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.
The move has also created somewhat of a shitstorm, with a bunch of people complaining loudly about it. Most of them seem to be stuck in a late-90s/early-2000s "more bitrate = always more better" mindset of 64kbps Xing-encoded MP3s downloaded from Napster, and don't seem to realize that as lossy formats get better, the required bitrate for transparency gets lower. We've had 20 years of improvements since then, which they also seem to ignore.I find it very hard to ABX ~64kbps Opus against lossless and the default setting of ~96kbps is 100% transparent for me, no matter which samples I use. I can reliably ABX LAME -V5 MP3s (~128kbps), so for me Soundcloud's move should absolutely improve the sound quality.I did hear some complaints that they used an old encoder version, though. My comparisons were done using opusenc v1.2.
It's not like mp3 the last 20 years was a dead format that received no quality improvements. We cannot compare the 2000s mp3 encoders at 128kbps with Soundcloud's Lame-based 128kbps encoder that is up to date.
Quote from: Klimis on 15 January, 2018, 04:27:05 PMIt's not like mp3 the last 20 years was a dead format that received no quality improvements. We cannot compare the 2000s mp3 encoders at 128kbps with Soundcloud's Lame-based 128kbps encoder that is up to date. Lame 3.93 came out in 2002, and while there was some improvements over the next 4 or 5 years, 2000s mp3 encoders were not that different from the ones we have today.
For alot of people 128kbps can be transparent or very close to that, while a 64kbps opus file may not be far from transparent but I find it a stretch to say that it's as close to transparent as 128kbps lame is.