[arm-allstar] Anyone doing G.722?

[David McGough]

Hi Justin,


This implementation of G.729 has CPU complexity similar to iLBC. For 
example:

<pre>
alarmpi-kb4fxc*CLI> core show translation 
         Translation times between formats (in milliseconds) for one second of data
          Source Format (Rows) Destination Format (Columns)

          g723 gsm ulaw alaw g726aal2 adpcm slin lpc10 g729 speex ilbc g726 g722 codec2
     g723    -   -    -    -        -     -    -     -    -     -    -    -    -      -
      gsm    -   -    3    3        4     3    2     5   23    38   23    4    3     26
     ulaw    -   5    -    1        3     2    1     4   22    37   22    3    2     25
     alaw    -   5    1    -        3     2    1     4   22    37   22    3    2     25
 g726aal2    -   6    3    3        -     3    2     5   23    38   23    1    3     26
    adpcm    -   5    2    2        3     -    1     4   22    37   22    3    2     25
     slin    -   4    1    1        2     1    -     3   21    36   21    2    1     24
    lpc10    -   6    3    3        4     3    2     -   23    38   23    4    3     26
     g729    -   8    5    5        6     5    4     7    -    40   25    6    5     28
    speex    -   9    6    6        7     6    5     8   26     -   26    7    6     29
     ilbc    -   9    6    6        7     6    5     8   26    41    -    7    6     29
     g726    -   6    3    3        1     3    2     5   23    38   23    -    3     26
     g722    -   5    2    2        3     2    1     4   22    37   22    3    -     25
   codec2    -  26   23   23       24    23   22    25   43    58   43   24   23      -


73, David KB4FXC


On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, "Justin Reed via arm-allstar" wrote:

> David
> How does G.729 transcode compared to ilbc in respect to CPU load?
> 
> Justin
> NV8Q
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Oct 24, 2017, at 12:48 PM, David McGough via arm-allstar <arm-allstar at hamvoip.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > As you noticed, I added the G.722 and G.729 CODECs in the most recent
> > release. G.722 was added mainly for compatibility Cisco phones running the
> > sccp protocol. For AllStar use, G.722 won't really get you anything over
> > ulaw (G.711). AllStar audio is hard limited to (less than) 4KHz by code in
> > the channel drivers, etc.
> > 
> > BTW, G.729 works quite well and uses slightly less bandwidth than iLBC.
> > 
> > 
> > 73, David KB4FXC
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, "Stephen - K1LNX via arm-allstar" wrote:
> >> 
> >> With the recent release of G.722 into the HamVOIP image, I'd like to give
> >> it a try. I use G.722 on my normal Asterisk endpoints, and the audio
> >> quality has always been fantastic.
> >> 
> >> Anyone with a public node using this yet?
> >> 
> >> 73
> >> Stephen
> >> K1LNX
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 
> >> arm-allstar mailing list
> >> arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> >> http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
> >> 
> >> Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org
> >> 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 
> > arm-allstar mailing list
> > arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> > http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
> > 
> > Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org
> _______________________________________________
> 
> arm-allstar mailing list
> arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
> 
> Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org
>