[Freeswitch-users] FS beats Aculab Prosody S on subjective test on lay users for conference quality

[Fernando Testa]

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:

freeswitch at 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/1000 at 192.168.0.40,CS_EXECUTE,Teste
Testa,1000,192.168.0.165,3200,conference,3200-192.168.0.40 at ultrawideband
,XML,default,L16,8000,PCMU,8000,
cc5edb90-803a-11de-8ceb-cb8648fd1ccf,inbound,2009-08-03
11:34:49,1249310089,sofia/internal/1000 at 192.168.0.40
,CS_EXECUTE,F.G.Testa,1000,192.168.0.249,3200,conference,3200-192.168.0.40 at ultrawideband
,XML,default,L16,8000,PCMU,8000,

2 total.

freeswitch at conference> conference list
API CALL [conference(list)] output:
Conference 3200-192.168.0.40 (2 members)
2;sofia/internal/1000 at 192.168.0.40
;cc5edb90-803a-11de-8ceb-cb8648fd1ccf;F.G.Testa;1000;hear|speak;0;0;300
1;sofia/internal/1000 at 192.168.0.40;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 <steveu at coppice.org>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
> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20090803/7e762e32/attachment.html