I ran a poll recently on a couple of home recording forums where I asked people to identify the best sounding master out of 5 possible masters.
I used the following to "remaster" an old song called "Future"
AAMS
LANDR
Masteringbox
A Professional Mastering Engineer
A Master that I produced myself
If you want to do this blind test yourself, check out my web page:
http://www.levityproject.com/home-mastering/mastering/audio-mastering-shootout
Since was a blind test, no one knew which one was which. This made things interesting ... and the results surprised me (sort of). One of the auto services actually got more love than the rest, but the reason why might be more predictable than you would think. I'll explain in a later post.
To complete the test, you will need to download Reaper, which can be found at http://reaper.fm/download.php
There are two Reaper Files in the test. One is not level matched, and one contains masters that I have level matched so they are all the same perceived volume. Try out both and see which master you like best in each.
Once you made your choices, check the results page to see which master you chose! Leave a comment to let me know which you preferred.
Leave a comment here or on the facebook page about which master you chose. I'll explain why you may have chosen it in a future post, but I believe the results will be fairly consistent (as they were when I ran the tests in some audiophile forums).
Photo Source: Wikmedia
The one that is number #5 is stated as AAMS Mastered in other forums (Reaper and Homerecording Forums) is actually not mastered by AAMS. We did a test and mastered the same track with AAMS with standard values and we come up with a way better sound. How is that possible ?
ReplyDeleteThe #5 AAMS mastered audio file is refered as DULL and No Highs. But it was not mastered with the AAMS software (www.curioza.com). So can you explain me where did you get it from ? If i master the same track with AAMS the results are allways way better then that you state in forums or here on this site...
DeleteMaster #5
ReplyDeleteAAMS. This was by far the worst of the bunch. Very dark, and lifeless.
Now for everybody reading this. You can download AAMS www.curioza.com. Just put the #5 AAMS track inside AAMS and master it with the standard preset (or any), you will hear a far better sound. It is not dark and not lifeless.
Somebody made a mistake with #5 saying it is a AAMS Mastered track. But actually it is not!
#5 was definitely mastered with AAMS using one of the Alternative rock settings. I know -- I did the test :) The results were dull and lifeless for sure. This was not a mistake. Putting #5 back through AAMS and getting better results just shows how difficult it can to get something workable. Sure, it's possible (just like it's possible to get results using LANDR or Mastering Box). But it takes a real person making creative decisions to actually get better results, and often it means tweaking the mix over and over until it works. You can't just pop it through the program. What you did was essentially re-master the mastered track. You made a mastering decision after the master was "completed". The program couldn't do that by itself.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I did a combination of mastering with AAMS and other tools on a recent album. I got results I was happy with. Your program has a place in the Home recording world. To me it's like choosing a Waves L1 over a Melda plugin. Some of the mixes lacked a midrange quality that I found AAMS was able to breathe back into them without much effort. So this is not to completely shoot down your program. I apologize if this is what it seemed like, but the point of the test was fully Automated vs real person. Fully automated, AAMS didn't do the trick. But then again, none of the fully automated options did the trick either.
ReplyDelete#5 was definitely not mastered with AAMS and the Alternative Rock Preset. Why? I did the same thing with your original file and used the same preset you did. The results do not even match. So i analyzed #5 file and the one i re-did with Original file and the Alt.rock Preset. Compared both in the Analyzer, they are miles apart!
ReplyDelete#5 is not AAMS outcome for sure.
Also checking out Auto vs Pro vs Self Mastering.zip on dates of the files, it is very confusing to see the ORIGINAL file 'Levity Project - Future - Original Mix (Normalized to -0.5db).mp3' was created or editted afther all masterings where done. The original mix, should have a date before all masterings where done! Everybody researching know you cannot have in ORIGINAL FILE that has a date afther testing!
So why not check it ? Download AAMS, put the Original file inside , do it with the same Alt.rock preset. You will see it is not #5! The results come out way better.
I am just here to say to prove #5 is the AAMS mastered file. I just disproved it. And if you pass me your email adres -> (sales@curioza.com) i can send you even the proof i have.
Your statement that AAMS differs every time is not so.
Delete'The results were dull and lifeless for sure. This was not a mistake. Putting #5 back through AAMS and getting better results just shows how difficult it can to get something workable'
This is not so, AAMS is a computer program, it will to the same outcome, with the same input very single time. So original file and alt.rock will do the same mastering, even if you use it 1000x, it will be the same result.
So i tested you #5 file that you say is from AAMS with original file and alt.rock preset, and i say it is not tested correctly or you made a mistake.
So i ask again, use the same ORI file as in the ZIP, use AAMS with alt.rock preset, and you seer 4 yourself.
#5 File is not AAMS mastered....
hmmm. OK so as I said already, you put a file that was already mastered with AAMS through the program again. On top of that, the original mix was normalized to -0.5db for the sake of the test, and was thus not truely the original mix. The original mix had an RMS size of -18dbFS and peaks of -12db or lower. AAMS did a poor job on that original mix. So i tested with the normalized mix and as you are contending, the results were much better. But in my real world test of throwing a mix in, AAMS didn't do a good job. End of story. HOWEVER, I did try putting the normalized mix through AAMS and the results were much better ... so there it is.
DeleteIt doesn't take long to spend a heap of money by purchasing extra shrieks and ringers you will probably never utilize. When you have built your self the ideal music-production framework, appreciate precisely how the program capacities, and give your dream free rule, creating your magnum opus will seem like what your ears wanted to hear.http://punjabimp3hits.com/videos/doomna-ammy-virk-mp3-song-download-punjabimp3hits-com/
ReplyDelete