Del
-
- KVRian
- 880 posts since 26 Oct, 2011
Though I wouldn't rely on your business plan for too long. I'm gonna take a wild guess that at some point, the software market will start flooding with such software that does it offline instead, with same kind of quality in terms of algorithms. Probably not an initial concern, but rather, an eventual concern. Still, automatizing makes sense here. Unless you want something specific from mastering (I personally will master without reference tracks), why really waste human resources IF the result can be achieved by algorithms?
EDIT: Oh, it's non-commercial. Never mind about what I initially said!
EDIT: Oh, it's non-commercial. Never mind about what I initially said!
-
- KVRAF
- 2657 posts since 13 Mar, 2004
Thanks, I might give it a try.
Questions before:
- Does the uploaded target track remain my property ? I wouldn't want that you use it as "before/after" example on your website.
Questions before:
- What does "no peaks" mean here ?Same RMS, FR, no peaks (in WAV), same max amplitude, etc.
- Does the uploaded target track remain my property ? I wouldn't want that you use it as "before/after" example on your website.
-
- KVRAF
- 2657 posts since 13 Mar, 2004
Ok, thanks.
As suggestion, maybe you could find a different wording than 'no peaks' (for example "same peak level as reference track"), because this immediately let me think of "sausage mastering", which I wouldn't want for my track.
As suggestion, maybe you could find a different wording than 'no peaks' (for example "same peak level as reference track"), because this immediately let me think of "sausage mastering", which I wouldn't want for my track.
-
- KVRAF
- 2657 posts since 13 Mar, 2004
Ok, I was curious so I gave it a test run (with a unmastered self-produced Hip Hop track, Reference: mastered, commercial Hip Hop track).
note: Span is set to 'Average' mode (i.e. average frequency measuring over a longer period of time when tracks play full on)
Target track unmastered:
Reference track:
Target track mastered:
Quite a good match I'd say.
Spectrum and loudness are quite close. Also mastered version doesn't sound bad at all to my ears.
Of course I could upload before/after example but purpose of this thread is try and judge yourself.
Some thoughts:
Yeah I know, it's said mastering is an art, more than matching, needs a human with golden ears to do and so on.
All true (imo), but IF we're talking auto-mastering (say for 'bedroom producers' who can't / don't want to afford mastering), this might be an alternative. Maybe the most promising currently with the (to my knowledge unique) "Reference track' approach. Key for good results is that the reference track fits good for the target track obviously, as is described on their website. (I've never tried other online mastering services though as I usually do mastering for my own stuff myself).
note: Span is set to 'Average' mode (i.e. average frequency measuring over a longer period of time when tracks play full on)
Target track unmastered:
Reference track:
Target track mastered:
Quite a good match I'd say.
Spectrum and loudness are quite close. Also mastered version doesn't sound bad at all to my ears.
Of course I could upload before/after example but purpose of this thread is try and judge yourself.
Some thoughts:
Yeah I know, it's said mastering is an art, more than matching, needs a human with golden ears to do and so on.
All true (imo), but IF we're talking auto-mastering (say for 'bedroom producers' who can't / don't want to afford mastering), this might be an alternative. Maybe the most promising currently with the (to my knowledge unique) "Reference track' approach. Key for good results is that the reference track fits good for the target track obviously, as is described on their website. (I've never tried other online mastering services though as I usually do mastering for my own stuff myself).