If anyone want to play with it - http://freehg.org/u/deepwalker/fs_g729/ You use it on your own risk and compile it yourself. If you want to develop it - write me. I wrote it for russian community. -- С уважением, Кривушин Михаил Ведущий специалист отдела телекоммуникаций, ООО "РН-Информ" филиал в г.Томске, г. Томск сот. +7 913 865 78 66 icq: 218 744 127 xmpp: KrivushinME@jabber.ru mail: KrivushinME@rn-inform.tomsk.ru
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Raymond Chandler <intralanman@freeswitch.org> wrote:
You use it on your own risk
Also, G.729 is patent encumbered big-time. Instead of lining the pockets of lawyers and mega-corporations by perpetuating the use of a crusty old codec we should all twist arms and get our providers, device makers, etc. to use Speex. -MC
Actually, the fact that this is in this post at all SHOULD tell you NOT to use it. Unless you have proper licensing for g.729, this is likely to cause issues.
-Ray
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
You use it on your own risk
Also, G.729 is patent encumbered big-time. Instead of lining the pockets of lawyers and mega-corporations by perpetuating the use of a crusty old codec we should all twist arms and get our providers, device makers, etc. to use Speex.
Yeah.. let me know when you get Cisco to add Speex support to IOS! ;)
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
They added iLBC.
/b
Very true. I wish I knew who got them to do that! Speex would be awesome but I'm not holding my breath.... -- Kristian Kielhofner http://blog.krisk.org http://www.submityoursip.com http://www.astlinux.org http://www.star2star.com
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
Speex, while nice I think it would use more resources in some cases.
True. Occasionally more resources, always less licensing fees... ;) -MC
/b
On Jan 22, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
Speex would be awesome but I'm not holding my breath....
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Michael Collins <msc@freeswitch.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
Speex, while nice I think it would use more resources in some cases.
True. Occasionally more resources, always less licensing fees... ;) -MC
Less money on licensing, more money on DSP/processor resources. :) -- Kristian Kielhofner http://blog.krisk.org http://www.submityoursip.com http://www.astlinux.org http://www.star2star.com
On Jan 22, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Kristian Kielhofner <kristian.kielhofner@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Michael Collins <msc@freeswitch.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
Speex, while nice I think it would use more resources in some cases.
True. Occasionally more resources, always less licensing fees... ;) -MC
Less money on licensing, more money on DSP/processor resources. :)
That delta shrinks as processing power gets cheaper. I wonder if g729 licenses will get cheaper over time as well? I wouldn't take that bet. ;) -MC
-- Kristian Kielhofner http://blog.krisk.org http://www.submityoursip.com http://www.astlinux.org http://www.star2star.com
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Michael S Collins <msc@freeswitch.org> wrote:
That delta shrinks as processing power gets cheaper. I wonder if g729 licenses will get cheaper over time as well? I wouldn't take that bet. ;)
-MC
Also remembers what happens to volume pricing. More of a break on licenses... -- Kristian Kielhofner http://blog.krisk.org http://www.submityoursip.com http://www.astlinux.org http://www.star2star.com
On Jan 22, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
Not really what I would call a break... but at some point in the $1.6 million range you stop paying.
/b
Like I said, OSS FTW baby! -MC
On Jan 22, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
Also remembers what happens to volume pricing. More of a break on licenses...
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Michael S Collins <msc@freeswitch.org> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
Not really what I would call a break... but at some point in the $1.6 million range you stop paying.
/b
Like I said, OSS FTW baby! -MC
Quite the contrary. If Speex means you require faster, more capable DSPs, you are going to continue paying for them per unit. At $1.6mil you stop paying for G.729 licenses (basically a fixed cost at that point, regardless of volume or quantity). I'm sure most of the big guys paying for G.729 have no problem with that. I love OSS and Speex as much as any of us; I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and attempt to explain some of the strategy from those continuing to pay for G.729... -- Kristian Kielhofner http://blog.krisk.org http://www.submityoursip.com http://www.astlinux.org http://www.star2star.com
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Kristian Kielhofner <kristian.kielhofner@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Michael S Collins <msc@freeswitch.org> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
Not really what I would call a break... but at some point in the $1.6 million range you stop paying.
/b
Like I said, OSS FTW baby! -MC
Quite the contrary.
If Speex means you require faster, more capable DSPs, you are going to continue paying for them per unit. At $1.6mil you stop paying for G.729 licenses (basically a fixed cost at that point, regardless of volume or quantity).
I'm sure most of the big guys paying for G.729 have no problem with that.
I love OSS and Speex as much as any of us; I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and attempt to explain some of the strategy from those continuing to pay for G.729...
You're a good devil! ;) I still have to wonder if g.729 is measurably "better" than Speex or any other 8kHz CELP-based codec. What is that measurement? That's how you can tell if it's "worth it" or not. As for me, I'd rather not get locked in. Patent encumbrances are nasty and I prefer to avoid them where possible. I think bigger businesses are starting to wise up to that fact as well. I think Polycom's model is going to catch on: codecs are "basically free" but are not open source. Not my favorite option but if I get a license to use the codec in perpetuity then I'm feeling pretty good. -MC
-- Kristian Kielhofner http://blog.krisk.org http://www.submityoursip.com http://www.astlinux.org http://www.star2star.com
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
I wrote it becouse in Russia * is very popular. And it have g729. I want to make popular FS in my country. We have not patent issues, but I more like speex and celt - it's better in my opinion - 8 kHz is past century! It's century of wb VoIP and not 8khz TDM! : ) Only for those who very need g729 in countries like Russia I made it public. I dont tell you use it. In fact I tell to not use it - but if you cannot, you can : ) -- С уважением, Кривушин Михаил Ведущий специалист отдела телекоммуникаций, ООО "РН-Информ" филиал в г.Томске, г. Томск сот. +7 913 865 78 66 icq: 218 744 127 xmpp: KrivushinME@jabber.ru mail: KrivushinME@rn-inform.tomsk.ru
Spacibah Balshoi When are you making g723 for the Russians?
I wrote it becouse in Russia * is very popular. And it have g729.
I want to make popular FS in my country. We have not patent issues, but I more like speex and celt - it's better in my opinion - 8 kHz is past century! It's century of wb VoIP and not 8khz TDM! : )
Only for those who very need g729 in countries like Russia I made it public. I dont tell you use it. In fact I tell to not use it - but if you cannot, you can : )
-- , , "-" ., . . +7 913 865 78 66 icq: 218 744 127 xmpp: KrivushinME@jabber.ru mail: KrivushinME@rn-inform.tomsk.ru
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Rehan Ahmed AllahWala Msn/Yahoo/GoogleTalk/Email: Rehan@Rehan.com http://www.supertec.com/ - Internet Telephony Solutions Http://www.DIDX.net - DID Number Market Place. Don't Remember Me ? Visit http://www.Rehan.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." By Gandhi. "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." - Gandhi
On Saturday 24 January 2009 05:59:08 Rehan Allah Wala wrote:
Spacibah Balshoi
When are you making g723 for the Russians?
I'm so sorry, but g729 is only one we need. But you can do it yourself from free asterisk codec - it's not so hard, just see my code and compare it with mod_g723 and asterisk code. Work for one day. And I'm not programer. In fact I can do it, but not now. Time time time... -- С уважением, Кривушин Михаил Ведущий специалист отдела телекоммуникаций, ООО "РН-Информ" филиал в г.Томске, г. Томск сот. +7 913 865 78 66 icq: 218 744 127 xmpp: KrivushinME@jabber.ru mail: KrivushinME@rn-inform.tomsk.ru
Great, well I am not a programmer and do not understand the code at all :) My Apology Rehan
On Saturday 24 January 2009 05:59:08 Rehan Allah Wala wrote:
Spacibah Balshoi
When are you making g723 for the Russians?
I'm so sorry, but g729 is only one we need. But you can do it yourself from free asterisk codec - it's not so hard, just see my code and compare it with mod_g723 and asterisk code. Work for one day. And I'm not programer.
In fact I can do it, but not now. Time time time...
-- , , "-" ., . . +7 913 865 78 66 icq: 218 744 127 xmpp: KrivushinME@jabber.ru mail: KrivushinME@rn-inform.tomsk.ru
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Rehan Ahmed AllahWala Msn/Yahoo/GoogleTalk/Email: Rehan@Rehan.com http://www.supertec.com/ - Internet Telephony Solutions Http://www.DIDX.net - DID Number Market Place. Don't Remember Me ? Visit http://www.Rehan.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." By Gandhi. "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." - Gandhi
Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Michael S Collins <msc@freeswitch.org> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
Not really what I would call a break... but at some point in the $1.6 million range you stop paying.
/b
Like I said, OSS FTW baby! -MC
Quite the contrary.
If Speex means you require faster, more capable DSPs, you are going to continue paying for them per unit. At $1.6mil you stop paying for G.729 licenses (basically a fixed cost at that point, regardless of volume or quantity).
I'm sure most of the big guys paying for G.729 have no problem with that.
I love OSS and Speex as much as any of us; I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and attempt to explain some of the strategy from those continuing to pay for G.729...
Depends what you are after. Speex offers the quality of G.729 at around the same processing load. However, nobody seems to want to pay for the processing load of G.729. Almost everything uses G.729A. Half the processing load, but significantly poorer quality. VoIP is mostly a race to the bottom, and people wonder why it makes no money for provides. :-\ Regards, Steve
makes me laugh... everyone else is racing to stay on 8k... I'm running in the other direction! : ) 16k, 32k and 48k voip... much better. /b On Jan 22, 2009, at 6:30 PM, Steve Underwood wrote:
Depends what you are after. Speex offers the quality of G.729 at around the same processing load. However, nobody seems to want to pay for the processing load of G.729. Almost everything uses G.729A. Half the processing load, but significantly poorer quality.
VoIP is mostly a race to the bottom, and people wonder why it makes no money for provides. :-\
Regards, Steve
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Steve Underwood <steveu@coppice.org> wrote:
Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Michael S Collins <msc@freeswitch.org> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
Not really what I would call a break... but at some point in the $1.6 million range you stop paying.
/b
Like I said, OSS FTW baby! -MC
Quite the contrary.
If Speex means you require faster, more capable DSPs, you are going to continue paying for them per unit. At $1.6mil you stop paying for G.729 licenses (basically a fixed cost at that point, regardless of volume or quantity).
I'm sure most of the big guys paying for G.729 have no problem with that.
I love OSS and Speex as much as any of us; I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and attempt to explain some of the strategy from those continuing to pay for G.729...
Depends what you are after. Speex offers the quality of G.729 at around the same processing load. However, nobody seems to want to pay for the processing load of G.729. Almost everything uses G.729A. Half the processing load, but significantly poorer quality.
VoIP is mostly a race to the bottom, and people wonder why it makes no money for provides. :-\
Amen! A voice of reason. "Let's use a really, REALLY low-quality codec to save bandwidth and then make it so the tech support calls from the US go to places where the agents don't really speak English. That way it will be both hard to hear and difficult to understand. That'll save BOATLOADS of money!" Uh yeah. First off, Americans can barely speak English. Secondly, if you make it difficult for people to hear and/or understand each other then all that money you're saving with smaller bandwidth will go to things like higher telecom costs (longer phone calls) and higher payroll costs to cover the additional personnel needed by these call centers. As usual, thank you Steve for an enlightened viewpoint that makes others think about the big picture. -MC
Regards, Steve
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Steve Underwood <steveu@coppice.org> wrote:
Depends what you are after. Speex offers the quality of G.729 at around the same processing load. However, nobody seems to want to pay for the processing load of G.729. Almost everything uses G.729A. Half the processing load, but significantly poorer quality.
Throughout most of this thread I've been using G.729 and G.729a interchangeably. That's sloppy on my part. Most of the time I meant G.729a because that is what most people (everyone?) uses. I was under the impression the quality difference wasn't that significant. I can't say if I've ever knowingly used "true" G.729. It certainly doesn't help that G.729a is allegedly completely compatible with G.729, to the point where I don't think it's even valid to use "G.729a" or annexa in an SDP...
VoIP is mostly a race to the bottom, and people wonder why it makes no money for provides. :-\
Word Steve, word! -- Kristian Kielhofner http://blog.krisk.org http://www.submityoursip.com http://www.astlinux.org http://www.star2star.com
Haha, I knew I'd seen it *somewhere*! ;) On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
Nope its not valid.. tell Cisco this please! :P
/b
-- Kristian Kielhofner http://blog.krisk.org http://www.submityoursip.com http://www.astlinux.org http://www.star2star.com
Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Steve Underwood <steveu@coppice.org> wrote:
Depends what you are after. Speex offers the quality of G.729 at around the same processing load. However, nobody seems to want to pay for the processing load of G.729. Almost everything uses G.729A. Half the processing load, but significantly poorer quality.
Throughout most of this thread I've been using G.729 and G.729a interchangeably. That's sloppy on my part. Most of the time I meant G.729a because that is what most people (everyone?) uses.
I was under the impression the quality difference wasn't that significant. I can't say if I've ever knowingly used "true" G.729. It certainly doesn't help that G.729a is allegedly completely compatible with G.729, to the point where I don't think it's even valid to use "G.729a" or annexa in an SDP...
There is no reason whatsoever to differentiate between G.729 and G.729A in the SDP as the bit streams are 100% compatible. Annex A data is just encoded and decoded in less optimal ways. Regards, Steve
Steve Underwood wrote:
Depends what you are after. Speex offers the quality of G.729 at around the same processing load. However, nobody seems to want to pay for the processing load of G.729. Almost everything uses G.729A. Half the processing load, but significantly poorer quality.
VoIP is mostly a race to the bottom, and people wonder why it makes no money for provides. :-\
And, at the wholesale level, it makes no sense whatsoever to compress calls any more: bandwidth is so cheap (and has been for a while) that the loss in call quality - especially from tandem compressions - and the increased processing requirements and other bits of expense do not stack up. Case in point: we moved a route from G.711 to G.729, and saw the ACD drop from over 10 to under 7 minutes. It was a route to mobiles, so the audio was being recompressed with the GSM codec on its way to the handsets. Economically, had we carried on using G.729, we'd have lost about 30% of our margin on that route. --Dave -- David Knell, Director, 3C Limited T: 020 8114 5002 F: 020 3002 7257 M: 07773 800623 http://www.3c.co.uk
Hi Dave, Down here in Brazil, the bandwidth costs is very high (around U$ 400.00/Mb) so it should be valid only for a "non" third world country. G729 and G723.1 is almost a law here, if you don't play at least with G729 your ITSP is out of mark share! My 2 cents from a third world country. Regards, Rodrigo Telles Em 23-01-2009 03:09, David Knell escreveu:
Steve Underwood wrote:
Depends what you are after. Speex offers the quality of G.729 at around the same processing load. However, nobody seems to want to pay for the processing load of G.729. Almost everything uses G.729A. Half the processing load, but significantly poorer quality.
VoIP is mostly a race to the bottom, and people wonder why it makes no money for provides. :-\
And, at the wholesale level, it makes no sense whatsoever to compress calls any more: bandwidth is so cheap (and has been for a while) that the loss in call quality - especially from tandem compressions - and the increased processing requirements and other bits of expense do not stack up. Case in point: we moved a route from G.711 to G.729, and saw the ACD drop from over 10 to under 7 minutes. It was a route to mobiles, so the audio was being recompressed with the GSM codec on its way to the handsets. Economically, had we carried on using G.729, we'd have lost about 30% of our margin on that route.
--Dave
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Rodrigo P. Telles <telles-listas@devel-it.com.br> wrote:
Hi Dave,
Down here in Brazil, the bandwidth costs is very high (around U$ 400.00/Mb) so it should be valid only for a "non" third world country. G729 and G723.1 is almost a law here, if you don't play at least with G729 your ITSP is out of mark share!
My 2 cents from a third world country.
What is the patent and licensing situation in Brazil? Those are also factors. $10/port might be cheap in the US but in Brazil it could be much more? (I'm asking...) -MC
Regards, Rodrigo Telles
Em 23-01-2009 03:09, David Knell escreveu:
Steve Underwood wrote:
Depends what you are after. Speex offers the quality of G.729 at around the same processing load. However, nobody seems to want to pay for the processing load of G.729. Almost everything uses G.729A. Half the processing load, but significantly poorer quality.
VoIP is mostly a race to the bottom, and people wonder why it makes no money for provides. :-\
And, at the wholesale level, it makes no sense whatsoever to compress calls any more: bandwidth is so cheap (and has been for a while) that the loss in call quality - especially from tandem compressions - and the increased processing requirements and other bits of expense do not stack up. Case in point: we moved a route from G.711 to G.729, and saw the ACD drop from over 10 to under 7 minutes. It was a route to mobiles, so the audio was being recompressed with the GSM codec on its way to the handsets. Economically, had we carried on using G.729, we'd have lost about 30% of our margin on that route.
--Dave
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
We have very high taxes on hardware imports in Brazil, so software is not a problem on the equation. Cisco's routers for example are 3 times more expensive here then in the US (even the cheap ones). If the price of the equipment is compared to the price of the G729 license, the latter becomes quite insignificant. And bw has poor quality and high prices. The same rule applies to all Latin America. Hope I have illustrated the picture correctly. JMesquita On Jan 23, 2009, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Rodrigo P. Telles <telles-listas@devel-it.com.br> wrote:
Hi Dave,
Down here in Brazil, the bandwidth costs is very high (around U$ 400.00/Mb) so it should be valid only for a "non" third world country. G729 and G723.1 is almost a law here, if you don't play at least with G729 your ITSP is out of mark share!
My 2 cents from a third world country.
What is the patent and licensing situation in Brazil? Those are also factors. $10/port might be cheap in the US but in Brazil it could be much more? (I'm asking...) -MC
Regards, Rodrigo Telles
Em 23-01-2009 03:09, David Knell escreveu:
Steve Underwood wrote:
Depends what you are after. Speex offers the quality of G.729 at around the same processing load. However, nobody seems to want to pay for the processing load of G.729. Almost everything uses G.729A. Half the processing load, but significantly poorer quality.
VoIP is mostly a race to the bottom, and people wonder why it makes no money for provides. :-\
And, at the wholesale level, it makes no sense whatsoever to compress calls any more: bandwidth is so cheap (and has been for a while) that the loss in call quality - especially from tandem compressions - and the increased processing requirements and other bits of expense do not stack up. Case in point: we moved a route from G.711 to G.729, and saw the ACD drop from over 10 to under 7 minutes. It was a route to mobiles, so the audio was being recompressed with the GSM codec on its way to the handsets. Economically, had we carried on using G.729, we'd have lost about 30% of our margin on that route.
--Dave
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Hi Michael, I'm not sure about this, when we need to use G729 on asterisk for example, we pay the digium (U$ 10/channel) licenses. U$ 1.00 dolar = R$ 2.31 (Brazilian Real - local currency). Att., Em 23-01-2009 18:29, Michael Collins escreveu:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Rodrigo P. Telles <telles-listas@devel-it.com.br> wrote:
Hi Dave,
Down here in Brazil, the bandwidth costs is very high (around U$ 400.00/Mb) so it should be valid only for a "non" third world country. G729 and G723.1 is almost a law here, if you don't play at least with G729 your ITSP is out of mark share!
My 2 cents from a third world country.
What is the patent and licensing situation in Brazil? Those are also factors. $10/port might be cheap in the US but in Brazil it could be much more? (I'm asking...) -MC
Is Brazil a 3rd world country ? The last I hear Brazil was building aeroplanes, has it's own space and nuclear program and a GNP UK would be envious of. Cheers, AH -----Original Message----- From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Rodrigo P. Telles Sent: 26 January 2009 20:07 To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] mod_g729 Hi Michael, I'm not sure about this, when we need to use G729 on asterisk for example, we pay the digium (U$ 10/channel) licenses. U$ 1.00 dolar = R$ 2.31 (Brazilian Real - local currency). Att., Em 23-01-2009 18:29, Michael Collins escreveu:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Rodrigo P. Telles <telles-listas@devel-it.com.br> wrote:
Hi Dave,
Down here in Brazil, the bandwidth costs is very high (around U$ 400.00/Mb) so it should be valid only for a "non" third world country. G729 and G723.1 is almost a law here, if you don't play at least with G729 your ITSP is out of mark share!
My 2 cents from a third world country.
What is the patent and licensing situation in Brazil? Those are also factors. $10/port might be cheap in the US but in Brazil it could be much more? (I'm asking...) -MC
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Hi Abdul, Abdul Hakeem wrote:
Is Brazil a 3rd world country ? The last I hear Brazil was building aeroplanes, has it's own space and nuclear program and a GNP UK would be envious of. Cheers, AH
What relevance does that have to the current discussion? Brazil is a country with large trade barriers, which skews the cost of hardware from the world market considerably. It is also pretty advanced, technically, and has a local base of electronics manufacturers. That considerably affects the economic tradeoffs in the use computers, telecoms, and other technology in Brazil. If something can be manufactured (or at least pass through final assembly) in Brazil, it will generally be much cheaper than something imported. That means some people find the use of locally made intelligent E1 cards is cheaper than the use of dumb cards from Digium or Sangoma. Regards, Steve
Steve, As we speak I am actually negotiating with one of those companies to make a mod for their cards. Khomp has a very nice product and they are exporting to the rest of latin america now. Thanks, Mesquita On Jan 27, 2009, at 12:46 AM, Steve Underwood wrote:
Hi Abdul,
Abdul Hakeem wrote:
Is Brazil a 3rd world country ? The last I hear Brazil was building aeroplanes, has it's own space and nuclear program and a GNP UK would be envious of. Cheers, AH
What relevance does that have to the current discussion?
Brazil is a country with large trade barriers, which skews the cost of hardware from the world market considerably. It is also pretty advanced, technically, and has a local base of electronics manufacturers. That considerably affects the economic tradeoffs in the use computers, telecoms, and other technology in Brazil. If something can be manufactured (or at least pass through final assembly) in Brazil, it will generally be much cheaper than something imported. That means some people find the use of locally made intelligent E1 cards is cheaper than the use of dumb cards from Digium or Sangoma.
Regards, Steve
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Hi João, João Mesquita wrote:
Steve,
As we speak I am actually negotiating with one of those companies to make a mod for their cards. Khomp has a very nice product and they are exporting to the rest of latin america now.
It surprises me someone doesn't assemble Tormenta 2 cards in Brazil. Various people have done this in China, and shipped a lot of cards. They have to be a lot cheaper than the Khomp and Digivoice boards. The key issue with the Tormenta 2 is the lack of on board echo cancellation. Although OSLEC performs well, 120 channels of EC is a lot to do on the host CPU. Still, a lot of cards ship without on board EC. Regards, Steve
Hi João, Please say hello to Giancarlo at Khomp for me :) Khomp is the best example in Brazil of what good engineering and fair commercial prices can do to a country that suffers from high import taxes. Unfortunately some companies are still inclined to buy imported products/brands instead of favouring local production. Apart from this discriminatory issue, I believe that local research and production can turn the table of trade barriers imposed to development countries. By the way, are you aware of any companies producing SIP phones in Brazil ? Regards, Raul Fragoso On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 01:34 -0200, João Mesquita wrote:
Steve,
As we speak I am actually negotiating with one of those companies to make a mod for their cards. Khomp has a very nice product and they are exporting to the rest of latin america now.
Thanks,
Mesquita
On Jan 27, 2009, at 12:46 AM, Steve Underwood wrote:
Hi Abdul,
Abdul Hakeem wrote:
Is Brazil a 3rd world country ? The last I hear Brazil was building aeroplanes, has it's own space and nuclear program and a GNP UK would be envious of. Cheers, AH
What relevance does that have to the current discussion?
Brazil is a country with large trade barriers, which skews the cost of hardware from the world market considerably. It is also pretty advanced, technically, and has a local base of electronics manufacturers. That considerably affects the economic tradeoffs in the use computers, telecoms, and other technology in Brazil. If something can be manufactured (or at least pass through final assembly) in Brazil, it will generally be much cheaper than something imported. That means some people find the use of locally made intelligent E1 cards is cheaper than the use of dumb cards from Digium or Sangoma.
Regards, Steve
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Raul Fragoso wrote:
Hi João,
Please say hello to Giancarlo at Khomp for me :)
Khomp is the best example in Brazil of what good engineering and fair commercial prices can do to a country that suffers from high import taxes. Unfortunately some companies are still inclined to buy imported products/brands instead of favouring local production. Apart from this discriminatory issue, I believe that local research and production can turn the table of trade barriers imposed to development countries.
Foreigners face huge tariff barriers trying to sell into Brazil. Brazilian makers face little difficulty selling into other markets. If Brazilian makers have any problems in such an environment, I'd be amused to hear them. :-) Steve
Hi Steve, My point is more towards the high import taxes here. A foreign company won't pay as much taxes to export to Brazil as brazilians would pay import taxes for such goods. I will give you a simple example: a Snom 320 phone would cost roughly US $180.00 if bought in the US. Here it would cost at least double the price, but usually more. We pay almost 100% for importing taxes + GST, excluding the greedy profit that dealers and resellers usually apply, but Snom (or their distributors) would pay only a small fraction of that to export phones to Brazil. The irony is that we don't see where all this money is spent, as the country still suffers of a huge social and economical dissimilarity among their people. On the other hand, our current government seems to be making some progress to make exporting from Brazil easier, specially for small companies (international trade is known to be very bureaucratic here). Anyway, this is turning into a politics discussion thread and I know it can annoy some people. Just to stay in the subject thread, I also endorse the support for open codecs rather than paying millions for G.729 licenses. Regards, Raul Fragoso On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:23 +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
Raul Fragoso wrote:
Hi João,
Please say hello to Giancarlo at Khomp for me :)
Khomp is the best example in Brazil of what good engineering and fair commercial prices can do to a country that suffers from high import taxes. Unfortunately some companies are still inclined to buy imported products/brands instead of favouring local production. Apart from this discriminatory issue, I believe that local research and production can turn the table of trade barriers imposed to development countries.
Foreigners face huge tariff barriers trying to sell into Brazil. Brazilian makers face little difficulty selling into other markets. If Brazilian makers have any problems in such an environment, I'd be amused to hear them. :-)
Steve
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Hi Raul, Raul Fragoso wrote:
Hi Steve,
My point is more towards the high import taxes here. A foreign company won't pay as much taxes to export to Brazil as brazilians would pay import taxes for such goods. I will give you a simple example: a Snom 320 phone would cost roughly US $180.00 if bought in the US. Here it would cost at least double the price, but usually more. We pay almost 100% for importing taxes + GST, excluding the greedy profit that dealers and resellers usually apply, but Snom (or their distributors) would pay only a small fraction of that to export phones to Brazil. The irony is that we don't see where all this money is spent, as the country still suffers of a huge social and economical dissimilarity among their people. On the other hand, our current government seems to be making some progress to make exporting from Brazil easier, specially for small companies (international trade is known to be very bureaucratic here). Anyway, this is turning into a politics discussion thread and I know it can annoy some people. Just to stay in the subject thread, I also endorse the support for open codecs rather than paying millions for G.729 licenses.
Well, any discussion of trade immediately has a political element. However, this discussion is quite interesting from an engineering point of view. Engineering is never separate from politics, as so much engineering is working around artificial barriers erected by politics. To many engineers, a lot of decisions seem wacky, because they can't see the political angle. The different pressures guiding decisions like buy local/buy foreign, use ISDN/use MFC/R2, and so on can be quite illuminating. Steve
Hi Abdul, Brazil does much more than that but we still on "latim america" and according with 1st world countries, we are considered "non developed country". The most funny thing about that: some people still thinks that we (brazillians) lives in the forest with monkeys :-) Regards, Rodrigo Telles Em 26-01-2009 19:30, Abdul Hakeem escreveu:
Is Brazil a 3rd world country ? The last I hear Brazil was building aeroplanes, has it's own space and nuclear program and a GNP UK would be envious of. Cheers, AH
-----Original Message----- From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Rodrigo P. Telles Sent: 26 January 2009 20:07 To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] mod_g729
Hi Michael,
I'm not sure about this, when we need to use G729 on asterisk for example, we pay the digium (U$ 10/channel) licenses. U$ 1.00 dolar = R$ 2.31 (Brazilian Real - local currency).
Att.,
Em 23-01-2009 18:29, Michael Collins escreveu:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Rodrigo P. Telles <telles-listas@devel-it.com.br> wrote:
Hi Dave,
Down here in Brazil, the bandwidth costs is very high (around U$ 400.00/Mb) so it should be valid only for a "non" third world country. G729 and G723.1 is almost a law here, if you don't play at least with G729 your ITSP is out of mark share! My 2 cents from a third world country. What is the patent and licensing situation in Brazil? Those are also factors. $10/port might be cheap in the US but in Brazil it could be much more? (I'm asking...) -MC
Rodrigo P. Telles wrote:
Hi Abdul,
Brazil does much more than that but we still on "latim america" and according with 1st world countries, we are considered "non developed country". The most funny thing about that: some people still thinks that we (brazillians) lives in the forest with monkeys :-)
so you're saying you don't live in the forest with monkeys? :-P
Michael S Collins wrote:
That delta shrinks as processing power gets cheaper. I wonder if g729 licenses will get cheaper over time as well? I wouldn't take that bet. ;)
Economics 101: The pricing of the licences is directly related to G.729's lock on the market. The only reason for the prices to come down is if G.729A loses its grip on the IP phone market. Regards, Steve
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Steve Underwood <steveu@coppice.org> wrote:
Michael S Collins wrote:
That delta shrinks as processing power gets cheaper. I wonder if g729 licenses will get cheaper over time as well? I wouldn't take that bet. ;)
Economics 101: The pricing of the licences is directly related to G.729's lock on the market. The only reason for the prices to come down is if G.729A loses its grip on the IP phone market.
In other words they only get cheaper if all of us band together and don't use them? ;) That works for me! -MC
Regards, Steve
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
On Jan 22, 2009, at 1:11 PM, "Gregory Boehnlein" <damin@nacs.net> wrote:
You use it on your own risk
Also, G.729 is patent encumbered big-time. Instead of lining the pockets of lawyers and mega-corporations by perpetuating the use of a crusty old codec we should all twist arms and get our providers, device makers, etc. to use Speex.
Yeah.. let me know when you get Cisco to add Speex support to IOS! ;)
Who needs Crisco anyway? :p
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
If you want Speex support you need to target the chipset manufacturers: Here is the Texas Insturments chipset that Polycom uses in the IP650 CPU is TNETV1050/C55x, rev 2 running at 162MHz with memory at 125MHz. And here are the codecs that Chip supports from TI's datasheet on this chip: http://focus.ti.com/pdfs/bcg/tnetv1050_prod_bulletin.pdf Codec Options* G.711 Codec, G.726, G.729AB, G.723.1A, G.722 wideband codec Speex is not listed, so Polycom can't do Speex. I should note that even the non-HD Polycom phones have this same chip and are capable of doing G.722 some some config tweaking. ;) I'm willing to bet that Cisco doesn't make their own DSP chips either. Find out who makes their chips and put pressure on that chip manufacturer to develop chips with Speex support. On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Gregory Boehnlein <damin@nacs.net> wrote:
You use it on your own risk
Also, G.729 is patent encumbered big-time. Instead of lining the pockets of lawyers and mega-corporations by perpetuating the use of a crusty old codec we should all twist arms and get our providers, device makers, etc. to use Speex.
Yeah.. let me know when you get Cisco to add Speex support to IOS! ;)
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Codec Options* G.711 Codec, G.726, G.729AB, G.723.1A, G.722 wideband codec
Speex is not listed, so Polycom can't do Speex.
I should note that even the non-HD Polycom phones have this same chip and are capable of doing G.722 some some config tweaking. ;)
Are you saying that you have actually gotten the non-HD versions to do g.722? Or are you saying that one might be able to do this? If the former, can you share what you did?
Something like this might do it... ;) <?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <!-- SIP Enable HD Audio(G.722) on non-HD Polycom Phones --> <!-- Discovered by Cherebrum --> <!-- $RCSfile: hdaudio.cfg,v $ $Revision: 1.0 $ --> <hdaudio> <voice> <codecs> <preferences voice.codecPref.Lin16="5" voice.codecPref.G722="1" voice.codecPref.G711Mu="2" voice.codecPref.G711A="3" voice.codecPref.G729AB="4" voice.codecPref.IP_300.G711Mu="1" voice.codecPref.IP_300.G711A="2" voice.codecPref.IP_300.G729AB="3" voice.codecPref.IP_4000.G711Mu="1" voice.codecPref.IP_4000.G711A="2" voice.codecPref.IP_4000.G729AB="" voice.codecPref.IP_650.G711Mu="2" voice.codecPref.IP_650.G711A="3" voice.codecPref.IP_650.G729AB="4" voice.codecPref.IP_650.Lin16="5" voice.codecPref.IP_650.G722="1"/> <profiles voice.audioProfile.G711Mu.payloadSize="20" voice.audioProfile.G711Mu.jitterBufferMin="40" voice.audioProfile.G711Mu.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.G711Mu.jitterBufferMax="160" voice.audioProfile.G711A.payloadSize="20" voice.audioProfile.G711A.jitterBufferMin="40" voice.audioProfile.G711A.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.G711A.jitterBufferMax="160" voice.audioProfile.G729AB.payloadSize="20" voice.audioProfile.G729AB.jitterBufferMin="40" voice.audioProfile.G729AB.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.G729AB.jitterBufferMax="160" voice.audioProfile.G722.payloadSize="20" voice.audioProfile.G722.jitterBufferMin="40" voice.audioProfile.G722.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.G722.jitterBufferMax="160" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.payloadSize="10" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.jitterBufferMin="20" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.jitterBufferMax="100" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.frequency="16000" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.payloadType="117"/> </codecs> <handset voice.handset.wideband="1"/> </voice> </hdaudio> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:17 PM, peder@networkoblivion.com < peder@networkoblivion.com> wrote:
Codec Options* G.711 Codec, G.726, G.729AB, G.723.1A, G.722 wideband codec
Speex is not listed, so Polycom can't do Speex.
I should note that even the non-HD Polycom phones have this same chip and are capable of doing G.722 some some config tweaking. ;)
Are you saying that you have actually gotten the non-HD versions to do g.722? Or are you saying that one might be able to do this? If the former, can you share what you did?
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Great thanks to Jason for sharing Cherebrum's great discovery, this works like a charm on my Ploycom IP 320 with G722 codec. Chris On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Jason Garland <jgarland@jasongarland.com>wrote:
Something like this might do it... ;)
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <!-- SIP Enable HD Audio(G.722) on non-HD Polycom Phones --> <!-- Discovered by Cherebrum --> <!-- $RCSfile: hdaudio.cfg,v $ $Revision: 1.0 $ --> <hdaudio> <voice> <codecs> <preferences voice.codecPref.Lin16="5" voice.codecPref.G722="1" voice.codecPref.G711Mu="2" voice.codecPref.G711A="3" voice.codecPref.G729AB="4" voice.codecPref.IP_300.G711Mu="1" voice.codecPref.IP_300.G711A="2" voice.codecPref.IP_300.G729AB="3" voice.codecPref.IP_4000.G711Mu="1" voice.codecPref.IP_4000.G711A="2" voice.codecPref.IP_4000.G729AB="" voice.codecPref.IP_650.G711Mu="2" voice.codecPref.IP_650.G711A="3" voice.codecPref.IP_650.G729AB="4" voice.codecPref.IP_650.Lin16="5" voice.codecPref.IP_650.G722="1"/> <profiles voice.audioProfile.G711Mu.payloadSize="20" voice.audioProfile.G711Mu.jitterBufferMin="40" voice.audioProfile.G711Mu.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.G711Mu.jitterBufferMax="160" voice.audioProfile.G711A.payloadSize="20" voice.audioProfile.G711A.jitterBufferMin="40" voice.audioProfile.G711A.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.G711A.jitterBufferMax="160" voice.audioProfile.G729AB.payloadSize="20" voice.audioProfile.G729AB.jitterBufferMin="40" voice.audioProfile.G729AB.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.G729AB.jitterBufferMax="160" voice.audioProfile.G722.payloadSize="20" voice.audioProfile.G722.jitterBufferMin="40" voice.audioProfile.G722.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.G722.jitterBufferMax="160" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.payloadSize="10" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.jitterBufferMin="20" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.jitterBufferMax="100" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.frequency="16000" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.payloadType="117"/> </codecs> <handset voice.handset.wideband="1"/> </voice> </hdaudio>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:17 PM, peder@networkoblivion.com < peder@networkoblivion.com> wrote:
Codec Options* G.711 Codec, G.726, G.729AB, G.723.1A, G.722 wideband codec
Speex is not listed, so Polycom can't do Speex.
I should note that even the non-HD Polycom phones have this same chip and are capable of doing G.722 some some config tweaking. ;)
Are you saying that you have actually gotten the non-HD versions to do g.722? Or are you saying that one might be able to do this? If the former, can you share what you did?
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Do you just specify g722 for the codec prefs on FS? I added the items below and have FS set to use g722. When I call, I see that the phone offers g722 and g711u and FS chooses g722. On the phone I see g722 as inbound and outbound, but I don't hear anything. I've tried speaker and handset and get nothing on either one. Also, the phone doesn't show packets increasing even though I can see FS is playing files. It is an IP600. I switch the Polycom to offer 711u first and then g722 and FS chooses 711u and works fine. Jason Garland wrote:
Something like this might do it... ;)
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <!-- SIP Enable HD Audio(G.722) on non-HD Polycom Phones --> <!-- Discovered by Cherebrum --> <!-- $RCSfile: hdaudio.cfg,v $ $Revision: 1.0 $ --> <hdaudio> <voice> <codecs> <preferences voice.codecPref.Lin16="5" voice.codecPref.G722="1" voice.codecPref.G711Mu="2" voice.codecPref.G711A="3" voice.codecPref.G729AB="4" voice.codecPref.IP_300.G711Mu="1" voice.codecPref.IP_300.G711A="2" voice.codecPref.IP_300.G729AB="3" voice.codecPref.IP_4000.G711Mu="1" voice.codecPref.IP_4000.G711A="2" voice.codecPref.IP_4000.G729AB="" voice.codecPref.IP_650.G711Mu="2" voice.codecPref.IP_650.G711A="3" voice.codecPref.IP_650.G729AB="4" voice.codecPref.IP_650.Lin16="5" voice.codecPref.IP_650.G722="1"/> <profiles voice.audioProfile.G711Mu.payloadSize="20" voice.audioProfile.G711Mu.jitterBufferMin="40" voice.audioProfile.G711Mu.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.G711Mu.jitterBufferMax="160" voice.audioProfile.G711A.payloadSize="20" voice.audioProfile.G711A.jitterBufferMin="40" voice.audioProfile.G711A.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.G711A.jitterBufferMax="160" voice.audioProfile.G729AB.payloadSize="20" voice.audioProfile.G729AB.jitterBufferMin="40" voice.audioProfile.G729AB.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.G729AB.jitterBufferMax="160" voice.audioProfile.G722.payloadSize="20" voice.audioProfile.G722.jitterBufferMin="40" voice.audioProfile.G722.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.G722.jitterBufferMax="160" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.payloadSize="10" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.jitterBufferMin="20" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.jitterBufferShrink="500" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.jitterBufferMax="100" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.frequency="160 00" voice.audioProfile.Lin16.payloadType="117"/> </codecs> <handset voice.handset.wideband="1"/> </voice> </hdaudio>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:17 PM, peder@networkoblivion.com <mailto:peder@networkoblivion.com> <peder@networkoblivion.com <mailto:peder@networkoblivion.com>> wrote:
> Codec Options* > G.711 Codec, G.726, G.729AB, G.723.1A, G.722 wideband codec > > Speex is not listed, so Polycom can't do Speex. > > I should note that even the non-HD Polycom phones have this same chip > and are capable of doing G.722 some some config tweaking. ;)
Are you saying that you have actually gotten the non-HD versions to do g.722? Or are you saying that one might be able to do this? If the former, can you share what you did?
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto:Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Jason Garland wrote:
If you want Speex support you need to target the chipset manufacturers:
Here is the Texas Insturments chipset that Polycom uses in the IP650 CPU is TNETV1050/C55x, rev 2 running at 162MHz with memory at 125MHz. And here are the codecs that Chip supports from TI's datasheet on this chip: http://focus.ti.com/pdfs/bcg/tnetv1050_prod_bulletin.pdf
Codec Options* G.711 Codec, G.726, G.729AB, G.723.1A, G.722 wideband codec Speex is not listed, so Polycom can't do Speex.
I should note that even the non-HD Polycom phones have this same chip and are capable of doing G.722 some some config tweaking. ;)
I'm willing to bet that Cisco doesn't make their own DSP chips either. Find out who makes their chips and put pressure on that chip manufacturer to develop chips with Speex support. You are confusing two things. TI makes the TNETVxxxx range of chips. Their Telogy division makes software for VoIP platforms. The two may be used together or apart, and things may be added to the basic set of Telogy software. For example, in the Linksys SPA series you'll find the TI silicon used with Telogy software, but they also have Asterisk thrown in there to provide voicemail features.
I very much doubt that Polycom uses TI's software. They've had their own VoIP software for a very long time, and I expect they still use it. Regards, Steve
participants (17)
-
Abdul Hakeem
-
Brian West
-
Chris Chen
-
David Knell
-
Gregory Boehnlein
-
Jason Garland
-
João Mesquita
-
Kristian Kielhofner
-
Michael Collins
-
Michael S Collins
-
peder＠networkoblivion.com
-
Raul Fragoso
-
Raymond Chandler
-
Rehan Allah Wala
-
Rodrigo P. Telles
-
Steve Underwood
-
Кривушин Михаил