Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please be aware that much of the software linked to or mentioned on this forum is niche and therefore infrequently downloaded. Lots of anti-virus scanners and so-called malware detectors like to flag infrequently downloaded software as bad until it is either downloaded enough times, or its developer actually bothers with getting each individual release allow listed by every single AV vendor. You can do many people a great favor when encountering such a "problem" example by submitting them to your AV vendor for examination. For almost everything on this forum, it is a false positive.
Recent Posts
3
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: exhale - Open Source xHE-AAC encoder
Last post by celona -
It is strange but also the behavior of the Fraunhofer encoder is not very predictable. In your examples Foobar reports the use of SBR only for Exhale. Compressing at higher bitrates with the Fraunhofer encoder sometimes produces worse results and files are resampled to 32kHz or 38.4kHz.

I believe that in VBR at bitrates higher than 48kbps (or perhaps only higher than 40kbps, obviously referring to monophonic signals) you don't get great advantages from ACELP.

I would like to thank Poikosoft for providing the cheapest way of obtaining the Fraunhofer encoder on the market by even providing it as a free upgrade to previous customers, a behavior that I wanted to reward by buying their software again, and will surely get more orders in the future from my employer, because buying his software is the best way to be able to distribute content in Extended HE-AAC and avoid any disputes. I had bought it to distribute compressed audio with Exhale in the past.

With the Fraunhofer encoder I can keep the voice taking up about half the space compared to Exhale. The entry I gave as an example, but also the ones in Helmrich's file seem to feel better at 24kbps than at 40kbps when compressed with Exhale.

Going up with the bitrate, on the other hand, the two compressors apparently offer approximately the same yield.
4
MP3 / Re: When exactly was MP3's heyday?
Last post by ThaCrip -
In short... I would say early-to-mid 2000's, and maybe a bit past this to. hell, ill just call it the 2000's decade.

since saratoga mentioned it (which I think is a pretty good ball park figure to)... I think the first smart phone (from Apple) was pretty much 2007, which means it was a fair amount past that before they really went mainstream. so with that said, that should roughly mean it's been about 10 years since smart phones have been mainstream. so one could say basic cell phones were in the 2000's and smart phones the 2010's for the most part since the more earlier days of the common person getting a basic cell phone were late 1990's (probably 1997-1998).

I remember the Napster thing which, taking a quick look online shows 1999, which was probably then or maybe 2000 or so when I was aware of it and then, like Chibisteven said, RIAA etc suing people etc.

but from a look online... it appears CD sales peaked in the year 2000 (speaking for myself... a high percentage of the CD's I bought were late 1990's, or maybe a touch into the early 2000's). we got our first CD player in about 1992 (I know it could not have been any more recent then probably the earlier side of 1993 though, but it's almost surely either 1991 or 1992, which I would estimate the early 1990's is probably when AUDIO CD's started to go mainstream) as I would have been going into my teens.

but anyways, back to the CD sales chart... even though they peaked in the year 2000 (call it about 900million+ CD's sold in the year 2000, where as in 2020 it was about 31.6million. so you can see a significant drop in CD sales), it seems sales were still going strong for quite a while past that. even today I don't see CD sales completely dying (at least not for a while) as they still make enough $ given this general chart... https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/12950.jpeg

p.s. but I think this stuff basically plays inline with modern tech in general as cellular phones/computers/internet went mainstream about 1998-2000 (my first computer was 1995, so I was on them about 3-5 years before they were mainstream). in fact, in my area high-speed internet was available in the year 2000 as I was one of the earlier people to get it according to the guy who installed it. so my 1998-2000 estimate should be a pretty good guideline for how long modern technology has been around as I was around 20 years old back then. but it's funny as it feels like modern tech (i.e. basic cell phones/computers/internet) has been around a rather long time but it's really only been around not much over 20 years for the common person now. so call it about half of my life or a bit over that now. it's like how did we make it in the "old days" without it since many of us are at least semi-addicted to it ;)
5
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: exhale - Open Source xHE-AAC encoder
Last post by C.R.Helmrich -
Indeed, that encoder demonstrates xHE-AAC's full speech coding potential at low bit-rates. Attached a comparison with exhale mode 'a' at 24 kbps, 44.1 kHz sampling rate. Impressive improvement due to the ACELP speech coding core, which exhale doesn't have. Yes, VBR0 and VBR1 are coded at 38.4 kHz with Fraunhofer's encoder, it seems, so my demo was also made with CBR mode.

Chris

6
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: exhale - Open Source xHE-AAC encoder
Last post by celona -
It's great to the point of buying a new license from the developer. Paolo Balestri's male voice is reproduced much better even at 24kbps in CBR mode.

However, below 40kbps it reduces the sampling frequency in VBR, while in CBR it reduces it to extremely lower bitrates, I also tried 8kbps (even 6kbps but there is too much noise).
7
General - (fb2k) / Re: Running Foobar in Linux
Last post by Mikko_H -
I meant errors in terminal output. You have quite a few installed components so might be one of those causing the crash.

Nice headphone line up btw I'm very jealous :D
8
AAC - General / Re: xHE-AAC: Transparency Rate?
Last post by celona -
Quote from: celona on
I can't hear music in HE-AAC and still use AAC-LC at 256kbps or lossless. Honestly at very high bitrate there is no difference between encoders. Please note that Exhale cannot be considered an xHE-AAC encoder, for the use of the registered trademark it is necessary to obtain a certification from the owner of the same. Furthermore, iTunes does not allow you to add songs compressed with these encoders to the library.
9
AAC - General / Re: xHE-AAC: Transparency Rate?
Last post by celona -
I can't hear music in HE-AAC and still use AAC-LC at 256kbps when I can't help it. Honestly at high bitrate there is no difference between encoders. Please note that Exhale cannot be considered an xHE-AAC encoder, for the use of the registered trademark it is necessary to obtain a certification from the owner of the same. Furthermore, iTunes does not allow you to add songs compressed with these encoders to the library.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021