IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Why is opus only good at 64/kbs
Warning
post Jan 26 2013, 10:31
Post #1





Group: Banned
Posts: 18
Joined: 22-January 12
Member No.: 96612



So I was very skeptical about opus when it sounded like a new OGG Vorbis hype where the codec is both free and crappy quality. I didn't think without SBR it would be able to compete with Nero HE-AAC. So I compared at different bitrates and opus always sounded worse. I decided to ABX at different bitrates, opus failed on 32 and 48 but not 64 where the treble was audibly brighter than Nero.

Ok you got me convinced that opus sounds better at 64 kb/s, why does it suck so bad at other bitrates? Also, why didn't you guys include WMA in your listening test along with opus? WMA has proven to be slightly superior quality to HE-AAC at 64 kb/s so maybe opus still has a competitor.

Also, fix your biased testing methodology and keep the bitrates as close as possible to the original! Jesus. My hypothetical codec produces output bitrates of 192 kb/s when my quality setting intends it to be half as less, I demand it to be nominated as capable of transparency at 16 kb/s. rolleyes.gif
Your unscientific results makes me keep clear of your website these days.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Warning
post Jan 27 2013, 02:26
Post #2





Group: Banned
Posts: 18
Joined: 22-January 12
Member No.: 96612



@seren
I don't use 32 kb/s for music, but I'm hoping it will happen someday. The original format of the song I uploaded is .MOD and it's only 15KB which gives it a bitrate of 1.2 kb/s and even lower when compressed.

@saratoga
I've explained myself numerous times, I won't do it a third. Also, choosing MP3 for quality isn't a wise choice given its inefficient block sizes and other numerous design flaws make it incapable of transparency at any bitrate.

@db1989
You're just being ignored, for now anyway. I intended to respond but posts concerning the original topic came back up so I went with the flow.

@greynol
I never said anything about archival quality.

@C.R.Helmrich
I increased Opus' delay to the maximum 60ms to produce that sample. Is this close to AAC's? I'm aware it was intended for VoiP but your latest listening test got my attention when I heard AAC has finally been made obsolete, so I was puzzled why this was only true for one bitrate? No I haven't ABX'd higher bitrates but since I do not intend to switch to Opus even if it is only slightly higher quality, I'm not wasting the time. USAC is due which will crush both AAC and Opus.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jan 27 2013, 02:37
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 5000
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 20:26) *
@saratoga
I've explained myself numerous times, I won't do it a third.


I don't think two counts as "numerous", particularly when one of them is you accusing me of trolling. Basically, you've just said that you rated Opus higher even though you don't think you should have. Is that a fair summary?

QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 20:26) *
Also, choosing MP3 for quality isn't a wise choice given its inefficient block sizes and other numerous design flaws make it incapable of transparency at any bitrate.


No, MP3 is quite transparent at high bitrates. You need to do some listening tests, I suspect you'll be surprised. Or alternatively, take a look at some of the historical listening tests on this site.

QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 20:26) *
I increased Opus' delay to the maximum 60ms to produce that sample.


Hmm, did you use any other non-standard settings? Where is that FLAC file you mentioned, I'm curious to try it myself.

QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 20:26) *
I'm aware it was intended for VoiP but your latest listening test got my attention when I heard AAC has finally been made obsolete, so I was puzzled why this was only true for one bitrate?


Did you see my explanation above? You shouldn't assume that one codec will be better at all bitrates. AAC-He is a great example of a codec that does really good at low bitrates and not good at higher bitrates.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Warning
post Jan 27 2013, 03:03
Post #4





Group: Banned
Posts: 18
Joined: 22-January 12
Member No.: 96612



QUOTE (saratoga @ Jan 27 2013, 02:37) *
I don't think two counts as "numerous", particularly when one of them is you accusing me of trolling. Basically, you've just said that you rated Opus higher even though you don't think you should have. Is that a fair summary?


No, opus had better stereo dynamics at the expense of sample quality. AAC had better sample quality with the expense of simplified stereo. They both sounded like shit in the end and which one's worse is a matter of opinion. Do you prefer better brightness or better stereo?

QUOTE
No, MP3 is quite transparent at high bitrates. You need to do some listening tests, I suspect you'll be surprised. Or alternatively, take a look at some of the historical listening tests on this site.


Already have. Trained ears can distinguish the MP3 artifacts at even 320 kb/s due to serious design flaws, even if ours can't. Both will sound transparent at 192 kb/s to both of us and AAC will have better technical quality, retaining more inaudible, high-frequency parts so what's the point of using an outdated format if you're aiming for quality, pal?

QUOTE
Hmm, did you use any other non-standard settings? Where is that FLAC file you mentioned, I'm curious to try it myself.


Nope. I'll upload a FLAC later if anyone else requests.

QUOTE
Did you see my explanation above? You shouldn't assume that one codec will be better at all bitrates. AAC-He is a great example of a codec that does really good at low bitrates and not good at higher bitrates.


Except it does just fine and outperforms MP3 at any bitrate. For real dude, you aren't too bright for someone that's been here for a decade. I've learned everything I needed about AAC within a month when I decided to switch to it. This site's listening tests also prompted my move when it kept being rated #1 even if y'all now downsize its bitrate, fraudulently advertise it as higher and declare it to be lower quality than f*cking QUICKTIME.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jan 27 2013, 03:19
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 5000
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 21:03) *
QUOTE (saratoga @ Jan 27 2013, 02:37) *
I don't think two counts as "numerous", particularly when one of them is you accusing me of trolling. Basically, you've just said that you rated Opus higher even though you don't think you should have. Is that a fair summary?


No, opus had better stereo dynamics at the expense of sample quality. AAC had better sample quality with the expense of simplified stereo. They both sounded like shit in the end and which one's worse is a matter of opinion. Do you prefer better brightness or better stereo?


That is not what you said before:

QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 21:03) *
So I compared at different bitrates and opus always sounded worse.


And then you rated Opus as having higher quality. So you've basically said that Opus is better, that both are equally bad, and that AAC is better.

Like I said before:

QUOTE
think you need to figure out what it is you believe before posting such strong statements that may or may not be correct.


And I still mean it.


QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 21:03) *
Already have. Trained ears can distinguish the MP3 artifacts at even 320 kb/s due to serious design flaws, even if ours can't.


Source? This sounds like nonsense to me.

QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 21:03) *
Both will sound transparent at 192 kb/s to both of us and AAC will have better technical quality, retaining more inaudible, high-frequency parts so what's the point of using an outdated format if you're aiming for quality, pal?


What is "technical quality"? How does one assess it?

QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 21:03) *
Nope. I'll upload a FLAC later if anyone else requests.


Requested. Upload it now so I can try.

QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 21:03) *
Except it does just fine and outperforms MP3 at any bitrate.


This I doubt. AAC-He is not really intended to be transparent. Its basically just estimating higher frequencies via harmonic extension and some side information. But by all means, if you have evidence, I'll look at it now.

QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 21:03) *
For real dude, you aren't too bright for someone that's been here for a decade. I've learned everything I needed about AAC within a month when I decided to switch to it.


I'm not attacking you, so no need to get so worked up over nothing.

QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 21:03) *
This site's listening tests also prompted my move when it kept being rated #1 even if y'all now downsize its bitrate, fraudulently advertise it as higher and declare it to be lower quality than f*cking QUICKTIME.


Not sure if you're aware of this and just mistyping, but Quicktime is an AAC encoder, and in fact it it wildly considered to be among the best AAC encoders.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Warning   Why is opus only good at 64/kbs   Jan 26 2013, 10:31
- - db1989   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 09:31) So I...   Jan 26 2013, 10:51
- - LithosZA   QUOTE Ok you got me convinced that opus sounds bet...   Jan 26 2013, 12:10
- - C.R.Helmrich   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 11:31) Also...   Jan 26 2013, 12:18
- - IgorC   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 06:31) Also...   Jan 26 2013, 17:29
- - greynol   I'm guessing he's in violation of TOS #12,...   Jan 26 2013, 17:44
- - Kamedo2   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 18:31) My h...   Jan 26 2013, 22:24
|- - DonP   QUOTE (Kamedo2 @ Jan 26 2013, 16:24) Howe...   Jan 27 2013, 14:06
- - Warning   Results: CODEABC/HR Version 1.0, 6 May 2004 Testn...   Jan 26 2013, 22:56
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 16:56) WMA ...   Jan 26 2013, 23:10
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 16:56) Resu...   Jan 26 2013, 23:20
||- - Warning   QUOTE Unless I'm misunderstanding something, y...   Jan 27 2013, 00:03
||- - db1989   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 23:03) Wast...   Jan 27 2013, 00:27
||- - saratoga   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 18:03) QUOT...   Jan 27 2013, 00:37
|- - db1989   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 21:56) OGG ...   Jan 26 2013, 23:31
|- - DonP   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 16:56) I...   Jan 27 2013, 14:37
- - IgorC   Achtung! Das ist sehr gut!   Jan 26 2013, 23:05
- - IgorC   Exactly. As poll 2013 has indicated that only two ...   Jan 26 2013, 23:19
- - greynol   ...and with this discussion the troll count just i...   Jan 26 2013, 23:32
- - Warning   http://www.sendspace.com/file/x4ec7d AAC and opus...   Jan 27 2013, 01:07
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 27 2013, 00:07) .......   Jan 27 2013, 01:14
||- - Warning   QUOTE (Nick.C @ Jan 27 2013, 01:14) QUOTE...   Jan 27 2013, 01:26
||- - greynol   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 16:26) I...   Jan 27 2013, 01:50
|- - db1989   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 27 2013, 00:07) You ...   Jan 27 2013, 01:23
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 19:07) EDIT...   Jan 27 2013, 01:24
||- - Warning   QUOTE (saratoga @ Jan 27 2013, 01:24) I t...   Jan 27 2013, 01:34
||- - saratoga   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 19:34) QUOT...   Jan 27 2013, 01:44
|||- - NullC   This thread is generally awesome. I mostly _expec...   Mar 2 2013, 01:22
||- - db1989   Whether or not Iím being automatically ignored her...   Jan 27 2013, 01:50
||- - C.R.Helmrich   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 27 2013, 02:34) The ...   Jan 27 2013, 01:50
||- - saratoga   QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ Jan 26 2013, 19:50)...   Jan 27 2013, 02:13
|- - Seren   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 27 2013, 08:07) AAC ...   Jan 27 2013, 01:33
- - greynol   @Chris: That's not the point. We don't ju...   Jan 27 2013, 02:14
- - Warning   @seren I don't use 32 kb/s for music, but I...   Jan 27 2013, 02:26
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 20:26) @sar...   Jan 27 2013, 02:37
||- - Warning   QUOTE (saratoga @ Jan 27 2013, 02:37) I d...   Jan 27 2013, 03:03
||- - saratoga   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 21:03) QUOT...   Jan 27 2013, 03:19
|||- - Warning   QUOTE (saratoga @ Jan 27 2013, 03:19) Tha...   Jan 27 2013, 06:23
|||- - IgorC   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 27 2013, 02:23) So w...   Jan 27 2013, 14:07
||- - greynol   QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 18:03) AAC ...   Jan 27 2013, 03:49
|- - C.R.Helmrich   Good morning, QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 27 2013, ...   Jan 27 2013, 13:00
|- - greynol   QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ Jan 27 2013, 04:00)...   Jan 27 2013, 14:57
|- - C.R.Helmrich   QUOTE (greynol @ Jan 27 2013, 14:57) Ok g...   Jan 27 2013, 15:10
- - greynol   TOS 8 and 2. Your posting style (it is painfully ...   Jan 27 2013, 06:52
- - [JAZ]   I was tempted to reply to this thread yesterday bu...   Jan 27 2013, 09:46
- - db1989   It didnít take long for the nose-thumbing tantrum ...   Jan 27 2013, 12:43
- - greynol   You better go back and re-read. My Blade comment w...   Jan 27 2013, 15:17
- - Omicron   My encoded AAC is much worse than yours. And that ...   Feb 21 2013, 17:21
- - Warrior_   I'm posting to announce I've done ABX list...   Mar 1 2013, 22:32
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Warrior_ @ Mar 1 2013, 13:32) Abou...   Mar 2 2013, 02:15
|- - IgorC   QUOTE (Warrior_ @ Mar 1 2013, 18:32) Nero...   Mar 2 2013, 20:39
- - db1989   Sup Warning. Bye Warning. P.S. I hope the terribl...   Mar 1 2013, 23:17
- - IgorC   How can they compare audio files by images which w...   Mar 2 2013, 03:03
- - db1989   Part of me would like to enumerate all the ways in...   Mar 2 2013, 03:10
- - splice   Woo. I could feel the hairs growing on the palms o...   Mar 2 2013, 11:18
|- - Dynamic   QUOTE (splice @ Mar 2 2013, 10:18) I unde...   Mar 4 2013, 20:24
- - splice   Thank you for the explanation. I've noticed si...   Mar 4 2013, 21:06


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st October 2014 - 02:48