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: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder (Read 2521 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Hello. If I understood correctly, there are major xHE-AAC encoders: Exhale and FhG xHE-AAC encoder, right? How can I get FhG xHE-AAC encoder executable (not source code)?

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #1 –
I found https://www.poikosoft.com/ and while it's not a commandline encoder which is what I was looking for, I think having this link is better than having nothing.

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #2 –
EZ CD Audio Converter is a superb tool for xHE-AAC encoding. It offers the flexibility to use either the Exhale encoder or Fraunhofer's USAC encoder. The latter is particularly notable for its ability to achieve significantly lower bitrates: 12, 14, 16, 18, 20… kbps for stereo, and even 6, 8, and 10 kbps in mono mode. Despite these lower bitrates, the quality remains impressive, and the encoding speed is fast. Additionally, it supports higher bitrates up to 384 kbps.

If you have an interest in playing with low bitrate encoders, this software comes highly recommended. I can also provide some sample encodings if you wish to test it before buying it (just send me the samples), as it appears you have a peculiar sensitivity to sound nuances or color [there's a 21-days trial period]

The GUI is friendly but you can't use the embedded encoders as command line interface.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #3 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
EZ CD Audio Converter is a superb tool for xHE-AAC encoding. It offers the flexibility to use either the Exhale encoder or Fraunhofer's USAC encoder. The latter is particularly notable for its ability to achieve significantly lower bitrates: 12, 14, 16, 18, 20… kbps for stereo, and even 6, 8, and 10 kbps in mono mode. Despite these lower bitrates, the quality remains impressive, and the encoding speed is fast. Additionally, it supports higher bitrates up to 384 kbps.

If you have an interest in playing with low bitrate encoders, this software comes highly recommended. I can also provide some sample encodings if you wish to test it before buying it (just send me the samples), as it appears you have a peculiar sensitivity to sound nuances or color [there's a 21-days trial period]

The GUI is friendly but you can't use the embedded encoders as command line interface.

I think the worst side of this converter is that it doesn't allow to convert a file with multiple parameters at once for testing purposes. Also seems like xHE-AAC can do a better job for low bitrates when the speed is increased before encoding (with a higher bitrate) and decrased during playing. Also, in some combinations, the bandwidth is roughly equal to or lower than half of the Nyquist limit, which means decoding the audio at the half sampling rate or downsampling it to that if that's not possible will give a better result. These are probably valid also for non-xHE HE-AAC.

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #4 –
Oh man, you do not live in the era of floppy disks!
Just use reasonable rates or any lossless conversion, there is absolutely no reason to use some fake high frequeincies generated by primitive settings

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Sunhillow on
Oh man, you do not live in the era of floppy disks!
Just use reasonable rates or any lossless conversion, there is absolutely no reason to use some fake high frequeincies generated by primitive settings


I also don't like the sound color of SBR, so I would use it at a lower sampling rate as I described to minimize the sound color of SBR and increase the bandwidth using linear interpolation, but low bitrates still have usages and will never cease to have usages (people still sometimes need to store/transmit lots of data at the same time, or store/transmit some data with a tiny storage/bandwidth).

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Klymins on
use it at a lower sampling rate as I described to minimize the sound color of SBR and increase the bandwidth using linear interpolation

I tried and discovered that this method does not work well either (with SBR).

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #7 –
@guruboolez Do you know how can I force the encoder to don't use SBR and/or use a lower sampling rate?

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #8 –
I don't think you can tweak the encoder.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #9 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
I don't think you can tweak the encoder.

Thanks,

Does anyone else know how can I force this encoder to don't use SBR and/or use a lower sampling rate?

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Klymins on
Does anyone else know how can I force this encoder to don't use SBR and/or use a lower sampling rate?
These commercial encoders are generally not designed for user configuration outside very basic parameters (stereo/mono, bitrate, etc). Their development teams decide on the best sound compromise, allowing users to utilize them effortlessly.
In any case, the USAC (xHE-AAC) format will not provide better sound quality without SBR at very low bitrates. At least not for the general population or the vast majority of people. You must accept that your search is quite unconventional, and you won't find relevant help here. If you want xHE-AAC without eSBR, essentially xHE-AAC without the 'x' and 'HE', you're left with plain AAC, which is LC-AAC. Note that Fraunhofer's LC-AAC encoder allows encoding up to 8 kbps in mono and 16 kbps in stereo. Et voila, problem solved.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #13 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
These commercial encoders are generally not designed for user configuration outside very basic parameters (stereo/mono, bitrate, etc). Their development teams decide on the best sound compromise, allowing users to utilize them effortlessly.
In any case, the USAC (xHE-AAC) format will not provide better sound quality without SBR at very low bitrates. At least not for the general population or the vast majority of people. You must accept that your search is quite unconventional, and you won't find relevant help here. If you want xHE-AAC without eSBR, essentially xHE-AAC without the 'x' and 'HE', you're left with plain AAC, which is LC-AAC. Note that Fraunhofer's LC-AAC encoder allows encoding up to 8 kbps in mono and 16 kbps in stereo. Et voila, problem solved.

I recently learned that the core of xHE-AAC is different from LC-AAC (this is what makes it non-backwards-compatible with LC-AAC), and this means xHE-AAC without SBR is not LC-AAC.

Quote from: shadowking on
Possibly, With foobar2k and ssrc resampler you can get any supported sample rate you want.

Thanks. But looks like I couldn't understand you.

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #14 –
Quote from: Klymins on
I recently learned that the core of xHE-AAC is different from LC-AAC (this is what makes it non-backwards-compatible with LC-AAC), and this means xHE-AAC without SBR is not LC-AAC.
Indeed. Anyway, it doesn't change anything. No sane developer or company are going to propose xHE-AAC at 8 or 16 kbps without all their efficiency tools. No one on this board, aside from you, is looking for muffled audio that resembles the sound quality of early Bell Telephone Company transmissions.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #15 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
Quote from: Klymins on
I recently learned that the core of xHE-AAC is different from LC-AAC (this is what makes it non-backwards-compatible with LC-AAC), and this means xHE-AAC without SBR is not LC-AAC.
Indeed. Anyway, it doesn't change anything. No sane developer or company are going to propose xHE-AAC at 8 or 16 kbps without all their efficiency tools. No one on this board, aside from you, is looking for muffled audio that resembles the sound quality of early Bell Telephone Company transmissions.

It won't be muffled if encoded at 11025Hz and resampled to 44100Hz with linear interpolation. Many Flash games used 11025Hz (mostly 16kbps) MP3's for music but they don't sound muffled because of linear interpolation. I didn't know they were 11025Hz MP3's until I ripped them from the SWF files.

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Klymins on
It won't be muffled if encoded at 11025Hz and resampled to 44100Hz with linear interpolation.
I used a bit of my free time to test Multiple Resampler on foobar2000 32 bit like you suggested. While the sound improves slightly, it remains muffled compared to the original source, with a soundstage that feels almost mono. When I tested with instruments other than violin and piano, like electric guitar and drums, the results were even more muffled to my ears.

It feels like a waste of my free time…
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #17 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
Quote from: Klymins on
It won't be muffled if encoded at 11025Hz and resampled to 44100Hz with linear interpolation.
I used a bit of my free time to test Multiple Resampler on foobar2000 32 bit like you suggested. While the sound improves slightly, it remains muffled compared to the original source

If you know what does the original sound like or if you listened to a higher sampling rate recently, that's normal (it's the case for me too), so I think following the link in that post and playing the game some time after listening something with a higher sampling rate is a better idea. (Ruffle plays the sounds correctly but does not show the visual effects.)

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #18 –
Quote from: Klymins on
If you know what does the original sound like or if you listened to a higher sampling rate recently, that's normal
Sound is bad, close to mono, with heavy distortions. It doesn't even approach the natural sound quality of recordings from a hundred years ago. Digital horror. End of story. Good luck with your quest (and moderators, if they still exist).
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Re: Getting FhG xHE-AAC encoder

Reply #19 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
Quote from: Klymins on
If you know what does the original sound like or if you listened to a higher sampling rate recently, that's normal
Sound is bad, close to mono, with heavy distortions. It doesn't even approach the natural sound quality of recordings from a hundred years ago. Digital horror. End of story. Good luck with your quest (and moderators, if they still exist).

I don't agree with you about that but thank you anyway.