On Aculab, all codecs were G711u. The same codec we have on FS:
freeswitch@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@192.168.0.40,CS_EXECUTE,Teste Testa,1000,192.168.0.165,3200,conference,3200-192.168.0.40@ultrawideband,XML,default,L16,8000,PCMU,8000,
cc5edb90-803a-11de-8ceb-cb8648fd1ccf,inbound,2009-08-03 11:34:49,1249310089,sofia/internal/
1000@192.168.0.40,CS_EXECUTE,F.G.Testa,1000,192.168.0.249,3200,conference,3200-192.168.0.40@ultrawideband,XML,default,L16,8000,PCMU,8000,
2 total.
freeswitch@conference> conference list
API CALL [conference(list)] output:
Conference 3200-192.168.0.40 (2 members)
2;sofia/internal/
1000@192.168.0.40;cc5edb90-803a-11de-8ceb-cb8648fd1ccf;F.G.Testa;1000;hear|speak;0;0;300
1;sofia/internal/
1000@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@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
--
Fernando Gregianin Testa
Voice Technology Ltda
+55 11 35882166