> asking users to compare the gigantic difference between a failed and non-failing output It isn't. It's asking users to compare what happens at a particular b

> asking users to compare the gigantic difference between a failed and non-failing output It isn't. It's asking users to compare what happens at a particular bitrate as a demonstration that it works (well!) at bitrates significantly lower than what anything else can safely achieve. To get comparable quality you need several _times_ the number of bytes with another codec. While I agree that it would be _interesting_ to see what happens below HiFiC's knee, the location of the knee for individual codecs is irrelevant to the comparison that really matters, because users just want high quality without high size or low size without low quality. And this clearly produces the best quality at the least size by a mile. I think they did a fantastic job of showing both how each code looks at the same size and also how many bytes it takes for other codecs to reach the same quality. Showing what it looks like when HiFiC degrades if you go to an even lower than already extremely low bitrate would be fun and neat for comparing HiFiC's bitrates but has little bearing on how it compares to other codecs.