5 ms·

This codec isn’t supported on the web. So it is Android and iOS only. This post talks about the improved audio quality, but I don’t buy it. This was probably do

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• treffer 4y ago
  Well less bandwidth and storage is also good for users. Less bandwidth. Some users pay for bandwidth. Or have a monthly cap. So less bandwidth is a monetary advantage for users. It also may decrease time to play. Similar, but less ctitical, for storage. One rule of thumb when switching codecs is "don't decrease quality". I buy that Meta did that. Which would result in a slight improvement in quality (of course sold as big snd noticable) while getting storage and bandwidth down (or allow for better quality in the bandwidth adaptive case). That saud. Yes. OPUS! Although other aites got quite some bad press for low bitrate opus.
• TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  Why can’t it be supported in web browsers? Is there a technical limitation or it just hasn’t been done because only Meta uses it?
  • zinekeller 4y ago
    Patents. I presume that the Facebook and Instagram apps bundle their own decoder (which Meta paid) but you need to convince other companies (or wait for OS integration for Firefox) to include xHE-AAC.
    • charcircuit 4y ago
      Android, iOS, macOS, and Windows come with support for xHE-AAC. https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/media/media-formats https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/media/media-forma... https://developer.apple.com/documentation/http_live_streaming/http_live_streaming_hls_authoring_specification_for_apple_devices https://developer.apple.com/documentation/http_live_streamin...
    • Teever 4y ago
      When I set up my jellyfin server I learned that Firefox doesn't support h.265 and that there's no way to add codecs to the browser. Does anyone know why it isn't possible to add codecs to the browser?
      • orangepurple 4y ago
        Chrome quietly supports h265 decode as of version 107 https://chromestatus.com/feature/5186511939567616 https://chromestatus.com/feature/5186511939567616
        • TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
          What’s quiet about it? Seems like it was announced.
          • weeblewobble 4y ago
            They didn’t exactly hide it but they certainly didn’t make a big deal about it. Likely because there is no software fallback
            • illiarian 4y ago
              And because they don't want to advertise this support: they push their own codecs, hard.
      • jeroenhd 4y ago
        You need to pay for the necessary patents to include an H.265 decoder if you intend to distribute software in countries that care about silly things like software patents. Mozilla famously relied on Cisco to gain h.264 playback, because the patent included a certain maximum total price you needed to pay after exceeding a certain amount of devices. Cisco exceeded that amount, so any additional devices they supported were practically free, and they released a free h.264 decoder plugin for Firefox. The pricing loophole has been removed out of h.265 so a Mozilla decoder would cost them a lot of money. In theory you could add codecs to your browser just fine, but Mozilla has already indicated it's not planning on adding h.265 to their browser, focusing on AV1 support instead. Perhaps Mozilla would welcome patches to allow forwarding h.265 streams to the OS for decoding, like Chrome does, but they're not going to put the effort in themselves. With hardware AV1 decoding finally on the rise, I don't think that's a bad decision necessarily, companies and websites opting for the patent ridden format over the open format knew what they were doing.
    • 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
      you can decode image files on web using wasm... i think perf suffers a bit though. audio i don't know, that's probably harder. you would probably lose the benefit of loudness normalization iiuc.
  • illiarian 4y ago
    Because more often than not is has to be implemented on OS level, and no one wants to do that for many many reasons, and patents are probably the least of it. For example, for most modern formats software-only encoding is very slow, and you really want to have hardware support for it [1]. But to add hardware support to increasingly complex and varied specs is not a decision you make lightly. [1] Google is forcing companies to support its codecs in hardware on pain of removing Youtube e.g. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-2-the-youtube-tv-app-gets-pulled-from-the-roku-store/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-...
• ipaddr 4y ago
  This change breaks video in stories on the website.
• dopa42365 4y ago
  Their web version seems to be the fallback (h264 etc) that is guaranteed to run on every device from the last 20 years pretty much. Then again, they clearly don't care about anything outside of their apps, the web experience (instagram especially) is a complete disaster of a walled garden with highly gimped functionality and extreme limitations everywhere. The only good customer is one that willingly opts into all ads I guess.
  • EntrePrescott 4y ago
    > The only good customer is one that willingly opts into all ads I guess. There's indeed some truth to that as well in the sense that the customer is the one who wants the ad to be displayed in the first place and pays for it. So it's a form of opt in as well. That being said, the user who sees the ads is not the customer but the product. And yes, the best sellable product (i.e. user) for Meta (Facebook, Instagram etc), Alphabet (Google etc) and the like is the one that willingly opts into all ads.
• 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
  don't people wear headphones?
• yieldcrv 4y ago
  Built in sound level management sounds like a good enough reason
• oefrha 4y ago
  Reduced bandwidth obviously leads to better quality at the same target bit rate. Phone speakers are good enough to reproduce some obvious compression artifacts of, say, 32k/64k HE-AAC, let alone higher end headphones. ABR could definitely help.
  • awill 4y ago
    >>Reduced bandwidth obviously leads to better quality at the same target bit rate or, more likely, lower bandwidth at similar quality.
  • dehrmann 4y ago
    > Phone speakers Hmm... You could detect the output type (built-in speakers, headphones, bluetooth) and change the audio quality accordingly.
    • oefrha 4y ago
      The phone speaker mention is a response to gp’s claim that “phone speakers aren’t good enough to notice”, which is not true. We’re not talking about 128k aac vs lossless here.
• DaleCurtis 4y ago
  Chrome has supported xHE-AAC since 2020 on Android, 2022 on macOS, and added support on Windows last week.
  • solarkraft 4y ago
    Interesting. What about Firefox? What about hardware acceleration?
    • DaleCurtis 4y ago
      It may just work in Firefox on OS with xHE-AAC support since they already rely on the system for AAC decoding IIRC. canPlayType/isTypeSupported probably indicate no support unless they've explicitly added support though. I'm not aware of any hardware acceleration.
• skybrian 4y ago
  People will often use the same bluetooth headphones to listen to music regardless of what kind of computer they’re using. I don’t think it’s safe to assume mobile devices have worse sound.
• raffraffraff 4y ago
  Opus really is great. My first choice almost all the time. Except... I wanted to stream music across the network to another computer with the lowest possible latency. I didn't care about the extra quality you get from lossless (opus sounded fine to me at 96kbps), but chose flac because it has almost no latency. Opus (and for that matter, all other codecs) added noticeable latency.
  • mjaniczek 4y ago
    How did you stream it, if I may ask? ffmpeg server and VLC/mplayer client or something similar?
  • gary_0 4y ago
    Opus goes down to 5ms if you customize it, and there's no point in going any lower for Internet streaming because 5ms of raw audio data is only 480 bytes at 16-bit 48khz (plus lots of UDP packet overhead). For latency-sensitive local streaming things are a lot different, and most of your latency will be from buffering to compensate for network jitter. I used Opus for a VOIP app and I was really impressed with it. It's all I would ever use for Internet audio.
    • raffraffraff 4y ago
      I used the both opusenc and ffmpeg, and twiddled with the configuration endlessly for about a week. Edit: I'll elaborate here. I went all sciencey and wrote a script to test all combinations of a range of encoder settings that included ranges of comp, max delay, frame size, bitrate etc. Multiplied out, that was a lot of different combinations. I ran the script (which took ages because I had to record the startup latency for each one and capture audio on the remote end, logging ffmpeg output etc etc). Sometimes a particular setting was so bad across 5 tests (with different values for other settings) that I'd scrap that whole batch to save time. The ranges of configurations that were promising were used "in real life" to play music in our living room. I narrowed them down to a few that were "usable", but I asked myself "if I bought this thing as a product, would I send it back?". The answer was "yes". FWIW, the sender was a Macbook Pro 2015 and the receiver was a Raspberry pi 4B TL;DR At or below 5ms it had reliability issues (drop-outs) that would occur randomly but frequently enough to ruin music listening experience (like, even a 1s drop per song is completely unacceptable). But it also seemed to stretch audio because the delay would increase over time. Even when I got a high quality (zero drop-out steam) with acceptable latency, the latency would slowly increase over time. So about 1 hour into listening, of I paused the source to answer a call, the decoder end would continue playing for 30+ seconds. I realised that over a LAN, streaming raw audio technically works, with almost zero latency, so I knew that it was the encode/decode that introduced the latency. That's when I switched over to flac, and noticed an immediate improvement in initial latency, but also stopped having the increasing delay over time.
• maeln 4y ago
  They specifically mention that one of the advantage for them is the loudness management, to avoid having video with widely different range when their user are scrolling through their timeline. I think Opus also has loudness management, but they seem fairly specific about the one that xHE-AAC provide : > Instead of burning in a specific target level and dynamic range compression (DRC) profile during encoding, xHE-AAC allows us to leave the original audio characteristics untouched and delegate loudness management processing to the client via loudness metadata, for the optimal audio experience based on context. So maybe the xHE-AAC does provide a tangible benefit in this department.
• Dalewyn 4y ago
  >This codec isn’t supported on the web. So it is Android and iOS only. So it is supported on the web. >This was probably done to reduce storage and bandwidth, not to improve audio quality. Packing more information into the same amount of data is the literal definition of better quality. >Phone speakers aren’t good enough to notice. Maybe not, but phones can be connected to headphones and speakers which can. Especially if they connect via 3.5mm audio jack.