First of all, the track is insane! So good. This video is so helpful because I've been going insane over what service to use. My bias: I currently use Ozone 9 and it does its job very well and if not, I can always mess with it to detail. Unlike the other services. Also, I used LANDR years ago when it came out and I didn't like it at all. So I've been avoiding it for years now. I downloaded the tracks and level matched in Pro Tools and did my own test. (I totally understand why this video doesn't level match; it's comparing final results INCLUDING final level outputs. Not just tone.) MY TEST RESULTS: I WAS BLOWN AWAY. The CLEAR WINNER is C. LAN-effin-DR. I still can't believe it...I've been talking trash about LANDR all these years. MY PHILOSOPHY: Let's remember that as musicians and engineers we don't really sell audio, we sell EMOTIONS and FEELINGS. Your average listener could care less what expensive gear you used, or what meticulous and tedious technique you used to get the perfect side chain compressor or whatever. GIVEN THIS, I clearly thought D, the human master, would destroy the rest...but then C sneaked up and blew the rest out of the water. WHY 'C' WON: After playing every master back and forth, over and over, with each other and the original mix, C stands out as the most pleasant, and has the BEST FEEL. It just feels the best... as much as my biased/audio-purist self didn't want this to be true. It makes me do a stank face and groove to it. If the track was any longer I'd probably need a medical neck brace. It feels right. It sounds right. It sounds big It sounds punchy and in your face. Master 'D' ALSO has the right FEEL and when comparing to the original mix, the difference is insane. I'd be very happy with the master 'D' as a client. However, I still prefer 'C' and to me, there's literally only 2 reasons why I prefer 'C' over 'D'. TECHNICALITY: Although BOTH C and D have the right feel. C is a clear winner for 2 reasons. REASON 1: STEREO FIELD/WIDTH. C was the only master that was enhanced in the stereo field. It's wider than the others, and it seems like it was the ONLY one that did this. The rest are very similar width wise. HOWEVER, wider doesn't mean better but it did help it feel more modern and hear the band surround me rather than in front of me. REASON 2: TONE BALANCE. I don't just mean tone. Some masters are clearly brighter in tone, others warm, and others in between. However, within the final tone, regardless of taste, it should be balanced, COHESIVE. Master 'D' has a great tone, however, the low end feels unbalanced... like it's out of place. Master 'B' (Ozone 9) is super well balanced, but in doing so it lacks FEEL and punch. C has a brighter tone but is balanced while ENHANCING the feel. WILDCARD: Master 'D' has an advantage though, it's made by a human that you can communicate with. I would personally prefer this and just tell the engineer about the low end and we're good and happy. Also, LANDR did great on this song but who's to say it'll be perfect for every genre and song. Food for thought. Anyways, I love this channel and I've learned a lot from their videos. I don't mean to disrespect anyone, just being completely honest as a music lover and audio engineer. Thanks for all the useful information with the great sense of humor. Thanks for coming to my TEDtalk.
I agree about Ozone. I love that it is actually a tool. Unlike these other services, every single thing it's doing can be seen and adjusted. There's no secret sauce. And you don't pay for file types or per song. You just buy the software and that's it. I just wish Mastering assistant would listen to the whole song. I think it could do a much better job. It'd also be nice if it had some album mastering features for getting a collection of songs into a similar tonal shape and level.
I'm surprised to see Ozone 9 listed as an automated service because its mostly a mastering suite with lots of tools to master how you want. The automated mastering assistant is just a bonus really. I would interested in finding out what kind of result Mark would get using Ozone and challenging the features available.
This has helped me make the best decision for my music. Thank you guys for the review! A human remasterer would be the best choice. If not, Landr is the way to go for automated. Awesome!
Great video as usual. It would be even greater to do this again, but this time before revealing the identity of the services, have 1000 of us listen and rank the results so we can have an objective and representative assessment, and ideally with a few songs in multiple genres. Also, because this song has been used by you guys for the 1176 shootout, I think you have a bias as to how it should sound like since you've all probably heard the final mix a number of times already. Finally, since most music is played normalised these days I believe it would be more fair to loudness match them before comparing. We can easily see which ones are heavily compressed/limited anyway.
@@PresentDayProduction Yes but don't let us see the results before we submit our vote. And deactivate the video comments temporarily so that we can't be biased by what the others think. As soon as there's one version that begins to stand out from the others, it is human to think that it is probably the best one, and have a tendency to choose this one over the others.
I use cloudbounce - but only as a tool to check mixes, meaning if my mix sounds OK with cloudbounce applied, it will most probably sound at least as good or even better when mastered by a human.
What I loved about D was that I could hear the bass grooving even during the chorus, that to me was the main giveaway that it had received the attention of a human. Although I have to say that I really liked C for an automated job, I was quite surprised.
I own Ozone 9 and it is okay for quick out-the-door demos for my student, but nothing compares to the real thing by virtue of the high end speakers and a second set of very experienced ears. I imagine that if Mark were to use the entire tool-set found in Ozone he could make it sound awesome as well. For me, Mastering is a dark-art and I don't have enough soul left to trade in to get good at it. I'm finishing up my album soon and I'm going to have you master it so I can show my class what a professional mastering job vs Ozone sounds like.
Thanks Michael, and thanks for your email! I actually use Ozone 9 all the time for mastering, and the ‘assistant’ is only really designed as a starting point, but as a suite of software it’s incredible. Thanks for all your support this year, and we’ll be in touch real soon!
I'd also like the settings for each service to be revealed. LANDR has a few options that I know of that can drastically change how the master sounds as does Ozone (which has some heavy customisation)
First of all, nothing beats a second opinion from someone who knows what he's doing. Secondly, I still like Ozone Advanced 9. The problem is trusting Ozone's settings right away. For the rest, I'm no mastering guy by any stretch, so how should I tell how something translates? When my room, my speaker, my headphone have a problem, they'll still have it with the master. Trust your mastering engeneer :). And, even if I repeat myself, great video, as always!
I hear there is a loudness difference between the tracks, is there a chance you can publish the tracks so we can compare them at the same loudness? My personal top is C, I feel D is a bit over-compressed in the midrange.
I downloaded the mastered audio files and loudness normalized them. After that, I felt B had the most balanced sound. E and D also sounded good but the kick drum stood out a bit too much in the mix, and I could hear audible limiting of the transients.
D for Me,,,,it IS a bit difficult when levels are not matched..which is why I use the leveling function of Fab Filter Pro L 2 as the final stage. Not to be underestimated (IMO) is the most appropriate compressor during the Mix, before Exporting for Mastering, I really want only 1-1.5 db compression in the Mastering stage...which is what Mark's very fine master sounds like to me. Nice and open and dynamic. Fun vid, fellows! Cheers.
cloudbounce is Abbey Road automated - I tend to use it for my mastering and its proved very effective and good value at about £9 a track - i thought it was pretty close to Mr D personally and Mr D would charge 10 times as much - you pays yer money.....
I went for D because the bottom end came through, but C was pretty good too. Well done, very interesting video. I’m now gonna rewatch but with an assortment of headphones to see if anything changers with different devices. Thanks guys 👍👍
I was almost the same choice as Jamie. I had A and F the other way around. When the waveform on the screen starts looking like a solid stripe, it's never good. C was better than I expected any of them to do. If there was some miracle mastering plugin you can run a tune through and it mastered like a "Grammy award winning mastering engineer" like those dumb Facebook and RUclips ads spout, it would just be a plug in for your DAW. 🤷
I love the content chaps. Well done, really liked your video about using live equipment as an input. Would love to see a video going over the audio quality, control surface features, and pros & cons comparisons, of some of the competitors of the presonus studiolive line in the sub 5k range specifically geared towards recording in a studio as opposed to a live or FoH setting.
I would have loudness-matched them by bringing them all down to the same level (judged by ear on the midrange) as the original. That would have given the best comparison of tonality and dynamics. I'm not surprised Landr did okay, I've matched myself against it a few times. I've no problem with it (as long as I can still beat it 😀).
Having the files exactly as presented by the online services seemed to be a fairer comparison - the process of mastering should be the final process in the music creation journey. Having to turn the track up or down to suit online streaming services defeats that purpose, so we believe that presenting the files as received from those services was a fairer comparison - show who’s boosting the level, etc. But thank you for your comment!
Straight away you could hear that D was the best and i wasnt surprised that it was Marks as you could hear the difference in presence and low end, proof that these automated services are never going to replace the human experience and knowledge
D was the best for me ..a better balance of all the elements..really liked it..yeah the ozone one was pretty obvious for me.. I am fairly familiar with it.
The professional master and landr are not the same, but landr being 2% of the cost and 96% the quality... dangerous video for you guys to make selling me on landr subscription!
Yes, it’s cheaper, however you do get to work with a human with choice D in this test. Sometimes it’s just better to have a human evaluating the music and being able to communicate exactly what you want can be useful. Of course, Landr did sound surprisingly good, but it would be interesting to try it over 100 tracks, vs 100 tracks done by the human
@@PresentDayProduction Landr does get lucky. There was one track I got sent where Landr had found a nice flavour in the bass that took me a while to find. A good test for me! 😀
I thought the levels were not equivalent - impossible to compare. I had C at the top; D I like but it was too loud and the bass too present - might be my listening system. Also, Ozone only gives you a starting point.
We left the levels as they came back and intentionally didn’t level match them so as you could hear what you can expect from various services. I’m done with levels though… I’m mastering for people that know how to use a volume control!
I definitely agree that F was the worst and D was the best. C wasn't extremely far off in quality, probably the best one out of the automated services.
It’s worth bearing in mind that all of these versions would be turned down by online streaming services. Taking Spotify as an example, they would be turned down by approx:
Original: -1.5 dB A: -5.3 dB B: -0.8 dB C: -2.1 dB D: -4.0 dB E: -3.1 dB F: -0.2 dB
Having listened to the original files in Logic before and after loudness matching, my preference is E.
A: Too compressed and overblown. B: A slightly weaker version of the original mmix C: Reasonable, but upper midrange a bit too dominant and punchy. D: I find the kick drum too dominant and ‘flubby’. E: The least offensive ‘mastered’ version to my ears. F: Doesn’t sound as bad after level matching, but still brittle.
I’m not a professional mixer or mastering engineer. I have tinnitus and piss poor hearing above 8K and most likely deficiencies in other frequencies too, so feel free to thoroughly dismiss my opinions.
Generally agree with the order. I would be interested to know what (if anything) loudness penalties the main streaming sites would give each each version. For example A looked overly compressed. Also maybe they should have listened on different devices etc rather than the studio monitors.
We always do any critical listening on our monitors, simply because we know they’re super accurate and we can trust them for a great portrayal of what’s actually going on
@@PresentDayProduction I am sure Mark’s was the best no matter what the device and its impossible for an algorithm to replace the human ear when it comes to responding to the musical nuances in a track. I think what you are saying is that by listening on those monitors will give you a good indication of how it would sound on any device.
You got it. I’m trying to say that our monitors translate incredibly well to other devices, hence why we trust them and they won’t be replaced by any others! (Unless we can get some ATC SCM300’s 😏)
I feel like you were “unfair with Ozone! For one thing they just give a suggestion or a starting point and then you have all the control you want to change things and add compression limiting saturation or whatever tools you want to master your track! So I did agree with you but you were definitely unfair when it came Ozone you didn’t even mention that it was just a starting point and you have a lot of tools to choose from!
Nope. They did not use the regular Ozone, but the Ozone Mastering Assistant (if I remember correctly). That seems to be a fully automated service. They should have emphasized this better in the video.
Let me clarify, as this was also commented the other day too: In the results, B was Ozone Mastering Assistant, which is ENTIRELY automated in our test. We didn’t touch any buttons other than “start”. D was Mark, who did a manual master using the plugins he usually uses, such as Ozone (manually operated with no presets), Slate VBC and Slate FG-X. This could possibly have been better emphasised, however, it was a fair comparison with Ozone and it most certainly WAS fully automated in the Ozone Mastering Assistant test.
@@gjkoolen Just to clarify, the mastering assistant is intended to be a starting point. I have this system and have been using it for years and that’s what it’s all about they give you a very basic starting point and do not claim that it is to master but just a mastering assistant to give you a good starting point.🤓
@@PresentDayProduction no I strongly disagree! That is not what Ozone mastering assistant is all about! The mastering assistant is only a basic starting point and you can read that in the instructions if you don’t believe me! I would’ve been more fair if you use one of the presets.
I’d still go human, followed by Ozone 9 advanced simply because it’s “assistant” is nothing more than a feature. Having ultimate control in the end to blend AI with human decision making is where it’s at. But If Landr made a plugin instead of a service that worked like this oh boy.
Having listened to a few of such comparisons I have an impression that such automated systems are quite capable of bringing out and even improving the tone of one aspect of the track but a human can do that with several aspects of the track at once. Plus, humans are better at deciding which aspect of the track to bring out. Like in this example, I quite liked the way that A version emphasized the bass and groove of the track, but it did so at the expense of clarity of the track. D version emphasized the same thing, but also managed to maintain clarity. E.g. I found the bass runs in the first section much easier to notice and follow. And in the vocal section A version kind of sounded like the automated system wasn't 100% sure it should now give a spotlight to the vocals, so to me they sounded a bit off. EDIT: having listened once more it sounds like the vocals in the A version are maybe fine, but the system didn't back off the emphasis on the drums, so the louder hits ended up drowning out the vocals every beat or so and that's why vocals sounded weird to me.
I says the structure of the arcive on the rar is damaged. Tried to dl twice, and tried 2 diff unpack applications. Could you plz re-up or am i just dumb? Great video btw esp since i am in the process in mastering lots of tracks and is looking for an engineer so this interests me very much. thx
Now I have no doubt that an experienced mastering engineer will produce the best results, but I doubt you would publish this video if the guy from the video would haven't been your first choice.
Very good video about automated mastering compared to a real human mastering. But I do have a question here. I watched this video a few times on different systems and different places. I choose C as my favorite, Mix-D as 2nd or 3rd. I think on one of my systems the Mix-D has too much low end, on the other systems the guitar on the right channel sounds a little bit sharp and much clearer than the vocal (vocal little quiet or dark). I don't know if this is my own taste problem or it's because of my systems' characters. I will be very happy if you or all the friends in the comments can answer this. Fantastic video then, good job!
Of course, taste is a big part. Everyone has their own preferences, we aren’t saying our choices are definitive! Just a helpful video to show what some services offer. And listening on different systems may show different results too, or maybe not. It entirely depends on your ears, the room you listen it, your personal preferences. There’s no right or wrong, just whatever you prefer
@@PresentDayProduction I will rewatch this in my studio to see if I can find other differences or cancel all the influences. Thanks for your reply and your superb channel!
After Looking At Cloudbounce Wasn't To Sure About Online Mastering.. So I Came Here.. A & D Was Close For Me, But After Listening To It More I Was Leaning Towards A...Quite Surprise It Was Cloudbounce
Yeah, they came up with a system whereby you have to know the right people! It’s not what you know, it’s you you know, right?! Being in certain trade organisations help, like the Producers Guild in England, and whatever equivalent there is in other countries. And then you have to obviously show that you can adhere to their guidelines, and there’s a specific Apple plugin they send you that must not clip.
I feel ozone should have been left out because you can still manipulate the results with human ears LANDR has come along way and of course Mark does a great job and your channel is awesome
Having the files exactly as presented by the online services seemed to be a fairer comparison - the process of mastering should be the final process in the music creation journey. Having to turn the track up or down to suit online streaming services defeats that purpose, so we believe that presenting the files as received from those services was a fairer comparison - show who’s boosting the level, etc. But thank you for your comments.
@@PresentDayProduction I appreciate the video. It is helpful, but I disagree entirely with you. We're trying to discern the quality of the mastered sound, not who's volume boosting. It's a challenge to tune in to the balance of sound when our brains are having to adjusting to volume fluctuations. If you were shopping for a car stereo, studio monitors, or a guitar amp, would you want the sales person to randomly crank one product over another while you were trying to make a decision which one to buy?
Well, I do understand your point! Feel free to download the files from here and level match them in your own DAW, hopefully this will give you the conclusion you’re looking for: www.presentdayproduction.com/masteringcomparison
The original mix sounds best. The truth is that they were all awfully mastered. Ironically, 'C' the L***R version sounded the most balanced in respect to the original, but that was probably purely accidental as it could have been a warmer sound. That said, 'D' the "human" version was just as bad as the others because it tilted the mix balance towards a boomy bass sound. That mix only needed mild, broad strokes in the mids and some sheen at the top end. FWIW.
Great video guys.. Before I saw this I had recently purchased the yearly pro option of LANDR, which now has unlimited 24 bit WAVs (after humming and hawing between it and Cloudbounce). Glad now after seeing this! 😊. I was thinking about getting Ozone 9 too, but may just stick with LANDR now.. As it's just for home recordings (using virtual instruments) LANDR is probably good enough for me.
Hi Puesa, we're glad you agree! Thanks for watching our video and leaving a comment. If you'd like to get in touch regarding some mastering, please visit www.cosmic-audio.co.uk/mastering
It is funny because the worst for me was f and the best one was d the same as you guys, and I can see that the decision for was because I can listen how the process benefit the song. So the other master was not as good as D but, I couldn't say that all the Masters are unusable actually some of them sounds pretty good
I agree with Jamie F and A are the Worst , but im not sure wish one is worst probably wen you go on the loudest part is amazing how bad A sounds that alone should of make A the worst one my opinion B sounds Better then A is just that A is Louder and over compress, C And D sounded better to me I will definitely go with D , I try to Pick Same Time Jamie and James did wen I was watching the Video , i will Give worst to A not F ,
Thanks for sharing the WAVs. A: Easily the worst. Sounds pinched. The vocal takes a step back and nothing is improved. It's louder but worser. B: Slight improvement in clarity and tightness. No improvement in air. Little harm done. C: Too much high end. Kick and snare are slappy. D: Obviously the human one - the only one that brings out the groove. E: Feels over-compressed in the mids. Not too bad in the highs but sounds like it's been hit with too much multi-band. Uncomfortable to listen to. F: Thin and brings out the sibilance.
funnily everyone agrees and me also, i never even considered the b and f because they are not up to a level in loudness even, they actually might sound ok but who cares if you can't hear it, e - the worst - acd - i took as the best and had to relisten to think what is the best, though i do agree a is lower than cd and here we go. they say sound is subjective the more i watch youtube the more I understand it actually not
Human mastering is always going to be better. The best online mastering is Aria Mastering in my personal opinion. It's a shame you left them out because they use analog gear automated by robots, quite interesting results. I wish the revisions you can do in Aria were more flexible though...
I agree that it maybe should have been tested and compared to the other ones but for my personal taste, I think that Aria makes a great low end on the master but every time I've tried it, it has put way to much highs in the master. That makes it sound harsh i think, but that's my personal taste
My bottom to top: F, E, B, A, C, D Soundcloud, Emastered, Ozone Mastering Assistant, Cloudbounce, Landr, Real Human. I'm excited because I'm going to be working with a mastering engineer for the first time in a couple weeks. But I'm still impressed with Ozone because unlike the others, it's full fledged tool that you can use on your desktop or in your DAW. So 1 time payment = unlimited everything. Plus, mastering assistant is just a starting point. You can put in that human touch afterwards or undo/change anything and everything it did. I just wish Ozone would listen to the whole song, not just a 30 second section. I think it's mastering assistant could be even better.
mine as well. it's so funny how everyone who is good at music agrees on this despite that people claim sound is subjective. it's always that if i watch youtubers who are competent and they provide the exact same opinions as i do.
Honest opinion: There is no way off the bat (from one listen) both of you could have selected D. Also you started off the video promoting him so god forbid he didn’t win…how would it look the same guy you promoting didn’t win! Sorry but this is purely a promo video.
You’re slow… they’re professionals in a room with speakers. They know wtf they’re talking about. The dudes been mastering for 30 years of course it’s gonna be a better mix
You don't think 2 professionals in a well treated room, with top notch speakers, working on a regular basis with a mastering engineer with 30+ years of professional mastering experience, just MIGHT have picked up a few pointers on what constitutes a polished record?
Hi! Yes, you can go to www.cosmic-audio.co.uk and book through the website. There is also a contact form here if you’d like to have a chat first: www.cosmic-audio.co.uk/contact
@@PresentDayProduction Wow thank you! Very impressed with the quick response. So if I’m guessing correctly that there is a line of people that are waiting. By chance is there a estimate of time that would likely be the contact time for contract?
love this channel. A lot of good humour thrown in the mix. entertaining and educational! subscribed!
Thank you for watching, and thank you very much for subscribing to our channel! We hope you enjoy our videos, we'll keep all the great content coming!
First of all, the track is insane! So good.
This video is so helpful because I've been going insane over what service to use.
My bias: I currently use Ozone 9 and it does its job very well and if not, I can always mess with it to detail. Unlike the other services. Also, I used LANDR years ago when it came out and I didn't like it at all. So I've been avoiding it for years now.
I downloaded the tracks and level matched in Pro Tools and did my own test. (I totally understand why this video doesn't level match; it's comparing final results INCLUDING final level outputs. Not just tone.)
MY TEST RESULTS: I WAS BLOWN AWAY. The CLEAR WINNER is C. LAN-effin-DR. I still can't believe it...I've been talking trash about LANDR all these years.
MY PHILOSOPHY: Let's remember that as musicians and engineers we don't really sell audio, we sell EMOTIONS and FEELINGS. Your average listener could care less what expensive gear you used, or what meticulous and tedious technique you used to get the perfect side chain compressor or whatever. GIVEN THIS, I clearly thought D, the human master, would destroy the rest...but then C sneaked up and blew the rest out of the water.
WHY 'C' WON: After playing every master back and forth, over and over, with each other and the original mix, C stands out as the most pleasant, and has the BEST FEEL. It just feels the best... as much as my biased/audio-purist self didn't want this to be true. It makes me do a stank face and groove to it. If the track was any longer I'd probably need a medical neck brace. It feels right. It sounds right. It sounds big It sounds punchy and in your face. Master 'D' ALSO has the right FEEL and when comparing to the original mix, the difference is insane. I'd be very happy with the master 'D' as a client. However, I still prefer 'C' and to me, there's literally only 2 reasons why I prefer 'C' over 'D'.
TECHNICALITY: Although BOTH C and D have the right feel. C is a clear winner for 2 reasons.
REASON 1: STEREO FIELD/WIDTH. C was the only master that was enhanced in the stereo field. It's wider than the others, and it seems like it was the ONLY one that did this. The rest are very similar width wise. HOWEVER, wider doesn't mean better but it did help it feel more modern and hear the band surround me rather than in front of me.
REASON 2: TONE BALANCE. I don't just mean tone. Some masters are clearly brighter in tone, others warm, and others in between. However, within the final tone, regardless of taste, it should be balanced, COHESIVE. Master 'D' has a great tone, however, the low end feels unbalanced... like it's out of place. Master 'B' (Ozone 9) is super well balanced, but in doing so it lacks FEEL and punch. C has a brighter tone but is balanced while ENHANCING the feel.
WILDCARD: Master 'D' has an advantage though, it's made by a human that you can communicate with. I would personally prefer this and just tell the engineer about the low end and we're good and happy. Also, LANDR did great on this song but who's to say it'll be perfect for every genre and song. Food for thought.
Anyways, I love this channel and I've learned a lot from their videos. I don't mean to disrespect anyone, just being completely honest as a music lover and audio engineer. Thanks for all the useful information with the great sense of humor.
Thanks for coming to my TEDtalk.
I agree about Ozone. I love that it is actually a tool. Unlike these other services, every single thing it's doing can be seen and adjusted. There's no secret sauce. And you don't pay for file types or per song. You just buy the software and that's it.
I just wish Mastering assistant would listen to the whole song. I think it could do a much better job. It'd also be nice if it had some album mastering features for getting a collection of songs into a similar tonal shape and level.
I'm surprised to see Ozone 9 listed as an automated service because its mostly a mastering suite with lots of tools to master how you want. The automated mastering assistant is just a bonus really. I would interested in finding out what kind of result Mark would get using Ozone and challenging the features available.
Same reaction here
This has helped me make the best decision for my music. Thank you guys for the review! A human remasterer would be the best choice. If not, Landr is the way to go for automated. Awesome!
Great video as usual. It would be even greater to do this again, but this time before revealing the identity of the services, have 1000 of us listen and rank the results so we can have an objective and representative assessment, and ideally with a few songs in multiple genres.
Also, because this song has been used by you guys for the 1176 shootout, I think you have a bias as to how it should sound like since you've all probably heard the final mix a number of times already.
Finally, since most music is played normalised these days I believe it would be more fair to loudness match them before comparing. We can easily see which ones are heavily compressed/limited anyway.
Good idea. We can look into this for other videos - a poll or something.
@@PresentDayProduction Yes but don't let us see the results before we submit our vote. And deactivate the video comments temporarily so that we can't be biased by what the others think. As soon as there's one version that begins to stand out from the others, it is human to think that it is probably the best one, and have a tendency to choose this one over the others.
I use cloudbounce - but only as a tool to check mixes, meaning if my mix sounds OK with cloudbounce applied, it will most probably sound at least as good or even better when mastered by a human.
Thank you guys, this was super helpful Marks sense of humor is priceless. Love.
What I loved about D was that I could hear the bass grooving even during the chorus, that to me was the main giveaway that it had received the attention of a human. Although I have to say that I really liked C for an automated job, I was quite surprised.
I kept going back and forth between D and C. I'm really surprised Landr did such a decent job. But I'm sure that also depends on the song
This is a very important video. I also found the Soundcloud upload segment to be informative and unbiased.
D has been the best master. Human ears and experience are the winner...thanks for the very interesting video
I own Ozone 9 and it is okay for quick out-the-door demos for my student, but nothing compares to the real thing by virtue of the high end speakers and a second set of very experienced ears. I imagine that if Mark were to use the entire tool-set found in Ozone he could make it sound awesome as well. For me, Mastering is a dark-art and I don't have enough soul left to trade in to get good at it. I'm finishing up my album soon and I'm going to have you master it so I can show my class what a professional mastering job vs Ozone sounds like.
Thanks Michael, and thanks for your email! I actually use Ozone 9 all the time for mastering, and the ‘assistant’ is only really designed as a starting point, but as a suite of software it’s incredible. Thanks for all your support this year, and we’ll be in touch real soon!
Yes Please! Mastering walkthrough would be amazing :)
Forgot to add...that's a VERY nice recording to start with. Kudo's as well to the vocalist and songwriter.
This too good information I want collaborate with you buddy I need your mastering
Thanks for watching! You can certainly get in touch using our business email. Send us an email at info@presentdayproduction.com
Thanks!
I picked D as the best too. As soon as it came on I started bobbing my head. Top vid, keep em coming 👍
Thanks Luke!
PresentDayProduction no worries. Just out of interest was your master all ITB or did it go through some outboard?
Luke Neptune All in the box for this
I'd also like the settings for each service to be revealed. LANDR has a few options that I know of that can drastically change how the master sounds as does Ozone (which has some heavy customisation)
That Soundcloud processing story was hilarious! 😂
I liked D mix
When can we get MARKstered system?
First of all, nothing beats a second opinion from someone who knows what he's doing.
Secondly, I still like Ozone Advanced 9. The problem is trusting Ozone's settings right away.
For the rest, I'm no mastering guy by any stretch, so how should I tell how something translates? When my room, my speaker, my headphone have a problem, they'll still have it with the master.
Trust your mastering engeneer :).
And, even if I repeat myself, great video, as always!
Thanks Peter!
I hear there is a loudness difference between the tracks, is there a chance you can publish the tracks so we can compare them at the same loudness? My personal top is C, I feel D is a bit over-compressed in the midrange.
Thank you for your time.
I like "C" version. It's clean and balanced.
I downloaded the mastered audio files and loudness normalized them. After that, I felt B had the most balanced sound. E and D also sounded good but the kick drum stood out a bit too much in the mix, and I could hear audible limiting of the transients.
This was the best video ending I have ever seen
D for Me,,,,it IS a bit difficult when levels are not matched..which is why I use the leveling function of Fab Filter Pro L 2 as the final stage. Not to be underestimated (IMO) is the most appropriate compressor during the Mix, before Exporting for Mastering, I really want only 1-1.5 db compression in the Mastering stage...which is what Mark's very fine master sounds like to me. Nice and open and dynamic. Fun vid, fellows! Cheers.
cloudbounce is Abbey Road automated - I tend to use it for my mastering and its proved very effective and good value at about £9 a track - i thought it was pretty close to Mr D personally and Mr D would charge 10 times as much - you pays yer money.....
looks like Mark isn’t out of a job just yet😂lovely video as always
Great Video guys!
Thanks Styro!!
I went for D because the bottom end came through, but C was pretty good too. Well done, very interesting video.
I’m now gonna rewatch but with an assortment of headphones to see if anything changers with different devices. Thanks guys 👍👍
I honestly prefered C. Listening in my jaybird vistas dö not very neutral sounding, but still suprised me that that one wasn't human made
C was by far the best for me. Of course D has more Bass but the detail and clarity of C was much more pleasing and balanced.
I was almost the same choice as Jamie. I had A and F the other way around. When the waveform on the screen starts looking like a solid stripe, it's never good. C was better than I expected any of them to do.
If there was some miracle mastering plugin you can run a tune through and it mastered like a "Grammy award winning mastering engineer" like those dumb Facebook and RUclips ads spout, it would just be a plug in for your DAW.
🤷
I love the content chaps. Well done, really liked your video about using live equipment as an input.
Would love to see a video going over the audio quality, control surface features, and pros & cons comparisons, of some of the competitors of the presonus studiolive line in the sub 5k range specifically geared towards recording in a studio as opposed to a live or FoH setting.
Thanks, glad you’re enjoying them! We are actually working on such a video, so sit tight, that’s coming!
i am a ME myself,and clients still love to have real human feedback.
I would have loudness-matched them by bringing them all down to the same level (judged by ear on the midrange) as the original. That would have given the best comparison of tonality and dynamics. I'm not surprised Landr did okay, I've matched myself against it a few times. I've no problem with it (as long as I can still beat it 😀).
Having the files exactly as presented by the online services seemed to be a fairer comparison - the process of mastering should be the final process in the music creation journey. Having to turn the track up or down to suit online streaming services defeats that purpose, so we believe that presenting the files as received from those services was a fairer comparison - show who’s boosting the level, etc. But thank you for your comment!
Yeah, I was liking D all day long and F was the tinniest.
Wonderful video, guys!
Straight away you could hear that D was the best and i wasnt surprised that it was Marks as you could hear the difference in presence and low end, proof that these automated services are never going to replace the human experience and knowledge
Tha blooper at the end was great
D was the best for me ..a better balance of all the elements..really liked it..yeah the ozone one was pretty obvious for me.. I am fairly familiar with it.
The Best One is the original Mix
The professional master and landr are not the same, but landr being 2% of the cost and 96% the quality... dangerous video for you guys to make selling me on landr subscription!
Yes, it’s cheaper, however you do get to work with a human with choice D in this test. Sometimes it’s just better to have a human evaluating the music and being able to communicate exactly what you want can be useful. Of course, Landr did sound surprisingly good, but it would be interesting to try it over 100 tracks, vs 100 tracks done by the human
@@PresentDayProduction Landr does get lucky. There was one track I got sent where Landr had found a nice flavour in the bass that took me a while to find. A good test for me! 😀
In my over ear headphones, C was the best. D was too bassy
someone should also put to test the 'communication with the client' side of mastering as a service.
The comparison actually starts at 8:09.
I thought the levels were not equivalent - impossible to compare. I had C at the top; D I like but it was too loud and the bass too present - might be my listening system. Also, Ozone only gives you a starting point.
We left the levels as they came back and intentionally didn’t level match them so as you could hear what you can expect from various services. I’m done with levels though… I’m mastering for people that know how to use a volume control!
Yay! You beat the machines!
Thank goodness for that! This could have been a very embarrassing video 😂
song is fire
I used all. Now with Cloudbounce. The best quality for me
is the app as high quality as their online service?
@@kevincook5671 I do not use their app . I prefer their online service
@@kevincook5671 I prefer the online service
I definitely agree that F was the worst and D was the best. C wasn't extremely far off in quality, probably the best one out of the automated services.
It’s worth bearing in mind that all of these versions would be turned down by online streaming services. Taking Spotify as an example, they would be turned down by approx:
Original: -1.5 dB
A: -5.3 dB
B: -0.8 dB
C: -2.1 dB
D: -4.0 dB
E: -3.1 dB
F: -0.2 dB
Having listened to the original files in Logic before and after loudness matching, my preference is E.
A: Too compressed and overblown.
B: A slightly weaker version of the original mmix
C: Reasonable, but upper midrange a bit too dominant and punchy.
D: I find the kick drum too dominant and ‘flubby’.
E: The least offensive ‘mastered’ version to my ears.
F: Doesn’t sound as bad after level matching, but still brittle.
I’m not a professional mixer or mastering engineer. I have tinnitus and piss poor hearing above 8K and most likely deficiencies in other frequencies too, so feel free to thoroughly dismiss my opinions.
skip to 5:30 to actually get into the comparisons
thank you
A Sounded Best to me
Generally agree with the order. I would be interested to know what (if anything) loudness penalties the main streaming sites would give each each version. For example A looked overly compressed. Also maybe they should have listened on different devices etc rather than the studio monitors.
We always do any critical listening on our monitors, simply because we know they’re super accurate and we can trust them for a great portrayal of what’s actually going on
@@PresentDayProduction I am sure Mark’s was the best no matter what the device and its impossible for an algorithm to replace the human ear when it comes to responding to the musical nuances in a track. I think what you are saying is that by listening on those monitors will give you a good indication of how it would sound on any device.
You got it. I’m trying to say that our monitors translate incredibly well to other devices, hence why we trust them and they won’t be replaced by any others! (Unless we can get some ATC SCM300’s 😏)
9:20 CloudBounce Wins in a Big Margin, Dynamically Rich" Every Sound / Vocals are Super Clear...Nice
Yep! I also like CloudBounce ,Super Clear...........
This has a Marvin Gaye type of sound to it like it
I feel like you were “unfair with Ozone! For one thing they just give a suggestion or a starting point and then you have all the control you want to change things and add compression limiting saturation or whatever tools you want to master your track! So I did agree with you but you were definitely unfair when it came Ozone you didn’t even mention that it was just a starting point and you have a lot of tools to choose from!
Nope. They did not use the regular Ozone, but the Ozone Mastering Assistant (if I remember correctly). That seems to be a fully automated service.
They should have emphasized this better in the video.
Let me clarify, as this was also commented the other day too:
In the results, B was Ozone Mastering Assistant, which is ENTIRELY automated in our test. We didn’t touch any buttons other than “start”.
D was Mark, who did a manual master using the plugins he usually uses, such as Ozone (manually operated with no presets), Slate VBC and Slate FG-X.
This could possibly have been better emphasised, however, it was a fair comparison with Ozone and it most certainly WAS fully automated in the Ozone Mastering Assistant test.
@@gjkoolen Just to clarify, the mastering assistant is intended to be a starting point. I have this system and have been using it for years and that’s what it’s all about they give you a very basic starting point and do not claim that it is to master but just a mastering assistant to give you a good starting point.🤓
@@PresentDayProduction no I strongly disagree! That is not what Ozone mastering assistant is all about! The mastering assistant is only a basic starting point and you can read that in the instructions if you don’t believe me! I would’ve been more fair if you use one of the presets.
@@DerrickBigWalker Aha, that makes it more clear. Thanks for explaining.
I’d still go human, followed by Ozone 9 advanced simply because it’s “assistant” is nothing more than a feature. Having ultimate control in the end to blend AI with human decision making is where it’s at. But If Landr made a plugin instead of a service that worked like this oh boy.
the D - definitely wins, the worst one is F, and the 'not that bad' - A.
guess im using Landr
thank you, very instructive..
Having listened to a few of such comparisons I have an impression that such automated systems are quite capable of bringing out and even improving the tone of one aspect of the track but a human can do that with several aspects of the track at once. Plus, humans are better at deciding which aspect of the track to bring out.
Like in this example, I quite liked the way that A version emphasized the bass and groove of the track, but it did so at the expense of clarity of the track. D version emphasized the same thing, but also managed to maintain clarity. E.g. I found the bass runs in the first section much easier to notice and follow. And in the vocal section A version kind of sounded like the automated system wasn't 100% sure it should now give a spotlight to the vocals, so to me they sounded a bit off.
EDIT: having listened once more it sounds like the vocals in the A version are maybe fine, but the system didn't back off the emphasis on the drums, so the louder hits ended up drowning out the vocals every beat or so and that's why vocals sounded weird to me.
Apple digital masters- how and where do you email/contact Apple to get on the certified list?
I says the structure of the arcive on the rar is damaged. Tried to dl twice, and tried 2 diff unpack applications. Could you plz re-up or am i just dumb? Great video btw esp since i am in the process in mastering lots of tracks and is looking for an engineer so this interests me very much. thx
Now I have no doubt that an experienced mastering engineer will produce the best results, but I doubt you would publish this video if the guy from the video would haven't been your first choice.
Very good video about automated mastering compared to a real human mastering. But I do have a question here. I watched this video a few times on different systems and different places. I choose C as my favorite, Mix-D as 2nd or 3rd. I think on one of my systems the Mix-D has too much low end, on the other systems the guitar on the right channel sounds a little bit sharp and much clearer than the vocal (vocal little quiet or dark). I don't know if this is my own taste problem or it's because of my systems' characters. I will be very happy if you or all the friends in the comments can answer this. Fantastic video then, good job!
Of course, taste is a big part. Everyone has their own preferences, we aren’t saying our choices are definitive! Just a helpful video to show what some services offer.
And listening on different systems may show different results too, or maybe not. It entirely depends on your ears, the room you listen it, your personal preferences. There’s no right or wrong, just whatever you prefer
And my list is CDEABF or CEDABF. B is just too quiet, A is too compressed. F is obviously the worst.
I think we agree on F...
@@PresentDayProduction I will rewatch this in my studio to see if I can find other differences or cancel all the influences. Thanks for your reply and your superb channel!
Thanks for your comments, we appreciate people asking questions and leaving comments.
After Looking At Cloudbounce Wasn't To Sure About Online Mastering.. So I Came Here.. A & D Was Close For Me, But After Listening To It More I Was Leaning Towards A...Quite Surprise It Was Cloudbounce
It's really get confusing me. Everyone hates landr but it is at quite upper.
“D”
Was with you all the way
I went for C then when I heard D I said....That’s the one. Best auto one was landr for me.
Love the B roll :D
Thank u for the help big bro
how do I get the apple master certification? Howd u do it. I heard u have to know sb at apple or sb who knows sb to get through
Yeah, they came up with a system whereby you have to know the right people! It’s not what you know, it’s you you know, right?! Being in certain trade organisations help, like the Producers Guild in England, and whatever equivalent there is in other countries. And then you have to obviously show that you can adhere to their guidelines, and there’s a specific Apple plugin they send you that must not clip.
I feel ozone should have been left out because you can still manipulate the results with human ears
LANDR has come along way and of course Mark does a great job and your channel is awesome
not bad but would be much more useful if you matched the volume by ear real quick instead of just getting the peaks near zero.
Yep, aligning by peak is a bit rookie.
Having the files exactly as presented by the online services seemed to be a fairer comparison - the process of mastering should be the final process in the music creation journey. Having to turn the track up or down to suit online streaming services defeats that purpose, so we believe that presenting the files as received from those services was a fairer comparison - show who’s boosting the level, etc. But thank you for your comments.
@@PresentDayProduction I appreciate the video. It is helpful, but I disagree entirely with you. We're trying to discern the quality of the mastered sound, not who's volume boosting. It's a challenge to tune in to the balance of sound when our brains are having to adjusting to volume fluctuations. If you were shopping for a car stereo, studio monitors, or a guitar amp, would you want the sales person to randomly crank one product over another while you were trying to make a decision which one to buy?
Well, I do understand your point!
Feel free to download the files from here and level match them in your own DAW, hopefully this will give you the conclusion you’re looking for:
www.presentdayproduction.com/masteringcomparison
I liked A best
Wow. Very helpful.
Great video guys. : )
Love the track.
The original mix sounds best. The truth is that they were all awfully mastered. Ironically, 'C' the L***R version sounded the most balanced in respect to the original, but that was probably purely accidental as it could have been a warmer sound. That said, 'D' the "human" version was just as bad as the others because it tilted the mix balance towards a boomy bass sound. That mix only needed mild, broad strokes in the mids and some sheen at the top end. FWIW.
Interesting - I chose D & C
Great video guys.. Before I saw this I had recently purchased the yearly pro option of LANDR, which now has unlimited 24 bit WAVs (after humming and hawing between it and Cloudbounce). Glad now after seeing this! 😊. I was thinking about getting Ozone 9 too, but may just stick with LANDR now.. As it's just for home recordings (using virtual instruments) LANDR is probably good enough for me.
they are terrible.. you need to try this www.chosenmasters.com
Woah, I actually prefer C.
The gap is closing down.... we are on top so far....
D was the best! (where do I send my bank account details?)
Hi Puesa, we're glad you agree! Thanks for watching our video and leaving a comment. If you'd like to get in touch regarding some mastering, please visit www.cosmic-audio.co.uk/mastering
It is funny because the worst for me was f and the best one was d the same as you guys, and I can see that the decision for was because I can listen how the process benefit the song. So the other master was not as good as D but, I couldn't say that all the Masters are unusable actually some of them sounds pretty good
I agree with Jamie F and A are the Worst , but im not sure wish one is worst probably wen you go on the loudest part is amazing how bad A sounds that alone should of make A the worst one my opinion B sounds Better then A is just that A is Louder and over compress, C And D sounded better to me I will definitely go with D , I try to Pick Same Time Jamie and James did wen I was watching the Video , i will Give worst to A not F ,
Thanks for leaving your answers! It’s great to see our viewers’ choices on this, thanks for that!
The one The Human Mastered was the best
Thanks for sharing the WAVs.
A: Easily the worst. Sounds pinched. The vocal takes a step back and nothing is improved. It's louder but worser.
B: Slight improvement in clarity and tightness. No improvement in air. Little harm done.
C: Too much high end. Kick and snare are slappy.
D: Obviously the human one - the only one that brings out the groove.
E: Feels over-compressed in the mids. Not too bad in the highs but sounds like it's been hit with too much multi-band. Uncomfortable to listen to.
F: Thin and brings out the sibilance.
Totally agree that A was way overcompressed and everything I hate about mastering.
funnily everyone agrees and me also, i never even considered the b and f because they are not up to a level in loudness even, they actually might sound ok but who cares if you can't hear it, e - the worst - acd - i took as the best and had to relisten to think what is the best, though i do agree a is lower than cd and here we go. they say sound is subjective the more i watch youtube the more I understand it actually not
Brilliant guys
Human mastering is always going to be better. The best online mastering is Aria Mastering in my personal opinion. It's a shame you left them out because they use analog gear automated by robots, quite interesting results. I wish the revisions you can do in Aria were more flexible though...
We may be checking them out in a future video very soon. Lots of interesting content coming up!
I agree that it maybe should have been tested and compared to the other ones but for my personal taste, I think that Aria makes a great low end on the master but every time I've tried it, it has put way to much highs in the master. That makes it sound harsh i think, but that's my personal taste
My bottom to top:
F, E, B, A, C, D
Soundcloud, Emastered, Ozone Mastering Assistant, Cloudbounce, Landr, Real Human.
I'm excited because I'm going to be working with a mastering engineer for the first time in a couple weeks.
But I'm still impressed with Ozone because unlike the others, it's full fledged tool that you can use on your desktop or in your DAW. So 1 time payment = unlimited everything. Plus, mastering assistant is just a starting point. You can put in that human touch afterwards or undo/change anything and everything it did.
I just wish Ozone would listen to the whole song, not just a 30 second section. I think it's mastering assistant could be even better.
E seemed nicer to the lead vocal
i liked only for the HOW to ? i laughed so hard !
still watching
OK TO me too it was Obviously the D more felling of what the music needed, GUYS big up from Belgium ! Keep on rockin !
Microwave the cassette on full power for 45min 😂 😂😂
D-C-A was my choice. well done mark. you probably also won the loudness war here.
mine as well. it's so funny how everyone who is good at music agrees on this despite that people claim sound is subjective. it's always that if i watch youtubers who are competent and they provide the exact same opinions as i do.
Honest opinion: There is no way off the bat (from one listen) both of you could have selected D. Also you started off the video promoting him so god forbid he didn’t win…how would it look the same guy you promoting didn’t win! Sorry but this is purely a promo video.
We are honest in our videos, if you don’t believe it looks that way then you’re entitled to your own opinions of course.
You’re slow… they’re professionals in a room with speakers. They know wtf they’re talking about. The dudes been mastering for 30 years of course it’s gonna be a better mix
You don't think 2 professionals in a well treated room, with top notch speakers, working on a regular basis with a mastering engineer with 30+ years of professional mastering experience, just MIGHT have picked up a few pointers on what constitutes a polished record?
Could I get in contact and pay for mastering by you?
Hi! Yes, you can go to www.cosmic-audio.co.uk and book through the website.
There is also a contact form here if you’d like to have a chat first:
www.cosmic-audio.co.uk/contact
@@PresentDayProduction Wow thank you! Very impressed with the quick response. So if I’m guessing correctly that there is a line of people that are waiting. By chance is there a estimate of time that would likely be the contact time for contract?