Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Validated News => Topic started by: jmvalin on 20 June, 2017, 03:27:26 PM

Title: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: jmvalin on 20 June, 2017, 03:27:26 PM
This Opus 1.2 (https://www.opus-codec.org/downloads/) major release brings many quality improvements, new features, and bug fixes. You can read all the details in this release demo page (https://people.xiph.org/~jm/opus/opus-1.2/). Changes since 1.1.x include:
There are no known regressions compared to the latest stable release (1.1.5). Please report any problems.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: jensend on 20 June, 2017, 05:07:42 PM
Good to hear! I'm looking forward to an opusenc that will
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: jmvalin on 20 June, 2017, 05:20:55 PM
have a "constant quality" mode so e.g. mono speech and 5.1 surround fullband music can be encoded with the same settings and be expected to achieve similar quality (quality as measured by e.g. ABC/HR, MUSHRA, etc). Opus devs have in the past talked about this as "fullband stereo equivalent bitrate."
Still under consideration, though not so high on the priority list.
make as much use of lookahead as possible
This is now possible (by default!) using the libopusenc library, which makes it easy to encode Ogg Opus files. We're planning on having the next version of opus-tools use libopusenc, which would automatically add lookahead by default.
allow people to give a hint to the classifier via --speech or --music
Planned for the next version of opus-tools.
include other reasonable settings presently only available via --set-ctl, such as MAX_BANDWIDTH_REQUEST. Forcing the encoder to use higher bandwidths than it thinks optimal is a bad idea, but allowing users to select lower bandwidths is not a bad idea, and along with allowing users to ask for LP/SILK modes can save considerable power on constrained decoders e.g. Rockbox.
The Opus library is currently smart enough to detect the bandwidth of the signal so that if you upsample a wideband (16 kHz) signal to 48 kHz, it will still only encode it as wideband. I think that handles most of the uses for MAX_BANDWIDTH_REQUEST.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: OrthographicCube on 20 June, 2017, 11:30:47 PM
As an Opus fan, I can't be happier to see 1.2 released!
Congratulations to the developers--wishing you guys (and the codec) more success in the future!
You guys are awesome! :D
Now let me download this and play with it, then re-encode songs for my phone   :D
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: o-l-a-v on 21 June, 2017, 04:52:03 AM
Great news! :)
Here are some windows binaries by Chocobo1, VS2017
https://github.com/Chocobo1/opus-tools_win32-build/releases/tag/2017.06.21

GCC 7.1.0 binaries by Emre
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,114185.msg940875.html#msg940875
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: lvqcl on 21 June, 2017, 05:30:40 AM
Official Opus binaries are also available:
https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/opus/win64/opus-tools-0.1.10-win64.zip
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: ziemek.z on 21 June, 2017, 05:49:42 AM
I can finally move with my whole music library to 64 kbps! :) THANK YOU!  ;D
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: OrthographicCube on 21 June, 2017, 06:15:47 AM
I can finally move with my whole music library to 64 kbps! :) THANK YOU!  ;D
Heck, I even go as low as 48kbps! (but that's for earbuds on a noisy environment)
Since 1.2 is now officially released, I'll try bitrates as low as 32kbps :D
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: o-l-a-v on 21 June, 2017, 08:59:10 AM
Converted a 2.93 GB wave64 to Opus with available x64 builds. i7-4700MQ, Windows 10 64bit, foobar2k.
From a WD Blue SSD 1tb, to a 850 Evo 250gb.  Audio file consists of some random albums merged into a wave file. I measured time used.

FILE: WAVE64.w64  44.1khz 16bit 2,93 GB (3 155 262 136 bytes)
OPTIONS: --quiet --bitrate 120 --vbr --comp 10 --ignorelength - %d

Chocobo1 VS2017 : 4:09
Emre gcc 7.1.0 : 4:06
Mozilla : 4:10
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Vivadavid on 21 June, 2017, 12:59:03 PM
Hello,

I hope this is the right place to ask this question, as some users are talking about converting their music libraries now that Opus 1.2 is out.

I've been following news about Opus in the last few months. I got the impression that:

1. Opus was conceived for streaming & speech.
2. Opus was getting much better with music files, but there was a fundamental flaw: the frequency had to converted from 44.1 kHz to 48.1 kHz.

I've just done a little testing with Foobar 1.3.15 & libopus 1.1.5 and I get 44.1 kHz from a 44.1 kHz ordinary music file. Therefore, from what I can see, this problem has been fixed.

I guess my question would be: is Opus the best encoder for music files and not only for streaming & speech?

I've traditionally converted my files using LAME -V2 and I was thinking about moving to Opus @ 128 kbps VBR, hoping to keep the quality (and perhaps improving it), as well as saving some space.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: ziemek.z on 21 June, 2017, 01:14:37 PM
2. Opus was getting much better with music files, but there was a fundamental flaw: the frequency had to converted from 44.1 kHz to 48.1 kHz.

I've just done a little testing with Foobar 1.3.15 & libopus 1.1.5 and I get 44.1 kHz from a 44.1 kHz ordinary music file. Therefore, from what I can see, this problem has been fixed.
Primo, it's still resampling behind the scenes. Encoder writes original sample rate to Opus file and resamples to 48 kHz. Decoder reads that information and resamples back to the original sample rate. So if you encode 44.1 kHz file, you decode 44.1 kHz file.
Secundo, it shouldn't be a problem. See my earlier thread (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,113655.0.html).

I guess my question would be: is Opus the best encoder for music files and not only for streaming & speech?

I've traditionally converted my files using LAME -V2 and I was thinking about moving to Opus @ 128 kbps VBR, hoping to keep the quality (and perhaps improving it), as well as saving some space.
Opus outperforms ALL CODECS in both music and speech encoding :) MP3 is the worst lossy codec ever released, so move to Opus ;)
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: butrus on 21 June, 2017, 03:04:59 PM
have a "constant quality" mode so e.g. mono speech and 5.1 surround fullband music can be encoded with the same settings and be expected to achieve similar quality (quality as measured by e.g. ABC/HR, MUSHRA, etc). Opus devs have in the past talked about this as "fullband stereo equivalent bitrate."

That would also be my wish...
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: quadH on 21 June, 2017, 03:46:24 PM
Primo, it's still resampling behind the scenes. Encoder writes original sample rate to Opus file and resamples to 48 kHz. Decoder reads that information and resamples back to the original sample rate. So if you encode 44.1 kHz file, you decode 44.1 kHz file.

I'm pretty sure that this is false. Opus re-encodes everything to 48kHz and the music player just reads a tag saying that the original music file's sample rate was 44.1kHz, 8kHz or whatever.

If your OS or music player is set to always give 44.1kHz output, that's not related to the Opus codec
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Brand on 21 June, 2017, 04:01:07 PM
Opus outperforms ALL CODECS in both music and speech encoding
IME, at very low bitrates (under 32kbps) AAC is still clearly better for music, especially when you go down to like 16kbps.
For speech it's closer, but Opus can go a bit lower with less annoying artifacts.
I didn't compare them at 32+ bitrates lately.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Vivadavid on 21 June, 2017, 06:04:28 PM
Primo, it's still resampling behind the scenes. Encoder writes original sample rate to Opus file and resamples to 48 kHz. Decoder reads that information and resamples back to the original sample rate. So if you encode 44.1 kHz file, you decode 44.1 kHz file.

I'm pretty sure that this is false. Opus re-encodes everything to 48kHz and the music player just reads a tag saying that the original music file's sample rate was 44.1kHz, 8kHz or whatever.

If your OS or music player is set to always give 44.1kHz output, that's not related to the Opus codec

I was curious about your statement and I decided to open my converted opus file in Audacity: in fact, it says it's sampled at 48 kHz. I don't understand why MediaInfo says it's 44.1 kHz.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: quadH on 21 June, 2017, 08:08:28 PM
I was curious about your statement and I decided to open my converted opus file in Audacity: in fact, it says it's sampled at 48 kHz. I don't understand why MediaInfo says it's 44.1 kHz.
Apparently, the original sample rate is stored in the Opus file's header, and MediaInfo uses that instead of the correct "48kHz" rate.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,105326.msg868215.html#msg868215
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: lvqcl on 21 June, 2017, 10:03:42 PM
foobar2000 Free Encoder Pack (http://www.foobar2000.org/encoderpack) was also updated so it includes opusenc 1.2.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: jmvalin on 22 June, 2017, 01:10:32 AM
I was curious about your statement and I decided to open my converted opus file in Audacity: in fact, it says it's sampled at 48 kHz. I don't understand why MediaInfo says it's 44.1 kHz.
Apparently, the original sample rate is stored in the Opus file's header, and MediaInfo uses that instead of the correct "48kHz" rate.
Actually, I would say "44.1" is the right thing to display about the file. Obviously, it carries more information than saying "48 kHz" on all files, but there's also the fact that there's a big misconception about sampling rates and lossy codecs. First, Opus pretends to always do 48 kHz to make it easier for applications, but that's not necessarily what's going on. The same bit-stream can sometimes combine 16 kHz SILK information with 48 kHz CELT information. Even at the CELT layer, the MDCT is really a way to resample the signal to 960 different signals sampled at 50 Hz each... unless it's a transient in which case you have 120 different 400-Hz signals. Oh, and ever heard of SBR in HE-AAC, the encoder will resample the signal down to (e.g.) 22.05 kHz and then encode it along with some description of the higher frequencies. Yet the codec will tell you it's 44.1 kHz because that's the most convenient. And then HE-AACv2 will actually lie about your file being stereo because it just encoded a mono stream plus some side information.

The bottom line is that codecs just represent information in whatever way is most efficient despite what they pretend is the sampling rate. Your Opus file being listed as a 44.1 kHz file is just as correct as your HE-AACv2 file pretending to be 44.1 kHz stereo. The information essentially tells you what the input file was and what a "decode to file" operation will produce. That's about it. The rest is a lie -- for all codecs -- just get over it.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: OrthographicCube on 22 June, 2017, 06:30:01 AM
Opus outperforms ALL CODECS in both music and speech encoding
IME, at very low bitrates (under 32kbps) AAC is still clearly better for music, especially when you go down to like 16kbps.
For speech it's closer, but Opus can go a bit lower with less annoying artifacts.
I didn't compare them at 32+ bitrates lately.

I am not knowledgeable about the psychoacoustics of how AAC and Opus works, but I just tested both at 16kbps, and while I won't say the difference is huge, I prefered Opus here since AAC (of course mono SBR) has some high-end frequencies lost and sounds generally more gritty (can't find the right word--harsh, or rough, I guess?) than Opus. It also has some really annoying metallic gurgling sounds around the cymbals part of the spectrum (can't check the frequencies--I don't use spectograms). It also feels as if a lowpass filter is being toggled on and off every 20 seconds or something. Also, when the China cymbals start to play (to non-drummers, it's basically cymbals but are more on the lower frequencies, so instead of a "tssss" sound, it sounds more like "tshhhhhh"), the whole spectrum starts to sound distorted and all metalic. Extremely annoying.

On the other hand, Opus retained most if not all of the high end, and while the bass drums are not as "punchy" as it is in AAC, I prefer the retained high-end frequencies and the overall cleaner sound.  The problems I mentioned that affected audio quality on AAC are not found, or at least inaudible to me.

I don't have an ABX result to prove this, but the difference is too audible for me to even ABX it.

Also, please do note that this is my preference, and that I may be different from most people XD
What surprised me is that even when I thought Opus sounded better, the Opus file was 58 kilobytes smaller than the AAC file, so I suppose AAC had more bits to work with (dunno--it could be MP4 container overhead) but I still didn't prefer its sound XD

Track: Yaksa - "I Hate You" (metalcore)
Opus: 1.2
AAC: 7.10.9.0

[EDIT]
Just so I don't get called unscientific or something then get banned from a forum I really love, here's the ABX result XD
I had to resample Opus to 44.1kHz then save as WAV so I can compare it with AAC without making my soundcard adjust samplerates every time I change tracks.

-------------BEGIN------------
foo_abx 2.0.1 report
foobar2000 v1.3.15
2017-06-22 18:36:09

File A: 10 - I Hate Yo.m4a
SHA1: e6c135c9d42cacb80631f71759293475856b3f26
File B: 10 - I Hate Yo.wav
SHA1: cddf37145bf21b41b742eb2ade38c3e571d4a988

Output:
DS : プライマリ サウンド ドライバー
Crossfading: NO

18:36:09 : Test started.
18:37:05 : 01/01
18:37:30 : 02/02
18:37:41 : 03/03
18:37:53 : 04/04
18:38:09 : 05/05
18:38:25 : 06/06
18:38:34 : 07/07
18:38:52 : 08/08
18:38:52 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8
Probability that you were guessing: 0.4%

 -- signature --
19d84c57aac93f2621baa8d3e3efbe78495ce1fd
--------------END-------------
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Brand on 22 June, 2017, 07:03:28 AM
Track: Yaksa - "I Hate You" (metalcore)
I just tried with this track (off Youtube) and I agree with you, Opus sounds better.
But then with some "cleaner" sounding music like classical piano music or some pop music, AAC wins, Opus distorts too much.

BTW, I'm using FDK AAC in Foobar, because it's the only one that actually encodes to 16kbps for me (12kbps is the lowest, but it botches the beginning of a track).
How did you get apple/qaac to encode to 16kbps?
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: butrus on 22 June, 2017, 07:10:28 AM
Just so I don't get called unscientific or something then get banned from a forum I really love, here's the ABX result XD

Well, personal preferences are unscientific anyway :-)
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: OrthographicCube on 22 June, 2017, 07:13:47 AM
Track: Yaksa - "I Hate You" (metalcore)
I just tried with this track (off Youtube) and I agree with you, Opus sounds better.
But then with some "cleaner" sounding music like classical piano music or some pop music, AAC wins, Opus distorts too much.

BTW, I'm using FDK AAC in Foobar, because it's the only one that actually encodes to 16kbps for me (12kbps is the lowest, but it botches the beginning of a track).
How did you get apple/qaac to encode to 16kbps?
And I also agree with you :D The guitars in Opus (the solo parts, not the palm muted 5th chords) were indeed distorted, to the point that they sometimes disappear into the noise of the drums, but then, I'd listen to that any day, considering it's 16kbps and it doesn't sound like a bunch of metal wires scratching against each other (like AAC LOL)

I also ran into that problem, but since I noticed that AAC requires at least 40kbps per channel if the audio is not stereo, I figured out that I need to encode mono audio so that it will allow me to go as low as 16kbps, so I just dropped in a Stereo -> Mono downmixer. This is also fair, since Opus also encodes audio in mono at 16kbps, anyway. :)
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: OrthographicCube on 22 June, 2017, 07:34:52 AM
So because of curiosity, and I guess also fairness, I also tested Opus and AAC @ 16kbps on a pop-like electronic song. Okay, I'll tell the song, but please don't judge me LOL It's Sphere - "HIGH POWERED", from the opening theme of an anime, so you can guess what it's like--cute and fun :D Anyway, I chose the song because it has some really busy high-end action. Crash cymbals are in stereo, sharp attack hi-hat cymbals, and it's a pretty busy track in general.

My general impression would be--people shouldn't encode music in 16kbps LOL But OK, for the record, this time, AAC did have the benefit. While it did lost some high frequencies noticeably, the frequencies that it did retain are not as badly distorted as they are in Opus. I guess it wasn't obvious on the metal track, since metal songs are already pretty distorted XD

Honestly, though, the only reason I might even dare use 16kbps for music is for my phone, with bad earbuds, while I am commuting home for work, and either way, be it Opus or AAC, I bet I wouldn't mind or even notice the quality difference--as long as there's music playing on my earbuds, I'm happy. :)

Honestly, though, I am surprised that both codecs can go as low as 16kbps and reproduce full bandwidth audio (okay, not AAC, since it's more like wideband, but anyway...) How far human technology has come. I'm a programmer myself, and while I still won't say I have the brains to make stuff like lossy audio codecs, I aspire to be as good as the guys who develop Opus in the future, and I hope to be able to contribute to the quality of lossy audio codecs in the near future. People who make magical software like these is one of my inspirations :D

=========== EDIT
I seems that as long as there is no constant white noise on the background of the audio (for example, on metal songs, cymbals are constantly being hit, creating a wall of white noise, but on pop songs or classical ones, the background is pretty much clean--no "wall of white noise"), AAC performs better than Opus AT 16KBPS. I WOULDN'T KNOW ABOUT OTHER BITRATES. Fortunately for me, I'm a metalhead, and while I also listen to many other music genres like rock, chiptune, and others (except for modern pop music--I honestly can't come to like them), I mostly listen to metal and rock, so Opus should work best for me, and for the other tracks where AAC does sound better, it'd be a hassle to use a separate encoder for them so I guess I'll just keep on using Opus anyway :D I don't encode audio at 16kbps anyway, and I don't know who will XD I use Opus @ 48kbps usually.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Case on 22 June, 2017, 07:39:04 AM
This is a bit annoying to post in a thread about Opus 1.2, but if you are comparing it against AAC at low bitrates, please use FhG encoder and HE-AACv2 mode. It allows encoding stereo material as is and supports 16 kbps.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Brand on 22 June, 2017, 07:54:23 AM
FDK AAC also works in stereo at 16kbps, that's what I was using mostly. (EDIT: actually I couldn't get FhG/Winamp to encode in stereo at 16kbps.)
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Fairy on 22 June, 2017, 08:26:24 AM
I've traditionally converted my files using LAME -V2 and I was thinking about moving to Opus @ 128 kbps VBR, hoping to keep the quality (and perhaps improving it), as well as saving some space.

Improving it could be true if you take the lossless file as a source. If you only have the MP3's after conversion, please don't transcode them. Quality will suffer, no matter what bitrate.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: OrthographicCube on 22 June, 2017, 08:30:09 AM
This is a bit annoying to post in a thread about Opus 1.2, but if you are comparing it against AAC at low bitrates, please use FhG encoder and HE-AACv2 mode. It allows encoding stereo material as is and supports 16 kbps.
Well, I do understand that this is an Opus thread, but... after reading Brand's post, I got curious, so I just had to test it.
However, in my own personal point of view, I still consider Opus as technologically superior to AAC in many if not all aspects.
I am not trying to make Opus sound bad (how could I? It doesn't even sound bad!) but I just pointed out my personal observations. I never meant to make anybody feel bad. :)
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Vivadavid on 23 June, 2017, 12:20:19 PM
I was curious about your statement and I decided to open my converted opus file in Audacity: in fact, it says it's sampled at 48 kHz. I don't understand why MediaInfo says it's 44.1 kHz.
Apparently, the original sample rate is stored in the Opus file's header, and MediaInfo uses that instead of the correct "48kHz" rate.

The bottom line is that codecs just represent information in whatever way is most efficient despite what they pretend is the sampling rate. Your Opus file being listed as a 44.1 kHz file is just as correct as your HE-AACv2 file pretending to be 44.1 kHz stereo. The information essentially tells you what the input file was and what a "decode to file" operation will produce. That's about it. The rest is a lie -- for all codecs -- just get over it.

I think I got the idea: thank you for the explanation.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Vivadavid on 23 June, 2017, 12:23:13 PM
I've traditionally converted my files using LAME -V2 and I was thinking about moving to Opus @ 128 kbps VBR, hoping to keep the quality (and perhaps improving it), as well as saving some space.

Improving it could be true if you take the lossless file as a source. If you only have the MP3's after conversion, please don't transcode them. Quality will suffer, no matter what bitrate.

Don't worry: I won't transcode my MP3 files. I only convert my FLAC files to play them on my mobile phone. It seems Opus is the codec to use, so I'll stick to my plan and I'll use Opus @ 128 Kbps next time I need small audio files.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: IgorC on 24 June, 2017, 10:35:51 AM
Congratulations on a new 1.2 release   ;D

Quote
  • Music quality improvements in the 32-48 kb/s range
It's worth to mention that there were quality improvements at 64 kbps and somewhat higher too.


Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Steve Forte Rio on 25 June, 2017, 11:32:27 AM
Thanks!

Why ther is no Win-32 build on the official download page?
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: IgorC on 25 June, 2017, 12:11:28 PM
From the demo page (https://people.xiph.org/~jm/opus/opus-1.2/)
https://people.xiph.org/~jm/opus/opus-1.2/comp_music_A53.png
Decoding of Opus 128k on Raspberry Pi 3 A53 (32 bits) takes ~33 MHz

I have tried on two A53 (64 bits) CPUs and 128k foobar2000's decoder required ~21-23 MHz (equally on both)
Maybe this difference is because of 32 and 64 bits or Raspberry Pi 3 is rather slow.

P.S. It's also interesting that an encoder requires ~50 MHz (x86)  for 1 channel speech 16 kHz @ 12 kbps.
But it takes less (~35 MHz)  for 2 channels, 48 kHz @ 128 kbps.

Means that SILK/Hybrid performs more analysis than CELT does (?)
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: jmvalin on 25 June, 2017, 01:51:44 PM
Why ther is no Win-32 build on the official download page?
Is anyone still using Win32? I was under the impression everyone was on Win64 by now. Then again, I don't use Windows at all...
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: jmvalin on 25 June, 2017, 01:58:31 PM
Decoding of Opus 128k on Raspberry Pi 3 A53 (32 bits) takes ~33 MHz

I have tried on two A53 (64 bits) CPUs and 128k foobar2000's decoder required ~21-23 MHz (equally on both)
Maybe this difference is because of 32 and 64 bits or Raspberry Pi 3 is rather slow.
At least some of this would be the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit. There could also be compiler differences, the exact song that was used, and other minor things on top.

P.S. It's also interesting that an encoder requires ~50 MHz (x86)  for 1 channel speech 16 kHz @ 12 kbps.
But it takes less (~35 MHz)  for 2 channels, 48 kHz @ 128 kbps.

Means that SILK/Hybrid performs more analysis than CELT does (?)
The way SILK is structured, decoding is very cheap, but encoding requires more searching. It's not so much analysis like what CELT does when going from complexity 0 to 10, as just optimizing the decisions to minimize rate-distortion.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Case on 25 June, 2017, 02:34:04 PM
Is anyone still using Win32? I was under the impression everyone was on Win64 by now. Then again, I don't use Windows at all...
Are you kidding? I bet there are still more users on 32-bit Windows than there are users on non-Windows desktop OSes. That's at least the data Steam HW survey shows.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: quadH on 25 June, 2017, 03:38:12 PM
Is anyone still using Win32? I was under the impression everyone was on Win64 by now. Then again, I don't use Windows at all...
Are you kidding? I bet there are still more users on 32-bit Windows than there are users on non-Windows desktop OSes. That's at least the data Steam HW survey shows.
The average opusenc user is probably a lot more likely to use 64-bit Windows or a non-Windows OS than the average Steam user.

32-bit Windows compiles should still be provided, though.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: bstrobl on 25 June, 2017, 03:58:32 PM
Is anyone still using Win32? I was under the impression everyone was on Win64 by now. Then again, I don't use Windows at all...

I do use 32 bit Windows in a VM for testing purposes (lower resource requirements), no current Mac version available at the moment :(
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: kode54 on 25 June, 2017, 07:58:27 PM
Have you checked Homebrew (https://brew.sh)?
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: jmvalin on 26 June, 2017, 12:02:14 AM
OK, you can get a Win32 build at:
https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/opus/win32/opus-tools-0.1.10-win32.zip
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: lvqcl on 26 June, 2017, 02:09:44 AM
I suppose that both official builds (32- and 64-bit) require Vista and SSE2?
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: jmvalin on 26 June, 2017, 02:25:09 AM
I suppose that both official builds (32- and 64-bit) require Vista and SSE2?
There are no 64-bit architectures without SSE2, so that's not an issue. As for the win32 builds, they should work on pretty much anything AFAIK (untested).
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: lvqcl on 26 June, 2017, 05:01:55 AM
32-bit opus utilities have subsystem ver=6.0 which means that they require Vista+. If I change them manually to 5.1:
Code: [Select]
editbin.exe /subsystem:console,5.01 /osversion:5.1 *.exe
then they work in WinXP (tested on SP3)
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Emre on 27 June, 2017, 07:09:47 AM
opus 1.2.1 is here. 
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: jmvalin on 27 June, 2017, 07:18:00 PM
Yeah, we had to do a 1.2.1 release to address an issue where the encoder would sometimes think the signal is low-passed at 12 kHz and not encode information above that. So it's better to upgrade to 1.2.1. The windows builds aren't on the website yet, but you can get Win64 builds from:
https://ci.appveyor.com/api/buildjobs/pd5jp1d0dv3ml1w7/artifacts/opus-tools.zip
and Win32 builds from:
https://ci.appveyor.com/api/buildjobs/0532d1twvfk2gwqm/artifacts/opus-tools.zip
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: ernstblaauw on 30 June, 2017, 12:18:26 PM
Does anyone know if there is a 32-bit opus 1.2.1 build with flac input support available?
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Case on 30 June, 2017, 02:33:57 PM
Attached is a generic 32-bit opusenc 1.2.1 with FLAC support that works on Windows XP and has no SSE instruction set requirement.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: ernstblaauw on 30 June, 2017, 02:41:42 PM
Attached is a generic 32-bit opusenc 1.2.1 with FLAC support that works on Windows XP and has no SSE instruction set requirement.
Great, thank you!
I'm using those builds on my Linux environment with wine in combination with foobar2000 or from the (bash) command line. The flac support is very handy for the latter.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Deathcrow on 30 June, 2017, 07:07:54 PM
Great, thank you!
I'm using those builds on my Linux environment with wine in combination with foobar2000 or from the (bash) command line. The flac support is very handy for the latter.

You can use a 64-bit Wine prefix (just rename .wine folder in your user home and run 'winecfg' - it should create a 64-bit prefix by default with a recent wine version... or specify the WINEPREFIX environment variable for another folder) and it should work fine. I'm using the binaries provided by Emre (thanks!) in my foobar2000 through wine without issue.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Emre on 01 July, 2017, 10:30:57 AM
...provided by Emre (thanks!)...
your welcome!

i also rebuild opus-tools with flac support and i kept flac.exe and metaflac.exe if anyone want to use it.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: NetRanger on 05 July, 2017, 11:07:31 AM
Opus-tools v0.1.10-9-gbd65450 (using libopus 1.2.1)
Built on July 05, 2017, GCC 7.1.0
32 & 64-bit Windows Binaries
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: francesco on 06 July, 2017, 10:30:08 AM
hi
just downloaded opus 1.2 from the homepage , and i want to upgrade my encoder
do I need only opusenc.exe or libopus-0.dll & libopusfile-0.dll too?

thanks for the new update
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: IgorC on 08 July, 2017, 12:54:39 PM
francesco
Just use any of 1.2.1 binaries posted in this topic.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,114234.msg941208.html#msg941208
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,114234.msg941283.html#msg941283
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,114234.msg941312.html#msg941312
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,114234.msg941462.html#msg941462

https://people.xiph.org/~jm/opus/opus-1.2/
Comparing Opus to MP3 only?
When Opus has outperformed LC-AAC, HE-AAC, Vorbis at 64-96 kbps. 

I have also tested Opus 1.2 alpha vs  state of the art HE-AACv2 encoder ( ~32 kbps, VBR, FhG) .  https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111798.msg930611.html#msg930611
(https://s11.postimg.org/4tnxhb5mb/Opus_HEAACv2_32_kbps_VBR.png)

Opus 1.2 alpha was already better than HE-AACv2 at 32 kbps in my test and 1.2 release contained quality improvements too comparing to alpha/beta.

You can throw in comparison with Opus literally any available codec.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: francesco on 08 July, 2017, 11:58:46 PM
francesco
Just use any of 1.2.1 binaries posted in this topic.
Hi @IgorC
thanks IgorC
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Makaki on 10 July, 2017, 07:28:20 AM
What happened to the official FLAC support on the Mozilla builds? Was working fine on opus-tools-0.1.9-win32 and then poof, it's gone. I tried both opus-tools-0.1.10-win32 and ...-win64

Code: [Select]
Error parsing input file: song.flac

I did notice the 3rd party compiles by users of the forums, Was curious of the official status.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: RiCON on 11 July, 2017, 09:48:17 AM
The CI of the MSVC projects doesn't include FLAC, that's just it.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: bandpass on 13 July, 2017, 04:15:49 AM
Given the quality improvements (which are great!), shouldn’t the Opus line be moved (or tilted) up accordingly here:

(https://hydrogenaud.io/imgcache.php?id=2704ab40de7327c301bcc108b28cbbef" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click to view at original size" data-url="http://opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.png)
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: ziemek.z on 13 July, 2017, 05:21:31 AM
Given the quality improvements (which are great!), shouldn’t the Opus line be moved (or tilted) up accordingly here:

(https://hydrogenaud.io/imgcache.php?id=2704ab40de7327c301bcc108b28cbbef" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click to view at original size" data-url="http://opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.png)
You're right, I noticed the same some time ago. Now fullband is being supported down to 14 kbps.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: niga_in_da_block on 03 September, 2017, 07:01:14 PM
Why no AAC <40 kbps on this graph?
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: saratoga on 03 September, 2017, 08:06:49 PM
Why no AAC <40 kbps on this graph?

Has anyone actually done that comparison with Opus?
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: niga_in_da_block on 03 September, 2017, 08:54:28 PM
Why no AAC <40 kbps on this graph?

Has anyone actually done that comparison with Opus?

Here is something
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,114370.0.html
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,114234.msg941691.html#msg941691
but it's just one person
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Kamedo2 on 04 September, 2017, 11:48:57 AM
Given the quality improvements (which are great!), shouldn’t the Opus line be moved (or tilted) up accordingly here:
Yes, and move down the MP3 128kbps a tiny bit, to the quality of Vorbis 96kbps.
This is according to the 2014 public multiformat listening test (http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm).
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: polemon on 07 September, 2017, 03:00:01 AM
Given the quality improvements (which are great!), shouldn’t the Opus line be moved (or tilted) up accordingly here:

(https://hydrogenaud.io/imgcache.php?id=2704ab40de7327c301bcc108b28cbbef" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click to view at original size" data-url="http://opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.png)
You're right, I noticed the same some time ago. Now fullband is being supported down to 14 kbps.
Someone should re-do the graph and make it really, really crude. Like with pencil on the inside cardboard of a cereal box or something. Couple mistakes and also use an eraser each time something makes.

My thinking is, this would epitomize the approximate nature of the graph. Bonus points for fitting the entire graph inside a 8x8cm box, and use crayons to draw the lines.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: jmvalin on 11 September, 2017, 12:17:35 PM
Someone should re-do the graph and make it really, really crude. Like with pencil on the inside cardboard of a cereal box or something. Couple mistakes and also use an eraser each time something makes.

My thinking is, this would epitomize the approximate nature of the graph. Bonus points for fitting the entire graph inside a 8x8cm box, and use crayons to draw the lines.

Actually, that figure started off pretty much like what you're describing when presented at an IETF meeting (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-rtcweb-6.pdf) (see slide 15).
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: polemon on 12 September, 2017, 04:55:29 AM
Actually, that figure started off pretty much like what you're describing when presented at an IETF meeting (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-rtcweb-6.pdf) (see slide 15).
Yeah, that's pretty much what I kinda thought of. Although a part of me wants to make this diagram a bit more complete, and update it with things like patents that have expired, like G.729.

That, and adding "unfinished" or "experimental" codecs, like Codec2.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Kamedo2 on 12 September, 2017, 05:15:27 PM
My improvement idea (work in progress)
Original: https://opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.svg
My rework: https://ss1.coressl.jp/listening-test.coresv.net/img2/quality5.svg
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: eahm on 13 September, 2017, 12:54:03 AM
Kamedo2, I see the same graph there.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Kamedo2 on 13 September, 2017, 09:46:13 AM
Kamedo2, I see the same graph there.
Sorry, updated.

Original: https://opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.svg
My rework: https://ss1.coressl.jp/listening-test.coresv.net/img2/quality6.svg
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: smok3 on 13 September, 2017, 04:07:03 PM
On Debian Stretch I did
Code: [Select]
apt install opus-tools
wget https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/opus/opus-1.2.1.tar.gz
unp opus-1.2.1.tar.gz
cd to there
./configure
make
sudo make install
sudo ldconfig

opusenc --version
opusenc opus-tools 0.1.10 (using libopus 1.2.1)
Copyright (C) 2008-2017 Xiph.Org Foundation
Would that be ok?
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: eahm on 13 September, 2017, 04:29:26 PM
Better to ask here I guess: how do I put Opus in a CAF container with foobar2000?
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: polemon on 13 September, 2017, 06:57:24 PM
Original: https://opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.svg
My rework: https://ss1.coressl.jp/listening-test.coresv.net/img2/quality6.svg
Is the lower contrast intentional?

Also, when it comes to fullband mono and fullband stereo, there's no smooth transition as such. There should be some clarity that there's an overlap, or even better: make two different diagrams altogether.

I'd love to add some more codecs, though. Especially AMR-WB+, AC3, Atrac, G.729, and G.729.1 (recently expired patents).
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: kode54 on 14 September, 2017, 12:36:24 AM
Better to ask here I guess: how do I put Opus in a CAF container with foobar2000?

FFmpeg will likely add this to its CAF muxer* in the near future, if it hasn’t already. Combined with lib opus encoding, this should be able to target iOS 11 devices.

*By add, I mean to its list of supported codecs.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Kamedo2 on 14 September, 2017, 10:38:59 AM
Is the lower contrast intentional?
Yes, intentional. Many modern color designs are like that.
Also, when it comes to fullband mono and fullband stereo, there's no smooth transition as such. There should be some clarity that there's an overlap, or even better: make two different diagrams altogether.

I'd love to add some more codecs, though. Especially AMR-WB+, AC3, Atrac, G.729, and G.729.1 (recently expired patents).
Please consider uploading your version of graph(s). It will be a great help to me.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: kode54 on 14 September, 2017, 11:26:31 PM
Code: [Select]
afconvert -d opus -f caff -q 127 -b 48000 -s 3
Manages to produce mono Opus streams on macOS High Sierra developer beta 9, I have yet to test on the GM seed, which I am about to install over my stable Sierra installation.

I also made a 3 line patch to avformat / {caf,cafenc}.c, which enables muxing the Opus codec into CAF containers. I have verified that a stereo stream plays back properly on High Sierra, same version, and will upload to my iCloud Drive and verify whether it plays on my iOS 11 GM device.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: LithosZA on 15 September, 2017, 03:53:06 AM
Kamedo2, I see the same graph there.
Sorry, updated.

Original: https://opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.svg
My rework: https://ss1.coressl.jp/listening-test.coresv.net/img2/quality6.svg

Maybe AAC could also be extended to go below 32Kbps? The only problem is that quality and bandwidth is mixed, so it might be a straight line extending to the left.
I think a better graph would be a graph that nearly looks the same, but with the 'narrowband, wideband etc.' sections removed and the color of the line determines the bandwidth.
Like 'Yellow = Narrowband, Orange = Wideband, Fullband = Green etc.'
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Kamedo2 on 18 September, 2017, 01:21:34 PM
Maybe AAC could also be extended to go below 32Kbps? The only problem is that quality and bandwidth is mixed, so it might be a straight line extending to the left.
I think a better graph would be a graph that nearly looks the same, but with the 'narrowband, wideband etc.' sections removed and the color of the line determines the bandwidth.
Like 'Yellow = Narrowband, Orange = Wideband, Fullband = Green etc.'
Indeed. The quality and bandwidth is mixed, and it's a tricky problem.
Adding a footnote for the Opus at 14 - 32kbps may be a better idea.
Footnote: Opus at 14 - 32kbps is actually a fullband, but the quality is comparable to that of other wideband encode.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: polemon on 18 September, 2017, 07:11:00 PM
Well, AAC technologies aren't exactly smooth either between one another.
The thing is: AAC-LC and HE-AAC codes individual stereo channels, or higher order channels if necessary.
HE-AACv2 uses parametric stereo, which is a like spectral band replication, only instead of frequency bands, it works on the other channel to "fake" a second channel.
xHE-AAC goes even further and adds USAC using linear prediction.

So technically you'd need an individual line for either of those, and they'd criss-cross over each other. I'm not sure where this becomes too much and the complexity a little bit overwhelming. After all, this is just a diagram based on estimates.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: jmvalin on 19 September, 2017, 02:02:38 AM
I think a better graph would be a graph that nearly looks the same, but with the 'narrowband, wideband etc.' sections removed and the color of the line determines the bandwidth.
The narrowband/wideband/fullband lines aren't "sections" they're simply vague indications of the quality of uncompressed audio of that bandwidth. So you can have superwideband audio with equal or worse quality than the "uncompressed wideband" line. Also, keep in mind that this figure is meant to give a rough idea of the quality. One shouldn't read too much out of it, especially considering that we're mixing in speech, music, mono stereo, and 5 different bandwidths. There's a reason the original one was drawn by hand on a piece of paper.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Kamedo2 on 19 September, 2017, 12:38:02 PM
Also, keep in mind that this figure is meant to give a rough idea of the quality. One shouldn't read too much out of it, especially considering that we're mixing in speech, music, mono stereo, and 5 different bandwidths.
My thought is the same.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: jensend on 19 September, 2017, 06:38:53 PM
It's quite possible to come up with a graph that tries to be more exact rather than heuristic. igorc's graph from 2014 (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,102051.msg862418.html#msg862418) would be more of a starting point for such an endeavor. It'd need to be updated for Opus 1.2, and it would benefit from more listening test evidence.

Because some codecs' performance depends so much on the difference, one really would need at least two separate graphs - one for fullband stereo music and one for speech.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: IgorC on 21 September, 2017, 11:39:10 AM
Um, it will be great to have a graph indicating quality (mean opinion scores MOS) of different codecs at least in range of 8-128 kbps.  Not sure if it's feasible for bitrates higher than 128 kbps.
And create a wiki.hydrogenaudio page for that purpose.

Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: IgorC on 25 September, 2017, 08:51:21 PM
What if instead drawing fictional lines we would organize public listening test? Previous tests were done at 64 and 96 kbps. So possibilities are 128k or 32-48k test.

All 3 codecs Vorbis/AAC/Opus would be on par at 128 kbps  with an excellent scores about ~4.7-4.8 approaching transparency. It might be interesting but in pretty limited cases if You ask me.

So we end with ~32-48 kbps. HE-AACv2,v1 and Opus are the only serious competitors at those rates (Vorbis and MP3 won't be competitive at such low rates. still can be included for a full picture).

Opus 1.2.1 already does very good job and it's to suppose that 1.3 will be even better at those rates.
It's a possibility for low rate test in 2018. What do you think?
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: lipidicman on 27 September, 2017, 07:22:04 AM
Can anyone advise on updating opus 1.2.1 on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS?

The repos have libopus 1.1.2 and I had installed the "opus-tools" package previously

I have opus-1.2.1.tar.gz and compiled and installed.  Great

I did ./configure, then make, then sudo checkinstall, and finally worked out I needed sudo ldconfig

opusenc --version says "opusenc opus-tools 0.1.9 (using libopus 1.2.1)"

I am having problems with opus-tools-0.1.10.tar.gz. It wants "ogg >=1.3" which I appear to have (libogg0 1.3.2-1).  And do I need to update opus tools anyway? It's a little confusing since at http://opus-codec.org/downloads/ opus-tools is listed under development whilst libopus is described as stable.  So what is the stable version of opus-tools?

And I have my new package "opus" now, but I still need "libopus0" installed?
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: lipidicman on 27 September, 2017, 10:52:52 AM
Disregard the above.  Needed libogg-dev.  Silly me :)
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Funkstar De Luxe on 28 September, 2017, 09:34:35 AM
What if instead drawing fictional lines we would organize public listening test? Previous tests were done at 64 and 96 kbps. So possibilities are 128k or 32-48k test.

All 3 codecs Vorbis/AAC/Opus would be on par at 128 kbps  with an excellent scores about ~4.7-4.8 approaching transparency. It might be interesting but in pretty limited cases if You ask me.

So we end with ~32-48 kbps. HE-AACv2,v1 and Opus are the only serious competitors at those rates (Vorbis and MP3 won't be competitive at such low rates. still can be included for a full picture).

Opus 1.2.1 already does very good job and it's to suppose that 1.3 will be even better at those rates.
It's a possibility for low rate test in 2018. What do you think?

Hear, hear!
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Neuron on 18 October, 2017, 07:00:03 AM
  • Support for all of the fixes in draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-06 (the mono downmix and the folding fixes need --enable-update-draft)

Thanks. How was this solved? How can I use it in LameXP or any other GUI? How much does it decrease quality over no-fix, and at what bitrate does this version achieve transparency with the fix?

MP3 is the worst lossy codec ever released, so move to Opus ;

This is just wrong. VQF, WMA, Qdesign... were far worse, and when you consider how old mp3 is, the fact it can compete with aac and ogg as long as you use VRB LAME encoding it is amazing actually.
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: alter4 on 22 October, 2017, 02:14:04 PM
Could anybody compile recent revision, I would like to test this fix
https://git.xiph.org/?p=opus.git;a=commit;h=b30f45b9a8bfc7b97afb75042bf2ab16a2150972
Thanks
Title: Re: Opus 1.2 is out!
Post by: Ajaja on 23 October, 2017, 08:25:41 AM
Could anybody compile recent revision, I would like to test this fix
https://git.xiph.org/?p=opus.git;a=commit;h=b30f45b9a8bfc7b97afb75042bf2ab16a2150972
Thanks
opus-tools x64 v0.1.10-9-gbd65450 (using libopus v1.2.1-25-g43dfdc08)