I have to share this, Opus totally kicks ass at 64 kb/s on this song by Darude. We've long waited for the day for MP3 to be outclassed by a codec at half the bitrate. Opus not only is superior but practically transparent. Check it out.
Code:--------------------------------------- 1L File: M:\sand128mp3vbr.wav 1L Rating: 4.3 1L Comment: Cymbals kind of flawed. --------------------------------------- 2L File: M:\sand64mp4.wav 2L Rating: 3.6 2L Comment: Dull. --------------------------------------- 3R File: M:\sand64.opus.wav 3R Rating: 4.9 3R Comment: I believe the upper melody of the synth instrument is a little distorted but the difference is so tiny it's hard to pinpoint 100% of the time. ---------------------------------------
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 42
Thread
-
-
Not sure if I should upload WAV. It might violate copyright. The compressed versions are substandard quality so it's more fair use.
-
For complete disclosure, can you list the versions eg. opus 1.1 , encoders used (eg nero or quicktime AAC would perform typically better than libvo_aacenc), settings used ?
I've only done limited testing but have you discovered any relative weaknesses with opus yet? e.g. maybe it performs slightly more poorly on some type of audio situations/sources or frequencies ? It's fantastic for low bitrate speech -
I used the latest opus 1.1 and latest Nero AAC. I never use substandard tools or audio if I know better.
Command lines:
opusenc --framesize 60 --bitrate 66 sandstorm.wav sandstorm.opus.mp4
NeroAACenc -q 0.238 -if sandstorm.wav -of sandstorm64.mp4
lame sandstorm.wav -o sandstorm.mp3 -V5.98 --vbr-new -q 0
I've only done limited testing but have you discovered any relative weaknesses with opus yet?
Opus sweet spot is only at 64 kb/s though. At 48 kb/s on this song it was more or less tied with AAC at the same bitrate because unlike AAC it had flanging artifacts at the first 10 seconds of the song but was less dull (albeit distorted at the top shelf).
At 32 kb/s it was complete garbage and AAC sounded way better.
The only reason you see opus do well with speech is because it uses its SILK algorithm when it detects speech. If it used CELT for speech it would sound worse than AAC. -
Originally Posted by Mephesto
-
-
Who said I liked the song, I just said opus compressed it very well. Other codecs fail particularly hard with samples like this one.
Gravitator, since you're using an online translator you didn't get what I said. I can't upload the lossless song because of copyright laws.
QAAC is not better than Nero, I've done tests of my own. QuickTime's AAC encoder sucks about as bad as their H.264 encoder which outputs quality worse than MPEG-2. F*** QAAC, it's name even sounds retarded. QUACK.Last edited by Mephesto; 9th Feb 2014 at 14:05.
-
why would anyone compress audio for any reason in this day and age of 1tb+ hdds? and to compress to 64, 48 or 32 kb/s? what kind of crack do you have to be on?
-
-
-
This tired argument again...
Because internet bandwidth isn't free. To upload the FLAC would've taken over 5 minutes on this shitty $50 a month home connection and I have a monthly GB limit. If I wanted to download an entire album (who the **** even listens AND enjoys every single song of every album) I'd rather be able to download an entire discography in a month than just a single album.
And HDD speeds blow **** especially if its fragmented. In the worst case scenario my state-of-the-art 2TB HDD would just barely be able to play an uncompressed WAV and the assorted disk thrashing would hasten the eventual death of the HDD.
The less stuff you have, the better. You have any goddamn clue how long it would take to backup 1TB? It takes 3 hours alone just to read at the full speed on this top-quality HDD I got. To read and write the 1TB partition to backup would probably take longer.
I waited until 2010 for filesharing to FINALLY became ******* bearable where I never had to experience a 5 KB/s download speed ever again. And I waited all these years just to experience four-hour download times again because morons like yourself keep demanding more imperceivable quality for free?
I don't get the attitude at all, bro. Do you not want to get what you want right away without waiting for it? I've never heard of patient morons before. If you want top-grade mathematically-accurate quality, what the hell kind of unwarranted sense of self-importance do you suffer from that makes you believe you're entitled to get it for free?
I actually buy all my Blu-rays because mouth-breathing retards on P2P networks can't seem to find a balance between uploading outright garbage or unnecessarily oversized encodes that take over a day to transfer. Nothing beats getting top quality just by walking across the street and spending a dollar when attention-whoring f**kheads on torrent sites understandably can't offer the same convenience for free. Do you hear me complaining? No, you hear me mocking the idiots for endeavoring so much on something they obviously suck at. -
If you want to fall behind "fair use" then 20 seconds is probably OK. But avoiding lossless wouldn't save your butt in many places, including the US. The odds of you getting in trouble using a song to illustrate compression are low, but not having the original for comparison does get you into a "Just take my word for it" situation here.
You'll have to forgive me for not rushing to spank my monkey over 64 Kbps anything, but as I have a job and don't live in a third world country, this is something I have zero interest in. I'm sure some people do care, but if 64 Kbps is actually useful to some, maybe they need to just buy bigger disk drives.
What do you mean by "tonal audio"? That would technically describe about 99% of music, so that term either doesn't mean what you think it does or it's irrelevant. -
OPUS 64kb / s would be very useful for creating video rips 700MB.
Not everyone has the opportunity to use the unlimited Internet (many download over 3G traffic, where prices are extortionate) -
why would anyone compress audio for any reason in this day and age of 1tb+ hdds? and to compress to 64, 48 or 32 kb/s? what kind of crack do you have to be on?
Now someone else with lessor means may differ with my opinion however, and that's OK too............
P.S.....I store all my source audio as flac on external HDDs and encode to VBR mp3 @ 256 for playback on various devices for compatibility purposes.Last edited by racer-x; 9th Feb 2014 at 16:36.
Got my retirement plans all set. Looks like I only have to work another 5 years after I die........ -
I'm not worried about getting sued, I just don't wanna get booted off the forum and have to create yet another email account to re-register. I could've only taken a chunk of it but then I'd have to upload FLACs of all 3 which I didn't feel like doing plus there wouldn't be proof of bitrate anymore. I could've also encoded a 20-second part of the song with all 3 codecs but the listening test I performed was done using the 3-minute sample so the new samples wouldn't correspond to it and could be worse quality.
As for taking my word, the lossless sample is easily downloadable elsewhere on the net for comparison.
You'll have to forgive me for not rushing to spank my monkey over 64 Kbps anything, but as I have a job and don't live in a third world country, this is something I have zero interest in. I'm sure some people do care, but if 64 Kbps is actually useful to some, maybe they need to just buy bigger disk drives.
What do you mean by "tonal audio"? That would technically describe about 99% of music, so that term either doesn't mean what you think it does or it's irrelevant.
The word is used by the developers of opus so you can be assured it's not my vocabulary you have to trust when I say that it sucks pretty bad with this kind of audio. Music is a mix of tone and broadband, usually with more broadband than tone. Speech is predominantly tonal but is handled by the SILK algorithm of Opus, but SILK isn't designed to handle any other tonal content besides speech.
So things like an instrumental track with modest percussion are handled by the CELT algorithm in Opus which doesn't do well with things like this especially with the tiny frame window of only 20ms. Opus developers could fix this by adding an option to increase that but they're intending opus for low-delay realtime communication instead of music encoding. -
video Is different because of the extremely large sizes of uncompressed video, 12 minutes of uncompressed video in png format is almost 30gb.
i will agree with you that i prefer the look of high bit rate mpeg-2 if done with a quality encoder over x264.
@mephesto:
spoken like a true jack*******; uploading a lower quality version of copyrighted content doesn't absolve you of being a pirate, it just means you're a piss poor pirate.
and having a slow broadband connection with monthly data caps just means you need to find a better provider or upgrade to a higher tier service.
personally, i don't download jack from any p2p/torrent site anymore, all the content out there is encoded by people like yourself who think they know what they are doing but in reality don't.
now if you feel like you're doing society a service by uploading 64kb/s audio, more power to you. btw, are you the clown that sent me a pm telling me to check out his uploads on torrent sites shared under the scene groups name he is a member of? if so, i have to tell you your sh*t is sh*t, if that's you guys idea of quality encodes you guys need to move out of mommy's basement and get jobs. -
I'm ignorant of copyright laws in general let alone in specific jurisdictions. This one's in Sweden so I'll leave it to Baldrick. On Wikipedia I've provided plenty of copyrighted samples in 64 kb/s OGG format which others said falls under fair use because its use is legitimized for preview purposes and not for long term storage because nobody would keep a low quality version when the higher quality is available in stores.
Another tired argument that I haven't heard and refuted 500 times. There are only two providers in my area, both provide practically identical service. I'm not paying $200 a month just to match the speed of the typical $20 a month service in every other continent except this one. North America is unprecedented in the shitty slow service it provides, its only rival is maybe Africa.
I can practically predict the responses by now:
"So move somewhere else."
I have reasons why I am where I'm at and it may or may not be my choice at all. If the internet was everything to me like it is to you, I'd have already moved out. But obviously I have other priorities.
I'm open to enlightenment and the encoder of our group who has 8 years of experience is open to puerile pretentious bullshít to laugh at. Expound away, deadrats.
Do you normally give yourself the authority to rate other people's work by assuming you know their work better than they do? Not a single one of my torrents uses the opus codec (yet) nor do any have audio tracks with a bitrate that low. -
This is called collusion. Monopolists will never be on the side of the consumer
Operator Beeline Kazakhstan
10Mb / s - $ 19.35
50MB / s - $ 25.15
70MB / s - $ 29.02
100MB / s - $ 38.70
Operator Beeline Uzbekistan (neighboring country)
64 Kb / s - $ 30
128 Kb / s - $ 60
128-256 Kb / s - $ 115
256-512 Kb/s- $ 330 -
-
Originally Posted by poisondeathray;
Originally Posted by poisondeathray; -
Can move to a new stage of development - to improve the encoder / decoder with a focus on 96khz (+ thicker sound)
-
What's the point of that? Humans can't hear frequencies that high. Most adults cannot even hear beyond a 32kHz samplerate file. Studios and amateur audio engineering tasks make use of very high samplerates for technical purposes to minimize degradation over multi-generation processing but that's why they use no compression at all. Compressing 96kHz audio has no point whatsoever.
Oh you don't know the meaning of the word. In 2005 I moved back to my home country in Europe in a secluded village surrounded by wilderness. Only dialup was available in my area and the charge was the same as the phone, about 20 cents per minute. It sucked ass. But it did teach you the value of efficiency. I mostly connected to the net to download game walkthroughs, the occasional song or ROM, speedruns etc.
In summer 2006 we got ADSL which we just barely qualified for considering how far away our house was from the nearest terminal in the city. It was $40 a month for a 1024/256 Kilobit D/L speed and 3 GB monthly limit. It kicked ass because we no longer paid by the minute and 3GB was more or less enough, that was also when I downloaded my first 700MB DVD rip which would've taken 3 days and about $600.
A few months later I come back to North America and get a $40 a month cable service with 5000/500 Kb/s. It was awesome and I couldnt've asked for better. Even though movies took many hours to download, 700MB was a lot of data so I had patience.
But then... a year went by and the service remained the same. Another year, same speed. Many years later, still unchanged. They did increase the download speed but it doesn't mean jack shit because upload remained the same and uploading is all I mostly do. 2014, STILL the same f**king speed. Despite the new fiber optic infrastructure installed they're still charging the same f**king prices.
Meanwhile... the supposed poor country I left where half the population is unemployed, ISPs are now offering 25/6 Mb/s ADSL+ service for the same $40 a month.Last edited by Mephesto; 11th Feb 2014 at 01:47.
-
Originally Posted by Mephesto;
-
When it comes to compressing music I've never understood the need for really low bitrates. Sure there are applications for high quality at low bitrates, but for personal listening.....
It doesn't matter how it's compressed, bitrate and file size are directly related. 5 minutes of audio compressed at 64kb/s gives you 2.34MB. At 128k it's 4.68MB and up around where most encoders would be considered transparent (192k) it's 7MB. An hour of audio at the same respective bitrates: 28MB, 56MB and 84MB. It's kind of hard to imagine how bandwidth or hard drive capacity really factors into the equation these days.
Plus if you're encoding with something like Opus, which 99.999999999999% of hardware players don't support, it's somewhat defeats the purpose.
That really doesn't sound right.
5 minutes of stereo, 44.1k, 16 bit, PCM audio should be somewhere around the 50MB mark. Your hard drive struggles to read a 50MB file in under 5 minutes?
I have RAID drives in this PC but I do have a single 2TB drive attached to it, so I opened my audio player, found a track of roughly 5 minutes in length and converted it to a wave file while saving the output to the single 2TB drive (the source file was on one of the RAID volumes). It was hard to time it accurately but the conversion process took roughly 3 seconds. The 2TB drive will read a 4GB file in around 1 minute. It's not state of the art by any means. It's a pre AF drive with 5 platters.Last edited by hello_hello; 12th Feb 2014 at 05:06.
-
Do you have bionic ears?
http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/
THE TRIAL
The experiment was wonderfully simple: The authors set up a double-blind comparison system in which one position played high-end SACDs and DVD-As through state-of-the-art preamps, power amps and speakers. At the other position, the output from the SACD player was first passed through the AD/DA converters of an HHB CD recorder and then through the same signal chain. The levels of the two sides were matched to within 0.1 dB, with the amplifier doing the matching in series with the CD recorder so no one could claim that it degraded the SACD signal. The test subjects used an “A/B/X” comparator to switch the signals, meaning that in some of the tests, when the subjects hit the Change button they didn't know if the signal actually changed.
There were 60 subjects, almost all of whom were people who know how to listen to recorded music: recording professionals, nonprofessional audiophiles and college students in a well-regarded recording program. In all, there were 554 trials during a period of a year. The experiment was done on four different systems, all employing high-end components and all in very quiet rooms designed for listening in both private homes and pro facilities. All subjects were given brief hearing tests to determine their response to signals above 15 kHz. That data, as well as the subject's gender and professional experience, was tabulated with the results.
MAY I HAVE THE ENVELOPE, PLEASE?
The number of times out of 554 that the listeners correctly identified which system was which was 276, or 49.82 percent — exactly the same thing that would have happened if they had based their responses on flipping a coin. Audiophiles and working engineers did slightly better, or 52.7-percent correct, while those who could hear above 15 kHz actually did worse, or 45.3 percent. Women, who were involved in less than 10 percent of the trials, did relatively poorly, getting just 37.5-percent right. -
When it comes to compressing music I've never understood the need for really low bitrates. Sure there are applications for high quality at low bitrates, but for personal listening.....
That really doesn't sound right.
5 minutes of stereo, 44.1k, 16 bit, PCM audio should be somewhere around the 50MB mark. Your hard drive struggles to read a 50MB file in under 5 minutes?
This is why SSDs are replacing HDDs but most affordable ones are 128-256GB. Now we're back to the "space is precious" argument. If you only had one song or a couple songs, 50MB wouldn't be a problem. But when you have albums and discographies then this easily goes beyond a maintainable collection. Maintainable meaning easy to backup and retrieve without hassle. 1TB is a f***ing hassle because it takes hours.
The other point is a reason of principle. I'm an avid connoisseur of the art of data compression. I love testing the limits and seeing how far I can compress a file without it sounding/looking any different. There will come a time when songs and videos will be the size of MIDIs and flash videos in full lossless quality, their size determining their actual non-technical quality.
We all got different hobbies though.
Women, who were involved in less than 10 percent of the trials, did relatively poorly, getting just 37.5-percent right.
This test undermines its own credibility and proves hallucinogen-abusing audiophiles right. -
-
-
HDDs are really bad with randomly fragmented files.
Run it overnight if you have to.
Similar Threads
-
Opus for movie soundtrack?
By Mephesto in forum AudioReplies: 3Last Post: 6th Jan 2014, 21:22 -
Opus quality (ABX tests)
By Mephesto in forum AudioReplies: 2Last Post: 6th Oct 2013, 12:15 -
Anyone here try OPUS codec ?
By richter03 in forum Video ConversionReplies: 4Last Post: 17th Sep 2012, 01:06 -
SSD Awesomeness!
By Browncoat in forum Latest Video NewsReplies: 4Last Post: 7th May 2009, 01:12