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
-
I would think you could set up a small scale test on eg. Mechanical Turk and get data quickly? It wouldn’t be subjective if you can prove that the transparency threshold occurs at a higher bitrate (for a statistically significant number of listeners) in the ffmpeg implementation.
TBH, given that I was able to easily tell the presence or absence of one round of ffmpeg-aac at 320kbps (on an already transcoded input, but that's irrelevant), which is what started all of this this week, I don't think it *has* a transparency threshold.
-
-
I think that is relevant though. If you can prove within a reasonable degree of statistical significance that most listeners are able to pick the compressed sample out of a randomized lineup, but that a reference implementation performs better at the same bitrate…
-
Yeah, but I'm just one person :-) Really though, if the ffmpeg devs were truly asking for data (instead of being dismissive) I'd put the effort into gathering more of it, but given the responses I've had I don't think it's going to be a good use of my time.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.