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.

[Warrior_]

I'm posting to announce I've done ABX listening tests to... confirm what I already knew and hence all your trolling has been successful.

On a tough-timbred song I tested different MP3 bitrates at mono to not deal with the stereo-spacing bullshit like with opus vs. Nero, up to 192 kb/s. On 128 kb/s I got 37/50, 28/40 for 160 and 37/60 for 192, and I do not even have golden ears.

Since this is a mono file, 192 is more or less equivalent to 384 for a stereo song, well above the 320 kb/s max limit. MP3 blows, it was never meant to be transparent. Deal with it and move on.

Nero AAC on the other hand was transparent at 80 kb/s.

I took the liberty of also testing QTAAC to see if you guys really aren't full of shit with your biased listening tests. Its horrible flexibility made it an unmanageable bitch to do a fair comparison. On the same mono file it failed to keep the 44.1 samplerate on the lower bitrate I selected and failed to produce CBR at CBR mode and ended up with 44 kb/s when 40 was selected. Nero had none of these issues.
So naturally QT at 32 khz with the samebitrate vs Nero at 44 khz, it beat Nero.

Encoding with Nero at samplerates below 44 is not an option either as Nero for some reason sucks capital ass with these samplerates. To avoid a very frequent misinterpretation with you illiterate fucks: Nero produces much lower quality at lower samplerates with the SAME bitrate. Yes, tell the devs to fix that shit. MP3 even can compete with AAC if it uses a 32khz samplerate at 128 kb/s and majority of post-pubescent people can't hear above 32khz anyway.

Anyway, testing with a real, stereo song at 64 kb/s with Nero and QT, QT was audibly worse than Nero. Yeah, Apple's audio gear sucks as much dick as their H.264 implementation that ended up being worse quality than MPEG-fucking-2. Embarassing company.

About Blade MP3, I downloaded it to test greynol's bullshit assertion. Surprise, surprise. Not only does it NOT retain higher frequencies than AAC, the degradation of the formants was so obvious on the spectrograph that I could predict immediately the horrible flanging that would result if I hit the play button... and out the defects came. As obvious on the ears as it was on the eyes.

To actually think that I expected any kind of intelligence from this troll site is laughable, I must be insane.

But as I'm an honorable guy, I will hand over ABX results and spectrogrpah screenshots (Blade) upon request and that's the last I'll have of your nazistic dump.

Or you can silence this post too, as we all know your needle-dicked members of authority hate being contradicted.

Btw, did another opus vs. AAC test with that 'tonal' sample as you call it. opus didn't disappoint me:

CODE

ABC/HR Version 1.0, 6 May 2004
Testname: Mazgal AAC/opus

1L = M:\mazgal64MP4.wav
2R = M:\mazgal32opus.wav
3R = M:\mazgal64opus.wav
4L = M:\mazgal64MP3.wav
5R = M:\mazgal32MP4.wav
6L = M:\mazgal48MP4.wav
7L = M:\mazgal48opus.wav

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

---------------------------------------
1R File: M:\mazgal64MP4.wav
1R Rating: 4.8
1R Comment: The strike of the heavy notes have a little treble accentuation, difficult to notice
---------------------------------------
2R File: M:\mazgal32opus.wav
2R Rating: 2.4
2R Comment: Extremely metallic melody
---------------------------------------
3R File: M:\mazgal64opus.wav
3R Rating: 4.0
3R Comment: A much reduced form of distortion than 2
---------------------------------------
4L File: M:\mazgal64MP3.wav
4L Rating: 2.2
4L Comment: Heavy smearing, top shelf gone, obviously 64kbps MP3
---------------------------------------
5R File: M:\mazgal32MP4.wav
5R Rating: 3.3
5R Comment: Stereo greatly simplified, some distortion on upper shelf and kinda echoey melody
---------------------------------------
6L File: M:\mazgal48MP4.wav
6L Rating: 3.6
6L Comment: Greater distortion in the treble than 5 but much less loss of stereo
---------------------------------------
7L File: M:\mazgal48opus.wav
7L Rating: 3.5
7L Comment: Seems to be more distorted than 6 but with more texture. Not sure what to decide.
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs M:\mazgal64MP4.wav
    18 out of 20, pval < 0.001
Original vs M:\mazgal64opus.wav
    10 out of 10, pval < 0.001
Original vs M:\mazgal32MP4.wav
    10 out of 10, pval < 0.001
Original vs M:\mazgal48MP4.wav
    10 out of 10, pval < 0.001