On 30 Aug 2004 at 10:38, Steve Underwood wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >On 30 Aug 2004 at 0:26, Steve Underwood wrote: > > > > > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Why doesn't asterisk clock to the 1000 interrupts per second > >>>instead of the incoming audio? Were there no interrupts available > >>>when it started? Even if you had no card you could use the ztdummy > >>>module and even though that might be off by a bit, surely it'd > >>>sound better than a connection which is experiencing packet loss? > >>> > >>>How much work would be required to change this? I guess it > >>>couldn't really be an option because of the totally different > >>>structure... > >>> > >>>Would it be possible for one person to make those changes or would > >>>it require the authors of all modules to recode? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>I haven't even completed by soft fax machine, and you are trying to > >>be it completely useless. :-) Think about that. What you are > >>suggesting is not really a satisfactory solution to anything, but > >>certainly breaks things. :-\ > >> > >> > >> > > > >Is this English?! > > > >my soft fax? > > > >make it completely useless? > > > >Okay, I think I understand you now... > > > >This surely wouldn't concern your code unless your code does it's > >transmission via IAX, SIP, OpenH.323 etc? > > > >And unless I'm gravely mistaken fax won't work over IP anyway... > > > > > Is this a well thought out response?
Not really! :-) It was 5am...just before I went to sleep... > FAX won't work over IP? Unless you use T.38 or are connecting to a machine with no lag/packet loss. We use your software to convert from fax to tiff, email the file, tiff to fax at the other end... > > Doesn't changing the timing in the core of * affect the PSTN channels > as well as the IP ones? The PSTN channels (TDM400P) are already clocked to the 1000hz interrupts. The T1/E1 channels are clocked to the card remote end. IP is clocked to incoming packets. (even though not all of those packets are sure to arrive etc) > Doesn't everything - caller ID, my soft fax machine, SMS, etc. - that > works within * all go through the * core? Through is an interesting word, but interfaces with, yes. > Won't this screw up everything just to keep you happy? One would hope not! And it's not just to keep me happy. I just noticed that we seem to have a few problems at the moment that could be resolved by not using the incoming packets as a clocking source. (i.e. Silence detection, Packet Concealment, JitterBuffering etc etc) > Won't this actually fail to keep you happy, since you don't seem to > have thought through the whole jitter buffering issue, anyway? LOL. 1. Keeping me happy means assuming I'm happy at the moment. 2. Yes I have thought through the jitterbuffer issue as it seems to be causing some problems here (we get clicks etc as it's size is changed by a large amount). > So many questions. So few meaningful answers :-) I'm sorry I'm not sure what to respond to this. > Regards, > Steve Kind regards, Matt Riddell P.S. I LOVE YOUR WORK! I.E. SpanDSP it seems to be working here really well...what's up with the site though? Been down for a while. _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
