A good digital oscilloscope?
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 31 Dec 2009 19:01 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:08:51 -0800, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >news:55aqj558tn2rmvnomhaa319041svjt7olb(a)4ax.com... >>>Ah, interesting -- I had figured you guys had either cooked up your own >>>CoDecs >>>or at least written the code for some industry standard one. >> G729 is industry standard. ...or perhaps I missed your point. > >I was thinking you said TI had a bunch of code for G.729 they would just hand >you whereas ADI did not, and that was a deciding factor in whose DSP to use. >...whereas if the programmers had been thinking, "we're going to write our own >C code to implement G.729 per the written spec," then it wouldn't matter (so >much) which DSP was used. > >Now that I think about it more, it probably wouldn't have made sense to write >your own implementation of G.729 since you'd still end up paying licensing >fees anyway, I imagine, and I imagine it's complex enough you'd probably spend >some man-months on it. Yeah, we bought it from a third-party. It was already done for the TI 55xx series. I suppose it could have been ported to ADI, I'm sure it would have cost more. AIUI, ADI had an G729 implementation but it was only a subset and we needed the whole Magilla. >Sorry for the confusion. :-) > >We do our own C code for vocoding... although in our present case it's little >more than companding and SSB modulation. :-) Compression and echo cancellation were third-party packages. They worked, though they really aren't hardware dependant. ;-) |