Comment 65 for bug 195483

You know, I can remember the same sort of sweeping, dismissive statements being made when CDaudio sampling rates, A-D quantization and coding laws were discussed, with audiophiles being disappointed that a higher sampling rate, number of levels or a better coding law were not chosen. At the time those with deep pockets could demonstrate the superiority of vinyl's better dynamic range, rather ignoring record tracking distortion, so what emerged was a compromise. The further stage of then re-encoding that to MPEG1 Layer 3 standards with various proprietary or free tools seems to be going through a similar set of arguments.
As to 'statistically significant' blind tests they often forget to take account of the different human beings involved and their specific musical preferences.
If you merely look at high frequency perception this is permanently damaged by exposure to intense high frequencies, in my case compressor 'whistle' or jet engine 'whine' that reduced my teens 24kHz hearing to 17KHz in my thirties and is now barely 15kHz, despite taking care.
That still doesn't stop folk with more severely damaged hearing from spending vast sums on hi-quality reproduction kit or arguing for 'more faithful' coding, but that's life.
In practice I have found that it's a good idea to include some young folk with undamaged hearing when sorting out the best, within budget compromise.
As it's only a few weeks away, I'll wait to seen what Maverick finally chooses before conducting further coding and subjective tests with actual equipment and consumers.
As to the new parameters being discussed, they still seem to lack definition, gst-inspect not making that clear.