4 ms·
> Man what a showcase for Opus this is. I take it you mean this Opus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(audio_format) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(aud
by palmotea 4mo ago
> Man what a showcase for Opus this is.
I take it you mean this Opus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(audio_format) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(audio_format)) not that Opus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_(AI) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_(AI)).
I read almost all the way through your comment thinking there was a decent probability you were saying this new AAC encoder was written with Claude Opus.
- theandrewbailey 4mo agoI've never been AI guy, and have more fascination with audio. I've long stopped being excited when I read "Opus" on HN. It's refreshing when it turns out to be the audio codec.
- Aachen 4mo agoTo be fair, Opus was never a great name. I always feel the need to specify further when using it outside of a clear context of music codecs (also way before Claude was announced). Love it in every other way though
- pezezin 4mo agoNo, he was talking about the Opus Dei because this code quality can only be reached by God himself /jk
- numlock86 4mo agoOpus, the codec, has been a thing looong time before Claude.
- divan 4mo agowhy is this downvoted? for people who aren't in audio codec dev space, parent comment reads exactly as 'Opus 4.8 rewrote the codec and blew out all competitors'
- spider-mario 4mo ago> for people who aren't in audio codec dev space You don’t need to be in the audio codec dev space to have heard of one of the most widespread audio codecs of the last decade (used by YouTube, WhatsApp, SoundCloud and added to WebM in 2013).
- divan 4mo agoSure, you could've heard about it outside of that space. Yet, most likely, you have not. It just feels wrong when HN commenters downvote comments that try to clear up legitimate confusion.