Talk:μ-law algorithm

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article should be called "μ-law algorithm" with a lower-case μ. Unfortunately, the software currently prevents this, capitalizing the mu. Capital mu looks just like "M", which just looks wrong. -- Karada 23:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Mu-law algorithm", because a capital mu is evil. Not only does it look dumb, it isn't obvious to most people that it's a mu and not the Latin letter M. And nobody calls it M-law. - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graph/legend and text inconsistency

"Comparison with A-law: A special feature ... near zero sound pressure...": this is not expected from the analytical expression of F, and not visible on the graph (does it occur at a level below -80 dB ? In this case, a proper scaling of the axis should display the difference between A and Mu laws).

In addition, the green line on the graph is not "A-law", but "No companding"... --Dgcrete 12:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the graph. Regarding the "special feature near zero" - this statement is false (assuming there is no mistake in the formulae). Near zero, the mu-law and A-law formulae differ only by a constant multiplier. This is because as x goes to zero, ln(1+x) becomes the same as x, hence the top halves of the Mu-law and A-law equations become the same. The same is true for the for the quantized versions of the equations.

I will remove the "special feature near zero" comment.

I've also added quantized points to the graph

Ozhiker 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table of 14 bit linear values incorrect?

I think the table of u-law to 14 bit linear is slightly incorrect. e.g. the first value should be -8031 rather than -8159.

-8159 is the maximum negative input to an encoder, which encodes to 0, but 0 should decode to -8031 (which is the centre of the range of values that encode to 0)

I think the 14 bit values should just be the given 16 bit values divided by 4. (The 16 bit values appear to be correct) TimMorley 16:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd reference

One of the two references is from Wikipedia itself. That seems a bit sketchy...? 24.4.102.10 11:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is right?

The table in this article differs from the code given in [1]: Both 0x7F and 0xFF decodes to 0. But the encoder in the article encodes 0 to 0xFF and -1 to 0x7F. --RokerHRO (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]