Talk:G.711

message: I don't understand that compressed s0000000wxyza... uncompressed s000wxyz part at all. Maybe someone can explain it? Thanks, --Abdull 18:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a couple of examples which I hope make it clearer. Alf Boggis (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk

message: I am looking at a streaming product on www.barix.com and the manual for their "Instreamer" says that it can stream G711 at 8 AND 24KHz however there is no mention that this codec is capable of doing that in this article?? Could someone who is technical explain and possibly edit the article with this extra information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.113.73 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  G711 also samples at 24KHz??? 

message: Hi,
I have been looking into the G.711/G.726 recommendations, and it seem to me that a silent soundstream (PCM data of value zero) should result in the A-law encoded codewords of 0xD5, not 0x55.
Regards,
Jacob
The text tell there is a 0.125ms algorithmic delay.
  This is not true : if the decoding is done in hardware the Bytes are decoded on the fly
There is no algorithmic delay,
Laurent.
:0x55 is negative 0, 0xd5 is positive 0. You may pick one to be the real zero, but I don't think G.711 specifies which. Carewolf (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silent A-law 

message: The sign bit simply doesn't work this way in signed PCM.  The examples are only valid for s = 0.  For s = 1 there are 1s following which are removed, not zeroes.
Laurent is right - there is zero algorithmic delay.
And there is also no widely-accepted convention on bit numbering.  IBM number 128 as bit 0 and 1 as bit 7.  This is *why* the ITU define a convention.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.226.227 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is worse than that but gets difficult to explain in the text. G.711 uses sign=1 as positive and sign=0 as negative unlike normal 2-compliment numbers. So a ordinary negative number is converted like this: if v<0 then s=0; v=1-v else s=0x80; v=v; Carewolf (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total cock-up of sign bit 

message: The article states that A-law is easier to compute than μ-Law.  There is nothing in the main A-law or μ-Law articles to support that statement.  Shouldn't this be moved to the A-law article?  Same goes for the algorithm for computing each codec that Alf Boggis talks about above.  Dinjiin (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-law simplicity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on G.711. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720180425/http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/g711audio.asp to http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/g711audio.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified