libopus 1.5.1 released - now with machine learning for higher quality at ultra-low bitrates

opussy bros, we just can't stop winning

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So what you're saying is that all my opus encoded music is already obsolete?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      no.
      there are no substantial changes at low-medium-high bitrates
      only 9 kbps and under speech is really affected
      there are also great improvements on packet loss robustness, which you clearly don't care about

      Is there lossless rencoding like with jpg to jxl
      I honestly don't care that much since storage is cheap and it's so good already but that would be extra nice

      no

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      > backwards compatible
      > ai trash compiler flags disabled by default
      don't worry you won't have to hear hallucinated schizo ai audio

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is there lossless rencoding like with jpg to jxl
    I honestly don't care that much since storage is cheap and it's so good already but that would be extra nice

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    too bad pixDAIZ hanged himself
    he would've loved this for his av1 mini encodes

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >t. pixdaiz
      put your trip back on you flaming homosexual

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >his av1 mini encodes
      He didn't encode shit, though. Stop giving him credit.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ah... I remember when I filtered out his tripcode.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        well you can delete that filter now, it's over

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What happened to pixy-Daizy?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      what happened

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What happened to pixy-Daizy?

        the frick do I know? I didn't personally go out of my way to murder him

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What makes you think he changes himself then? He made a thread a few weeks ago

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He made a thread a few weeks ago
            ...exactly
            which is very odd since he used to make like 20 posts/comments everyday, don't you think?

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    is it really necessary to shoehorn ML in every single project including codecs

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No. But low-bitrate codec targeted at speech is where ML makes perfect sense.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >no compiled windows binary provided once again

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Newfriend using that format here, I want to switch from mp3 to opus.
    What are the best opus settings equivalent to 320 kbps mp3 encoding?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      ffmpeg -i file_name.flac -c:a libopus -ab 256k -vbr on file_name.opus

      Or if you wanna go overkill:
      ffmpeg -i file_name.flac -c:a libopus -ab 320k -vbr on file_name.opus

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        ...are you fricking serious?
        256 kbps not only is way fricking overkill for opus, but it definitely isn't worth the generational loss

        >or if you wanna go overkill: 320k
        what's the fricking point of transcoding 320 mp3 to 320 opus????

        Newfriend using that format here, I want to switch from mp3 to opus.
        What are the best opus settings equivalent to 320 kbps mp3 encoding?

        hear me out:
        99% of people are perfectly happy with 96 kbps vbr, this is also the bitrate at which Opus starts to outperform vorbis/aac (see: https://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm)
        encode some songs at that bitrate, and perform some abx tests
        if you pass the abx tests, then maybe consider 128k, but keep in mind that at that bitrate QAAC provides the same quality with better compatibility.
        And if you can also ABX 128k (basically impossible), then go for 160k maybe, anything over that is moronic and pointless
        not to mention, if you can abx opus at 128 kbps encoded from a lossless source, you probably can't stand the generational loss of transcoding from mp3.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >converting from lossless to lossy amounts to generational loss

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Black person that command line is telling you to convert from flac to opus and not mp3 -> opus.

            I read "I want to switch from mp3 to opus" as "I want to transcode from mp3 to opus", chill the frick out

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Why someone would want to convert from lossy > lossy and why would you even recommend something like that in the first place?

              Even if someone were to say that they wish to convert their mp3s to opus files, you tell them to find the original lossless files for the new conversion and not what you just did.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why someone would want to convert from lossy > lossy
                because maybe they don't have the original lossless files available? maybe they don't care about the miniscule generational loss from high bitrate lossy transcoding?
                >Even if someone were to say that they wish to convert their mp3s to opus files, you tell them to find the original lossless files for the new conversion and not what you just did.
                you are clearly overestimating the impact of generational loss like most audiophools do, mp3 320k to Opus 96k is perfectly fine
                transcoding doesn't imply he is deleting the original mp3 320k, he might be switching to Opus for mobile use only and keeping the original file intact.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, I haven't met someone this dense and blissfully ignorant in my life. You take care now.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                ok

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Black person that command line is telling you to convert from flac to opus and not mp3 -> opus.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're advising people to rip their music to 96kbps, goddammit stupidity has hit a new low today.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            do you have any data that shows 96 kbps Opus as not transparent for most people?
            even a single abx test?
            of course you don't, kys audiophool moron

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Don't be so faithful to these so called, "tests".
              No doubt Opus is a brilliant codec, nevertheless it is very much in people's interest, where and when they can afford it, to listen to the cleanest and highest-quality audio version possible.
              Adding a padding of 64-128kbps beyond what the "tests proved" is not unreasonable for rationality's sake.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                just use mp3 then

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No thank you, I'll stick to lossless music + 256kbps Opus.

                You can suck mp3's dick if you like.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                just use mp3 at... 448 kbps lol, you'll be fine

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                whatever, not my problem
                if combining the huge bitrates of mp3 to the relatively low compatibility of opus is what floats your boat, your problem.
                Just maybe stop going around giving other people what's almost objectively shitty advice

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >objectively
                >is subjective matter
                Holy frick, what a moron! You must be the same zoomer that throws the term, "literally" everywhere he goes.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                "objectively" and "almost objectively" isn't the same thing
                you cannot even read
                I should probably stop biting the bait but whatever, it helps keep the comfy opussy bread alive I guess

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                cope

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Adding a padding of 64-128kbps beyond what the "tests proved" is not unreasonable for rationality's sake.
                yes it is, I can understand 16, maybe 32 kbps extra headroom, but 128 kbps of headroom? are you fricking insane? that's double of what's considered overkill for Opus, and puts you into "overkill even for mp3" territory, completely defeats the purpose of using a modern codec if you are going to use 1990s bitrates for it.
                also, It's not a linear scale you dumbass.
                If my hearing is dogshit and I find 64 kbps Opus transparent (which is actually not that unreasonable), adding your "minimum" 64 kbps of padding means I'm now encoding at a much higher quality level than what I need, 80 kbps is already like twice as good as 64
                while at higher bitrates, 64 kbps more or 64 kbps less barely makes a dent

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >yes it is, I can understand 16, maybe 32 kbps extra headroom, but 128 kbps of headroom? are you fricking insane?
                Are you living in some third world where decent storage is so out of reach of the peasants that a song file having extra 2MB of data makes you shirt your pants? LMAO
                I thought so.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                ...you just don't get the fricking point do you?
                If you have no storage constraintss, and are happy with 256 kbps files... why the frick are you using a modern audio codec that's supposed to improve audio quality over AAC/Vorbis at 96 kbps and under, or compared to mp3 at 192 kbps and under? It's completely pointless at the bitrates you are using, at 256 kbps mp3 is exactly the same as Opus, you shouldn't be interested in such codec at all.
                Also, are you too poor to afford disk space for flac?
                see? I can also call you a third world Black person

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >3MB song_file.opus
                >4MB song_file.opus
                I bet the second one made you ruin your pants. HAHAHAHAAAA

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you sound moronic
                rajeesh stop, it's not funny anymore

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Okay bro, I promise. I won't talk about adding another megabyte to the audio file again.

                >anon dies from anxiety-attack
                OOPS.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/AHcI9JK.png

                Okay bro, I promise. I won't talk about adding another megabyte to the audio file again.

                >anon dies from anxiety-attack
                OOPS.

                I didn't know 1MB could be so hazardous to health...

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you like this frog? You have my unshaken belief that you understand what the actual point is here regardless.
                - Emmanuel Bassi

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're so obnoxiously dumb, it hurts. It's more than obvious you're trying to pretend to be some sound wizard which more than likely (just by your opinions) you cannot possibly be. More so, the mere fact that you're trying to virtuously gatekeep some aspect of technology with your weasly words like it's some sort of "voodoo practice" makes me think of you as some sort of tech-religious zealot.

          Just fyi, moron, Opus has been standardised for lossy audio of bitrate up to 510kbps. Stay in your lane and I'm sure you'll finally be able to graduate from community high school someday.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i'll take the bait
            >Opus has been standardised for lossy audio of bitrate up to 510kbps.
            yes... which is raccomended for 8+ channel audio and completely useless for stereo
            ...your point?
            >you're trying to pretend to be some sound wizard
            the irony

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Found your selfie on the internet, at first I didn't believe it, but I can't deny reality anymore, bro. It's not a sign of good friendship.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't see the 1 mb text in that image anon

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That brain is too small to store the load of 1MB.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Why are you getting your panties in a twist over someone wanting to convert their files at their preferred bitrate?
              Semi-related question: are you a virgin?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >person asks for advice
                >someone replies with moronic advice
                >I explain why that advice is moronic and what I'd raccomend instead
                >Why are you getting your panties in a twist over someone giving moronic advice!!

                maybe because that's the fricking point of having a discussion you sub-human mongoloid?
                why are YOU getting your panties in a twist over someone discussing shit you give no fricks about?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Moron you unironically advised someone to convert from lossy > lossy. There's ZERO likelihood you yourself don't know how pathetic you are and are plainly pretending to be picrel. Multiple people have called you out now for your bullshit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i still don't see you providing any data as to how mp3 320k to Opus 96k dramatically reduces sound quality
                there's no fricking reason you could not do that as a transcode for mobile use while keeping the original file
                but sure, go on, keep repeating the audiophool mantra that lossy to lossy is always bad and you'll get cancer if you do it
                you are one of those morons that thinks the reason Bluetooth earbuds suck is the sbc/aac/aptx transcoding right?
                how do you feel watching YouTube videos knowing 99.9% of them have lossy audio converted to opus 128k? do you have malaria yet?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Don't convert your lossless music to 96kbps like 1 down-syndrome Black person (
                ) is claiming here for mobile usage.
                Be the wiser, convert to 190-256kbps opus depending on how much storage you can spare for each album. In my case I can spare for both lossless flacs and Opus 320kbps; thusly I'll be sticking to that path

                So far everyone lurking in this thread must've noticed how psychotically damaged zoomer-"tech" homosexuals can be that they would blindly crush as much data as possible just to gloat about how they managed to save a few megabytes per song. They're chasing ghosts but you don't have to.

                ~~ Advice from an actual Computer Scientist who codes for a living.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                holy mother of moronation

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I can spare for both lossless flacs and opus thus I'll be sticking to that path
                .... what's the fricking point of keeping both instead of just the flacs?
                whatever, I'm biting the bait once again

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                320kbps Opus for albums/artists which don't produce that great music but still worth listening to every once in a while.

                flacs for music/bands you like the most + evergreen music.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                that doesn't make any sense at all
                not to mention
                it's always the same fricking question
                what's the fricking point of using 320k Opus when MP3 at that bitrate Is already transparent for 99.9999% of the population and has waaaay higher compatibility? why not use Vorbis or AAC? why the frick are you using a codec which only exists to improve <160 kbps efficiency at 320? do you really enjoy fricking yourself that much?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You won't understand it at all because you're a demented worry-free uneducated zoom-zoom-zoomer homosexual zealously running after saving precious megabytes in an age of storage abundance and disposability.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                if storage is so abundant then why are you converting from lossless to 320k
                and why do you even show interest in lossy codecs designed to squeeze low bitrates? you didn't even account for 99% of what I just said
                you really do enjoy fricking yourself I guess

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because some music just doesn't deserve the full respect and credibility which keeping the lossless version of that music entails.

                For example: I might listen to a moronic singer's one-hit-wonder once in a while but that doesn't mean I like their music or play-style

                If you ACTUALLY listened to music like you're sperging about audio codecs here, you would have full knowledge about this phenomenon already. But alas, your shilling proves otherwise.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/St9ChfQ.png

                >yes it is, I can understand 16, maybe 32 kbps extra headroom, but 128 kbps of headroom? are you fricking insane?
                Are you living in some third world where decent storage is so out of reach of the peasants that a song file having extra 2MB of data makes you shirt your pants? LMAO
                I thought so.

                The whole point of codecs like AAC, Vorbis and Opus is to be more efficient than MP3 and produce files of the same quality at lower filesizes.

                If you don't care about filesize just stick with 320 kbps MP3 (don't even bother with VBR). Going with AAC or Opus at 320 kbps would give you files that are roughly the same size but are far less compatible so there's no point. MP3 has been open since the patent expired a few years ago too.

                The vast majority of people are happy with 128 kbps Opus and AAC as low as 96 kbps (these are the formats used by Spotify, YouTube and Apple Music respectively) so there's a big argument to be made about transparency at lower bitrates. Personally I never go below 256 kbps AAC and 196 kbps Opus.

                >for most people is transparent
                With your every new post you prove a new level of mental moronicness. So smooth.

                >he thinks all people on the planet have the same hearing capabilities
                Anon...

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >multiple people have called you out
                yeah plenty of morons out there, your point?
                none of those people have provided any data that "calls me out", you included
                but whatever, keep sperging, it's always fun wasting an audiophool's time

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        according to the developers of Opus, 96 is the recommended for most things, 160 is the overkill equivalent of mp3 @ 320

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >according to the developers
          I bet you've taken all your covid booster shots.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I mean it's better than "some incel in a cartoon forum"

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >I mean it's better than "some incel in a cartoon forum"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What a moronic thread. As expected of modern BOT.

      I release a lot of anime and have been doing it for many decades now. My group's modern release standards are x265+Opus+ass+srt in mkv container. We make everyone from the troonys running the trackers to moronic "encoders" that don't know Japanese mad because we actually know what we're doing.

      For main audio tracks we usually do 256kbps vbr Opus. For commentary tracks we use 192kbps vbr --speech Opus. These are both "overkill" but some series do benefit from the extra bitrate. I could go down to 96kbps for commentary and 128-192kbps for main audio tracks but there is no point. Over the course of a 20 minute audio track it doesn't matter. We even do lossy -> lossy for some tracks (typically AC3) because the source we're using doesn't provide a lossless track. For main audio I try to seek out a lossless track to convert from when possible obviously.

      Then everyone yells at us
      >Why not AAC?
      >Why not FLAC?
      >Why not <stupid codec no one ever uses for anything because it's proprietary bullshit>
      and some idiot that doesn't know anything will post a 100,000 character comment about how Opus has raped the "soul" of the audio and he can totally tell the difference on his $20 set of shitty headphones. Meanwhile I'm doing real ABX on DT990 Pros.

      At any rate I've been at this since I had to shove low bitrate mp3 into the .avi container. I know what I'm doing. We don't release in FLAC because it's supported nowhere. Opus is supported by everything that matters including AppleTV and all the other shitty set-top devices. It's almost like we did a lot of testing before settling on this standard years ago.

      This new release will probably not make one bit of difference for me. But if it improves quality I'm all for it.

      When we do Drama CDs/music as extras for our releases I use the same Opus settings as I use for the main audio. But typically, I also release in FLAC+mp3 320kbps for those as well.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >opus 192 for anime
        >benefits
        Can I see them? This comment is in good faith since I've been using 128 opus for my deezer rips and I never noticed a difference between that and 96

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Heavy music used throughout an episode/series for one. I said 256kbps was overkill. I'm using 128kbps for commentary tracks (with --speech switch) which is also overkill. The "benefit" is it gives the codec more bitrate to play with should something cause it to spike for whatever reason.

          With audio it doesn't really matter. There is no point is using 96-128kbps in opus for your main audio track to save space. You're going to end up saving like 1-3MB tops in a file that's going to be 500MB-1GB+ anyway.

          Similarly, we use x265 now due to its native 10-bit color support and the fact that it's supported by nearly all devices users are going to watch the files on released in the last 10-15 years. So called "experts" yell at us for not using x264 10-bit which is supported NOWHERE outside of mpv and other PC-only set-ups. We reap the same benefits of the 10bit color support using a codec that can be natively decoded by everything including modern cell phones. If we did continue to use x264 we'd use 8-bit color for the same reasons (it can be decoded by web browsers).

          Our goal is to prevent any realtime transcoding at playback. We aim to support Jellyfin/Plex and other home server solutions for video content.

          Don't listen to the self proclaimed "experts" on most forums and such. One of them tried to say my releases were shit because I set hard limit on bitrate in x265 encodes. This is to prevent bitrate spiking. What he neglected to notice is I also manually raise bitrates for each and every scene using a zone file. Anything I've released has gone through at least 3 testing encodes and been manually adjusted to eek out the best quality quality (transparent with source) in a sane file size (my release hover around 500MB-1GB). I provide better quality than the so-called "perfect" x264 10-bit stuff using half the file size sometimes.

          Do your own testing to see if you want the higher bitrate. I release for others so I err on the side of caution.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > The "benefit" is it gives the codec more bitrate to play with should something cause it to spike for whatever reason.
            ...that's what VBR does already

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah yeah you're going to want to argue all day about how the codec does this or that. When nothing matters but what you find yourself in ABX testing. I can't tell the difference between 192kbps and 256kbps in Opus _most of the time_ for _most content_. But I DO KNOW that over the course of a 20 minute audio track in a typical anime the difference between 192kbps and 256kbps is as most 2-5MB. Which I don't care about because I'm already releasing a 500-1GB file anyway. I have no need to save a measly 2-5MB of space. Or 35MB total over the course of a 12 episode season. Who cares.

              You're just going to end up re-encoding everything in the new hot lossy codec in 10-20 years anyway. Might as well use FLAC, right? Expect FLAC isn't supported by the devices I target.

              I use Opus because it's supported. I use 192-256kbps depending on show because it's transparent with the lossless source audio I'm using. Which was probably mastered by a dumb frick anyway. I do lossy->lossy encodes for the commentary track because if I don't I'm mixing codecs in my .mkv file and the end user's player might skip past the main Opus audio to play the AC3 commentary track I muxed in. 99% (probably closer to 100%) can't tell the difference between the shitty mastered AC3 commentary track and my 128kbps re-encode anyway. I used 128kbps to give it the best chance of not degrading it further.

              I use all this shit because in the extensive testing I did it was the highest possible quality I could get from the highest amount of devices I tested on. Also the codec is open source so that's a plus.

              It doesn't matter what codecs or settings I used. Someone somewhere is going to hate it and think they could do better. They never try though and when they do they usually do something moronic. Like that idiot I mentioned before that rants about Opus having "no soul". Or the idiot releasing FLAC audio with overly compressed video to "save space" for some reason.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yeah
                ok whatever, you are right
                ...but then... it's always the same discussion...
                why the frick are you using opus instead of aac at that point?
                there's 0 difference between aac and opus at the bitrates you are talking about, but is way more compatible.
                so why are we having this discussion?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Heavy music used throughout an episode/series for one. I said 256kbps was overkill. I'm using 128kbps for commentary tracks (with --speech switch) which is also overkill. The "benefit" is it gives the codec more bitrate to play with should something cause it to spike for whatever reason.

                With audio it doesn't really matter. There is no point is using 96-128kbps in opus for your main audio track to save space. You're going to end up saving like 1-3MB tops in a file that's going to be 500MB-1GB+ anyway.

                Similarly, we use x265 now due to its native 10-bit color support and the fact that it's supported by nearly all devices users are going to watch the files on released in the last 10-15 years. So called "experts" yell at us for not using x264 10-bit which is supported NOWHERE outside of mpv and other PC-only set-ups. We reap the same benefits of the 10bit color support using a codec that can be natively decoded by everything including modern cell phones. If we did continue to use x264 we'd use 8-bit color for the same reasons (it can be decoded by web browsers).

                Our goal is to prevent any realtime transcoding at playback. We aim to support Jellyfin/Plex and other home server solutions for video content.

                Don't listen to the self proclaimed "experts" on most forums and such. One of them tried to say my releases were shit because I set hard limit on bitrate in x265 encodes. This is to prevent bitrate spiking. What he neglected to notice is I also manually raise bitrates for each and every scene using a zone file. Anything I've released has gone through at least 3 testing encodes and been manually adjusted to eek out the best quality quality (transparent with source) in a sane file size (my release hover around 500MB-1GB). I provide better quality than the so-called "perfect" x264 10-bit stuff using half the file size sometimes.

                Do your own testing to see if you want the higher bitrate. I release for others so I err on the side of caution.

                https://i.imgur.com/nZ7o6ja.gif

                What a moronic thread. As expected of modern BOT.

                I release a lot of anime and have been doing it for many decades now. My group's modern release standards are x265+Opus+ass+srt in mkv container. We make everyone from the troonys running the trackers to moronic "encoders" that don't know Japanese mad because we actually know what we're doing.

                For main audio tracks we usually do 256kbps vbr Opus. For commentary tracks we use 192kbps vbr --speech Opus. These are both "overkill" but some series do benefit from the extra bitrate. I could go down to 96kbps for commentary and 128-192kbps for main audio tracks but there is no point. Over the course of a 20 minute audio track it doesn't matter. We even do lossy -> lossy for some tracks (typically AC3) because the source we're using doesn't provide a lossless track. For main audio I try to seek out a lossless track to convert from when possible obviously.

                Then everyone yells at us
                >Why not AAC?
                >Why not FLAC?
                >Why not <stupid codec no one ever uses for anything because it's proprietary bullshit>
                and some idiot that doesn't know anything will post a 100,000 character comment about how Opus has raped the "soul" of the audio and he can totally tell the difference on his $20 set of shitty headphones. Meanwhile I'm doing real ABX on DT990 Pros.

                At any rate I've been at this since I had to shove low bitrate mp3 into the .avi container. I know what I'm doing. We don't release in FLAC because it's supported nowhere. Opus is supported by everything that matters including AppleTV and all the other shitty set-top devices. It's almost like we did a lot of testing before settling on this standard years ago.

                This new release will probably not make one bit of difference for me. But if it improves quality I'm all for it.

                When we do Drama CDs/music as extras for our releases I use the same Opus settings as I use for the main audio. But typically, I also release in FLAC+mp3 320kbps for those as well.

                You do all this for free?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is to prevent bitrate spiking

            ...seriously?
            first you say you encode your opus at double what you need to account for spikes (which again: are taken care of with vbr already), but for video, you don't want spikes???
            dude just let the fricking vbr alghoritm of whatever codec you are using do it's job, why the frick would you set an upper limit

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >first you say you encode your opus at double what you need to account for spikes (which again: are taken care of with vbr already), but for video, you don't want spikes???

              >Source:
              Badly mastered h.264 video from Japanese BD
              >Highest bitrate scene:
              2 frames of blocky red background (fire) that spikes up to 100,000kbps for no reason
              >My encode
              x265 with a bitrate cap of 20,000kbps
              >Average bitrate for most of the video
              2,000kbps - 10,000kbps
              >Use case:
              End user will stream the video from a Jellyfin server to his video game console or AppleTV
              >What my bitrate cap does
              Prevents his shitty console from chocking on that one-two frames and not lagging for the next 3-10 seconds for no reason
              >How it looks
              Better than the source because I filtered it/manually fixed it in photo editing software/managed to grab a cleaner version of that frame from somewhere else and properly mastered it unlike the guy getting paid to make shitty anime BDs for Japan
              >Reason why I do it
              Because I know what I'm doing

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              not him but i do the same thing
              when using high quality settings (low quantiser values), stuff like momentary full-screen noise (effects, whitewater, extreme grain, etc) can shoot the bitrate way up, since noise is incompressible, you may even end up with bitrates higher than the source
              the maxrate/bufsize options allow you to put an upper cap on this, which you set much higher than you intend the average bitrate to be for the whole file, it's just there so you don't end up spending 10% of the file size on a 10 second scene of some night vision with extreme artificial noise or something

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Can I see them?
          no
          >I've been using 128 opus for my deezer rips and I never noticed a difference between that and 96
          and if you did, it's placebo
          you need a proper abx test

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lossy therefore worthless

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sweet, but how does it work?

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sad that Qualcomm boycotted and is boycotting opus over Bluetooth. Chinese are so moronic that they can't add opus support in their chips and keep using trash SBC.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Qualcomm
      they just love sucking mpeg's wiener, don't they? just like apple, it's 2024 and finally some of their chips are getting av1 hw decoding, of course they don't like Opus.
      In any case, frick bluetooth, give me an headphone jack and I'm set.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >they just love sucking mpeg's wiener, don't they?

        They have their own codec, aptX, and they charged companies that used their decoders until recently that they open sourced aptX and aptX HD encoders (but not decoders) because they feared that Opus would gain steam after Google added it to AOSP -- aptX Adaptive and Lossless are still proprietary, tough.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >They have their own codec, aptX
          right, forgot about that.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How can I confirm if my phone's CPU has Opus decoding hardware?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      phone SoCs don't have proper hw decoding for audio codecs
      most SoCs do however offer dsp offload support for aac/he-aac/he-aacv2/mp3 and some other codecs (vorbis and opus are absent for reasons unknown to me)
      the battery life gains from offload support however are negligeable (personally tested this on an old xperia m2, aac playback for 24+ hours only used up 1% less battery compared to opus playback)
      this is probably because:
      1. audio decoding barely uses any cpu cycles in the first place, it takes a couple of milliseconds to decode an entire 5 miunte opus track even on low end arm processors
      2. while Opus uses more power due to being decoded by the main cpu instead of the dsp, it also saves some power by not requiring 44.1 khz > 48 khz resample at decode time, which is required for other codecs unless you go out of your way and resample your music before transcoding
      so tl:dr
      -no, your phone doesn't have Opus decoding hardware
      -yes, it does have "partial" hardware decoding for all codecs except opus and vorbis
      -no, it doesn't really matter

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks for the explanation.
        >dsp offload support for aac/he-aac/he-aacv2/mp3 and some other codecs (vorbis and opus are absent for reasons unknown to me)
        I always thought vorbis was supported, given that it's the default format for stuff like operating system sounds in Android (as far as I know) and game audio.
        I currently convert all my music to Vorbis before transferring it to my phone, but if it doesn't offload the decoding, then I guess only MP3 would help with battery usage (but it's not like it's bad). I'm curious as to how much different Opus would be compared to Vorbis, but I suppose it wouldn't matter too much all things considered.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I always thought vorbis was supported
          That's because while it is declared as supported, it actually doesn't work
          or at least, it doesn't on qualcomm SoC's, you can check yourself by playing music and running "top" in adb shell and then looking for "android.hardware.audio.service" in the process list, it shows up when playing aac/mp3/flac and so on but doesn't appear when playing vorbis despite it being declared as available on audio_io_policy.conf on most device trees.
          ...well, actually, doing this experiment now on my pixel 4a running an android 14 custom rom, I get the hardware audio service process even while playing opus and vorbis, this wasn't the case on android 12/13, maybe israelitegle did some shit? idk
          >then I guess only MP3 would help with battery usage
          again, no point, it barely matters (and if it did, why use mp3 when aac exists and is on par with vorbis when using a good quality encoder?)
          https://developer.qualcomm.com/blog/audio-offload-support-exoplayer
          this article by qualcomm shows a whopping 8mA extra power use when offloading isn't available, margin of error territory.
          and yes, that's something I found just now, they talk about implementing opus offload for exoplayer, but then conclude by saying it's available for aac... I have no idea at this point
          I'll probably research this stuff some more, but in the end i really don't care

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you can check yourself by playing music and running "top" in adb shell and then looking for "android.hardware.audio.service" in the process list
            >I'll probably research this stuff some more
            ok so either my android phones have all started to suddenly offload both vorbis and opus to the dsp
            or I was previously blind and moronic (probably the latter)
            I now have 0 fricking idea how to judge whether dsp offloading is happening or not
            hopefully a israelitegle certified pajeet chimes in

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you can check yourself by playing music and running "top" in adb shell and then looking for "android.hardware.audio.service" in the process list
            >I'll probably research this stuff some more
            ok so either my android phones have all started to suddenly offload both vorbis and opus to the dsp
            or I was previously blind and moronic (probably the latter)
            I now have 0 fricking idea how to judge whether dsp offloading is happening or not
            hopefully a israelitegle certified pajeet chimes in

            >https://developer.android.com/media/platform/supported-formats
            Android documentation claims that the OS supports both Opus (since Android 10) and Vorbis.

            Android 14 added av1 support.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >audio decoding barely uses any cpu cycles in the first place
        stfu Black person
        opus takes 3 times as long to decode over aac, thus also 3 times more energy

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          no it's not

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I always thought that aac was much faster

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I always thought you had to provide a source when making such claims

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not the guy you responded to

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >ALAC that much faster than FLAC
            That can't be right.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              you are reading the graph wrong, it's the other way around
              alac is sucking just like every other crapple product

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Even that can't be right. I assume AAC was created to be more efficient than MP3 for instance, so I assume whatever hardware they tested has some sort of HW acceleration for MP3 and FLAC but not AAC and ALAC.

                It must be the case considering Vorbis and Opus also score lower than MP3.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                hardware acceleration for audio codecs isn't a thing.
                or at least, not on most device, maybe some dedicated music players, but that graph is x86 cpu decoding I think
                also why would hardware acceleration be there for mp3 and flac, but not for aac which is more common than both flac and mp3?
                >It must be the case considering Vorbis and Opus also score lower than MP3.
                why are you assuming it's weird for a more complex and efficient codec to be harder to decode and not the other way around?? makes 0 sense
                of course a very simple audio codec from the 90s is easier to decode than a brand new and much more complex one
                what even is your point

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >hardware acceleration for audio codecs isn't a thing.
                not true, i haven't looked into the current state, but i do know that for example early mp3 players actually did have a dedicated hardware mp3 codec chip, it didn't decode it in software

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                > but i do know that for example early mp3 players actually did have a dedicated hardware mp3 codec chip
                which is exactly what I said in the post you are replying to
                can't you fricking read?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/JHSVeKm.png

                >hardware acceleration for audio codecs isn't a thing.
                not true, i haven't looked into the current state, but i do know that for example early mp3 players actually did have a dedicated hardware mp3 codec chip, it didn't decode it in software

                should mention that no, it was never a thing on PC's
                well, maybe those mpeg decoder cards in the 90's did the audio as well, i'm not sure, but outside of that nah, regular sound cards i've never heard of decoding compressed audio

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the generic reaction pics are from a bot, right? some are ancient memes

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    not a bot, just the world's least moronic audiophool

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the generic reaction pics are from a bot, right? some are ancient memes

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      wow he discovered imgflip guys

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I also use picrel. Pretty based but I'm afraid a quadruple-vaccinated nonce might have little clue about such means of meme merchantry.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      btw
      now that I think about it
      your "1 mb" meme doesn't even make any sense, have you ever learned basic math?
      if a 128 kbps file is 3 mb, a 256 kbps one isn't 4 mb, it's 6 mb

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You ask him if he's okay with 1MB more in his opus audio files. Oh wait, he's dead because he couldn't take the load.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I like opus.
    That is all.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    moron here, how does it compares to mp3 320kbps or similar ogg??

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Opus/vorbis 160-192 is about as overkill as 320k mp3/v0 mp3

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I will continue to use Ogg Vorbis at q6.3, as I have been doing for almost 20 years now. I see no reason to switch to Opus.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      nobody asked

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        nobody asked you either.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          asked me for what
          schizo moment?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody asked you to make a remark about nobody asking the other anon.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >still using 256 aac
    Why yes I have an iPhone how could you tell?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >still using proprietary garbage because proprietary garbage is only compatible with proprietary garbage
      yes, I could tell you're an iToddler

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        AAC is an open codec though just like ALAC is.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          not true
          or at least, not fully
          all sorts of patent sheninegans apply to aac

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because you are a pedo

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    96kbps sounds good enough but isn't transparent.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      that depends on who you ask
      for most people it is transparent
      you'll always find that single Black person on earth that can abx extra high bitrates as well
      saying X bitrate Is/isn't transparent is objectively always wrong

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >for most people is transparent
        With your every new post you prove a new level of mental moronicness. So smooth.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          with your every new post you still don't prove anything as you never provide any fricking data
          https://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm
          literally 0.5 points under "imperceptible"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Stop chasing trends and believing facts from people that invent those facts in the first place with a vested interest in propagating such facts to attain monetary and similar benefits, fricking aspie.
            You can apply this advice in every facet of your life given that you're such a brainwashed stooge.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The israelites are after you bro

  23. 2 months ago
    sage

    OP is a homosexual confirmed. All fields.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Demo page with samples
    Quite impressive
    https://opus-codec.org/demo/opus-1.5/

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    aac is superior and saves a ton of battery charge by also being much easier to decode

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >audio decoding barely uses any cpu cycles in the first place
      stfu Black person
      opus takes 3 times as long to decode over aac, thus also 3 times more energy

      aac is dead get over it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      source???
      AAC Is just as "heavy" to decide as opus last time I checked...
      and that's 2 times heavier than MP3, so basically nothing.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is a very high mental block for me to convert my music to opus because I associate 160kbps with shitness. opus is transparent at 128.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    if only i could get a portable recorder that would support that encoding.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just use your phone?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        not as good, for real, i need the extra functions, actual stereo sound, ability to sinc with my camera etc
        i want opus, bot the superlow bitrate. that is not worth the space it saves, but opus could reduce my files by more than half

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    why does the void linux logo look like it was made by the same guy that did the opus logo

    am I the only one seeing this??

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      now that you say it, is true, they kinda look the similar

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *