b) for bitrates of say 128 kbps or more AAC is the most promising codec
As for my concern, do you think Opus 192 VBR is a little better than LAME V0 ?? I ask this because I saw many of your posts in which you catch some problem samples.
@david-lisb:Your wishes for a higher cutoff frequency can easily be fulfilled with Lame and lame3995o by using the - - lowpass option.But if you prefer Ogg Vorbis: Go ahead.
Currently we don't know much about Opus' quality at higher bitrates ...
You're a great admirer of Opus obviously.
Currently we don't know much about Opus' quality at higher bitrates...
Exactly this is my point, not scepticism about Opus quality.
That would only hold true if all the formats allocated bits in a perfect manner and simply had different starting positions. However I believe that almost the entirety of format evolution is smarter and smarter (attempting to reach that perfect) allocation of bits, therefore expecting a consistent offset is incorrect.
The main reason I haven't switched to Opus is that I heard somewhere that it reconstructs high frequencies so that they are basically synthetic..like in HE-AAC, for instance. Is this a correct assumption or not?
The downside is that under 48 kbps it sounds more "cassetty" and muddy than HE-AAC, through in my opinion less artificial (HE-AAC sounds metallic to me at low bitrates).
No, I do not. ABX testing would only prove that I can hear difference, not the nature of it, and I think it is fairly clear that at 48 kbps each codec has their own artifacts. No codec is transparent at 48 kbps yet, look at listening tests.