[VoIP] DP-compatible ATAs

[John Novack]

In my experience that is a result of SOME DSL service. Too much activity 
somewhere, either at the end user or down the line of the DSL provider 
resulting on LOTS of packets lost
I have regular fairly long conversations over CNET with certain other 
members, and there is seldom anything like you describe.
Perhaps it is my HSIA that is especially good, but it takes two to 
tango, and most of the members don't have any quality issues as you 
describe.
I don't often use either my portal or Greg's, but both use the SIP 
protocol, whereas most, if not all  of CNET uses IAX. Perhaps that is 
one reason, I really can't say.
Audio quality with IAX is quite good  SIP on one's own LAN is quite 
good, with Asterisk doing the conversion to IAX.
Most of us also use the u-law codec as well.
I don't know about Greg's portal. 
Until one has their own CNET interface with a decent High Speed service, 
there will be these issues.

John Novack


Steph Kerman wrote:
> Audiophile bah!  I'm talking about huge unpredictable gaps and drop outs 
> intermittently for seconds at a time.  The connection quality is not 
> something anyone paying would tolerate.  Even for free it's a nuisance 
> to try to carry on a conversation.  At its best it's excellent.  At its 
> worst, which is frequent and unpredictable, you just have to repeat 
> yourself or wait until the hits go away.
>
> Steph
>
> ikjtel wrote:
>   
>> In Message-ID 45945B97.7050609 at jps.net, Steph Kerman
>> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> [snip]  However the CNET calls I've made so far
>>>     
>>>       
>> through Greg's 212 PSTN portal don't sound all that
>> wonderful to me.
>>
>> The question of how to improve CNET (from an
>> audiophile perspective) is an interesting one, it
>> should first be noted that a PSTN portal may not be
>> the most fair way to judge.  Would want to know more
>> details about it (whether any additional A/D
>> conversions occur, whether any compressing codecs are
>> in use, how it addresses the very-tricky echo issues,
>> etc).
>>
>> The way a CNET office sounds to well-connected callers
>> from the outside world is mainly determined by the FXO
>> card in use.  The X100P (and clone) FXO's are all crap
>> IMHO - they're optimized for use as data modems, not
>> voice; their audio dynamic range is known to be
>> limited; they cut out on DC and inductive spikes, etc.
>>  I don't have the hardware to test but would fully
>> expect a channel bank FXO port to outsparkle an X100P,
>> audio-wise.
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> [snip] If there is no 2W segment in the call because
>>>     
>>>       
>> it is 4W-IP end-end, echo should be non-existent. 
>> Echo results from the 2W-4W junctions.
>>
>> This didn't make sense to me.  There's *always* at
>> least one 2W segment in this case (at the ATA).
>>
>> In Message-ID 45944B66.7020809 at jps.net, Steph Kerman
>> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> [snip]  I'd prefer to have the DP outpulsing of real
>>>     
>>>       
>> wirespring sender audible to the caller, not ersatz
>> "recorded" outpulsing sounds from an * box.
>>
>> Agreed.  However, easier said than done.  See below...
>>
>> In Message-ID 45954C42.6563.599D269 at localhost Chad
>> Perkins wrote:
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> I can understand that, however Asterisk nativity
>>>     
>>>       
>> will not add nor remove outpulsing "sounds"; whatever
>> goes in one end comes out the other ...
>>
>> I do not mean to pick on Chad, but that isn't correct.
>>  Both zaptel and asterisk have code specifically to
>> suppress outpulsed DP (rotary) dial digits.  A while
>> back I released a patch to defeat this, in the
>> interests of those demented souls (myself included)
>> who wanted to hear the real dial tone and outpulsing. 
>> Last time I checked there was at least one CNET office
>> (try 366-3514) that still had this in effect.  The big
>> letdown was that the SxS selector "clunk" sound (the
>> "D" relay operating) was suppressed (by the X100P
>> hardware) although the selector level hunting sounds
>> were audible ...
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> [snip] The VoIP part of CNET is a TCP/IP medium and
>>>     
>>>       
>> I would suggest is neither 2W or 4W per se
>>
>> Conceptually the VOIP portion is treated as 4W, the
>> two directions are processed separately...
>>
>> Max
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>> http://mail.yahoo.com 
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>
>