Automatic Mastering Software And Online Servies

J

jjinvegas

New member
Without getting into name-calling or mentioning the services specifically, I did download the one that seems to get quite a bit of polarizing opinions. Since it was free, I am hoping nobody suggests that I have any stake in the enterprise. It does allow a user to analyze their own choice of source as reference, and without getting too specific i used a song I really respect in terms of its portability. In other words, it sounds good everywhere you play it, it was engineered by Brendan O'brien, and was similar to the project I tried it on. As the client on this particular LP was already in the loss leader column of my ledger, outside mastering was completely out of the question, and getting 12 songs that were cut individually over six months even with a static drum set and mic set-up and and vocal chain that was consistent, etc., to hang together as one was a bit of a challenge. To save myself from a lot of imprecise and fatiguing back and forth comparison, I thought i would try this route instead. I was already pleased with the mixes, well, as pleased as I ever get, I am pretty hard on my own work but there is a limit to anybody's pro bono efforts on behalf of even their most favored client. But there was some variance, and after running this software the first consideration was the client's reaction. He is no dummy, and has owned several studios himself, and he thoughtView attachment One Foolish Man--Master CCEQ 7-25_Source_Master.mp3View attachment One Foolish Man--Master CCEQ 7-25.mp3View attachment Freeway Flyer--Master--CCEQ--7-29_Source_Master.mp3View attachment Freeway Flyer--Master--CCEQ--7-29 1.mp3 it was much improved. I think it also made a positive impact, and I was able to do in an afternoon what might have taken a week of hair-pulling and extra hassle. Are the before and after results noticeable? Definitely, although not ground-shattering. Are the post-process results "better"? That may be in question, but there is no denying that they sound like one record now, levels, bass content, apparent volume, this is the improvement. So I included two songs below, the first is without the process, the second one with. I hope the record was worth all the trouble.....hahahaha I loved making it, I play most everything except acoustic guitar, and the slide on the second track....JJJ666
 
Interesting. IMHO... They made improvements in what I'd judge to be fairly mushy -perhaps at least partly due to the inappropriate use of compression, on both source mixes.
Vocal stands out better (at least on the first one), impact' perhaps on both.

Given that, that would lead me to; These are exactally the kinds of things I'd want to deal with at the mix- not 'mastering'.

And.. What might they have done with the raw two-mix files -without those extra mix 'treatments?

Which leads to a common theme here; Wouldn't you want to learn/discover how to get 'There' ..in the shortest means possible? (I.e use the tools, solve the questions etc..
Now, if they let you see into the processes used- that could be instructional.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious why all of a sudden is this auto-mastering stuff getting attention here...?...when it's actually been around for a couple of years now, I think.

I do see how/why this stuff will capture the interest of the low-budget, I-don't-know-what-I'm-doing, it's-taking-me-too-much-time-doing-it-by-myself crowd. The part that's concerning (though it won't ruin my day) is that some people will think it "sounds better" than what they had, and then come to the false conclusion auto-mastering is as good as anything done by a real person that knows what they are doing.

Comparing your original mix to the auto-mastered version isn't really a valid way to judge the quality and capability of auto-mastering, IMO. Ideally, you would also have the same mix done by a pro...and then compare the results.

That said...I think that the majority of people (not all) who opt for this stuff probably had/have tracking issues and mix issues...so this is like their "save me" option. I think anyone who gets their tracking and their mixing down solid, and who is after something more than just a quick finish, will probably opt for real-person, real-ears mastering...either doing it themselves or taking it to a pro.

People should consider that the more we take our ears out of the various production processes, the less we're making creative decisions and choices. Don't let algorithms take that over for you...regardless if you think the auto-mastering results sounds good to you.
 
miroslav said:
People should consider that the more we take our ears out of the various production processes, the less we're making creative decisions and choices. Don't let algorithms take that over for you...regardless if you think the auto-mastering results sounds good to you.
Click to expand...

Very few people care anymore. More and more people are getting more and more happy to take all of the technical skill out of the music production process.
 
Hey don't knock it. I just got this new hardware/ software package called "DoitAll". It's AMAZING!
It does everything from writing my songs to distributing them! ALL steps from inspration to recording, to mixing to mastering, etc. are all taken care of.

Only one problem....not one single living person has heard them. I think there must be a glitch in my software.
:D :D
 
RFR said:
Hey don't knock it. I just got this new hardware/ software package called "DoitAll". It's AMAZING!
It does everything from writing my songs to distributing them! ALL steps from inspration to recording, to mixing to mastering, etc. are all taken care of.

Only one problem....not one single living person has heard them. I think there must be a glitch in my software.
:D :D
Click to expand...

Sounds like the next great "advancement" in "recording".
 
Martin Maniac said:
You guys are whining more than a bunch of buggy makers whining about Henry Ford's assembly line.
Click to expand...

That's not a bad analogy because the assembly line didn't really make cars better, it just made more of them, made them quicker, and reduced the human element. And that's exactly what we want with music - more junk music flooding the cosmos, made quicker, and with even less human skill.
 
Martin Maniac said:
Reality check--- there's 26 million songs on iTunes. Do you really want to spend a lot of money producing more ??
Click to expand...

Oh I see. So it's a return on investment thing for people like you. Fair enough. The art and skill of recording and music production takes a back seat to hopefully selling a single out of the 26 million song garbage dump. Got it. Good luck with that.
 
The reality is there's 26 million songs out there from which buyers have the choice to buy. The chances of selling a meaningful amount is pretty slim. This is what ALL artists have to deal with, so in turn, they have to keep an eye on the production costs. It makes no sense to put out a song that costs a million dollars to make and only get a few bucks in return. If you want to dream on about unlimited production costs and profits to the engineers, well good luck to you.
 
Martin Maniac said:
The reality is there's 26 million songs out there from which buyers have the choice to buy. The chances of selling a meaningful amount is pretty slim. This is what ALL artists have to deal with, so in turn, they have to keep an eye on the production costs. It makes no sense to put out a song that costs a million dollars to make and only get a few bucks in return. If you want to dream on about unlimited production costs and profits to the engineers, well good luck to you.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, you're woefully missing my point.

I'm not talking about unlimited budget pro studio million dollar singles. I'm talking about the bedroom recorder hack learning the craft instead of mindlessly cramming his junk through some automated master machine. What's he got to lose? He's just some guy with no label deadline so it's not like there's a huge rush to pollute cyberspace with his music. God forbid somebody take the time to research, practice, and learn something. And you're talking singles, right? A single isn't even really "mastering". 99% of you guys just make it louder and call it good. Any fool can learn how to do that without needing some computer code to do it for you. This is just one more thing in a growing list of things that people just don't have to know how to do anymore and it's not a good thing.
 
Boy this whole automated mastering thing is really stepping on your toes. Really cutting into your bottom line is it ?? Easy money going down the tubes ?? Engineers have been playing out the artists like violins for years. Just like the music stores... think of it this way, the people that made the most money during the gold rush, were the people selling the picks and shovels.
 
Martin Maniac said:
Boy this whole automated mastering thing is really stepping on your toes. Really cutting into your bottom line is it ?? Easy money going down the tubes ?? Engineers have been playing out the artists like violins for years. Just like the music stores... think of it this way, the people that made the most money during the gold rush, were the people selling the picks and shovels.
Click to expand...

Lol. No, I'm not a Mastering Engineer. I'm 100% in favor of DIY. But you gotta actually DIY. All I am is a semi-purist dinosaur that doesn't like the steady removal of human skill and intelligence from music.

But to your point, you're not taking any power back by potentially selling your freeware-made streams for $.000001.
 
Greg_L said:
That's not a bad analogy because the assembly line didn't really make cars better, it just made more of them, made them quicker, and reduced the human element. And that's exactly what we want with music - more junk music flooding the cosmos, made quicker, and with even less human skill.
Click to expand...
Not to quibble, but I find that somehow some of you missed the point of the post. I only posted this to counter what I felt were some uninformed opinions about what this particular software might be capable of after getting the newsletter and reading the previous thread about it that was closed. If anybody thinks this record I made was an assembly line product, I would beg to differ. Every single note was played by hand, there is not a midi track or loop anywhere, and I should know, I played nearly all of it. It was made almost completely by two people, the singer and myself with a guest vocalist or two, and two players who contributed sax and pedal steel guitar. It was completely recorded on freeware, on easily acquired hardware here at my house. I arranged, co-wrote, and tracked it and mixed it, and although it my not be the most amazing record ever made, you can plug a CD of it anywhere and it sounds remarkably consistent and agreeable. When I looked at the curve of the song I thought would be an appropriate guide for how I hoped the record would sound, it was not very far away from where I ended up with before I decided to give this little program I found online a whirl, only this was a five thousand dollar record, the other record was safely 40 times more expensive, plus an additional fee for the producer. As far as hiring a pro, well, I have been producing and engineering for quite a long time, sometimes the list of people I have put microphones in front of astounds even myself, but these days working at home is such a joy that I don't even miss the advantages I used to take for granted in terms of circuitry and real estate. But anyone can become slightly numb to a project when it is almost solely your responsibility and you are not only wearing the engineer hat, and the producer hat, but also the content hat, the player hat, and I am not complaining because it loved every minute of the challenge, getting my dormant drum chops together best I could, stringing up some instruments I don't touch as nearly often as I should, and my favorite part, getting inside the head of an artist and trying to dig every possible layer and nuance out that they are capable of within the constraints of time and a charitable budget.
But what really sort of zinged me when I read the previous thread, was all the assumptions about what the software does, by people who hadn't bothered to even check it out and replied by rote within their preconceived notions. It isn't going to enable assembly line-styled results, press the Pontiac button and out comes another J-car. It is just another tool that might come in handy sometime, the guy who developed it is just like everybody else here, he is trying to get noticed a bit, and if his attempts are a bit clumsy due to language difficulties, there are some interesting things he has developed in terms of usable and understandable processes that are readily viewable and allow for customized approaches if someone wants to take the 30 minutes to get to know what the software is designed to do. Now, raise your hand if you have been to Bernie Grundman's or Sterling Sound. Oh, I guess that is probably just me. This program is not going to replace those kinds of places, and does not purport to. But let me give you a little insight into places that cater to very big whales, sometimes minnows are treated not quite as well. Not in an intentional slight, or neglect, it is just that when you may only be good for one project it's just like any other business, repeaters might get a better table. so to speak. Carefully applied, I think that there is nothing wrong with using this kind of software, and if you think it produces cookie cutter results, find a program that tracks and captures EQ curves, and play some professionally mastered records through it, you are going to notice some recurring HPF and LPF complete notches, and an almost uniform frequency curve. It is like they all agreed on the top and bottom, and not much variety in other areas as well. So if you can't fight city hall and can't really afford the lobbyists, maybe there are some resources you can try to make your product as good as it might be within whatever resources of time and money are available. And thanks for listening, it is always interesting to hear more informed opinions from critical listeners, even if they are not always put in a work-a-day context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top