Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: xhe-aac successor? (Read 2562 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

xhe-aac successor?

Does anyone know if a successor is being developed? I think i read that either xhe-aac or usac was developed by Audio Engineering Society (https://aes2.org/standards/). They have lots of standards for various audio things in development on their site, not sure if any of them are codecs though.

xhe-aac is 11yrs old i think, i would have thought a new superior codec would have been ratified by now.

Re: xhe-aac successor?

Reply #1 –
Every new technology needs an application i guess.
Compression rates are already quite ridiculous.
Video is more appealing to develop higher compression because new innovation there is still desperately needed.

No sources or anything just pulling strings.

Re: xhe-aac successor?

Reply #2 –
No one cares about audio (compression) any longer IMO because fast Internet is so ubiquitous and storage is dirt cheap.

Video codecs on the other hand are a lot more interesting.

Re: xhe-aac successor?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: birdie on
No one cares about audio (compression) any longer IMO because fast Internet is so ubiquitous and storage is dirt cheap.

It is still important for streaming radio via your phone's data plan and for podcasts and audiobooks which can be large in size. The other important area is digital radio e.g DRM+ radio, that would allow for more radio stations.

Re: xhe-aac successor?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: spaceship9876 on
It is still important for streaming radio via your phone's data plan and for podcasts and audiobooks which can be large in size. The other important area is digital radio e.g DRM+ radio, that would allow for more radio stations.

Those normally are single channel audio - are you sure you wanna go below 32Kbps which will sound near perfect with both Opus and xHE-AAC? What's the point? That's 14MB of data per HOUR. Modern day web pages easily weigh up to 10MB. Go open Facebook and check it out.

Re: xhe-aac successor?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: spaceship9876 on
Does anyone know if a successor is being developed? I think i read that either xhe-aac or usac was developed by Audio Engineering Society (https://aes2.org/standards/). They have lots of standards for various audio things in development on their site, not sure if any of them are codecs though.
Nope, USAC was, like MP3 and (HE-)AAC, developed and standardized by the Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG). See, e.g., http://ecodis.de/audio.htm for some more details. I don't think AES standardizes codecs.

USAC's (or xHE-AAC's) technical successors are, for high-quality audio, MPEG-H Audio and, for VoIP communication purposes, 3GPP Immersive Voice and Audio Services (IVAS), see also that Web page.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.
 

Re: xhe-aac successor?

Reply #7 –
If you look at the time to develop and new codec, and the time it takes to mature and rolled out. We could easily agree it is a 10 year roadmap.

You then look at the Network Technology, from 5G ( 3GPP R17 ) to 6G or some sort of improved 5G. Along with Ethernet and Fibre Optic Roadmap for Backbone, the spread of Network tech and cost / data unit is *still* dropping at a very fast rate. In many part of EU ( Still mostly on 4G but on their way to full 5G infrastructure ), Unlimited Data Plan is already a thing. Developing Country are catching up at a faster rate due to lower learning curve.

There aren't that much interest in further lowering the bitrate. The market used to be about providing CD quality ( MP3 128kbps ) at 64Kbps, which both AAC, and later HE-AAC as well as MP3 Pro promised and something no codec could deliver 20 years later. But we stopped caring. It would be much more interesting to have a codec now that provides near perfect, AAC / OPUS 256Kbps quality at 128Kbps. Or Extremely high quality with low latency and low energy usage.