Author Topic: Opus 1.3.1 now officially released  (Read 2204 times)

sveakul

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1756
"This Opus 1.3.1 minor release fixes an issue with the analysis on files with digital silence (all zeros), especially on x87 builds (mostly affects 32-bit builds). It also includes two new features:

    A new OPUS_GET_IN_DTX query to know if the encoder is in DTX mode (last frame was either a comfort noise frame or not encoded at all)
    A new (and still experimental) CMake-based build system that is eventually meant to replace the VS2015 build system (the autotools one will stay)."

http://opus-codec.org/release/stable/2019/04/12/libopus-1_3_1.html

You can replace your existing opusenc.exe in MusicBee/Codec with the one inside this package if the new revision is of interest to you.


sveakul

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1756
The Chocobo1 packages cited above require the use of processors that use the AVX instruction set.  The 32-bit build crashes on my system (but NOT the 32-bit official release in the first post).  Those requiring an alternative 64-bit build can try this NetRanger build  (incl. both 32 and 64 bit versions):
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=117526.0;attach=14749

Another 64-bit (only) build is here: https://moisescardona.me/opusenc-builds/
Last Edit: April 19, 2019, 06:45:20 AM by sveakul

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5238
Hmm. If I recall correctly, I have voiced myself somewhat critical on any possible added value of Opus on this forum, since I believed mp3 (Lame encoding) was already great for when you want to use lossy audio, and I assumed Opus was only an improvement for streaming audio at very low bitrates.

While I am still confident about my personal choice of using either flac when the sound quality matters to me a lot, or mp3 when it matters for 90%, I have been testing Opus, out of some curiosity.

The result is that my previous beliefs are a bit shaken at the moment.
Even lower Opus bit rates do seem to sound better than Lame 320 CBR.
I have not listened and tested with full focus and concentration yet, but my subconsciousness tells me I should really look (listen) into this a bit better.
And, I believe Opus uses Vorbis comment instead of id3? Maybe it's time for a serious re-evaluation of strategy…

sveakul

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1756
Hi hiccup, glad you're doing a re-evaluation of this codec.  Yes it uses Vorbis comment tags officially.  I think one of the reasons Opus got a bad rap was because when encoded at a bitrate lower than a certain threshold (160k??) it "rounds out/predicts/ approximates" frequencies above a certain point.  This ceases when encoded at bitrates above that threshold, although there does seem to be a hard peak at 20kHz when encoding from a FLAC.  The design intention is to concentrate most of the "reproductive technique" at the frequencies within most people's audible level.  When I encode to Opus from FLAC I use the options --bitrate 256 --vbr , which I find produces file sizes very similar to Apple AAC at -v 256 -q 2 and Lame MP3 at V0.  To be fair, with my older ears, all three of those formats at that level are transparent against any FLAC source I have yet to use.  When you DO start to hear differences are at lower bitrates, as you have noticed.

The only reason I am leary about going the Opus route exclusively for lossy is portable device compatibility, although I think that has been improving not decreasing over time.  Have had zero problems tagging these with Vorbis Comment but my tag requirements are pretty basic compared to many here.
Last Edit: August 13, 2021, 10:20:08 PM by sveakul

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5238
To be fair, with my older ears, all three of those formats at that level are transparent against any FLAC source I have yet to use.  When you DO start to hear differences are at lower bitrates, as you have noticed.
Observatory skills trumps young age…
Off-topic:  (bite me ;-)
I've noticed use of the 'transparent' moniker before. Usually at fora frequented by users that claim some authority on audio quality.

Personally I am sensitive to hearing sound artefacts. Or out-of-balance sound imaging. (room reverb/ambience etc.)
That's how I am sometimes (depending on the material) able to hear the difference between lossless and lossy.

The word 'transparent' sounds interesting indeed, so I understand people like to use it.
But I am not sure how 'transparent' sounds, and can be described.
I've had some unpleasant encounters on other fora where believers in the concept of 'transparent' said mp3 320 is 'transparent' already, and that I was imagining things when I thought and stated that I could hear differences between lossy and lossless. (again, depending on the material)

What does 'transparent' mean to you?
Good enough? Perfect? Good enough frequency range? No noticeable artefacts? What?

At this moment I think I have a dislike for the word.
Convince me otherwise?

frankz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2985
sveakul will have his own definition, but I can't help but chime in because I think I've used the word transparent here before.

To me, it's always meant "I can't hear any difference between the source and this."  Not an implication that it's a perfect reproduction or acceptable quality to anyone else, just that, for me, going to a different higher bitrate or format would be pointless / wasteful because, beyond this level of space-to-quality trade-off ratio I can't hear a difference on my equipment in my listening environment.
Last Edit: August 13, 2021, 11:03:24 PM by frankz
A smile is happiness you'll find right under your nose.

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5238
To me, it's always meant "I can't hear any difference between the source and this."

So for you it's a case by case determination, right?
When a lossless and lossy version of a recording sound identical,  you call the lossy version 'transparent'?
But you wouldn't say that in general Lame @ 320k is transparent, or that Opus > 192 is transparent?

frankz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2985
To me, it's always meant "I can't hear any difference between the source and this."

So for you it's a case by case determination, right?
When a lossless and lossy version of a recording sound identical,  you call the lossy version 'transparent'?
But you wouldn't say that in general Lame @ 320k is transparent, or that Opus > 192 is transparent?
I always assume that someone has a rig that will present, or ears that will hear, something differently than I what I can hear. 

I'm talking lossy here - I scientifically know that FLAC is transparent because it just is.  But there are a lot of factors that determine how someone hears a lossy encode. I've always used the term as personalized.
A smile is happiness you'll find right under your nose.

sveakul

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1756
To me, it's always meant "I can't hear any difference between the source and this."
Same for me.