Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Opus 1.3.1 (Read 29451 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Opus 1.3.1

Reply #76
John at rarewares has just uploaded 32 bit and 64 bit compiles of Opus 1.3.1

https://rarewares.org/opus.php
I'm using that one and get abysmal results. Wondering is something is wrong. On long sawwave kind of pads/drones, it is kind of ducking/oscillating. Will show samples tomorrow as I'm still wondering if there's something wrong in my side. It's on fb2k convert "--quiet --bitrate 128 --vbr --music - %d" - I hear easily audible and annoying loudness instability, as in ducking, as popular in IDM, all over the place. EDIT: It's not in the opus->wav convert. Good, so it must be something wrong in the fb2k decoding process.


Re: Opus 1.3.1

Reply #78
I'm using that one and get abysmal results. Wondering is something is wrong. On long sawwave kind of pads/drones, it is kind of ducking/oscillating. Will show samples tomorrow as I'm still wondering if there's something wrong in my side. It's on fb2k convert "--quiet --bitrate 128 --vbr --music - %d" - I hear easily audible and annoying loudness instability, as in ducking, as popular in IDM, all over the place. EDIT: It's not in the opus->wav convert. Good, so it must be something wrong in the fb2k decoding process.
Would be appreciated if you could share a sample file that plays incorrectly in foobar2000 yet decodes correctly using Opus tools.
Thanks.
We are the bork. Your software bugs will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.

Re: Opus 1.3.1

Reply #79
Would be appreciated if you could share a sample file that plays incorrectly in foobar2000 yet decodes correctly using Opus tools.
Will do tomorrow, I'm definitely interested in what exactly was going on here.


Re: Opus 1.3.1

Reply #81
John at rarewares has just uploaded 32 bit and 64 bit compiles of Opus 1.3.1

https://rarewares.org/opus.php
I'm using that one and get abysmal results. Wondering is something is wrong. On long sawwave kind of pads/drones, it is kind of ducking/oscillating. Will show samples tomorrow as I'm still wondering if there's something wrong in my side. It's on fb2k convert "--quiet --bitrate 128 --vbr --music - %d" - I hear easily audible and annoying loudness instability, as in ducking, as popular in IDM, all over the place. EDIT: It's not in the opus->wav convert. Good, so it must be something wrong in the fb2k decoding process.

Out of interest did you try the netranger compile? The rarewares compiles seem to be alot bigger then other builds I've seen so wondered if any difference in sound quality.


Re: Opus 1.3.1

Reply #83
The rarewares compiles seem to be alot bigger then other builds I've seen so wondered if any difference in sound quality.
There are many possible reasons a compile of the same code can be larger. For example
- Duplicating functions optimized for different CPUs
- Including debugging symbols
- Including (part of) the C runtime
- Including optional code/features

For example, flac compiled with minGW can be around 1400kb while compiled with Visual Studio it is only 300kb. This difference is because of the first three reasons mentions above.

These reasons seem a far more likely explanation than anything that has to do with quality of the output.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Re: Opus 1.3.1

Reply #84
General question out of interest, and as I'm not really into Opus: Is the codec "actively" developed on the psychoacustic level (Ie I do not mean improvements in tag handling etc...) or rather... "set"? Because it's 3 years now... Thx guys
With "active" I mean..., e.g., see TAK lossless. Nobody uses it except some very few people, but it's always improved.

Re: Opus 1.3.1

Reply #85
Is the codec "actively" developed on the psychoacustic level (Ie I do not mean improvements in tag handling etc...) or rather... "set"? Because it's 3 years now...
You kind of answered your own question. Do you consider a period of three years since the last quality improvement to mean that Opus is no longer meaningfully improved? It sounds like you do.

Re: Opus 1.3.1

Reply #86
Do you consider a period of three years since the last quality improvement to mean that Opus is no longer meaningfully improved? It sounds like you do.
I was off the audio scene. So I asked. Three years mean nothing, it's just an amount of years. "Quite a few people are often tuning the codec enthusiastically" is a possibility, but also "there is one guy, now he works for a big corp, we haven't heard of him for 2 years".

Re: Opus 1.3.1

Reply #87
Is the codec "actively" developed on the psychoacustic level (Ie I do not mean improvements in tag handling etc...) or rather... "set"? Because it's 3 years now...
You kind of answered your own question. Do you consider a period of three years since the last quality improvement to mean that Opus is no longer meaningfully improved? It sounds like you do.
"Opus development finished", said IgorC.

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,120007.msg997568.html#msg997568

Re: Opus 1.3.1

Reply #88
"Opus development finished", said IgorC.

Too bad that one have to type:

opusenc file.wav file.opus

instead like with oggenc, simply:

oggenc *

It force to write a bash script to encode multiple files  :(


Re: Opus 1.3.1

Reply #89
"Opus development finished", said IgorC.

Too bad that one have to type:

opusenc file.wav file.opus

instead like with oggenc, simply:

oggenc *

It force to write a bash script to encode multiple files  :(



You can use foobar2000 to make encoding much, much easier. If you are using linux, it works under wine very well. ;)