Skip to main content
Topic: Looking at Opus for MP3 replacement and have questions (Read 14229 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Looking at Opus for MP3 replacement and have questions

Reply #50
As far as I can tell from that page, the problem is phase issues in the mono downmix.

Re: Looking at Opus for MP3 replacement and have questions

Reply #51
The user most vocal about the decrease in sound quality in soundcloud even wrote an article about it Opus Tests. I'm not sure though if his findings are accurate.
I would bet that the average users of SoundCloud are not as knowledgeable when it comes to the various codecs, nor care.  They just want to hear the music and I don't believe the average users will notice a difference between 64 bit Opus and a 128 bit mp3.  It's a streaming service and they need the smaller files to provide users the same service as their catalog and user base grows. 


Re: Looking at Opus for MP3 replacement and have questions

Reply #52
When they say that 160-192 is completely transparent, would 160vbr count as covering up to 192 or it's necessary that I use 192 vbr to cover up to 224?

Re: Looking at Opus for MP3 replacement and have questions

Reply #53
@adamOLC

Quote
I don't believe the average users will notice a difference between 64 bit Opus and a 128 bit mp3

That sounds plausible in my opinion especially given the equipment the typical person is likely to use. because listening to Opus @ 64kbps on my PC's speakers(Klipsch Pro-Media (which I had since the early 2000's)), which I would say are above average speakers in general, I think Opus @ 64kbps is up to a certain standard that many would not really notice the difference between that and the higher bit rate files. main reason I say that is because Opus @ 64kbps does not sound obviously bad as I suspect for some people you have to have sound that clearly sounds much worse than the audio CD (or the equivalent) with the overall sound for them to complain and Opus @ 64kbps is no where near that point. hell, I would not be surprised if some people could go even lower than 64kbps and not complain because when not comparing to the lossless file they still sound pretty good overall as they don't stand out in any obvious negative way with the overall sound.

@Trace

Quote
When they say that 160-192 is completely transparent, would 160vbr count as covering up to 192 or it's necessary that I use 192 vbr to cover up to 224?

When the wiki page says 160-192kbps is transparent I just assume it means you set the encoding rate to 160kbps or 192kbps (or random in-between settings which are not worth nitpicking over). I would not worry about the bit rate climbing higher or lower than the selected bit rate as the encoder seems to do that in general depending on the music it's encoding as it might go higher or lower than the selected bit rate, which is normal.

to copy some info directly from the Opus wiki page...

-96kbps = Approaching transparency
-128kbps = Very close to transparency
-160-192kbps = Transparent with very low chance of artifacts (a few killer samples still detectable)

so given that info, you can't really lose with any of those in terms of overall sound quality. so use 96kbps or 128kbps or 160kbps and forget about it. if your a little paranoid, use 192kbps and forget about it. there should not be much else you really need to know given that info above. hell, for those who like to gamble a bit on sound quality can use 64kbps as I think many will find that quite respectable for portable use and is very efficient to since it's half the storage space of 128kbps and ain't significantly worse in overall sound quality to the average person.

bottom line.... for portable usage(which is the whole point of lossy audio files), I suggest 96kbps or 128kbps and forget about it (I would apply that to Apple AAC also) as those two are pretty safe settings across a wider range of equipment that I am confident would easily please most people.

p.s. I would imagine your going to keep your lossless files (FLAC/ALAC etc) as it would be unwise to delete those especially since hard drive space has become much cheaper over the years. so worst case, you can always re-rip to a different bit rate to any lossy encoder you like in the future if you really need to. so you ain't got much to lose by trying the lower bit rates first (say 96kbps(maybe even 64kbps if space is of some concern)) and working your way up if need be.

NOTE: as far as MP3... I consider 128kbps (basically LAME @ v5) as a minimum given it's not as good as AAC/Opus in general especially at lower bit rates (say less than 128kbps or so). like if I am using MP3 for music, which I don't anymore, I simply would not use lower than LAME @ v5 as when you start to float around 96kbps and lower the differences become more profound between MP3 vs AAC-LC/Opus. so since I prefer 128kbps and less in general, that's why MP3 is pretty much obsolete for me especially given the fact that AAC will play on the vast majority of devices that MP3 will play on and if you ain't worry about hardware support much, Opus is the preferred option since it's the lastest-and-greatest in lossy audio.
For music (especially on-the-go)...
-I suggest Opus @ 96kbps (or... 64kbps minimum, 128kbps maximum). *preferred choice*
-I suggest AAC(Apple) @ 96kbps (q45 TVBR) or 128kbps (q64 TVBR). *secondary choice*
-I use Foobar2000 (/w Encoders Pack etc) to convert FLAC to Opus/AAC(Apple).

Re: Looking at Opus for MP3 replacement and have questions

Reply #54
@ThaCrip Much appreciated for the info, cuz. ;)

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018