Skip to main content
Topic: OPUS 128 vs QAAC 128 | OPUS 192 vs QAAC 192 (Read 777 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

OPUS 128 vs QAAC 128 | OPUS 192 vs QAAC 192

Guys, I need an answer for two questions from experienced visitors.  :) I want to convert my huge music library into lossy for listening at home. Will there be a noticeable difference on a good audio equipment between these codecs at the following bitrates? Good audio equipment, for example RME ADI-2 DAC FS + Sennheiser HD660S. Sorry for google translate.

1) OPUS 128 vs QAAC -V54 (128kbps)
2) OPUS 192 vs QAAC -V91 (192kbps)

Re: OPUS 128 vs QAAC 128 | OPUS 192 vs QAAC 192

Reply #1
do a few conversions and find out! :)


Re: OPUS 128 vs QAAC 128 | OPUS 192 vs QAAC 192

Reply #3
At 192, you shouldn't be having problems with any of those.
At 128, opus might have a small edge over AAC, but I'm not aware of tests done at that bitrate (we have a recent one here on hydrogenadio at 64).

Just a note: If you have gapless albums (i.e. albums where one song continues from the previous one without silence), test if the program you use does it for aac and/or opus. Both should work, but depends on the application

Re: OPUS 128 vs QAAC 128 | OPUS 192 vs QAAC 192

Reply #4
That graph is about the expected frequency bandwidth that the codec should provide when encoding at that bitrate.
 It is not about quality, although it is obvious that if a codec does not have fullband stereo, it will filter out some sounds compared to others that do.

Re: OPUS 128 vs QAAC 128 | OPUS 192 vs QAAC 192

Reply #5
That graph is about the expected frequency bandwidth that the codec should provide when encoding at that bitrate.
 It is not about quality, although it is obvious that if a codec does not have fullband stereo, it will filter out some sounds compared to others that do.
No, it is a graph of (subjective) quality vs bitrate.  The bandwidths on the left are just indicative, and should be considered mostly to apply to Opus - the others may do something entirely different.  See https://opus-codec.org/comparison/

Re: OPUS 128 vs QAAC 128 | OPUS 192 vs QAAC 192

Reply #6
Does this image from Wikipedia correspond to reality? After 128, there is no difference between the codecs.

In my opinion it's just marketing of the worst kind.

Re: OPUS 128 vs QAAC 128 | OPUS 192 vs QAAC 192

Reply #7
Thanks for answers! I read the forum and came to this conclusion:

OPUS
+ Less annoying artifacts on all bitrates
+ More advanced TVBR mode
+ More modern, theoretically more perfect
- Possible clicks between tracks
- Hardware incompatibility

QAAC
+ More appropriate for halftones
+ Standard & compatibility
- Worse at lower bitrates (less than 128)
- Participation in the development of Apple with its capabilities

Does Anyone Else Have Something Further to Add?  :)

Re: OPUS 128 vs QAAC 128 | OPUS 192 vs QAAC 192

Reply #8
If there was more hardware support for Opus, I'd encode to it.  But for now, I'm sticking with aac.

Re: OPUS 128 vs QAAC 128 | OPUS 192 vs QAAC 192

Reply #9
Does Anyone Else Have Something Further to Add?
The majority of software that play OPUS files do not handle multi-track OPUS files as separate logical streams

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020