Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Companding

Companding, a portmanteau of "" and "," is a technique that mitigates the effects of limited in communication channels by compressing the amplitude of an prior to quantization and , then expanding it upon reception to approximate the original . This process is essential for efficient transmission of signals like speech, which exhibit a wide spanning over 40 or more, allowing uniform quantization steps to allocate more resolution to quieter signals while compressing louder ones logarithmically. By employing nonlinear quantization, companding improves the signal-to-quantization ratio (SQNR) for low-amplitude signals without increasing the number of bits per sample, typically reducing from 12-16 bits to 8 bits in (PCM) systems. The concept of companding originated in the 1920s, with its first patent for an analog picture transmission system filed in 1925 and issued in 1928 to Alva B. Clark of , aiming to adaptively handle varying signal amplitudes in early image transmission. Over the following decades, it evolved into a cornerstone of , particularly for , where it enables the transmission of voice over band-limited channels like the 4 kHz used in networks. In modern standards, companding is defined by the G.711 recommendation, which specifies two primary algorithms: μ-law (mu-law), predominant in and with a compression μ = 255 for slightly better signal-to-noise performance, and A-law, used in and international systems with A = 87.6, offering a broader at the cost of minor low-level . These logarithmic companding laws approximate the nonlinear response of the human ear, ensuring that quantization remains perceptually uniform across levels, and are implemented via piecewise linear segments or lookup tables in digital systems. Beyond , companding finds applications in audio recording, wireless microphones, and data compression for , where it balances efficiency with . Despite its age, companding remains relevant in legacy and embedded systems, though newer codecs like often supersede it for higher-quality .

Overview

Definition and Purpose

Companding is a technique derived from the portmanteau of "" and "," employed to compress the dynamic range of an analog signal at the transmitter before quantization and subsequently expand it at the receiver to restore an approximation of the original . This method effectively transforms a nonuniform quantization process into an equivalent uniform one after expansion, optimizing the representation of the signal in form. The core purpose of companding lies in mitigating quantization noise within (PCM) systems, particularly by allocating a greater proportion of quantization levels to lower-amplitude signal components that are inherently more vulnerable to noise distortion. This approach enhances the overall , allowing wide signals—such as speech spanning about 40 dB—to be transmitted efficiently across channels constrained by limited and . In voice communication scenarios, for instance, companding safeguards against in intense speech elements like shouting while maintaining clarity for subtle sounds such as whispers, ensuring perceptual uniformity across varying input levels.

Basic Principles

Companding operates by compressing the of an input at the transmitter and subsequently expanding it at the , enabling efficient over channels with constrained capabilities. The typical signal flow begins with the analog input, which is fed into a that applies a nonlinear to attenuate larger amplitudes more aggressively than smaller ones, thereby compressing the overall range and allocating more relative to quieter signal components. This compressed signal then undergoes uniform quantization and encoding before . At the receiving end, after decoding, the signal passes through an expander that inverts the to recover the original , yielding an output that approximates the input signal. The functions as a nonlinear that warps the signal's distribution, preferentially boosting the relative scale of weak samples while suppressing strong ones, which reduces the effective step sizes for low-level signals during subsequent quantization. This process effectively achieves nonuniform without requiring a complex quantizer, as the nonlinearity preconditions the signal for uniform steps. Conversely, the expander serves as the inverse counterpart, applying a complementary nonlinear transformation to counteract the , thereby restoring the relationships and minimizing in the reconstructed signal. Together, the and expander form a compandor that enhances overall by concentrating quantization resources where they are most needed. A core principle of companding is the use of a logarithmic-like nonlinearity, which mirrors the perceptual scaling of human hearing by emphasizing differences in low-amplitude regions over high ones. Human auditory perception follows a roughly logarithmic relationship between physical and subjective sensation, as encapsulated in the Weber-Fechner law, motivating companding to make quantization errors less noticeable to listeners, particularly for subtle speech elements. In contrast to linear processing, which maintains constant gain across all amplitudes and thus amplifies quantization noise proportionally—making it more prominent in quiet signals—companding deliberately distorts the scale to equalize noise perceptibility. Linear amplification preserves amplitude ratios but fails to address the heightened audibility of noise at low levels, whereas companding's warping improves the for weaker components without expanding the transmission . This approach is particularly beneficial in bandwidth-limited systems, where uniform linear quantization would otherwise degrade performance for signals with wide dynamic ranges.

Mathematical Foundations

Compression Process

The compression process in companding applies a non-linear transformation to the input signal to diminish its before quantization, enabling more efficient representation with fewer bits while preserving perceptual quality. For μ-law companding, the mathematical formulation for the compression function is given by F(x) = \sgn(x) \cdot \frac{\ln\left(1 + \mu \cdot \frac{|x|}{|x_{\max}|}\right)}{\ln(1 + \mu)}, where x is the input signal, |x_{\max}| is the peak (often normalized to 1), and \mu > 0 is the compression parameter controlling the degree of non-linearity (typically μ = 255). This logarithmic transformation derives from the need to allocate more quantization levels to lower-amplitude signals, which are perceptually more important in applications like speech. For small |x|, the function approximates a linear response with a steep initial slope of approximately \mu / \ln(1 + \mu), but as |x| increases, the slope decreases, compressing higher amplitudes more severely relative to lower ones. This uneven compression allows uniform quantization to cover a wider effective input range without excessive noise in quiet passages. The compressed output y = F(x) is then subjected to uniform quantization, typically into 256 levels for 8-bit representation, which translates to non-uniform steps in the original signal domain. Because the compression mapping expands the lower end of the , small input signals receive finer effective resolution, minimizing quantization error where is most critical. In practical digital systems, the smooth logarithmic curve of F(x) is approximated by linear segments to enable low-complexity or software , often using 8 linear sections aligned with the quantization intervals for . The resulting of y = F(x) resembles an S-shaped curve: nearly linear near x = 0 to preserve detail in quiet signals, then progressively flattening toward |x_{\max}| to suppress peaks and prevent clipping. For A-law companding, the compression is defined piecewise: F(x) = \sgn(x) \frac{A \frac{|x|}{|x_{\max}|}}{1 + \ln A} \quad \text{for} \quad 0 \leq |x| \leq \frac{1}{1 + \ln A}, F(x) = \sgn(x) \frac{1 + \ln \left( A \frac{|x|}{|x_{\max}|} \right)}{1 + \ln A} \quad \text{for} \quad \frac{1}{1 + \ln A} < |x| \leq 1, with A = 87.6, providing a hybrid linear-logarithmic response.

Expansion Process

The expansion process in companding serves as the inverse operation to compression, reconstructing the original signal's dynamic range from the compressed and quantized representation. The expander applies a nonlinear transformation to the input y, which is the output of the quantizer, to recover an approximation of the original signal x. For μ-law companding, the continuous expansion function is given by G(y) = \operatorname{sgn}(y) \cdot \frac{|y_{\max}|}{\mu} \left[ (1 + \mu)^{|y| / |y_{\max}|} - 1 \right], where \operatorname{sgn}(y) denotes the sign function, |y_{\max}| is the maximum magnitude of the compressed signal (often normalized to 1), and \mu is the compression parameter (typically 255). This formula ensures that small input values are amplified more aggressively than large ones, restoring the signal's amplitude distribution. For A-law, the expansion is the inverse piecewise function matching the compression. During expansion, quantization noise introduced in the compressed domain can be amplified, particularly for low-amplitude signals, as the expander boosts these regions to match the original . However, the overall (SNR) improves because the pre-compression step allocates finer quantization steps to weaker signals, resulting in an effective increase of approximately 33 dB compared to linear 8-bit quantization. This trade-off prioritizes perceptual quality in applications like speech, where low-level details are critical. Expanders can be implemented in analog or digital domains. Analog expanders often employ diode-based circuits or logarithmic amplifiers configured for exponential response, using feedback paths with diodes to approximate the anti-logarithmic curve for real-time signal recovery. In contrast, digital expanders typically use lookup tables mapping quantized codes to linear output values or algorithmic computations for efficiency, requiring minimal cycles (e.g., 3-13 per sample) on processors like DSPs but potentially more memory for tables. Precise matching between the compressor's and expander's parameters, such as \mu and scaling factors, is essential to prevent mismatch distortion, which arises from incomplete inversion and introduces nonlinear artifacts like "breathing" or tonal shifts in the reconstructed signal. The full round-trip process yields x \approx G(F(x)), where F denotes compression, achieving near-perfect recovery for unquantized signals within the valid range but with residual error due to quantization steps.

Types of Companding

μ-law Companding

μ-law companding is a logarithmic algorithm standardized for use in and , primarily in systems to encode 8-bit (PCM) signals. It applies a nonlinear transformation to the input signal, compressing the to allocate more quantization levels to lower-amplitude signals, which improves for speech. The standard parameter is μ = 255, which provides a compression factor that emphasizes low-level signals more strongly due to the higher value of μ. The compression function for μ-law is given by F(x) = \operatorname{sgn}(x) \cdot \frac{\ln(1 + 255 |x|)}{\ln(256)}, where x is the normalized input signal in the range [-1, 1], \operatorname{sgn}(x) is the , and the output is also normalized to [-1, 1]. This piecewise linear approximation divides the signal range into 8 , each containing 16 segments, resulting in 256 total quantization levels for 8-bit encoding. The chord boundaries increase exponentially, with each subsequent covering a range twice as large as the previous one, allowing finer for smaller signals. In the encoding process, the 8-bit codeword consists of 1 , 3 bits for the number, and 4 bits for the (step) within the ; the is inverted (complemented) before to ensure the all-zero represents . For example, a small negative signal like -2460 (in a 14-bit linear ) is biased and mapped to a compressed of E3 in , which is then inverted to 1C for , demonstrating how low-amplitude receive precise step sizes relative to their range. This structure ensures that small signals, such as quiet speech, are quantized with smaller steps compared to larger signals, enhancing overall perceptual quality.

A-law Companding

A-law companding is a logarithmic technique standardized in Recommendation for use in European and international systems. It employs a A = 87.6, providing a balance between optimization and signal fidelity. The function F(x) for a normalized input signal x (where -1 \leq x \leq 1) is defined to achieve this logarithmic behavior: F(x) = \begin{cases} \text{sgn}(x) \cdot \dfrac{A |x|}{1 + \ln A} & 0 \leq |x| < \dfrac{1}{A} \\ \text{sgn}(x) \cdot \dfrac{1 + \ln (A |x|)}{1 + \ln A} & \dfrac{1}{A} \leq |x| \leq 1 \end{cases} This formula ensures a linear response for small signals and a logarithmic curve for larger ones, with the output normalized to the range [-1, 1]. In the encoding scheme, A-law quantization uses a structure of 8 chords, each divided into 16 s, yielding 256 total levels (128 positive and 128 negative), with the first chord providing quantization. This arrangement allocates more resolution to low-amplitude signals through enhanced in the initial , resulting in less aggressive than μ-law. Compared to μ-law, A-law exhibits a smoother curve, offering a broader at the cost of higher at low levels. For interoperability in international calls between A-law and μ-law regions, G.711 provides conversion tables in Appendix I to map equivalent quantization levels between the two standards without significant loss.

Applications

Telecommunications

Companding is a fundamental technique in for optimizing voice signal transmission in both legacy and modern networks. In the (PSTN), it is standardized within the G.711 , which employs (PCM) at 64 kbps to deliver toll-quality audio over a 4 kHz suitable for speech. This enables efficient digitization of analog voice signals while preserving perceptual quality across vast telephony infrastructures. In carrier systems, companding facilitates regional standards for multiple channels. North American T1 systems utilize μ-law companding with 8-bit encoding per sample to compress and transmit up to 24 channels at 1.544 Mbps, while European E1 systems apply A-law companding for 30 channels at 2.048 Mbps, ensuring compatibility with local analog interfaces. Within switching systems, such as private branch exchanges (PBX) and central offices, companding occurs at the endpoints during analog-to- , allowing seamless handling of traffic in analog- environments and minimizing in switched connections. Contemporary adaptations extend companding's utility into packet-based networks. In (VoIP) implementations using protocols like , companding preprocesses audio signals to interface with advanced codecs such as , supporting high-fidelity transmission while ensuring interoperability. Similarly, 5G networks incorporate legacy support through (IMS) interworking with PSTN, where companding bridges modern all-IP architectures to traditional circuit-switched systems for uninterrupted voice services. By nonlinearly allocating quantization levels, companding enhances signal robustness in , particularly reducing and quantization noise in long-haul lines susceptible to cumulative impairments. This results in an effective of 12-15 bits from 8-bit PCM encoding, equivalent to a improvement of 24-30 dB for low-level signals, thereby maintaining clarity over extended distances.

Audio Processing

In analog audio recording, companding techniques were employed in noise reduction systems to prevent overload distortion and extend dynamic range on media with limited headroom, such as cassette tapes and vinyl records. For cassette tapes, systems like dbx Type II applied 2:1 compression during recording to boost low-level signals and reduce tape hiss, followed by 1:2 expansion on playback to restore the original dynamics while suppressing noise. Similarly, dbx-encoded vinyl records from the late 1970s and early 1980s used this companding process during mastering to minimize surface noise and achieve up to 90 dB of signal-to-noise ratio, requiring a compatible expander during playback to avoid muffled sound. These methods allowed recordings to utilize the full dynamic capability of the medium without introducing clipping or excessive distortion. A notable example is the Dolby A system, a professional companding processor widely used in studio tape recording from the onward. It operated across four overlapping bands with a sliding starting at -40 and a 2:1 , providing up to 10 of broad-spectrum and 15 in the high frequencies, enabling multitrack analog sessions to maintain clarity and headroom during mixing. Expanders in the playback chain reversed the process, ensuring faithful reproduction without artifacts when properly calibrated. In digital audio environments, such as WAV or AIFF files and digital audio workstations (DAWs), companding is emulated through plugins and processing chains to replicate the "warmth" of analog tape, including subtle compression that tames transients and adds harmonic saturation for headroom management in multitrack mixing. These emulations, often modeled after historic tape machines, apply soft-knee compression ratios around 2:1 to simulate overload characteristics, enhancing perceived depth in genres like rock and jazz without altering the linear digital domain. For instance, tools like tape saturation plugins insert companding-like effects post-tracking to mimic analog behavior, preserving creative flexibility while avoiding digital harshness. In contexts beyond , companding facilitated efficient transmission in radio and audio by fitting wide-dynamic-range signals into constrained spectra, as seen in dbx systems that compressed audio 2:1 for broadcast and expanded it at receivers to improve signal-to-noise ratios up to 60 dB. sound systems similarly employed companding to reduce deviation while maintaining audio quality, allowing 10 kHz signals to operate within limited frequencies for vehicular and portable . Companding is also used in wireless microphone systems to improve audio quality over RF transmission. For example, Shure's Audio Reference Companding compresses the before transmission and expands it at the receiver, reducing compander artifacts and noise, resulting in clearer sound with a lower and greater comparable to wired microphones. In modern streaming services like and , control (DRC) applies multiband with ratios of 2:1 to 4:1 to normalize to -14 for and -16 for , optimizing playback on mobile devices and preventing clipping. This technique shares the reduction aspect of companding's compression phase but lacks the step. Similarly, in podcasting, DRC ensures consistent across episodes during mobile listening by stabilizing .

Advantages and Limitations

Benefits

Companding significantly enhances noise performance in , particularly for low-level signals, by compressing the prior to quantization, which reduces the relative impact of quantization error after expansion. This results in a (SNR) improvement of 20-30 dB for weak signals compared to uniform quantization, as the noise is effectively shaped to be less perceptible in quieter portions of the audio spectrum. In terms of bandwidth efficiency, companding enables 8-bit (PCM) systems to achieve fidelity comparable to 12-13 bit linear quantization, thereby reducing transmission bit rates by approximately 33-50% without substantial loss in perceived quality for applications like . For instance, with μ=255 in μ-law companding, the effective expands from about 48 in uniform 8-bit quantization to 78 post-expansion, allowing efficient use of limited while maintaining adequate resolution across the signal's amplitude range. The technique also provides perceptual matching to human hearing, which follows a roughly logarithmic response to amplitude changes, thereby minimizing audible distortion in speech and music by allocating more quantization levels to lower amplitudes where the ear is more sensitive. This alignment reduces perceived quantization artifacts, enhancing overall audio fidelity in resource-constrained environments. Additionally, companding contributes to cost savings by permitting the use of simpler, lower-resolution analog-to-digital (A/D) converters and transmission channels, avoiding the need for higher-bit-depth linear processing or floating-point arithmetic in hardware implementations. This approach lowers both hardware complexity and operational expenses in large-scale systems like telecommunications networks.

Drawbacks and Alternatives

Companding systems are susceptible to overload when input signals exceed the of the , leading to clipping and nonlinear in the reconstructed audio. This occurs because the compression curve cannot accommodate peaks beyond its designed range, resulting in irreversible loss of signal upon expansion. A mismatch between the and expander characteristics can introduce artifacts, where subtle variations in low-level signals cause audible pumping or effects, particularly noticeable during quiet passages or transitions in speech. These artifacts arise from imperfect inverse matching in analog implementations, amplifying minor discrepancies in the signal path. Companding is optimized for speech signals with their characteristic dynamic range and spectral content, but it performs less ideally for , where wide bands and transient peaks can exacerbate and reduce perceived quality compared to linear encoding methods. Modern alternatives to companding include floating-point encoding, such as 24-bit linear PCM, which provides a wider without , making it suitable for high-fidelity audio applications where artifacts must be minimized. Adaptive differential pulse code modulation (ADPCM) offers a bit-rate-efficient option for at lower rates than standard PCM, predicting signal differences to reduce without relying on companding, though it introduces prediction errors in highly signals. In perceptual audio coders like and , (DRC) is applied through psychoacoustic models that discard inaudible components, achieving higher efficiency without a true expansion step, unlike traditional companding. Compared to uniform quantization, companding improves low-level SNR by allocating more levels to smaller signals but adds ; uniform quantization is simpler yet yields poorer SNR for weak inputs due to equal step sizes. Perceptual coding in outperforms both in efficiency for , delivering better quality at equivalent through frequency-domain modeling rather than time-domain companding. While companding persists in legacy telecommunications systems like G.711 for compatibility, it has largely been replaced in modern wireless standards such as LTE, which employ advanced speech codecs like EVS and AMR-WB to avoid associated distortions.

History

Early Development

The concept of companding originated in the analog domain in the 1920s, with the first patent for a volume compression and expansion system in picture transmission filed in 1925 and issued in 1928 to Alva B. Clark of . This early work aimed to handle varying signal amplitudes adaptively in image transmission systems. Companding emerged as a key technique within (PCM), which was invented by Harley Reeves in 1937 while working at the Paris laboratory of International and Telegraph. Reeves proposed PCM to digitally encode analog signals like speech into binary pulses, addressing limitations in analog transmission such as accumulation over distance. Although Reeves' initial work focused on uniform quantization, the integration of logarithmic compression—essential for efficient voice representation—was conceptualized to allocate more quantization levels to lower amplitudes where human hearing is most sensitive. Practical development of companding accelerated in the 1940s at Bell Laboratories in the United States, driven by World War II demands for secure and reliable communications in telephony and radar systems. The need to mitigate signal-to-noise degradation in long-haul links, including experimental transatlantic cable and radio systems, motivated the technique's refinement to enable higher channel capacity without excessive bandwidth. Reeves' ideas, patented in the U.S. as No. 2,272,070 in 1942 (filed 1939), laid the groundwork, but Bell Labs engineers adapted them for real-world implementation. Key contributors at included Bernard M. Oliver, who advanced PCM theory alongside and . Their collaborative work demonstrated the feasibility of PCM for voice transmission. The first prototype incorporating logarithmic companding was the system, operational in 1943, which used vacuum-tube circuits to compress speech signals before PCM encoding in experimental links between Washington, D.C., and . This system employed a channel vocoder with 12 channels quantized to 6 levels each, sampled at 50 Hz, proving companding's effectiveness for wartime secrecy. Prior to companding, linear PCM required 10-12 bits per sample to achieve acceptable telephone-quality speech, demanding prohibitive and equipment costs for multi-channel systems. Companding reduced this to 7-8 bits by nonlinearly compressing the , concentrating resolution where signal power is highest in typical voice patterns, thus making PCM viable for practical deployment.

Standardization and Evolution

The (ITU), through its predecessor the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT), formalized companding standards with Recommendation in 1972, defining both μ-law and A-law algorithms for of voice frequencies in international networks. This recommendation established 8-bit logarithmic encoding at an 8 kHz sampling rate to ensure compatibility across global systems, with μ-law optimized for North American and networks and A-law for ones. Subsequent CCITT updates in the refined these for broader adoption, emphasizing uniform signal levels and quantization to minimize distortion in long-haul transmission. Regional implementations diverged along these lines, with μ-law integrated into AT&T's T1 carrier system in the United States during the early 1960s for 24 voice channels at 1.544 Mbps, becoming the for North American digital telephony by the late 1960s. In contrast, A-law was specified for Europe's E1 carrier, standardized by the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) around 1972, supporting 30 voice channels at 2.048 Mbps and aligning with continental signaling requirements. challenges arose in links, addressed in the through converters that mapped μ-law to A-law samples, enabling seamless calls without significant quality loss, as outlined in ITU guidelines for hybrid networks. Companding evolved with digital advancements, integrating into the Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) in the 1980s, where G.711 served as the baseline codec for 64 kbps voice channels alongside data services. The rise of Voice over IP (VoIP) in the 1990s introduced more efficient codecs like G.729, leading to a relative decline in companding's dominance for bandwidth-constrained internet calls, yet it persisted in Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) gateways and hybrid PSTN-IP systems for regulatory compliance and low-latency needs. Open-source platforms like the Asterisk PBX, released in 1999, incorporated G.711 implementations, facilitating customizable telephony in software-based systems without proprietary restrictions, as the standard's patents expired long before. The 1988 ITU revision of G.711 included enhancements for satellite links, such as improved quantization tables to handle propagation delays and noise in geostationary orbits. In recent developments, companding has seen revivals in resource-constrained environments, including 2020s audio sensors on low-power edge devices, where μ-law's simple logarithmic reduces computational overhead for battery-operated voice capture in smart homes and industrial monitoring. expiration has spurred custom variants, such as optimized table lookups in , enhancing efficiency without licensing costs. Furthermore, New Radio (NR) architectures employ software-defined companding in fronthaul interfaces, using μ-law for eCPRI to minimize latency in radio access networks while maintaining compatibility with legacy endpoints.

References

  1. [1]
    Companding: Logarithmic Laws, Implementation, and Consequences
    Oct 30, 2017 · This article explains the process and implementation of companding in PCM based telephone systems by adhering to logarithmic companding laws.Missing: history | Show results with:history
  2. [2]
    compand - Source coding mu-law or A-law compressor or expander
    Companding combines a compressor and expander, using logarithmic computation to compress before quantization and expand to restore full scale.
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Companding Techniques for High Dynamic Range Audio CODEC ...
    Jul 2, 2025 · The concept of companding was first patented by A.B. Clark at AT&T in 1928. The purpose of the patent was to adaptively transmit images ...
  4. [4]
    µ-Law Compressed Sound Format - The Library of Congress
    Jun 10, 2025 · [µ-Law (Mu-Law) telephony companding algorithm, from ITU-T G.711]. Description, Standard companding algorithm used in digital communications ...
  5. [5]
    a-law vs μ-law : difference between a-law and μ-law companding
    A-Law is primarily used in Europe and international systems (per ITU-T G.711), while μ-Law is used mainly in North America and Japan. μ-Law offers slightly ...
  6. [6]
    What is Audio Reference Companding? - Shure Service And Repair
    Jun 1, 2022 · Compander is a contraction of the words compressor and expander, which describe contrary (and in a wireless sense, complementary) dynamics processors.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  7. [7]
    [PDF] application of nonlinear encoding to picture transmission
    This process of companding consists of compressing or expanding the dynamic range at the transmitter and restoring the original levels at the receiver.
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Instantaneous Companding of Quantized Signals - Index of /
    Instantaneous companding may be used to improve the quantized approx- imation of a signal by producing effectively nonuniform quantization. A.
  9. [9]
    The dynamic range of speech, compression, and its effect on the ...
    Dec 14, 2009 · Recently, Lobdell and Allen (2007) showed that 99% of speech levels fall over a range of 40 dB using either a software Volume-Unit (VU) meter or ...
  10. [10]
    [PDF] 12.1 pulse-code modulation 431 - RPI ECSE
    If K, < 1 then (S/N)» > 3q²S, and com- panding improves PCM performance by reducing the quantization noise. Example 12.1-2 μ-law companding for voice PCM The ...
  11. [11]
    Instantaneous Compandors - Mallinckrodt - 1951
    This paper discusses the theory of the instantaneous compandor and evaluates the noise advantage when instantaneous companding is applied to telephone channels.Missing: history | Show results with:history
  12. [12]
    [PDF] Companding - People
    Jan 18, 2018 · Some communication systems use compression by itself – without a corresponding expander at the re- ceiver. Although this distorts the waveform, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  13. [13]
    [PDF] AN2095 Algorithm - Logarithmic Signal Companding - It Is µ-Law
    The International Telecommunication Union standard, ITU-T G.711, defines this approximation as actual μ-Law compression. It somehow seems wrong that an ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] A-Law and mu-Law Companding Implementations Using the ...
    In general, the peak to peak amplitude of voiced phonemes is approximately ten times that of unvoiced and plosive phonemes, as clearly illustrated in Figure 1.
  15. [15]
    [PDF] MT-077: Log Amp Basics - Analog Devices
    If a diode is placed in the feedback path of an inverting op-amp, the output voltage will be proportional to the log of the input current as shown in Figure 6.<|separator|>
  16. [16]
    https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.711/en
  17. [17]
    G.711 : Pulse code modulation (PCM) of voice frequencies
    **Summary of μ-law Companding Expansion Process from G.711:**
  18. [18]
    [PDF] T1 and E1 Encoding - GL Communications
    Generally T1 systems use µ-law codec, and E1 systems use A-law codec for voice band signal encoding and decoding. The Encoding Option in T1/E1 Analyzer software ...Missing: ITU | Show results with:ITU
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Chapter 3 Converting Analog to Digital Signals and Vice Versa
    The whole process is called companding (COMpressing and exPANDING). Companding is widely used in public telephone systems. There are two distinct companding ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] TR-493 IMS for 5G-RG Architecture - Broadband Forum
    Mar 1, 2024 · The main standard codec in the PSTN is or was G.711 (a-law. / µ-law). Therefore, this codec is supported in the fixed world and is used for ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] TMS320C6000 u-Law and a-Law Companding with Software or the ...
    This document describes how to perform data companding with the TMS320C6000 digital signal processors (DSP). Companding refers to the compression and expansion ...Missing: piecewise | Show results with:piecewise
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Speech Envelope Normalization, a Method to Improve SNR ... - DTIC
    SNR improvement, a 10 dB to 20 dB range of increase should be expected with 2:1 companding, then using EN a comparable range of 15 dB to 30 dB may be presumed.
  23. [23]
    Human Hearing
    The middle ear is an impedance matching network that increases the fraction ... It is common to express sound intensity on a logarithmic scale, called decibel SPL ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] Order as ANE408/D
    Table 9. MU-LAW encoding table. CODING EXAMPLES: -FA2400 hex linear is coded B9 and transmitted as 46 hex : bit 23 22 21 20. 19. 18 17. 16 15 14. 13 12 11 10. 1 ...Missing: chords | Show results with:chords
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Scalar Compandor Design Based on Optimal Compressor Function ...
    sum of the granular Dg and the overload Do distortion. The granular distortion for a compandor is defined with Benett's integral [1], which in the case of ...
  26. [26]
    Analogue v Digital – Companding - Sound Devices
    Mar 31, 2021 · Analogue FM wireless system use a compandor circuit in the signal chain to maintain dynamic range. A compander first compresses audio at the transmitter.Missing: expander implementation
  27. [27]
    https://www.sounddevices.com/analogue-v-digital-companding/
  28. [28]
    Waveform Coding Techniques - Cisco
    Feb 2, 2006 · This error is called quantization noise. Quantization noise is equivalent to the random noise that impacts the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of a ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] MP3 and AAC Explained
    The paper gives an introduction to audio compression for music file exchange. Beyond the basics the focus is on quality issues and the compression ratio / audio ...
  30. [30]
    5.3.8 Algorithms for Audio Companding and Compression
    Companding is a method of compressing a digital signal by reducing the bit depth before it is transmitted and then expanding it when it is received.
  31. [31]
    Pulse Code Modulation: It all Started 75 Years Ago with Alec Reeves
    Jun 1, 2012 · In 1937, Alec Reeves came up with the idea of Pulse Code Modulation (PCM). At the time, few, if any, took notice of Reeve's development.Missing: companding | Show results with:companding
  32. [32]
    Electric signaling system - US2272070A - Google Patents
    The present, invention relates to electrical signaling systems, and more particularly to systems adapted to transmit complex wave forms, for example, speech.
  33. [33]
    [PDF] SIGSALY - National Security Agency
    About 1936, Bell Telephone Laboratories (BTL) started exploring a technique to transform voice signals into digital data which could then be reconstructed (or ...
  34. [34]
    NIHF Inductee Bernard Oliver Invented Pulse Code Modulation
    National Inventors Hall of Fame Inductee Bernard Oliver helped give birth to the era of digital information with his invention of pulse code modulation.
  35. [35]
    US2801281A - Communication system employing pulse code ...
    The object of the present invention is to provide an improved communication system capable of transmitting and reproducing with high fidelity a complex wave ...
  36. [36]
    [PDF] A History of Secure Voice Coding - DoD
    Jul 13, 2021 · SIGSALY, shown in. Figure 1, was a vocoder-based system related to the “Talking Machine” first introduced by Homer. Dudley of Bell Labs at the ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] The Origins of DSP and Compression - Audio Engineering Society
    The origins of modern digital audio can be traced to this first electronic speech synthesizer in 1928 and to a secure speech scrambler used during WWII. Homer.
  38. [38]
    ITU-T Software Tool Library 2019 User's Manual
    In 1972, the then CCITT published the Recommendation ITU-T G.711 that constitutes the principal reference as far as transmission systems are concerned [20].
  39. [39]
    Volume III.2 - CCITT (Geneva, 1976)
    The definition of these laws is given in Tables la/G.711 and lb/G.711 and Tables 2a/G.711 and 2b/G.711 respectively. When using the p-law in networks where ...
  40. [40]
    Law Compression - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    μ -law companding is a compression process. It explores the principle that the higher amplitudes of analog signals are compressed before ADC and expanded after ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  41. [41]
    https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-G.711-198811-I!!PDF-E&type=items
  42. [42]
    [PDF] ETSI TS 102 527-1 V1.1.1 (2007-04)
    ITU-T Recommendation G.711 narrow band codec [16] is optional for New Generation DECT in order to improve the quality of narrow band communications: slightly ...
  43. [43]
    https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Media/Guides/Formats/Audio_codecs
  44. [44]
    G.711 (11/1988) - ITU-T Recommendation database
    ITU-T G.711 (11/1988) ; Approval date: 1988-11-25 ; Approval process: WTSA ; Status: In force ; Observation: Corresponding ANSI-C code is available in the G.711 ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  45. [45]
    [PDF] Analysis of Compression Techniques for 5G O-RAN Fronthaul
    Apr 15, 2025 · Four compression techniques are compared: Block Floating Point (BFP), Block Scaling. (BS), µ-law companding, and Modulation-Based Compression.
  46. [46]
    VoIP codec list: bandwidth, quality, and licensing - Telnyx
    Oct 1, 2025 · G.711: Patents expired in 1972, completely free to use; G.729: Patent expired in January 2017, now freely available; G.722: Royalty-free; Opus ...Voip Codec List: Bandwidth... · Complete Voip Codec... · Selecting Codecs For...