Hubbry Logo
Differential pulse-code modulationDifferential pulse-code modulationMain
Open search
Differential pulse-code modulation
Community hub
Differential pulse-code modulation
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Differential pulse-code modulation
Differential pulse-code modulation
Differential pulse-code modulation
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Differential pulse-code modulation (DPCM) is a signal encoder that uses the baseline of pulse-code modulation (PCM) but adds some functionalities based on the prediction of the samples of the signal. The input can be an analog signal or a digital signal.

If the input is a continuous-time analog signal, it needs to be sampled first so that a discrete-time signal is the input to the DPCM encoder.

  • Option 1: take the values of two consecutive samples; if they are analog samples, quantize them; calculate the difference between the first one and the next; the output is the difference.
  • Option 2: instead of taking a difference relative to a previous input sample, take the difference relative to the output of a local model of the decoder process; in this option, the difference can be quantized, which allows a good way to incorporate a controlled loss in the encoding.

Applying one of these two processes, short-term redundancy (positive correlation of nearby values) of the signal is eliminated; compression ratios on the order of 2 to 4 can be achieved if differences are subsequently entropy coded because the entropy of the difference signal is much smaller than that of the original discrete signal treated as independent samples.

DPCM was invented by C. Chapin Cutler at Bell Labs in 1950; his patent includes both methods.[1]

Option 1: difference between two consecutive quantized samples

[edit]

The encoder performs the function of differentiation; a quantizer precedes the differencing of adjacent quantized samples; the decoder is an accumulator, which if correctly initialized exactly recovers the quantized signal.

Option 2: analysis by synthesis

[edit]

The incorporation of the decoder inside the encoder allows quantization of the differences, including nonlinear quantization, in the encoder, as long as an approximate inverse quantizer is used appropriately in the receiver. When the quantizer is uniform, the decoder regenerates the differences implicitly, as in this simple diagram that Cutler showed:

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Differential pulse-code modulation

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Differential pulse-code modulation (DPCM) is a signal encoding method that improves upon standard (PCM) by quantizing and encoding the difference between consecutive samples of an , rather than the absolute amplitude of each sample, to exploit redundancy and achieve greater efficiency in data transmission or storage. This approach reduces the required while maintaining signal quality, making it particularly suitable for bandwidth-limited applications such as audio and video compression. Invented by C. Chapin Cutler at Bell Laboratories, DPCM was first described in his 1952 U.S. for "Differential Quantization of Communication Signals," which introduced the of predicting signal values from prior samples to minimize transmitted information. Building on earlier techniques like , DPCM emerged during mid-20th-century advancements in digital telecommunications, with significant developments in predictive quantization systems detailed in subsequent research for television and speech transmission. In operation, the encoder uses a linear —typically based on one or more previous samples—to estimate the current signal value; the is then quantized using a and transmitted as PCM bits, while the decoder reconstructs the signal by adding the decoded to its own predictor output. Optimized predictors and quantizers can significantly lower , for example, achieving values as low as 0.0009 compared to 0.0327 in non-optimized systems. Key advantages include reduced bandwidth needs compared to PCM for similar signal-to-noise ratios and simpler with feedback loops in both transmitter and receiver. These benefits have led to widespread applications in , storage, , and even space systems.

Fundamentals

Definition and Overview

Differential pulse-code modulation (DPCM) is a digital signal encoding technique that serves as a variant of pulse-code modulation (PCM), designed to represent analog signals more efficiently by transmitting the difference between each signal sample and a predicted value derived from previous samples, rather than the absolute sample values themselves. This approach exploits the correlation inherent in many real-world signals, such as speech or video, where consecutive samples tend to be similar, thereby reducing the amount of data required for transmission while maintaining acceptable signal quality. By focusing on these smaller differences, DPCM minimizes redundancy and enhances bandwidth efficiency compared to standard PCM. The basic structure of a DPCM system consists of a transmitter and a receiver, each incorporating key components to and reconstruct the signal. At the transmitter, an input is sampled, and a predictor estimates the current sample based on prior reconstructed samples; the difference (prediction error) is then computed via a subtractor, quantized to discrete levels, and encoded into binary bits for transmission. The receiver mirrors this with a decoder that converts the received bits back to quantized values, adds them to the locally generated using an , and passes the result through an identical predictor to reconstruct the signal. This closed-loop ensures that both ends maintain in their estimates. The primary goal of DPCM is to achieve data compression by leveraging signal correlation, often reducing the by approximately half compared to PCM for equivalent perceptual quality in applications like —for instance, from 64 kbps to 32 kbps for speech signals. This efficiency stems from the smaller of errors, allowing fewer bits per sample without significant . DPCM was invented by C. Chapin Cutler and patented in 1952 as an improvement over PCM for communication systems, with early applications emerging in telephony during the mid-20th century.

Historical Development

The origins of differential pulse-code modulation (DPCM) trace back to the mid-20th century, amid efforts at Bell Laboratories to address bandwidth constraints in digital transmission systems for telephony and early television signals. Predictive coding concepts, which form the basis of DPCM, emerged in the late 1940s as extensions of pulse-code modulation (PCM), invented earlier in the 1930s by Alec Reeves. A key precursor was delta modulation, a simple one-bit differential scheme described by W. M. Goodall in a 1951 Bell System Technical Journal paper on television transmission, where he proposed quantizing differences between consecutive signal samples to reduce bit rates compared to full PCM. This approach was motivated by the need to efficiently transmit complex waveforms like speech and video over limited channels, improving signal-to-noise ratios while minimizing bandwidth usage. The formal invention of DPCM is credited to C. Chapin Cutler at , who filed a in July 1950 for "Differential Quantization of Communication Signals," granted in 1952 as U.S. 2,605,361. Cutler's work generalized by allowing multi-bit quantization of prediction errors, enabling more accurate encoding of signal differences and achieving compression ratios of 2:1 to 4:1 for speech signals relative to standard PCM. This innovation built on principles, including those from Claude Shannon's 1948 work, to exploit signal redundancy through prediction. Shortly thereafter, Peter Elias advanced the theoretical foundations in two seminal 1955 papers published in the IRE Transactions on , titled "Predictive Coding—Part I" and "Part II," where he analyzed optimal for noisy channels and demonstrated its efficiency in reducing for correlated data sequences like speech. Practical implementations of DPCM gained traction in the , particularly for in . By 1965, researchers at and elsewhere had developed hardware prototypes for DPCM-based voice transmission, achieving high-quality speech suitable for at bit rates around 32 kbit/s, a significant improvement over the 64 kbit/s of uniform PCM. These early systems were tested for digital networks, responding to the growing demand for efficient long-distance communication as transistor technology enabled digital switching. Elias's theoretical contributions facilitated these advancements by providing bounds on accuracy using linear predictors. A major milestone came with the standardization of adaptive variants, culminating in the in December 1990, which defined 40, 32, 24, and 16 kbit/s adaptive DPCM (ADPCM) for voice over digital lines, superseding earlier non-adaptive methods and enabling widespread adoption in ISDN and PSTN systems. DPCM's principles influenced subsequent codecs, notably in the lossless mode of the standard (ISO/IEC 10918-1, 1992), where it predicts and encodes differences in values to achieve efficient compression without artifacts. Similarly, its predictive framework informed audio standards like those in early ADPCM implementations, paving the way for perceptual coders in ( Audio Layer III, 1993) by emphasizing redundancy reduction in correlated signals.

Operating Principles

Prediction Mechanism

In differential pulse-code modulation (DPCM), the prediction mechanism estimates the current signal sample s^(n)\hat{s}(n) from previous reconstructed samples to exploit the temporal or spatial present in signals such as speech or images, thereby reducing and enabling efficient encoding of the resulting prediction error. This approach forms the core of DPCM's operation, where the predictor generates an estimate that closely approximates the actual sample s(n)s(n), minimizing the difference e(n)=s(n)−s^(n)e(n) = s(n) - \hat{s}(n) and concentrating the signal's energy into a smaller range for subsequent processing. Predictors in DPCM are typically linear, forming s^(n)\hat{s}(n) as a weighted sum of past reconstructed samples s~(n−k)\tilde{s}(n-k) for k=1,2,…,mk = 1, 2, \dots, m, where mm denotes the predictor order and the weights are coefficients optimized for the signal class. A basic first-order predictor simplifies to s^(n)=s~(n−1)\hat{s}(n) = \tilde{s}(n-1), assuming the signal changes minimally from one sample to the next, which is effective for slowly varying waveforms. Higher-order predictors, such as a second-order form s^(n)=a1s~(n−1)+a2s~(n−2)\hat{s}(n) = a_1 \tilde{s}(n-1) + a_2 \tilde{s}(n-2), incorporate additional past reconstructed samples with fixed coefficients aia_i to capture longer dependencies, yielding improved prediction accuracy at the of increased . Fixed predictors employ constant coefficients throughout the process, making them computationally efficient and suitable for signals with consistent statistical properties, as the design relies on average autocorrelation derived from training data. Adaptive predictors, in contrast, dynamically adjust coefficients based on recent signal behavior to better track variations, enhancing error minimization for non-stationary sources without requiring side information transmission in backward-adaptive schemes. Both types ensure the predictor at the encoder and decoder uses identical reconstructed samples to maintain synchronization. In practice, a one-tap predictor suffices for audio signals like speech, where short-term predictability dominates, achieving prediction gains of 4–6 dB over uncorrelated coding. For images, multi-tap predictors (often order 2–4) leverage two-dimensional correlations, such as along scan lines, to reduce error variance significantly in applications like early compression.

Difference Encoding and Quantization

In differential pulse-code modulation (DPCM), the encoding process starts by computing the prediction error signal, expressed as e(n)=s(n)−s^(n)e(n) = s(n) - \hat{s}(n), where s(n)s(n) represents the current input signal sample and s^(n)\hat{s}(n) is the predicted estimate derived from prior reconstructed samples. This error e(n)e(n) typically possesses a much smaller variance compared to the original signal s(n)s(n), particularly for correlated sources like audio or image data, which facilitates more efficient subsequent processing. The next step involves scalar quantization of the prediction error e(n)e(n) to yield the quantized version e^(n)\hat{e}(n), employing either or non-uniform quantization schemes with a predefined set of levels to map continuous error values to discrete representations. Common implementations use quantizers with 8 to 16 levels, equating to 3-4 bits per sample, a reduction from the typical 8 bits required in (PCM) for similar fidelity. The quantization process introduces some but exploits the reduced of e(n)e(n) to minimize overall error. Following quantization, the discrete levels of e^(n)\hat{e}(n) are encoded into binary codewords suitable for transmission over a digital channel. A key feature of the DPCM encoder is the feedback loop, which reconstructs the current sample locally as s~(n)=s^(n)+e^(n)\tilde{s}(n) = \hat{s}(n) + \hat{e}(n) and feeds this reconstructed value back to the predictor, ensuring that the encoder and decoder operate on identical signal estimates to prevent drift. At the decoder, reconstruction mirrors the encoder's feedback structure: the received quantized error e^(n)\hat{e}(n) is added to the locally predicted signal s^(n)\hat{s}(n), approximating the original sample as s~(n)=s^(n)+e^(n)\tilde{s}(n) = \hat{s}(n) + \hat{e}(n). This additive process, combined with the predictor updated from prior reconstructed samples, enables recovery of the signal with controlled quantization noise. The predictor itself relies on from previous reconstructed outputs, as outlined in the mechanism.

Advantages and Limitations

Benefits Compared to Pulse-Code Modulation

Differential pulse-code modulation (DPCM) achieves significant bit rate reduction compared to traditional (PCM) by encoding the difference between a signal sample and its predicted value, which typically has a smaller than the original signal. For speech signals, DPCM often requires only 2-4 bits per sample versus 8 or more bits per sample for PCM, enabling compression ratios of around 50% while maintaining comparable . This arises from exploiting the in the signal, allowing fewer quantization levels for the differences. By reducing quantization noise through , DPCM delivers an improved (SNR) over PCM at the same . Specifically, DPCM can provide 4-9 dB higher SNR for speech waveforms, depending on the predictor order and quantization design. This gain stems from concentrating the signal energy in the prediction residual while minimizing the variance of the error to be quantized. The lower of DPCM enhance bandwidth efficiency, making it particularly suitable for resource-constrained applications like . For example, DPCM supports toll-quality speech transmission at 32 kbps, half the 64 kbps rate of standard PCM, without substantial degradation in perceived quality. Although DPCM introduces additional due to the and reconstruction processes at both encoder and decoder, this overhead is modest—typically involving simple linear predictors—and is well justified by the substantial savings in storage and transmission bandwidth.

Drawbacks and Error Propagation

One significant drawback of differential (DPCM) is the accumulation of quantization errors within the feedback loop of the predictor. In DPCM systems, the quantized difference signal is fed back to update the predictor, meaning that any quantization error introduced at one step influences the prediction for subsequent samples, potentially causing the reconstructed signal to drift from the original over time. This error accumulation can manifest as increased granular noise or, in cases of rapid signal changes, slope overload if the predictor fails to track the input accurately. Channel errors exacerbate this issue by introducing additional discrepancies between the encoder and decoder. A single bit error in the transmitted difference signal can lead to mistracking, where the decoder's predictor diverges from the encoder's, propagating the error to all future samples and resulting in sustained bias or artifacts such as streaks in image reconstruction or tonal distortions in speech. For the system to function correctly, the encoder and decoder predictors must remain precisely synchronized; any mismatch due to transmission errors can cause irreversible degradation unless addressed. DPCM also entails greater design complexity compared to standard , as it requires careful optimization of the predictor to exploit inter-sample effectively. Higher-order predictors, which consider multiple past samples, increase computational demands and sensitivity to implementation errors, making DPCM less suitable for signals with low between samples. For uncorrelated signals, the prediction gain approaches zero or becomes negative, offering no bitrate reduction and potentially worsening performance due to the added overhead. To mitigate error propagation, basic techniques such as periodic resets or forced updates can be employed, where the predictor is occasionally synchronized by transmitting an uncoded sample to limit the spatial or temporal extent of errors. These methods help bound the impact of channel errors, though they introduce some bitrate overhead.

Variants and Extensions

Adaptive Differential Pulse-Code Modulation

Adaptive Differential Pulse-Code Modulation (ADPCM) enhances standard by dynamically adjusting the predictor coefficients and quantizer step size based on recent signal characteristics, such as using backward adaptation techniques to track signal variations. Developed in 1973 at Bell Laboratories by P. Cummiskey, N. S. Jayant, and J. L. Flanagan, ADPCM quantizes the with an adaptive mechanism that scales the quantization levels to match the local error variance, improving overall coding efficiency compared to fixed schemes. Key techniques in ADPCM include the adaptive predictor, which typically employs a linear predictor whose coefficients are updated using methods like least mean squares (LMS) or estimates from past quantized samples to minimize prediction error. The adaptive quantization, often based on the Jayant algorithm, adjusts the step size exponentially in response to the magnitude and sign of consecutive prediction errors, expanding for large errors to prevent overload and contracting for small errors to reduce granular noise. These backward adaptation approaches ensure both encoder and decoder remain synchronized using only the transmitted bits, avoiding the need for side information. Prominent standards for ADPCM include Recommendation G.726, published in 1990, which specifies codecs operating at 16, 24, 32, and 40 kbit/s for voice transmission by compressing 64 kbit/s PCM signals, achieving toll-quality speech through adaptive prediction and quantization. Another widely adopted standard is the IMA ADPCM algorithm, developed by the Interactive Multimedia Association in the early 1990s for general audio file compression, typically using 4-bit samples to halve the bitrate of 16-bit PCM while maintaining compatibility in formats like . ADPCM's adaptations provide significant improvements in handling non-stationary signals such as speech, where signal varies rapidly, by reducing overload —where large prediction errors cause clipping—and achieving lower bitrates without perceptible quality loss, as demonstrated in early implementations that supported 32 kbit/s toll-quality coding. This makes ADPCM particularly effective for applications requiring robust performance under varying conditions, outperforming fixed DPCM in dynamic environments.

Relation to Delta Modulation

Delta modulation (DM) represents a simplified special case of differential (DPCM), employing a 1-bit quantizer to encode the difference between the input signal and a basic prediction. In DM, the predictor is typically a linear model that uses the previous reconstructed sample as the estimate, with the error signal quantized into binary levels corresponding to a fixed step size increase or decrease based solely on the error's sign. This approach tracks the signal's slope by accumulating these steps, effectively approximating the original through a reconstruction. Compared to general DPCM, DM operates as a coarse variant with its fixed-step quantization, which simplifies hardware implementation but introduces vulnerabilities such as slope overload—where rapid signal changes exceed the maximum step rate—and in flat regions. While DPCM allows multi-bit quantization for more precise error representation and reduced , DM's 1-bit scheme demands higher sampling rates to maintain , trading complexity for bandwidth efficiency in low-cost applications. In DPCM, quantization follows a more refined process as detailed in the difference encoding section, enabling better adaptation to signal statistics. The invention of DM traces to 1946, when E. M. Deloraine, S. van Mierlo, and B. Derjavitch at ITT Laboratories in patented a system using constant-amplitude pulses of opposite polarities to encode signal differences, marking an early step toward techniques. DPCM emerged as a in 1950 through C. Chapin Cutler's work at Bell Laboratories, where multi-level quantization was introduced to enhance resolution and overcome DM's limitations, achieving higher signal fidelity at comparable bit rates. Among DM variants, adaptive delta modulation (ADM) addresses fixed-step shortcomings by dynamically adjusting the step size based on recent error patterns or signal activity, reducing slope overload and granular noise to improve performance. This adaptation mechanism bridges DM to adaptive DPCM (ADPCM), where predictor and quantizer parameters are jointly optimized for even greater efficiency in varying signal conditions.

Applications

Audio Signal Compression

Differential pulse-code modulation (DPCM) plays a crucial role in compression by exploiting the short-term inherent in speech signals, where adjacent samples exhibit high predictability, allowing efficient encoding of differences rather than absolute values. In digital telephony, adaptive variants of DPCM, known as ADPCM, were standardized for to reduce bandwidth requirements while maintaining voice quality. A prominent example is the G.721 standard, introduced in 1984, which employs 32 kbps ADPCM for compressing speech in integrated services digital network (ISDN) systems, halving the bit rate of traditional 64 kbps (PCM) without significant quality loss. This approach enables toll-quality speech transmission over limited channels, making it suitable for voice communications in bandwidth-constrained environments. In audio file formats, the Interactive Multimedia Association (IMA) developed an ADPCM algorithm in the early 1990s to enhance cross-platform compatibility for digital audio in multimedia applications. Implemented as IMA ADPCM in files (with format identifier 0x11), it achieves approximately 4:1 compression for 16-bit PCM audio by adaptively quantizing prediction errors, resulting in smaller file sizes for storage and playback. Early (VoIP) systems integrated similar ADPCM codecs, drawing from standards like G.721, to enable real-time speech transmission over packet networks with reduced latency and bandwidth. A key application of DPCM in pre-1990s mobile communications involved bandwidth reduction through digital circuit multiplication equipment (DCME), as outlined in ITU-T Recommendation G.763 from 1988. This system combined 32 kbps ADPCM encoding with digital speech interpolation to multiplex multiple voice channels over satellite links, effectively doubling capacity in mobile and remote telephony scenarios where spectrum was scarce, such as aeronautical and early cellular extensions. By predicting and encoding only signal differences, DPCM minimized data overhead, supporting efficient resource allocation in these pioneering digital mobile networks before the widespread adoption of more advanced codecs in the 1990s.

Image and Video Processing

Differential pulse-code modulation (DPCM) extends to by exploiting spatial correlations through two-dimensional (2D) predictors that estimate values based on previously encoded neighboring pixels in a causal neighborhood. These predictors typically compute linear combinations of adjacent pixels, such as the immediate left, above, and above-left neighbors, to form the , with the residual difference then quantized and encoded. For instance, simple horizontal or vertical predictors calculate differences along scan lines or columns, akin to schemes in early lossless modes where the predictor uses one or more causal neighbors to minimize entropy in the prediction error. In , DPCM is adapted for temporal redundancy reduction via motion-compensated prediction, where inter-frame differences are encoded after aligning blocks from a reference frame using motion vectors. This motion-compensated DPCM (MC-DPCM) forms the core of early video standards like (1990), which divides frames into 16x16 macroblocks, estimates motion via block matching (e.g., minimizing ), and applies DPCM to the resulting residuals before further processing with and quantization. The approach achieves efficient compression for low-bit-rate video telephony over ISDN by focusing on small inter-frame changes in typical scenes. DPCM finds application in DPCM-based lossless image modes, such as those in JPEG-LS, where context-adaptive predictors enhance compression without data loss, and in hybrid systems combining DPCM with for near-lossless scenarios. In , DPCM predictors using neighboring pixel averages have been employed in missions like Voyager and , yielding compression ratios up to 10:1 with Huffman while preserving scientific fidelity. Hybrid DPCM-discrete cosine transform schemes for images further demonstrate reductions, achieving ratios around 70-75 for typical multispectral data with peak signal-to-noise ratios exceeding 30 dB. A key challenge in DPCM for images and video arises at edges and textures, where low spatial or temporal between neighbors leads to larger prediction errors, increasing the required and potentially degrading quality in quantized modes. Advanced context-dependent predictors mitigate this by adapting coefficients to local gradients, but discontinuities remain problematic in high-detail regions.

Mathematical Formulation

Signal Model and Predictor Design

In differential pulse-code modulation (DPCM), the input signal s(n)s(n) is typically modeled as a wide-sense stationary , enabling the use of statistical properties for prediction. This assumption implies that the mean and function R(k)=E[s(n)s(n−k)]R(k) = E[s(n) s(n-k)] are time-invariant, where E[⋅]E[\cdot] denotes the expectation operator. The function R(k)R(k) captures the signal's or across samples, which is crucial for deriving predictor coefficients that exploit redundancies in correlated signals such as speech or images. The predictor in DPCM generates an estimate s^(n)\hat{s}(n) of the current sample based on previous reconstructed samples to form the prediction error for quantization. The optimal linear predictor of order pp is given by s^(n)=∑i=1pais^(n−i),\hat{s}(n) = \sum_{i=1}^{p} a_i \hat{s}(n-i), where the coefficients aia_i are chosen to minimize the (MSE) E[(s(n)−s^(n))2]E[(s(n) - \hat{s}(n))^2]. This design follows the approach for linear estimation, treating the predictor as a filter that minimizes distortion under the stationary assumption. To find the coefficients aia_i, the normal equations (also known as Yule-Walker equations) are solved: ∑i=1paiR(k−i)=R(k),k=1,2,…,p,\sum_{i=1}^{p} a_i R(k-i) = R(k), \quad k = 1, 2, \dots, p, where R(k)R(k) is the at lag kk, forming a represented in matrix form as Ra=r\mathbf{R} \mathbf{a} = \mathbf{r}, with R\mathbf{R} as the p×pp \times p Toeplitz autocorrelation matrix and r\mathbf{r} the vector of autocorrelations R(1)R(1) to R(p)R(p). These equations arise from the in Wiener filtering, ensuring the prediction error is uncorrelated with the past samples used in the prediction. The solution yields the MSE-minimizing coefficients, improving compression efficiency for signals with high autocorrelation. The choice of predictor order pp balances prediction accuracy and complexity. For simple signals with short correlation lengths, such as certain audio waveforms, a predictor (p=1p=1) suffices, yielding a1=R(1)/R(0)a_1 = R(1)/R(0). Higher orders (p>1p > 1) are employed for complex signals like speech, capturing longer dependencies but increasing computational demands and sensitivity to modeling errors. Order selection often involves analyzing the signal's or empirical MSE reduction.

Performance Metrics and Analysis

The performance of differential pulse-code modulation (DPCM) is primarily evaluated using the signal-to-quantization-noise ratio (SQNR), defined as SQNR = 10 \log_{10} (\sigma_s^2 / D), where \sigma_s^2 is the variance of the input signal and D is the total quantization distortion at the output. SQNR quantifies the effectiveness of DPCM in reducing quantization noise relative to the signal power, typically achieving higher values than pulse-code modulation (PCM) due to predictive redundancy removal. The quantization distortion D in DPCM comprises two main components: granular noise, arising from rounding errors within the quantizer's dynamic range, and overload noise, resulting from clipping when the prediction error exceeds the quantizer's range. These components are analyzed separately to optimize quantizer design, with granular noise dominating at high rates and overload noise becoming significant at low rates or high signal dynamics. A key aspect of DPCM performance analysis involves the variance of the , which determines the input to the quantizer. For a autoregressive process with \rho, the prediction error variance is given by \sigma_e^2 = \sigma_s^2 (1 - \rho^2), assuming high-resolution quantization where feedback distortion is negligible. This reduction in variance compared to the source signal yields a prediction gain G_p = 10 \log_{10} (1 / (1 - \rho^2)), which enhances SQNR by concentrating the signal for more efficient quantization. The rate- function provides a theoretical lower bound on achievable performance, with DPCM schemes approaching this bound closely at low for autoregressive sources, as the predictive structure exploits temporal correlations to minimize distortion for a given rate R. The total distortion D in DPCM accounts for both the quantization noise variance \sigma_q^2 on the prediction error and its propagation through the feedback predictor loop. For a first-order predictor with coefficient \rho, this is expressed as D = \sigma_q^2 / (1 - \rho^2), where the denominator reflects the noise amplification due to recursive prediction using quantized samples. In comparison, the distortion for PCM is D_{PCM} = \sigma_s^2 \cdot 2^{-2b} (approximating uniform quantization with b bits per sample, ignoring the 3/4 factor for simplicity), yielding an SQNR \approx 6b , \mathrm{dB}. DPCM thus provides an SQNR gain of approximately G_p over PCM, with \sigma_q^2 scaled by the reduced \sigma_e^2. Simulation studies on speech signals demonstrate practical SQNR gains of 5-8 dB for DPCM over PCM at fixed bit rates between 8 and 64 kbps, using backward-adaptive predictors optimized via minimum mean-squared error criteria. These gains arise from typical speech correlation (\rho \approx 0.8-0.9), enabling equivalent quality to PCM with roughly half the bits per sample while maintaining intelligibility.

References

  1. https://www.mathworks.com/help/comm/ug/differential-pulse-code-modulation.html
  2. https://www.elprocus.com/differential-pulse-code-modulation-working-application/
  3. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2605361A/en
  4. https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/publications-and-media/publications/predictive-quantizing-systems-differential-pulse-code-modulation-for-the-transmission-of-television-signals/
  5. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19770005296
  6. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1966.tb01052.x
  7. https://web.stanford.edu/class/ee368b/Handouts/15-DPCM.pdf
  8. https://sites.pitt.edu/~dtipper/2700/2700_Slides7.pdf
  9. https://research.ijcaonline.org/icedsp/number3/icedsp1023.pdf
  10. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1966.tb01690.x
  11. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1451414
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/adaptive-differential-pulse-code-modulation
  13. https://web.stanford.edu/class/ee179/lectures/notes13.pdf
  14. https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~saito/data/quantization/44it06-gray.pdf
  15. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1451414/
  16. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6768543/
  17. https://www.site.uottawa.ca/~damours/courses/ELG_3175/Lec15.pdf
  18. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0689859.pdf
  19. https://www.dafx.de/paper-archive/2013/papers/52.dafx2013_submission_22.pdf
  20. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5796&context=ele_comeng_facwork
  21. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/39792/1/15.pdf.pdf
  22. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6771429
  23. https://vtda.org/pubs/BSTJ/vol52-1973/articles/bstj52-7-1105.pdf
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090526706800381
  25. https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.726-199012-I/en
  26. https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/audio/dvi/
  27. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1092795
  28. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2629857A/en
  29. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6771215
  30. http://www.eie.polyu.edu.hk/~enyhchan/mt-cmpav.pdf
  31. https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/audio/dvi/IMA_ADPCM.pdf
  32. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19900006894/downloads/19900006894.pdf
  33. https://www.cse.unr.edu/~bebis/CS474/Handouts/ImageCompression.pdf
  34. https://web.stanford.edu/class/ee398a/handouts/lectures/06-Prediction.pdf
  35. https://users.ece.utexas.edu/~ryerraballi/MSB/pdfs/M4L2.pdf
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165168498001285
  37. https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/V15-N03/15-03-Beser.pdf
  38. https://airccse.com/ijcsitce/papers/1114ijcsitce01.pdf
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309080718_DPCM-Based_Edge_Prediction_for_Lossless_Screen_Content_Coding_in_HEVC
  40. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1451722
  41. http://www.revue.elth.pub.ro/upload/48196410ZPeric42013pp424-434.pdf
  42. https://pcper.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0290-icedsp1023.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.