Slashdot Mirror


Opus 1.2 Released

jmv writes: The Opus audio codec, used in WebRTC and now included in all major web browsers, gets another major upgrade with the release of version 1.2. This release brings quality improvements to both speech and music, while remaining fully compatible with RFC 6716. There are also optimizations, new options, as well as many bug fixes. This Opus 1.2 demo describes a few of the upgrades that users and implementers will care about the most. It includes audio samples comparing to previous versions of the codec, as well as speed comparisons for x86 and ARM.

22 comments

  1. Monty is a wizard by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The 32/48/64 kb/s demos with 1.2 are astoundingly good for that low of a bit-rate. Nice job by the Opus team to get things sounding this good. Was also glad to see more robust fuzzing tests to help with potential security issues.

    This is super-geeky stuff, but since I've integrated some of their older Ogg Vorbis stuff into previous game engines, I like to keep up with what they're doing. I might switch my game engine's decoder over from Vorbis to Opus at some point, but I've got to stop futzing with the engine and get my game out the door.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  2. Solves nothing by FrankHaynes · · Score: 0

    As long as people use these god-awful hanging mic/earbuds in noisy coffee shops and crappy speakerphones in echo-y conference rooms, all the high quality codecs in the world won't make them sound better.

    --
    slashdot: A failed experiment.
    1. Re:Solves nothing by jmv · · Score: 2

      I put it the other way: the more people use god-awful earbuds in noisy coffee shops the more we can reduce the bitrate without anybody noticing :-)

    2. Re:Solves nothing by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      But better quality audio at the same bitrate is always welcome for the YouTube and Netflix use case where users might be watching at home with good speakers

    3. Re:Solves nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...people use god-awful earbuds in noisy coffee shops..."

      This is really rather funny; Suzanne Vega became known as the "Mother Of the MP3" based on her song "Tom's Diner" in that format.
      But that was a long time ago; Miss Vega is more of a grandmotherly age these days. (You have no idea how depressing I find this...)
      Yet calling her the "Grandmother of Opus" is a bit premature, especially when Opus to me is still a large-nosed smelly Penguin.

  3. Great audio codec. by TheDarkener · · Score: 3, Informative

    Congratulations to the Opus team and xiph.org for doing such a great job with this. It's really a wonder that, with examples of F/OSS software like this, it's not simply the standard by popularity. I'm involved with an Android-based audio livestreaming app for Icecast (called Cool Mic) which uses Opus as well as Vorbis. My experiences with those involved with any of the Xiph projects have been great. Extreme talent over there.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  4. open source does it again. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2, Funny

    1. Someone (e.g. on the mailing list or on the Hydrogenaudio forum) points out a music sample where Opus performs worse than other codecs or just worse than it usually does.
    2. We investigate to find out what's causing the artefacts and (especially) why this particular sample is affected.
    3. We come up with a possible fix that improves the quality of that sample, without making other samples worse.
    4. We look for other samples with the same characteristics found in 2. If the fix also improves them, then we go to 5, otherwise we go back to 3 (or sometimes to 2). In case of infinite loop, do some throttling (i.e. drop the issue and go back to it later).
    5. When we're happy that we have an improvement, we clean it up, make it as general as possible, test it, and merge it.

    They improved the codec by listening to user feedback. THAT'S CHEATING! Everyone knows that you need be a corporation that develops something decent and then you ignore all comments that aren't about how great it is and then ban the unhappy riff-raff! Do you think we would have ended up with smartphones so thin that they bend and/or explode corporations had listened to all the people screaming for a higher battery capacity?! Do you think we would have been graced with Thunderbolt ports with the same connectors as USB-C if they gave a damn about what people thought?! Do you think we would have overpriced and under-performing wireless earbuds and no headphone jack if they listened to even a single user?! OF COURSE NOT!

    Where do you jackasses get off developing things that people want and like? And if you do, you aren't even going to demand they fork over their life savings for it?! OPEN SOURCE IS RUINING EVERYTHING! ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:open source does it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This should be modded "-1 Douchebag." There are plenty of open source projects that completely disregard user feedback. Gnome anyone?

    2. Re:open source does it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

    3. Re:open source does it again. by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 2

      well, a gnome developer is also a user and he knows his preferences. although it looks like all they agree on are lowest common denominators.

      to play the devil's advocate: i work for a company that writes its own software. we're not a software development company but we have a development team of over 50 people. we write for ourselves but have made it open source so other people/companies can use/fork it. our business is built on the data we feed and extract out of the software so making it free gives no advantage to competitors.

      at first, we didn't accept external feature requests, only politely responded that people should fork it. everything was good. a year later, after we responded to a few requests and implemented them, floodgates of demands, hatemail and slander opened. the level of entitlement culture was amazing. there was almost no civil discussion among users, so we deleted forums and respond only to bug reports. perhaps, gnome developers are facing the same thing.

    4. Re:open source does it again. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but that argument is crap. Your situation is not like Gnome's. You're making something for your own use, and then you're trying to be helpful by allowing others to use and fork it, which is great. Unfortunately, there's some ungrateful jerks out there who are whining about it.

      The difference between you and Gnome, however, is that you aren't pushing your product to be used as a standard anywhere. You're only allowing outsiders to use it, but you're making no big effort to push its adoption.

      Gnome isn't like this. They actively push its adoption, and promote its use across the Linux ecosystem. They really want Gnome to be the standard Linux desktop (and it is, in a de-facto sense considering how many distros have adopted it as their standard, and what portion of the desktop Linux userbase that covers). That means they have a responsibility to respond to user requests and give the users what they want, which they don't do.

      As soon as you decide to aggressively push your software as a standard outside your company, then you'll deserve the torrent of demands that brings. If you don't want to respond to users, then don't push for people to use your product. You seem to not be doing that, so it makes sense for you to delete your forums and only respond to bug reports, but this just isn't the case with Gnome.

      Also, you need to remember that with the Gnome devs, they're *paid* to do that work, so it's in their financial self-interest to promote themselves. You're not paid for your software, you use your software internally to generate revenue.

  5. Directory Opus by carbs77 · · Score: 1

    I thought this was a post about Directory Opus for the Amiga... then I remembered what century we are in, but I still miss my Amiga!

    1. Re:Directory Opus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opus is a penguin.

    2. Re:Directory Opus by fellip_nectar · · Score: 1

      I thought it was about a floppy disk drive for the ZX Spectrum.

      --
      Worst. Signature. Ever.
    3. Re:Directory Opus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It stills exists for Windows and it's great, a bit expensive though...

    4. Re:Directory Opus by b4_the_looking_glass · · Score: 1

      Maybe not a floppy drive. But with the ZX Spectrum Next, using a Rpi Zero as a slave, maybe opus could have something to do with the Spectrum. You can play already back PCM on Spectrums with the AY chip. I plan to buy the ZX Next. But I'm still waiting on some parts to finish my Harlequin 128k clone. The ZX Next has some nice clock speeds. It can also run a few other systems, like the C64. Wifi, 1.5Mb ram, 256 colors per pixel, plus whatever you can do with the ram, cpu, and gpu of the Zero. Right now they have the zero managing sprites. Anyways....

  6. Does it have a spec yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I checked, it was one of these "source code is spec" things, which means it doesn't have a spec.

    The source code is under certain license, meaning a public domain implementation (ála stb_vorbis) is impossible.

    1. Re:Does it have a spec yet? by jmv · · Score: 1

      Despite the official spec being defined as code, there's nothing that prevents what you're talking about. As far as I know, the FFMpeg "native" decoder is actually an independent implementation of the standard and although they chose the LGPL as license, they could have used something "public-domain-like". Note that compliance itself isn't based on the decoder code, but on testvectors. Anything that decodes testvectors to something "good enough" (with a well-defined tolerance) is considered compliant with the specification.

    2. Re:Does it have a spec yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As mentioned in the summary: RFC 6716.

    3. Re:Does it have a spec yet? by jensend · · Score: 1

      The ffmpeg files do have Mozilla copyright information in the headers so I wonder whether there's some derivation. Maybe not though.

      And from what I understand the still-in-progress ffmpeg native opus encoder is an independent implementation.