Vorbis nearly caught Nero even with 6.9 kbps advantage.
Quote from: Jillian on 13 April, 2011, 01:17:05 AMVorbis nearly caught Nero even with 6.9 kbps advantage.No, there is no 6.9 kbps.Average bitrate of tested samples has nothing to do with average bitrate for large collection of music. Encode a few albums with Aotuv -q0.1 and Nero -q0.245 and you will see that the difference is tiny. Before the conduction of the test a large number of files were encoded by Aotuv and Nero encoders. The difference between total filesizes was less than 0.5% (a small fraction of 1 kbps)
But this test is based on 30 samples not music albums you've encoded before test isn't it?
Quote from: Jillian on 13 April, 2011, 03:42:28 AMBut this test is based on 30 samples not music albums you've encoded before test isn't it?No, the bitrate or quality settings used for the test are based on a large set of music, not the samples on the test. Those produce ~64kbps (actually 68kbps, IIRC) files, i.e. identical for all codecs. The analysis of that is in another thread.So, no codec has an advantage: they all run at 64kbps settings. The fact that some may use a lower or higher bitrate for some samples in the test just means their VBR algorithms differ. I somewhat dislike posting the bitrate table in the results because it confuses people that don't read the explanation; the only people that table is useful for is for the codec developers that might want to improve their VBR in some cases.If you look at the table more closely, you will see that Vorbis has to "pay back" the large bitrate it uses on some samples by using the lowest rate on others. In the end, the average ends up a bit above 68kbps, but this is because the test samples are only 30 - if we'd have tested an infinite number of samples, all codecs would have averaged exactly 68kbps.All of this is explained on the test webpage, BTW.
Jillian,See my post here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=751888
Ok, I get it. I feel bad for Vorbis because of it's unlucky, it get samples that force it's VBR algorithm to use higher bitrate.
Thanks you, so I see no problem in real world use here. But I think OPUS comes a little bit late. I doubt if it not just another high performance experimental open source codec that is not intend to used widely.
But if you need to stream over the internet and patent royalties are a concern, it looks like the prime contender right now.
Quote from: Garf on 13 April, 2011, 08:19:24 AMBut if you need to stream over the internet and patent royalties are a concern, it looks like the prime contender right now.Thanks, so is it time to replace wikipedia audio(vorbis) with opus?