maep

Neat, but it has problems following in-universe rules, i.e. fantasy novels.

It's cheap and beginner friendly and very easy to learn. There is an overwhelming amount of ESP32 boards, variants and software which is daunting when you're just getting into embedded development.

That must be the bigest scandal since Watergate-gate.

I used this back in the Vista times and it worked very well. Very similar to how people use WSL these days.

> Mutable global state is evil. Friends don’t let friends use mutable global state.

Throw away your CPU and RAM then.

I can assure you that audio codec testing is a through science. Tools such as PSNR, PEAQ or POLQA all have limitations and cannot fully replace a human listener. Those familiar with the topic are often vocal critics of audiophile bullshit.

No, this is nowhere near pseudoscience, psychoacoustics is an established field of science.

Yea same with me. Unless you have a perfect setup this is good enough. Though if you want to do a little experiment, try Fatboy Slim's Kalifornia, the beginning is notorious for destroying transform based codecs.

If anything those tests make it easier to find subtle differences, which is good if transparency is the goal. I don't think that makes them fundamentally flawed. They are used throughout the industry, making results comparable.

Of course there are other ITU tests that work without hidden references, looping or even A/B comparison. They require a much bigger listener pool, are more expensive and take longer, thus used less often during development.

I spent half my professional career doing listening tests (MUSHRA and P.800), specifically on test items like Tom's diner. 128 kbps mp3 ist fairly easy to pick out, especially if you can compare it to the original. Double the bitrate and it's a real challenge.

Modern codes like opus are much more efficient. At high bitrates they are fully transparent and anybody who claims to be able to hear a difference is full of shit. Put them in a controlled setting and they fail every time.

Perhaps it's Gwynne Shotwell's doing. She seems to be one of the few people on this planet who can say "no" to Musk and not get bullied.

If used in a small device like a hearing aid, a 2x factor can have a significant impact on battery life.

VoIP in general experiences full packet loss, meaing if a single bit flips the entire packet is dropped. For radio links like Bluetooth it's possible to deal with some bit flips without throwing the entire packat away.

Until 1.5 Opus PLC was in my opinion it's biggest weakness, compared to other speech codecs like G.711 or G.722. A high compression ratio causes bit flips to be much more destructive.

As for making moeny, Bluetooth codecs have no license fees.

"Inferior" is relative. The main focus of LC3 was, as the name suggests, complexity.

This is hearsay: Bluetooth SIG considered Opus but rejected it because it was computationally too expensive. This came out of the hearing aid group, where battery life and complexity are a major restriction.

So when you compare codecs in this space, the metric you want to look at is quality vs. CPU cycles. In that regard LC3 outperforms many contemporary codecs.

Regarding sound quality it's simply a matter of setting the appropriate bitrate. So if Opus is transparent at 150 kbps, and LC3 at 250 kbps thats totally acceptable if that gives you more battery life.