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]

http://www.sendspace.com/file/x4ec7d

AAC and opus at 32 kb/s VBR but both ended up at the exact same filesize. I'd include original wav but didn't feel like uploading 25MB so it's compressed at -q 0.75 and I think qualifies well enough as the original.

You don't even need to ABX to hear what complete shit opus sounds like with this sample. HE-AAC sounds almost transparent, though I'm sure an ABX would help me notice the flaws.

To the best of my knowledge, opus is not related to USAC which is emerging as the next future standard in audio to succeed AAC which I guess means opus will eventually be trashed by superior quality like OGG was by AAC and I hope it does.

EDIT: saratoga, re-read my post. Given your obvious trolling, you're on ignore.

This post has been edited by Warning: Jan 27 2013, 01:13

[Nick.C]

.... I'd include original wav but didn't feel like uploading 25MB....

Why not compress it with FLAC and upload it?