> they instead opted for the same bitrate Except they didn't achieve quite the same bitrate. For scene 1, for example, H.264 was 209.9 kbps, VP9 was 191.2 kbps

> they instead opted for the same bitrate Except they didn't achieve quite the same bitrate. For scene 1, for example, H.264 was 209.9 kbps, VP9 was 191.2 kbps, AV1 was 230.1 kbps. Put another way: the AV1 stream had 39 additional kpbs (or 20% more bits) than the VP9 stream. 20% is a pretty big deal (especially at these low bitrates), and undermines the point the author was trying to make. The increase in quality (and decrease in bitrate) for H.264 → VP9 is really cool. But the increase in quality for VP9 → AV1 isn't as impressive because the bitrate also increased. What would have really driven the author's point home was if the AV1 stream was higher quality and a lower bitrate than the VP9 stream.