81–90 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My somewhat educated take on that is that 'perceptually lossless' refers to quality at which the source cannot be reliably picked from the source/encode in any sort of test that would pass as scientific, possibly outside of a few very rare edge cases (sound samples, not people). This happens at lower bitrates than many people might imagine, IIRC v2 lame (~192kbps) has not been reliably identified, nor vorbis v6 (~160…
So if I'm getting this correctly, a computer test (not a person) has to look at two clips of audio and tell which is the source and which is encoded? I'm surprised that 192k is actually indistinguishable. I thought some humans could tell the difference there.
That is very different to just setting itunes to 192 and expecting 'perceptually lossless'.
So is Mozilla going to use VP8 combined with Opus in Firefox 15, instead of Vorbis, for "free" videos?
Opus is a (usually) lower bitrate codec for very low latency applications. In other words, a completely different sweet spot than Vorbis, AAC, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You keep using this word "proprietary". I don't think it means what you think it means. How is a codec I can download in complete source form and use in any way I like without licensing anything or answering to anybody "proprietary"? The fact that we live in a world full of patent trolls that will sue you for tying your shoelaces doesn't make every codebase without explicit corporate patent indemnity "proprietary".
Proprietary: "something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker." The WebM trademarks and copyright are owned by Google. Yes you have a license to use WebM as it is today. But Google can make the next version closed source and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. And of course companies are going to use Google's 'official' WebM regardless if it is open or clos…
By your definition anything not in the public domain is proprietary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You keep using this word "proprietary". I don't think it means what you think it means. How is a codec I can download in complete source form and use in any way I like without licensing anything or answering to anybody "proprietary"? The fact that we live in a world full of patent trolls that will sue you for tying your shoelaces doesn't make every codebase without explicit corporate patent indemnity "proprietary".
Proprietary: "something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker." The WebM trademarks and copyright are owned by Google. Yes you have a license to use WebM as it is today. But Google can make the next version closed source and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. And of course companies are going to use Google's 'official' WebM regardless if it is open or clos…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in some ways, a perpetual unrestricted license is better than an unpatented algorithm. The big excuse for not adopting webm was "uncertainty" about the patent situation. If skype has the patents and is giving free licenses, there isn't any uncertainty here, you know that microsoft has no basis to ever sue.
This is true and is one reason that free things these days are given "licenses" instead of simply being declared by their makers to be in the public domain. The public domain isn't what it used to be.
Read up on the rationale behind the CC0 license for more information:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You keep using this word "proprietary". I don't think it means what you think it means. How is a codec I can download in complete source form and use in any way I like without licensing anything or answering to anybody "proprietary"? The fact that we live in a world full of patent trolls that will sue you for tying your shoelaces doesn't make every codebase without explicit corporate patent indemnity "proprietary".
Proprietary: "something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker." The WebM trademarks and copyright are owned by Google. Yes you have a license to use WebM as it is today. But Google can make the next version closed source and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. And of course companies are going to use Google's 'official' WebM regardless if it is open or clos…
As far as I am aware of, any user of WebM are NOT restricted from modification, further distribution, or reverse engineering. The beauty of the current licencing is that it can't be revoked; it is already free. Google can develop future versions and lock it down (suicidal move, though), but as it is the community has its hands on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are examples here which worked out-of-the-box for me in Chrome: http://www.octasic.com/en/tech/opus_audio_codec.php In my listening opinion with very good isolated headphones: the music is very good but you can hear the drop-off of the highs in the vocal examples. It's good but not good enough for 'professional' use at the lower bitrates.
It's good but not good enough for 'professional' use at the lower bitrates. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So which is better, iSAC or Opus?
Skype used the SILK part of Opus to replace iSAC quite a while ago. (SILK is in fact their second iteration of their own codec to improve upon/replace it) I couldn't find any direct comparison, it looks like the IETF standardization work didn't even consider it worthwhile comparing to iSAC as it was judged outdated and "being phased out". (For example, Google participated in the tests, but they only tested against iL…