Enthusiasts will care because it could save them storage space for equivalent quality
That’s the thing, even if you ignore that such scenarios involve lossy-to-lossy re-encodes (bad), and even when you ignore the general lack of psychoacoustic tuning in new encoders, the advertised so called objective“20%-30% improvement” is not universal, and only applies to bit-starved resolution-maxed encodes.
Your file is 1080p or 720p? you won’t get that improvement, even in not-fit-for-purpose “objective” measures.
You want to encode at a higher bitrate than YouTube to actually get good quality? you won’t get that improvement either.
So if you embark on such a futile journey, you could be wasting a lot of computing power for no, or even negative, gain.
That’s the thing, even if you ignore that such scenarios involve lossy-to-lossy re-encodes (bad), and even when you ignore the general lack of psychoacoustic tuning in new encoders, the advertised so called objective “20%-30% improvement” is not universal, and only applies to bit-starved resolution-maxed encodes.
Your file is 1080p or 720p? you won’t get that improvement, even in not-fit-for-purpose “objective” measures.
You want to encode at a higher bitrate than YouTube to actually get good quality? you won’t get that improvement either.
So if you embark on such a futile journey, you could be wasting a lot of computing power for no, or even negative, gain.