WO1999026402A1

WO1999026402A1 - Echo canceller employing dual-h architecture having improved double-talk detection

Info

Publication number: WO1999026402A1
Application number: PCT/US1998/024350
Authority: WO
Inventors: Kenneth P. Laberteaux; Richard C Younce
Original assignee: Tellabs Operations, Inc.
Priority date: 1997-11-14
Filing date: 1998-11-13
Publication date: 1999-05-27
Also published as: EP1060609A1; EP1060609A4; JP2001523926A; US6266409B1; CA2307653A1; AU744396B2; CA2307653C; AU1410499A

Abstract

An echo canceller circuit (25) for use in an echo canceller system is set forth. The echo canceller circuit (25) comprises a first digital filter (35) having non-adaptive tap coefficients to simulate an echo response occurring during a call. A second digital filter (30) having adaptive tap coefficients to simulate an echo response occurring during the call is also used. The adaptive tap coefficients of the second digital filter (30) are updated over the duration of call. A coefficient transfer controller is disposed in the echo canceller circuit to transfer the adaptive tap coefficients of the second digital filter (30) to replace the tap coefficients of the first digital filter (35) when a value, E(^), is greater than a value, E(-), and, concurrently, when E(^), is greater than a value, E max. The value of E(-) corresponds to the ratio between a signal-plus-echo signal and a first echo compensated signal using the first digital filter. The value of E(^) corresponds to the ratio between the signal-plus-echo and a second echo compensated signal using the second digital filter (30). The value of E max corresponds to the largest E(^) experienced over at least a portion of the duration of the call and at which a transfer occurred.

Description

TITLE OF THE INVENTION

ECHO CANCELLER EMPLOYING DUAL-H ARCHITECTURE

HAVING IMPROVED DOUBLE-TALK DETECTION

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

The following applications, filed on even date, herewith, are incorporated by

reference: USSN , (Attorney Docket No. 11724US01); "Echo

Canceller Employing Dual-H Architecture Having Improved Coefficient Transfer" ;

USSN , (Attorney Docket No. 11999US01) "Echo Canceller Employing

Dual-H Architecture Having Improved Non-Linear Echo Path Detection" ; USSN

, (Attorney Docket No. 12000US01), "Echo Canceller Employing

Dual-H Architecture Having Variable Adaptive Gain Settings" ; USSN ,

(Attorney Docket No. 12001US01), "Echo Canceller Employing Dual-H

Architecture Having Improved Non-Linear Processor" ; USSN , (Attorney

Docket No. 12002US01), "Echo Canceller Employing Dual-H Architecture Having Split Adaptive Gain Settings. "

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH

OR DEVELOPMENT

Not Applicable BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Long distance telephone facilities usually comprise four-wire transmission

circuits between switching offices in different local exchange areas, and two- wire

circuits within each area connecting individual subscribers with the switching office.

A call between subscribers in different exchange areas is carried over a two-wire

circuit in each of the areas and a four-wire circuit between the areas, with

conversion of speech energy between the two and four-wire circuits being effected

by hybrid circuits. Ideally, the hybrid circuit input ports perfectly match the

impedances of the two and four-wire circuits, and its balanced network impedance

perfectly matches the impedance of the two-wire circuit. In this manner, the signals transmitted from one exchange area to the other will not be reflected or returned to

the one area as echo. Unfortunately, due to impedance differences which inherently

exist between different two and four-wire circuits, and because impedances must be

matched at each frequency in the voice band, it is virtually impossible for a given

hybrid circuit to perfectly match the impedances of any particular two and four-wire transmission circuit. Echo is, therefore, characteristically part of a long distance

telephone system.

Although undesirable, echo is tolerable in a telephone system so long as the

time delay in the echo path is relatively short, for example, shorter than about 40

milliseconds. However, longer echo delays can be distracting or utterly confusing

to a far end speaker, and to reduce the same to a tolerable level an echo canceller may be used toward each end of the path to cancel echo which otherwise would return to the far end speaker. As is known, echo cancellers monitor the signals on

the receive channel of a four-wire circuit and generate estimates of the actual echoes

expected to return over the transmit channel. The echo estimates are then applied to a subtractor circuit in the transmit channel to remove or at least reduce the actual

echo.

In simplest form, generation of an echo estimate comprises obtaining

individual samples of the signal on the receive channel, convolving the samples with

the impulse response of the system and then subtracting, at the appropriate time, the

resulting products or echo estimates from the actual echo on the transmit channel.

In actual practice generation of an echo estimate is not nearly so straightforward.

Transmission circuits, except those which are purely resistive, exhibit an

impulse response has amplitude and phase dispersive characteristics that are

frequency dependent, since phase shift and amplitude attenuation vary with

frequency. To this end, a suitable known technique for generating an echo estimate

contemplates manipulating representations of a plurality of samples of signals which

cause the echo and samples of impulse responses of the system through a

convolution process to obtain an echo estimate which reasonably represents the actual echo expected on the echo path. One such system is illustrated in FIG. 1.

In the system illustrated in FIG. 1, a far end signal x from a remote

telephone system is received locally at line 10. As a result of the previously noted

imperfections in the local system, a portion of the signal x is echoed back to the

remote site at line 15 along with the signal v from the local telephone system. The echo response is illustrated here as a signal s corresponding to the following

equation:

where h is the impulse response of the echo characteristics. (ADD EQUATIONS

FOR CONVOLUTION) As such, the signal sent from the near end to the far end,

absent echo cancellation, is the signal y, which is the sum of the telephone signal v

and the echo signal 5. This signal is illustrated as y at line 15 of FIG. 1.

To reduce and/or eliminate the echo signal component s from the signal y,

the system of FIG. 1 uses an echo canceller having an impulse response filter h that

is the estimate of the impulse echo response h. As such, a further signal s representing an estimate of echo signal is generated by the echo canceller in

accordance with the following equation:

s = h * x

The echo canceller subtracts the echo estimate signal y from the signal to

y generate a signal e at line 20 that is returned to the far end telephone system. The

signal e thus corresponds to the following equation: e = s + v - s « v

As such, the signal returned to the far end station is dominated by the signal v of the

near end telephone system. As the echo impulse response h more closely correlates

to the actual echo response h. then s-bar more closely approximates s and thus the magnitude of the echo signal component 5 on the signal e is more substantially

reduced. The echo impulse response model h may be replaced by an adaptive digital

filter having an impulse response h . Generally, the tap coefficients for such an

adaptive response filter are found using a technique known as Normalized Least Mean Squares adaptation.

Although such an adaptive echo canceller architecture provides the echo

canceller with the ability to readily adapt to changes in the echo path response h, it

is highly susceptible to generating sub-optimal echo cancellation responses in the

presence of "double talk" (a condition that occurs when both the speaker at the far end and the speaker at the near end are speaking concurrently as determined from the viewpoint of the echo canceller).

To reduce this sensitivity to double-talk conditions, it has been suggested to

use both a non-adaptive response and an adaptive response filter in a single echo

canceller. One such echo canceller is described in USPN 3,787,645. issued to

Ochiai et al. on January 22, 1974. Such an echo canceller is now commonly

referred to as a dual-H echo canceller.

Although the dual-H echo canceller architecture of the '645 patent provides

substantial improvements over the use of a single filter response architecture, the '645 patent is deficient in many respects and lacks certain teachings for optimizing the use of such a dual-H architecture in a practical echo canceller system. For

example, in a practical echo canceller system, a need exists to detect the presence of a double-talk condition. Such a condition exists when, for example, the near-end

party and far-end party both talk at the same time. In such instances, the echo canceller system should recognize the condition and adapt its operation accordingly.

In accordance with one such adaptation, it may be desirable to inhibit the adaptation

procedure of the adaptive digital filter until such time as the double-talk condition no

longer exists. In this manner, the adaptation process is not corrupted by the near-

end signal. The present inventors have recognized these problems associated with

the foregoing dual-H architecture and have provided a solution to the double-talk detection.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

An echo canceller circuit for use in an echo canceller system is set forth that

provides sensitive double-talk detection. The echo canceller circuit comprises a first

digital filter having non-adaptive tap coefficients to simulate an echo response

occurring during a call. A second digital filter having adaptive tap coefficients to

simulate an echo response occurring during the call is also used. The adaptive tap coefficients of the second digital filter are updated over the duration of the call. A

coefficient transfer controller is disposed in the echo canceller circuit to transfer the

adaptive tap coefficients of the second digital filter to replace the tap coefficients of the first digital filter when a set of one or more transfer conditions is met. A

double-talk detector is provided. The double-talk detector is responsive to a value

E_max occurring after lapse of a convergence time for declaring a double-talk

condition. The value E_ma corresponds to the largest E value experienced over at

least a portion of the duration of the call at which a transfer occurred. The value of

E corresponds to the ratio between the signal-plus-echo signal and a second echo compensated signal that is generated using the second digital filter.

The double-talk detector may use the value of E in a number of ways

pursuant to the double-talk detection process. For example, the double-talk detector

may the value of E_max to set a double-talk threshold value and use a comparison

between E and the double-talk threshold value to determine whether a double-talk condition exists. The double-talk detector may likewise use a comparison between

E and E_max to determine whether a double-talk condition exists. A method for detecting a double-talk condition in a dual-H echo canceller

such as the one described immediately above is also set forth. The method involves

ascertaining the value E_max after lapse of a convergence time and using the value of

E_ma to determine the existence of a double-talk condition.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS

Figure 1 is a block diagram of a conventional canceller.

Figure 2 is a schematic block diagram of an echo canceller that operates in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.

Figure 3 is a flow chart illustrating one manner of carrying out coefficient

transfers wherein the transfer conditions may be used to implement double-talk

detection in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.

Figure 4 is a flow chart illustrating a further manner of carrying out

coefficient wherein the transfer conditions may be used to implement the double-talk detection in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.

DET AILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Figure 2 illustrates one embodiment of a dual-h echo canceller suitable for

use in implementing the present invention. As illustrated, the echo canceller, shown

generally at 25 , includes both a non-adaptive filter h and an adaptive filter h to

model the echo response h. Each of the filters h and h are preferably implemented as digital finite impulse response (FIR) filters comprising a plurality of taps each

having a corresponding tap coefficient. The duration of each of the FIR filters

should be sufficient to cover the duration of the echo response of the channel in

which the echo canceller 25 is disposed.

The output of the non-adaptive filter h is available at the line 30 while the

output of the adaptive filter h is available at line 35. Each of the signals at lines 30

and 35 are subtracted from the signal-plus-echo signal of line 40 to generate echo

compensated signals at lines 50 and 55, respectively. A switch 45, preferably a

software switch, may be used to selectively provide either the output signal at the

line 50 or the output signal at line 55 to the echo canceller output at line 60.

A transfer controller 65 is used to transfer the tap coefficients of filter h to

replace the tap coefficients of filter h . As illustrated, the transfer controller 65 is connected to receive a number of system input signals. Of particular import with

respect to the present invention, the transfer controller 65 receives the signal-plus-

echo response y and each of the echo canceller signals e and e at lines 50 and 55, respectively. The transfer controller 65 is preferably implemented in the software

of one or more digital signal processors used to implement the echo canceller 25. As noted above, the art is substantially deficient of teachings with respect to

the manner in which and conditions under which a transfer of tap coefficients from

h to h is to occur. The present inventors have implemented a new process and, as

such, a new echo canceller in which tap coefficient transfers are only made by the

transfer controller 65 when selected criterion are met. The resulting echo canceller

25 has substantial advantages with respect to reduced double-talk sensitivity and

increased double-talk detection capability. Further, it ensures a monotonic

improvement in the estimates h .

The foregoing system uses a parameter known as echo-return-loss-

enhancement (ERLE) to measure and keep track of system performance. Two ERLE parameter values are used in the determination as to whether the transfer

controller 65 transfers the tap coefficients from h to h . The first parameter, E , is defined in the following manner:

E = y e

Similarly, the parameter E is defined as follows:

E = e

Each of the values E and E may also be averaged over a predetermined number of

samples to arrive at averaged E and E values used in the system for the transfer

determinations.

Figure 3 illustrates one manner of implementing the echo canceller 25 using

the parameters E and E to control tap coefficients transfers between filter h to h . As illustrated, the echo canceller 25 provides a default h set of coefficients at step

80 during the initial portions of the call. After the tap coefficients values for h

have been set, a measure of E is made at step 85 to measure the performance of the

tap coefficient values of filter h .

After the initialization sequence of steps 80 and 85, or concurrent therewith.

the echo canceller 25 begins and continues to adapt the coefficients of h to more

adequately match the echo response h of the overall system. As noted in Figure 3.

this operation occurs at step 90. Preferably, the adaptation is made using a

Normalized Least Mean Squares method, although other adaptive methods may also

be used (e.g. , LMS and RLS).

After a period of time has elapsed, preferably, a predetermined minimum

period of time, the echo canceller 25 makes a measure of E at step 95. Preferably,

this measurement is an averaged measurement. At step 100, the echo canceller 25

compares the value of E with the value of £ . If the value of E is greater than the

value of E . the tap coefficients of filter h are transferred to replace the tap

coefficients of filter h at step 105. If this criterion is not met, however, the echo

canceller 25 will continue to adapt the coefficients of the adaptive filter h at step

90, periodically measure the value of E at step 95, and make the comparison of

step 100 until the condition is met.

If the echo canceller 25 finds that E is greater than E , the above-noted

transfer takes place. Additionally, the echo canceller 25 stores the value of E as a value E_raax . The operation is depicted as step 110 of the Figure 3. The value of

£_max is thus the maximum value of ΕRLΕ that occurs over the duration of the call

and at which a transfer has taken place. This further value is used thereafter, in

addition to the E and E comparison, to control whether the tap coefficients of h

are transferred by the transfer controller 65 to replace the tap coefficients of h .

This further process is illustrated at steps 115, 120, and 125 of Figure 3. In each

instance, the tap coefficient transfer only occurs when both of the following two

conditions are met: 1) E is greater than the current E , and 2) E is greater than

any previous value of E used during the course of the call. (E is greater than

£_ma .) Each time that both criteria are met, the transfer controller 65 of echo

canceller 25 executes the tap coefficient transfer and replaces the previous E_max

value with the current E value for future comparison.

Requiring that E be greater than any E value used over the course of the

call before the coefficient transfer takes place has two beneficial and desirable

effects. First, each transfer is likely to replace the prior tap coefficients of filter h

with a better estimate of the echo path response. Second, this transfer requirement

increases the double-talk protection of the echo canceller system. Although it is

possible to have positive ΕRLΕ E during double-talk, the probability that E is

g areater than £ m_ma,x during double-talk decreases as the value of E_m πid_aλ_v increases.

Thus an undesirable coefficient transfer during double-talk becomes increasingly

unlikely as the value of E_max increases throughout the duration of the call. The echo canceller 25 may impose both an upper boundary and a lower

boundary on the value of E_max . For example, E_max may have a lower bounded

value of 6 dB and an upper bounded value of 24 dB. The purpose of the lower

bound is to prevent normal transfers during double-talk conditions. It has been

shown in simulation using speech inputs that during double-talk, a value of greater

than 6 dB ΕRLΕ was a very low probability event. The upper bound on E_max is

used to prevent a spuriously high measurement from setting E_max to a value at

which further transfers become impossible.

The value of £_max should be set to. for example, the lower bound value at

the beginning of each call. Failure to do so will prevent tap coefficient transfers on

a new call until the echo cancellation response of the echo canceller 25 on the new

call surpasses the quality of the response existing at the end of the prior call.

However, this criterion may never be met during the subsequent call Thereby

causing the echo canceller 25 to operate using sub-optimal tap coefficients values.

Resetting the E_maλ value to a lower value increases the likelihood that a tap

coefficients transfer will take place and. thereby, assists in ensuring that the h filter uses tap coefficient for echo cancellation that more closely correspond to the echo

path response of the new call.

One manner of implementing the £_ma value change is illustrated in the echo

canceller operations flow-chart of Figure 4. When all transfer conditions are met

except E greater than E_max , and this condition persists for a predetermined duration of time, the echo canceller 25 will reset the E_ma value to, for example, the lower

bound value. In the exemplary operations shown in Figure 4, the echo canceller 25

determines whether E is greater than the lower bound of E_ma at step 140 and less

than the value of E_max at step 145. If both of these condition remain true for a

predetermined period of time as determined at step 150, and all other transfer

criterion have been met, the echo canceller 25 resets the £_ma value to a lower

value, for example, the lower bound of the £_max value, at step 155. This lowering

of the E_max value increases the likelihood of a subsequent tap coefficient transfer.

Choosing values for the lower and upper bound of E_max other than 6 dB and

24 dB, respectively, is also possible in the present system. Choosing a lower bound

of E_ma smaller than 6 dB provides for a relatively prompt tap coefficient transfer

after a reset operation or a new call, but sacrifices some double-talk protection. A value greater than 6 dB, however, inhibits tap coefficient transfer for a longer

period of time, but increases the double-talk immunity of the echo canceller.

Similarly, varying the value of the predetermined wait time T before which E_max is

reset may also be used to tweak echo canceller performance. A shorter

predetermined wait time T produces faster reconvergence transfers, but may

sacrifice some double-talk immunity. The opposite is true for larger predetermined

wait time values.

A further modification of the foregoing echo canceller system relates to the

value stored as E_ma at the instant of tap coefficient transfer. Instead of setting E_max equal to the £ value at the transfer instant, E_max may be set to a value equal

to the value of E minus a constant value (e.g. , one, three, or 6 dB). At no time,

however should the E_max value be set to a value that is below the lower bound value

for E_max . Additionally, a further condition may be imposed in that a new softened

E_max is not less than the prior value of E_max . The foregoing "softening" of the

E_max value increases the number of transfers that occur and, further, provides more

decision-making weight to the condition of E being larger than £ . Further details

with respect to the operation of the echo canceller coefficient transfer process are set

forth and the co-pending patent application titled "ECHO CANCELLER HAVING

THE IMPROVED TAP COEFFICIENT TRANSFER" , (Attorney Docket No. _

) filed on even date herewith.

It is the latter of the foregoing benefits noted above in connection with the

transfer process that the present inventors have recognized can be used to implement

a Highly Sensitive Double-Talk Detector. As noted above. £_max is the ERLE of h

at the time of the most recent tap coefficient transfer. As such, £_max provides two

useful insights. First, it provides a measurement of the quality of the current h ,

regardless of the current ERLE of h . Second, the £_max value servers as an

approximation of the best ERLE experienced during the call. As noted above, it is

possible to experience a positive ERLE during double-talk. However, the difference

in the measured value of ERLE during double-talk and single talk grows larger as

the echo canceller converges to an optimized solution. That is, as the value of £_max increases, it becomes more likely that periods of time characterized by ERLE which

is equal to £_max , or even a few dB below £_max , are single talk periods.

The converse is true, however, with respect to double-talk conditions.

During double-talk conditions, the difference between the value of £_max and E

increases, despite the fact that the filter has substantially approached a convergence

condition.

The present inventors have recognized that the foregoing condition may be

utilized to implement a double-talk detector. Pursuant to the general approach

proposed by the present inventors, a double-talk detection threshold value is

calculated after a predetermined time period has elapsed to allow the echo canceller

to approach a convergence condition. This threshold value may be set in

accordance with at least two different manners. In determining the threshold value

in accordance with the first manner, the threshold value represents the maximum

value for the absolute value of the difference between the £ and £_ma values

beyond which a double-talk condition is declared. As such, if the E and £_max

value difference is greater than the value of the detection threshold value, a double-

talk condition is declared for the echo canceller and the appropriate operations for

this condition are executed. In determining the predetermined threshold value in

accordance with the second manner, the threshold value is set to directly correspond

with the £ ma ,x value, for examp -¹ le, ' several dB below the £_m πi,α_v\ value. If E value

falls below the detection threshold value after the elapse of the convergence period,

a double-talk condition is declared. Figure 5 illustrates one manner of adapting the foregoing process to the

operational flow of the coefficient transfer process of Figure 4. As illustrated, a

determination as to whether the convergence period has elapsed is made at step 200. If the period has indeed elapsed, the double-talk detector threshold value is set.

During subsequent iterations, the double-talk detector threshold value may be

updated as necessary at this step. The setting of the threshold value is preferably

done in one of the two manners set forth above. At step 210, a determination is

made as to whether a double-talk condition exists based the double-talk detection

threshold value. The manner in which the double-talk detection occurs at step 210

is dependent on the manner in which the detection threshold value was set at step

200. As such, step 210 may comprise a comparison of the E value to the detector

threshold value. Alternatively, step 210 may comprise a comparison of a difference

value between the £ and £_max values to the detector threshold value. If a double-

talk condition does not exist, the coefficient transfer process operations continue in

the manner set forth in connection with the embodiment of Figure 4. If a double-

talk condition exists, this condition is declared to other portions of the echo

canceller 25 at step 215. Further, the echo canceller 25 preferably prevents further

h adaptations and h transfers to h . However, the h adaptations may continue

without further transfers until such time as the h coefficients converge

approximately to the h coefficients solution. Such re-convergence may be used to signal the end of the double-talk condition. Alternatively, a double-talk condition may be declared as non-existent merely after a predetermined period of time has

elapsed.

As will be readily recognized, the echo canceller of the present invention

may be implemented in a wide range of manners. Preferably, the echo canceller

system is implemented using one or more digital signal processors to carry out the

filter and transfer operations. Digital-to-analog conversions of various signals are

carried out in accordance with known techniques for use by the digital signal

processors.

Numerous modifications may be made to the foregoing system without

departing from the basic teachings thereof. Although the present invention has been

described in substantial detail with reference to one or more specific embodiments,

those of skill in the art will recognize that changes may be made thereto without

departing from the scope and spirit of the invention as set forth in the appended

claims.

Claims

1. An echo canceller circuit comprising:

a first digital filter having non-adaptive tap coefficients to simulate an echo

response occurring during a call;

a second digital filter having adaptive tap coefficients to simulate an echo

response occurring during the call, the adaptive tap coefficients being

updated during the call;

a coefficient transfer controller disposed to transfer the adaptive tap

coefficients of the second digital filter to replace the tap coefficients of the first digital filter when a set of one or more predetermined

conditions exists; and

a double-talk detector, responsive to a value ┬ú_max after elapse of a

convergence time, for declaring a double-talk condition, wherein

┬ú_max corresponds to the largest ┬ú value, experienced over at least a

portion of the duration of the call at which a transfer occurred, and

┬ú corresponds to the ratio between the signal-plus-echo signal and a

second echo compensated signal using the second digital filter.

2. An echo canceller circuit as claimed in claim 1 wherein the double-talk

detector uses the value of _v to set a double-talk threshold value.

3. An echo canceller circuit as claimed in claim 2 wherein the double-talk

detector declares a double-talk condition when the value of ┬ú is greater than the double-talk threshold value.

4. An echo canceller circuit as claimed in claim 1 wherein the double-talk

detector declares a double-talk condition when a difference value between ┬ú

and E ΓÇ₧ exceeds a threshold value.

5. An echo canceller circuit as claimed in claim 1 wherein the double-talk

detector uses a comparison between E and ┬ú_max to determine whether a

double-talk condition exists.

6. An echo canceller circuit as claimed in claim 2 wherein the double-talk

detector uses a comparison between ┬ú and the double-talk threshold value to determine whether a double-talk condition exists.

7. An echo canceller circuit as claimed in claim 1 wherein the coefficient

transfer controller transfers the adaptive tap coefficients of the second digital

filter to replace the tap coefficients of the first digital filter when ┬ú is

greater than ┬ú and, concurrently. ┬ú is greater than ┬ú_max , wherein ┬ú

corresponds to the ratio between a signal-plus-echo signal and a first echo compensated signal using the first digital filter.

8. An echo canceller circuit as claimed in claim 1 and further comprising:

a first summer circuit for subtracting a filtered output signal of the first

digital filter from the signal-plus-echo signal to generate the first echo

compensated signal; and

a second summer circuit for subtracting a filtered output signal of the second

digital filter from the signal-plus-echo signal to generate the second

echo compensated signal.

9. An echo canceller as claimed in claim 8 and further comprising a switch for

selectively providing either the first echo compensated signal or the second

echo compensated signal to an output of an echo canceller.

10. An echo canceller comprising:

at least one input for receiving a far-end signal of a call;

at least one input for receiving a signal-plus-echo signal of the call, the

signal-plus-echo signal having a signal component corresponding to

an echo response of a transmission medium carrying the call;

a first digital filter receiving the far-end signal and having non-adaptive tap

coefficients to simulate the echo response;

a summer circuit for subtracting the filtered far-end output signal of the first

digital filter from the signal-plus-echo signal to generate an echo

compensated signal for transmission to a far-end; a second digital filter receiving the far-end signal and having adaptive tap

coefficients to simulate the echo response, the adaptive tap

coefficients being updated during the call;

a coefficient transfer controller disposed to transfer the adaptive tap

coefficients of the second digital filter to replace the tap coefficients

of the first digital filter when a set of one or more conditions are met;

and

a double-talk detector, responsive to a value ┬ú_max after elapse of a

convergence time, for declaring a double-talk condition, wherein

E_max corresponds to the largest E value, experienced over at least a

portion of the duration of the call at which a transfer occurred, and

┬ú corresponds to the ratio between the signal-plus-echo signal and a

second echo compensated signal using the second digital filter.

11. An echo canceller as claimed in claim 10 wherein the double-talk detector

uses the value of ┬ú_max to set a double-talk threshold value.

12. An echo canceller as claimed in claim 11 wherein the double-talk detector

declares a double-talk condition when the value of ┬ú is greater than the

double-talk threshold value.

13. An echo canceller as claimed in claim 10 wherein the double-talk detector

declares a double-talk condition when a difference value between ┬ú and

┬ú_max exceeds a threshold value.

14. An echo canceller as claimed in claim 10 wherein the double-talk detector

uses a comparison between ┬ú and ┬ú_ma to determine whether a double-talk

condition exists.

15. An echo canceller as claimed in claim 11 consists wherein the double-talk

16. An echo canceller as claimed in claim 10 wherein the coefficient transfer

controller transfers the adaptive tap coefficients of the second digital filter to

replace the tap coefficients of the first digital filter when ┬ú is greater than

┬ú and, concurrently, ┬ú is greater than ┬ú_max , wherein ┬ú corresponds to

the ratio between a signal-plus-echo signal and a first echo compensated

signal using the first digital filter.

17. A method for detecting a double-talk condition in a dual-H echo canceller

having an adaptive digital filter, a non-adaptive digital filter and a transfer

circuit for transferring both tap coefficients of the adaptive digital filter to replace tap coefficients of the non-adaptive digital filter upon occurrence of a

set of one or more conditions, the method comprising the steps of:

ascertaining a value E_max after elapse of a convergence time, wherein E_max

corresponds to the largest ┬ú value experienced over at least a portion

of the duration of the call at which a coefficient transfer occurred,

and ┬ú corresponds to the ratio between a signal-plus-echo signal and an echo compensated signal using the adaptive digital filter;

using the value of ┬ú_ma to determine the existence of a double-talk condition.

18. A method as claimed in claim 17 wherein the step of using the E_max value is

further defined by using the value of ┬ú_max to set a double-talk threshold

value.

19. A method as claimed in claim 18 and further comprising the step of

declaring the existence of a double-talk condition when the value of ┬ú is greater than the double-talk threshold value.

20. A method as claimed in claim 17 and further comprising the step of

declaring the existence of a double-talk condition when a difference value

between ┬ú and ┬ú _v exceeds a threshold value.

21. A method as claimed in claim 17 wherein the step of using the E_max value is

further defined by using a comparison between ┬ú and ┬ú_max to determine

whether a double-talk condition exists.

22. A method as claimed in claim 17 wherein the step of using the ┬ú_max value is

further defined by using a comparison between ┬ú and the double-talk threshold value to determine whether a double-talk condition exists.

23. An echo canceller circuit as claimed in claim 1 wherein the value of ┬ú is an averaged value.

24. An echo canceller circuit as claimed in claim 1 wherein the value of ┬ú is an

averaged value.

25. An echo canceller as claimed in claim 10 wherein the value of ┬ú is an

averaged value.

26. An echo canceller as claimed in claim 10 wherein the value of ┬ú is an

averaged value.

27. A method as claimed in claim 17 wherein the value of ┬ú is an averaged value.

28. A method as claimed in claim 17 wherein the value of ┬ú is an averaged value.