for is /usr/src/zaptel/ztmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor Usage: ztmonitor channel num [-v] [-f FILE] [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor 1 -v Visual Audio Levels. Use zapata.conf file to adjust the gains if needed. ( # = Audio Level * = Max Audio Hit ) (RX) (TX) ##* Keep in mind that tool is nothing more then an audio VU meter and was not intended to be an accurate means of measuring transmission levels. I think bkw (probably with Mark) wrote it back in the November/December timeframe as a simple tool for adjusting rxgain, etc. About that same time, the echo cancelling mechanism (for the x100p) was rewritten to sense the audio reflection (or echo) during the first half-second or so of an initial pstn call. (That was a substantial improvement over previous cancellation methods without a doubt. If I recall recorrectly, that mechanism was reduced to sending an outbound short duration pulse or burst, and measuring the reflected energy. Sort of a snapshot at the start of an analog call. It's okay, but certainly not the equivalent of commercial analog cancellation products including mux's.) I've not had to revisit the x100p gain adjustment effort for several months, but seems to me that it was necessary to completely stop and start * each time an adjustment was made to the rxgain/txgain settings in zapata.conf (a simple reload wasn't adequate). Rich ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
Also, while you have that phone guy cornered, you might try and get the ANI number - the one that reads back the number you're calling from. Quite useful if you're in the phone connection closet trying to locate your pair. Mine is 959-1122 (650 area code) Cheers! Scott Scott M. Stingel President, Emerging Voice Technology, Inc. Palo Alto California London England www.evtmedia.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Adamson Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? For the record, the milliwatt generator, ANI number, etc, is up to each telco engineering/operations group as to what number to assign to it. There are no industry standards at all. Since the xx98 and xx99 numbers use to be reserved for testing years ago, those numbers are still in frequent use. Also, some telco's use numbers like 311 for things like this, however the 411, 511, 611, 911 range has been filling up rather rapidly with other public things, so probably not to likely anymore. Easiest way to find them is to call Repair and ask. If that person can't tell you, ask for their supervisor. If that doesn't work, the next time you see a telephone truck, ask the driver; he's likely to be an employee that uses it more frequently then most others. Rich On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Jeremy Hall wrote: This may not be the case in all areas, but in my area with Qwest as well, all exchanges have the test at xxx-9996. For example, my number is in the 208 area code, 459 exchange, so the full number would be 208-459-9996. It is not tied to any specific number, so I can use any exchange local to me such as 323-9996. It may or may not work in your area, so try not to do it at 3:00 AM until you have verified the number. I'm also in a Qwest area, but that number doesn't work here. All of the techs that I have asked gave it to me with no problems. They are shy about the automatic ANI number, however... dave -Original Message- From: Ed Rubright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? The next question for me is: How do I found out my telco milliwatt test number? I'm in Washington State using Qwest. The way I understand this, I'm to dialup the telco milliwatt test number and adjust the rxgain values using ztmonitor tool until the Max Audio Hit is in the middle of the bar graph for a normal conversation? Thanks, Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Adamson Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO? I for one would love this. I do not have any test equipment to determine the level I am sending at, but if I could at least figure out what levels to have my rxgain values set to, that would help. I remember seeing somewhere that you can use a program (part of the zt suite if I remember correctly) to view the audio levels on the FXO card like an on-screen vu meter. I can use that and dial up my telco milliwatt test number and adjust accordingly. I asked where that tool was on the IRC channel, but they seemed to not know either. I have searched as I know I saw it, but can't find it again. The tool you're looking for is /usr/src/zaptel/ztmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor Usage: ztmonitor channel num [-v] [-f FILE] [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./ztmonitor 1 -v Visual Audio Levels. Use zapata.conf file to adjust the gains if needed. ( # = Audio Level * = Max Audio Hit ) (RX) (TX) ##* Keep in mind that tool is nothing more then an audio VU meter and was not intended to be an accurate means of measuring transmission levels. I think bkw (probably with Mark) wrote it back in the November/December timeframe as a simple tool for adjusting rxgain, etc. About that same time, the echo cancelling mechanism (for the x100p) was rewritten to sense the audio reflection (or echo) during the first half-second or so of an initial pstn call. (That was a substantial improvement over previous cancellation methods without a doubt. If I recall recorrectly, that mechanism was reduced to sending an outbound short duration pulse or burst, and measuring the reflected energy. Sort of a snapshot at the start of an analog call. It's okay, but certainly not the equivalent of commercial analog cancellation products including mux's.) I've not had to revisit the x100p gain adjustment effort for several months, but seems to me that it was necessary
[Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
Hi, I've seen some reports about ruuning Intel modem with 537 or MD3200 chipset running with Zaptel drivers as a FXO port. Did anybody managed to set up a PCI faxmodem based on Intel536ep chipset to work with * and Zaptel drivers? Modem seemd to work just fine with Linux, but the driver says no;) some more info: Linux 2.4.26 mazuchna:~# cat /proc/pci | grep 536 Communication controller: Intel Corp. 536EP Data Fax Modem (rev 0). mazuchna:~# lsmod Module Size Used byTainted: P ztdynamic 6692 0 (unused) zaptel177280 0 [ztdynamic] Intel536 876524 0 (unused) mazuchna:/lib/modules/2.4.26/misc# insmod wcfxo Using /lib/modules/2.4.26/misc/wcfxo.o /lib/modules/2.4.26/misc/wcfxo.o: init_module: No such device Hint: insmod errors can be caused by incorrect module parameters, including invalid IO or IRQ parameters. You may find more information in syslog or the output from dmesg is there anything more I can do? tia mazek -- http://mazek.netsync.pl/::: nic-hdl: MM3380-RIPE GnuPG 6687 E661 98B0 AEE6 DA8B 7F48 AEE4 776F 5688 DC89 ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
buy a x100p for 100 bucks and support digium. Matteo. P.S. and you'll have free installation support from digium and a rock solid hw made for asterisk. Il dom, 2004-04-18 alle 16:43, Marcin Mazurek ha scritto: Hi, I've seen some reports about ruuning Intel modem with 537 or MD3200 chipset running with Zaptel drivers as a FXO port. Did anybody managed to set up a PCI faxmodem based on Intel536ep chipset to work with * and Zaptel drivers? Modem seemd to work just fine with Linux, but the driver says no;) some more info: Linux 2.4.26 mazuchna:~# cat /proc/pci | grep 536 Communication controller: Intel Corp. 536EP Data Fax Modem (rev 0). mazuchna:~# lsmod Module Size Used byTainted: P ztdynamic 6692 0 (unused) zaptel177280 0 [ztdynamic] Intel536 876524 0 (unused) mazuchna:/lib/modules/2.4.26/misc# insmod wcfxo Using /lib/modules/2.4.26/misc/wcfxo.o /lib/modules/2.4.26/misc/wcfxo.o: init_module: No such device Hint: insmod errors can be caused by incorrect module parameters, including invalid IO or IRQ parameters. You may find more information in syslog or the output from dmesg is there anything more I can do? tia mazek -- Brancaleoni Matteo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Espia - Emmegi Srl ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
P.S. and you'll have free installation support from digium and a rock solid hw made for asterisk. I have and use the X100/101P, TDM400P, T100P, TE410P and TE405P from Digium. Only a Digium zealot would call the X100/X101P 'rock solid hw' -- Digium is reselling a generic WinModem for these cards and they are simply not good hardware. I love the other cards to death -- they are solid and stable and Just Worktm, but please don't blindly endorse anything that comes out with a Digium stamp on it -- you're only decreasing the value of Digium's name. They needed a cheap FXO interface for the masses and for now, that's what we have. It's certainly not a good solution, but it is *a* solution. I am eagerly awaiting proper stocking of the IAXy and an FCC-certified FXO module for the TDM400P -- I think those should be Digium's flagship products, not a rebranded craptastic WinModem. Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
flame mode Only a Digium zealot would call the X100/X101P 'rock solid hw' -- Digium is I'm not a zealot , nor endorsed in any way by digium.. for me , with a a lot of X100P installed, is rock solid. never missed a hit. They needed a cheap FXO interface for the masses and for now, that's what we have. It's certainly not a good solution, but it is *a* solution. Is a good solution. At least the combination callItAsYouWantcard + zaptel drivers... I am eagerly awaiting proper stocking of the IAXy and an FCC-certified FXO module for the TDM400P -- I think those should be Digium's flagship products, not a rebranded craptastic WinModem. Hope so. surely works better than the intel one, and I don't see any reason in loosing (your, of course) time into making it work under zaptel. Isn't it a craptastic WinModem also? even if made by Intel? /flame mode -- Brancaleoni Matteo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Espia - Emmegi Srl ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
Any other FXO card will look just like the present one. A winmodem is nothing more or less than an FXO card. It deals with the line signalling, and analogue conversion and leaves everything else up to the software. In the case of a modem that everything else is mostly modem DSP. In the case of an FXO it is routing and switching. The hardware is, however, identical. I call bullshit and you should know better -- You can match Part68 and still have an absolutely horrible interface. All Part68s aren't created equally, and IMO the X100P's is crap. I think you are the zealot. You seem to have a kind of if it isn't custom made for my job it must be second rate attitude. Not at all. Any of the channel banks I've tested have better echo and audio quality than the X100P. I believe it comes down to the Part68 interface being better able to accomodate different lines but YMMV. I have never had decent results with an X100P. All of the tricks and hacks you see on the wiki with it are proof that it's a substandard card, IMO. What is wrong with it? It is a perfectly good FXO card. See above. Well, a TDM400P is essentially just 4 winmodems plugged into a base board. Well their FXS interfaces first, but I'm not going to get into a semantics war with you -- I am positive that the FXO modules will also perform better than the X100P. I haven't had any issues with the FXS interfaces on the TDM400P -- the act just like any FXS channel bank I've used. Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: [...] Not at all. Any of the channel banks I've tested have better echo and audio quality than the X100P. I believe it comes down to the Part68 interface being better able to accomodate different lines but YMMV. I have never had decent results with an X100P. All of the tricks and hacks you see on the wiki with it are proof that it's a substandard card, IMO. If you are trying to do cellular, satellite, VoIP or any telephony with high latency and do not use echo cancellation you are on to a looser. Sure, the problem is worse with some interfaces in combination with certain lines (you can't separate the two), but echo performance will always be lousy without proper echo cancellation. With echo cancellation almost any FXO interface should work well. Every cell phone call to the PSTN is echo cancelled. Every cheapo or expensive VoIP interface box echo cancels. Hybrids of any design are really lousy, and do little more than stop howling. You can hand tweak some of them connected to a particular line and get great performance. However, they always drift, the lines get altered, or in some other way they get screwed up again. Echo cancellation is a requirement, not an option. If the X100P's interface matches a line well it will work well. If it matches it badly it will work badly. Same with the channel banks, or any other analogue line interface. Almost all use a compromise line match. Adaptive line matching is rare. The echo you get is the luck of the draw, regardless of what FXO hardware you are using. Regards, Steve ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
If you are trying to do cellular, satellite, VoIP or any telephony with high latency and do not use echo cancellation you are on to a looser. I agree. Sure, the problem is worse with some interfaces in combination with certain lines (you can't separate the two), but echo performance will always be lousy without proper echo cancellation. With echo cancellation almost any FXO interface should work well. Every cell phone call to the ... Echo cancellation is a requirement, not an option. Again, I would tend to agree with you. If the X100P's interface matches a line well it will work well. If it matches it badly it will work badly. Same with the channel banks, or any other analogue line interface. Almost all use a compromise line match. Adaptive line matching is rare. The echo you get is the luck of the draw, regardless of what FXO hardware you are using. This is where I am trying to make my point. The X100P's hybrid is, IMO, substandard. We don't officially support any other winmodem so I can't say that another one would be better. I'd love to have more supported WinModems and comparison data but my needs for low density FXO solutions aren't all that great so it's a fight I'm not particularly interested in fighting. I've used Carrier Access' Access Bank I and their Adit600 FXO modules and they both perform FAR better than the X100P, with the Adit600 winning out over the ABI. Now of course there are cost differences -- I never meant to imply that they were on equal footing in terms of cost. I was instead trying to point out that the X100P is not rock solid hw as indicated by Mr. Matteo to Mr. Mazurek, and I gave the literally dozens of posts about poor X100P performance *with* the echo cancellations, tip and ring reversal tips and various attempts to balance out imbalanced lines as proof of my position. I haven't seen the FXO modules for the TDM400P, but I really do hope that their hybrid will be of much higher quality than that of a $20 rebranded WinModem. Digium is charging for the TDM400P and also for the FXO modules -- there should be plenty of money in there for support and still have a better hybrid than the X100P. I hope. Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Intel 536ep as a FXO?
As someone who used to adjust hybrids for a living a number of years ago, I can tell you, complex impedence matching is only a part of the equation. The most important part is proper gain structure. If that's wrong no there is no way to control echo. No amount of tweaking of compensation networks will bring one into balance... No Convolution processing can control it. On old style equipment i.e. stuff built by Tellabs, the gain structure had to be right within about .5 DBm0. Alignment meant dialing up a milliwatt test signal, measuring that signal at the 2 wire point and adjusting pads on the module so that the 4 wire transmit point was at a fixed and correct level. If memory serves, on an analog microwave system, 0 DBm into a module was supposed to be -16 DBm on the 4 wire transmit point. The picture below may help to clarify: === ---2 wire TX| | | 0DBm | /--o -16DBm | |/ | C.O. milliwatt o-x 4 wire | \ | \--o +7DBm | | --- RX | === So... given that we know the C.O. milliwatt is 0 DBm we also know that the signal seen at the point marked 2 wire is the sum of 0DBm minus the line loss, usually around 3 to 4 DB. When that signal passes through the hybrid and correctly adjusted associated attenuator it will appear as marked and discussed. Conversly, +7 DBm is inserted at the 4 wire RX point and the associated attenuator adjusted so that sufficient signal is seen at the 2 wire point at 0 DBm. The microwave system that connects to the 4 wire point has 23 DB of gain so that the layout above can be mirrored for a complete analog 2 wire/4 wire/2 wire circuit with an overall loss of between 6 to 8 DB. The old bell specifications called for minimum 12 DB longitudinal loss across the 4 wire points for a hybrid on a local circuit and 16 DB for long haul. There were milage specifications, but I don't remember them anymore. Just getting the gain structure right was usually enough to meet that requirement. If not, then we got into a backend adjustment to impedance match the 2 wire circuit to the hybrid... Interestingly enough, on an in use circuit, the losses and impedances didn't tend to change much over a period of years. I think this has gone on long enough... suffice to say, gain/levels are crucial to echo control... It you send is too hot, you WILL have echo and I don't care how good your card is. These principals applied to channel banks that I adjusted in olden days as well... Mostly Northern Telecom DE4, but others as well. We used special equipment to measure signal levels at the T1 point. I have to presume E1 equipment is/was similar, but I have no experience there. 'nuff said Steve Underwood wrote: Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: [...] Not at all. Any of the channel banks I've tested have better echo and audio quality than the X100P. I believe it comes down to the Part68 interface being better able to accomodate different lines but YMMV. I have never had decent results with an X100P. All of the tricks and hacks you see on the wiki with it are proof that it's a substandard card, IMO. If you are trying to do cellular, satellite, VoIP or any telephony with high latency and do not use echo cancellation you are on to a looser. Sure, the problem is worse with some interfaces in combination with certain lines (you can't separate the two), but echo performance will always be lousy without proper echo cancellation. With echo cancellation almost any FXO interface should work well. Every cell phone call to the PSTN is echo cancelled. Every cheapo or expensive VoIP interface box echo cancels. Hybrids of any design are really lousy, and do little more than stop howling. You can hand tweak some of them connected to a particular line and get great performance. However, they always drift, the lines get altered, or in some other way they get screwed up again. Echo cancellation is a requirement, not an option. If the X100P's interface matches a line well it will work well. If it matches it badly it will work badly. Same with the channel banks, or any other analogue line interface. Almost all use a compromise line match. Adaptive line matching is rare. The echo you get is the luck of the draw, regardless of what FXO hardware you are using. Regards, Steve ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
