<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Karl Fife <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:karlfife@gmail.com">karlfife@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">In Asterisk 1.6, there is an option to use the 'new
g.711 algorithm'. <br>"Use the NEW ulaw/alaw codec's (slower, but
cleaner)"</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">By slower does this mean more 'expensive', or does
it instead mean that there will be more algorithmic latency? Both?
Can anyone speak to the relative increases?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">With regard to accuracy, can anyone speak to what
kind of situation might demonstrate the benefit of the new algorithm? i.e.
transcoding, SpanDSP, Analog interfaces (DAHDI) etc.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Thanks<br>Karl</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div></div>
<br></blockquote><div><br>Interesting....<br><br>Alaw and Ulaw algorithms slower and cleaner? Slower would imply problems with FAX or whatever. <br><br>Not sure how uncompressed audio could be cleaner and why on earth one would want it slower? <br>
<br>What's next? The new, improved, under new management, SLIN?<br><br>PS, I am sure (75% anyways) that this new algorithm is good for something.....<br></div></div><br>-- <br>Thanks,<br>Steve Totaro <br>+18887771888 (Toll Free)<br>
+12409381212 (Cell)<br>+12024369784 (Skype)<br>