gnommeeting and voice over IP again!

Can someone help me with this. I am trying to set up gnomemeeting to
make pc-to-phone calls. There is a link to a company called microtelco
in the gnomemeeting voice over IP setup wizard. When I went to
microtelco's website to order an account, they sent me an e-mail which I
have excerpted below.

The reason for the Quicknet hardware requirement is due to the G.723.1
codec, used by all ITSP's for making PC-to-Phone calls, which is
patented and cannot be added directly into the GnomeMeeting code. This
codec is supported by the DSP included on all Quicknet hardware products.

They are saying that in order to use their service, I have to install
their sound card, which costs $109.00U.S. That's more than I paid for
this motherboard! I build computers from scratch with low cost
components. Is this true? Is there another company where I can get
this service?

Sargon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<Om3Eb.2070$(E-Mail Removed) ink.net>...
> Can someone help me with this. I am trying to set up gnomemeeting to
> make pc-to-phone calls. There is a link to a company called microtelco
> in the gnomemeeting voice over IP setup wizard. When I went to
> microtelco's website to order an account, they sent me an e-mail which I
> have excerpted below.
>
> The reason for the Quicknet hardware requirement is due to the G.723.1
> codec, used by all ITSP's for making PC-to-Phone calls, which is
> patented and cannot be added directly into the GnomeMeeting code. This
> codec is supported by the DSP included on all Quicknet hardware products.
>
> They are saying that in order to use their service, I have to install
> their sound card, which costs $109.00U.S. That's more than I paid for
> this motherboard! I build computers from scratch with low cost
> components. Is this true? Is there another company where I can get
> this service?

Hope someone can post with desired, current info.

It's been 18 months since I looked into it, but then most quality,
full-duplex solutions required a proprietary card to provide hardware
codec processing. That drastically reduces the load on the mobo cpu,
since the sound card chip was designed/hardwired for the single-minded
purpose of processing that codec. But beware, as to get your money's
worth, _both_ ends require hardware support for the codec.

Software based processing "should" be acceptable (depending on your
tolerance) with newer cpu's and headsets, but I fear full-duplex mode
may still need hardware support of some kind.

Hope someone posts with better news,
regards
prg
email above disabled

P Gentry wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> Hope someone can post with desired, current info.
>
> It's been 18 months since I looked into it, but then most quality,
> full-duplex solutions required a proprietary card to provide hardware
> codec processing. That drastically reduces the load on the mobo cpu,
> since the sound card chip was designed/hardwired for the single-minded
> purpose of processing that codec. But beware, as to get your money's
> worth, _both_ ends require hardware support for the codec.
>
> Software based processing "should" be acceptable (depending on your
> tolerance) with newer cpu's and headsets, but I fear full-duplex mode
> may still need hardware support of some kind.
>
> Hope someone posts with better news,
> regards
> prg
> email above disabled

Thanks. I was afraid of that.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:53:03 +0000, Sargon wrote:

> P Gentry wrote:
> <snip>
>> Software based processing "should" be acceptable (depending on your
>> tolerance) with newer cpu's and headsets, but I fear full-duplex mode
>> may still need hardware support of some kind.
>>
>> Hope someone posts with better news,
>> regards
>> prg
>> email above disabled
>
> Thanks. I was afraid of that.

Don't despair -- there is a difference between hardware support for
full-duplex sound mode and hardware support for easing the audio
de/encoding load off the main cpu.

Check documentation on your sound chip (google) and see if it supports
full-duplex audio. If it's fairly modern there's a good chance. Then you
will probably not need the additional card you were told to purchase.

There is also a good chance your sound chip _won't_ do the de/encoding and
your cpu will have to handle this. That shouldn't be a problem unless
your cpu/mem/mobo were not powerful enough to run a recent distro without
extra work from you.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:53:03 +0000, Sargon wrote:
>
> > P Gentry wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> Software based processing "should" be acceptable (depending on your
> >> tolerance) with newer cpu's and headsets, but I fear full-duplex mode
> >> may still need hardware support of some kind.
> >>
> >> Hope someone posts with better news,
> >> regards
> >> prg
> >> email above disabled
> >
> > Thanks. I was afraid of that.
>
> Don't despair -- there is a difference between hardware support for
> full-duplex sound mode and hardware support for easing the audio
> de/encoding load off the main cpu.
>
> Check documentation on your sound chip (google) and see if it supports
> full-duplex audio. If it's fairly modern there's a good chance. Then you
> will probably not need the additional card you were told to purchase.
>
> There is also a good chance your sound chip _won't_ do the de/encoding and
> your cpu will have to handle this. That shouldn't be a problem unless
> your cpu/mem/mobo were not powerful enough to run a recent distro without
> extra work from you.

Yeh, for home use I'm not _that_ interested since this is an old Pll
350 w/ 256MB and a sound card that predates my bald spot.

Mostly trying to use Net/Gnome Meeting in a school setting with
machines not much (any?) more juiced than this one. It can be done,
but the delays introduced with the cpu processing were a little hard
to get used to. The other thing with the full-duplex decoders is that
they usually also provide echo/feedback control (some more - some
less) which is nice in a larger room with 25-30 kids.

I encourage any and all who are interested to try out the video
conferencing. If you can tolerate the anomilies it's really nice.
Glad to hear that newer machines are more up to the task.

Thanks for the update,
prg
email above disabled