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: AAC Vs Huffman Coding (Read 7557 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC Vs Huffman Coding

Hi,

what is the main advantages of huffman coding of spectral data (spectral coefficients) in AAC bitstream

Thanks in Advance!


AAC Vs Huffman Coding

Reply #2
What is the dis advantages of Huffman Coding?


AAC Vs Huffman Coding

Reply #4
What is the dis advantages of Huffman Coding?

Since it is lossless it isn't as efficient as the lossy aspects of the encoding algorithm.

The lossy and lossless parts complement each other, so this is not a disadvantage.

One disadvantage is that it is not the most efficient lossless compression possible. Arithmetic coding could be more efficient, but the advantage of huffman coding is that it is very simple and fast to decode (which was a serious issue at the time AAC was developed (still is for cheap hardware players)).

AAC Vs Huffman Coding

Reply #5
In AAC "long block taken for High frequency resolution and Short block for High time resolution". Why this for avoiding the disadvantage of huffman lossless coding or any other benifits?

AAC Vs Huffman Coding

Reply #6
Quote
Why this for avoiding the disadvantage of huffman lossless coding

What disadvantage?

AAC Vs Huffman Coding

Reply #7
In AAC "long block taken for High frequency resolution and Short block for High time resolution". Why this for avoiding the disadvantage of huffman lossless coding or any other benifits?



Long and short blocks are for controlling the amount and duration of pre-echo.

The long block is almost always more efficient in analytic terms, but is not more efficient at all when a pre-echo situation comes about. For that, short blocks suffice.

Short blocks are rarely useful outside of that situation in standard AAC.

Huffman coding has nothing to do with either. The Huffman coding is a way to reduce a very highly skewed distribution in a self-terminating fashion. In the case of the highest (escape) codebook, also a way to introduce self-termination into an indeterminate word length.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

AAC Vs Huffman Coding

Reply #8
In MP3 Long Block use 576 samples and Short block use 192 samples while in AAC Long Block use 1024 samples and Short Block have 128 samples ? What is the significance of this sample amount change? Is it provide any advantage to Huffman encoding of Encoder and Decoding of Decoder?

AAC Vs Huffman Coding

Reply #9
In MP3 Long Block use 576 samples and Short block use 192 samples while in AAC Long Block use 1024 samples and Short Block have 128 samples ? What is the significance of this sample amount change? Is it provide any advantage to Huffman encoding of Encoder and Decoding of Decoder?


How much more can here be mixed up? It's not Huffman vs. anything!

That's like asking "What's the significance of smaller tires, does it provide any advantage to Diesel engines?" Sounds a little bit like you had recently some Albert Hofmann encoding...    And now some fixation just won't leave your mind....


AAC Vs Huffman Coding

Reply #10
What is the significance of sample number change both in Long and Short block of AAC when comparing with MP3?
MP3 Long Block 576 and Short Block 192 while AAC Long Block have data equilant to 1024 samples and Short Block have samples of 128