# Automatic mastering program



## Oxborg (Jun 9, 2021)

Hey!

I'm one of those that hates mastering a track and I am not particularly good at it, though I do recognize that it is needed. I went on to try the mastering tool that Soundcloud had to offer (the one created by Dolby, I believe). I was very happy with the results and even though it is perhaps not as good as a professional, it is still good enough.

I'm wondering if there are any similair mastering programs that you can buy without having to pay Soundcloud everytime you want to master a mix. I would be happy to pay a one-time-fee if I could just master my tracks whenever I feel like it without spending a fortune on it.

Does these type of mastering tools exist?


----------



## KarlHeinz (Jun 9, 2021)

Lots of online tools had come over the last month/years but what scares me off that they nearly all are subscription based


----------



## d4vec4rter (Jun 9, 2021)

The only fully automatic mastering plugin I've come across is this...








AI MASTER | Exonic UK


Fully Automatic Mastering Processor




www.exonicuk.com




Initial feedback on the Gearspace (formerly Gearslutz) site seemed to be pretty positive. I did try it out but, personally, I prefer more control over my masters and do it myself. I'm no expert by any means but with a few top notch plugins, I can get consistently good results.


----------



## PeterN (Jun 10, 2021)

I would like to know what the programs do with the AI. Not only hear it marketed that it sounds good, but a more comprehensive explanation of tech used and its effects. Can we trust them, that they really analyse? To some degree, but what else is happening? Shouldnt we be asking this.

Ozone does mastering too. I put in a Landr mastered track in Ozone and Ozone cut it at the same dynamic EQ areas as it seems to always cut. Maybe they have programmed it to always cut in same place. Has ayone tried to put an Ozone mastered track back in Ozone, and seeif it keeps throwing dynamic eq on it again.

Maybe try one day.


----------



## PeterN (Jun 10, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> Does these type of mastering tools exist?


Ozone does the mastering. Also, there was one european software you could buy for this, oh, forgot the name.

But you know, the engineer takes about 50-120 'EUR, and Landr does it for 7EUR. The engineer is not happy when you throw in a new version and ask price, but the AI does not have emotions, which is good. Wouldnt call that 7-9 EUR expensive, but wish there was more transparency what the AI actually does.

Have you checked if online masterings have yearly subsriptions, some of them probably have.


----------



## Oxborg (Jun 10, 2021)

PeterN said:


> Ozone does the mastering. Also, there was one european software you could buy for this, oh, forgot the name.
> 
> But you know, the engineer takes about 50-120 'EUR, and Landr does it for 7EUR. The engineer is not happy when you throw in a new version and ask price, but the AI does not have emotions, which is good. Wouldnt call that 7-9 EUR expensive, but wish there was more transparency what the AI actually does.
> 
> Have you checked if online masterings have yearly subsriptions, some of them probably have.


Have you tried Ozone? Is it any good to look into and is it expensive?The only one I have looked into is the one from Soundcloud/Dolby but it has a fee everytime you use it. If you have a subscription it is cheaper but still cost. However, the mastering was well made. It masters your track 4 times in different ways nad you pick one of these that suits the tracks the best.


----------



## PeterN (Jun 11, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> Have you tried Ozone? Is it any good to look into and is it expensive?The only one I have looked into is the one from Soundcloud/Dolby but it has a fee everytime you use it. If you have a subscription it is cheaper but still cost. However, the mastering was well made. It masters your track 4 times in different ways nad you pick one of these that suits the tracks the best.


Yea, I got Ozone 8. Standard I think its called, one prior Advanced, cost was on sale around 120 USD. Or something like that.

If you make music, say EDM, that keeps a similar style, I assume its ok. It analyses a few seconds and make all choices on that. Theres cheaper versions of it too, and they often do sales. Its a decent investment for EDMetc. style music.

If you make music with plenty dynamic range etc, I dont know. I dont trust this stuff completely, until theres more transparency, when I was young I worked as a chef. We could sell cod as snapper and have wrong sauce too. Everything went smooth. When you see businesses from inside, you get more suspicious.

I might try Soundcloud. Currently using Landr, after I dished the mastering engineer, its pretty ok. Mr.Landr is all cool when I send new version.

Is Soundcloud transparent on what its mastering does? I doubt it, but will check. Hope they are. That would be something.


----------



## PeterN (Jun 11, 2021)

I t


Oxborg said:


> Have you tried Ozone? Is it any good to look into and is it expensive?The only one I have looked into is the one from Soundcloud/Dolby but it has a fee everytime you use it. If you have a subscription it is cheaper but still cost. However, the mastering was well made. It masters your track 4 times in different ways nad you pick one of these that suits the tracks the best.


I tied the Soundcloud one. Hey, that sounded good. I suspect its better than what Ozone can do. Maybe change from Landr mastering to Soundcloud.

Would be great to hear other peoples experiences.


----------



## Kery Michael (Jun 11, 2021)

Ozone is pretty standard. You’ll find that a lot of people hear use that. Me included.

It does the job, theres an AI called mastering assistant which will suggest EQ, compression and limiting levels. Which you then can adjust to taste. As well as a couple of other useful plugins. I would definitely recommend it.


----------



## Oxborg (Jun 11, 2021)

PeterN said:


> I t
> 
> I tied the Soundcloud one. Hey, that sounded good. I suspect its better than what Ozone can do. Maybe change from Landr mastering to Soundcloud.
> 
> Would be great to hear other peoples experiences.


vaguely transparent I would call it, but I am actually really satisfied with Soundcloud, I just wish that I could master tracks without paying for it every time. My tracks here is mastered by Soundcloud, I believe i picked the 'second' option for all of them.


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC01UFjcRJY9PuZlST4wCXZw



I might try Landr to see how they work it out.


----------



## Macrawn (Jun 11, 2021)

I thought this blind shootout of different services was interesting. 


They all had soundcloud at the bottom, human at the top. They all had Landr at the top of the ai list more or less. Ozone wasn't much above Soundcloud. It's all subjective, but interesting that all 3 had landr toward the top and everyone had Soundcloud near the bottom. 

I use Ozone and some 3rd party plugins on my chain but I think I'll compare my results to soundcloud for kicks.


----------



## PeterN (Jun 11, 2021)

Heres just a summary after checking Landr compared to Soundcloud. 

Soundcloud puts in a lot more bass and theres more high end enhancement with Soundcloud. Also more compression. Maybe its more "pro sound", but that bass almost crosses the line. Maybe on Soundclopud something like Gullfoss there too, which means you probably want to be careful with it when mixing. Vote goes for Souncloud mastering, but that bass almost gets a minus.


----------



## PeterN (Jun 11, 2021)

Macrawn said:


> I thought this blind shootout of different services was interesting.
> 
> 
> They all had soundcloud at the bottom, human at the top. They all had Landr at the top of the ai list more or less. Ozone wasn't much above Soundcloud. It's all subjective, but interesting that all 3 had landr toward the top and everyone had Soundcloud near the bottom.
> ...



The mastering engineers have a business interest against AI. I watched Streaky say on youtube, the AI doesnt really compete with him - oh man, it sure does. You bet it does affect your business. Saying that it doesnt is part of the camouflage. That being said, hope the AI dont throw engineers out of business.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Jun 11, 2021)

*There is always the question of what the individual understands by "mastering". *
For most people it means "making it as loud and fat as possible". When it comes to correcting mix errors, correcting stereo things, "cleaning up" somewhere specific, etc. then many tools and online services are no longer so good. Then the genre also plays a role. If I have a classical solo singer accompanied by harpsichord mastered through OZONE, you can tell that Ozone wasn't designed for that kind of stuff. It looks better with pop and rock. Here and there the dynamic EQ intervenes, minimally a compressor is set, an EQ balances a bit the frequencies it seems to be missing... But above all it is always louder after those auto-mastering tools - and louder is always better....
I would favor those tools and online services where you can at least specify the genre or enter a master track that the tool then follows. 

So if you want to have your track mastered "automatically", then it is certainly worthwhile to let different tools do it. Finally you have at least the choice to take that result, which is most sympathetic to you. 

There are also some videos on YouTube about such experiments "Autom. against Humanmastering", or "automastering comparisons".

Beat


----------



## Henu (Jun 11, 2021)

The thing with people who vouch for internet/instant- mastering is, that I'm willing to bet 95% of them haven't ever worked with a real mastering engineer.

Speaking of what Beat said, this should also be rather informative video.


----------



## PeterN (Jun 11, 2021)

Of course the mastering engineers will say AI sucks. We need to see vids from consumers, not only engineers. They have a hell a lot to protect here, ie their work and investment.


----------



## Oxborg (Jun 11, 2021)

I looked into Ozone and it looks like exactly what I'm looking for. Can you guys tell me which version you recommend? Elements, Standard or Advanced?


----------



## FlyingAndi (Jun 11, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> I looked into Ozone and it looks like exactly what I'm looking for. Can you guys tell me which version you recommend? Elements, Standard or Advanced?


Elements is pretty stripped down. I went straight to Advanced from Elements because I got a good deal. Standard probably would be enough for me.
Here is a comparison table: https://www.izotope.com/en/products/ozone/features.html

You're a little too late. Last month they were giving away elements for free.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Jun 11, 2021)

PeterN said:


> Of course the mastering engineers will say AI sucks. We need to see vids from consumers, not only engineers. They have a hell a lot to protect here, ie their work and investment. Probably wife too.


Well, I'm not a mastering engineer but I'm critical of all automatic audio effects to begin with. That's why I just gave it a try. I always record a "hall recording" with my sound recordings. There you can hear especially well how hall modes sound, which frequencies a hall prefers from the music. These frequencies do not have to be particularly visible in the analyzer. But for our hearing it sounds like in a pot or just in a certain room. To anticipate: Ozone was not able to find these frequencies at all...

Listen: Original_Ozone_Kaufmann
_My version seems to be missing something (at first). In fact, it is the pot sound around 120-150 Hz. If you filter it out, the recording suddenly seems more transparent, brighter._

For me, mastering starts with an analysis of levels L/R, frequencies, bass, stereo stuff, transparency, overemphasis, audibility of what's important, etc. The goal is to get the most out of the mix so that the music sounds good on as many listens as possible.
This is followed by working through the list with the negativ points and then followed by comparing the piece with references if possible and finally setting the right volume.

As I said, mastering is not the same for everyone...


----------



## Henu (Jun 12, 2021)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> mastering starts with an analysis of levels L/R, frequencies, bass, stereo stuff, transparency, overemphasis, audibility of what's important, etc. The goal is to get the most out of the mix so that the music sounds good on as many listens as possible.


This x 10000. This is _exactly_ what mastering is about, and it's something you can't get with the automated software. Especially the more complex your material is or the more it has something else than pre-mixed samples from the latest superprocessed loop library.


----------



## PeterN (Jun 12, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> I looked into Ozone and it looks like exactly what I'm looking for. Can you guys tell me which version you recommend? Elements, Standard or Advanced?


Sale started yesterday on Ozone master mixing bundle.Hope you didnt throw out the bucks one hour before the sale.






VST Plugins, Synth Presets, Effects, Virtual Instruments, Music


VST Plugins, Synth Presets, Effects, Virtual Instruments, Music Plugins from Pluginboutique




www.pluginboutique.com





And btw, if you didnt buy it already, do wait for sales fro Izotope - theres regularly.


----------



## PeterN (Jun 12, 2021)

Hopefully the AI keeps developing. Which it will. So that you could choose stereo widening or high end enchancment in track chorus and like that. You could select AI on different areas of track. *Why the hell are they not doing this already*, when theres a obvious market for a very good AI mastering tool with more functions. More transparency too.

It will be out one day and that day the mastering engineers have one slice less cheese on the sandwich. If any cheese at all. Me, I will add one extra slice cheese.


----------



## Oxborg (Jun 12, 2021)

PeterN said:


> Sale started yesterday on Ozone master mixing bundle.Hope you didnt throw out the bucks one hour before the sale.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I have not yet bought anything. I think I ill wait for Izoptopes sales and buy the Standard version.


----------



## PeterN (Jun 12, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> No, I have not yet bought anything. I think I ill wait for Izoptopes sales and buy the Standard version.


Thats the Standard on sale. If that bundle is 88% off, you will not get it cheaper. At least, until Ozone 10 is out.


----------



## Oxborg (Jun 12, 2021)

Henu said:


> This x 10000. This is _exactly_ what mastering is about, and it's something you can't get with the automated software. Especially the more complex your material is or the more it has something else than pre-mixed samples from the latest superprocessed loop library.


This topic was never about if AI mastering is better than an audio engineer. The industry is full of pretentious people claiming that something is only worth to do if it's the best. If AI makes a 'good enough' mastering, it is good enough for me and for many others. Mastering is not supposed to save a badly mixed track, just to enhance it. If I had the time and money to hire an audio engineer for every track, I would do so, but for me, and a lot of musicians, a decent mastering program is fine. I don't need a Gibson 1959 Les Paul. A decent Epiphone will do the job for me.


----------



## jcrosby (Jun 12, 2021)

PeterN said:


> The mastering engineers have a business interest against AI. I watched Streaky say on youtube, the AI doesnt really compete with him - oh man, it sure does. You bet it does affect your business. Saying that it doesnt is part of the camouflage. That being said, hope the AI dont throw engineers out of business.


Mmmm do you work for free? My guess is you don't...

The fact that people toss around the idea that mastering/mixing/or any other highly skilled artistic music/sound skill is something that might as well just be a ponzi scheme solely designed to hustle someone for money is sad. I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume you don't generally get paid for musical works.

Whatever your work situation, if you show up for work it's pretty reasonable your expect to get paid. So is your _actual_ M.O. to "camouflage" the quality of work you do and just hope you get paid for that day of work, and not return for paid work ever again?

Now lets imagine you work in a field that requires a bit of social intelligence... Maybe that job involves you looking at what's currently popular and finding a unique perspective on how you might curate something that's strangely "current", and yet still feels genuine and unique... Or perhaps that job involves you negotiating the more subtle communicative skills that AI (still) consistently prove to be way over AI's current capabilities...

Shit.... Let's simplify shall we? Let's imagine you drive a delivery vehicle. It's a a simple job where you drive people/packages/things from destination A to destination B. Virtually no human factor involved! You simply move from point A to point B with a payload. Something a computer couldn't possibly fuck up.

Clearly your job in this last context is just a scheme in which you hustle people out of money to get paid for something some of the most expensive technology companies have clearly designed an algorithm to replace you for. No need for nuance; it's simple, straight to the point, and for-sure it's something that algorithms are already super cut out to handle.


----------



## Henu (Jun 12, 2021)

@Oxborg , you're absolutely right on that point, though.


----------



## PeterN (Jun 12, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> This topic was never about if AI mastering is better than an audio engineer. The industry is full of pretentious people claiming that something is only worth to do if it's the best. If AI makes a 'good enough' mastering, it is good enough for me and for many others. Mastering is not supposed to save a badly mixed track, just to enhance it. If I had the time and money to hire an audio engineer for every track, I would do so, but for me, and a lot of musicians, a decent mastering program is fine. I don't need a Gibson 1959 Les Paul. A decent Epiphone will do the job for me.


Btw heres something I tried now with the Soundcloud mastering engine. Gives better result - thats a humble opinion. Cost is double though. First master one track with the Intensity high - up around 85%. It will reveal some flaws within the Soundcloud master. Then fix those flaws in your mix, on certain tracks - maybe a peaking violin or too much high end in vox etc, and do another Soundcloud mastering (fixed mix) with the Intensity around 50%. This is sort of Human Intelligence and Artificial Intelligence combined.


----------



## PeterN (Jun 12, 2021)

Whats that engineer who has on youtube vids about "10 most stupidiest things to do in studio" and like that. Who shouts how pretty much every musician is a "moronic idiot" and "dont send your fuckin bass track with the name John on it - you moron!!". Something like that.

Time is catching up here, we are near the threshold when musician tells him to go fu+k off yourself, I use the Soundcloud engine instead.


----------



## jcrosby (Jun 12, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> Mastering is not supposed to save a badly mixed track, just to enhance it.


Define what _enhancing_ a track is, and how you would go about it.


----------



## Oxborg (Jun 12, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> Define what _enhancing_ a track is, and how you would go about it.


Why?


----------



## Henu (Jun 12, 2021)

@PeterN , how many tracks or albums have you mastered with an engineer? I've done about 30-40 mastering sessions with a proper engineer during the past 20 years (just did a long session a couple of weeks ago, actually) and there is absolutely no way we're even close to that "fuck off, I'm gonna use Soundcloud"- situation in a loooooooong time.

With all due respect, I've mastered myself so many tracks of my own that I have absolutely no idea of the count. I also do freelance mastering and have done over 100 albums for clients just during the last four years. But still, whenever I want my own stuff be done as well as possible, I use another mastering engineer with even _more_ experience and fresher ears for my mix than mine.

For a quick enhancement, online stuff is pretty much ok if using very minimal processing, but basically you can also achieve the same-ish results with Ozone. If you have a hint on what you're trying to do, Ozone + some skills already surpasses any online service completely.
If that Soundcloud is good enough for you- that's excellent! But there are always people who don't think it is nearly enough or in worst case even ruins the track. It's all about your own aesthetics and level of demands.

I'm not saying nobody should use Soundcloud et al, and I'm certainly not saying that everyone should master their tracks with a proper mastering engineer. I'm only saying that this discussion is a bit same that someone would claim that "_lol who needs berlin woodwinds and cineperc when i have ewqlso and garritanpersonalorchestra_".


----------



## AudioLoco (Jun 12, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> Hey!
> 
> I'm one of those that hates mastering a track and I am not particularly good at it, though I do recognize that it is needed. I went on to try the mastering tool that Soundcloud had to offer (the one created by Dolby, I believe). I was very happy with the results and even though it is perhaps not as good as a professional, it is still good enough.
> 
> ...


No. 
You got to put some effort into learning at least to a certain "good enough" degree (news: it's part of the job now), or, as an alternative pay someone who has.


----------



## Oxborg (Jun 12, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> No.
> You got to put some effort into learning at least to a certain "good enough" degree (news: it's part of the job now), or, as an alternative pay someone who has.


Or, alternative use Dolby or Ozone...?
If you don't have anything to contribute, then don't.
Seriously, what is up with you people and this topic? As noted before in this thread; This industry is full of pretentious people.


----------



## Henu (Jun 12, 2021)

Yep, just like those other prentetious peeps who dare to use Berlin Woodwinds over Garritan. Because, how dare they!


----------



## FlyingAndi (Jun 12, 2021)

PeterN said:


> Whats that engineer who has on youtube vids about "10 most stupidiest fuckin things to do in studio" and like that. Who shouts how pretty much every musician is a "moronic idiot" and "dont send your fuckin bass track with the name John on it - you moron!!". Something like that.


You mean him?


On another note, Izotope has just enhanced the assistants on Nectar and Ozone (although the enhancements for Nectar seem more exciting - but I haven't tried either yet):








Product Update: Nectar Pro and Ozone Pro


Announcing new updates for Nectar Pro and Ozone Pro! Use smarter processing to mix vocals faster, with EQ updates, real-time Assistant controls, and more. Get better-sounding final masters with improvements to Ozone's EQ setting. Watch the video to learn more!




www.izotope.com


----------



## PeterN (Jun 12, 2021)

FlyingAndi said:


> You mean him?
> 
> 
> On another note, Izotope has just enhanced the assistants on Nectar and Ozone (although the enhancements for Nectar seem more exciting - but I haven't tried either yet):
> ...


----------



## PeterN (Jun 12, 2021)

His studio home page has form to fill for "stupid musician".

Anyway its a different attitude, and thats all color and personality, which is ok



Stupid Musician Text submission form - Spectre Media Group


----------



## jcrosby (Jun 12, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> Why?


Your argument is that a "mastering" algorithm's goal is to enhance a track to the point of it being good enough. If you stand behind that argument then back it up by explaining what you hear that defines it's been enhanced.


----------



## Macrawn (Jun 12, 2021)

So for kicks I tried the Soundcloud, Landr and Ozone on a few tracks to compare. The Ozone tracks were not just the "assistant", it used some of my own effects and adjustments to the master. I also had use of reference tracks on Ozone. 

I'm not a mix/ mastering engineer so it's an amateur job. All in all I think the Landr beat my mastering, and my mastering was better (to my taste) than the Soundcloud one. (I'm probably biased here but there wasn't a significant difference or reason to pay Soundcloud over what I did with Ozone)

On the more rock like track Landr was definitely better, the other dense hybrid tracks my master was closer and on my monitors I thought some of my masters were a bit better but when I played them on more devices the Landr sounded better and clearer overall. It struck the right balance it seems to sound better on more types of systems. It did a much better job of giving a little bit of punch to the low and while making it clearer too on the low end. I liked that about the Landr master. 

I was kinda sad actually because I put a lot this year into getting better at mix/mastering and I thought at least I could beat these bots. Looks like I need more experience and guidance. 

I do think that a human engineer with experience can do better than landr. When I say mastering engineer I mean a pro who does that all day long and has experience and probably worked under the wing of someone else. That kind of person can get more out of the process for you. 

And of course pure orchestra music is different than rock or even hybrid trailer type music so I don't know how that would sound on landr. My tracks were all mixes of orchestra, guitar, synths and more like rock in a way than classical music. 

So in the end I think I either need a mastering engineer human, or use landr over my own mastering. It is about 8 to 10 times more expensive for a human, but you also get revisions and things like that. Landr lets you revise things but it's not really a revision. If you need to rework the track any new upload is like a new master so you pay for it. At least that's how I think it works.


----------



## NoamL (Jun 12, 2021)

Henu said:


> The thing with people who vouch for internet/instant- mastering is, that I'm willing to bet 95% of them haven't ever worked with a real mastering engineer.


Yep not to be TOO harsh, but #1 exactly what you said, and #2 people who want their tracks mastered on the cheap often have greater need of getting their music properly _mixed_.

A great mix seems to leave very little to do in the master. The difference between a mockup, even one I've worked over for hours, and the result I get back from a great mixer is night and day. Sometimes the mixer even makes the MIDI sound "more like live." I dunno how he does it! And I doubt it can be replaced with AI. It seems to involve a lot of extremely critical listening and making the different parts cooperate moment-to-moment with each other to enhance the whole. It's almost like the same job as a conductor, except you're working with recordings instead of musicians. It's every bit as much of an "artistic" job as composer. If the mixer doesn't understand the musical material or doesn't understand orchestration, the result won't be great.


----------



## NoamL (Jun 12, 2021)

FlyingAndi said:


> You mean him?
> 
> 
> On another note, Izotope has just enhanced the assistants on Nectar and Ozone (although the enhancements for Nectar seem more exciting - but I haven't tried either yet):
> ...




Leave aside the yelling gimmick this guy is offering SOLID GOLD advice for anyone who has never delivered audio before 

And it applies to score as much as to bands. 

Proper file format, proper headroom, count in at the start, check EVERY delivered audio for clicks, NUMBER YOUR STEMS, consolidate your audio (and for us in the scoring world - SMPTE on every audio file!), truly solid gold advice here.!


----------



## PeterN (Jun 12, 2021)

Macrawn said:


> So for kicks I tried the Soundcloud, Landr and Ozone on a few tracks to compare. The Ozone tracks were not just the "assistant", it used some of my own effects and adjustments to the master. I also had use of reference tracks on Ozone.
> 
> I'm not a mix/ mastering engineer so it's an amateur job. All in all I think the Landr beat my mastering, and my mastering was better (to my taste) than the Soundcloud one. (I'm probably biased here but there wasn't a significant difference or reason to pay Soundcloud over what I did with Ozone)
> 
> ...



For me the Soundcloud engine is definitely throwing in a lot more color - its a rock ballad I got now - and it becomes way too spicy with Souncloud. To the point I had to strip off the Fabfilter Saturn, and maybe Gullfoss will go off too. I think a dull mix is what should be thrown in Soundcloud. Working on a new more dull mix, will do a new try tomorrow.

Im intrigued by the Soundcloud engine though, I suspect, if you can make the "right mix" (non saturated etc) it may give a decent result.


----------



## Macrawn (Jun 12, 2021)

PeterN said:


> For me the Soundcloud engine is definitely throwing in a lot more color - its a rock ballad I got now - and it becomes way too spicy with Souncloud. To the point I had to strip off the Fabfilter Saturn, and maybe Gullfoss will go off too. I think a dull mix is what should be thrown in Soundcloud. Working on a new more dull mix, will do a new try tomorrow.
> 
> Im intrigued by the Soundcloud engine though, I suspect, if you can make the "right mix" (non saturated etc) it may give a decent result.


I don't disagree on that. I think it's a matter of what one is looking for in terms of taste. I liked the Soundcloud master I got. I think like you suggest if you know what to expect, you can tailor you mix toward the service a little and get a result more in line with what you want.

I know for example that Ozone tends to boost the highs a lows a bit too much on orchestral music mostly because (using tonal balance control as a reference the high highs and low lows are just lower volume on orchestral music. Orc music tapers off faster at the high high end and low low end. So Ozone boosts those areas more to match it's curve. Maybe the new update works that out better I have to see. 

It's too bad the services are not a little more transparent on how the track is treated so you can compensate a little.


----------



## Oxborg (Jun 12, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> Your argument is that a "mastering" algorithm's goal is to enhance a track to the point of it being good enough. If you stand behind that argument then back it up by explaining what you hear that defines it's been enhanced.


No, I have never said that. I said that a decent mastering is good enough for me. I don't understand what or why you want me to explain what a good mastering is. It is a subjective manner and also in different ranges. Your thought of a good mastering is not the same as mine. 
I have never claimed that AI can master better than an audio engineer. I'm saying, AI mastering is good enough for me. So tell me, what do you want me to tell you? Why are you even in this thread making stupid arguments that goes off topic?


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 12, 2021)

I do believe several experienced and skilled mastering engineers are better than AI - and probably will be for decades to come. But, as a hobbyist, I’m going to do it myself or pay for the online service.

I use Ozone 9 - but won’t be a subscriber.


----------



## Thomas Kallweit (Jun 12, 2021)

I get the question. And it really wasn't imo to make fronts between hobbyists and pros. 
Just the question if or which programs are there. 

I bought the AI Master prog, after trying the Demo. Seems to do some neat stuff under the hood.
And yes, I also was in the situation having some crappy old stuff with bad mixes without the option to work on the original project files (as they could not reconstruct all that old shit done in the days, simply not possible to find samples, plugins etc).
And, yees, AI Master helped here - not doing wonders, but made the spectrum/balance better. 

I also think, that lots of composers haven't worked together with a mastering engineer - reasons have been stated by Oxborg -> it would cost money, too many tracks - does not pay off in relation.
And therefore the online services or Ozone come in. 

Ozone elements has helped me a lot here - but of course one has to be careful with the proposed AI results. Better to do some individual tweaking afterwards. A proposal is not written in stone - just an option.

Back to AI Master: There seem to be no promotional actions for it right now, but after testing it on several more crappy tracks mixwise it helped here. I also tried it on already "mastered" tracks.
Here it was quite subtile, did not change a lots and the robot (displayed in the window) gets some red colour... warning you, that the original already had been maximised too much. 
Even after using it on such stuff, the result was decent. I like it.


----------



## jcrosby (Jun 12, 2021)

Macrawn said:


> I do think that a human engineer with experience can do better than landr. When I say mastering engineer I mean a pro who does that all day long and has experience and probably worked under the wing of someone else. That kind of person can get more out of the process for you.


Of course they can. An ML algorithm wouldn't have any point of reference if it weren't built on the work of the humans that perfected their craft long before it was developed.


Funny enough I see people frequently say that they believe *Neutron* _knows_ something they don't about the track(s) they apply it to. Neutron literally applies the same formula to everything you spit thorough it. It's a glorified preset algorithm with the ability to find a few resonances. (Even then it's not consistent).

It doesn't actually analyze or understand the crest factor of your music. It does't understand what an appropriate crest factor might be based on the genre or aesthetic you're going for. It doesn't understand if the exciter's an appropriate choice or not, and it doesn't know how much saturation would be appropriate to set.

Most importantly though, it's "choices" are repeatable once you know what the pattern to look for is. It's unbelievably easy to see just how _dumb_ it actually is if you put multiple instances in a row on the same track or bus.

It detects one of several instrument categories. The instrument categories are used to initiate the 1st layer of the preset. After it determines the instrument (or you define it), it then has you define the final parameters of the preset by giving you 6 choices; 3 "Style" choices, 3 "Intensity" choices. The same instrument combined with the same style/intensity will always load the same preset configuration.

_Warm_ and _Low_ will always spit out the same preset configuration,
_Balanced_ and _High_ will always spit out the same preset configuration.
Etc.

Put 3 Neutrons in a row on the same channel and run the same exact configuration on each one. Using just the EQ as an example, while the nodes may move to different places (proving that it actually ins't "smart" at all), you'll notice the configuration is the same. If the configuration consists of a high-pass, a low shelf, two bell cuts, and a bell boost, you'll see the same configuration applied to each instance. Even the boost/cut amounts on all bands are identical, same with each band's Q width. Identical choices. It's preset box. None of its choices are informed.

Ozone works the same way. It will always set the same modules with the same general parameters. The numerical values may be different on each instance, but the configuration will be the same depending on the boxes you tick.

For example if you stacked several Ozones with the same settings in a row, and one of the results was a dynamic EQ with 4 bells and 1 shelf, all compressing; you'll see that all 3 instances make the same overall choice to add a dynamic EQ with 4 bells and 1 shelf all set to compress. If the dynamics module sets itself so only the low band compresses, all 3 instances will be set the same way. The way it defines which modules to set and how to set them up are based on the options you tick in the 'assistant' page.

The 'smartest' thing it does is aim for a target LUFS level.
This immediately raises the question:

If Ozone were actually attempting to achieve some kind of generic aesthetic standard/improvement then why does it stack the same processing 3 times in row instead of doing nothing, or close to nothing, with each successive instance inserted after the 1st one?

None of its choices are informed. I'd bet my retirement account that Landr (or any equivalent 'service') isn't any "smarter".

This is the technology people put their faith in as if it _knows_ something they don't.


*3 INSTANCES OF NEUTRON 3 INSERTED ON THE SAME BUS:*
ALL INSTANCES SET TO THE DEFAULT "Balanced" & "Medium".

*Instance 1*:







*Instance 2*:






*Instance 3*:









*SO HOW DOES IT SOUND THEN?

Decide for yourself...*

RAW DRUMS. (Slight processing, mixed to taste.)








RAW DRUMS.wav


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com





3 INSTANCES OF MIX ASSISTANT IN A ROW:








3 INSTANCES OF MIX ASSISTANT.wav


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## jcrosby (Jun 12, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> No, I have never said that. I said that a decent mastering is good enough for me. I don't understand what or why you want me to explain what a good mastering is. It is a subjective manner and also in different ranges. Your thought of a good mastering is not the same as mine.
> I have never claimed that AI can master better than an audio engineer. I'm saying, AI mastering is good enough for me. So tell me, what do you want me to tell you? Why are you even in this thread making stupid arguments that goes off topic?


I'm not trying to push your buttons FYI... I'm skeptical of the technology for a lot of reasons. For starters Izotope's HQ's a couple miles from me and I've known a decent handful of people that have coded or worked there over the years. Some of my skepticism's based on conversations with former employees over the years... My reply above has more conclusive reasons why I'm skeptical...

As far as what I'm getting at?

I'm simply asking _why_ you find it to be good enough. What do you hear... (Louder? More clarity? More separation? ....) And, why you think you couldn't learn to do a better job yourself.







Automatic mastering program


The thing with people who vouch for internet/instant- mastering is, that I'm willing to bet 95% of them haven't ever worked with a real mastering engineer. Yep not to be TOO harsh, but #1 exactly what you said, and #2 people who want their tracks mastered on the cheap often have greater need of...




vi-control.net


----------



## PeterN (Jun 13, 2021)

Macrawn said:


> I know for example that Ozone tends to boost the highs a lows a bit too much on orchestral music mostly because (using tonal balance control as a reference the high highs and low lows are just lower volume on orchestral music. Orc music tapers off faster at the high high end and low low end. So Ozone boosts those areas more to match it's curve. Maybe the new update works that out better I have to see.



I threw in a dull version of latest track in Soundcloud "thunder engine?" is that the name of it? Got that name on the Soundcloud page after the mastering was done.

Anyway, put the intensity down to 40%, but it still boosts the original track in all aspects so much, its almost over the edge. In fact, it sounds to me what some mastering engineers do, and it all start to sound so "pro", so you dont recognise your track anymore. Takes away some soul. You start to miss the original mix which had some personal flavour and sounded less professional.

So Soundcloud marketing it to get the "pro" sound is probably a true marketing niche here. Thats what they have strived for - and succeeded. But in the over-professional modern world, maybe the real spirit lies in the non pro? Listening to Mick Jagger on an old vinyl, up in a hilltribe village, that is something. Fu.k the pro - that is IT.


----------



## Oxborg (Jun 13, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> I'm not trying to push your buttons FYI... I'm skeptical of the technology for a lot of reasons. For starters Izotope's HQ's a couple miles from me and I've known a decent handful of people that have coded or worked there over the years. Some of my skepticism's based on conversations with former employees over the years... My reply above has more conclusive reasons why I'm skeptical...
> 
> As far as what I'm getting at?
> 
> ...


For me, the biggest dealbreaker is the clarity. That is always the first thing that comes to mind when mastering a track. Loudness of course but that comes with dynamic compression. I found the Dolby AI to use equalization in a surprisingly good manner too. 

I could learn to do the job better, but why would I want to lay hours on something that I don't find particularly interesting when I can get an AI to do it for me, that does an even better job than me?

I have worked with a mastering engineer and I was very happy with the result. Great result! I think you mistake me for someone that believes AI is equal or better than the real deal, but that is not my argument. My argument is that an AI is cheap, fast and does not run for coffee breaks or require me to wait my turn. If I ever produce music for big screen Hollywood, I will most likely hire an engineer. Until then, please get off my back and get back into topic. This thread is *not* whether or not AI can do the work better.


----------



## jaketanner (Jun 13, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> it is still good enough


Generally this mentality doesn't get you far. It should be great, or not. Good enough is like saying it's passable. You would get far better results by investing in something like Ozone..(Even though i advise against those "quick-fix" mastering tools).


----------



## Oxborg (Jun 13, 2021)

jaketanner said:


> Generally this mentality doesn't get you far. It should be great, or not. Good enough is like saying it's passable. You would get far better results by investing in something like Ozone..(Even though i advise against those "quick-fix" mastering tools).


What a ridiculous answer to a thread that has already gone too far off-topic. What you are saying is; if my tracks doesn't have a great mastering, I won't get far. Thereafter, you proceed to advise me to use Ozone, whereas you advice against it.
This is the attitude I was talking about when I said that the industry is full of pretentious people.
Please get off this thread if you can't contribute in a civil manner.


----------



## jaketanner (Jun 13, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> What a ridiculous answer to a thread that has already gone too far off-topic. What you are saying is; if my tracks doesn't have a great mastering, I won't get far. Thereafter, you proceed to advise me to use Ozone, whereas you advice against it.
> This is the attitude I was talking about when I said that the industry is full of pretentious people.
> Please get off this thread if you can't contribute in a civil manner.


I was very civil and to the point. You are the one who asked for help right? You "hate" mastering...but You simply don't like the answers people are giving you...I do not sugar coat anything, never have and never will because it doesn't do anyone any good...do what you want though. And I never said your track wasn't going anywhere..I said YOU won't get far with the mentality of half assed "good enough" attitude..and that's the truth..That's on you. Take it as you will. I recommended Ozone because it seems that you are looking for a quick fix, AND you said you are not good at mastering...hence needing an autonomous way to master which YOU asked for advice. It was a suggestion, but not one that is generally recommended. Plus you used possibly the worst platform to master anyway... SoundCloud's audio engine destroys audio most of the time.


----------



## AudioLoco (Jun 13, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> Or, alternative use Dolby or Ozone...?
> If you don't have anything to contribute, then don't.
> Seriously, what is up with you people and this topic? As noted before in this thread; This industry is full of pretentious people.


As by your own admission, you know nothing about mastering, and I do know "a thing or two". 
I was giving you an answer to your question about the existence of a magical software (no, not yet at least), and trying to give you direct and no thrills advice on how to obtain the *best results* in your position (try learning something about the topic instead of just "hating" it, or pay a pro to the job). There is no fully automatic software for what you are looking for. No shortcuts.
No need for petulance.
For "good enough" results for very low standards (Soundcloud you like so much is terrible - I would never let it touch my audio), you have many options, but I can't help you there.


----------



## Oxborg (Jun 13, 2021)

jaketanner said:


> I was very civil and to the point. You are the one who asked for help right? You "hate" mastering...but You simply don't like the answers people are giving you...I do not sugar coat anything, never have and never will because it doesn't do anyone any good...do what you want though. And I never said your track wasn't going anywhere..I said YOU won't get far with the mentality of half assed "good enough" attitude..and that's the truth..That's on you. Take it as you will. I recommended Ozone because it seems that you are looking for a quick fix, AND you said you are not good at mastering...hence needing an autonomous way to master which YOU asked for advice. It was a suggestion, but not one that is generally recommended. Plus you used possibly the worst platform to master anyway... SoundCloud's audio engine destroys audio most of the time.


Oh I like several answers in this thread. Those that stay on topic. Do you think because I'm not as passionate with mastering as you are, I simply do half assed things and that is my mental attitude about everything else? Tell me, how far has your pretentious attitude taken you?
I'm fully passionate about my music, but it's only a hobby/job on the side for me and I am fine with that. I make good money on my real job and I enjoy making the music that I do. Keep your attitude of "you should master like a pro or not be in the industry" to yourself next time.


----------



## jaketanner (Jun 13, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> Oh I like several answers in this thread. Those that stay on topic. Do you think because I'm not as passionate with mastering as you are, I simply do half assed things and that is my mental attitude about everything else? Tell me, how far has your pretentious attitude taken you?
> I'm fully passionate about my music, but it's only a hobby/job on the side for me and I am fine with that. I make good money on my real job and I enjoy making the music that I do. Keep your attitude of "you should master like a pro or not be in the industry" to yourself next time.


LOL. whatever man. I see by the many that gave you the same speech that it YOU that has the issue. Maybe don't post nonsense here next time.


----------



## Oxborg (Jun 13, 2021)

jaketanner said:


> LOL. whatever man. I see by the many that gave you the same speech that it YOU that has the issue. Maybe don't post nonsense here next time.


I can't even understand what sentence your brain is trying to form but I am fine with that.


----------



## Geomir (Jun 13, 2021)

@Oxborg 

This could be exactly what you are searching for:





IK Multimedia - Lurssen Mastering Console


Lurssen Mastering Console is an application for Mac/PC and iPhone/iPad designed to perform mastering of audio files using the process developed by Grammy Award winning mastering engineer Gavin Lurssen in his own studio.




www.ikmultimedia.com





It is an automatic (AI-based) mastering program. You buy it and own it lifetime (no cloud or subscription needed), with various presets for different kinds of music. You can also try it for free to see if you really like it.


----------



## Virtuoso (Jun 13, 2021)

Get a free trial of TC Electronic MD4 and see if it works for you. I use it on absolutely everything now. I probably have every other mastering tool out there, but I get really good results VERY quickly with MD4.


----------



## Tralen (Jun 13, 2021)

Having an automatic plugin and hiring an engineer are not mutually exclusive.

One could use the automatic plugin while developing the work, to get a quick reference for how the master could sound and still send for proper mastering at the end, or do it oneself.

I don't see why this discussion has to be so dramatic.


----------



## ceemusic (Jun 13, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> I'm wondering if there are any similair mastering programs that you can buy without having to pay Soundcloud everytime you want to master a mix.
> 
> Does these type of mastering tools exist?


If you sign up on BandLab you can use their free AI mastering service.
https://www.bandlab.com/mastering


----------



## Macrawn (Jun 13, 2021)

jaketanner said:


> Generally this mentality doesn't get you far. It should be great, or not. Good enough is like saying it's passable. You would get far better results by investing in something like Ozone..(Even though i advise against those "quick-fix" mastering tools).


I disagree with this. It's not a good enough attitude. I think you can get a good master. It won't be the best master you can get. But given a person's budget it could be the right choice. The recording quality one can get at home, plus the mixing mastering tools available now allow some pretty incredible things to happen for people. I've recorded some great things on a 4 track cassette tape that couldn't have happened otherwise especially if the "great" option was paying for studio time. It couldn't have happened in a studio.

Compare that to the tools I have available now? It's absolutely incredible how much higher quality I can get.


----------



## Oxborg (Jun 13, 2021)

Geomir said:


> @Oxborg
> 
> This could be exactly what you are searching for:
> 
> ...


This actually looks really good! I'm going to check it out. Thanks Geomir!


----------



## SteveC (Jun 13, 2021)

I have the Izotope stuff and I like it. For "mastering" I load some reference tracks in my DAW and try to compare them with my track. For the loudness I use Fabfilter pro L-2, works good. I don't like the "maximiser" in Ozone. I think, everybody can learn this basics. Just compare your work to your favorite records!


----------



## Alchemedia (Jun 14, 2021)

Oxborg said:


> I looked into Ozone and it looks like exactly what I'm looking for. Can you guys tell me which version you recommend? Elements, Standard or Advanced?


The main advantage of Ozone Advanced is that you can use the individual FX sans channel strip.


----------



## Alchemedia (Jun 14, 2021)

PeterN said:


> Thats the Standard on sale. If that bundle is 88% off, you will not get it cheaper. At least, until Ozone 10 is out


Perhaps NI is planning to bundle it with Komplete 14.


----------



## PeterN (Jun 15, 2021)

Hi @Oxborg,

Check the thread
Commercial Announcements - Tier 2​theres a new mastering tool introduced today.


----------



## Mikes (Sep 30, 2021)

Perfection is a myth... subjective one.
As for me when I'm trying to get deeper into mixing I have a headache, I have the same but with my teeth when I start with a mastering 
In most cases AI stuff is ok.

I checked some AI services. Soundcloud is really not the best. Landr and cloudbounce are pretty much the same (for me, subjective). Cloudbounce is cheaper (or less greedy), very fast (windows app was installed), plenty of options and you can load reference track. Works for me. Got it on sale which is finished, but it's not the last one for sure. You can use the code df496932 and get it for $14/month to try. If I'm not mistaken it was ~60/year and I got a premium lifetime for 100.

Yes, there is no soul and heart in machine, but it's even good sometimes. Music creators are not always following those "15 things you have to do to make your mastering engineer happy" and he have to get your crap together, wasting time and nerve with this monkey job. When he finally start with the real work - trust me , he is al least a bit not in the mood))) and this is totally normal - we're all people. So if you're working with a real man - do these freaking 15 steps. Not for him, it's for you. He'll see it as a respect and will do a hell of mastering for you (in some versions sometimes, even if you never asked it).


----------

