Why is opus only good at 64/kbs Options

[Warning]

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.
Your unscientific results makes me keep clear of your website these days.

[Warning]

Results:

CODE

ABC/HR Version 1.0, 6 May 2004
Testname: grcitrance MP4/OPUS

1R = M:\grcopus32.wav
2L = M:\grc64MP4.wav
3L = M:\grc64MP4cbr.wav
4R = M:\grc32MP4.wav
5L = M:\grcopus48.wav
6R = M:\grcopus64.wav
7R = M:\grc48MP4.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:

---------------------------------------
1R File: M:\grcopus32.wav
1R Rating: 2.5
1R Comment: Extremely rough
---------------------------------------
2L File: M:\grc64MP4.wav
2L Rating: 3.6
2L Comment: Kinda duller and the upper freqs are distorted
---------------------------------------
3L File: M:\grc64MP4cbr.wav
3L Rating: 3.6
3L Comment: cant tell apart from sample2, I believe it's slightly better
---------------------------------------
4R File: M:\grc32MP4.wav
4R Rating: 2.4
4R Comment: Somewhat less rough than sample1 but has reduced stereo
---------------------------------------
5L File: M:\grcopus48.wav
5L Rating: 2.9
5L Comment: Less distortion than 1 but more than 2 and 3
---------------------------------------
6R File: M:\grcopus64.wav
6R Rating: 4.1
6R Comment: Noticeably rougher treble than original and slightly dull but otherwise pretty good
---------------------------------------
7R File: M:\grc48MP4.wav
7R Rating: 2.8
7R Comment: It has less distortion in the upper freqs than 5 but sounds duller like the upper freq was cut completely and stereo is reduced
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs M:\grcopus32.wav
    9 out of 10, pval = 0.011
Original vs M:\grc64MP4.wav
    10 out of 10, pval < 0.001
Original vs M:\grc64MP4cbr.wav
    10 out of 10, pval < 0.001
Original vs M:\grcopus64.wav
    10 out of 11, pval = 0.006
M:\grc64MP4.wav vs M:\grc64MP4cbr.wav
    3 out of 5, pval = 0.500

OGG sounds worse than Nero AAC, your own listening tests proved it before you started biasing the results.

I'm aware the tests are VBR, they STILL have to match the target bitrate as much as possible for the test to be scientific. All the bitrates in my test are VBR but they also are adjusted to be as close to 32, 48 or 64 kb/s as possible, I'm not gonna allow opus to go all the way up to 80 if the target is 64. Not too hard to comprehend. The truth is in the middle. Stop going to extremes and thinking CBR is your only other option. Do VBR and adjust the quality setting to match the bitrate. Stop thinking in black and white.

And I've been lurking here since 2007, thanks. I just rarely post. You run a tightly-moderated fascist hierarchy and are overrun with trolls and people with serious problems. I'll move to North Korea if I wanna deal with that.

I never use parametric stereo, I add -he to Nero. PS makes everything sound worse.

WMA superiority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media...o#Sound_quality I can't find the PDF at the moment, the link is outdated.

I'm guessing he's in violation of TOS #12, though I can't prove it at the moment.

And the fascistic impulse reveals itself already, didn't take too long I see. I wonder why many don't post here...

This post has been edited by Warning: Jan 26 2013, 22:57

[saratoga]

Results:

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, you rated opus as the best quality for each bitrate?

Why do you think its worse then AAC?

I'm aware the tests are VBR, they STILL have to match the target bitrate as much as possible for the test to be scientific. All the bitrates in my test are VBR but they also are adjusted to be as close to 32, 48 or 64 kb/s as possible, I'm not gonna allow opus to go all the way up to 80 if the target is 64. Not too hard to comprehend. The truth is in the middle. Stop going to extremes and thinking CBR is your only other option. Do VBR and adjust the quality setting to match the bitrate. Stop thinking in black and white.

Thats not a very useful methodology IMO for testing VBR codecs. The entire point of VBR is to maximize quality for a given bitrate. Forcing a certain bitrate is fine, but at that point you might as well just use CBR as doing so defeats the purpose of VBR.

And I've been lurking here since 2007, thanks. I just rarely post. You run a tightly-moderated fascist hierarchy and are overrun with trolls and people with serious problems. I'll move to North Korea if I wanna deal with that.

FYI this kind of ranting makes you sound like you're insane.

[Warning]

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, you rated opus as the best quality for each bitrate?

Only for 64 kb/s did it sound undeniably better, for the others I reluctantly rated it higher because I preferred the more dynamic stereo that opus retained at the expense of being more distorted. It was a choice of choosing from higher quality mono to lower quality stereo. I have another sample that suffers far harder from this distortion and sounds a lot worse than HE-AAC at the same bitrate and you don't even need to ABX to notice.

Why do you think its worse then AAC?

Because it sounds like garbage.

Thats not a very useful methodology IMO for testing VBR codecs. The entire point of VBR is to maximize quality for a given bitrate.

If your given bitrate is 64, don't let me see anything higher on the results page, or lower for that matter.

Forcing a certain bitrate is fine, but at that point you might as well just use CBR as doing so defeats the purpose of VBR.

Except CBR is a lot worse quality at the same output filesize than VBR. I guess the only reason people abandoned MP3 CBR is because they wanted to see what kinda strange numbers their encoder will pick in VBR? *facepalm*

FYI this kind of ranting makes you sound like you're insane.

Wasting your life on a website run by moderators with micropenis syndrome who run the place like their personal dollhouse sounds far more retarded to me. It's not surprising to see what kind of people it largely ends up with as exemplified by a post in the "what's your favorite format and why" poll by a guy who said he likes ATRAC the most because it feels warmest to him and then getting attacked by a pack of dorks for breaking some rule that forbids subjective opinions without an ABX test.......... in a thread where his subjective, meaningless opinion was outright asked for. Y'all need to chill out and take a pill sometime.

[db1989]

Wasting your life on a website run by moderators with micropenis syndrome who run the place like their personal dollhouse sounds far more retarded to me.

You’re really going all-out to be original, hilarious, and not at all thoughtless with your cosmopolitan array of epithets here, aren’t you? Boring gendered insults and accusations regarding mental health… It’s like I don’t even want to argue back because it just doesn’t seem worth it.

It's not surprising to see what kind of people it largely ends up with as exemplified by a post in the "what's your favorite format and why" poll by a guy who said he likes ATRAC the most because it feels warmest to him and then getting attacked by a pack of dorks for breaking some rule that forbids subjective opinions without an ABX test.......... in a thread where his subjective, meaningless opinion was outright asked for.

Nonsense. The question would have been in reference to objective features such as support in hardware/software, feature-set, licensing, etc. To paint it as anything else is indicative of your having a seriously incorrect mental picture of and/or misrepresenting grudge against this site, which makes it your objections to it ever less tenable in either case.