[1] "Good enough" depends on your goal. I find the tools built into Audition fine for most purposes, even destruction-level processing, but I come to them with a lot of experience. I have developed several processing "stacks" (several cascaded processor functions) that accomplish several different goals.
[2] I've also demo'd some of the high-end tools. I don't find their capabilities much better, but the controls are often easier to comprehend when relating to an expected result.
[3] Home receivers could have simplified activity-targeted presets (low-background, party background, concert, etc.), [3a] and have a pseudo "expert" mode that allowed for the complete application of an inverse algorithm. [3b] The the technology could easily be encoded into downloaded music files too, though I doubt the music industry would warm up to that idea. [3c] But it would allow for a completely unprocessed version to become available to the listener, at his option, or anything between that and the producer's version.
1. I have a couple of problems with this: Firstly, I don't know Audition well but it has rather basic controllability/functionality compared to what I'm used to (and what I need). Secondly, even if I could some how get around it's limitations with a "stack" of processors, this is hardly a consumer friendly solution. I'm guessing a fraction of one percent of consumers would even attempt such a stack and only a small fraction of those would get decent results.
2. That's strange, I've found the exact opposite! Much greater capabilities and far more complex controls which are relatively difficult to comprehend. At this stage it's probably worth covering a bit about compression, as that's mainly what we're talking about here as far as dynamic range and processing is concerned: This 7min vid, is a basic primer on compression; what compression is, the basic controls, how they're used and what they sound like. I recommend this vid for anyone who doesn't really know what compression is, only has a vague idea, just wants a refresher or wants to be sure they've understood the basics.
In response to pinnahertz, here is a brief (just under 7mins) tutorial of a compressor which I commonly use. I strongly recommend watching this vid, especially for those who think they already have a decent understanding of compression basics. A couple of notes: It's quite advanced but all the controls this vid covers are constantly being demonstrated, so you can hear what's happening even if you don't fully understand the controls themselves. Secondly, this is just part one of the tutorial and even both parts together only cover some of the controls available in this compressor.
Some further observations/points: A. The videos demonstrate compression on individual channels or on a sub-group/submix (the drums submix in the second vid), rather than master-buss compression. Obviously the same techniques apply to the entire mix (master-buss) as to a submix, although with different settings. It should be noted that in the vast majority of cases most of the compression applied to a mix is applied during mixing rather than during mastering, IE. To individual channels and submixes rather than on the master-buss. B. Both vids were demonstrating different popular music genres. In classical music, compression is still quite commonly employed on individual tracks, sub-groups and on the master-buss but not as ubiquitously and far more subtly than in the popular genres. C. There are some "highend" compressor processors which only have the basic compressor controls, these tend to be the modelling compressors: Software plugins with algorithms modelled to emulate a vintage analogue compressor. These software compressors are non-linear, they introduce various distortions (including IMD commonly) which provide the "character" of the original unit. Generally there is no control over any of the attack or release curves, other parameters or even the amount of distortion, beyond how hard it is driven (as with the original units). So it's a case of using one of these compressors for it's particular character or using a completely different compressor if that "character" is not appropriate for a particular channel/submix/mix.
3. Yes, a simple set of presets to cover some basic situations could be useful but what you suggest already exists. Dolby Digital already includes 6 presets (DRC profiles) which are set in the DD metadata and many AV Receivers allow that setting to be overridden. Also, the "Loudness" control on some amps (particularly car sound systems) is effectively a simple compression preset. How these presets interact with the content is variable though, depending on the content. Sometimes it's relatively benign other times it's very annoyingly not so. "Pumping" is a common problem for example, due to an inappropriate release time/curve of the compressor, especially if it fights with pumping already deliberately/artistically applied or with content which changes dynamics quite rapidly. And, this is just one of several quite common issues with simple consumer compression and presets.
3a. This is simply impossible and impractical, for several reasons, the main two being: 1. Typically several different compressors are used in a mix, on individual channels and sub-groups and then another compressor used on the master-buss (in mastering). It's simply impossible to un-pick (un-mix) a mix, let alone un-mix the mix, identify which compressors have been used, where and with what settings and then apply inverse compression algorithms to each channel, sub-group and the entire mix. 2. Even if this were possible in theory, it would still be impossible in practice because although basic compression algorithms are freely available (and therefore an inverse algo could be freely designed) this is definitely not true of the higher end compressors whose algorithms are trade secrets (or covered by exclusive copyright licenses in the case of some modelling compressors). I can't see how you would get ALL of the companies/software developers to effectively donate the algos upon which their company relies!
3b. How could it be "easily encoded" into the files themselves? Not only would you need metadata fields to cover every possible parameter of every existing (and future) compressor but you'd need to somehow embed data to change any/all of those parameters in time with the music, as automation of compressor parameters during mixing/mastering is not uncommon. This doesn't sound to me like something which could be "easily encoded"! And of course, that's assuming the impossibilities/impracticalities in 3a have all been overcome and some chip developed (for inclusion in DACs/AVRs) upon which all this metadata and embedded data can act.
3c. I've seen similar requests several times here on head-fi. I can only assume those making the request simply don't understand how/why compression is applied. If you've watched both videos above, you'd realise that compression changes the volume, tonality and "presence", and as separate instances (with different settings) and/or different compressors are used on different individual channels and sub-groups, this in turn changes how each of those channels are balanced and positioned against each other and how one applies other processing such as EQ, reverb, etc., to all the channels. Removing all the compression does NOT result in the same mix just with a bigger DR, it results in a complete dogs-dinner of a mix, where the elements in the mix no longer balance with each other (dramatically so!) and virtually all the other processing is also now wrong/inappropriate. In the majority of cases, the result would be an un-listenable mix! And just to reiterate what I mentioned above, while there maybe a few exceptions, it's largely a myth that a highly dynamic mix is delivered to the mastering engineer who then applies massive amounts of additional compression to kill the track in the name of making it louder. I've been handed mixes (even entire albums) to master where I couldn't have added a single dB more compression even if I'd wanted to. While this is rare, it's also rare that I could apply an additional level of compression equal to or greater than that already applied (during mixing).
G
