ffmpeg developer: "Using <extremely common use case> is invalid to prove anything." Why do I even waste my time on this?https://twitter.com/BMahol/status/1255867904475750401 …
-
Show this thread
-
If I can hear artifacts in a single encode, it's all in my head and I'm a crazy audiophile loonie (and so is everyone else complaining). If I do a subtraction test, that's invalid for psychoacoustic codecs. If I do repeated transcodes, that doesn't prove anything. I'm out.
5 replies 2 retweets 42 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @marcan42
Can you modify the code to remove the defect, or is that too much work? Being able to A/B comparison it would probably be more clear.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mhlkong
I'm not an audio codec dev and I know nothing about AAC; it would take quite a while to get up to speed in that field to be able to contribute.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
But I already showed that libfdk_aac does a much better job, so there's your A/B comparison.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.