[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC]Remove experimental flag from aac encoder

[Robert Krüger]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Robert Krüger <krueger at lesspain.de>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <cehoyos at ag.or.at>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I didn't test myself but iiuc, the aac encoder produces better
> >> quality than all other libavcodec audio encoders and better
> >> quality than the libvo-aac encoder that is not marked as
> >> experimental, so the flag should be removed.
> >>
> >
> > I haven't done scientifically thorough testing but it has improved a lot
> > over the past few months and is definitely in a very usable state
> > quality-wise (in 256kbit I couldn't hear differences to the Apple
> encoder,
> > which regularly gets very high test scores, tested with HQ source
> material
> > and equipment) and probably much better maintained than a lot of other
> > pieces of non-experimental code. If there are no known, significant
> > stability issues +1.
>
> It has some relatively annoying issues with transients. We've got
> patches in the queue already to fix those.
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Rostislav Pehlivanov
> <atomnuker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Claudio also has some changes which he still hasn't merged yet, not sure
> if
> > he has the time right now. I'll write to him to see what he's up to.
> >
> > PNS, Intensity Stereo and maybe M/S need to get enabled by default since
> > they definitely improve the quality a ton. Might do that for PNS and IS
> > when I push the last TNS changes tonight.
> >
> > Bottom line is, there are still some things which need to be pushed and I
> > think after that, in 4-5 days depending on what's happening with
> Claudio's
> > changes, I will personally be comfortable with removing the experimental
> > flag and declaring the encoder stable.
>
> This.
>
> It's been the plan all along to negotiate the removal of the
> experimental flag after pushing those changes discussed and heavily
> tested in ticket #2686.
>
> If anything, this thread expresses support for that plan ;)
>
> So, I'd stick to that plan.
>
>
I know this is probably an annoying question but do you have a gut feeling
very roughly when you will feel comfortable with pushing those changes for
ticket #2686?