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 1.4 (Read 9525 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Opus 1.4

Opus 1.4 brings the following improvements and fixes:

- Improved tuning of the Opus in-band FEC (LBRR). See the https://gitlab.xiph.org/xiph/opus/-/issues/2360 for details
- Added a OPUS_SET_INBAND_FEC(2) option that turns on FEC, but does not force SILK mode (FEC will be disabled in CELT mode)
- Improved tuning and various fixes to DTX
- Added Meson support, improved CMake support

https://github.com/xiph/opus/releases/tag/v1.4

Re: Opus 1.4

Reply #1
Shit, reencoding my library again
Opus VBR 256 + SoX

Re: Opus 1.4

Reply #2
Will we have binaries?


Re: Opus 1.4

Reply #4
Hi!

Perhaps somebody who understands the technicalities might be able to tell us if this new version has a significant impact on speed or quality. I normally use Opus to encode music to 160 kbps: will I notice anything different or blind tests definitely need to be done before claims can be made?

Thanks in advance.


Re: Opus 1.4

Reply #6
Perhaps somebody who understands the technicalities might be able to tell us if this new version has a significant impact on speed or quality. I normally use Opus to encode music to 160 kbps: will I notice anything different or blind tests definitely need to be done before claims can be made?

I would say that this
- Improved tuning and various fixes to DTX
indicates that there might be a noticeable effect on quality, but blind tests should definitely be done to confirm or deny.

Re: Opus 1.4

Reply #7
Based on the changelog, I wouldn't expect significant changes outside of DTX or FEC. I'd do a binary comparison to see if the bitstream changes at all between versions. If the encoder still outputs the same bits with your chosen settings, there's no way you'll hear a difference. (Doing this comparison may not be as easy as it sounds, since parts of the Ogg container will change even if the underlying Opus frames do not.)

For anyone unfamiliar, DTX and FEC are telephony features - you wouldn't use them when squeezing your library to fit on an SD card.

Re: Opus 1.4

Reply #8
For the use case of encoding your music library, this release will likely not bring any improvement. FEC and DTX are used only in real-time transmission. As for speed, again no improvement unless the SSE* detection was previously broken for your system (fixed a few corner cases, but few people should see any change there as well).

Re: Opus 1.4

Reply #9
Thank for all the comments. I won't reencode anything then.

Re: Opus 1.4

Reply #10
For the use case of encoding your music library, this release will likely not bring any improvement. FEC and DTX are used only in real-time transmission. As for speed, again no improvement unless the SSE* detection was previously broken for your system (fixed a few corner cases, but few people should see any change there as well).

Is the development of the codec finished? In other words, are you no longer planning to make improvements in terms of audio quality?

Re: Opus 1.4

Reply #11
I suspect Opus is sort of in the same boat as MP3 where all the low hanging fruit have been dealt with, and any quality improvements are going to be subtle and take lots of developer effort.
I mean, the last encoder quality improvement in a stable LAME release came in 2011.

Re: Opus 1.4

Reply #12
I suspect Opus is sort of in the same boat as MP3 where all the low hanging fruit have been dealt with, and any quality improvements are going to be subtle and take lots of developer effort.
I mean, the last encoder quality improvement in a stable LAME release came in 2011.

Ummm.... nope. Not yet, at least.

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,124082