Thread View: comp.multimedia
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by Doug Kaye
Tue, 25 Aug 1992 01:29
Best Audio Compression Algorithm?
Author: Doug Kaye
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 01:29
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 01:29
30 lines
1718 bytes
1718 bytes
We're developing a voice annotation application and would like to
stick with just one of the many compression algorithms. What's *your*
favorite and why? (I'll compose an article based upon your responses.)
Goal: We'll be sampling at 8kHz and need to reduce the data to 4 bits
per sample.
Possibilities: The "contestants" appear to be "scaled MULAW" and ADPCM.
"Scaled MULAW" is typified by the Artisoft "Sounding Board" hardware
and software. They start with 13-bit PCM, compand to 8-bit MULAW
(which has the advantage of being in the public domain), then compress
approximately 2:1 again by converting every 32 samples to 4 bits each
plus a "scaling" byte. (A proprietary but simple algorithm.)
"ADPCM" is typified by Sound Blaster (Creative Labs) and others that
start with either 8- or 12-bit samples then reduce to 4-bit samples
using ADPCM. The primary disadvantage of this technique (it seems to
us) is the lack of standards for ADPCM.
Given that background, which technique would *you* use? Do you have an
opinion as to which "sounds better", Scaled MULAW or ADPCM? What are
your personal experiences either as a user or developer/engineer?
Thanks! ...doug
==================================================
Doug Kaye Rational Data Systems San Rafael, CA
doug@rds.com {moon|uunet}!rds!doug MHS:doug@rds
==================================================
Re: Best Audio Compression Algorithm?
Author: Doug Kaye
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:25
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:25
31 lines
1814 bytes
1814 bytes
We're developing a voice annotation application and would like to
stick with just one of the many compression algorithms. What's *your*
favorite and why? (I'll compose an article based upon your responses.)
Goal: We'll be sampling at 8kHz and need to reduce the data to 4 bits
per sample.
Possibilities: The "contestants" appear to be "scaled MULAW" and ADPCM.
"Scaled MULAW" is typified by the Artisoft "Sounding Board" hardware
and software. They start with 13-bit PCM, compand to 8-bit MULAW
(which has the advantage of being in the public domain), then compress
approximately 2:1 again by converting every 32 samples to 4 bits each
plus a "scaling" byte. (A proprietary but simple algorithm.)
"ADPCM" is typified by Sound Blaster (Creative Labs) and others that
start with either 8- or 12-bit samples then reduce to 4-bit samples
using ADPCM. The primary disadvantage of this technique (it seems to
us) is the lack of standards for ADPCM.
Given that background, which technique would *you* use? Do you have an
opinion as to which "sounds better", Scaled MULAW or ADPCM? What are
your personal experiences either as a user or developer/engineer?
Thanks! ...doug
==================================================
Doug Kaye Rational Data Systems San Rafael, CA
doug@rds.com {moon|uunet}!rds!doug MHS:doug@rds
==================================================
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads