One thing that can be said for Amarok is that it at least tries to execute what it thinks a music player should look like; Rhythmbox doesn't even bother. It's just a file manager with a seek bar and player buttons.
Originally Posted by psychoticmeow
For me, it's a tie between Amarok and Clementine. They employ similar use cases. I load it up, click some items on the left and they are added to a play list on the right. Simple.
Yeah, fair enough. I was coming from the perspective of trying to use Amarok (and Clemantine) on several occasions and just being bewildered by the interface. At least with Rhythmbox it's simple enough to understand.
Originally Posted by cardboard
But I'm really waiting for Gnome Music.
(I assume you're talking about Vorbis, which most people refer to as "Ogg", since that's the file extension that Ogg Vorbis files traditionally have.)
Originally Posted by Redi44
Since listening tests that compare Opus with Vorbis are always done at low bitrates (64kbps and lower), it is safe to assume that Opus doesn't compete with Vorbis at higher bitrates. Usually you encode your music (or other audio) with Vorbis at something higher than q0 (which ends up being around 64kbps.) Like q4 (~128kbps) or q6 "to be sure" (~192kbps).
So for ripping your CDs, it would appear that Vorbis is the way to go. I imagine that for streaming though, Opus will be very attractive in the future due to its IETF standardization and excellent low-bitrate performance.
I don't think that is a safe assumption at all. Codecs intended for accurate reproduction tend to be fairly similar at high bitrates, especially recent ones, so it is harder to tease out the differences. Lower bitrates are, therefore, easier to test and more useful for determining which codec is best for cases where your choice of codec actually matters.
Originally Posted by RealNC
Last edited by TheBlackCat; 08-18-2013 at 06:50 AM.
Past listening tests on Hydrogenaudio have concluded that some codecs perform better at low bitrates compared to other codecs, but worse at higher ones. For example HE-AAC would win over Vorbis at low rates, but not on high ones.
Originally Posted by TheBlackCat
When a codec wins at a low bitrate, it doesn't mean it's better than another one when you raise the bitrate. This is the basis of my assumption; if they don't test higher bitrates, it can mean that they don't consider high bitrate Opus to actually compete against Vorbis.
Last edited by RealNC; 08-18-2013 at 08:42 AM.
The Opus materials claim it's superior at every bitrate
As an anecdote, a hifist friend with really expensive headphones couldn't hear the difference of Opus defaults (96kbps stereo) compared to the lossless original.
Note that good ears are way more important than expensive headphones ;-)
Originally Posted by curaga
I was under the impression that above 200kbps, it was almost impossible to differentiate modern lossy codecs from source, more even so comparing the quality among lossy codecs?
Originally Posted by RealNC
It depends on style of music. For some styles there is even difference between 320 kbit and FLAC. There is still too much filtering at 200 kbit. 320 kbit is minimal necessary bitrate for most music on decent hardware.
Originally Posted by erendorn
Tags for this Thread