Mitel Voice Recorder incompatible with G722.1

[ricvil]

Hi,
I was wondering if anybody else has run into this and how they have dealt with it.

We have about 100 seats on a 3300 running 8.0 SP3.  We rolled out the latest iteration of Mitel phones, the 69XX series, and everybody was overjoyed at the incredible audio quality delivered by the G722.1 audio codec on extension to extension calls (outside calls go out via a PRI and use G711).  Of those 100 seats, we have 5 that need to be recorded so we bought the latest version of the Mitel Voice Recorder (9.2) and found out it is unable to record G722.1 audio.  According to Mitel we need to disable G722.1 on the 3300 codec form to force all calls to G711 and thus be able to record it.  I found this unacceptable.  I understand needing to force 5 sets to G711, but Mitel's answer was to force *everybody* to G711 because they don't have the ability to set codecs by station, thus lowering the audio quality of all users, not just the ones in need of being recorded.

Anybody has encountered this issue before?   Am I getting bad info from the Mitel reseller?

[dilkie]

Do you have MBG deployed internally as a "SRC" (Secure Recording Connector" along with your recorder?

If so, you can restrict the codecs for individual sets.

Also, MBG supports transcoding G.722.1 to G.711 on the "tap" stream, if the recorder requests G.711 and you have compression licenses on MBG. That way the original call can be in 722.1 but the recording is in 711 (or whatever the recorder compresses that to).

[ricvil]

We did not deploy an internal MBG.  We are making use of the indirect recording feature of the 69XX sets.  These sets have the ability to generate two audio streams.  One goes to the actual destination and the other audio stream goes to the recorder.  It's all documented in the MiVCR Integration Guide.  This makes the setup a lot simpler as we don't have to deploy an internal MBG and then provision users in this MBG.

But thanks for your suggestion as it does present a valid work around although at an additional cost $$$.

[dilkie]

You can't do indirect recording with an MBG deployed, even if no sets are actually connected to it. It's still required for the solution.

If you don't have an MBG deployed, I am *REALLY* curious how this is working and would love to know more.

[ricvil]

There is an MBG in gateway mode (for remote Teleworkers).  But there are no local handsets defined in it and no recording audio flows through it.  I get your point about the MBG being required, and it is configured in the MiVCR, but I would not want to point local phones to it.  When I did, I quickly realized the following problem. If I point a local phone to the LAN side of the MBG, the MBG turns around and provides the public internet facing IP to the phone.  The phone then communicates only via the public IP of the MBG, which means our signaling and audio goes out to the internet and back into the MBG.  This was not good, plus we have remote sites on MPLS, so now phones wanted to go out the internet and then back in via the internet IP of the MBG on extension to extension calls.

[dilkie]

correct... that is the downside of using the TW MBG.

I don't know what the cost is for a bare MBG with no set licenses (you don't need set licenses if sets are not behind NAT), and you could move your recording licenses over from the TW MBG.

but that's the only way I know of to get to where you want. I realize this is a nice-to-have, not giving up the voice quality of G.722.1...