Skip to main content
Topic: Opus 1.3-beta is here (Read 27512 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #75
@sPeziFisH

Quote
I claim (!) that most of the longtime HA followers wouldn't encode with less than 160kbps-192kps if it's about 1-time-encoding for their lossy-archive..

Personally I would not go more than those settings for a '1-time' encode especially given Apple AAC has not had any sound quality adjustments in years now (say roughly at the start of this decade, give or take) and it seems once you go beyond 160kbps (or so) efficiency really starts to go out the window with Apple AAC and beyond 192kbps seems like a bit overkill.

Plus, I feel that's even more of the case if your using that music on-the-go where listening conditions likely won't be all that optimal which makes it even that much less likely you will notice the small differences that may be there if your using say 128kbps instead of something like 160-192kbps and when just enjoying your music your probably much less likely to notice tiny little artifacts in the sound assuming you can detect these in the first place at the 128kbps setting.

p.s. I am not the 'longtime HA followers' group as I only had my account recently but I lurked around here from time to time as some years passed.

@ashtikuno

Quote
I've just learned all about Opus and I'm planning to do a massive migration previously from AAC to Opus of about 2000 tracks from my library. Seeing that Opus 1.3 is coming, should I be waiting for 1.3 or the recent stable version a way to go?

Honestly, if you already got AAC at a high enough bit rate it's probably not worth dumping that given it's wide support as while Opus seems to generally do better than AAC at lower bit rates, it seems once you reach a certain point Opus pretty much loses it's advantages over AAC. so I think for the most part if your going to use Opus it's more of the 128kbps or lower bit rates (generally lower is where you see it's benefits) is where it's best as if your going to use higher bit rates (say something like 128kbps+) your probably best off with AAC overall because of better support.

so if you want to use a lossy audio format 1-time and forget about it... Apple AAC @ 128kbs, maybe 160kbps if you would rather play it a bit safer.

but I guess we all have our preferences, just some thoughts ;)
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: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #76
Well, it's always personal taste where to put the sweet spot. But Opus @128 kbps has a higher probability of encoding even hard to encode tracks fine than AAC @128 kbps.For regular music usually everything is fine @128 kbps even with a good mp3 encoder.
lame3995o -Q1.7
opus --bitrate 140

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #77
@halb27

Quote
Well, it's always personal taste where to put the sweet spot.

But given the info we have around here ain't there sorta some general guideline where to put that 'sweet spot'?

like while I know that technically it's personal preference, one would have to think there is at least a general area (i.e. say 96-160kbps for Apple AAC for example) where you will hit a pretty good standard of sound quality but while still having a efficient use of bit rate?

because say for example... a person claimed the 'sweet spot' for Apple AAC was like 256kbps. wouldn't it be easy to say they are wrong because of lack of efficiency at that bit rate for likely very little gains(or no gains(?)) in sound quality over bit rates a fair amount lower? ; so if that's true, it seems there has to be at least a ball park figure on the ranges of the sweet spot would be with Apple AAC(based on the info we got around here) before you either start to lose too much sound quality or use too much bit rate to clean up a really minor artifact and that's kinda why I see, based on the info I can find around these forums, that with Apple AAC claiming 'sweet spot' outside of the 96-160kbps range seems like someone could question it even though obviously someone could use whatever bit rate they want at the end of the day. but given the poll in here a little while ago nearly 8 out of 10 users (only 39 votes though) agreed the 'sweet spot' of Apple AAC was basically between 96-160kbps.

then you could apply that to Opus etc. but I would imagine Opus 'sweet spot' might vary a bit from Apple AAC as I would guess it would generally be lower bit rate ranges like say something like 80kbps-128kbps (or maybe a bit over 128kbps (or less than say 160kbps)) for the Opus equivalent to Apple AAC's 96-160kbps thing.

Quote
But Opus @128 kbps has a higher probability of encoding even hard to encode tracks fine than AAC @128 kbps.

Okay, so that was true then. because I thought I read a little on that, but I was not sure.

thanks for clearing that up.

so assuming Opus @ 128kbps can top Apple AAC @ 128kbps... I just wonder what bit rate would be required for Apple AAC to get on par with Opus in those situations? ; or is that simply too difficult to answer?

Quote
For regular music usually everything is fine @128 kbps even with a good mp3 encoder.

But ain't MP3 @ 128kbps generally considered more risky than Opus/AAC at that same bit rate across a wide range of music? ; but once you get to say something like LAME v2 (190kbps) (or maybe even v3 (175kbps)) then at that point it don't really matter whether you use Opus/AAC/MP3 since they are all basically top notch at that point, correct?
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: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #78
Guys, you are way off topic here. Please open a new topic and discuss comparison of different codecs there.
This topic is for development of  Opus 1.3 beta. Until now there isn't much help from you for Opus beta (actually no help at all).  So any suggestions or obsrervations for 1.3 beta?  


Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #79
So any suggestions or obsrervations for 1.3 beta?  

I haven't done any proper testing yet but have you discovered any other disparities between the original 1.3 beta and 95c4871?

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #80
Yes, see my previous posts in this topic.
1.3b and 95c4871 are no-go at 32 kbps.  1.2.1  hasn't perfect speech/music switching but  right now is the best (as for my ears)

1.2.1/1.3/"95c4871" at 32 kbps.


Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #81
@IgorC

Quote
Until now there isn't much help from you for Opus beta (actually no help at all).  So any suggestions or obsrervations for 1.3 beta?

Sorry about getting way off topic. Ill stop commenting on others posts on this topic with Apple AAC bit rates etc. but anyways...

as for the v1.3 beta... I don't think ill be of much help from what I can tell testing Opus v1.2.1 with 48-64kbps bit rate ranges because given the song I quickly tested (i.e. 'Desperation' by Steppenwolf) with Opus v1.2.1 @ 48kbps and 64kbps settings I could not say I noticed any obvious differences as I only notice obvious differences with Apple AAC (AAC-LC) when going to the setting just below the 64kbps (i.e. q27 TVBR) one which is q18 TVBR (i.e. 56kbps) and Opus at those ranges is still not obvious to detect artifacts for me (at least based on that single song I tested fairly quickly) as it does not have that muffled sound that's easy for me to detect on the AAC-LC @ 56kbps. so Opus at low bit rates must be clearly better than AAC-LC (Apple) at those low bit rates.

but being you tested Opus @ 32kbps, which I can tell sounds noticeably worse than even the 48kbps+ range, would I be correct in saying that any improvements the developer is attempting to make at those low rates would be difficult to detect between v1.2.1 and v1.3 beta? ; because if so, it makes me wonder how one improves things if someone don't have any pretty reliable information to provide the developer. or is there simply some people they know and trust to make these observations at those low bit rates etc?

but I did get that "Java ABC/HR" program from RareWares loaded onto the Windows 10 Laptop but recently I installed Mint Linux v18.3 Cinnamon x64 because maybe you have heard that recently after the Windows 10 update from 16299.125 to 16299.192 it stopped peoples PC's running some AMD CPU's from booting into Windows 10. but apparently Microsoft is aware of this issue and is working on a fix. but I might just leave Linux Mint on that 10 year old laptop I got as it seems to work well enough for what I use it for (as a bonus the touchpad fully works on Mint Linux where as even when Windows 10 was working the right side of the touchpad used to scroll web pages etc simply did not work on Windows 10 on my Laptop) as it's just my backup computer. but since that ABC/HR program works on Java I probably could get that working on Mint Linux I suspect assuming it plays the audio files fine etc (I am pretty much a Linux noobie).
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: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #82
but being you tested Opus @ 32kbps, which I can tell sounds noticeably worse than even the 48kbps+ range, would I be correct in saying that any improvements the developer is attempting to make at those low rates would be difficult to detect between v1.2.1 and v1.3 beta? ;
Not sure if I follow you but 1.2.1 was much better than 1.1.x at bitrates <= 48 kbps (and just was slightly better at higher bitrates).  Also it’s important to mention that 1.3’s scope is low bitrates (approx. ~24-48 kbps stereo). There probably won’t be much (if anything!)  for >48kbps range.

because if so, it makes me wonder how one improves things if someone don't have any pretty reliable information to provide the developer. or is there simply some people they know and trust to make these observations at those low bit rates etc?
That’s the idea. People submit their results, observations, reports etc. and devs decide whether it makes sense or not.
A good number of results from several listeners is better than any synthetic metric of audio quality (though some of metrics can be quite good) .

Anyway I have a feeling and I can be wrong but Opus 1.3 can be the last serious release. Audio codecs are pretty done today. AAC, MP3 and Vorbis are already overdeveloped and their developments are abandoned at this point. Add to it that we won't see newer generations formats (xHE-AAC, 3DA) in internet community anymore.  Development of video formats  is much more interesting ($) at this point. 
It's pretty close to good bye.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #83
Anyway I have a feeling and I can be wrong but Opus 1.3 can be the last serious release. Audio codecs are pretty done today. AAC, MP3 and Vorbis are already overdeveloped and their developments are abandoned at this point. Add to it that we won't see newer generations formats (xHE-AAC, 3DA) in internet community anymore.  Development of video formats  is much more interesting ($) at this point. 
It's pretty close to good bye.


I hope that's not true. That would be a future I'd hate to live. Also considering the advancement in developing markets (say India) with people relying on lower bandwidths, anything that is of better quality is constantly giving the need to big companies (like Google) to push the boundaries further and further. It's not a coincidence they started supporting Opus natively at a period they started to give more attention to such markets. And India and Google is only one of the examples, you can find more companies drifting their focus on such markets with similar needs.

In short, as long there is a need for better quality with less bandwidth, there will always be advancements on the field. We may not live the days of yesteryear that the needs for better efficiency were dead obvious (like smaller capacity storage and portable media) but we still have the same need for a different reasons that came with a whole new market (relying alot on streaming media, bandwidth saving for servers etc).

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #84
Actually Opus has a big limitation that can make its low bitrate quality improvement to stagnate beyon Opus 1.3, is that it is a low delay codec, but is very posible that a non low delay codec based in Opus can inprove the low bitrate quality furder.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #85
Actually Opus has a big limitation that can make its low bitrate quality improvement to stagnate beyon Opus 1.3, is that it is a low delay codec, but is very posible that a non low delay codec based in Opus can inprove the low bitrate quality furder.
Isn't the delay configurable at encoding time? opusenc uses a very high delay setting by default. Only realtime encoders (for voice communication) use a low delay setting. Right?

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #86
Isn't the delay configurable at encoding time? opusenc uses a very high delay setting by default. Only realtime encoders (for voice communication) use a low delay setting. Right?

Yes for the first queation and no for the second question.

Opus can have a delay betwen 5ms to 66.5ms (there is a special case for 126.5ms delay), Opus by default have a delay of 26.5ms that is the optimal one as using bigger delays don't offer an advantage or it is minimal. Explaining the delay is basically lookahead+framesize, the lookahead is 2.5ms for a pure CELT mode or 6.5ms for the normal mode due to Silk, the framesize can be 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40 and 60 ms but nativelly for the CELT layer the frames sizes are the ones from 2.5 to 20ms and as CELT Mode is the one used for music the bigger frame sizes dont offer practical advantage for music, and if I'm not wrong silk support nativelly the frames sizes from 10 to 60ms. The default delay is 6.5ms+20ms, basically bigest lookahead delay as it lets Opus use Silk. hybrid or CELT mode and 20 ms the biggest framesize for the celt layer.

Compare this to the delay for 48kHz in other codecs:

AAC-LC       +150ms
HE-AAC       +300ms
HE-AACv2   +400ms
AAC-LD        +20ms <- this codec sound like crap compared to Opus.
AAC-ELD      +20ms <- not much better than AAC-ELD

PD. If anyone know ther real world delays for the other codecs can they tell me those as the internet fonts are confusing.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #87
So would an opus variant with higher frame sizes and longer look ahead make sense for applications where both don't matter or it seems like we have exploited already it's limits as a format?

 

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #88
So would an opus variant with higher frame sizes and longer look ahead make sense for applications where both don't matter or it seems like we have exploited already it's limits as a format?

Opus is -- right now -- able to exploit longer look-ahead for the purpose of speech/music detection and tonality analysis. Should it be useful for anything else, it can always be added with no change to the format. Larger frame sizes or window would require a change to the bit-stream and make a (slight) improvement to quality on highly tonal content (while probably making transients slightly worse), but the improvement is definitely not worth creating a new format. As for the limits of the format in general, it's hard to say. I doubt there's any particular large improvement to be made, but I still expect a series of small improvements for particular cases. Who knows what those will add up to.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #89
Encoding at 20.0x max using Foobar 1.4 beta! If Im not mistaken it used to be around 100.0x. Much slower compared to FhG AAC @ 70.0x max.

I got  a slight slow down from ~300x to ~250x on my 3632QM (i7, Ivy Bridge). Not an issue for me.
What CPU do You have?


I do have a very cheap AMD A8 Quad core CPU! Makes a lot of difference! Thanks for the input, though.
Audio Files Format: Voice only - Opus & AAC HE v2 @32kbps | Music: - AAC HE v2 @64kbps
Encoders: Foobar2000 Converter
Players: Foobar2k and AIMP

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #90
I was just wondering, and perhaps @jmvalin would know, with the music/speech detection getting near-perfect as you mentioned in another thread a month or two ago, is it good enough that there would scope to:

A. Specify a low bitrate for speech-only and a higher bitrate for music (or mixed music and speech) to optimize better for podcasts or radio shows, say. (For example 16 or 24 kbps during speech-only is very good quality, while 40-64 kbps CELT would be good for theme tunes and incidental music (and perhaps even applause and certain other non-speech sounds, especially if in stereo), and perhaps 96 kbps for music would be better if music fidelity was highly important - e.g. a music documentary playing clips. Perhaps a preset -podcast-low would be (16 speech, 40 music), -podcast-medium would be (24 speech, 64 music), and -podcast-high would be (24 speech, 96 music)

B. Output a signal or a file indicating the switching points between speech and music. This is probably a niche use case, but I listen to a number of podcasts at around 2.0x speed in PodcastAddict, sometimes 2.4x if the people speak really slowly. In some cases they play a piece of music which really needs to be at 1.0x speed. I could imagine a gradual slow down as the music is about to start then a speed-up after the speech resumes might work.
Dynamic – the artist formerly known as DickD

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #91
Yes, see my previous posts in this topic.
1.3b and 95c4871 are no-go at 32 kbps.  1.2.1  hasn't perfect speech/music switching but  right now is the best (as for my ears)
Note that the 95c4871 build is just some point early in the 1.3 development, before some of the speech-related changes. I'll get back to you later on this. In the mean time, 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.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #92
32 kbps opus-tools-newtf.zip:
High frequencies especially synth with (fart like sound, I don't know what sample it is) I noticed a good improvement compared to Opus 1.3 Beta:  the sound is less muddy, more clear.
But with this improvement I think  vocal lost a bit of presence  and detail (warmth).    (I tested with a Rock track, not acapella)..
Sure, an optimization could further improve the quality.
Good job.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #93
32 kbps opus-tools-newtf.zip:
High frequencies especially synth with (fart like sound, I don't know what sample it is) I noticed a good improvement compared to Opus 1.3 Beta:  the sound is less muddy, more clear.
But with this improvement I think  vocal lost a bit of presence  and detail (warmth).    (I tested with a Rock track, not acapella)..
Sure, an optimization could further improve the quality.
Can you provide the samples you're talking about here so I can listen to them? Both the one that's better and the one that's worse (ideally the original and the coded files to make sure everything's right).

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #94
Note that the 95c4871 build is just some point early in the 1.3 development, before some of the speech-related changes. I'll get back to you later on this.
Yes, I know. Previously I understood You correctly.

In the mean time, I've come across some TF-related issues and made some builds for testing: ...
Great. I'll try them later these days and will report.
Question. AFAIK your plans about 1.3 cover mainly low bitrates as You have already mentioned it here 
So I will test mainly 32 kbps, stereo and maybe 48 kbps, all right?  Opus is already very good at 48 kbps and higher.


Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #95
Question. AFAIK your plans about 1.3 cover mainly low bitrates as You have already mentioned it here 
So I will test mainly 32 kbps, stereo and maybe 48 kbps, all right?  Opus is already very good at 48 kbps and higher.
Most of the 1.3 changes are indeed for low bitrates, but the newtf stuff applies to all bitrates -- at least in theory. I'm not sure at what bitrate it would have the most impact though.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #96
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

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #97
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

If file size isn't the problem: Keep the your files as-is, in AC3. You've got nothing to gain quality wise, only to lose. AC3 is so old it *may* already be "free" in terms of patents having expired or being close to expiring and there are open-source implementations.

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #98
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

If file size isn't the problem: Keep the your files as-is, in AC3. You've got nothing to gain quality wise, only to lose. AC3 is so old it *may* already be "free" in terms of patents having expired or being close to expiring and there are open-source implementations.

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?

Re: Opus 1.3-beta is here

Reply #99
I

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018