[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0008126]: [patch] G.711 codec woes

[noreply at bugs.digium.com]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=8126 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                fossil
Assigned To:                murf
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Asterisk
Issue ID:                   8126
Category:                   Core/CodecInterface
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   minor
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     ready for testing
Asterisk Version:            SVN 
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases):  1.2 
SVN Revision (number only!): 44743 
Disclaimer on File?:        Yes 
Request Review:              
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             10-09-2006 20:21 CDT
Last Modified:              08-03-2007 12:44 CDT
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    [patch] G.711 codec woes
Description: 
There is a *number* of problems in the a-law and u-law core transcoders
(most severe first):

1. a-Law decoder does not add the rounding error to the linear samples
output;
This results in a stable amplitude drop in the decoded signal overall, but
the negative phase portion of the signal is even more adversely affected:
the amplitude drop actually accumulates with consequtive transcodings (see
attached test patch). If the call encounters 127 tandem a-law transcodings
(a-alaw -> slin -> a-law -> slin -> ...), the entire negative portion will
be reduced to http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=#0.

2. Lookup table-driven slin->law coding rounds the negative values the
wrong way;
The breaks in linear value sequences do not happen where the table-driven
slin->law system expect them to. This results in certain negative linear
values to be encoded incorrectly (see attached test patch), which isn't
such a *big* problem, but a problem nonetheless.
There is no one-liner fix for this issue. To fix this, for example, we
could generate only half the slin->law table, for positive values only.
This table would contain half-cooked law bytes, so that the sign could be
added later to the values, along with the post-coding transform (NOT for
u-law and XOR 0x55 for a-law). In this case, AST_LIN2MU() would look
something like this:

inline unsigned char AST_LIN2MU(short sample)
{
  unsigned sign = ((unsigned)sample & 0x8000) >> 8;
  unsigned char law = __ast_lin2mu[(sample & 0x7fff) >> 2];
  return ~(law | sign);
}

3. slin->a-law and slin->u-law functions handle value -32768 incorrectly;
This is not really a problem when using a lookup table system because the
slot of -32768 is overwritten later, but for the sake of correctness...

4. alaw.c:linear2alaw() is less than optimal;

5. slin->law lookup table generation code is less than optimal;
There is no reason to enumerate all the possible values between -32768 and
32767 when most of the results are overwritten later.

====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 murf - 08-03-07 12:44  
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
fossil-- First of all, many thanks for this submission. It's always neat to
have solid improvements made to fundamental algorithms.

Next, sorry for the delay; last I measured, I estimated about 200 bug
submissions per month, and we estimated about 40% of those are
enhancements. 1.4 has been a focus for several months, trying to improve
its quality. Somehow, your bug report has been lost in the "sea"; I'm happy
to have bumped into it. I'll personally see it thru making it into the
source. I'd like to have the "blessing" of at least one guy who is involved
in codecs, and I'll run some tests myself, which hopefully will not take
long.

Many thanks!

ten months? v4 should be out in six! (just kidding!) 

Issue History 
Date Modified   Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
08-03-07 12:44  murf           Note Added: 0068373                          
======================================================================