Skip to main content

Topic: [TOS #2] From: Why is opus only good at 64/kbs (Read 721 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Warning
  • [*]
  • Banned
[TOS #2] From: Why is opus only good at 64/kbs
Ah, looks like the fascistic flow is back.

You’re really going all-out to be original, hilarious, and not at all thoughtless with your cosmopolitan array of epithets here, aren’t you? Boring gendered insults and accusations regarding mental health… It’s like I don’t even want to argue back because it just doesn’t seem worth it.

No, just do what you do best: silence your detractors like a powerless pussy, like most internet moderators on most privately-run websites that appeases to losers with manhood issues.

Nonsense. The question would have been in reference to objective features such as support in hardware/software, feature-set, licensing, etc. To paint it as anything else is indicative of your having a seriously incorrect mental picture of and/or misrepresenting grudge against this site, which makes it your objections to it ever less tenable in either case.

But that's not how it was laid out for that guy who's first language was not English and who wasn't too knowledgeable in the arts. Y'all continually attacked him and clarified nothing. I have numerous more examples than this but that's the first I recalled off the top of my head.

I also note your defaulting to the hoary old epithet fascist, as if it’s anything other than a meaningless crutch for people with a chip on their shoulder who want to try to discredit someone who doesn’t agree with them with the maximal chance of getting approval from easily impressed onlookers.

You read deeply into it yet fail to grasp. 'Fascistic' is commonly used as a vague term for 'authoritarian' which accurately depicts your forum. Many on here have been silenced and censored for "questioning a mod", narcissistic Nazis with penis complexes at its best, much like authorities in Cuba afraid of blind women protestors.

No one will refuse constructive feedback. But you have to approach it that way. You can’t just storm in and insult everyone and expect people to consider the finer aspects of what you’re saying. See how much delay that caused?

I've insulted no one. You insult yourselves with the way you run this place like your dollhouse. Also, pointing out the biased new methodology in your listening tests is an insult? Looks like I'll be insulting you often then. There's only one type of mindset that perceives technical criticism as insults, guess what kind.

TOS 8 and 2.

Do I gag you now or later?

Your posting style and insistence that frequency response matters is unwelcome. Tone it down or you're gone.

1. "2. All members, at the staff's discretion, must converse in an acceptable fashion to be allowed the privilege of continued participation."

How about: "all competent operators of websites must allow substantial freedom and resist the urge to be a fascistic fuckpig to enjoy the privilege of massive user traffic, ad revenue and positive publicity... and avoid potential boycotting".

When a guy I knew from TOTSE back in 2007 told me about this site and posted all the evidence of his termination, the reason being "repeatedly questioning a mod", about a dozen audiophiles (who posted mainly on TOTSE and Usenet) including myself decided to stay the hell away from here and had a massive laughfest at what spineless needle-dicks on a power trip populate this place and certainly would never participate in any of your listening tests for free...

...which sure sucks because I liked the idea of such a collective project when I first heard of it and have conducted a hundred ABX tests myself, but these are the consequences. I told a similar message to PayPal after what they did to Julian Assange.

2. Gagging over the internet is all you know. You're not prone to anything intelligent.

3. If you would summon the class to follow your own guidelines set for your mod career and the intelligence to follow the discussion, we were talking about technical quality beyond transparency, which is impossible to ABX since it's transparent.

4. Beyond your vague complaint about my "posting style", what gives you the right to tell me how I'll post, sir? According to the symmetry principle, your right to dictate how I'll dissipate my thoughts invalidates your right to access a functional website. I likely won't turn to that, you aren't that important and there are plenty of better, alternative audio sites not filled with autistic twats who live in their moms basements. But try to seriously entertain that fact since you don't know who I am and cease being accustomed to getting your way, because one day your delusional fantasy will shatter.

To put it in a way you'll understand: suck my dick you bigoted piece of shit. You don't give me orders.

...and with this discussion the troll count just increased by one. wink.gif

EDIT: I see the obvious irony was not overlooked in the previous post.

Please, how is accusing this forum of being biased and run by fascists be interpreted as anything other than trolling?

Let's see... biased. Claims to test codecs at 96 kb/s, uses bitrates substantially higher or lower for different codecs and makes every attempt in this thread to deny this bias or play dumb. Check!

Trolls... my friend from TOTSE asked for the best AAC encoder in terms of quality, people gave him links to an outdated 10-year-old codec (forgot the name) and several posts later and shortly after being banned, the guy admitted he enjoyed trolling him. And that's one example out of many. Check! Oh yeah and the Totsean was ironically branded the troll instead, just like me pointing out this site's shortcomings is also trolling. Doublecheck!

Mods being nazistic pieces of shit... well, ban me and prove it faggot. You have no sophisticated way to keep me out anyway, but as exemplified by my 8 posts in a whole year, your site largely fails to be useful and has little that I can't get myself or from somewhere else.

  • carpman
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
[TOS #2] From: Why is opus only good at 64/kbs
Reply #1
I'll happily be "nazistic" (whatever that made up word means). This Warning guy is clearly a moron and this entire thread of zero value; it's screaming to be put out of its misery (as is Warning). 

PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Lame MP3

  • Warning
  • [*]
  • Banned
[TOS #2] From: Why is opus only good at 64/kbs
Reply #2
I didn't intend to post back here but a developer has recently bumped this and I thought I'd acknowledge.

Despite you silencing my post you appear to have read my clarification on why I've used a spectrograph (you can't ABX quality above transparency) and STILL haven't edited your post with regard to complaining about my use of a spectrograph. Priceless...


- First biasing shown: Opus, being free, open source, and being endorsed by the same team than Vorbis means it's a second grade codec.

What? Didn't I just post my ABX results and admit Opus was unquestionably superior at 64 kb/s?
Advanced techniques are commonly patented and free codecs inevitably limit themselves by not utilizing them (SBR). Free software also tends to be designed by smart but linear-thinking amateurs with biases of their own, emphasizing an ideational mentality a lot more than a desire to propagate superior technology. The fanboyistic worship of OGG and the overrated insistence that it's the best quality format shows this.

- Second biasing shown: AAC, being an MPEG codec, is a first grade codec.

I adopt codecs and standards based on quality. If OGG was indeed proven to be superior, I would use it and not think its fanbase was so pathetic. I could care less if MPEG or a nerd in a trailer built it. I chose Nero AAC after a month of studying AAC, its implementations and observing listening tests on this site. It is you guys who prompted my move, not MPEG.

- Addenum to second biasing: AAC is an evolution of MP3 to improve it, HE-AAC is an evolution of AAC to improve it, USAC will be an evolution of AAC improve it.

AAC was supposed to be called MP4, but the MPEG team (and ISO) trapped within their own brand of paintchip-induced retardation couldn't practice any form of consistency and decided to be confusing as possible with their naming conventions, causing nobody to know that AAC was a successor to MP3 and as a result nobody even to this day using it. Would it seriously have been a burden to call the successor to MP3 'MP4' rather than shifting it to the video container which should've been MPG4? The world will never know...
Either way, you lost me here. Yes AAC is the successor to MP3, is it not? And to the best of my knowledge, USAC intends to be the successor to AAC? How am I biased here, dawg?

- Third biasing shown: A better codec has a higher frequency response spectogram (we are at Hydrogenaudio, so we won't accept that as a proof no matter the insistence in doing so).

I never said that.

- Addenum to third biasing: high frequency response is synonym to quality (This is the reason why judging HE-AAC and Opus at 32kbps, the OP says Opus is rough, worse, sounds like garbage...

Never claimed that either, try making a miniscule effort to follow the discussion. I never judged the 32kbps outputs by looking at a spectrograph, they both look equally "rough" in the spectrograph and I wouldn't be able to tell which is which by such method. What I judged by a spectrograph was the outputs of 192 kb/s MP3 and AAC where an ABX would be impossible since both are transparent at that bitrate.

Even when the only sample he tested and provided an ABX, he valuated the stereo separation of Opus making it outperform HE-AAC)

HE-AAC had less distortion, worse stereo seperation, Opus had more distortion but better stereo, so it was hard to compare because they both sounded like they were playing from 1930s speakers that someone pissed into. It was like comparing JPEG with a bad implementation of JPEG2000, the pictures don't look better or worse, just different with different artifacts.

What makes you think you are entitled to mine or anyone else's contributions and then keep them as your insubordinates? That's fascism. Until you trash your authority and hand it over to the users rather than run a privately-owned site with one single owner and his lackeys, I don't feel like I owe you jack shit. Better yet, why operate a public forum at all if the intended purpose is to exalt the developers? Close registration to everyone except developers and make it a private-access vBulletin.

Thanks for all the information. It was useful. I'm aware opus was designed for low-lat applications, which is why I was puzzled at its superior quality for music at 64 kb/s. If it was redesigned to have the same frame overlap as AAC that the quality would improve?
I already posted the FLAC.

I meant to link to that other 2011 one.
Average Vorbis bitrate 73.4 and 66.5 for Nero and Vorbis gets just a slightly lower score than Nero, misleading people to think it's the same quality at the same bitrate. In your other tests, Nero typically scored 0.20 more than Vorbis when you didn't bias the bitrates.

About the 96 kb/s test: the bitrates were less biased, but Apple is extremely notorious for creating some of the worst implementations of every standard. Their H.264 encoder outputs comparable quality to MPEG-2.
You wanna explain how Nero in the past scored 3.5+ for 48 kb/s tests and only 3.7 in this 64 kb/s test? It was topping the show and now all of a sudden it's the low anchor? You think I can't put two and two together, holms?

You're wrong. I do not use CBR or ABR as they are both inferior quality to VBR at the same output filesize, with MP3 at least. The ABXs I've done with AAC had some inconsistent results with CBR being much better quality than VBR at 64 and 80 kb/s but not other bitrates.

Also, what you do or what everybody else does in regards to VBR is irrelevant given that you're doing a god damn listening test at a specific bitrate and therefore have to maintain those bitrates or stop passing off your listening tests as credible or better yet cease doing them at all as the results become meaningless.

It sounds like you intend to ABX a VBR quality setting instead of a bitrate which would be fine if every encoder used the exact same syntax, which they don't. In Nero, you choose floating point numbers where higher is better. In MP3, you choose integer numbers where lower is better. 'Till you figure out a way to fix this... well.

but unless Warning stops being so exaggeratedly incivil, I suggest shutting the whole thing down.

Is this what you call being welcoming and civilized, eh?

I notice that user lives in Netherlands, a country of very easy-going friendly people. Unlike me, he hasn't had the unfortunate experience of growing up in an Anglo-saxon dominated Western shithole to know a posteriori the sick, violent animals that he was about to collaborate with.