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: Vorbis better than opus?  (Read 19531 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #25 –
No, I don't know.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #26 –
Quote from: IgorC on
You're too polite to  called it "intellectual theories", I call them what they are. BS.

I beg to differ. It is hardly controversial to say that lossy codecs have improved over thirty years (like, Monty's classic-at-this-forum, search for [2] and read the footnote:  https://web.archive.org/web/20200417180912/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html )
... so what did they start lossy codecs at? Some pretty good ideas of what should work, and some pretty good ideas of what could improve. What actually improves, well you can test - searching for improvements (better than blind search), that is brainwork.
And if you have found an improvement up to bitrate B, but have not yet picked up a B+100 troublesome signal, what then? Inferring how to extrapolate from data is harder than your statistics 101, but it surely isn't BS.

In the above link, Monty also quotes some anonymous user:
"[The Sampling Theorem] hasn't been invented to explain how digital audio works, it's the other way around. Digital Audio was invented from the theorem, if you don't believe the theorem then you can't believe in digital audio either!!"
True or not ... that puts it on intellectual theory. The sampling theorem does not tell you how high limiting frequency is adequate for musical reproduction for the human ear (with all the filters that were invoked in the technology's infancy), that is an empirical exercise.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #27 –
Well, I conducted various ABX over the last few days and a hearing test today, and the blind test results weren't passable (11/16 at best, p-value >10%). Easy ear fatigue. I could blame the fact I'd moved to a new house (major differences in resonance) and the window air conditioners, but I'm going to conclude that at age 37 I can't hear ultrasonic frequencies well enough to ABX the tracks I tested and a brick wall 20KHz lowpass. Because no formal tests were done 2 years ago, I retract my claim on that as a statement of fact.

In the hearing test, I could hear a pulsating 20.5KHz sine, using Audacity sampling at 96KHz. The boost required was so high that going higher could damage my ears, but I can safely conclude that I can hear above 20K, just barely. The dropoff after 19KHz was very steep.

I never claimed ultra high res was necessary; in fact the test in the article I linked made it clear that not one person could hear 30KHz. That would mean for even the most ideal conditions a maximum master sample rate of 60KHz. There's no reason for 192KHz masters unless you want to entertain animals. And the thing about controlled environments with extremely high Signal Pressure Levels is that they don't reflect any kind of normal listening experience. The kind of levels required for 24KHz are dramatic enough that I'll probably never hear of anyone who can tell the difference between a 96KHz FLAC and 48KHz of the same source. Yes, 48KHz is good enough. (I just wish Opus gave the option to encode more bands.)

As for MQA, I think Mnyb on ASR described it best: "a closed source licensing racket that no one needs."

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: ajp9 on
20.5KHz sine [...] I can safely conclude that I can hear above 20K, just barely.
Barely hear and barely above: it is only a quarter tone.

Going from there to saying what sample rate is adequate, is a question of era and technology. Nowadays we can record at high sample rate and then use a steeeeeeep filter in the digital domain to eliminate aliasing before resampling to end-user format.
But if you had to use an analogue lowpass between your microphone and your 44.1 kHz ADC, it would have to kick in much lower. So by all means, record at higher sample rate.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: ajp9 on
In the hearing test, I could hear a pulsating 20.5KHz sine, using Audacity sampling at 96KHz. The boost required was so high that going higher could damage my ears, but I can safely conclude that I can hear above 20K, just barely. The dropoff after 19KHz was very steep.
I'd like to emphasize that just because you can hear 20.5 kHz in ideal conditions, it doesn't mean it's not completely masked in actual music.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #30 –
There are tests in this forum putting high bitrate Opus above Vorbis in transparency.

20 kHz low pass filter on Opus is more than reasonable. Musical instruments do not purposefully emit above 20 kHz. Human voice does not reach that frequency either. >99% humans do not notice / cannot notice >20 kHz harmonics. >99% speakers are specced within the range below 20 kHz.

The fact that you might be able to hear isolated >20 kHz tones at high volume under silent conditions bears no resemblance whatsoever to whether you can notice >20 kHz harmonic tones while enjoying music. Try hearing that tone at low volume while enjoying a track.

Regardless, if you want to raise or remove the Opus low pass filter, you can enter custom parameters when encoding. If your only reason for using Vorbis is that it doesn't use a low pass filter, you can use Opus with custom parameter instead.

I use both Opus at (nominal) 192 and Vorbis at (nominal) 256, depending on the album. The reason I use both is simple, Opus has a glitch in tracks that do not transition with silence. Does not have perfect gapless.

Quote from: Markuza97 on
Third "relevant" format acording to HydrogenAudio is Opus. This is totally false in real life.
Even today, many programs have problems with playing Opus files. It is really only useful for VoIP applications.

Android cell phones have seamless integration of both Vorbis and Opus files in current year.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: Markuza97 on
Quote from: ajp9 on
I can hear frequencies above 20KHz, confirmed by ABX, with and without 20KHz lowpass.

This guy is smoking some good shit, lol.
Anyway, nobody is using Vorbis anymore. It is dead format.

If you want compatiblity and good all-around format stick with MP3.
Use latest LAME encoder and use V2 preset. You will get ~192 kbit/s files that work everywhere and sound great.

If your equipment has been made in the past ~15 years you can use AAC-LC.
Recommended encoder is Apple (qaac). Ideal bitrate is around 144-160 kbit/s.

Third "relevant" format acording to HydrogenAudio is Opus. This is totally false in real life.
Even today, many programs have problems with playing Opus files. It is really only useful for VoIP applications.
I can guarantee you that every single person on HA that is using Opus is very familiar with compatibility
problem but they also have lossless archive so they can encode to any format that they want.

Main point of lossy files is transparency at smallest bitrate. Lossy codecs achieve this at 192 kbit/s.
Everything about 192 kbit/s kills the point of lossy files.

I'd rather use 192kbit/s Musepack and with Android being so popular compatibility not a issue these days, Since MPC seems more robust on some Noise/transient samples that Opus groans on. But overall Vorbis is worse than AAC/MP3 by long shot not even transparent on most samples at 256kbps while AAC/MP3 are to be blunt.


Got locked out on a password i didn't remember. :/

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #32 –
Quote
I'd rather use 192kbit/s Musepack and with Android being so popular compatibility not a issue these days, Since MPC seems more robust on some Noise/transient samples that Opus groans on. But overall Vorbis is worse than AAC/MP3 by long shot not even transparent on most samples at 256kbps while AAC/MP3 are to be blunt.

@ani_Jackal3: You are one of those guys I usually skip as you come around and like a high priest you trot out these statements as if you were some guy who did a lot of tests. Just that you do this now everywhere on this forum, and this is the point I have enough.

Prove me wrong and show us your tests and proper analysis on these claims. Show us those "most samples" where 256 kbps Vorbis files are not transparent with ABX logs. Also show us your Musepack vs Opus tests wher Opus "groans", but Musepack shines.

If you cannot refer to those tests, I would prefer if you could just stop spreading BS.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #33 –
Interesting. Vorbis went through several tunings. Garf's GT3 for Q5 -10, Then AOtuv.  By that time
I recall a post by pio2001 saying he knows badvilbel as Q6 killer (i confirmed it)  but none for Q7 +
The old testers were pretty hardcore.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: ani_Jackal3 on
But overall Vorbis is worse than AAC/MP3 by long shot not even transparent on most samples at 256kbps while AAC/MP3 are to be blunt.
Very interesting, I've done a few personal tests(not posted on HA) in the past and I never found an example where MP3 outperformed Vorbis

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #36 –
I invite everybody report ani_Jackal3's posts for violation of TOS 8

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #37 –
Quote from: IgorC on
I invite everybody report ani_Jackal3's posts for violation of TOS 8

Don't do it. Have an open mind. It would be very interesting to hear back  / get some samples etc.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #38 –
Sure,  just hold your breath for another year. "Be an open mind"  Cmon
We had enough of  chit-chat with him and similar, any dialog is futile at this point. 

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #39 –
I mean, let's be honest. Vorbis worse than mp3 is a preposterous statement. Nutcase level.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #40 –
Quote from: dalcinrafa on
I mean, let's be honest. Vorbis worse than mp3 is a preposterous statement. Nutcase level.

Back in the day around 2003 or so. it was proposed that vorbis is not mature compared to
mp3 - particularly preset standard / extreme (V2 etc). Many stuck with mp3 and even mpc.
There was a HF noise until Q5 or 6. Since then it has been tuned so these things are fixed or
reduced. Could be that edge cases exist today.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #41 –
Quote from: shadowking on
Back in the day around 2003 or so. it was proposed that vorbis is not mature compared to
mp3
Back in 1995 or so, it was proposed that MP3 was not mature compared to MP2.
So what?  "Could be that edge cases exist today"

Your chit-chat isn't any better than Jackal3's systematic violation of TOS8 during years.
Cut the B chit-chat S, sir.

You mention 2003 but you don't mention 2020's Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps where Vorbis was clearly superior to MP3. 
How convenient from your part, sir. 

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #42 –
Theres no tos 8 whatsoever. I stated nothing but facts without going into every detail.
One listening test doesn't represent all scenarios. So there can exist an edge case where
a superior codec does worse than inferior one etc .

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #43 –
Quote from: shadowking on
Theres no tos 8 whatsoever. I stated nothing but facts without going into every detail.
One listening test doesn't represent all scenarios. So there can exist an edge case where
a superior codec does worse than inferior one etc .

It wasn't claimed that Vorbis is worse than MP3 in edge cases, it was claimed that:

Quote from: ani_Jackal3 on
But overall Vorbis is worse than MP3
(emphasis mine)

And "overall" requires a verification with a listening test, not just speculation about "edge cases".

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #44 –
I am with IgorC on this. You only add to the discussion if you back up that claim as it goes against all documented tests in the last 5+ years. There could be cases, but at he same time there could NOT be such cases. The onus is on you to prove that there are such cases.

Even one case where MP3 shines and Vorbis needs proof. Again, saying that there could be such cases says nothing as by the same token there could not be such cases. These are weighless statements.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #45 –
I can back it up. For vorbis ,Bavilbel is worse than mp3 until Q7. So there are cases.
That is why I was interested with ani_jackal [big] claims as it goes against the
accepted narrative.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #46 –
It would be nice to have a link to a post with the ABX and the sample. This is not very specific.

But I have this killer sample. So if I have time I might try Vorbis latest Aotuv at Q4 and which Lame setting? (Q4 as I assume I will hear the diff there.)

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #47 –
Quote from: Triza on
It would be nice to have a link to a post with the ABX and the sample. This is not very specific.

But I have this killer sample. So if I have time I might try Vorbis latest Aotuv at Q4 and which Lame setting? (Q4 as I assume I will hear the diff there.)

I don't have it. It was bad enough that abx wasn't needed (on the first noisy part). I remember it that clear.
vorbis Q4 - 6 vs similar rates mp3. However at Q7 it was solved.

Re: Vorbis better than opus?

Reply #49 –
Quote from: IgorC on
Quote from: shadowking on
I can back it up...

...2 days later...
Quote from: shadowking on
I don't have it...
Well, it was a pleasure to talk to You.
Bye



 When I get to it I will post the links. it is confirmed by others and AOTUV
developer. You are not holding a stopwatch on me.

And others know me. I am reliable. Look at the angels falls first sample, the berlin drug sample. They
are mine. The efforts to tune wavpack lossy by finding samples.
My time, my efforts when I could have done other things.

So lose your arrogance a bit.