> untrained ears will still not make "professional-grade" masterings

There's quite a few people who hate the modern mastering, so... maybe that's not a bad thing? Also considering the pro grade masters are often aimed for wildly different setup than the cheap earbuds many people will use. I'm not trying to say pros don't know what they're doing. But also, I'd love to see people play a bit more. (Still dreaming of a real release format that contains the raw elements + effects stack)

Then again, I'm a weirdo who honestly prefers some accidentally preserved band practice recordings with noise and mistakes and raw energy to their released official albums.

the idea is that if it sounds good on the 'wildly different setup' (i.e. posh speakers in controlled environment) then it will also sound good on cheap earbuds... but not the other way round.

to me the whole 'mastering AI' stuff misses at least some of the point of what mastering really is, but i suppose it'll be useful for people doing stuff on their own who wouldn't pay a proper mastering engineer anyway.

Sometimes true... Sometimes you get Christopher Nolan, with his own quote:

> Because you can make a film that looks like anything, you can shoot on your iPhone, no one’s going to complain. But if you mix the sound a certain way, or if you use certain sub-frequencies, people get up in arms.

well yeah, "good" meaning "as the artist intended"... that's the other thing with this AI stuff, there is no objective definition of "good sounding record" unless you just want everything to sound like Steely Dan or whatever...

I don't think it's weird at all. Art and culture generally are exercises in communication. Sometimes fine craftsmanship or technical prowess and spectacle is an important part of the message. Sometimes it simply is not. People get excited when their favorite sports team tries a daring play, whether it's on an 8k monster display or their grandma's black and white set from the 70s. More pixels won't make you cry any harder in Titanic.

Kind of reinforces the idea AI is going to lead to mediocrity in a lot of industries. I feel like our food, like the stuff at the grocery store is a great example. Our bread is made on a production line. It's good but not great. I feel like the real bummer is the option to get great bread tends to disappear overtime as everyone moves to the 80% solution and the training and economics needed for the artisan solution disappear.

I predict the cost to make an 80 percent solution will plummet, which is great for consumers.

Essentially, consumers now might pay X amount to get only a 40% solution (probably unusable and not something a company would even offer), but with AI, the same X gets you an 80% solution.

The price of >80% solution will remain the same, until AI improves.