Good morning. I've ran a test against MP3 format. Code: (first convert tested audio file to 16 bit 48khz with sox.exe if needed) lame.exe -b 320 48khzfilein.wav -o fileout.mp3 lame --decode fileout.mp3 -o fileout.mp3.wav opusenc.exe --bitrate 320 48khzfilein.wav fileout.opus opusdec.exe fileout.opus fileout.opus.wav wavdiff.exe 48khzfilein.wav fileout.mp3.wav -diff fileout.mp3.delta.wav wavdiff.exe 48khzfilein.wav fileout.opus.wav -diff fileout.opus.delta.wav Results: (compare two deltas with spek.exe - i've attached graphic file from my test) MP3 much better at 0-4 kHz, Opus little better at 12-20 kHz. Plus I think 0-4 kHz is more important than 12-20. Current Opus 1.2.1 is the best at 32 kbit/s for music. But if you input 44100 Hz audio and give 96-512 kbit/s, Opus pretty badly spends that much bitrate because of frame rate conversion. That's all I wanted to say for now, good evening. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Без вирусов. www.avast.ru <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20171019/048ac8e1/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: deltas.png Type: image/png Size: 338731 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20171019/048ac8e1/attachment-0001.png>
Hi, Before I comment on the graphics you posted to visualize the difference between two audio signals, I'd like to ask for your help in evaluating my JPEG encoder. I've encoded an image with JPEG and then computed the difference with the original. I then converted the difference to sound. You can listen to the image difference on this clip: https://jmvalin.ca/misc_stuff/diff.wav Can you hear how good the visual quality is? Do you think it could be improved to make JPEG sound better? Personally, I think JPEG could do better on my subwoofer. Cheers, Jean-Marc On 10/18/2017 07:08 PM, encrupted anonymous wrote:> Good morning. > > I've ran a test against MP3 format. > > Code: (first convert tested audio file to 16 bit 48khz with sox.exe if > needed) > lame.exe -b 320 48khzfilein.wav -o fileout.mp3 > lame --decode fileout.mp3 -o fileout.mp3.wav > opusenc.exe --bitrate 320 48khzfilein.wav fileout.opus > opusdec.exe fileout.opus fileout.opus.wav > wavdiff.exe 48khzfilein.wav fileout.mp3.wav -diff fileout.mp3.delta.wav > wavdiff.exe 48khzfilein.wav fileout.opus.wav -diff fileout.opus.delta.wav > > Results: (compare two deltas with spek.exe - i've attached graphic file > from my test) > MP3 much better at 0-4 kHz, Opus little better at 12-20 kHz. > Plus I think 0-4 kHz is more important than 12-20. > > Current Opus 1.2.1 is the best at 32 kbit/s for music. > But if you input 44100 Hz audio and give 96-512 kbit/s, Opus pretty badly > spends that much bitrate because of frame rate conversion. > > That's all I wanted to say for now, good evening. > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > Без вирусов. www.avast.ru > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > opus mailing list > opus at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus >
As far as your testing goes, doesn't seems to be a problem to me. Since opus is a lossy compressor designed for human hearing, looking at spectral analysis and difference between original and encoded audio seems of little relevance for Opus purpose. If you could tell apart the Opus file at that bitrate and the original file in a double blind test, then it would be a finding worthy of investigation. Em 30 de out de 2017 6:03 PM, "encrupted anonymous" < sergeinakamoto at gmail.com> escreveu: Good morning. I've ran a test against MP3 format. Code: (first convert tested audio file to 16 bit 48khz with sox.exe if needed) lame.exe -b 320 48khzfilein.wav -o fileout.mp3 lame --decode fileout.mp3 -o fileout.mp3.wav opusenc.exe --bitrate 320 48khzfilein.wav fileout.opus opusdec.exe fileout.opus fileout.opus.wav wavdiff.exe 48khzfilein.wav fileout.mp3.wav -diff fileout.mp3.delta.wav wavdiff.exe 48khzfilein.wav fileout.opus.wav -diff fileout.opus.delta.wav Results: (compare two deltas with spek.exe - i've attached graphic file from my test) MP3 much better at 0-4 kHz, Opus little better at 12-20 kHz. Plus I think 0-4 kHz is more important than 12-20. Current Opus 1.2.1 is the best at 32 kbit/s for music. But if you input 44100 Hz audio and give 96-512 kbit/s, Opus pretty badly spends that much bitrate because of frame rate conversion. That's all I wanted to say for now, good evening. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Без вирусов. www.avast.ru <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#m_-6923562015899162786_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ opus mailing list opus at xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20171030/fdcee825/attachment-0001.html>
Jean-Mark sarkasm.
Jean-Markasm.
(Bonus points for providing an actual noisy WAV! ^_^)
On 30/10/2017 20:28, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
Hi,
Before I comment on the graphics you posted to visualize the difference
between two audio signals, I'd like to ask for your help in evaluating
my JPEG encoder. I've encoded an image with JPEG and then computed the
difference with the original. I then converted the difference to sound.
You can listen to the image difference on this clip:
https://jmvalin.ca/misc_stuff/diff.wav
Can you hear how good the visual quality is? Do you think it could be
improved to make JPEG sound better? Personally, I think JPEG could do
better on my subwoofer.
Cheers,
Jean-Marc
On 10/18/2017 07:08 PM, encrupted anonymous wrote:
Good morning.
I've ran a test against MP3 format.
Code: (first convert tested audio file to 16 bit 48khz with sox.exe if
needed)
lame.exe -b 320 48khzfilein.wav -o fileout.mp3
lame --decode fileout.mp3 -o fileout.mp3.wav
opusenc.exe --bitrate 320 48khzfilein.wav fileout.opus
opusdec.exe fileout.opus fileout.opus.wav
wavdiff.exe 48khzfilein.wav fileout.mp3.wav -diff fileout.mp3.delta.wav
wavdiff.exe 48khzfilein.wav fileout.opus.wav -diff fileout.opus.delta.wav
Results: (compare two deltas with spek.exe - i've attached graphic file
from my test)
MP3 much better at 0-4 kHz, Opus little better at 12-20 kHz.
Plus I think 0-4 kHz is more important than 12-20.
Current Opus 1.2.1 is the best at 32 kbit/s for music.
But if you input 44100 Hz audio and give 96-512 kbit/s, Opus pretty badly
spends that much bitrate because of frame rate conversion.
That's all I wanted to say for now, good evening.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Без вирусов. www.avast.ru<http://www.avast.ru>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________
opus mailing list
opus at xiph.org<mailto:opus at xiph.org>
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus
_______________________________________________
opus mailing list
opus at xiph.org<mailto:opus at xiph.org>
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20171031/9ea30a1b/attachment.html>