WHITE PAPER

Echo in the PSTN – What is the

Worst Case?

Gordon J. Reesor

July 2003
 ZARLINK SEMICONDUCTOR INC.
Echo in the PSTN
1

Echo cancellers are widely used today in the PSTN (public switched telephone network) to
remove echo, which otherwise would cause a catastrophic quality problem for voice calls. The
human ear is increasingly sensitive to echo as the delay of the echo is increased, therefore
echo cancellers traditionally were deployed on circuits with more than a certain amount of
round-trip delay, for example 20 ms (milliseconds). In addition, an echo transfer function itself
has a dispersion time: a decaying function in amplitude with time. This is commonly called an
“echo tail”. Echo canceller devices are usually designed to deal with a maximum amount of
echo tail length, and thus have an “echo tail capacity”.

Two question are often asked: “What is the worst case echo tail length seen in the PSTN?” and
“What is the worst case dispersion time of an echo path?” These questions are important to
network providers, echo canceller designers, and manufacturers.

The key source of echo in the PSTN is the 2-wire/4-wire (2W/4W) hybrid circuit used on
subscriber access line cards. Network architects often assume that the echo dispersion
introduced by these circuits is fairly limited, rarely exceeding about 12 ms. As a result, many of
today’s echo cancellation chips, particularly those based on commercial DSPs (digital signal
processors), have only enough computational resources to handle limited dispersions.

However, many common situations – such as multi-party conference calls and other PBX
(private branch exchange) call configurations – generate longer echo tails. In these instances,
low cost DSP-based echo cancellers can fail to do the job, and voice quality will deteriorate.

The only way to truly guarantee voice quality in the variable global PSTN environment is by
using echo cancellers equipped to handle a full-length echo tail. These devices have fully
populated adaptive filter coefficients and are capable of canceling echo tails with long
dispersions. Called “full-tail” or “full-band” echo cancellation chips, these devices do not exploit
opportunities for complexity reduction, i.e. limited dispersion length capacity.
 ZARLINK SEMICONDUCTOR INC.
Echo in the PSTN
2

Cutting corners – windowed adaptive filtering

Most echo cancellers with reduced computational capabilities use a technique called windowed
adaptive filtering, basically the adaptation of reduced regions of a long FIR (finite impulse
response) filter to reduce computational load. To understand why some designers assume that
windowed adaptive filtering is adequate, let’s review the operation of a basic echo canceller,
illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Typical Echo Canceller and Hybrid circuit

The source of the echo is the hybrid circuit in the 2W/4W interface. The impulse response of a
typical hybrid has a dispersion time of only 4-5 ms. The echo canceller uses a FIR filter to
synthesize a replica of the echo signal and subtract it from the “send” input. A convergence
algorithm is applied to adapt the filter coefficients to optimally cancel echo. Ideally, the tap
weights of the echo canceller match the impulse response of the true echo path. The main
assumption behind windowed adaptive filtering is that most echo paths require very few of the
filter coefficients to be non-zero.

The PSTN reality is somewhat different. Tandem connections of hybrid circuits in 2W/4W
circuits often form an impulse response with a longer echo tail – a convolution of multiple echo
transfer functions. Additionally, network delays, the duration of which are largely unknown
before each call, add to the length of the echo tail that must be cancelled. Large delays between
 ZARLINK SEMICONDUCTOR INC.
Echo in the PSTN
3

hybrid circuits can cause multiple reflectors that are distinctly separate, although this is rare.
Multi-party conference calls, and calls transferred through multiple PBXs without automatic re-
routing functions, can also easily generate longer echo tails.

All conditions considered, the worst-case echo tail capacity needed for a network echo canceller
is approximately 128 ms; however, this is network dependent, and many networks do not
require more than 64 ms.

Figure 2: Example of an echo path response and corresponding regions of active filter
coefficients

Figure 2 shows an echo path response with two distinct reflectors, and the corresponding
regions where active tap weights have been identified. Clearly, a large percentage of the
coefficients should be zero-valued.

There is a temptation to make a design trade-off, where for any given channel, only a fixed
percentage of the maximum number of possible tap weights is active. For example, a seemingly
reasonable choice might be 20%, or about 200 of 1,024 coefficients. The simplified echo
canceller design would then be equipped with the means to identify the locations of the required
active tap values, followed by the adaptation of these coefficients as quickly as possible.
 ZARLINK SEMICONDUCTOR INC.
Echo in the PSTN
4

However, design simplifications of this nature can result in un-cancelled echo becoming audible
to subscribers, and thus may not be a good choice.

Echo challenge: the multi-party conference call

Figure 3 illustrates one scenario – a six-party PBX conference bridge – where the windowed
adaptive filtering technique would prove inadequate.

Figure 3: Network connections in a six-party conference call

The PBX on the right side of Figure 3 serves as the conference bridge. Party #6 is located on an
internal line of that PBX, and the other five parties are linked in through the PSTN. Parties #1,
#2, and #4 are connected through PBXs at other sites, party #3 is on a subscriber loop, and
party #5, calling from a cell phone, is connected through a cellular network.
 ZARLINK SEMICONDUCTOR INC.
Echo in the PSTN
5

An echo canceller must be installed at the MSC (Mobile Switching Center) to prevent PSTN
echo from entering the mobile network. The PBXs in this example are traditional TDM switches,
not IP PBXs, and do not have echo cancellers.

The PBX providing the conference bridge digitally sums together the signals from the six
parties, subtracting each party’s own signal from the return path. This is typical. All phones in
the conference except the cell phone are analog sets connected to a 2-wire analog line circuit.
The PBX serving party #1 is also connected to the PSTN via an analog trunk, also typical. The
ERL (echo return loss) of the 2W/4W circuits are representative of those seen in many PBXs.
All PSTN circuits are assumed to be 4-wire digital circuits, with losses of about 6 dB (decibels),
and end-to-end delays of between 2 ms and 18 ms.

Figure 4: Echo response from six-party conference call, measured at MSC interface

Figure #4 shows the resulting echo tail produced by the conferenced parties, measured at the
interface to the MSC. The echo response shows an initial flat delay of about 10 ms, due to delay
between the MSC and the PBX with the conference bridge. The peaks after that reflect several
delayed and combined echo responses from the different party’s hybrids. The response is thus
highly dependent upon the ERL values of the hybrid circuits, as well as on the delay through the
 ZARLINK SEMICONDUCTOR INC.
Echo in the PSTN
6

PSTN. An echo canceller that is not equipped to handle this many active filter coefficients would
be unable to properly cancel this echo response.

Full-tail capacity echo cancellers deliver better quality

In conclusion, common, everyday call configurations – such as PBX-bridged audio conferences
– can generate echo path responses with high numbers of active filter coefficients. Moreover, if
there are large network delays for one or more parties through the PSTN, echo path responses
can span up to 128 ms.

Next-generation networks (packet-switched networks, and wireless networks) that are coupled
to the PSTN via Gateways and other equipment, add significant extra delays to phone calls.
This is due to packetization and compression functions, forcing all connections to need echo
cancellation. Echo canceller performance has thus become more important than ever, as echo
removal is critical before large packet network delays are added to the round trip delay of a
voice call. Echo cancellation is a key function performed by Gateway equipment, which removes
echo in the circuit-switched network before transporting over the packet network. The increased
reliance upon Gateway echo canceller performance makes the question of worst-case PSTN
echo more significant than ever.

The most commonly referenced International standard for echo cancellation is ITU-T G.168.
This standard provides recommendations for echo canceller performance for application of
network echo cancellers to network equipment such as Mobile Switching Centres and Access or
Trunking Gateways.

However, ITU G.168 contains no guideline for the requirement of Echo Tail Capacity. Individual
service providers usually provision this feature for the particular needs for their network. ITU-T
G.168 also does not offer any particular recommendation for the ability of any network echo
canceller to deal with echo paths that have long dispersion, such as those presented in this
article. G.168 does recommend that up to 3 separate echo tail reflections should be provided,
and it details a set of 8 hybrid path models to test against. G.168-2002 Appendix II.5 concludes
that the worst-case dispersion time of a hybrid will usually be less than 12ms. In G.168-2002
appendix III, there is a discussion of multiple-tail circuits due to bridged PBX calls, but the worst
case echo path estimates are not provided for these configurations.
 ZARLINK SEMICONDUCTOR INC.
Echo in the PSTN
7

To ensure that next-generation networks provide quality of service comparable to today’s PSTN,
and that subscribers do not hear annoying echoes when making calls, network equipment
manufacturers should use echo cancellers with sufficient echo tail capacity, and these
cancellers should provide “full-tail” dispersion capability.