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]

@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.

[saratoga]

@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?

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.

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.

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.

[Warning]

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?

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?

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.

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.

[saratoga]

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:

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:

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.

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.

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?

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

Requested. Upload it now so I can try.

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.

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.

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.

[Warning]

That is not what you said before:

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.

I said I COMPARED at different bitrates, not ABX'd. That sample was the only one I ABX'd because I couldn't tell immediately by listening if Opus had an advantage. Stereo defined that particular song more than brightness. I already explained this before.

Like I said before:

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.

I don't wanna believe. I'm not interested in being right, I'm interested in being correct. A concept OGG-pimping cock-smokers especially fail to grasp or any other codec fanboys for that matter.

Source? This sounds like nonsense to me.

I'll let you know when I find it. I recall some people on here boasting of such abilities too.

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

Behold the awesome spectrograph, showing human eyes what human ears can't:
original
MP3 192
MP4 192

Requested. Upload it now so I can try.

I said if someone ELSE also requests it. Here you go anyway, even if you don't deserve my clemency, blatant troll.

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.

You're confusing an extension with an encoder. MP3 can use SBR too, it's called mp3pro. It still sucks and sounds worse than AAC.

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

You said CBR and VBR MP3 at the same filesize is the same quality. Something only a colossal mouth-breather would say after being exposed to audio tech resources for a decade, or a troll playing dumb like you.

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.

So why was it surpassed every single time by Nero in the past and now when you guys decide to use a considerably lower bitrate for Nero like here it ends up last. Well if that just wasn't predictable... Biased testing to the core.

This post has been edited by Warning: Jan 27 2013, 06:25

[IgorC]

So why was it surpassed every single time by Nero in the past and now when you guys decide to use a considerably lower bitrate for Nero like here it ends up last. Well if that just wasn't predictable... Biased testing to the core.

What?!

Nero 95-96 kbps
Apple TVBR 93-94 kbps.

And still Apple AAC encoder was much better than Nero. It was actually day and night difference.

Instead of posting harsh and uneducated comments You could read rules of this forum.You're confusing us with some "audiophool" community.

USAC is due which will crush both AAC and Opus.

How naive, how naive.

MPEG Surround was here since 2007. And there is still no available codec in 2013.
It was supposed that it would be superior to HE-AAC/HE-AACv2 at <32 kbps (music) in that moment.
Now,2013, who is interested in <32 kbps (music)?


So while waiting for a USAC real encoder take a deep breath and count until billion (and a little bit too)
USAC has +8 kbps advantage over AAC, and beleive it or not, it means that USAC and Opus will have a same quality for 64 kbps and higher. What about <64 kbps? It's not 2003 when people were interested in 32 kbps audio. It's 2013 and 64 kbps is considered comfortably low. Poll.
Even YouTube uses 96 kbps audio for default quality video streams, and =>128 kbps audio for HD.


Instead of spitting googled information about USAC, here some people already have some real stuff and know what will be happening in a few next years.


I wouldn't mind about a permanent ban.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Jan 27 2013, 14:56