Automatic Mastering Software And Online Servies

jimmys69 said:
You don't disagree? Then why the arguments on this and other threads.
Click to expand...

I think the Maniac's response's have become more about acting like a "mastering rebel" once he saw all the push-back...since by his own words, he's had the same thing happen on other audio sites.
Which then makes his posts here very troll-like...very "I'm gonna go to every audio side and get a rise out of people with talk of auto-mastering" like.
I mean, it's just coming off like that...and he's focused more about holding his, what I perceive, very unskilled/uneducated audio engineering perspectives just for the sake of the rise he's getting. By his own admission, he has trouble with the mixing/mastering, so I'm not trying to insult him...just making that observation.

The real sad thing is that his amusing "mastering rebel" attitude is making him deaf to the legitimate points people are making, and he perceives those points as just something to keep arguing against, instead of considering that all the guys here know more about mixing and mastering than he does, and it's not just about going against auto-mastering to keep the argument going. There's a legitimate negative aspect to it...for anyone that cares.
 
Mark Twain said;
"It's easier to deceive people that to convince them that they have been deceived"
:D
All manner of clinging to misguided ideas can ensue from this principle. It explains extreme defensiveness. :)
 
Last edited:
RFR said:
Mark Twain said;
"It's easier to deceive people that to convince them that they have been deceived"
:D
All manner of clinging to misguided ideas can ensue from this principle. It explains extreme defensiveness. :)
Click to expand...

Word...
 
Oh brother, where do I begin... "Mastering Rebel, " WTF is a Mastering Rebel ?? Deceiving people ?? Where have I deceived anybody, I've been as open and honest as possible, I've explained my findings very thoroughly.

You guys are ridiculous.


I tried out some new software and you're making a big stink about it.
 
latest
 
I'm trying to learn a little about mastering at the moment but don't know anyone who can help me... its really hard to learn shit by asking people on the internet when you don't know what questions to ask.

Anyway, one of you said earlier that if something is well mixed you pretty much just have to stick a mastering limiter on it and that should be OK.

So, I tried sticking a mastering limiter (generic settings) on a bunch of my mixes over the weekend, most just sounded better (but they were mixes that I'd spent some time on and considered finished). One new one sounded shit and the whole thing seemed "pulse".

Would this be a good rule of thumb to start with? If it sounds shit when you stick a generic limiter on it, remix it until it does sound good when you stick the limiter on?
 
That can be caused by a couple things.

1. The instrument that is making it pulse (usually a kick or snare) is too loud

2. You are trying to limit the mix more than that mix can tolerate.

You have to decide whether you need the master that loud, or you need the mix to be what it is.


No matter what you do, there is a limit to how much you can limit a mix before it falls apart and sounds like crap. It's up to you to decide how loud you need it to be and/or if you need to change the mix to accommodate the volume you want.

Even with a good mix, sometimes so eq is necessary before the limiter to counteract the effects of the limiter.
 
What Farview said. If my mastering limiter does more than a few dB of reduction and/or I'm hearing stuff I don't like before it's loud enough I go back to the mix. Things that can be done include limiting tracks or buses, cutting lows, automating peaks down. But those can also start to degrade the mix so it's a matter of balancing one thing against another. Often it's a combination of multiple approaches, each applied sparingly, that gets it done.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
What Farview said. If my mastering limiter does more than a few dB of reduction and/or I'm hearing stuff I don't like before it's loud enough I go back to the mix. Things that can be done include limiting tracks or buses, cutting lows, automating peaks down. But those can also start to degrade the mix so it's a matter of balancing one thing against another. Often it's a combination of multiple approaches, each applied sparingly, that gets it done.
Click to expand...
+++
Just to add. Think about what you're actually trying to acomplish. There's adding a 'mastering' phase -even if only for the sake of learning- totally leggit BTW. Along this process, it leads to questions, things to be sorted out, not only with regards to what you might do 'mastering a song, but things that lead back to the mix (It was your mix, presumably as good as you thought it could be, but now you are attempting to take it further.. :>)
Then there is 'mastering to get a bunch of songs to play well as in an album. That introduces possible changes to songs aimed more at making them flow well together. Things (levels, eq?) Improving perhaps, but not necessarily fixing'.

One of the things a new -second set of ears brings- as opposed to us, where we're up to our necks in our mixes.
 
mixsit said:
+++
Just to add. Think about what you're actually trying to acomplish. There's adding a 'mastering' phase -even if only for the sake of learning- totally leggit BTW. Along this process, it leads to questions, things to be sorted out, not only with regards to what you might do 'mastering a song, but things that lead back to the mix (It was your mix, presumably as good as you thought it could be, but now you are attempting to take it further.. :>)
Then there is 'mastering to get a bunch of songs to play well as in an album. That introduces possible changes to songs aimed more at making them flow well together. Things (levels, eq?) Improving perhaps, but not necessarily fixing'.

One of the things a new -second set of ears brings- as opposed to us, where we're up to our necks in our mixes.
Click to expand...

Once I've got my head around the basics, of how to get one track to sound good I'll want to learn how to make a few tracks fit together at the right level. Still writing at the moment though.
 
Take a Listen

I took a listen to the auto master vs the original.

I didn't have time to read through all of the replies, so my apologies if this has already been brought up. I'm assuming you used AAMS based on the way it outputted the file name. I've used it before as well and got what I considered decent results. But I still had to go back in and re-tweak. Especially when it came to the loudness management. AAMS did a poor job of that, and you can see it in how your song is clipping all to heck, sometimes above +2dbfs. yikes!

But your song here doesn't need much in the way of mastering IMHO. Even running it through AAMS might have been overkill

So I did a quick master for comparison (it's also my schtick ... I was dissatisfied with the auto mastering stuff, but couldn't afford a "real" mastering engineer, so I spent 8 years learning how to do it myself). For this, I used Melda plugins. The only standing issue was phase, which I didn't deal with due to time. Since there is some grit in the original, I stuck with as clean a sound as I could. My goal was to breath some life into the track without changing it too much since I thought the mix was pretty good to begin with.

View attachment Just One Man_levityproject.com_test_master.mp3
 
RedStone said:
I took a listen to the auto master vs the original.

I didn't have time to read through all of the replies, so my apologies if this has already been brought up. I'm assuming you used AAMS based on the way it outputted the file name. I've used it before as well and got what I considered decent results. But I still had to go back in and re-tweak. Especially when it came to the loudness management. AAMS did a poor job of that, and you can see it in how your song is clipping all to heck, sometimes above +2dbfs. yikes!

But your song here doesn't need much in the way of mastering IMHO. Even running it through AAMS might have been overkill

So I did a quick master for comparison (it's also my schtick ... I was dissatisfied with the auto mastering stuff, but couldn't afford a "real" mastering engineer, so I spent 8 years learning how to do it myself). For this, I used Melda plugins. The only standing issue was phase, which I didn't deal with due to time. Since there is some grit in the original, I stuck with as clean a sound as I could. My goal was to breath some life into the track without changing it too much since I thought the mix was pretty good to begin with.

View attachment 98240
Click to expand...

This link is distorted beyond possibility of being even close to adequate. Just sayin..

The song is really cool tho! :)
 
Distortion was there in he original. Perhaps I smashed it a little too much as well. I didn't spend much time on it. Just trying to show a quick master can beat out auto mastering.
 
RedStone said:
Distortion was there in he original. Perhaps I smashed it a little too much as well. I didn't spend much time on it. Just trying to show a quick master can beat out auto mastering.
Click to expand...

Shit in = shit out....

'Smashed' distortion is never a good thing man. A human ME would suggest first off that the material was distorted. That is the point...

Props for you caring to make an attempt RedStone. But the end result is that the mix given was not master worthy to begin with. No automated site will fix that. Only a human would tell the guy that there are issues in the mix that need to be addressed.

Back to the basics for the OP, or he can just think it sounds good. To each their own...
 
It's true - the distortion sounds like plugins were being overdriven or maybe there was a tape plugin on the master buss or something. I used to never pay attention to gain staging when I mixed. what a mistake!

For mastering, sometimes all you have to work with is a track that has many issues which can't be fixed in the mix for one reason or another. I'm working on one now for a friend that I had to pull from soundcloud. She lost the original. :rolleyes:

So just for posterity, I took a much closer listen and tested some decrackling ... the trade-off in this case was too much of a loss in clarity to eliminate the crackles because they were so prominent. So yeah, re-mix is the best option. Next best would be to find a mid-way point where there is less crackling and acceptable clarity for the artist.

AAMS seems to produce upper mid focused masters. Kind of annoying. I've used it in the past as a reference though. It helped when I was trying to figure out what to do to with a couple of problem songs. I also used to have a habit of scooping the mids out of my mixes. Listening to the overly mid focused AAMS masters helped me learn to hear the mid range better.

In one case, I liked what AAMS did with the EQ curve better than what I had come up with so I kept the AAMS version, and the song went on to win a grammy for mastering engineer on a pop song. NOT! :) :laughings:
 
Next....There cannot even be a discussion with that example man.

De-crackle? Isn't that used for compromise of old vinyl? It sucks that you have a crappy 3rd party MP3 to work with and need to take drastic measures. :(



We sure jacked the OP's thread huh? Oops...

Wonder where he went....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top