Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
It’s Opus, it rocks and now it’s an audio codec standard (hacks.mozilla.org)
167 points by nullc 1899 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 65 comments



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 any existing compressed format. Further, the Opus format itself and the reference implementation are available under liberal royalty-free licenses, making it easy to adopt, compatible with free software, and suitable for usage as part of the basic infrastructure of the Internet. See the Opus comparison page for more details.

http://wiki.xiph.org/OpusFAQ#How_does_Opus_compare_to_other_...

Which is to say, this isn't (okay, isn't just) a case of having "too many standards"; Opus is legitimately impressive from a technical standpoint. Oh, and it's unencumbered by patents. That's cool.

EDIT: And here's the coolest part of the article that completely took me by surprise:

"The IETF recently decided with “strong consensus” to adopt Opus as a mandatory-to-implement (MTI) codec for WebRTC, an upcoming standard for real-time communication on the web."


> And here's the coolest part of the article that completely took me by surprise: "The IETF recently decided with “strong consensus” to adopt Opus as a mandatory-to-implement (MTI) codec for WebRTC, an upcoming standard for real-time communication on the web."

Indeed. There may be interesting side consequences for that. The first article comment asks:

> Interesting! Any idea if this will become mandatory to implement for HTML5 audio as well? That’s another area in sore need of a single format that works everywhere.

This means that if a browser supports WebRTC, it has to support Opus, and it then happens that the codec will be available for <audio>. Now that does not mean that <audio> => Opus support, but it will have a (increasingly with time) high chance to be so.


I don't know which XKCD strip you're referring to; link?


http://xkcd.com/927/

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.


There is no such thing as "unencumbered by patents". Unless you have a technology that has already been tested thoroughly in the courts, which is the only way you can really determine whether something would be deemed to violate a patent or not, you simply can't know.


Even if it was tested by the courts, you can appeal. And even after the appeal, you can appeal to a higher court, all the way to the Supreme. And even if was tested there, congress can pass a law that allows it. And even if that happens the Supreme court can strike down the law. And even if that happens, the public can mount a revolution and tear down the legal system.

But, practically speaking, Opus has extremely good guarantees for being unencumbered, as much as is possible - the people working on it have given licenses to use it, and experts in the field have had a while to go over this stuff. Nothing is 100%, but this is as good as it gets.


Yeah. The public is going to mount a revolution over a music format. I don't think being contrary for its own sake is helpful here.

The whole point of "tested by the courts" is that it's already gone through the appeals process. As in, you have the final decision you're going to get out of the courts.


The courts determine the applicability of single patents, or a single parties patents (e.g. in cases of misconduct). There is no legal process that can prove something non-infringing, unless you expect something to go to court millions of times.

But this doesn't mean that something can't be designed in a way which avoids all known, and much unknown risk, and licensed in a way which makes frivolous attack less likely.

The obsessives here somes forget that when we talk about comparing things what matters is the relative merits. The commercial codes are absolutely and uncertainly encumbered. And the commercial codec providers have generally had a poor track record of creating codecs unencumbered by third party rights (mostly because they don't make an effort to: they erroneously assume the regular royalties will satisfy all comers). Opus doesn't have these issues and even compared to most software an effort was made to avoid infringement, but nothing can escape the impossibility of absolute certainty under the current patent system.


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.


> No matter how many times I'm downvoted, it's still not unencumbered.

Who said you were wrong? Quite the opposite, I strongly agreed with you - anything can be encumbered, and anything includes this.

But the point is that Opus is as safe as you can possibly be from being patent encumbered. Everything is potentially encumbered, but there are things with higher or lower likelihoods. And there isn't any lower than Opus. If this is still too worrying for you to use, then you can't use any software at all.


Come on, it's only 45kloc. Do you go around insisting every non-trivial piece of software on hacker news is encumbered?

And in most those cases people were not making a special effort to avoid being effectively encumbered, while Opus was.


if its a non-trivial peice of software, it almost certainly is encumbered, don't forget about idiotic patents like 1 click, there are likely millions.


I believe the system is fundamentally unfair, but also think that you are the one that's bought into their propaganda to the point that you're not thinking straight.

Particularly as you naively think that an expired patent is enough to protect you from the system.


"Particularly as you naively think that an expired patent is enough to protect you from the system."

Note that I said with respect to...


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.


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.


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 now, even if it comes from Jobs, is simply irrelevant.


Show me an entity, any entity, that could be sued for lots and lots of cash, that is using these "unencumbered" algorithms.


You can easily find VP8 used on Youtube. Not big enough? Those predators wouldn't hesitate to sue, if they'd have something to bite with. But they have no teeth.


It's way too early to be suing with merely YouTube, no network effects. Google can easily switch away.


You can come up with any kind of arguments or guesses about why they don't sue, but the bottom line - they didn't provide any proofs, so their FUD doesn't worth anyone's time, and these codecs can be considered unencumbered and free to use (and that's what's happening to their displeasure).


I think you're engaged in wishful thinking. I wish you were right too.


According to another comment further down the page, Tegra 3 and OMAP4 have "hardware" VP8 decoding support. I've also heard that a patent holder can't sue for damages that occur long after they were made aware of infringement (it would be nice if one of HN's regular lawyers would jump in and define estoppel).

There are far more interesting and HN-worthy things to discuss than the non-Opus-specific fact that the patent system is broken, like its potential applications in WebRTC, the hybrid design that merges Celt and Silk, the fact that having a conversation with someone 50 feet away using Opus can have lower latency than just shouting at them (as demonstrated by Mumble's use of Celt beating the speed of sound down a hallway), etc.



No updates for 18 months. Did they find any patents?


The mere threat is enough to keep people from investing much in these "alternatives." E.g., Steve Jobs wrote:

"All video codecs are covered by patents," Jobs wrote from his iPad. "A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other 'open source' codecs now. Unfortunately, just because something is open source, it doesn’t mean or guarantee that it doesn’t infringe on others patents. An open standard is different from being royalty free or open source."

You can bet that if Theora ever got traction and seriously interrupted MPLA's revenue stream, there would be suits. Before that time it'd be pointless for them to sue.


That's the whole point. They have no proof to show, because really those codecs are not violating any patents. But they want to create fear to ban competition.



The citation above was about video codecs, FUD about which is spread by MPEG-LA, who never showed any patents as a proof.

Opus is another story, since Qualcomm and Huawei listed supposedly violated patents, so Opus creators were able to review them and to confirm that those claims are bogus.


Right. This is the advantage of the IETF's patent policy, and it's one of the reasons we wanted to do this work in the context of the IETF.


It means to the best of authors' knowledge.


> There is no such thing as "unencumbered by patents".

When do the lawsuits over PNG begin?


These comments answer some questions I have concerning FLAC...

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.


> 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.

3MB will get you POTS-quality audio though. Lossless codecs usually compress audio to half the original size (so a 150MB FLAC file — for music — will correspond to ~300MB of raw bitstream). Lossy compression to something worth listening to will usually be around 10x compression, so ~30MB for an original 300MB bitstream.

A 35mn song compressed in 3MB probably won't be worth listening to.


If you were using AAC (or anything else that's more advanced than MP3) a 3MB file would actually be listenable for a short song.

A 150MB FLAC file would be about 20-30 minutes long (based on a typical bitrate of 700-1000 kilobits per second).


> If you were using AAC (or anything else that's more advanced than MP3) a 3MB file would actually be listenable for a short song.

Even mp3 works for "a short song", that's not the context of my comment though, its context is a 150MB FLAC file (~300MB bitstream) recompressed to 3MB with Opus.

> A 150MB FLAC file would be about 20-30 minutes long

A point I noted in my comment.


Oops, I misread your comment quite heavily. Apologies for the extremely redundant follow-up!


I'm not an audio guy. Can anyone explain like I'm five why this new codec was needed? How does it affect me as a consumer of audio? Who out there was saying "Gosh, I want to do X, but it's really tough because existing codecs force me to choose between high quality and low delay"? What is an example of "X" in that sentence?


X = {voip, videoconferencing}

Say you wanted to write a live audio chat app to talk to your friends. If you'd chosen the Speex codec, then voice would come over fine, but trying to show off your new guitar skills would fail because what they heard would sound horrible.

If you'd chosen the Vorbis codec, then everything would sound great, but there'd be a weird "lag" between participants, as if one of them were on the moon. Also, adding too many listeners would severely strain your internet connection's capacity.

Opus has latencies as good as Speex, and can be high-, medium-, or low-quality depending on bandwidth needs.


There was no existing codec that is both good and not encumbered by patents.

Opus is good and not encumbered by patents, and it has just been standardized.


Look at the graph in the article. Opus is as good as or slightly better than all the existing codecs at their strong points, and much better than them at their weak points.


I expect Firefox and Chrome to adopt this within months, but IE10 is coming out soon. Does it mean it won't have it? And then we'll have to wait another year or more for IE11 to implement it? Not to mention IE9 and IE8 will probably never get it.

I also assume WebM will replace Vorbis with Opus very soon?


> I expect Firefox and Chrome to adopt this within months,

Firefox already adopted it (it's in nightly builds). Chrome seems to have WontFixed it,

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=104241


It's actually in Firefox 15, not just nightly. People on Reddit are saying chrome's position has reversed but I don't have a link. Works in Opera already if you have gstreamer's opus plugin, and they've apparently said they'll ship it.


The chrome bug just changed from WontFix to Available.


The article mentions that Skype was a party to the standardization process, and hence Microsoft by association. So there's a small reason to hope.


While MS might not take full advantage of it, IE 10 will have silent updates. I would hope that would mean they drop the monolithic update strategy.


I'm not familiar with Opus. Can someone tell me if it is able to dynamically adapt quality based on available bandwidth? If it loses packets in the stream, do we get a 'skip' in the audio or does the quality go down?


> Can someone tell me if it is able to dynamically adapt quality based on available bandwidth?

Depends on what you mean. It is a variable bitrate codec, and the encoder can easily adjust the bitrate of the stream. But you would need a way to discover the available bandwidth and communicate it to the encoder - Opus is just a codec, not a container or streaming protocol.

> If it loses packets in the stream, do we get a 'skip' in the audio or does the quality go down?

The standard doesn't mandate a specific way to deal with packet loss, but the reference implementation tries to handle this gracefully. [1]

Some properties of the encoding facilitate this: for instance, packets can optionally include a reduced-bitrate encoding of the previous packet to provide redundancy. [2]

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6716#section-2.1.8

[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6716#section-4.4


Yes, it's absolutely made for that, which is one of the reasons it has extreme bitrate and frame size agility. Though the decoder doesn't have a back channel to the encoder as part of the format (e.g. a duplex pair is not at all coupled by the codec and could have entirely different settings). So if you want to do rate adaptation the application will have to take care of telling the encoder that the decoder is struggling/losing frames/etc.

The codec also includes a pretty good packet loss concealer integrated, and can also use forward error correction to reduce the impact of loss.


It is absolutely able to dynamically adapt based on bandwidth, and is robust to packet loss. It was designed for that :)

http://www.opus-codec.org/ https://wiki.xiph.org/OpusFAQ


How does Opus compare to Celt, its direct predecessor?


The final version of libcelt is bit-for-bit compatible with Opus. Unlike SILK, there was never a "stable" version of CELT (we routinely broke the bitstream on almost every commit), so CELT development continued after the two codecs were merged, right up until the Opus bitstream was frozen.

That makes Opus a strict superset of CELT, and we've stopped maintaining libcelt, so any existing users should switch to libopus.


It actually includes code from Celt and merged with code from Silk (the Skype codec).

Silk is very good at speech and Celt is very good at music. It is like having gears in your car. You need low gears for one mode of operation and high gears for another. So they combined the two into one and made a single codec.

I imagine behind the scenes it has a transition mode from one codec to another depending on the configuration parameters.


Relevant - Hydrogenaudio listening tests (530 tests) scored Opus higher than HE-AAC

https://people.xiph.org/~greg/opus/ha2011/ http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/results.html


MP3 is getting very long in the tooth, not to mention the fact that it's encumbered by patents. A new codec would be nice, but hardware adoption of the codec will take a while. Long enough, dare I say, to kill it dead in the water.


Why would you say that?

Most "hardware" decoders are DSPs that run software loaded onto them at runtime. This goes for anything with an OMAP, Tegra or Samsung (Samsung's own decode block) SoC in (that I know for sure) and probably almost everything else. Tegra3 and OMAP4 can decode WebM in hardware, for example.


The problem is that they never develop firmware updates so if those DSPs don't support yet another open codec on release day, they never will.


I'm pretty sure Tegra2 got firmware updates during its lifetime, and I know that TI do updates for OMAP.

Those updates might not make it through to consumer devices, but that used to be the case for things like GPU drivers too. Google pushed an updated SGX driver for the Galaxy Nexus with 4.1, and Apple pushes updates to their own drivers every release.


perhaps, but even so that does not mean that it won't get supported in later generations. I'm sure people said the same thing about FLAC but it is now supported in lots of devices, like those running Android.


Almost no hardware audio decoders use DSPs, or at least actually need to, since about a decade or more now.

The manufacturers you mention use DSPs for bad reasons - usually the inertia of software already using a coprocessor and not being willing to license a new codec for the general purpose core. Audio decoding and encoding is an extremely low percentage of available CPU, and it's just not worth off-loading it.

Video is another matter, at least when talking about HD. It's still very much worth using special purpose DSPs for that.

For audio, the existence of hardware DSPs is simply not a barrier to entry.


I should have worded my comment better. I mean that adoption by hardware manufacturers will be slow. What's the incentive? Even for a firmware patch? MP3 is `good enough', and everyone already uses it.


Opus is royalty-free, in contrast to mp3. And it will be used in WebRTC. I can see some devices picking up Opus to support WebRTC and possibly some (not portable music players, obviously) dropping mp3.

Obviously neither you nor I have a crystal ball, but I see Opus as the PNG of audio codecs - not displacing the lousy but entrenched de-facto standard (GIF/mp3), but slowly taking over at the technological edge.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: