What's happening with AAC development ???

[Romario]

Hi guys, I am wondering these days, what is happening with the development of AAC audio codec, for example Nero AAC codec ?

It seems that all community stopped with development, which is shame bacause this format have many improvments over good old MP3 standard.

If someone know the answer I will listen very carefuly. Thank you in advance for your patience with me. :)

[IgorC]

Such AAC encoders like Nero, Apple iTunes/QuickTime, Coding Technologies (Winamp) have reached optimal quality during 2005-2006. Since then there were some polish, speed and usability improvements but main level of quality was the same.

There is a new Fraunhofer AAC encoder (last versions of Winamp 5.62+). See an open public AAC listening test http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/

Also there will be a new codec USAC that will replace HE-AAC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Speech_and_Audio_Coding
USAC will be better than HE-AAC but both have no advantage over LC-AAC at higher bitrates (more than 80 kbps for stereo).

Nor sure but I think the quality of MDCT audio codecs (USAC, LC-AAC, HE-AAC) has reached its maximum. Completely new technology is required to get substantial quality gain.

[b66pak]

There is a new Fraunhofer AAC encoder (last versions of Winamp 5.62+).

how fast is this encoder? (for same CBR)
_

[IgorC]

There is a CLI wrapper. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=89518&view=findpost&p=763079
You can test the speed with it in foobar.

[b66pak]

thanks a lot...
_

[Romario]

Is that possible that development of AAC is nearly over ??? I am very suprised, I must say. Well, Lame MP3 codec is still well into development process, can you explain that ? Is MP3 have something more to offer in future ?

[IgorC]

Well, Lame MP3 codec is still well into development process
Download last stable 3.98.4 or beta 3.99b0 and compare them in blind test with 5-years old 3.97 on 10 samples or so. After that You will be able to answer your questions very easy.

[[P]ako]

Is that possible that development of AAC is nearly over ??? I am very suprised, I must say. Well, Lame MP3 codec is still well into development process, can you explain that ? Is MP3 have something more to offer in future ?

I tested years ago a 5.1 Fraunhofer MP3 codec, I do wonder whether they are still working on it.

[SeeMoreDigital]

ako;1520268']I tested years ago a 5.1 Fraunhofer MP3 codec, I do wonder whether they are still working on it.
Personally speaking, I don't think there's not much incentive for audio and video format developers to sink their money into developing new or even improving old audio and video formats.

Cast your mind back to the time when audio and video format developers were jumping over themselves to get their format approved for use on the two proposed HD disc platforms.

The AAC developers must have been pretty upset that their format didn't make it to either of the HD disc platforms. Especially as their format was already being used by NHK in Japan for satellite TV and Sony had built amplifiers that could decode AAC bit-stream data.

Microsoft must have equally have been peeved that their WMA audio format didn't make HD disc too. Especially as they had launched a range of HD disc titles (complete with surround sound WMA audio) and Pioneer had built amplifiers that could decode WMA bit-stream data.

At least the AAC developers can console themselves that their audio format made it into DAB+ radio and some DVB TV transmission platforms.

So when it comes to 5.1 MP3 audio. Who's going to sink their money into supporting it?

[Romario]

Download last stable 3.98.4 or beta 3.99b0 and compare them in blind test with 5-years old 3.97 on 10 samples or so. After that You will be able to answer your questions very easy.

Well, my hear isn't so sharp so I can't feel any difference at all. So, could you be kind and tell me your opinion based on your hear ?


Well, SeeMoreDigital, I understand all that. It must be very disturbing for AAC developers that their best audio codec didn'r approved in any HD format. And that's very weird, if you ask me. Why the hell BlueRay association didn't approved AAC ?

[bernd_b]

Download last stable 3.98.4 or beta 3.99b0 and compare them in blind test with 5-years old 3.97 on 10 samples or so

I can't feel any difference at all.

That is at least the answer I expected.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well, SeeMoreDigital, I understand all that. It must be very disturbing for AAC developers that their best audio codec didn'r approved in any HD format. And that's very weird, if you ask me. Why the hell BlueRay association didn't approved AAC ?We can only imagine...

Perhaps if AAC lossless (MPEG-4 ALS) had reached maturity it may have made it :eek:

[[P]ako]

So when it comes to 5.1 MP3 audio. Who's going to sink their money into supporting it?

At the end it's all about money, even open source projects in one way or another.

I like AAC as an audio codec and I am sad to see it stagnated. C'est la vie.

[Anakunda]

I think there are new codecs like CELT which in early stages may encounter rapid development by this can replace AAC in quality soon.

[burfadel]

LAME is still being developed as it has still got speed improvements and other things to go into it. Remember, don't know if they're useful or not but you have the recent AVX and also XOP, FMA4, CVT16 etc that may be advantageous. Also there are algorithm tweaks for the psycho-acoustic modelling etc.

In terms of the AAC encoders, its not that there aren't improvements that can be made, its whether those improvements bring any advantage to the company making it. Remember LAME is opensource, which can be both advantageous as also detrimental if the development team moves onto other things (remember they gain nothing but the satisfaction in the product). So although there could be improvements in the psycho-acoustic modelling and speed of the AAC codecs, the companies probably don't see a few percent speed increase of a 1 percent better quality as cost effective (those percentages are examples only, the benefits could potentially be much greater than that).

[IgorC]

Licensing costs of AAC are very high. That could be a reason why it wasn't supported in Blu-Ray.