[0] https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/what-is-lufs-and-why-shoul...
Many games let you specify the audio output, and then adjusts the mixing accordingly. This would be something similar I guess, but the mixing is probably best done at the streaming provider, to save bandwidth and other resources. (For static content like music it only really has to be done once per output type.)
I'd like something like this, I have a vastly different sound setup at home than on the go, but listen to mostly the same tracks. Most sound pretty good on my home setup, but on the go I often find myself adjusting volume up and down between tracks, despite things like normalization being on.
Then, as an end user, we could choose which we preferred. By default there would be no change in behaviour. Where software updates are available, an the option could be provided to swap between versions at will. For older devices, the streaming service could let the end user choose the high dynamic range version as an account-level default.
Personally I’d want ready access to both versions. When listening to music is the singular activity in a quiet environment, full dynamic range is great. But as soon as I’m not solely focused on music, multitasking or in a noisy environment, I’d actually prefer the compressed version.
In the old days, the recommendation for digital audio was to master for -20 dBFS average, use no compression (or very little) and let any peaks fall where they may in the 20 dB headroom. And nobody complained about the noise floor at ~76 dB below the average level.
I wish everyone would go back to mastering to that spec, instead of slamming everything to 0 dBFS with loads of compression and often clipping on top. Obviously still allowing use of compression for artistic reasons.
(If it did matter, which it doesn’t, it occurs to me that you could even create a 24 bit file that only contains 18 significant bits [dithered to 18 bits then padded to 24] in such a way that the space was reclaimed by ALAC or FLAC encoding.)
The bandwidth consequence would be trivial bordering on nil given that only a small number of albums would ever receive the treatment, and only a small number of end users would choose the option.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayGain
(I have no knowledge in this field, so am asking out of genuine curiosity.)
It's not possible to separately compress constituent stems in a mix. Once they're mixed, the impact that you can have on "loudness" is restricted to the whole, frequency-separated bands (multi-band compressor), or extracted parts. From an information-theory perspective, the available leeway for control over presentation is restricted once the audio is mixed.
However, I'd rather have a simple compressor running on playback than have a whole industry ruin their content.
To be fair, I believe mastering is one of those domains that may soon be made obsolete with machine learning. But we're not quite there yet, and the existing methods require a lot of DSP power.
Once that's taken care of, then the audio can be appreciated. When I last owned a car, it was an enormous Lexus. The audio experience was sublime just with the premium factory system. But with the audio off, the cocoon was still so much better than what I've experienced in "regular" cars.
Unless you're in a Rolls Royce or Maybach while driving, I seriously doubt you'll tell the difference between FLAC and MP3. There's just too much external interference to compete with the subtleties that a high end audio signal can offer compared to a more typical system.
From a 24/96 PCM master I prepared lots of transcodings - 16/44.1, 12/44.1, 8/44.1, 16/22, 12/22, 8/22, 320, 256, 192, 160, 128kbps mp3 with various options for encoding, ditto AAC - etc, etc.
I then used the (brilliant!) ABX plugin for Foobar and an excellent set of headphones, and after a few days I had a fair idea of how good my ears really were. Or, as it turns out, weren't. In most cases, 256kbps mp3 and red book were impossible to tell apart; 320kbps being indistinguishable in all but one case, if memory serves. However, at both 256 and 320kbps I had to listen hard for encoding artifacts rather than just enjoying the music.
Most tracks were eminently listenable at 192kbps mp3, but I could then reliably tell whether I listened to an mp3 or PCM without much effort.
Hard disk cost being what it is, I still ripped all my CDs lossless, though.
128kbps? I shudder at the thought of my 20-year-old-self telling myself and others that it was just about as good as uncompressed audio...
Oh, and you'd be surprised at how little dynamic range is actually utilized; on most tracks, telling 16/44.1 from 8/44.1 was next to impossible.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/abx-test-of-320kbps-vs-flac-...
https://blog.codinghorror.com/concluding-the-great-mp3-bitra...
I would not be surprised if additional noise, such as road noise, can also subvert masking phenomena in some way, but I don't know of any studies that tested this.
from your other comment, I see that you are using a pretty good DAC in your car. kudos to you, sir.
How many cars actually support FLAC or Apt-X HD?
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/boom2-volume-boost-equalizer/i...
Moreso than ever in the past, people listen to music in public or otherwise noisy environments. (worse yet) They listen with generally low quality headphones/earbuds.
Basically, if the music isn't compressed, they won't hear most of it.
Of course, this plus the crappy earbuds and the noisy surroundings means they listen at higher volumes and suffer more hearing damage, which leads to less human sensitivity to sound levels (and more desire for compressed, high volume music).
It's very rare for most of us to get to sit in a good room with a good system and listen without interference... but it's really, really nice to do when you can.