31–40 of 68 posts
How does Opus compare to Celt, its direct predecessor?
That makes Opus a strict superset of CELT, and we've stopped maintaining libcelt, so any existing users should switch to libopus.
starwed wrote on September 11th, 2012 at 1:29 pm:
Isn’t FLAC already* open and royalty-free?*
Dusk wrote on September 11th, 2012 at 1:40 pm:
FLAC is a lossless codec — it typically generates output at a bitrate orders of magnitude* higher than lossless codecs such as OPUS, and there’s no way to “dial it down”.*
natermer wrote on September 11th, 2012 at 2:30 pm:
You want to archive audio with 100% quality using Flac.
Opus is for were you are willing to give up some amount of audio quality for the ability to massively increase compression ratio. Using low bit rate Opus may yield a 3MB file for a song, were as FLAC may end up being 150MB for the same audio.
What I do for audio is to store it using flac, but encode it on the fly using other codecs for streaming for transfering to devices. That way I always get the best audio quality possible to go along with the best compression possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No matter how many times I'm downvoted, it's still not unencumbered. It's simply not in the nature of our patent system that something this complex can be unencumbered, unless it's with respect to an expired patent. I know my position causes a lot of cognitive dissonance with people, because it implies that the system is fundamentally unfair. Well, you can either take the red or the blue pill.
It is unencumbered, unless someone proves that it is encumbered.
Before someone chimes in with that XKCD strip: How does Opus compare to other codecs? Opus is distinguished from most formats for high quality audio (AAC, Vorbis, MP3) by having low delay and it is distinguished from most low delay formats (G.711, GSM, Speex) by supporting high audio quality. It meets or exceeds existing codecs' quality across a wide range of bitrates, and it operates at lower delay than virtually an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is unencumbered, unless someone proves that it is encumbered.
It is unencumbered, unless there's a ton of money to be made by suing them. Same goes for Theora. When some deep-pocketed hardware manufacturer dares put one of these "unencumbered" algorithms into its hardware, then we will see. But I doubt they'll dare.
Before someone chimes in with that XKCD strip: How does Opus compare to other codecs? Opus is distinguished from most formats for high quality audio (AAC, Vorbis, MP3) by having low delay and it is distinguished from most low delay formats (G.711, GSM, Speex) by supporting high audio quality. It meets or exceeds existing codecs' quality across a wide range of bitrates, and it operates at lower delay than virtually an…
I don't know which XKCD strip you're referring to; link?
Keep in mind that this strip is a strong contender for the title of "Most Frequently-Posted Link in HN Comment Threads."
That would be an interesting analysis, actually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is unencumbered, unless there's a ton of money to be made by suing them. Same goes for Theora. When some deep-pocketed hardware manufacturer dares put one of these "unencumbered" algorithms into its hardware, then we will see. But I doubt they'll dare.
Let them present their patents and try to sue, then you can say something is encumbered. Until now they engaged in empty threats and demagogy. They make tons of money by dominating the market, and when some potential completion shows up they try to prevent its adoption by spreading empty FUD. So it has nothing to do with patent encumbrance, it's just about their greed and thirst for market domination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let them present their patents and try to sue, then you can say something is encumbered. Until now they engaged in empty threats and demagogy. They make tons of money by dominating the market, and when some potential completion shows up they try to prevent its adoption by spreading empty FUD. So it has nothing to do with patent encumbrance, it's just about their greed and thirst for market domination.
They won't present their patents until there's a big haul of cash to be extracted. There won't be a big haul of cash to be extracted until some deep-pocketed manufacturer implements the algorithms. Which they likely won't do because they understand the same thing I do -- the system is rigged.
Algorithms are already implemented and software which uses them is distributed broadly. Where are their court cases? Until those patent trolls (trolls as in spreading FUD) actually show what those patents are, they can't say that anything is encumbered. And they themselves have no idea about what they are. So whatever lies they spread now, even if it comes from Jobs, is simply irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They won't present their patents until there's a big haul of cash to be extracted. There won't be a big haul of cash to be extracted until some deep-pocketed manufacturer implements the algorithms. Which they likely won't do because they understand the same thing I do -- the system is rigged.
They won't present their patents until there's a big haul of cash to be extracted. Algorithms are already implemented and software which uses them is distributed broadly. Where are their court cases? Until those patent trolls (trolls as in spreading FUD) actually show what those patents are, they can't say that anything is encumbered. And they themselves have no idea about what they are. So whatever lies they spread…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They won't present their patents until there's a big haul of cash to be extracted. Algorithms are already implemented and software which uses them is distributed broadly. Where are their court cases? Until those patent trolls (trolls as in spreading FUD) actually show what those patents are, they can't say that anything is encumbered. And they themselves have no idea about what they are. So whatever lies they spread…
Show me an entity, any entity, that could be sued for lots and lots of cash, that is using these "unencumbered" algorithms.