| Summary: | ASTERISK-02482: [request] Record calls at ZAP interface | ||
| Reporter: | revk (revk) | Labels: | |
| Date Opened: | 2004-09-27 13:09:43 | Date Closed: | 2011-06-07 14:05:23 |
| Priority: | Major | Regression? | No |
| Status: | Closed/Complete | Components: | Core/NewFeature |
| Versions: | Frequency of Occurrence | ||
| Related Issues: | |||
| Environment: | Attachments: | ||
| Description: | Recording calls is not always that efficient, and Monitor converts to a format for recording, which we have to take two files, convert and mix to make a suitable recording. Issues include trhe conversion back to the raw format (u-law or a-law) and correct mixing (to stereo wav, not just a mix as the Monitor 'm' option does - whats the point?). What would be nice is an option to record at the zap interface. As this is TDM, we should be able to record both channels at once directly in to a stereo u-law or a-law file, patching the header at the end. ****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ****** Whilst we could want to record other calls, as a PABX the requirement we have is primarily to record PSTN calls (in or out). This change would improve efficiency when recording such calls, and save post processing. It would be nice if this could be some sort of 'z' option on Monitor along the lines of "Record at zap interface if possible in native format" with "m" causing direct stereo generation, and if not zap on one end of the call then recording as now instead. | ||
| Comments: | By: schurig (schurig) 2004-10-07 01:45:24 Doing "something" at interface X only (e.g. ZAP, Capi, MGCP, etc) that is a general problem is ALWAYS the wrong solution. Recording sound in some simple way is a general problem. So, when you try to fix this problem, fix it in a generic way, that works with all interfaces. By: revk (revk) 2004-10-08 11:59:28 OK, a generic logging would be fine, if it could (a) be stereo, and (b) record in u-law or a-law as per (one of) the interaces to the call and hence save processing within asterisk and also save processing afterwards. By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2004-10-08 14:14:10 Exactly what processing do you think Asterisk has to perform differently from having the monitoring done within Asterisk rather than at the interface? By: Brian West (bkw918) 2004-10-14 01:14:38 any channel specific stuff needs to stay out if possible we already have too much. This monitoring stuff might be taking a total flip soon. | ||