[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:              08-09-2007 13:01 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 - 08-09-07 13:01  
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
That last benchmark was just not good enough! So I did another. This time,
I went into translate.c, and bumped the number of samples from 1 sec (8000
samples) to 100 sec (800,000 samples), so I get two digits of accuracy in
the total.

I found: 

Old algorithm:

ulaw -> slin = .08 msec / sec
alaw -> slin = .08 msec / sec
slin -> ulaw = .05 msec / sec
slin -> alaw = .06 msec / sec

New algorithm:

ulaw -> slin = .08 msec / sec
alaw -> slin = .08 msec / sec
slin -> ulaw = .20 msec / sec
slin -> alaw = .19 msec / sec

So, the new algorithm slows down translation into ulaw by a factor of 4x,
and into ulaw, by factor of 3x.

But--- it's still pretty fast, comparing to other algorithm costs. 

Issue History 
Date Modified   Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
08-09-07 13:01  murf           Note Added: 0068676                          
======================================================================