Skip to main content

Topic: Opus 1.1 Released (Read 3583 times)

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Opus 1.1 Released
Quote
Versions 1.1 released

5 December, 2013

After more than two years of development, we have released Opus 1.1. This includes:

  • new analysis code and tuning that significantly improves encoding quality, especially for variable-bitrate (VBR),
  • automatic detection of speech or music to decide which encoding mode to use,
    surround with good quality at 128 kbps for 5.1 and usable down to 48 kbps, and

  • speed improvements on all architectures, especially ARM, where decoding uses around 40% less CPU and encoding uses around 30% less CPU.


These improvements are explained in more details in Monty's demo (updated from the 1.1 beta demo).

http://www.opus-codec.org/

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #1
I, for one, am looking forward to trying this out. The Arch Wiki has a very relevant article related to ripping CDs, but I'll have to perform some ABX tests first.

  • Macallan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #2

speed improvements on all architectures

Reminds me, I need to write VIS implementations ( think 64bit SPARC SIMD ) for pixman's compositing routines. There's support for MMX, SSE, ARM SIMD, NEON, AltiVec, various MIPS DSP extensions, even Loongson MMI but not VIS, even though VIS is the oldest of the bunch and still supported by modern SPARC CPUs. Since MMX is more or less a VIS ripoff ( and Loongson MMI is an MMX ripoff... ) I'll probably just do what the Loongson support code does - implement MMX primitives instead of the whole thing.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #3
I remember how in '98 or so I was rather ticked off that there was some software that required an Intel Pentium 2 processor with MMX technology in order to run at all. Up to that moment I'd been able to run just about everything on my P100, even if slower and/or uglier. Or is that a different MMX? :right:

Back on topic, in a manner of speaking, DeaDBeeF 0.6.0 was released last month with Opus support. Despite giving it second place in my audio player line-up, it's been my default music player pretty much since I wrote that blog post.

  • Macallan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #4

I remember how in '98 or so I was rather ticked off that there was some software that required an Intel Pentium 2 processor with MMX technology in order to run at all. Up to that moment I'd been able to run just about everything on my P100, even if slower and/or uglier. Or is that a different MMX? :right:

IIRC MMX was introduced with the Pentium I at 166MHz or so, and they were only faster because Intel at that time also doubled the L1 cache's size. The MMX instructions found in Pentium MMX and Pentium II should be the same, but the rest of the CPU is different ( the Pentium II is a castrated Pentium Pro with MMX added, so there are features and instructions not present in the Pentium I, MMX or not ). There has never been a Pentium II without MMX ;)


Back on topic, in a manner of speaking, DeaDBeeF 0.6.0 was released last month with Opus support. Despite giving it second place in my audio player line-up, it's been my default music player pretty much since I wrote that blog post.

I pretty much stopped listening to anything years ago, except occasionally on the phone, so I didn't pay much attention to audio players. Since old habits tend to stick I'm still kinda partial to xmms  :o

  • j7n
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #5
ׂ
  • Last Edit: 2014-04-24, 05:33:42 by j7n

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #6
There has never been a Pentium II without MMX ;)

I didn't mean to imply there was; in any case my CPU didn't have MMX. :P
I pretty much stopped listening to anything years ago, except occasionally on the phone, so I didn't pay much attention to audio players. Since old habits tend to stick I'm still kinda partial to xmms

Winamp. It really stopped whipping the llama's ass... well, also a couple of weeks ago.

Aqualung looks a bit like Winamp too (but no skin compatibility I don't think).

I don't listen to much music either anymore, but I do have an interest in higher quality than the artifact-ridden junk many people listen to. Nor do I understand why studios sometimes mix the @#$%@# out of what could've been a perfectly nice CD.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #7
Part of me wishes for the open codec to become more popular. But do we really need surround at 128 kBit/s today!? I'm afraid that news articles like these will suggest to content providers that such castrated sound is acceptable.

Opus is the one codec to rule them all, one codec to find them, one codec to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...

Umm, anyway, I haven't listened to a 5.1 encoding at 128kbps.

  • Macallan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #8

There has never been a Pentium II without MMX ;)

I didn't mean to imply there was; in any case my CPU didn't have MMX. :P

That was more of a dig at Intel's marketing :P


I pretty much stopped listening to anything years ago, except occasionally on the phone, so I didn't pay much attention to audio players. Since old habits tend to stick I'm still kinda partial to xmms

Winamp. It really stopped whipping the llama's ass... well, also a couple of weeks ago.

Heard about it, stopped caring about winamp when 3.0 turned out to be crap.


I don't listen to much music either anymore, but I do have an interest in higher quality than the artifact-ridden junk many people listen to. Nor do I understand why studios sometimes mix the @#$%@# out of what could've been a perfectly nice CD.

I hear ya. My mp3s are all at least at 160kbps VBR ( more makes little sense for my hearing in most cases ) and when it got stable I switched to ogg/vorbis.
  • Last Edit: 2013-12-11, 06:44:14 by Macallan

Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #9
Quote from: Frenzie

I don't listen to much music either anymore, but I do have an interest in higher quality than the artifact-ridden junk many people listen to. Nor do I understand why studios sometimes mix the @#$%@# out of what could've been a perfectly nice CD.
Pop and Hip-Hop are notorious for running everything through Autotune to such an extent that the singer's voice no longer sounds human. I forgot who the singer was, but a co-worker decided to torture me by playing some songs and there were so many filters applied that singer sounded robotic.

  • Macallan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #10

Quote from: Frenzie

I don't listen to much music either anymore, but I do have an interest in higher quality than the artifact-ridden junk many people listen to. Nor do I understand why studios sometimes mix the @#$%@# out of what could've been a perfectly nice CD.
Pop and Hip-Hop are notorious for running everything through Autotune to such an extent that the singer's voice no longer sounds human. I forgot who the singer was, but a co-worker decided to torture me by playing some songs and there were so many filters applied that singer sounded robotic.

Probably put more effort into it than bands who actually try to sound like robots :left:

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #11
Pop and Hip-Hop are notorious for running everything through Autotune to such an extent that the singer's voice no longer sounds human. I forgot who the singer was, but a co-worker decided to torture me by playing some songs and there were so many filters applied that singer sounded robotic.

That's one thing, but there's also the loss of dynamic range.

  • j7n
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #12
ׂ
  • Last Edit: 2014-04-24, 05:29:32 by j7n

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #13
(by chance I happened to stumble upon a mobile phone which could receive most stations in good stereo with a headphones cable)

I think most post-2010ish cellphones do, actually. (And at least a number of older ones.)

Is Opera and Opium capable of playing Ogg/Opus files? I suppose Opera isn't since it is a new standard. But in Opium 19 too, the player shows up on application/ogg files, but playback doesn't start. Do I need to declare a specific MIME?

All I know is that Chromium can play it. Note that the recommended extension for Opus in Ogg is .opus.

The Firefox Opus demo plays in my Opera 12.16, but that's because it falls back on the system's GStreamer in Linux. In Windows you might have to add support for the codec yourself (if it can be done).

  • j7n
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #14
ׂ
  • Last Edit: 2014-04-24, 05:29:43 by j7n

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Opus 1.1 Released
Reply #15
Cellphones might have radio, but I didn't expect it to be any good.

It's generally about as good or bad as the phone's general audio quality.

Do any of these files play for you?

The first two do; the third offers a download dialog. Opera depends on GStreamer for the files it does support, but it doesn't simply allow any codec supported by GStreamer for cross-platform compatibility purposes.