Skip to main content
Topic: Opus 1.3-beta is here (Read 25469 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #100
I still care about streaming my stuff, and AC3 isn't supported on most platforms I stream : browsers, phone.  Only my streaming boxes like chromecast/roku can accept AC3 but I think plex still transcode it lol...  and opus is "future proof"

And I thought there is a transparent quality where the quality will be identical?

Making your content more compatible, yes, that's a good reason for a format change.

The problem with converting from one lossy format to another is that although each encoding step "itself" should be "transparent" given a proper bitrate, the errors build up - so there's no guarantee that after two "transparent" encoding rounds the end result would still be "transparent" compared to the original file. This is why it may be preferrable, provided you have the storage space, to keep the best quality version you have stored somewhere even if you convert to another format - just in case you may decide to use something different yet again in the future.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #101
I want to convert my ~2k files with AC3 5.1 and AC3 2.0, should I wait for opus 1.3? What settings do you guys recommend to opus 5.1 and opus 2.0 to achieve transparency ? File size isn't really a issue here, I just want to have a library fully open source

t To me 128 Kbps opus is Transparent for 5.1 tracks and 64 Kbps is transparent for 2.0 tracks

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #102
To me 128 Kbps opus is Transparent for 5.1 tracks and 64 Kbps is transparent for 2.0 tracks

Opus is certainly doing a great job at these bitrates, but not universally transparent at such low bitrates IMO. It depends a lot on the content. I attached an example that should certainly be ABX-able at 64 kbps and show very obvious differences at even lower bitrates, just in case you want to find out what sort of artifacts to listen for.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #103
To me 128 Kbps opus is Transparent for 5.1 tracks and 64 Kbps is transparent for 2.0 tracks

Opus is certainly doing a great job at these bitrates, but not universally transparent at such low bitrates IMO. It depends a lot on the content. I attached an example that should certainly be ABX-able at 64 kbps and show very obvious differences at even lower bitrates, just in case you want to find out what sort of artifacts to listen for.

At what bitrate would you consider Opus universally transparent?

I went for 160 kbps on my whole library for that reason, didn't want to have to encode twice.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #104
To me 128 Kbps opus is Transparent for 5.1 tracks and 64 Kbps is transparent for 2.0 tracks

Opus is certainly doing a great job at these bitrates, but not universally transparent at such low bitrates IMO. It depends a lot on the content. I attached an example that should certainly be ABX-able at 64 kbps and show very obvious differences at even lower bitrates, just in case you want to find out what sort of artifacts to listen for.

At what bitrate would you consider Opus universally transparent?

I went for 160 kbps on my whole library for that reason, didn't want to have to encode twice.

Difficult question. It's "easy" to prove that something is not transparent with a given sample using ABX, but it may be impossible to say "at this bitrate things will always be transparent, for any sample, for every ear".

Having said that, at 160 kbps I'd feel pretty confident that quality should be "universally really good", with no nastyness to be expected. If you find a real-life example that exhibits audible artifacting at 160 kbps, I'd guess jmvalin may be interested to investigate.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #105
At what bitrate would you consider Opus universally transparent?

I went for 160 kbps on my whole library for that reason, didn't want to have to encode twice.

It's an individual assessment. For me it is probably fully transparent at 96kbps and certainly at 128kbps.

Meaning I've not been able to ABX any differences to lossless, even on tough problem samples, such as harpsichord and castanets. If there are differences, they're extremely subtle to my ears.

Then again, I have been accused of being a cloth-eared git by MQA and hi-res proponents, so take it with a grain of salt ;-)

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #106
In what way does OPUS encode multichannel audio?
I mean do all channels share somekind of similar data using somekind of new psychoacoustic model that is tuned to more-than-2-channels-joint-mode, or they are simply encoded in pairs of two (or something else)?
I'm trying to ABX multichannel audio and I have noticed that it does a way better job than any other codec by a bigger margin than stereo content results.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #107
The format is limited to pairs of channels anyway, but as far as I know, the multi-channel setups involve strategically selected pairs for left/right, and whichever stream handles the LFE is tuned to only carry low frequency information, which allows it to be encoded with a lower amount of bandwidth.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #108
I've come across some TF-related issues and made some builds for testing:
This is intended to improve on samples that mix tones and transients, e.g. the #41 intro. I'd be interested in feedback about how it improves and/or makes things worse.

Results for 96 kbps

Files

Only 5 samples because the differences are rather small and not in favor of a new TF.

It would be good if someone  would confirm/refute these findings or try it at different bitrate.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #109
Only 5 samples because the differences are rather small and not in favor of a new TF.
It would be good if someone  would confirm/refute these findings or try it at different bitrate.
Thanks. Any particular "pattern" you noticed in the differences? e.g. was it transients or tones getting slightly worse? in what way? Also, can you give it a try at lower bitrates (e.g. 48 kb/s)?

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #110
Main pattern is that the differences are microscopic, heh. So take my observations with a grain of salt.

For the first three samples new TF has transients issue. Not sure about what I heard on 'Angels fall' as it's a blend of transients and tonal parts. And the last sanmple had no difference at all.

As for 48 kbps no matter as hard as I try I can't catch any audible difference between new/old TF.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #111
e.g. was it transients or tones getting slightly worse? in what way?
1. 41_30 sample
maracas-like noise/distortion (hess?) is present on both new and old TF. But it's slightly more pronounced on a new TF.
Not sure if I interpeted it correctly as a transients issues early.

2. Linchpin
I can only say that new TF has more pronounced "temporal errors" on both guitars and drums. Not sure if it's just transients. 

New TF has more harsh artifacts like Vorbis with its colored-noise artifacts (on both 41_30 and Linchpin samples). I hope You can draw a picture.

P.S. All that at 96 kbps.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #112
Main pattern is that the differences are microscopic, heh. So take my observations with a grain of salt.

For the first three samples new TF has transients issue. Not sure about what I heard on 'Angels fall' as it's a blend of transients and tonal parts. And the last sanmple had no difference at all.
OK, could be a tuning issue. Can you give this updated one a try:
opus-tools-newtf2.zip


Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #114
I suppose we won't be getting constant quality option anytime soon, therefore I have a question to ask: how does one calculate what bitrate to use in multichannel? I was able to determine that 160k is transparent for stereo for me, but how do I transfer this to multichannel sound?
In wiki it says:
Quote
In the case of the reference release, libopus, the target bitrate is calibrated against the internal constant quality targets so that over a typical music collection, something very close to the target bitrate will be achieved
Is there a way to look into the code to know what these internal constant quality targets are?

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #115
I suppose we won't be getting constant quality option anytime soon, therefore I have a question to ask: how does one calculate what bitrate to use in multichannel? I was able to determine that 160k is transparent for stereo for me, but how do I transfer this to multichannel sound?
You'll have to see for yourself what you consider transparent. Transparency varies a lot from one person to another. On top of that, I assume that the 160 kb/s you're quoting is based on headphones. Since surround is generally loudspeakers, it changes everything. So really just try it and see for yourself.

In wiki it says:
Quote
In the case of the reference release, libopus, the target bitrate is calibrated against the internal constant quality targets so that over a typical music collection, something very close to the target bitrate will be achieved
Is there a way to look into the code to know what these internal constant quality targets are?
The calibration here is just making sure that when asking for X kb/s, the encoder will indeed produce X kb/s over a large collection. There's no quality aspect involved in there.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #116
The calibration here is just making sure that when asking for X kb/s, the encoder will indeed produce X kb/s over a large collection. There's no quality aspect involved in there.

I guess this must have been discussed before in many an occasion, but I still must ask: What's the rationale for that approach?
Obtaining an average bitrate across a large varied collection doesn't seem like such an useful goal or metric to me, and neither has it ever worked for me. Most of the music I've ever encoded turned out above that average and only infrequently does it go slighty under it. It seems I don't have such a large and varied collection. I'm curious just what such a collection would look like...

I remember someone saying that the B argument was supposed to work the same way as the classic Q argument, but with a different scale. But now jmvalin seems to contradict that notion, which sends me back to square one.

I remember reading that the Opus team didn't want to use the term "quality" to avoid comparisons to other popular codecs' "quality" scales, so, maybe, it could be called something else: fidelity, transparency, crystalinity, happy-ear-factor, ...

I don't care about the name or the scale. I just care that I can put a number that gives me a reasonably consistent level of perceptual transparency for anything I throw at it and uses whatever bitrate it needs for that.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #117
The calibration here is just making sure that when asking for X kb/s, the encoder will indeed produce X kb/s over a large collection. There's no quality aspect involved in there.
I guess this must have been discussed before in many an occasion, but I still must ask: What's the rationale for that approach?
Obtaining an average bitrate across a large varied collection doesn't seem like such an useful goal or metric to me, and neither has it ever worked for me. Most of the music I've ever encoded turned out above that average and only infrequently does it go slighty under it. It seems I don't have such a large and varied collection. I'm curious just what such a collection would look like...
The important thing isn't the exact collection itself, it's having some calibration. Otherwise, I could simply "improve" Opus by just increasing the bitrate for the same command-line arguments. With the calibration, I ensure that any increase in bitrate for a particular file is compensated by a decrease in other files. The result is that different versions should give about the same overall bitrate on your collection, even if it differs from mine (and even if your average bitrate differs from mine).

I remember reading that the Opus team didn't want to use the term "quality" to avoid comparisons to other popular codecs' "quality" scales, so, maybe, it could be called something else: fidelity, transparency, crystalinity, happy-ear-factor, ...
Whatever you read was incorrect or misleading.

I don't care about the name or the scale. I just care that I can put a number that gives me a reasonably consistent level of perceptual transparency for anything I throw at it and uses whatever bitrate it needs for that.
You already have a scale, it's called "bitrate". Instead of having a 0-10 scale that maps to different bitrates (because Vorbis also calibrates its quality scale on an average bitrate), the scale is 0-510 you don't even have to look up what value you need to get a certain average bitrate.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #118
Can you give this updated one a try:
opus-tools-newtf2.zip
Yes, I will try as soon as I'll get some spare time.

Sincerely, there isn't any real feedback from members who use Opus (there are approx. 50 of them here on forum according to some polls). 

Guys, somebody?

 

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #119
Can you give this updated one a try:
opus-tools-newtf2.zip
Yes, I will try as soon as I'll get some spare time.

Sincerely, there isn't any real feedback from members who use Opus (there are approx. 50 of them here on forum according to some polls). 

Guys, somebody?
I rarely sit on Windows so if you want to enable more of us to give you opinions then start with supplying at least some Linux compiles, thanks.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #120
The OP has a link to source code of 1.3.beta. It's still not conclusive whether there are any improvements comparing to stable release.
You can try it and report here. 

Thank You in advance.

P.S. That build had at least one bug. You should use an external resampler to avoid it. But it's still usable to inform audible differences comparing to stable release.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #121
  • Rich Kids On LSD - Beautiful Feeling Pt. 3
  • newtf2
  • 48kbps
  • Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Gen2, Marantz PM-4200, B&W CM5
Easy one!
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.4 beta 2
2018-02-03 10:44:46

File A: 02 Rich Kids On LSD - Beaultiful Feeling Pt. 3.flac
SHA1: 16861a51329079cd36767bb7d2d0ed68c6ced1e7
Gain adjustment: -8.25 dB
File B: 02 Rich Kids On LSD - Beaultiful Feeling Pt. 3_48kbps_newtf2.opus
SHA1: a5517aefce61051808905233099d0758c70cb88a
Gain adjustment: -8.27 dB

Output:
ASIO : Focusrite USB ASIO
Crossfading: NO

10:44:46 : Test started.
10:46:20 : 01/01
10:46:33 : 02/02
10:46:57 : 03/03
10:47:33 : 04/04
10:47:47 : 05/05
10:48:10 : 06/06
10:48:48 : 07/07
10:49:37 : 08/08
10:50:01 : 09/09
10:50:22 : 10/10
10:50:40 : 11/11
10:50:59 : 12/12
10:51:33 : 13/13
10:52:21 : 13/14
10:52:44 : 14/15
10:53:02 : 15/16
10:53:02 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 15/16
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%

 -- signature --
3de5ef2eb819edccab659d7f77b55c9644f79771



  • Rich Kids On LSD - Beautiful Feeling Pt. 3
  • newtf2
  • 64kbps
  • Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Gen2, Marantz PM-4200, B&W CM5
Even easier than 48kbps when I now knew better what to listen for (open hi-hats).
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.4 beta 2
2018-02-03 11:04:22

File A: 02 Rich Kids On LSD - Beaultiful Feeling Pt. 3.flac
SHA1: 16861a51329079cd36767bb7d2d0ed68c6ced1e7
Gain adjustment: -8.25 dB
File B: 02 Rich Kids On LSD - Beaultiful Feeling Pt. 3_64kbps_newtf2.opus
SHA1: c949103b3c214fe1e9177c3b520d058d777ef275
Gain adjustment: -8.26 dB

Output:
ASIO : Focusrite USB ASIO
Crossfading: NO

11:04:22 : Test started.
11:05:59 : 01/01
11:06:09 : 02/02
11:06:28 : 03/03
11:06:42 : 04/04
11:06:59 : 05/05
11:07:18 : 06/06
11:07:34 : 07/07
11:07:46 : 08/08
11:07:57 : 09/09
11:08:12 : 10/10
11:08:30 : 11/11
11:08:46 : 12/12
11:09:02 : 13/13
11:09:10 : 14/14
11:09:21 : 15/15
11:09:33 : 16/16
11:09:33 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 16/16
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%

 -- signature --
2d7f3b019eaa4b9922114341eeb30700177928b2



  • Rich Kids On LSD - Beautiful Feeling Pt. 3
  • newtf2
  • 80kbps
  • Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Gen2, Marantz PM-4200, B&W CM5
This amount of bitrate started to make it harder to distinguish the two tracks but I quite quickly found a passage, again with hi-hats, that had a strange transitioning effect. During a whole measure it sounded like a lowpass being automated and gradually going down to a lower frequency during a few seconds. It was very subtle though.
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.4 beta 2
2018-02-03 11:16:35

File A: 02 Rich Kids On LSD - Beaultiful Feeling Pt. 3.flac
SHA1: 16861a51329079cd36767bb7d2d0ed68c6ced1e7
Gain adjustment: -8.25 dB
File B: 02 Rich Kids On LSD - Beaultiful Feeling Pt. 3_80kbps_newtf2.opus
SHA1: dbe4987e3aba164f4165e089e4b368ebb0264d22
Gain adjustment: -8.26 dB

Output:
ASIO : Focusrite USB ASIO
Crossfading: NO

11:16:35 : Test started.
11:17:43 : 01/01
11:17:51 : 02/02
11:18:15 : 03/03
11:18:27 : 04/04
11:18:40 : 05/05
11:18:53 : 06/06
11:19:03 : 07/07
11:19:13 : 08/08
11:19:24 : 09/09
11:19:45 : 10/10
11:20:00 : 11/11
11:20:23 : 12/12
11:20:37 : 13/13
11:20:47 : 14/14
11:21:02 : 15/15
11:21:24 : 16/16
11:21:24 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 16/16
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%

 -- signature --
c9972433884924455484fbd6b6ddb12ff1616e32

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #122
  • Rich Kids On LSD - Beautiful Feeling Pt. 3
  • newtf2
  • 96kbps
  • Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Gen2, Marantz PM-4200, B&W CM5
This one was very difficult. I could not in a short time identify obvious artifacts in the high frequencies so I started looking for "wobbling" sounds and I thought I found it at 02:13 in the bass frequencies. All I can describe it is that the lossless version had an extremely subtle "wooOO wooOO" effect and the opus 96kbps had one with an additional one creating "wooOO wooOO wooOO". I know, this is getting us into probably placebo effect but I did score only 10% guessing chance after all. I will try this bitrate again but this time look if I can find other artifacts that are a lot easier to spot like the earlier hi-hats. It is extremely difficult though using this song. The high frequencies are not so sharp and extended as other music so it is more diffficult to spot high frequency or transient artifacts.
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.4 beta 2
2018-02-03 12:09:55

File A: 02 Rich Kids On LSD - Beaultiful Feeling Pt. 3.flac
SHA1: 16861a51329079cd36767bb7d2d0ed68c6ced1e7
Gain adjustment: -8.25 dB
File B: 02 Rich Kids On LSD - Beaultiful Feeling Pt. 3_96kbps_newtf2.opus
SHA1: acd4ad2dfc44f925f4daf8ede9b49a993fb468ef
Gain adjustment: -8.26 dB

Output:
ASIO : Focusrite USB ASIO
Crossfading: NO

12:09:55 : Test started.
12:14:18 : 00/01
12:14:47 : 01/02
12:15:11 : 02/03
12:15:32 : 03/04
12:15:55 : 03/05
12:16:17 : 04/06
12:16:33 : 05/07
12:16:51 : 06/08
12:17:04 : 07/09
12:17:19 : 07/10
12:17:47 : 07/11
12:18:03 : 08/12
12:18:38 : 09/13
12:18:57 : 10/14
12:19:22 : 10/15
12:19:53 : 11/16
12:19:53 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 11/16
Probability that you were guessing: 10.5%

 -- signature --
17592eacb0570e931df8c61324fce11074b2ac3d



  • Rich Kids On LSD - Beautiful Feeling Pt. 3
  • newtf2
  • 96kbps
  • Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Gen2, Marantz PM-4200, B&W CM5
This time I concentrated on the high frequencies again and it was easier even though I can feel that my ears are getting tired and I am overloading real soon. What I find easy to hear is that around 2:13 and about ten seconds onwards the cymbals, when they are hit together with the kick, sound like a compressor on the upper frequency attenuate not exactly on the hits but very short there after and quickly recovers to zero gain reduction. In the lossless file the cymbals hits have more force and aggression to them. 
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.4 beta 2
2018-02-03 12:33:27

File A: 02 Rich Kids On LSD - Beaultiful Feeling Pt. 3.flac
SHA1: 16861a51329079cd36767bb7d2d0ed68c6ced1e7
Gain adjustment: -8.25 dB
File B: 02 Rich Kids On LSD - Beaultiful Feeling Pt. 3_96kbps_newtf2.opus
SHA1: acd4ad2dfc44f925f4daf8ede9b49a993fb468ef
Gain adjustment: -8.26 dB

Output:
ASIO : Focusrite USB ASIO
Crossfading: NO

12:33:27 : Test started.
12:35:22 : 01/01
12:35:57 : 02/02
12:36:08 : 03/03
12:36:28 : 04/04
12:36:40 : 05/05
12:37:00 : 06/06
12:37:22 : 07/07
12:37:36 : 08/08
12:37:57 : 09/09
12:38:17 : 10/10
12:38:32 : 11/11
12:39:17 : 12/12
12:40:04 : 12/13
12:40:38 : 13/14
12:41:10 : 14/15
12:41:41 : 15/16
12:41:41 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 15/16
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%

 -- signature --
7fe818d80840ab1f332b990eed412b9de91c7826



  • Rich Kids On LSD - Beautiful Feeling Pt. 3
  • newtf2
  • 112kbps
  • Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Gen2, Marantz PM-4200, B&W CM5
I concentrated on the high frequencies again and followed the same pattern as in the last 96 kbps abx test. I didn't nail the test as I was only one successful identification away from it but this time I also heard the compressor effect on the upper frequencies. I have to say that this one demanded extreme concentration.
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.4 beta 2
2018-02-03 12:53:12

File A: 02 Rich Kids On LSD - Beaultiful Feeling Pt. 3.flac
SHA1: 16861a51329079cd36767bb7d2d0ed68c6ced1e7
Gain adjustment: -8.25 dB
File B: 02 Rich Kids On LSD - Beaultiful Feeling Pt. 3_112kbps_newtf2.opus
SHA1: 3ce4b5f4339a43085482271cab681bfe6950e59f
Gain adjustment: -8.25 dB

Output:
ASIO : Focusrite USB ASIO
Crossfading: NO

12:53:12 : Test started.
12:54:36 : 01/01
12:54:59 : 02/02
12:55:40 : 03/03
12:56:05 : 03/04
12:56:41 : 04/05
12:57:26 : 05/06
12:57:49 : 05/07
12:58:32 : 06/08
12:58:50 : 07/09
12:59:15 : 07/10
12:59:38 : 08/11
13:00:16 : 08/12
13:00:45 : 09/13
13:01:30 : 10/14
13:02:08 : 11/15
13:02:38 : 11/16
13:02:38 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 11/16
Probability that you were guessing: 10.5%

 -- signature --
82ae98ccf348a140a7c032db793c12ac10805d29

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #123
I do not think I will do a 128 kbps abx test of the Rich Kids On LSD track since the 112 kbps version was so difficult. I am thinking of testing a voice recording with full frequency response but quite a lot of ambience and some recording noise. I encoded one, a mono file, a week ago and had to use extremely high bitrate to make some artifacts go away. To avoid any TOS I will not say what bitrate at this point in time.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #124
  • Own recorded voice containing lots of ambience and high frequency noise
  • newtf2
  • 24kbps, mono
  • Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Gen2 headphone output, AKG K240 Studio 55 ohms
I am using headphones this time because I think my neightbours are tired enough of me playing loud music and if they would have to listen to a recording of me talking for an extended period of time they would probably freak out. Sounds like the high frequencies (the noise) are being tuned the first couple of seconds to later calm down. The noise contains more high frequency than the lossless file. Sounds like things are "tearing up".

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.4 beta 2
2018-02-03 13:48:04

File A: voice_noise_ambience.flac
SHA1: 7d21e164e4e46fe7cd081a49e51b2a536e08d615
Gain adjustment: +5.65 dB
File B: voice_noise_ambience_24kbps_newtf2.opus
SHA1: 327f8afc57d203b2c4132a311565d8db8f71dc1d
Gain adjustment: +5.88 dB

Output:
ASIO : Focusrite USB ASIO
Crossfading: NO

13:48:04 : Test started.
13:48:21 : 01/01
13:48:31 : 02/02
13:48:38 : 03/03
13:48:43 : 04/04
13:48:50 : 05/05
13:48:57 : 06/06
13:49:04 : 07/07
13:49:10 : 08/08
13:49:18 : 09/09
13:49:23 : 10/10
13:49:29 : 11/11
13:49:36 : 12/12
13:49:41 : 13/13
13:49:46 : 14/14
13:49:50 : 15/15
13:49:56 : 16/16
13:49:56 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 16/16
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%

 -- signature --
0b7e9328c4cdd393acff1e090db2ef9055d24a76



  • Own recorded voice containing lots of ambience and high frequency noise
  • newtf2
  • 48kbps, mono
  • Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Gen2 headphone output, AKG K240 Studio 55 ohms
Still sounds like the high frequencies (the noise) are being tuned the first couple of seconds to later calm down. The noise contains more high frequency than the lossless file. Still sounds like things are "tearing up".
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.4 beta 2
2018-02-03 13:51:45

File A: voice_noise_ambience.flac
SHA1: 7d21e164e4e46fe7cd081a49e51b2a536e08d615
Gain adjustment: +5.65 dB
File B: voice_noise_ambience_48kbps_newtf2.opus
SHA1: cf8ca6bacbda09b4789cff4e510c79356b4cea75
Gain adjustment: +5.77 dB

Output:
ASIO : Focusrite USB ASIO
Crossfading: NO

13:51:45 : Test started.
13:52:26 : 01/01
13:52:31 : 02/02
13:52:45 : 03/03
13:52:56 : 04/04
13:53:10 : 05/05
13:53:31 : 06/06
13:53:36 : 07/07
13:53:43 : 08/08
13:53:50 : 09/09
13:53:59 : 10/10
13:54:58 : 11/11
13:55:06 : 12/12
13:55:13 : 13/13
13:55:22 : 14/14
13:55:29 : 15/15
13:55:41 : 16/16
13:55:41 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 16/16
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%

 -- signature --
8504d77d408aa14cbaac0be0397596cec764cfdb



  • Own recorded voice containing lots of ambience and high frequency noise
  • newtf2
  • 64kbps, mono
  • Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Gen2 headphone output, AKG K240 Studio 55 ohms
This time I failed! I still (tried to )listen to the increased high frequency content the first couple of seconds. After this ABX tried to listen to other things but I can't find any.
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.4 beta 2
2018-02-03 14:10:33

File A: voice_noise_ambience.flac
SHA1: 7d21e164e4e46fe7cd081a49e51b2a536e08d615
Gain adjustment: +5.65 dB
File B: voice_noise_ambience_64kbps_newtf2.opus
SHA1: f05b0d74fa4b5c88f8377a85330de74b5f0c3f7c
Gain adjustment: +5.59 dB

Output:
ASIO : Focusrite USB ASIO
Crossfading: NO

14:10:33 : Test started.
14:11:31 : 00/01
14:11:40 : 01/02
14:11:55 : 02/03
14:12:14 : 02/04
14:12:25 : 03/05
14:12:33 : 04/06
14:13:27 : 05/07
14:13:35 : 05/08
14:13:47 : 06/09
14:14:03 : 07/10
14:14:16 : 07/11
14:14:39 : 07/12
14:15:06 : 07/13
14:15:19 : 08/14
14:15:36 : 09/15
14:15:51 : 09/16
14:15:51 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 9/16
Probability that you were guessing: 40.2%

 -- signature --
06a177cadba1f3dbadda8009d10867e73a7362f4

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018