Automatic mastering program

[NoamL]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Thomekk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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.