View Full Version : Mastering Shootout: LANDR, AAMS, Mastering Box vs Real People
RedStone
10-11-2016, 08:31 AM
I've always been interested in Mastering and the Auto Mastering online services got my attention. The wave of opinions and such on automated mastering seems to range from "amazing!" to "terrible!". So, I figured I would do a little shoot out using a song I had mastered by a professional Mastering engineer.
I wanted things to be as real world as possible, but I also wanted the test to be highly accessible. So, I decided on using High Quality Mp3s encoded at 320kbps using the extreme encoding settings in Reaper. I encoded the files from the original wave file masters using Reaper 5 and the lame mp3 encoder.
In no particular order, the tracks were mastered using the following:
Advanced Auto Mastering System
LANDR
Mastering Box
A self re-master of the song, which I did using reaper plugins as well as Melda Production Plugins.
A Professional Mastering Engineer - John Scrip of Massive Mastering
I created a Zip of the various audio files along with a Reaper project and put them into google drive. You can access the files here (https://docs.google.com/a/levityproject.com/uc?export=download&confirm=fJQx&id=0B_-TzBQeNAEydE1YU3R2WGZLSjQ)
I also put a little poll on my website at https://sites.google.com/a/levityproject.com/levity-project/home-mastering/mastering/audio-mastering-shootout
Or here's a direct link (https://docs.google.com/a/levityproject.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd4GAJkocorUfInShxTQL3qOGFwQ04UsaesDDzbai9g sBBk3A/viewform) to the poll:
I've got this going here and the Home recording forum (http://homerecording.com/bbs/general-discussions/mastering/mastering-shootout-landr-mastering-box-aams-vs-real-people-391787/). I was trying to put the poll up here and at home recording, but couldn't figure it out.
Once there is a good number of responses, I'll reveal which master is which!
***EDIT***
Here is the original mix (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-TzBQeNAEyVmxEazIzOXBPbXM/view?usp=sharing). The only processing was that it's normalized to -0.5db.
Panic
10-11-2016, 10:53 AM
I prefer master #2.
.
RedStone
10-11-2016, 11:57 AM
What drew you to Master 2 over the others?
pipelineaudio
10-11-2016, 12:04 PM
This is awesome!
Softsynth
10-11-2016, 01:01 PM
I hope human is best, and I hope my comments are helpful. I haven't tried those programs. I certainly want human to be best!
As non of us know which is which I will simply state my preference on first attempt.
1ST IMPRESSION COMPARISON ON SMALL PASSIVE SPEAKERS
Mix one sound of a piece, though dry in comparison with two. (probably why it stays clear)
The good = Nothing stands out
The Bad = Nothing stands out!
Mix two
Mixed bag
The good = More spacious, vocal pops out, bass guitar is clean and cuts through mix (until it gets muddy)
The bad = thickens up in the middle (1.30 ish) over compressed blurry in guitars.
Mix three
Dislike mix 3, sounds muddy yet the vocal is clear, diction might be clearest - picked up on the god squad line clearer here.
Sounds like the rest of the band is somewhere else under a blanket. Though the vocal is recessed it fails to integrate into the mix. Bass guitar is notably muddy.
Discerning what instrument is doing what is harder in this mix.
Mix 4
This is more like it, easily the best. The vocalist sounds great here, sounds Like the God Squad brainwashed Porcupine Tree!!! ;)
Maybe ever so slightly too bright? (possibly have this reaction switching to and from 5)
Like the track, not the sentiments.
Mix 5
Muddy everything. Far worse than all the others. Did someone smash my tweeters?
Jae.Thomas
10-11-2016, 01:02 PM
is there a non-mastered version?
drichard
10-11-2016, 04:14 PM
I'm shocked at how much the EQ varies between versions. I would have expected them to be somewhat close, but are very different.
Master #1. Loud and edgy. Not my preference, though for this genre of music some might like it. Seems more saturated too, again more than I like.
Master #2 is my preference. Slightly bottom heavy, but the EQ is more balanced than the others. Overall it's closest.
Master #3 is a little too bottom heavy. It feels like something odd is happening around 80 hz, though I can't put my finger on it.
Master #4 - Sharp and edgy, not enough bottom end for my preference.
#5 is my least favorite, the EQ is far too dark. It almost sounds like the high end was rolled off. Not close.
I've always been interested in Mastering and the Auto Mastering online services got my attention. The wave of opinions and such on automated mastering seems to range from "amazing!" to "terrible!". So, I figured I would do a little shoot out using a song I had mastered by a professional Mastering engineer.
I wanted things to be as real world as possible, but I also wanted the test to be highly accessible. So, I decided on using High Quality Mp3s encoded at 320kbps using the extreme encoding settings in Reaper. I encoded the files from the original wave file masters using Reaper 5 and the lame mp3 encoder.
In no particular order, the tracks were mastered using the following:
Advanced Auto Mastering System
LANDR
Mastering Box
A self re-master of the song, which I did using reaper plugins as well as Melda Production Plugins.
A Professional Mastering Engineer - John Scrip of Massive Mastering
I created a Zip of the various audio files along with a Reaper project and put them into google drive. You can access the files here (https://docs.google.com/a/levityproject.com/uc?export=download&confirm=fJQx&id=0B_-TzBQeNAEydE1YU3R2WGZLSjQ)
I also put a little poll on my website at https://sites.google.com/a/levityproject.com/levity-project/home-mastering/mastering/audio-mastering-shootout
Or here's a direct link (https://docs.google.com/a/levityproject.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd4GAJkocorUfInShxTQL3qOGFwQ04UsaesDDzbai9g sBBk3A/viewform) to the poll:
I've got this going here and the Home recording forum (http://homerecording.com/bbs/general-discussions/mastering/mastering-shootout-landr-mastering-box-aams-vs-real-people-391787/). I was trying to put the poll up here and at home recording, but couldn't figure it out.
Once there is a good number of responses, I'll reveal which master is which!
RedStone
10-11-2016, 04:25 PM
I can a non-mastered version as a separate link. I didn't include it because the mix level was super low - like DR12. So you'll have to adjust the volume of the masters manually to get a clear picture.
Great responses so far! Very interesting!
Jae.Thomas
10-11-2016, 04:36 PM
I can a non-mastered version as a separate link. I didn't include it because the mix level was super low - like DR12. So you'll have to adjust the volume of the masters manually to get a clear picture.
Great responses so far! Very interesting!
I would really like that, and plan on commenting on the masters
ts335
10-11-2016, 05:19 PM
#1 - Too harsh for my taste - snare pops but thin.
#2 - Good but guitars get messy in the middle
#3 - Too dark
#4 - My favorite but a bit on the bright side - crash cymbal - but snare has pop with some meat and the guitar separation is good, vocals sit well in the mix.
#5 - Waay to dark - where did the high end go?
Very cool idea and can't wait to see the final results.
Panic
10-11-2016, 05:22 PM
What drew you to Master 2 over the others?
Smooth and musical; everything sits well and holds up across a variety of levels, monitoring and environments. It reminds me of Stone Temple Pilots and the 90's. Also, it peaks more conservatively, which should help with translation on cheaper playback systems and give it an edge. The other masters clip.
drichard
10-11-2016, 05:42 PM
I didn't mention it, but I noted that as well.
...The other masters clip.
Softsynth
10-11-2016, 06:04 PM
I dropped every track 5dB to listen, I kept it that way for a second effort.
All versions mastered too loud, typically so are most commercial CDs today for Rock so maybe that's the way it has to be now?
Now comparing on Headphones. Very different experience. All mix elements in all versions are clear enough via cans (even mix 5 - which is ridiculously dark), just very different spectrally.
Master 2 could be the smoothest headphone experience, though a little dark and boring compared to 4; four which is a little too bright, too loud and slightly bass dry too, or could be described as edgy and exciting/lively.
Four is the most exciting to listen to thus probably the best mix for the genre. Four is most similar in balance to Porcupine tree (commercial CD).
I could make similar comments on the P.Tree too though it is a little more spacious and smoother.
Hope this is all helpful.
RedStone
10-11-2016, 07:15 PM
We have the first potential flaw of the test. clipping. It's a ton less than most commercial releases across the board. But it's there. And I think it is real world. Some masters just clip when converted to Mp3 ... especially ones which are DR8 or louder. Is it perceptually audible clippping? I don't think so ... but it's a consideration. Glad it was brought up!
Then again, one of the masteres clipped when processed even to wav, so I figured I would keep all clipping if it happened during mp3 conversion. There was no clipping on most of the cd quality wav files. So it's probably a conversion problem.
I personally like to see masters as clean as possible with no clips.
And good call on the genre. It's a consideration as well worth bearing in mind.
RedStone
10-11-2016, 07:56 PM
Update - I added the original mix at the top.
MRMJP
10-11-2016, 08:45 PM
It would be nice to hear 24-bit WAVs of these masters, or at least 16-bit instead of mp3. It's hard to know if the mp3 encoding is adding digital and/or true peak clipping or if the WAV masters have any of these issues. Regardless, it's important to be aware of what happens to peak levels when encoded to mp3 and set the output ceiling and oversampling option to avoid this and master #2 seems to be the one that made the best effort in that regard.
Master #1 has digital peaks and true peaks that exceed 0dBFS
Master #2 has safe digital peaks but true peaks that exceed 0dBFS
Master #3 has digital and true peaks that exceed 0dBFS in the left channel only
Master #4 has digital and true peaks that exceed 0dBFS
Master #5 has digital and true peaks that exceed 0dBFS
Anyway, I think master #4 sounds best, and #2 is probably LANDR and my choice for 2nd best.
Master #1 has some nice things but the highs feel boosted but in a way that doesn't work well for the song but might make sense to an algorithm or a human with an inaccurate monitor situation or relying on presets in a plugin.
Master #2 is my second favorite but the lows and low mids are not as well defined as #4. I'm thinking it's LANDR and it couldn't quite dig into some trouble spots in the lows and low mids with some surgical precision.
Masters #3 and #5 sound like something really went wrong in the high end and #5 is especially muddy. It sounds extremely amateur as if it was done in a poor listening room.
Master #2 abruptly clips the tail of the final note sustain and then leaves 2 seconds of silence after that which is weird.
Master #4 has a very abrupt ending and doesn't seem like something an automated service would do. The beginning is nicely cleaned and the start feels good. Appears to be a somewhat attention human.
Master #5 has to attention to detail at the start or end of the file. Probably an amateur human.
Master #1 has 10 seconds of silence at the end. Probably a self-master.
Master #4 has the low end more "mono" is likely something a human would do, and the artwork and metadata is also embedded and none of the other mp3s have that.
I don't know what Mastering Box is so I can't speculate on that. The original mix isn't bad. It might be a little dark but if you turn up the level on your monitors and forget about loudness, it's very listenable as is.
Also, I didn't have time this evening to scan every second of every version for clicks/crackles and other nosies but removal of these things is often the sign of human mastering engineer with great attention to detail. Sometimes noises and things that were not an issue or noticeable before mastering, can become more apparent or problematic after mastering where the average loudness is often raised significantly.
One of my main beefs with the automated mastering services is the lack of quality control that happens when it comes to this stuff. Sometimes it takes somebody to listen on a clear and accurate monitoring system to reveal unwanted noise and anomalies that may be hiding (or blatant) in a mix. Mastering is more than just the stereo buss processing.
RedStone
10-11-2016, 10:35 PM
MRMJP yeah I debated on doing wav files. The files overall were just too big for my junk nothern Internet. 320kbps mp3 was next best option. Come to think of it, Flac might be the best compromise.
This test was really for listenability only, not really the technical stuff. But it's a very good point you bring up. EQ, Compression and limiting etc is not the only part of mastering, but this is the whole of what these automated services advertise. A real person with attention to detail will take care of fades, notching resonance, clicks, pops etc. NONE of the automated services do this. So there's a +1 for hiring a real person. It's not just the ears, but the hands that go with them :)
MRMJP
10-12-2016, 05:00 AM
MRMJP yeah I debated on doing wav files. The files overall were just too big for my junk nothern Internet. 320kbps mp3 was next best option. Come to think of it, Flac might be the best compromise.
This test was really for listenability only, not really the technical stuff. But it's a very good point you bring up. EQ, Compression and limiting etc is not the only part of mastering, but this is the whole of what these automated services advertise. A real person with attention to detail will take care of fades, notching resonance, clicks, pops etc. NONE of the automated services do this. So there's a +1 for hiring a real person. It's not just the ears, but the hands that go with them :)
I understand about the file size. For most causal listening situations, it's hard to discern a 320kbps mp3 and a 16-bit/44.1k WAV. I was more curious to see the WAVs because as a mastering engineer, it's always interesting to see where other mastering engineers leave the peak levels from their final limiter output ceiling. As you probably know, any lossy encoding (or sample rate conversion) will increase the peak levels ever so slightly and it's even more exaggerated the lower the bitrate of the lossy encoding is. Some limiters have better oversampling and ISP detection to help minimize these issues and let you set a slightly higher output ceiling than others.
That being said, the fact that nearly all of these masters have digital peaks exceeding 0dBFS means that for most retailers and streamers that use 256kbps or less, the overs might be more extreme and start to become audible but I know that isn't the main purpose of this test.
I just like to point out some of the more technical things about mastering because especially now that we have so many automated options, so many people don't think about this stuff and think mastering is solely the stere bus processing when there is a lot more to it.
Somebody on another forum was talking up one of he new automated services and while the stereo bus processing sounded admittedly quite good, the original mix had a handful of digital clicks and other quality control things that get left by the wayside when it comes to these services. Yes, you can trim up and clean up the files after but if you are doing that with 16-bit files (or even 24-bit), you're opening the can of dithering/bit-depth worms and entering 32-bit or 64-bit floating point processing again.
I think the automated stuff can work OK if you are able to address these things before submitting but so many of these issues go unnoticed in mixing because there are many many other things to worry about at that time. Also, I think anything beyond mastering single songs, the automated mastering services require a human engineer that is familiar with the details of assembling an EP or album master for all the various formats that may be needed.
Anyway, this is an interesting test and I do look forward to learning how each version was mastered/stereo buss processed. I still think #4 was the professional human and #2 was LANDR.
RedStone
10-12-2016, 09:16 AM
Ah but then I would have needed to reduce peaks on all the test files, since seeing clips might bias a person even if overall, it was still the best master ;)
But like you said, stereo buss processing is only one part of the overall mastering process. And automated means "blanket approach" to some extent.
I could do another one where all the takes are level matched wav files. But I could set the level matching in the session, so you could still have access to the full nitty gritty details of the final masters.
I probably should do it anyhow, since even 0.5 dB of gain can appear fuller and punchier, even if it isn't. The loudness change between tracks can mask problems.
MRMJP
10-12-2016, 10:24 AM
I have mixed feelings on level matching test masters like this because the loudness and how you get the loudness is such a big part of the process these days, and I think once something is dithered to 16-bit, it's best to not touch it in any way.
The peak levels on the mp3 encode is really something that the mastering engineers or mastering robots should be considering and shouldn't be the concern of the client or end user.
I didn't hear any major concerns on the 320 mp3s for this test, but at lower bitrates these masters could get crunch due to peak level increases on the lossy encoding.
Even though master #4 has digital and true peaks that exceed 0dBFS, it was still the best to my ears.
pipelineaudio
10-12-2016, 12:33 PM
I'll take 1 or 4, didnt like 5 at all
Softsynth
10-12-2016, 01:09 PM
Five is surely a deliberately godawful mix thrown in for the test?
Original mix sounds clearer and better than any of these "mastered" mixes, much better.
Only the vocal could do with the being brought forward slightly in the mix by a slight boost in the presence region (keeping levels the same). Sounds fine on headphones, the suggestion is for the balance played back over speakers.
As stated four sounds more like a typical modern commercial CD, mastered to sound immediate, throwing out quality for impact.
Panic
10-13-2016, 08:03 AM
#4 was good, but way to hyped up top for my taste. I'm not surprised it's the most popular, though. Bright seems to be the new loud.
Anyway, let's have it. Which one was which?
RedStone
10-13-2016, 09:29 AM
OK here we go ...
Master #4 was definitely the most popular, and this was also the professonal mastering job. It was done in 2009 by John Scrip. This was also my top choice, as it translates extremely well across playback systems. I've had 8 years to test it out ;)
The big suprise was master #2. It got some notable love. This was masteringbox.com
The thing about mastering box though is no matter what you put into it, it all seems to come out the other end sounding the same. Heavily Scooped/Hyped. Also, there is an extreme amount of bass distortion. There are options for controlling EQ in the pro version, which would be interesting to play with.
#1 was the self master. It was a quickish master done on cans and not referenced properly. But I think it was still better than landr and aams. I should have spent some more time on it to avoid silly mistakes. I accidentally left a bunch of saturation on in the melda EQ, which smeared the mix, which in turn caused me to add too much 5k(ish) presence. Oops.
#3 was LANDR. I tried low, medium and high intensity settings. My thought was that all of the LANDR masters sounded close to the original mix, which lacked clarity. But LANDR also scooped out mids in all the wrong places, albeit gently.
#5 was AAMS. Just terrible! I tried a bunch of settings, and they all sounded worse than the original mix.
Softsynth
10-13-2016, 09:50 AM
#5 was AAMS. Just terrible! I tried a bunch of settings, and they all sounded worse than the original mix.
Versions 1-4 all sound worse than the original mix too!
This includes the pro mix 4, which does sound like another poor commercial CD. Exciting, brash and lo-fi (U2 would be proud, another two fingers up at Pink Floyd).
Too much compression is the sound of Rock it seems.
We seem to all go for four out of the mastered versions. I can enjoy the track on version 4 but the original is much better.
Panic
10-13-2016, 10:01 AM
Thanks RedStone. I didn't much care for the low end of #2, but preferred it to the top end of #1 and #4. Not surprising #2 wasn't a person. Surprising that you find #4 translates well. I listened them all on a half dozen setups and the treble on 1 and 4 varied from pleasant to painful. Maybe I need a hearing test. :) Anyway, this was fun and informative. Thanks!
Softsynth
10-13-2016, 10:11 AM
Thanks RedStone. I didn't much care for the low end of #2, but preferred it to the top end of #1 and #4. Not surprising #2 wasn't a person. Surprising that you find #4 translates well. I listened them all on a half dozen setups and the treble on 1 and 4 varied from pleasant to painful. Maybe I need a hearing test. :) Anyway, this was fun and informative. Thanks!
Panic,
It seems to me your hearing is fine. An old gent that had lost most of his high frequencies would probably prefer version 4 for that reason.
How do you feel mix four stacks up against the original mix?
Link copied from his first post:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-TzBQeNAEyVmxEazIzOXBPbXM/view
Softsynth
10-13-2016, 10:23 AM
Redstone,
It was an interesting exercise, thanks for sharing, and as Dave Allen used to say "May your God go with you" ;)
RedStone
10-13-2016, 10:41 AM
Panic/Softsynth - true. I liked the top end of #2 as well. It was bright but also had a soft quality. Really pleasing. It was the mids and lows on that one which didn't work to my ears. Mids were scoopy and lows were distorted.
Softsynth - I'm humbled that you liked the original mix that much ... probably there's a feedback loop that happens in commercial music. Hyped up music is the reference, so everything else sounds dull in comparison.
Thanks for all the responses!
MRMJP
10-13-2016, 11:13 AM
Thanks for posting the results, very interesting.
What is AAMS?
mlprod
10-13-2016, 12:30 PM
Interesting and not surprising that the most popular one was the human pro.
I do think the auto-master services can fill a niche with people that are not comfortable doing bus processing them selves and just need to get something decent fast and cheap. Like for demos of songwriters, simple commercial spots, stuff like that.
I dont feel like I have/need to try and compete with them at all.
Softsynth
10-13-2016, 12:35 PM
Thanks for posting the results, very interesting.
What is AAMS?
I didn't know either, simple to find out, or am I breaching some kind of internet etiquette?
In Firefox for instance highlight something you want to look up in someone's post > right click on mouse> "search Google for" ..... done! ;)
http://www.curioza.com/
MRMJP
10-13-2016, 12:55 PM
I didn't know either, simple to find out, or am I breaching some kind of internet etiquette?
In Firefox for instance highlight something you want to look up in someone's post > right click on mouse> "search Google for" ..... done! ;)
http://www.curioza.com/
I had a guess but lucky for them I was wrong. There is another automated mastering service that has been getting a lot of praise that has basically the same initials.
Master #5 AAMS was by far my least favorite of the 5. It sounds about as bad as that website looks :)
Softsynth
10-13-2016, 01:03 PM
I had a guess but lucky for them I was wrong. There is another automated mastering service that has been getting a lot of praise that has basically the same initials.
Master #5 AAMS was by far my least favorite of the 5. It sounds about as bad as that website looks :)
"Least favorite" a very polite way to put it. Comically bad would be the less charitable way, especially when put next to 4 which sounds like a typical pro commercial mix (for good and for ill). Presumably something can go wrong in AAMS's process that renders some mixes like this? Hard to imagine the software company expect their program to do this!
There's still the possibility I have picked the wrong one.
Master #4 was definitely the most popular, and this was also the professonal mastering job. It was done in 2009 by John Scrip. This was also my top choice, as it translates extremely well across playback systems. I've had 8 years to test it out ;)
The big suprise was master #2. It got some notable love. This was masteringbox.com
The thing about mastering box though is no matter what you put into it, it all seems to come out the other end sounding the same. Heavily Scooped/Hyped. Also, there is an extreme amount of bass distortion. There are options for controlling EQ in the pro version, which would be interesting to play with.
One thing I've noticed with these shootouts and various contests, brighter mixes seem to win out 9 times out of 10.
My first pick was #2 and the next was #4. To me some of the brightness of #4 was a little harsh and too bright.
You mention bass distortion in #2, I don't think I heard any of that. Actually with all the other distortion going on, it would be hard for me to tell. :)
MRMJP
10-13-2016, 01:36 PM
I would add that while #4 was slightly bright for my taste, it was still my favorite overall because of the way the lows and low mids were cleaned up and managed. I think #2 got the high end more correct but had some other things that I didn't care for.
Softsynth
10-13-2016, 01:38 PM
Tod,
As you preferred mix two have a listen to his non mastered mix, it has almost non of these problems.
Maybe it is just me but I prefer instrument clarity over the current(typically brash) commercial compressed style any day of the week. I'm not against using distortion artfully of course.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-...IzOXBPbXM/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-TzBQeNAEyVmxEazIzOXBPbXM/view)
Retro Audio Enthusiast
10-13-2016, 01:39 PM
I tried LANDR but wasn't impressed, either with the results or their marketing attitude ("Plugins are complicated - use LANDR"). I tried to get background on who LANDR is and it turns out it's Amazon.com, not an indie DSP software company.
This vid pretty much persuaded me it's just loudness and multiband compression, nothing more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHDQdQECNHM
Panic
10-13-2016, 02:14 PM
Yeah, the best master was a combination.
Tod,
As you preferred mix two have a listen to his non mastered mix, it has almost non of these problems.
Maybe it is just me but I prefer instrument clarity over the current(typically brash) commercial compressed style any day of the week. I'm not against using distortion artfully of course.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-...IzOXBPbXM/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-TzBQeNAEyVmxEazIzOXBPbXM/view)
Nice song Softsynth.
I don't necessarily think mastering is a bad thing, or results in less than good sounding recordings, and I'm sure that's not what you meant.
You mention the "current(typically brash) commercial compressed style", and you might be right, I think I tend to agree with you. I find it hard to listen to most of the R&R and Metal that's so prominent today. At times, it seems like it's all about the distortion, heh heh, I don't know, maybe the idea of clean sounds has become totally alien. :)
Heh heh, but don't mind me, I'm an old fart from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. :D
Softsynth
10-13-2016, 03:40 PM
Nice song Softsynth.
Absolutely nothing to to with me, as I'm sure you know! (comment for casual readers):)
I don't necessarily think mastering is a bad thing, or results in less than good sounding recordings, and I'm sure that's not what you meant.
Absolutely not no, mastering can be very useful, depending on what you start with.
You mention the "current(typically brash) commercial compressed style", and you might be right, I think I tend to agree with you. I find it hard to listen to most of the R&R and Metal that's so prominent today. At times, it seems like it's all about the distortion, heh heh, I don't know, maybe the idea of clean sounds has become totally alien. :)
Heh heh, but don't mind me, I'm an old fart from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. :D
It's one thing using distortion pedals/fx on the instruments. Quite another to cause distortion in the recording process or to add it to the master!
Keep taking the charcoal biscuits and rocking on! :D
grinder
10-13-2016, 03:57 PM
Oh I just had to download and have a listen not an expert however just my observations
No1 I heard clipping and distortion could not play this through
No2 Better
No 3 Although muddy behind vocals sounds more natural I would have thought a little work at the tracking end would mean not a lot to bring that up to speed.
No 4 A little unnaturally Bright and a bit peaky that said the best of the bunch
No 5 Lifeless
Just my two cents (do they make them any more?)
Grinder
original - overall decent sounding. the high mids are a little obscured (possibly an artifact of mp3 compression but it sounds like more than that) Bringing some of that out would liven it up and also likely bump the level up right in the release ballpark. More detail on the instruments and let a few transients poke out here and there.
master 1 - Harsh high mid distortion! High mids that were obscured are still obscured too. Too loud.
master 2 - Weird peak turned up in the mids. Doesn't address the obscured stuff. Just sounds bad. Distorted. Too loud again.
master 3 - High mids still subdued and now the top high end is subdued too. Too loud again. (The distortion from the crushing is likely the cause of the top end drop. You can only hear that when matching the volumes between them to compare. Otherwise you just hear loud and distorted.)
master 4 - Harsh high mid distortion! High mids that were obscured are still obscured too. Way too loud.
master 5 - Muddy and loud.
The original sounds best hands down. 1-4 sound appallingly harsh and too loud. 5 is loud and muddy for it.
This sounded like a good experiment and I expected a better outcome honestly. Although I notice my bad reviews also include work by actual people (possibly with feelings) for one of the examples which probably makes me some kind of asshole. (Or was that a trick question and these are ALL automated online thingies?) None of these were remotely close to being legitimate mastering work. All did significant damage.
PS. I found no wav files at the links. Only mp3. Mp3 might be bad in a lot of ways but doesn't cause the gross distortion I'm hearing here. The original (also in mp3) does not have the same damage.
grinder
10-14-2016, 02:14 AM
The original was not there for me just an empty wave file!
So I had no original to listen too.
I felt I should say I would be disappointed myself if any of the mixes where on a album of mine.
The tune offered much better.
Pay's to be honest the material was better than the actions involved in producing.
Grinder
Softsynth
10-14-2016, 02:23 AM
The original was not there for me just an empty wave file!
So I had no original to listen too.
I felt I should say I would be disappointed myself if any of the mixes where on a album of mine.
The tune offered much better.
Pay's to be honest the material was better than the actions involved in producing.
Grinder
Strange, his link still works for me.
If you cannot play it in your browser you can simply download it. Which I did anyway to load it in the project.
Top right arrow with flat line >click on it >box appears >download file.
OP's link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-TzBQeNAEyVmxEazIzOXBPbXM/view
Ulf3000
10-14-2016, 04:13 AM
hey i really like that song ,chords/melody remind me strongly of that title song for the second batman movie (90īs)
for me its number 1 2 or 4 , but the guitar always masks the voice + lots of rumble . so the mix is bad already, but op posted this is a 2009 song so its understandable that it doesnīt touch modern mixes ...
on AAMS : i tried this prog before and on one song it "worked" (it sounded different but not bad)
on another song it ddnīt work at all .. so i stopped that kind of experiments right there, because you cannot trust its in-transparency !
its probably better to use ones own mastering tools directly in the daw master chain , izotope make great products (although they all eat tons of cpu), im still on an old ass copy of ozone4 (this is like 10 years old and one of the first 64 bit vsts to ever release on this planet but it still works like a charm ) , i can only guess how good ozone7 must sound.
RedStone
10-14-2016, 08:32 AM
I checked the dynamic range of the 09 master, as well as my self master. Agreed, WAY too smashed. I aim to master to more than DR8. I have no idea why I decided DR7 was appropriate this time.
Would anyone be interested if I put put the 16-bit WAV files? I can only do it for the original master, AAMS and the self-master. LANDR and Mastering Box only gave me the HQ mp3s. I'll re-look at the self-master and adjust things to what I would normally do.
Softsynth
10-14-2016, 09:04 AM
No need for original WAV, turn it into FLAC. The lossless format FLAC is exactly the same sonically, it is simply more efficient through compressing unused data space.
It isn't going to add much to the exercise though.
I checked the dynamic range of the 09 master, as well as my self master. Agreed, WAY too smashed. I aim to master to more than DR8. I have no idea why I decided DR7 was appropriate this time.
Would anyone be interested if I put put the 16-bit WAV files? I can only do it for the original master, AAMS and the self-master. LANDR and Mastering Box only gave me the HQ mp3s. I'll re-look at the self-master and adjust things to what I would normally do.
Posting the 24 bit files as FLAC would be good as always.
Again though, the gross distortion and slammed levels I hear go FAR beyond mp3 destruction!
Treat the portable formats (16 bit CD, mp3) as an aside after making your 24 bit master.
If you still have the tracks, go back to the mix and work on exposing detail of the instruments. It sounds like there's a lot of compression going on in the mix (ie too much) but I can only speculate without hearing the raw tracks.
Heh. Looks like mixing/mastering engineering work will not be replaced by robots today! :D (Not the above robots anyway...)
DogBBQ
10-14-2016, 02:11 PM
First Off Thanks For sharing your music with Us RedStone
Second I approach these sort of shootouts with One thing In mind
"Comparison Is The Death Of Joy"
That Being Said I didn't listen One After the Other Or jump from one to the Other I listened to other Music In between Each Version
I liked the Song and Liked all the Masterings they each sounded different and had a quality and allowed the song to be enjoyed
Sadly Master #5 didn't cut it for me
richie43
10-14-2016, 02:45 PM
Another online "mastering" service to try.....
https://www.masterlizer.com/
Softsynth
10-14-2016, 03:33 PM
First Off Thanks For sharing your music with Us SoftSynth
Hi DogBBQ,
This is NOT MY MUSIC I had NOTHING to do with it, on any level.
THIS IS MUSIC BY THE original poster.
just happy to help by commenting on his mixes :)
This is my favourite religious themed track:
WlBiLNN1NhQ
richie43
10-14-2016, 03:41 PM
This is my favourite religious themed track:
WlBiLNN1NhQ
Ha ha...one of my all-time favorites.
DogBBQ
10-14-2016, 03:49 PM
Hi DogBBQ,
This is NOT MY MUSIC I had NOTHING to do with it, on any level.
THIS IS MUSIC BY THE original poster.
just happy to help by commenting on his mixes :)
DOH!!!
Fixed the original post
Sorry For any inconvenience this caused any of the affected parties
Softsynth
10-14-2016, 03:54 PM
DOH!!!
Fixed the original post
Sorry For any inconvenience this caused any of the effected parties
That's okay. We all sometimes skip through posts and get the wrong idea from time to time. Best to always look on the bright side......
RedStone
10-14-2016, 03:55 PM
So this is lame ... google drive didn't properly update the links. I had done a preliminary zip file but then had updated my self master because I forgot to dither. It never showed. The one that showed up was un-dithered and had a different EQ curve and was stupid hot. I was kind of wondering about some of the comments. now I see.
I think the final self master is still edgy, and there was some compression distortion in the mix as was pointed out.
Anyway, if you're curious, I converted the final self master into a 16-bit flac.
I mastered it to the quiet side of DR8 (8.5)
Integrated Loudness = -11.1 LUFS
True Peaks -0.99dbFS
0 clipped samples (even when converted to 128kbps mp3)
Here's some info on the other masters
Pro Master (#4) was the hot side of DR7 (6.9)
Mastering Box (#2) was also the hot side of DR7 (6.8)
LANDR (#3) was mid way between DR7 and DR8 (7.5)
AAMS - who cares. It was so bad! OK -- the ONE thing AAMS may have gotten right was loudness. It was DR8 and almost perfectly DR8. It's possible to set the output ceiling manually in the program so the peaks don't exceed -1, -0.5 or whatever.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-TzBQeNAEyazdsRGdubEp2RDg/view?usp=sharing
endorka
10-15-2016, 09:24 AM
A bit late to the party here, I listed to them before reading the comments on the thread though. Listened after a wee whisky, so...
1) gtrs on verse too loud. gtrs on chorus too loud vs vocals. sore on ears overall. Too harsh. Too loud.
2) more pleasant. gtrs still too loud vs. vocals. Chorus too smashed, hard on ears.
3) starts well. Gentler but dull sounding. But vocal clearer. You get used to the smoother sound. Easier to listen to than 1 & 2.
4) good at start vocals clearer vs. snare & gtrs. Space. Chorus too smashed. Hard on ears.
5) Muffled. Too dull.
I find the bright sound difficult to listen to for any length of time. Guess I'm getting old and curmudgeonly, but thankful I can still hear these frequencies :-)
I liked the original mix, it's more enjoyable to listen to. Maybe just a little more clarity in the mids might be good? When 2 & 4 are level matched to the original mix, they initially sound better due to the brightness, but soon become tiresome.
Jennifer
RedStone
10-15-2016, 10:03 AM
A bit late to the party here, I listed to them before reading the comments on the thread though. Listened after a wee whisky, so...
1) gtrs on verse too loud. gtrs on chorus too loud vs vocals. sore on ears overall. Too harsh. Too loud.
2) more pleasant. gtrs still too loud vs. vocals. Chorus too smashed, hard on ears.
3) starts well. Gentler but dull sounding. But vocal clearer. You get used to the smoother sound. Easier to listen to than 1 & 2.
4) good at start vocals clearer vs. snare & gtrs. Space. Chorus too smashed. Hard on ears.
5) Muffled. Too dull.
I find the bright sound difficult to listen to for any length of time. Guess I'm getting old and curmudgeonly, but thankful I can still hear these frequencies :-)
I liked the original mix, it's more enjoyable to listen to. Maybe just a little more clarity in the mids might be good? When 2 & 4 are level matched to the original mix, they initially sound better due to the brightness, but soon become tiresome.
Jennifer
Thanks Jennier - yes your comments capture what turned out to be the consensus in the thread. All of the masters turned out too harsh, too dull, or too bottom heavy. But the pro master was still the overall best of the lot according to the poll.
Try the 16-bit flac I put up. It's the actual final self-master. I realized it didn't go up when I tested the Dynamic range of the files by re-downloading the link at the beginning of the thread. Too late now, but I did it for posterity.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-TzBQeNAEyazdsRGdubEp2RDg/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-TzBQeNAEyazdsRGdubEp2RDg/view?usp=sharing)
endorka
10-15-2016, 10:32 AM
Try the 16-bit flac I put up. It's the actual final self-master.
I enjoyed that, there seems to be more life in it, especially in the lower end, even when listening at low volume.
Jennifer
Softsynth
10-15-2016, 12:12 PM
Your final Flac version was better. Easily the best. Perhap you should trust your own ears. :)
I've heard plenty of commercial (A list bands) discs sound a lot worse.
Even so it remains a balance that is not to my personal taste. Slightly too bright and brash. Sweeten the top end a little (perhaps a small dip in the presence region on the master (careful not to make it dull and recessed) and gently rolled off top.
My suggestion here is really more of a "sweeten to taste" serving suggestion!
Lets not go back and forth with it. I am just suggesting where I would take it.
RedStone
10-15-2016, 03:23 PM
Your final Flac version was better. Easily the best. Perhap you should trust your own ears. :)
I've heard plenty of commercial (A list bands) discs sound a lot worse.
Even so it remains a balance that is not to my personal taste. Slightly too bright and brash. Sweeten the top end a little (perhaps a small dip in the presence region on the master (careful not to make it dull and recessed) and gently rolled off top.
My suggestion here is really more of a "sweeten to taste" serving suggestion!
Lets not go back and forth with it. I am just suggesting where I would take it.
That's cool.What I ended up doing with my latest CD was a load of referencing. Take it to the car, make a minor adjustment. Listen on the HiFi, make another small adjustment etc etc. It is a crazy balancing act. But it's a lot of fun to figure out.
chronocepter
10-15-2016, 04:53 PM
On my speakers (and ears of course):
#1 Seems lack vocal presence
#2 quite "bassy".
#3 quite Muddy
#4 quite Bright
#5 too Dark
I pick #2 with -2.5~3.5db low shelf at 50hz to sound more natural on subs, but for some reasons people want that wubs
chronocepter
10-15-2016, 05:17 PM
Way too loud. [...] The original sounds best[...]
Yeah...yeah... I just ad some suggar (mid/higs -for the kids) and comp to bring up a litte bit... and... souds ok.
Induce people to turn the volume knob up is a tough decision.
For a good music, just equilibrate the things and done. All the pool seems about a chocolate pie vs lemon pie.
denisvdvelde
10-25-2016, 05:04 AM
#5 AAMS Mastered track.
==========================
All i hear in this forum is it is MUDDY and liveless.
So i did a check on the files! Had a re-run of the mastering test.
(1) I downloaded the ZIP file.
(2) I used 'Levity Project - Future - Original Mix (Normalized to -0.5db).mp3' as Original file.
(3) I downloaded the Freeware AAMS (www.curioza.com).
(4) I Used the Original File with the suggested Alternative_Rock.Preset from AAMS.
Quess what ? It does not sound muddby at all....
So i checked again, with the @master_RMS.preset of AAMS. Again it does not sound muddy at all. I compared the #5 file with the mastered file (new) of AAMS, the differences are out of the ballpark. This was not even close to each other.
The Original file, mastered with AAMS, It sounds good! And not muddy at all.
If you need proof i send it to ya (d.vdvelde@chello.nl).
You can do the test yourself. (And back me up).
Just repeat the steps above. And tell your outcome.
So i Say #5 file is a mistake and not Mastered With AAMS.
RedStone
10-25-2016, 10:46 AM
#5 AAMS Mastered track.
==========================
All i hear in this forum is it is MUDDY and liveless.
So i did a check on the files! Had a re-run of the mastering test.
(1) I downloaded the ZIP file.
(2) I used 'Levity Project - Future - Original Mix (Normalized to -0.5db).mp3' as Original file.
(3) I downloaded the Freeware AAMS (www.curioza.com).
(4) I Used the Original File with the suggested Alternative_Rock.Preset from AAMS.
Quess what ? It does not sound muddby at all....
So i checked again, with the @master_RMS.preset of AAMS. Again it does not sound muddy at all. I compared the #5 file with the mastered file (new) of AAMS, the differences are out of the ballpark. This was not even close to each other.
The Original file, mastered with AAMS, It sounds good! And not muddy at all.
If you need proof i send it to ya (d.vdvelde@chello.nl).
You can do the test yourself. (And back me up).
Just repeat the steps above. And tell your outcome.
So i Say #5 file is a mistake and not Mastered With AAMS.
If this is the case, then AAMS does different things to the audio depending on the level of input you put into the program. WITHOUT A DOUBT, I USED AAMS v3 FOR MIX#5. TWICE.
Like I've said elsewhere, you did not put the original mix into AAMS. You put a normalized version through AAMS, and therefore you put a semi-mastered version through the program which gave completely different results than putting my original mix through it. ANY decisions you make to change the loudness or sound of the mix after the final mix-down are mastering decisions. This includes feeding a compressor with gain, which is effectively what the normalization I performed did. So in essence, using AAMS with a normalized track was a sort of hybrid mastering.
Perhaps the program needs to normalize mixes before doing anything else so the results are more consistent? What I do know that without a doubt, if AAMS did the best job on MY mix, I would be the first one shouting it from the rooftops. It did not. So ... it is what it is. Maybe it's a glitch in the program.
I also don't appreciate being trolled, but whatever. AAMS did a terrible job with the mix I put into it, which was NOT normalized. It was the original final mix. And the result was dull and lifeless. This was a real world test, and AAMS failed that test.
This is not to say that AAMS can't produce workable results. I have used AAMS in the past and got results I was happy with. But it took a lot of experimentation and making 'mastering' decisions. This is not a program one can simply put any old mix through and get something workable.
denisvdvelde
10-25-2016, 12:06 PM
'Levity Project - Future - Original Mix (Normalized to -0.5db).mp3'
I used this file with the preset you asked me to use, and repeat that the same way with AAMS. I did not do anything different. And i do not have the same result as mastered track Nr. 5, what you say was done by AAMS.
Every user here can re-test it!
Also AAMS can analyze tracks and i did compare them both. They do not even match up in EQ (frequency spectrum) at al. So i did not mean normalize like you say. I mean the specturm analyzer can compare music, and Nr.5 of your masters does not even compare.
And like you say, if you change around the Original track, it would not matter much, because AAMS will try to mimic the reference file, not the source. So any loudness or normalizing would not matter, even if you would tweak around Lows/higs/mids, etc, it would not matter. AAMS will just do the same thing, master the source to the reference.
So this muddy sound as Nr. 5 of your mastering was, is not produced by AAMS.
Any user can test it.
:)
denisvdvelde
10-25-2016, 12:17 PM
Like I've said elsewhere, you did not put the original mix into AAMS. You put a normalized version through AAMS, and therefore you put a semi-mastered version through the program which gave completely different results than putting my original mix through it. ANY decisions you make to change the loudness or sound of the mix after the final mix-down are mastering decisions. This includes feeding a compressor with gain, which is effectively what the normalization I performed did. So in essence, using AAMS with a normalized track was a sort of hybrid mastering.
Like i say, it does not even matter.
Even if you take the NR.5 mastered file you posted here, put it trough AAMS with the same alt.rock reference, it would not have this muddy result. It also does not matter frequency wise if you put a non mastered or mastered or normalized track into AAMS. You think it is, but it is not. It would not affect the Frequency line. It would only affect volume. You would have to change volume so dramaticly like 8x or more, then maybe because of the fletcher munson curves the user would hear a slight difference. That is just because of listeners expirience. And i am pretty sure it would be the same with Landr of other of the web mastering services. It is a listeners experience, i know that. But what you say is not true. And you did not re-test it, but tried to answer directly without testing.
So any users wants to confirm my statement ?
So i did a check on the files! Had a re-run of the mastering test.
(1) I downloaded the ZIP file.
(2) I used 'Levity Project - Future - Original Mix (Normalized to -0.5db).mp3' as Original file.
(3) I downloaded the Freeware AAMS (www.curioza.com).
(4) I Used the Original File with the suggested Alternative_Rock.Preset from AAMS.
Quess what ? It does not sound muddby at all....
So i checked again, with the @master_RMS.preset of AAMS. Again it does not sound muddy at all. I compared the #5 file with the mastered file (new) of AAMS, the differences are out of the ballpark. This was not even close to each other.
RedStone
10-25-2016, 01:03 PM
Lower the gain on the original normalized mixdown by exactly 9.95db and re-render it. Then run it throuhg AAMS. This will be exactly what the original mixdown was. The result through AAMS will be bad.
Then run the Normalized mixdown through AAMS and it does a much better job. End of story. It's a design flaw in the program that I'm sure can be quite easily fixed by adding some sort of normalization routine so that all mixes run through AAMS at an optimized gain stage. We're all on the same team here and I'm happy to do a re-test once this issue is fixed in the program.
denisvdvelde
10-26-2016, 03:19 AM
Lower the gain on the original normalized mixdown by exactly 9.95db and re-render it. Then run it throuhg AAMS. This will be exactly what the original mixdown was. The result through AAMS will be bad.
Then run the Normalized mixdown through AAMS and it does a much better job. End of story. It's a design flaw in the program that I'm sure can be quite easily fixed by adding some sort of normalization routine so that all mixes run through AAMS at an optimized gain stage. We're all on the same team here and I'm happy to do a re-test once this issue is fixed in the program.
I lowered the MP3 Original by -9.95 dB. The normalize function you mention is allready inplemented for a longtime inside AAMS. Sorry mate but i tested with the current version of AAMS V3.1 Rev 006, and just the settings it comes installed with. And Quess what ?? NO MUDDY SOUND. I just asked you 4x to check it if you made a mistake, and all i get is that the mistake must be AAMS. So i re-tested it for the fourth time! NO MUDDY SOUND! The sound is crystal clear..
I am just mentioning you re-test it with AAMS fresh install and do not change settings. Just press the master button. With this i dont'get the MUDDY results...
The Mastering flaw might be that you fiddled with AAMS V3 settings ?
chip mcdonald
10-26-2016, 08:47 AM
(looping chorus)
Original mix
Too much collision at 250hz, 581. Vocal too loud 3db, drums too pushed down by 2 mix compression, need more 1k-ish. Too much 2 mix compression?
"Quick master" thoughts: I took 2 db out at 296, add 2 db 3.4k.
Master 1
Squashed, distorted, frequency limited compression, "old school Finalizer". Makes it more "what you expect these days" I suppose.
Master 2
Same as 1, more aggressive treble compression, slight top octave boost/expansion. "Smoother" but not what I like.
Master 3
Lopsided eq compression, low mid buildup squashed but brought forward.
Master 4
Squashed, lots of 3-4k, which sort of balances out the low mid build up but is abrasive.
Master 5
Oooh, hmm.... wayyy too much low mid/upper bass, high end dull. I would guess this is in reaction to the guitars being very compressed, cymbals being very compressed and colliding.
(I have done this without reading the rest of your post for "non-bias" purposes, hope it does not offend).
/ $.10
Makes it more "what you expect these days" I suppose.
It's 2016. I expect pristine sound, 24 bit HD formats, 5.1 surround sound mixes in addition to stereo, and mixes that make me say "Wow! How did they do that?"
I don't expect to hear what sounds like an mp3 run through a tube screamer stomp box!
I mean, it's all relative. No budget releases in the past were on cassette and 99% of the time just a crazy exercise in generation loss and muddy sound. The bar has been raised even with some of the worst modern releases.
My first thought when I first saw the post was to laugh and roll my eyes. But then I thought - Alright asshole (that's me) download the tracks and see if it doesn't humble me and make me fear my profession has become obsolete.
The mixing and mastering professions have NOT become obsolete today!
If one of these HAD to be released as is it would be the original with no second thought.
denisvdvelde
10-26-2016, 01:06 PM
It's 2016. I expect pristine sound, 24 bit HD formats, 5.1 surround sound mixes in addition to stereo, and mixes that make me say "Wow! How did they do that?"
I don't expect to hear what sounds like an mp3 run through a tube screamer stomp box!
I mean, it's all relative. No budget releases in the past were on cassette and 99% of the time just a crazy exercise in generation loss and muddy sound. The bar has been raised even with some of the worst modern releases.
My first thought when I first saw the post was to laugh and roll my eyes. But then I thought - Alright asshole (that's me) download the tracks and see if it doesn't humble me and make me fear my profession has become obsolete.
The mixing and mastering professions have NOT become obsolete today!
If one of these HAD to be released as is it would be the original with no second thought.
Basically your right, your job is not on the line.
So a mastering engineer might be needed when a user is looking for some kind of sound. And if he or she does not do that in the mix, they will want somebody to master it. Most of them are expecting some kind of sound (that they can't create themselves) because it is a hassle to record music and mix music. When they come to the part of mastering they are lost and want somebody to do this. Especially when they are looking for a sound that is not really in their mix, or at the other hand expect exactly the same sound as their mix is mastered.
But however, nowdays most musicians at home recordings, simple dont have the money to do real masterings by humans. So in come AAMS, Landr and many other so called mastering sites or software. One click solutions.
The trick is to fix it in the mix, it was allways that way. But specially with the one-click solutions, after a while you know what will come out. So they adjust their mixing towards the one click mastering. That actually works really well. And offcourse it is a money thing, home artists are not really gonna spend a lot of money for a mastering engineer. Amateurs look for amateur solutions.
Like this mastering shootout, it is a nice test. But however the mix was not done for mastering with AAMS or Landr in mind. You might say, how stupid is that ? To mix for a solution ? If you kick it trough like Landr you know what comes out. After a while you create mixes that pass better trough Landr. It is the same with a Mastering Engineer one you know each other, you have a system of working. The longer applied, the more and better results will come.
Lucian
10-26-2016, 05:03 PM
I use AAMS but I agree, for a one click solution, it sucks.
I use it mostly in manual mode as the one click thing renders in 16 bit.
Watch some videos on how to really use it, it is a great teaching tool.
It will do 100 band EQ matching on any source and save it as a template.
To really get anything useful needs human interaction where it only offers hopefully useful suggestions that you can ignore, modify or accept.
Yes, I am a fan boy but not on the fully automated one click master. It is teaching me how to use my ears and a good tool for the price
RedStone
10-26-2016, 06:17 PM
(looping chorus)
(I have done this without reading the rest of your post for "non-bias" purposes, hope it does not offend).
/ $.10
Nope no offense at all. The pro master got most of the votes. Despite its flaws, it was the most popular. I did the original mixes almost 10 years ago on a pair of Yorkville ysm1p's. No room treatment just lots and lots of experimenting, tweaking and re-tweaking. I also had no clue about the recording part (mic positioning? Why bother learning that? Lol) For what it was, I was happy with it as I was shooting in the dark most of the time and the final masters "miraculously" stood up well against my collection of rock music.
I spent less than 3k on that 11 song CD and was able to sell gear at the end of it to nearly cover the cost. Not bad, now that I think of it!
RedStone
10-26-2016, 06:22 PM
I lowered the MP3 Original by -9.95 dB. The normalize function you mention is allready inplemented for a longtime inside AAMS. Sorry mate but i tested with the current version of AAMS V3.1 Rev 006, and just the settings it comes installed with. And Quess what ?? NO MUDDY SOUND. I just asked you 4x to check it if you made a mistake, and all i get is that the mistake must be AAMS. So i re-tested it for the fourth time! NO MUDDY SOUND! The sound is crystal clear..
I am just mentioning you re-test it with AAMS fresh install and do not change settings. Just press the master button. With this i dont'get the MUDDY results...
The Mastering flaw might be that you fiddled with AAMS V3 settings ?
I'm not sure what's going on then. I re-ran it twice plus one yesterda with the same dull results. Why do it do that? Beats me, but it did. It's just one one those things. Gotta let it go and move forward.
denisvdvelde
10-26-2016, 11:48 PM
I'm not sure what's going on then. I re-ran it twice plus one yesterda with the same dull results. Why do it do that? Beats me, but it did. It's just one one those things. Gotta let it go and move forward.
I think you did not download AAMS and reinstalled it. I dont hear that, your running the same version as you have. Yeah sure, but remember you are just trowing in your audio mix into software or websites, and do not care about it. While if you had a mastering engineer you would be carefull. That is the difference. If you had the same results with a mastering engineer you would know somebody made a mistake. While here you just post it like 'i just throw in my mix into some mastering bots' and see the bad results. I just say, you also raised the Mix by 10db upwards. And therefore it is not the mix that went inside all of these mastering bots. It is not a clear test.
chip mcdonald
10-27-2016, 10:45 AM
I
I mean, it's all relative. No budget releases in the past were on cassette and 99% of the time just a crazy exercise in generation loss and muddy sound. The bar has been raised even with some of the worst modern releases.
My first thought when I first saw the post was to laugh and roll my eyes. But then I thought - Alright asshole (that's me) download the tracks and see if it doesn't humble me and make me fear my profession has become obsolete.
It's not my fault things sound like that these days, I'm not condoning it by simply pointing it out.
It's not my fault things sound like that these days, I'm not condoning it by simply pointing it out.
Sorry, I wasn't clear that I was acknowledging what I took to be a sarcastic comment and adding my 2c. :)
Your critique reads like mine and most in the thread.
I honestly don't believe anyone truly wants to hear distorted mutilated masters "these days" either. Lack of budget is where it comes from. And especially with releases that are just "another day, another product" vs. "art".
On the one hand, the bar has been raised and it's cool that stuff like this works as well as it does. But if someone's actually trying to do their best and be fussy, it really flies out the window.
Having said that, I was still a bit surprised at the level of gross damage done to the original in every case. If I delivered a master like any of the above, I'd expect to be fired and not even given a second chance.
denisvdvelde
01-27-2017, 09:05 AM
www.curioza.com
pbx3john
01-27-2017, 12:37 PM
In order I like: 4 best, 2 2nd, 1 3rd, Not a fan of 3 or 5
Great song!
#4 metadata kinda ruined the test for me...
denisvdvelde
02-20-2017, 04:33 AM
AAMS V3.5 Rev 001 Released
www.curioza.com
A New version of AAMS V3 is out now.
AAMS V3 Auto Audio Mastering System Key Features :
One button audio mastering!
Over 200+ different styles to compare your track to.
Requires very little user input.
Create you own sound.
Audio Analyzing power!
Analyzer, analyzes your original audio file to a Source file.
Source File, your original analyzed and imported audio source file.
Reference Database File, out of the Reference Database of +200 Styles.
User Reference File, create reference files out of a batch.
Adjust the reference with the spectrum linear EQ envelopes.
AAMS Suggestions, automatic calculations in charts and displays, allways updated.
DSP Analyzer Player, plays your audio file, hear changes directly, adjust, then master.
Audio Processing power!
DSP-EQ - 100 Band Spectrum Equalizer with auto setup..
DSP-Compressor - 8 Band Multiband Soft Tube Compressor with auto setup..
DSP-Loudness - Balancing and Loudness according to preset limiting and loudness levels.
All audio formats!
AudioFormats
Audio Import Formats - WAV, MP3, MP2, MWA, FLAC, AAC, M4a, WAVpack, Monkey Audio, OGG Vorbis, APE.
Now you can listen what you expect!
www.curioza.com
I've wanted to try aams but it seems so buggy, alot of people report errors. Landr is pretty much an online limiter, there's a couple videos on YouTube that test it and it pretty much just makes your music louder. Auto mixing or auto mastering is an interesting concept and I'm all for it if it works. It's like fix-a-car-in-a-can.... Mechanics hate it and say it doesn't work, probably because they don't want to think that all their effort and expense in perfecting their craft is wasted when u can just buy a can o stuff.... This has is, sometimes it DOES work, I've had good results. No, it doesn't always work, it depends on the need and how severe the problem is. As far as auto eq and stuff, I think it would work as a good suggestion for what you COULD do yourself. Having said all that, if there is an automatic mixing or mastering tool out there that really works, and that's stable, by all means let me know what it is, I'm all for it. The technical crap is my least favorite part of the music making process, if I could pay someone to do it all for me I would. Someday hopefully...
I use AAMS but I agree, for a one click solution, it sucks.
I use it mostly in manual mode as the one click thing renders in 16 bit.
Watch some videos on how to really use it, it is a great teaching tool.
It will do 100 band EQ matching on any source and save it as a template.
To really get anything useful needs human interaction where it only offers hopefully useful suggestions that you can ignore, modify or accept.
I'm a big fan of AAMS and have worked with Black Box and Ozone quite a bit. To me, AAMS provides great flexibility, lots of useful presets, and ultimately the best results.
ivansc
02-20-2018, 01:26 AM
Knock off the spamming, AAMS guy. You made it way too obvious. This is mostly a pretty objective and useful thread.
denisvdvelde
02-20-2018, 03:57 AM
Knock off the spamming, AAMS guy. You made it way too obvious. This is mostly a pretty objective and useful thread.
Actually this was an honest AAMS user. hahahahahaha
poetnprophet
02-20-2018, 04:54 PM
You know, Izotope came out with Neutron last year and it came with the Track Assistant. The Track Assistant would auto eq, compress, saturate. I did not always get good results, but often I did...especially for targeted tracks/busses rather than the whole mix. Actually, for vocals...it's really good.
However, I never used it for a client and still don't. It ruins the mixing experience for me, and later if I need to make any changes, I don't know how I got there so it's harder for me to make the next step.
If I was a mechanic, I may want to have some things automated to save time that I don't really want to do: oil changes, smog checks, etc. Meh. But, I wouldn't want to have an automated engine rebuilding "device". Or an automated painting booth. These are where the most attention to detail and execution are critical. Same with mixing and mastering.
RDBOIS
02-20-2018, 06:28 PM
Actually this was an honest AAMS user. hahahahahaha
You really love AAMS that much?
It's quotes like this: "Now you can listen what you expect!" that makes it slightly weird.
Cause, well, ahhhhh hmmm ... Who really knows my expectations?
I'll leave it at that.
Cristian Truta
10-06-2020, 04:29 PM
Hey there, dudes and dudettes! I know this thread is kinda' old, but I felt like posting my mastered version of the track. It's a little wider and flattened out on dynamics, but that's because I like to go on all out clarity. Anyway, I'm not a professional although I'm mixing and mastering my own stuff since 2003 (mostly Brutal Death Metal and Electronic Video Game Metal), so please don't bash my head in.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dVek4I7yeCp693MEqKtBBeirDNl-SaDo/view?usp=sharing
...since this is my first post here, I hope the Google Drive link works.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.