4 ms·

For mono audio, even 32k Opus is nearly CD quality, and 64k is indistinguishable from uncompressed audio in non-audiophile contexts. 500k is simply ludicrous.

javajosh 6y ago
Would not be ridiculous for serious online musical collaboration where you might want to send many channels at once. Perhaps there is some benefit to multiplexing inside Opus, instead of having separate channels? (Probably a similar argument as the one in favor of monorepos).
- LeoPanthera 6y ago
  In this context, latency is far more important than actual audio quality. Human ears are notoriously bad at judging the "quality" of sound, but extremely good at detecting latency between visuals and audio. This is why lip sync is such a problem in home cinema systems.
namibj 6y ago
Well, considering that I can hear a difference between lossless and ~80k Opus (stereo) with a decent headphone amp and 16 EUR Sony in-ear's, I can't share your sentiment. Granted, this is fairly pathological synth sound (the intro/first 30s of Night Club's "Magnetic"), but I would hardly call that listening equipment audiophile.
- LeoPanthera 6y ago
  80k stereo is (approximately) 40k mono. We seem to have the same sentiment.
  - namibj 6y ago
    No, I'm saying that this is very much distinguishable without exotic hardware, on music not deliberately created to expose compression artifacts. And at a bit rate higher than what you claimed to be transparent on non-audiophile setups. And calling <20$ headphones (that includes an in-line microphone) on a Thinkpad's built-in headphone amplifier "audiophile" seems inappropriate. I do hear a difference (on FLAC) between those cheap headphones and some ultra-low-distortion 2-way half-open headphones, with the latter being notably more clear. You said 64k stereo aren't distinguishable from FLAC with normal, consumer-grade listening equipment. I said I hear a difference between 80k stereo and FLAC using a laptop built-in headphone amp and the cheapest headphones that didn't look like a consumable.
    - X0Refraction 6y ago
      They said 64k mono is indistinguishable, not 64k stereo.
    - LeoPanthera 6y ago
      You're talking about stereo and I'm talking about mono, as I tried to explain in the previous comment.
      - namibj 6y ago
        Ah, fair, I somehow read that as 32k mono/64k stereo being attributed that quality. I must have been quite tired. Thanks for clearing up.
keeganpoppen 6y ago
the idea that 64k opus is indistinguishable from uncompressed is so ridiculous... the caveat being "if you have shitty equipment" is not any sort of argument at all. if you have shitty equipment, nothing ever matters. is that an argument for anything at all? people love dunking on hifi-- it's such a meme at this point. edit: ah yes, i forgot about the "i disagree" button to the left of my name... feel free to use it, i guess. clearly, as a hifi stan, i doth protest too much... (and am just an idiot)
- keeganpoppen 6y ago
  every other commenter agrees that this is a bad take, but i guess because i highlighted that this sort of comment is typical to this discourse i am somehow breaking social mores

javajosh 6y ago

Would not be ridiculous for serious online musical collaboration where you might want to send many channels at once. Perhaps there is some benefit to multiplexing inside Opus, instead of having separate channels? (Probably a similar argument as the one in favor of monorepos).

LeoPanthera 6y ago
In this context, latency is far more important than actual audio quality. Human ears are notoriously bad at judging the "quality" of sound, but extremely good at detecting latency between visuals and audio. This is why lip sync is such a problem in home cinema systems.

namibj 6y ago

Well, considering that I can hear a difference between lossless and ~80k Opus (stereo) with a decent headphone amp and 16 EUR Sony in-ear's, I can't share your sentiment. Granted, this is fairly pathological synth sound (the intro/first 30s of Night Club's "Magnetic"), but I would hardly call that listening equipment audiophile.

LeoPanthera 6y ago
80k stereo is (approximately) 40k mono. We seem to have the same sentiment.
- namibj 6y ago
  No, I'm saying that this is very much distinguishable without exotic hardware, on music not deliberately created to expose compression artifacts. And at a bit rate higher than what you claimed to be transparent on non-audiophile setups. And calling <20$ headphones (that includes an in-line microphone) on a Thinkpad's built-in headphone amplifier "audiophile" seems inappropriate. I do hear a difference (on FLAC) between those cheap headphones and some ultra-low-distortion 2-way half-open headphones, with the latter being notably more clear. You said 64k stereo aren't distinguishable from FLAC with normal, consumer-grade listening equipment. I said I hear a difference between 80k stereo and FLAC using a laptop built-in headphone amp and the cheapest headphones that didn't look like a consumable.
  - X0Refraction 6y ago
    They said 64k mono is indistinguishable, not 64k stereo.
  - LeoPanthera 6y ago
    You're talking about stereo and I'm talking about mono, as I tried to explain in the previous comment.
    - namibj 6y ago
      Ah, fair, I somehow read that as 32k mono/64k stereo being attributed that quality. I must have been quite tired. Thanks for clearing up.

keeganpoppen 6y ago

the idea that 64k opus is indistinguishable from uncompressed is so ridiculous... the caveat being "if you have shitty equipment" is not any sort of argument at all. if you have shitty equipment, nothing ever matters. is that an argument for anything at all? people love dunking on hifi-- it's such a meme at this point. edit: ah yes, i forgot about the "i disagree" button to the left of my name... feel free to use it, i guess. clearly, as a hifi stan, i doth protest too much... (and am just an idiot)

keeganpoppen 6y ago
every other commenter agrees that this is a bad take, but i guess because i highlighted that this sort of comment is typical to this discourse i am somehow breaking social mores