Is HW based E/C essential for all analogue deployments?

ipconvergence
Posts: 60
Member Since:
2008-02-18

I have seen several posts recently that state hardware based echo cancellation is essential for analogue cards in all deployment scenarios. I disagree and would be grateful for other peoples opinions based on their own real world deployment experiences.

Earlier versions of Trixbox shipped with various software based echo cancellation algorithms that provided mixed results. The latest version of Trixbox ships with the OSLEC echo canceller enabled by default, which has received positive feedback from a large number of users.

There are also commercial SW E/C algorithms that are G.168 compliant and support tail lengths up to 128ms / 1024 taps. These can be purchased for around $10 per channel (or are available for free direct from one card manufacturer) and are auto-tuning so there is no need to mess around with things like ztmonitor.

SW based E/C requires CPU resource and therefore is not suitable for servers that need to support large numbers of channels. One commercial SW based E/C provider recommends using a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 for 8 channels at 1024 taps. Another states that their echo canceller will support up to 16 channels at 1024 taps and provides some benchmark performance results for a few common processors.

My experience of deploying analogue cards that don’t have HW E/C along with the OSLEC echo canceller has been very positive, with customers being very happy with the voice quality. There have been a few occasions when a commercial echo canceller has needed to be used to eliminate echo completely. However, I have never been involved with an install that has had an echo issue that needed H/W based echo cancellation to correct, and we have never had a card returned due to echo issues.

There are scenarios where I agree that software based echo cancellation is not suitable, e.g. for PRI lines where using software based echo cancellation would have an adverse effect on the processor due to the number of channels. Another example where I think software based echo cancellation is not suitable is for pre-configured IP PBX appliances that require plug-and-play card upgrades without needing to install additional licences/software.

When compared with SW based E/C, HW based E/C offers a number of advantages including:

  1. No need to install/configure extra software/licences (reduces time/complexity for new installs and upgrades)
  2. Eliminates risk of callouts due to echo issues (which reduces customer support costs)
  3. Guaranteed to eliminate echo from day 1 onwards (provider customer and installer confidence)

In my view 2+3 are only applicable for open source echo cancellers because in my experience they don’t eliminate echo in all cases, whereas the commercial SW canceller I have used does. However, this opinion is only based on my own experience and I would be interested in hearing if other uses have had experiences where they have tried a commercial SW based E/C algorithm and have been unable to overcome echo issues and have had to use a card that provides HW based E/C.

When compared with HW based E/C, SW based E/C offers just one advantage – cost. If the cards cost the same there would be nothing to discuss. However, cards that do not provide HW based E/C can be purchased for less than half the price of those that do. When considering the total cost of a new phone system install, the extra cost of the HW based E/C may be insignificant in many cases, however, when considering the cost of installing a new card in an existing system, the extra cost becomes more apparent.

In today’s global economic climate more businesses are looking at cutting costs and are counting every $/£/€. Here in the UK hardware costs have risen by about 35% in the last 6 months due to the falling value of the £GBP. Also, in some countries the cost of hardware can be comparable or even more expensive than the cost of installing it, in which case minimising hardware costs where possible very important.

In my view using SW based E/C instead of HW based E/C offers a viable cost effective solution for deployments with low numbers of channels (e.g.

Looking at things from another viewpoint, I know of a number of phone systems that have been running for years with just the standard open source echo cancellers and the customers have never had an echo issue. In my view the extra cost of providing HW based E/C for these customers would not have been justified, as they would be paying extra for a solution to a problem that does not exist.

However, there are other people that based on their own experiences recommend always using HW based E/C, even for 1-2 channels.

If anyone has any thoughts/views on HW vs. SW based E/C based on their own experiences in deploying phones systems then I would be grateful for your feedback.

--

Richard Spencer
novavox
www.novavox.co.uk



adabbas
Posts: 191
Member Since:
2008-11-19
Dear Richard,I actually did

Dear Richard,

I actually did not want to say my opinion about the matter because; I am still with very limited experience, the only zaptel card I bought was from you, some may argue that I was just luckyand some may start flaming me for going against their “established” convections. However, I need to say that your approach seems very logical to me.

I’ve bought an X100P SE from Novavox few months ago to use it to learn trixbox and prepare a demo installation. Although many on the Internet has posted many warnings about x100p clones, but the one I got from Novavox was of a superior quality which was very easy to spot by looking at the board and the solid state capacitors it had.

I did not have a bit of echo although I have a very lousy PSTN line at home with nonstandard impedance, and a voltage of -18v which is clearly lower than usual. When I’ve used the Linksys SPA3102 I had an awful echo, but when using the zaptel line the EC software built-in on trixbox was more than capable of doing the job for one line and the old P4 CPU was not doing any real effort. Based on that I am sure that EC software working on 4 lines would not be an issue also, hence I’ve ordered an OpenVox A400P.

I live in a developing country where the price of hardware is much more expensive than my labor hours. Given the choice I would sure not pay 500$ for a card when I can pay 200$ and get it without hardware EC. 300$ is a very much around here, it is the monthly income of an average family, and I will be lucky to make more 600$ on an installation, so I will not lose 50% from my share to hardware EC when clearly software EC can do the job :)

Going against established convections is very hard in this community, I’ve clearly saw that by monitoring responses to posts about installing trixbox under VMware; As soon as somebody mentions the idea many will jump on to say that “it will never work”, while actually many are using trixbox under VMware (ESX) without any issues after doing very little tweaking. However, few of those people chose to declare their success because it goes against established convections around here.

I am sure that if great zaptel cards manufactures produce some great ATAs to be used with trixbox under VMware, that established convections will be changed in no time :)



SkykingOH
Posts: 9677
Member Since:
2007-12-17
Quote: I am sure that if
Quote:
I am sure that if great zaptel cards manufactures produce some great ATAs to be used with trixbox under VMware, that established convections will be changed in no time :)

Cisco makes inexpensive gateways today. They have FXO cards for routers starting with the 1700 series.

PRI's can be run in 2620xm's and up.

On the used market these can be had for less than the cost of a good PCI card.

These are the same gateways used with Call Manager, that should say something of the quality.

--

Scott

aka "Skyking"



jfinstrom
Posts: 2013
Member Since:
2007-03-07
As Scott says go with Cisco

As Scott says go with Cisco (the box formally known as Linksys)

There is no major need for the card makers to really enter that market. SPA ATA's have been well worked out through asterisk and voip in general and they are dirt cheap.

On another note we build our stuff in the US and to compete with Cisco we would have to go to china and you know we are cool with not doing that..

--



adabbas
Posts: 191
Member Since:
2008-11-19
Dear James,As said above,

Dear James,

As said above, I’ve already tried the Linksys SPA3102 and it had an awful echo, an echo that was not present when testing the X100P-SE on the same PSTN line. It seems that the SPA3102 makes echo more visible because it adds high delay when converting audio from Analog to digital and from digital to analog back again (as the trixbox2 without tears suggests). The EC built-in the SPA3102 was not good enough and that is why I was hoping that there were other choices.

I’ve actually went with Scott advice, and arranged to have some used Cisco routers to test them. However, since I am in a developing country where VoIP is a very new technology I may never find a used Cisco router with FXO ports around here, as said in an earlier post. I had to ask some trust-worthy individual to send it to me from abroad.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that I did not have any echo problems with software echo when using the X100P-SE, so I’ve ordered an A400P for less than 200$, 300$ difference is very high price to pay for a card that has hardware EC. A 300$ worth of Diesel has kept my house warm this winter (we do not have central heating here), I do not really care if it was made in China, Canada, Cameron or whereever as long as it does what is supposed to do, and it is affordable :)



SkykingOH
Posts: 9677
Member Since:
2007-12-17
James - I am not talking

James - I am not talking about the Linksys/Sipura consumer grade stuff.

I am talking about real Cisco routers running IOS with beefy FXO and FXS cards withe real tuneable hybrids on them.

The PRI cards also have EC and XC's on them to free up your CPU bandwidth.

This is especially attractive if you have IOS background.

--

Scott

aka "Skyking"



syadnom
Posts: 52
Member Since:
2009-03-21
situation dependant..

If you have a small installation with 4 or maybe 8 analog trunks and a nice modern processor (bus speed is the real key here, not cpu mhz) then software echo cancellation should be good for you. This should generally be true if you have something like a Core2 CPU with a 800Mhz bus. No matter how many trunks you run the CPU is not going to be over utilized but the bus speed is a point of latency for CPU time and the faster the bus the lower the latency for each operation.

If you have more trunks then you should really consider hardware cancellation because many trunks will soon cause some saturation which causes the computed echo cancelation to be slightly off what is needed. This is cumulative latency. Commercial echo cancelation filters will actually measure these other system latencies so that they can compute the echo cancelation while the open source echo cancellers are not quite there.

Additionally you should compute your time troubleshooting and fixing echo issues. For me, I use only sangoma cards with echo cancellation and completely eliminate my need to troubleshoot and correct echo issues. My time costs more than the hardware echo cancellation.

My advice is to go with the open source software and if that is not working, step up to the commercial software. If that does not work in the end then you can buy the hardware. You may be able to get a trial of the commercial software also.



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.