Using -A "subdivide_tukey(3);blackman" on everything, then
** In overall size:
At 96 kHz, -b8192 beats -b16384, and -eb8192 beats -eb16384.
At 192 kHz, same happens.
At 384 kHz, -b8192 beats -b16384 by around 0.12 percent, but -eb16384 beats -eb8192 by around 0.18 percent.
192 kHz, let's look into that further: No -e here.
* Classical music benefits from larger blocksize -b16384, 12 albums to 2; all except harpsichord and (near-zero) Cage's percussion works. Total impact 0.32 percent (not percentage points!), varying from -0.15 (harpsichord) to 0.63 percent (Bruckner, vocals)
Median impact = 0.37 = median absolute value impact.
But then the rest:
* The heavier music: -b8192 wins by 7 albums against 3, switching sign on impact to signify that:
Total impact -0.14 percent, varying from -0.71 (Laibach, biggest benefit for -b8192) to 0.24 percent (Gojira, that benefits from 16384).
Median impact = -0.24. Remove the sign for median absolute value impact.
* The others. -b8192 wins by 9 albums against 5
Total impact -0.28 percent, max benefit from -b8192 is -1.31 percent (Wovenhand, in this release that is singer/songwriter) and then -0.99 (Sopor Aeternus, that is something completely different: darkwave) - and on the other end, benefiting most from larger blocksizes are the jazz albums: 0.41 percent for both Davis and Johansson. Those were near-mono before dithering I think.
Median impact = -0.32 percent. Median absolute impact: 0.38.
For those who did not follow the previous discussions, I am talking about optimizations for >=4x upsampled data, so the parameters listed above are not suitable for encoding "real" hi-res files.
... but who knows how many hi-res files are "real".