> I wonder could this be anything to do with the fact that us Europeans
> have a-law encoding rather than u-law? I figure if it was this
> noticeable in the USA, it would have been fixed by now.
Adrian:
Interesting. I wonder if this is the difference? The Rockwell white
paper referenced below indicates that work has been done to accomodate
change in the signal patterns when line padding takes place in the
digital domain, but only refers to u-Law, not a-law. I also suspect that
multiple digital "pads" can prevent the modem from being able to properly
correct for these u-law/linear/u-law conversions that take place in
digital padding.
If it's possible, you might want to see if there's any padding on your
trunks. If you're really brave, see if you can find out if the padding on
the customer end is done digital or analog, or if that depends on what
was used to build the customer's line. It might also be interesting to
send a note to Lucent or Rockwell to see if the modems can detect the
a-law conversions as well as the u-law conversions.
Chuck
http://www.nb.rockwell.com/K56flex/whitepapers/k56whitepaper.html
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.