@@foodstampzcould be possible haha! I used logics mastering assistant a few days ago for the first time and was hella impressed! 😳 It sounds really really good! You still have a lot of options to change how the mastering sounds and how much the mastering is activated etc. and the best is that it’s completely free and it’s better than some paid programs or other AI masterings like LANDR! And its even better than some people that you pay! 💀😅 To be honest, for hobby producers and especially for beginners, it’s the best way to get a good master in my opinion! 🤷🏽♂️ I think i‘ll try the mastering assistant on every new track of mine and eventually i don’t have to mastering myself in the future because of how fast it is and especially because it really sounds good! 😌👌🏼
A big problem with engineers under valuing themselves is due to the fact that many artists don’t understand or appreciate the time and effort that goes into mixing & mastering so they don’t want to pay good money for it. So it’s a tricky situation when trying to attract new clients, especially when starting out
It's the same no matter what part of the creative industry you're in. A lot of clients don't understand the amount to time and effort involved. So either assume it can be done very quickly and as you obviously have no other work on or they say someone else can do it at this lower price can you compete. Sadly there is a limit to what you can charge depending on what the client wants to pay.
i think if 90% of producers like the sound of running +12db into a brick wall limiter, it’s hard for a mastering engineer to make the case for their value add
@@Igaveyoumyfakename spot on; but I think this really goes back to: Is this art, and done for the creators sake mostly out of pocket or is this a product. In the later case, do you know your audience sufficiently well to align your costs? It makes no sense to make a hyper-expensive demo for a song where you are trying to attract an audience with a short attention span. Still if you are creating art, then your pocket is what limits you. I for example, don't live from music so I can spend according to my budget. Everything goes out and I don't expect anything to come back in. I'm not worried about it, so my absolute disdain for Autotune is not an issue, I don't need to use it because no one cares other than me. I'm my customer, sure I share and enjoy it and hey if someone enjoys stuff great but I'm honest about it. Most people have a job and bills and are not willing to change, those who are need to make business decisions and strategies, they need to know what their market is. Boutique guitars mean nothing if you have radical temperature changes, dings from hauling cargo and a constant risk for someone stealing it at the gig (happened to Allan Holdsworth, and heck Pink Floyd had an entire truck's worth of gear stolen). If you can do this, you only do it if that's part of your business strategy. And managing your money is at the core, period. In short, I totally agree :)
I don't understand why an artist would spend thousands recording and mixing their music over weeks or months, only to auction out the critical mastering stage to the lowest bidder, unless of course they have recorded and mixed their own music in order to save money. This tells me that either they haven't developed critical listening skills or they don't really value their music. Record labels and audiophiles on the other hand, actually understand the importance of good mastering work and are willing to pay for quality results. You don't know what you don't know.
@@TK-yu2pv: You just answered your own question: "...they have recorded and mixed their own music in order to save money," The fact is the VAST majority of people out there recording music, are not doing it for a living and don't have a ton of money (if ANY) for recording OR mastering. EVERYONE is not in a position to spend big bucks on this stuff. And BTW, this video PROVES you don't have to in order to get high quality results.
Marvin from Tide Studios has mixed and mastered my last 3 albums. The man is a living legend. Super talented and easy to work with. He deserves all the plaudits that come his way.
We are super thankful to have Metropolis mastering appear in this great video, amongst all the talented engineers -- and to receive all this support of our work -- both in the video and in the comments! 💙🙌
Finally someone has done a mastering comparison here, *thanks Jordan! Also, not that I am advocating for skipping a loudness matched test here, but it's important to say that simply matching LUFS readings wouldn't necessarily give equal loudness.* This is because LUFS is a flawed measurement that can result in varying outcomes depending on the frequency response. It's important to do the loudness matching by ear rather than relying solely on LUFS readings. This comparison is useful because many people are unaware of how much mastering results can vary between studios! What sounds great for one may not for another. This is why many mastering studios including mine (Maven Mastering) offer free samples for new clients to help them determine if the engineer is a good fit. And I suggest that anybody trying to make up their mind about mastering should have some test masters done from multiple studios and compare!
mastering and mixing always varies with studio,who recorded and what was used. so one mastering studio will not get the same as the other only if they have the exact equipment in rooms and do the process the same way can happen.but everyone has a process.and LUFS IS pretty accurate with proper use. i use my LUFS meter no sound and i can get my RMS levels and Peaks with slight adjustments to sound same as with headphone or monitors. so math does play a role in the physics. every action has a equal and opposite reaction so some can use meters better then some.just like there are certain tones we push to clear up guitars in mixes and are math.
Er, the K-Scale m8. This comparison is what many people do when evaluating who they'd prefer to master the rest of a release. Basic common sense, really. And LUFS are not any more "flawed" than Celcius or Hertz are. If it were flawed, usage would lead to predictable errors nearly every time. A unit is a unit.
Always work by ear and go with what sounds best to you. What works for you and your team/band/etc. (if you have one.) Human hearing and what sounds good and right is what matters. Meters and displays and LED lights don't have emotions, right? If it sounds good and sounds like what you want. That's what you pick. That's my advice to anyone--I started recording audio in 1986 and the technology has transformed into another world of possible results--but our ears are just the same ears as human beings had in 1986.
I had Abbey Road as number one and Fiver guy as number two. To my old (54) ears, the Abbey Road mix sounded more "old school" (before the loudness wars demanded the super slamming of compressors until it squashed all life and dynamics out of music). It also had a warmth (saturation?) that the others lacked. Granted, it's possible that my ears are just crap now, but I had these impressions before I knew which track was which. Maybe the "best" mastering depends on target audience? Edit: oops! Forgot to mention. As everyone else has said. Fiver guy deserves far more recognition, work and pay.
I thought Abby Road was the best. Not sure if I'm using the words right but I felt there was a broader range of sound and everything fit in the mix and didn't feel like it was just shoved in.
I agree. I knew which one was Abbey Road when I saw the waveforms. Also, the source material here lends itself to a more maximalist approach. Big slammed interpol like drums. Lotsa chimey guitars.
I think you made one MISLEADING MISTAKE. You should always compare on equal loudness. I'm a mastering engineer for 10 years, and I can tell you one thing: 1dB louder sounds so much bigger, brighter, and better. So to be really honest you should do this comparison again but with equal loudness. Because that's these days the most important thing. Every streaming platform normalizes audio to a certain level, and that's what we finally listen to.
was about to comment this. at first i thought it was just loudness but i can see on my meters some are coming out 2-3db hotter lol I don't understand how its 2023 and people don't do this simple thing. especially when it's good producers it just makes me sad, I saw a Joey Sturgis video where they showed off one of their buss compressors and it was literally 8-10db louder and I was like "just let me hear the compression!!" lol
@@AuddityHipHop Depends on the genre, for one thing; and its a whole lot about balance. In Hip Hop, and the Gangsta Rap so much of it sounds like these days, I remember listening to Rock on a custom system somebody had for Rap. All thump and very highs, hardly any mids - so balance isn't even a thing there.
@@AuddityHipHop it shouldn't be that way. There is an inverse relationship between loudness at equal volume, which makes a track sound more dense and the dynamics and energy of a song, so mastering should be about finding the best compromise for any given song. In the end, you wanna have the songs in your playlist at equal loudness. The point is, the perceived frequency balance depends on the loudness, and louder generally sounds better, so to be able to judge the quality of a mix, it's important to have all tracks at the same loudness. The listener can adjust the volume anyway, so the direct effect of loudness is not of interest.
Absolutely! They understand dynamics and did a great job considering the track didn't have much in the way of dynamics to start with. When he said he was putting on his AirPods for a 'real world' comparison, I realised that this guy doesn't have a clue 😄
Great video. Played along with the blind testing, through IEMs and some open back headphones, I had Metropolis in first place and Fiverr in 2nd. Good for you for giving the Fiverr person a shout out.
had the same result with 1st and 2nd, also felt the abbey road was the worst. For me the most important quality in a master is preserving the good qualities in the OG mix, and AR completely messed up the low mids for me. The transients (esp the kick) became really thin. Pretty shocking when you consider the reputation and quality of gear.
I think you should have adjusted for LUFS, like every streaming service does. Maybe that's why the Abbey Road sounds quieter, but could end up being louder when you stream it.
Excellent video In my opinion, you should give this guy a link to the fivver you did with him, it's not obvious that he gives such quality at such a price. He deserves a lot more work, the little thing you should do in my opinion is just send people to him if you've watched this video. If you can even make an epilite with it, great :) Just my little advice
I've definitely got this guy (Tide Studio, UK) at the top of my list for my next rock or metal project. Big props to him, and it looks like he has a lot of happy customers.
I knew 3 was abbey road because they were smart enough to not completely squash the dynamic range. A couple of the others sounded like they just crushed it with compression and scooped the mids
the boy was honest. view this video like i did == proof positive that reputation and cost means nothing and only evaluate this piece of art authentically. technically all mixes were superior. they understood protocol for streaming platforms and as far as i could tell they were all equally good. any one of the masters would have served the tune well. i didn't like the song though --- effeminate, pretty boy rubbish. i don't think anyone will hear this song because it's lousy.
@@J3unG I think it comes down to genre and taste. I quite liked it because it sounded "smooth" rather than screaming vocals or wall-to-wall distorted guitars. But a lot of people like that, too - and that's cool. 😎
my fav was 5th one, 'cause i love how drums punches and cymbals feels in the mix with this round low end. yeah, it's quite bright, but i like the way it sounds - i think his work has been underrated too, however it's very individual thing depending on a taste
That is totally correct. It is ALL subjective. Which is why you should always do two things when you pick an engineer to mix your stuff. Pick an engineer whose work you know and like, and then STICK WITH THEM.
Abbey Road were the only ones who did a MASTER that was not limiting the shit out of the tune. It had what modern productions often lack: dynamics. It was quiet because your stereo has a master volume!
Yeah, that was the most pleasing. The winner was fine, but the whole time through I kept thinking, this one (which turned out to be Abbey Road) sounds richer and more dynamic. It just wasn't as limited, or as loud.
what's that mean? limiting the sht out of the tune? most people can't hear that shit and we're not talking about mitigating needle skips on vinyl (the original reason for mastering protocol). you know nothing.
Version 3 sounds the most hifi. As in, not being pushed to stupid levels. If you want your record to have longevity and not be a forgotten iTunes jam. It sounds pre loudness wars. I think that master trusted your original mix and tried to do a classic master for it just covering the basic technical corrections Version 2 is what I would pick if I were doing a digital release Version 4 comes in 3rd for me. It sounds good tonally in many ways. I agree with what you are saying. It sounds a little mushy and indistinct in the vocal, like it's buried a little. Version 5 is nasally and not good at all. Version 1 is kind of boring
Engineers on forums overhype the loudness wars. People usually repeat what they hear rather than think for themselves. Those that think for themselves will always blaze a trail into the future.
I've tried dozens of different mastering techniques, software, and programs, and I almost always feel they have squashed life out of the mix. I like a live, dynamic sound, and I have learned a lot listening to people like you. Thank you
I actually like the Abbey Road one best. There was a weird spot at the end which could have been fixed with an adjustment in the mix, but the level of detail and clarity were superior. The "mid" sound you preferred was due to over-compression in getting the mix in range. Abbey Road left it a little under range, but had a more faithful sound overall.
The best way to get a great sounding mix and master is through open communication between the band and engineer. Often times, bands misunderstand the recording process as just showing up to the studio and playing. In reality, the recording process is a collaborative effort from beginning to end. As a final note, one might take care to strongly consider any suggestions an engineer may offer.
speaking of "leave about -6dB of headroom", i think that the request is actually easy to address by the mastering engineers themselves with pre-chain gain reduction considering it's usually so that the mix doesn't push the plugins/hardware gear too hard.
I think it's just a way to avoid getting premasters that are already compressed or limited too much. The 'ask for twice as much you want to get at least half' approach
@@blackmateriaofficial2383 I don't understand. You can still squeeze the hell out of a track and then turn it down by 6dB. The headroom argument doesn't correlate at all with the loudness or too squashed argument. Two different things.
#3 - Abbey Road master was my favorite of the bunch. More dynamic, better separation, could turn up the volume for added punch without becoming muddled.
6:30 I'm surprised that you were surprised over these requests. I've used 4 or 5 different mastering services. Every single one of them told me straight up front before I submitted anything: Take off any master bus compression and/or limiting, and leave at least 6db headroom.
To my ear version 2 was by far the best. It felt immersive. The kick had a good punch. The cymbals were bright and present but not harsh the vocals are warm its very dynamic. Its what id expect from a master
v2 was by far the best. it was balanced, dynamic, and not super ultra crushed. the only thing was their limiter wasnt great because in the loudest parts it kind of lacked body compared oto v4
If you want to best evaluate them against one another, you should adjust them to all be -14 LUFS. Then, and only then, will you be removing the loudness bias, which irrationally favors louder signals.
Not necessarily -14LUFS, just find the quietest master and bring everything else down to match it. In this case, it probably would be somewhere between -10 and -12 LUFS.
@@TransistorLSD -14 LUFS is typically ideal as it leaves plenty of headroom for uncrushed transients. -14 LUFS is the recommendation by most online services, including Spotify, TH-cam, Tidal, Amazon Music, and album normalization according to the official AES recommendation.
@@nathan43082 Yep, but this particular mix is already really compressed, it's already loud and there's no need to leave more than -1DBTP of headroom. So, it will end up being louder than -14LUFS even without any limiting.
@@TransistorLSD Agreed. But it's still better to shoot low for all the mixes, especially if you can target a known industry standard. More headroom won't hurt and one can always turn up the volume knob on the output device to compensate.
He'll go out of business soon. Fiverr takes a 20% cut from sellers. So from 20$ he actually got 16$. And that's before Costs that as a contractor you have to deal with, so it's not the same as 16$ as an employee. After that you have taxes. This doesn't take into account time spent communicating with clients, uploading/rendering, accounting, possible revisions, and other unpaid hours spent running the business that should be priced into the flat rate. Once you take this into account you realize that the client is paying him less than the UK minimum wage for a skilled job, he'd be better off working at McDonalds.
Before knowing which one is which, my votes are (best to worst): 2, 4, 5, 1, 3. Listening in a good treated room. Version 2 is the best one, but I'd be happy with 4 as well, and 5 is personal taste but I love bright mixes.
It would be interesting to see you do it again with a second track from the same group/ep/lp to see if they match and you still make the same choice. (Nice recording, by the way.)
This goes to show that there's a lot of "reputation bias" in the music industry. I would argue that many people would still trade the best sounding master for the "most famous/expensive" master in the end just because... people trust the reputation more than they trust their own ears.
You can have the best equipment , the best acoustic treated room, and even the best software, and none of that matters. It's the individuals ears that matter. Some people see better than others, and some hear better. Combine the knowledge with ears, and they can make magic.
I had the same experience, many years ago, with a mix a sent to a world renown mastering engineer (who’s worked for Mariah Carey, among many, many other equally famous artists) working at a popular studio in NYC for mastering. Never heard anything in terms of corrections from the mastering engineer (and it wasn’t because I’m amazing or anything. The mix wasn’t bad, but it did have some sibilance issues), and the master I got back was underwhelming. It wasn’t bad, but not what you would expect from a big shot mastering engineer. Like I could’ve done the same thing with Ozone, is what I was left feeling. My belief is that these big Studios don’t really care about a client unless it’s a big shot Artist. Ever since that experience, I master my own music. My masters might not be perfect, but at least I’m not wasting hundreds of dollars getting suboptimal másters that leave me feeling I could’ve done the same, if not better (especially with the tools we have these days, like Ozone 10, which is WAY better than it was back then). Anyway, not surprised by the results.
I had the same experience but what I did was change the engineer, because, I'm paying to get a second set of ears, nothing else really. And that is, I think, very important.
If you have no back and forth communication with the ME, you are for sure better off to try it yourself with Ozone 9 or 10. The quality is really astonishing, as soon as you are working with audio references, that sound like in the ballpark what you like to hear for the song. I have the impression, that manual mastering could become a dying art, that may only be interesting when it comes to name-dropping and legal liability that the needle does not jump with 5,000 vinyl LPs or similar cases.
Hi Sir, I want to record my written poetry professionally. Suggest me a good audio interface and microphone. But my room is not sound proof. The sound from outside comes inside our room. My total budget is $350. Many people told me to take a dynamic mic. Can I mix it after recording with dynamic mic? Like in condenser mic.
Wow do we think alike, I was just concluding that version 3 isn't loud but boy does it sound natural and on par as 4. Shout out to the fiver guy though
@@JaoBehold For a club track - maybe. But for something like a rock ballad song the loud and punchy just destroys the mood that the song is meant to create. It looks to me that Abbey Road mastered with the track style in mind, not just going for the loudest and punchiest result. I think they also level-automated it, to make the beginning sounding nice and soft (much lower LUFS, compared to others), while getting the chorus to sound louder, on par with others. That's some extra professionalism to my ears.
@@DolphinWave the thing is they got the style wrong. i think this song derives from post hc style of music, which is a style that lack that subtle dynamics a lot and people who like this music will prefer a big fat waveform lol
That‘s so cool! If you did this again, could you include a section where you switch the phase from the mix to the master and lay them onto each other so you can here the actual difference between them? I guess that would be interesting
Abby road looked like there was more bandwidth left for headroom. Louder tracks sound great quiet, or on headphones, but as soon as you try to drive the music at more realistic sound pressure levels with quality hifi kit louder tracks just become tiresome and fatiguing, you want the track to have some headroom. That’s just my opinion
Metropolis was the clear winner for me in terms of how they opened up the mix which - listening through sound corrected (sonarworks) Sennhsr HD650s - would've been my priority task in creating the master. Interesting to see the shift in your perception going to earbuds. I thought you were initially going to overlook the Metropolis one!
Version 4 definitely sounds good, but version 2 was my pick right off the get. The music industry is SOOOOO difficult. A complete nobody can actually be the biggest monkey in the room, but if no one else knows them, they are the smallest fish in the biggest lake. The plain and simple way to command your place in the music world is to know what you are worth and stick to a price model that reflects that. The hardest part of that idea is being objective and realistic about your talent. The cream rises to the top in this industry, if you charge high and get pushback, but your client is super happy in the end, you are doing good. Conversely, if you are charging high and you get no return business, well, you are out of your league.
At the end of the day, you like what you like. I see a lot of people commenting on how the Abbey Road master has more dynamic range, which is to be expected. But I think it's important to remember that mastering is for making your music sound not just as good as it can, but as good as it can across all speakers (car, phone, headphones, eaebuds, soundbar, small bluetooth, home theater, etc.). I'm not sure if you went out of your way to test these tracks on many different listening devices (other than the monitors and airpods), but I think that would be the most considered approach to determining the "best master"
Yep, through my surprisingly capable portable speaker #1 immediately sounded best as the more bass heavy eq it uses for EDM doesn’t cause the song to blow apart with in your face low-mids and bass like in 2, 4 and 5. Also many sub-premium car stereo systems can’t keep up with that much mid/bass AND give any clarity for guitar and drums in rock music. They just end up a mushy mud with washy pulsing clash overtop.
Nice video Jordan! Thanks for sharing this. You know I HAD to watch this one!! :-) I picked the same 3 as my top 3 masters, and felt any of them could potentially have been acceptable, especially if the M.E. was given the opportunity to do 1 revision based on notes. Theoretically, I wouldn’t want to decide on a final order until I heard number 3 level matched with the other two, and listened against a few reference tracks in the genre to help determine which had the most appropriate frequency balance. That said, there’s a pretty good chance #3 still would have been in third place for me. There was something welcoming about the slightly less hyped vibe, but it felt less “modern”, and my instinct is that even with level matching, we’d find the M.E. could and should have pushed things a bit more in general to make it really feel right. Without hearing tracks this one would want to playlist alongside, my instinct is that #4 has the best overall tonal balance… BUT, the size and weight and enveloping smoothness it gives the band seemed to make the vocal take a bit more of a backseat than in #2. So I’d almost want to hear #4 on a revised vocal up mix to get the best of both worlds. But one big problem with all of these comments I just made is that I’m making them without first tuning my ears by listening to a handful of tracks in the style that the mixer and artist LOVE the sound of first. That’s the last double check I’d need to make to be certain we’re winding up in an ideal spot. This points to one potential advantage the fiverr guy has over the others: He’s a genre specialist. This is still uncommon in mastering, but perhaps it will become more common in the future? I don’t know. Your overall experience here pretty much confirms mine though!: 1. Mastering Engineers who charge around $100 or more generally do acceptable work that could serve well as a final master. When they fall short, a quick conversation about sonic goals and references can usually make it right with 1 revision. 2. Mastering engineers who charge around $50 rarely do very good work, and so far, I’ve never had a great experience with a mastering engineer in that price range on my own mixes. Most of them have made the record sound worse, and took multiple rounds of revisions to get it anywhere near acceptable for my tastes. I wish this wasn’t true, but it’s been my experience so far. 3. Sometimes, there are amazing undiscovered diamonds out there who do great work and should charge more! People that skilled will eventually charge more, or will eventually move on to doing something else instead if they don’t raise their rates with time. 4. I am also surprised when mastering engineers have comments about the loudness or headroom of a mix when confronted with a good mix that happens to be loud. (And this mix is good!) If the mix works, the received headroom is pretty much irrelevant in the digital age. In those cases where I master a mix that does need some work, it’s fairly rare that excessive loudness or lack of headroom is the issue. Maybe that’s 10-20% of cases. If anything, in the vast majority of novice and intermediate mixes in genres like this, the problem is too little compression and limiting in the mix, not too much! Please tell me if you experience is any different :-) Thanks for a fun video, Justin
He never described these as masters. He called them mixes. Your post reveals a huge part of the problem with modern music. Not one of these sources offered mastering services. They ALL listed what they do as mixing. Ask yourself a question: Do you honestly think that Taylor Swift's engineering and production team fails to separate the mixing and mastering phases? Why would they? If you understand the process from an educated point of view, the mixing and mastering processes serve two completely different functions. And what you like is really just some guy's version of the FINISHED SONG, not a proper mix. As a result, neither you, nor the guy who did this video realizes that you have circumvented a really important part of the music production process because neither of you has a clue what mixing or mastering is. In your case, that is only proper, because you are a consumer, not a musician. And before you say otherwise, I don't care at all if you play AND record. You don't understand sound, which makes you like everyone else who listens to the hyper-compressed garbage on Spotify or Apple Play and thinks it sounds great. Hey, but it's cool. Record companies are still getting your dollars, huh?
@@SamlovesLulu maybe we’re commenting on two different videos? This one is indeed about mastering. As a professional mixing engineer in Jordan’s case, and a professional mastering engineer in my case, I hope we know what mixing and mastering are… …If we don’t, we really are in trouble! :-)
@@JustinColletti It's time for a few admissions. I spoke without full knowledge of who the poster was. I also didn't fully understand that the video deals ONLY with having your mix, whatever that may be, mastered by an outside source. I now fully understand how my comments and criticisms do not line up with the video. Let me start with a prepositional question: Is a mix a single track? The actual technical term is, if I am not mistaken, a "MIXDOWN"... a master is done on a single track that is the result of a mixdown with editing and filters, that is accepted by the band and its team as the final best technical set-up for the band, the sound, and most of all, the song. Mastering is a "sweetening" of the track. A mastering engineer may add stereo width, reverb, some compression, etc., to a finished mix to give the track that is commercially released (or, in the case of an amateur, accepted as "final") more "sizzle". In this context, sizzle is a relative, subjective term, because the purpose of the master remains the same regardless of the style or genre of the music. what is added is what is best for the song and the audience for which the song is intended. Mastering individual tracks, or stems, or whatever, has only come about since the widespread use of DAWs and digital audio editing software, such as plug-ins. With every single garage band on Earth having access to ProTools, or another fully functional, highly capable DAW, but NOT to the knowledge of WHY technical procedures are set up the way they are, and why certain procedures help protect the integrity of both the tracks and the song. These amateur engineers have up-flooded millions of projects into the hands of more serious engineers for final production work, and that has caused a massive shift in how we all talk about mixing and mastering of songs. Any talk of sending a track off for mastering by ANYONE should center on WHAT IS BEING SENT. You pick a mastering engineer by listening to his or her work with other artists. But if you send them shit, they can't magically make it smell like roses. That's why mixing and mastering are separate, and why mastering, if done properly, should not be done on isolated tracks. Sorry. I just wanted to explain that I'm not ranting with no basis or cogent train of thought. I apologize for my previous misreading of this video, but I feel my point is still relevent. Cheers to any who made it this far.
I am shocked. Such an eye opening experiment. I had many band coming to my studio overtime saying they hired very expensive known engineers/studio for some previous work and were utterly disappointed. Expensive doesn't mean bad, but doesn't mean good either.
Almost everyone has stated that they did not like the AR mix, yet technically it is almost certainly the most "sound" of all the mixes. I have 200-watt powered Mackie studio monitors in my home studio. That's what I listened to these tracks through. The AR track has a ton of subtle changes that you can't hear through a laptop speaker or a set of ear buds. They did a LOT more than you hear here. These are MIXED tracks, not MASTERED. If the process was done correctly, as it was with the AR mix, the mixed track can be sent to a professional MASTERING engineer for final rendering of the track for radio. That is the time for special seasoning, so to speak, to make the track sound really awesome. It is in the MASTERING stage where SOME compression and other filters might be applied to make the track ready for release. If these things are done when the song is mixed, it isn't a mix, it's a MASTER, and that means neither process was used to make the original recording sound as good as possible. In the video he calls them mixes. In the description he calls them masters. They are neither, really, Although the results of the AR track and the other non-compressed track were likely suitable for mastering, if the musician was happy with the mix over all. Three of the tracks are clearly brick-walled, meaning they were artificially rendered so that EVERYTHING in the mix is at the same LOUDNESS LEVEL. No matter what your ear may tell you, it is a fact that what they sent him back in no way resembles what he sent them, and this guy doesn't even know why that is a problem.
I feel like #4 ended up on top because it was the loudest... Our ears are very easily tricked by loudness and we instinctually think loudness = good. Watching your initial run of the masters kinda confirms this to me since pretty much immediately after you put it on you said "this is the best so far" when just about the only thing you could really tell at that point was that it was way louder than the others. I'll say too that the Abbey Road master was admirable in its aversion to the ever-present brickwall yet it's true that it felt like it was missing something
4 sounded very decent except that to my ears, the snare had this incessantly tappy top end that kept pulling my focus away from the lead vocal and the lyrics.
The Abbey Roads master is the online (fast) masters that Jr engineers do. If you want the Seniors eg master it's another procedure and is more expensive. Also they leave it with more head room bc for streaming (wich is 80% of the use) you don't need loudness, instead you need dynamics, bc all the streaming services have a limiter in their player or their process. Meaning that all the tracks will sound at the same level and the ones with more gain would lose dynamics (and they didn't have much already)
I thought Metropolis edged out the top spot for me. I LOVE the low end on the one you chose, it's really pleasing but the sides on the metropolis sound amazing.
I also picked version 2, Metropolis. The problem regarding loudness is that their master is final. Unless their master is designed to work with Spotify adjustments, then the louder master is always going to have that impact.
I agree...when I saw it all chunked on most the first thing I thought was he sent it too loud and should have given them more headroom. It still had some and is probably workable but coming in more conservative to see what they would do to it would be much better in my opinion. Some people just normalize to chunk it out. I am not so egotistical to doubt someone's capability if they were asking me to change something in my mix (if I ever didn't master my own), I would instead listen to their reasons first before making judgements. Oh any would have been nice to hear them all at the same peak volume I don't think I saw him adjust it.
A fairer comparison would have been to level match all of them before deciding in order to eliminate loudness bias. You might then have found that a less squashed master that retained some of the original dynamics of your mix sounded better.
To the people asking who the band is, it’s The Longest Year. This song is actually not released but we can change that. We split up about five years ago. Here’s a link to a song of ours. th-cam.com/video/Ccw64QLsXXw/w-d-xo.html
I was going to comment and ask who the band was - the song is absolutely exquisite - just beautiful post-HC tones and your vocalist had Anthony Green vibes. I'm going to look you guys up but... Please release this song! Also this track had an amazing mix, especially the drums but overall the presentation of everything was very lush and full and survived dynamic reduction well.
Great video. One thing I'd actually disagree with from years of experience as a mixing and mastering engineer: Since we all know that taste varies quite a lot, communication is absolute key to me. That black box approach might work with someone who knows your style and preferences from working with you for a long time or happens to have a very similar taste - but expecting that from a random stranger on the very first project without talking to them (!) I think is fairly unrealistic. Good way to get a fair shootout but not exactly great for securing a satisfying result. I personally think either taking the engineer's notes into consideration so they can deliver their own vision of the track or telling them what you want so they can try matching YOUR vision is absolutely necessary. I don't start working on a master with new artists anymore unless I either get reference tracks from them or a description of what they want. Still, very cool experiment. Cheers!
people here complaining about dynamic range and the volume difference keep forgetting one crucial thing - music is meant to be exciting. the average listener doesn´t care about the nuances of the production, they just want to enjoy the music. and more brightness will always sound more exciting than more dynamic range. you can call boosting the top end, low end and heavier limiting cheap tricks all you want. what matters is the end result. and the fiverr guy definitely delivered.
Crazy how different ears are. Listening blind I picked Abby Road and Sound Pure as my favorites. The Fiver mix was decent but way too thick in the mids for me. Very fun video.
I got tired of paying for disappointing masters that I didn't think sounded competitive. I do my own masters now. They may not be perfect, but they sound significantly better than what I was paying for. Just looking at the wave forms in the video, I guessed number 2 would be the winner -- good control of the loudness, while still leaving some of the dynamics in-tact. My default is to trade a small bit of LUFS for musicality (I'm old). But, I agree that 4 edged it out. I actually agreed with your selections all the way down. Good on the Fiver guy! Hopefully, more work will come his way.
Hi have almost no knowledge about this topic, but please look at the signal. It looks like versions 2, 4 and 5 are so loud the peaks are cutted off. I think this is not good. Only version 1 and 3 keeps all the information there. It does not need to be too loud. Why do we have a volume on our amplifiers? Or am I completely wrong?
Interesting video! There's some great merit to the way you blind tested these,; but it would have been good to also A/Bed these level matched too; the humans ear perception of the relative mid range shifts as the overall playback loudness changes; It's no surprise that the Fivver one, won out; there are so many incredible engineers doing great work at an insane price; it's not to discredit the larger studio's but it's all about value proposition and market position; Re; the "black box" style of mastering; that's a biproduct of the business model; and I've come across this doing more harm than good where people have received masters back from both these places with artefacts which were present in the mix or dropouts from edits; I know many class-act mastering engineers that will flag issues in a mix to the clients ahead of onboarding; that's one of our main jobs it to pick up issues which may have slipped through;
5:00: "Version 3 just sounds kind of thin, it sounds there's a bit of hole in the mids or the lower mids" 5:42: "I think version 3 would translate better because it has a more forward mid-range"
The best, by far, was the third from the bottom before you rearranged them. They somehow managed to give you better dynamic range than they got from your original.
On my Boston Acoustic computer speakers I chose 2 on the first pass through, which was moved to 3, which turned out to be the one that got the comment about the lower mids and that was Abbey Road. I like the transparency of it and the crisp attack on the toms as it translated over youtube. TH-cam audio doesn't accurately reflect what the source is, so that is something to consider and I have repeatedly seen comparisons where the video creator is hearing amp or pedal changes that I don't hear any difference in at all, but from what I heard here I would choose the Abby Road master.
I listened to them with educated ears on a set of 200-watt Mackie studio monitors. My educated ears appreciated the two tracks that were not hyper-compressed immediately. Brick wall compression and limiting destroys tracks. The easiest way for someone who knows what they are hearing to tell that someone else DOES NOT, is to let them state what they like. Uneducated ears, with no reference to compare to, always prefer LOUDER. It's kind of the same process as bright colors and shapes appealing to simple minds. LOUD is easier to process intellectually than SUBTLE is. If it were me, I'd take the result I got from Abbey Road, which is almost certainly set up as a proper MIX, and send it off to someone who lists their services as providing a MASTERED, radio-ready version of a proper mix. All that can be learned from this video is that the guy who made it doesn't know squat about mixing or mastering.
He reached #4 at 1:40 and I thought "Eww, that's the worst so far. Overcompressed to the max!"... then he immediately stops it and says, "This one sounds the best so far." 😂😂 Is it a matter of personal preference or is one of us WRONG? I'll admit the EQ is very nice, probably the best of the four, but that compression is unforgivable. EDIT: Okay, I reached the end of the video. I promise I didn't know it was the Fiverr master 😂 I'm as surprised as Mr. Hardcore Music Studio. I actually liked the Metropolis master the best, so I do think it's a personal taste matter. Excellent video.
I thought the Abbey Road mix was the most accurate and listenable. My ears are 61 years now so don't have much above 10khz. The over compression of two of the mixes, including your winner just squeezed all the life out of the music.
Quick Q, around 3:22 you say the mix is lacking mid range. Can you elaborate a little please? What pops out or doesn't? I often struggle getting the mids balanced across the mix.
Version 1 and 3 were my favourite, 1 especially. While 1 could have done with some more midrange I enjoyed the fact that they didnt make the master obnoxiously loud to the point that the music became highly unpleasant to listen to. While loudness like that can be asset to some forms of music with the song you sent it certainly wasnt and in all honesty, unless it is specific artistic choice I suspect that even the brutalest metal needs master that loud. 5, 3 and 4 were, just no, if someone sent me a master that loud I would ask them to make it quieter.
Interesting. But was the last one too bright or were all the others too dark? Also pay attention to stereo spread because they are all imaged differently. This didn't become apparent to me until I listened to them on my little Logitech computer speakers.
This is really interesting. Most people will hear the song online first though, with matched loudness If you can bear it I’d love to hear the same test with everything matched to the same integrated LUFS
Are you kidding? We are not comparing the quality of mixing studios. Isn't mastered track supposed to go straight into Spotify without any other loudness manipulations? If I take -9db track and upload to Spotify it will already sound like a shit comparing to -6db.
Nope - Spotify has Normalization enabled by default, and less than 17% of users disable it. So both the -6 and the -9 LUFS songs will be heard by most people @ -14, which is why I suggest people also check listening in that way. I’d say that’s more important than the raw level, even, these days
Hmmm. I think you should add your mix, anonymize, loudness match, and compare again. This mix sounded fantastic to start with so I think you should put it into play. Great video.
You don't listen to each one very long before going to the next. I would never only listen so briefly to choose; although I might go through once that quick to compare. I preferred #3 from the git-go. I thought it had nice balance and sound; like I could hear the parts of the vocal harmonies more clearly without them overdoing it. So, it's not as loud as others in the genre. Run it through LoudMax, bump it up a few dB. Done deal. Damn. The one I liked had to be the expensive one!
In relation to dealing though streaming platforms (Apple Music currently restricts -16 LUFS @-1db TP), If may copy/paste the text from the Sound On Sound Forum Aug 25, 2022 for something to think about. Text as follows: "If your track measures a higher LUFS integrated loudness value than the platform's target loudness the track will be turned down until it matches the target. There is NO LIMITING INVOLVED in this process. So if the track measures -8 LUFS with a True Peak level of -1dBTP, but the platform target is -14 LUFS, the track will be turned down by 6dB, and it's true peak will now be -7dBTP. That may sound fine depending on the musical genre, but it would be missing out on 6dB of potential dynamic range and will sound flat and lifeless compared to tracks making full use of the available dynamics. Limiting would only occur if the track had an integrated loudness below the target, and a true peak level close to -1dBTP, and the platform policy is to raise lo-level tracks. Many don't, and just leave them as is." "The heavy compression used to create -8 LUFS tracks results in very quiet, flat and lifeless music when compared to tracks mixed at -14LUFS (-16 LUFS M.H) with a full dynamic range."
I agree with the top two but I actually prefer your second preference to your first, I'd swap them. The second one is slightly less squashed. Writing this before the reveal so no idea yet which one it is but I'd go with your second choice if I was to pay for one of them. EDIT: Ha, that's a crazy result! Great advert for Tide Studio too! Tho I still prefer the Metropolis one personally, they're very close. Good video. Cheers
I wish you had matched the LUFS then compared them, cause that how they will be heard on streaming platforms, the guys mastering quieter might have had a point...
I reckon Abbey Road masters the songs up to modern standards - putting an end to a pointless dynamic-crushing loudness war and doing it specifically so it sounds even and good on streaming platforms. And it sounds good too!
A master like abbey road’s will inevitably sound lower in volume than other songs on streaming platforms, which is annoying to users. That, most of the time translates on your song getting skipped.
@@GreatBurningNullifier I disagree! Platforms cap LUFS and apply "penalty" volume decrease to loud masters. It's safest to master not to quiet but not too loud. not -14 LUFS, but also not -6. somewhere in between like -9-11 always works for me and is great.
@@oysterboymusic damn straight seem you do understand modern music and computer recordings. so yes louder is good just bring down the LUFS and its all good. as long as the levels are not spiking on peaks. and weirdly yes -9-11 seems to even out to near 14 LUFS for me with the averages.this many people do not know. good on you for pointing it out for people!!!!! ;)
Forgive me for being so critical, but is this music? Whatever happened to good tunes, interest, personality, dynamics, articulation…? This track is utterly forgettable.
I like version 3 by far the best. I think it would have been a better comparison if we listened to the tracks without seeing the waveforms. I had my preconceptions already before the listening started.
This is also about motivation. The big studios will get clients anyway, so they don't really need to do the absolute best job they can. For them it becomes a cost (time) vs benefits (pay+reputation) equation. Any well run business is aiming for good enough, rather than perfect. Fivver guy might still need to make a name for himself, so he's doing the absolute best that he can. Also, would be interesting to also compare the free mixes heheh Thanks for sharing this experiment with us!
Fiver guy doesn't need to live of this, or get food and expenses for his family When you're older you do. Also, noone can live like this forever, working overtime to impress people to get some market share/clients/recognition from the boss. No way to live. If anyone only ever hired enthousiastic young people trying to make a name, those same young guys would be pretty miffed when getting older.
Interesting video! So much depends on the equipment, especially the speakers. Of course you, as the artist, were looking for something specific in the sound that the rest of us wouldn't have known to look for. In my Sony MDR-V6 headphones, version 1 was the clear winner on the parts I heard, providing a spaciousness that I felt appropriate for this tune that was absent in the others. Version 3 was my second pick, but a little too warm, the attenuated high end masking any sense of space. The others were all EQ'd slightly differently, but equally uber-compressed, so louder and equally unexciting to my ear. Louder can trick the ears, so I wonder what reevaluating these tracks with the average, rather than max, DB levels matched would provide different results. PS: No affiliation with any of the mixing companies LOL!
fiver guy probably cared more about it too.
He might have lower costs.
A.I cares also 😅
@@foodstampz yeah I was wondering if the Fiver guy is just using LANDR LOL......
@@foodstampzcould be possible haha! I used logics mastering assistant a few days ago for the first time and was hella impressed! 😳
It sounds really really good! You still have a lot of options to change how the mastering sounds and how much the mastering is activated etc.
and the best is that it’s completely free and it’s better than some paid programs or other AI masterings like LANDR! And its even better than some people that you pay! 💀😅
To be honest, for hobby producers and especially for beginners, it’s the best way to get a good master in my opinion! 🤷🏽♂️
I think i‘ll try the mastering assistant on every new track of mine and eventually i don’t have to mastering myself in the future because of how fast it is and especially because it really sounds good! 😌👌🏼
@@asumazilla Doesn't effect the result
A big problem with engineers under valuing themselves is due to the fact that many artists don’t understand or appreciate the time and effort that goes into mixing & mastering so they don’t want to pay good money for it. So it’s a tricky situation when trying to attract new clients, especially when starting out
It's the same no matter what part of the creative industry you're in. A lot of clients don't understand the amount to time and effort involved. So either assume it can be done very quickly and as you obviously have no other work on or they say someone else can do it at this lower price can you compete. Sadly there is a limit to what you can charge depending on what the client wants to pay.
i think if 90% of producers like the sound of running +12db into a brick wall limiter, it’s hard for a mastering engineer to make the case for their value add
@@Igaveyoumyfakename spot on; but I think this really goes back to:
Is this art, and done for the creators sake mostly out of pocket or is this a product.
In the later case, do you know your audience sufficiently well to align your costs?
It makes no sense to make a hyper-expensive demo for a song where you are trying to attract an audience with a short attention span.
Still if you are creating art, then your pocket is what limits you.
I for example, don't live from music so I can spend according to my budget. Everything goes out and I don't expect anything to come back in. I'm not worried about it, so my absolute disdain for Autotune is not an issue, I don't need to use it because no one cares other than me. I'm my customer, sure I share and enjoy it and hey if someone enjoys stuff great but I'm honest about it.
Most people have a job and bills and are not willing to change, those who are need to make business decisions and strategies, they need to know what their market is. Boutique guitars mean nothing if you have radical temperature changes, dings from hauling cargo and a constant risk for someone stealing it at the gig (happened to Allan Holdsworth, and heck Pink Floyd had an entire truck's worth of gear stolen).
If you can do this, you only do it if that's part of your business strategy. And managing your money is at the core, period.
In short, I totally agree :)
I don't understand why an artist would spend thousands recording and mixing their music over weeks or months, only to auction out the critical mastering stage to the lowest bidder, unless of course they have recorded and mixed their own music in order to save money. This tells me that either they haven't developed critical listening skills or they don't really value their music. Record labels and audiophiles on the other hand, actually understand the importance of good mastering work and are willing to pay for quality results. You don't know what you don't know.
@@TK-yu2pv: You just answered your own question: "...they have recorded and mixed their own music in order to save money," The fact is the VAST majority of people out there recording music, are not doing it for a living and don't have a ton of money (if ANY) for recording OR mastering. EVERYONE is not in a position to spend big bucks on this stuff. And BTW, this video PROVES you don't have to in order to get high quality results.
Marvin from Tide Studios has mixed and mastered my last 3 albums. The man is a living legend. Super talented and easy to work with. He deserves all the plaudits that come his way.
Do you happen to have his info? I couldn’t find anything on google :/
NICE
Does anybody have a link I can't find this guy anywhere
@@The_XTO google tidestudiolnd
WHO ARE YOU????
We are super thankful to have Metropolis mastering appear in this great video, amongst all the talented engineers -- and to receive all this support of our work -- both in the video and in the comments! 💙🙌
Of the five versions, the one I liked the most was yours.
I thought yours was the best too. Way less breath noise.
definitely my favourite master from the list!
I tried Metropolis. They didn't bother writing me back.
I thought your master was the best...any chance you could let us all know who was the mastering engineer on this project so we can book them? Thanks
$130 to get a song mastered at Abbey Road is a lot cheaper than I expected.
But it was also a lot more underwhelming than I expected.
You bet they don't put a lot of effort in it, Abbey Road isn't what we all associate with that iconic name I guess
@@luc_official what's the odds it was the tea boy doing the master 🤣
Maybe this is why lol.
What?? Anything more than 50$ for a master is overpriced
Finally someone has done a mastering comparison here, *thanks Jordan! Also, not that I am advocating for skipping a loudness matched test here, but it's important to say that simply matching LUFS readings wouldn't necessarily give equal loudness.*
This is because LUFS is a flawed measurement that can result in varying outcomes depending on the frequency response.
It's important to do the loudness matching by ear rather than relying solely on LUFS readings.
This comparison is useful because many people are unaware of how much mastering results can vary between studios!
What sounds great for one may not for another. This is why many mastering studios including mine (Maven Mastering) offer free samples for new clients to help them determine if the engineer is a good fit. And I suggest that anybody trying to make up their mind about mastering should have some test masters done from multiple studios and compare!
mastering and mixing always varies with studio,who recorded and what was used. so one mastering studio will not get the same as the other only if they have the exact equipment in rooms and do the process the same way can happen.but everyone has a process.and LUFS IS pretty accurate with proper use. i use my LUFS meter no sound and i can get my RMS levels and Peaks with slight adjustments to sound same as with headphone or monitors. so math does play a role in the physics. every action has a equal and opposite reaction so some can use meters better then some.just like there are certain tones we push to clear up guitars in mixes and are math.
Er, the K-Scale m8.
This comparison is what many people do when evaluating who they'd prefer to master the rest of a release.
Basic common sense, really.
And LUFS are not any more "flawed" than Celcius or Hertz are. If it were flawed, usage would lead to predictable errors nearly every time.
A unit is a unit.
Always work by ear and go with what sounds best to you. What works for you and your team/band/etc. (if you have one.) Human hearing and what sounds good and right is what matters. Meters and displays and LED lights don't have emotions, right? If it sounds good and sounds like what you want. That's what you pick. That's my advice to anyone--I started recording audio in 1986 and the technology has transformed into another world of possible results--but our ears are just the same ears as human beings had in 1986.
I had Abbey Road as number one and Fiver guy as number two.
To my old (54) ears, the Abbey Road mix sounded more "old school" (before the loudness wars demanded the super slamming of compressors until it squashed all life and dynamics out of music). It also had a warmth (saturation?) that the others lacked.
Granted, it's possible that my ears are just crap now, but I had these impressions before I knew which track was which.
Maybe the "best" mastering depends on target audience?
Edit: oops! Forgot to mention. As everyone else has said. Fiver guy deserves far more recognition, work and pay.
Same here :D abbey #1 and fiver #2 :D
Just looking at the mixes I picked Abby Road, they didn't compress the crap out of it.
I thought Abby Road was the best. Not sure if I'm using the words right but I felt there was a broader range of sound and everything fit in the mix and didn't feel like it was just shoved in.
I agree. I knew which one was Abbey Road when I saw the waveforms.
Also, the source material here lends itself to a more maximalist approach. Big slammed interpol like drums. Lotsa chimey guitars.
Absolutely not abbey road its a disgusting mastering to me is rank 4. rank 1 metropolis is very modern and balanced and 3D deep energy
I think you made one MISLEADING MISTAKE.
You should always compare on equal loudness. I'm a mastering engineer for 10 years, and I can tell you one thing: 1dB louder sounds so much bigger, brighter, and better. So to be really honest you should do this comparison again but with equal loudness. Because that's these days the most important thing. Every streaming platform normalizes audio to a certain level, and that's what we finally listen to.
was about to comment this. at first i thought it was just loudness but i can see on my meters some are coming out 2-3db hotter lol I don't understand how its 2023 and people don't do this simple thing. especially when it's good producers it just makes me sad, I saw a Joey Sturgis video where they showed off one of their buss compressors and it was literally 8-10db louder and I was like "just let me hear the compression!!" lol
isnt that part of mastering though? to make it as loud as possible without fucking up the track?
@@AuddityHipHop Depends on the genre, for one thing; and its a whole lot about balance. In Hip Hop, and the Gangsta Rap so much of it sounds like these days, I remember listening to Rock on a custom system somebody had for Rap. All thump and very highs, hardly any mids - so balance isn't even a thing there.
@@AuddityHipHop it normally is, but you can turn on constant gain monitoring to observe only the processing, not the loudness
@@AuddityHipHop it shouldn't be that way. There is an inverse relationship between loudness at equal volume, which makes a track sound more dense and the dynamics and energy of a song, so mastering should be about finding the best compromise for any given song. In the end, you wanna have the songs in your playlist at equal loudness. The point is, the perceived frequency balance depends on the loudness, and louder generally sounds better, so to be able to judge the quality of a mix, it's important to have all tracks at the same loudness. The listener can adjust the volume anyway, so the direct effect of loudness is not of interest.
I would love to see the same thing with mixing, I think the results their would be much more different and it would be much more interesting!
Yes please ☝️
Hell ya
Definitely
This is the next level we need indeed. Great job!
Marvin will stack up in mixing to. Guys an absolute tank.
The fact that Abbey Road left it without pretty much any limiting gives me hope in humanity
AMEN, my brother.
Absolutely! They understand dynamics and did a great job considering the track didn't have much in the way of dynamics to start with. When he said he was putting on his AirPods for a 'real world' comparison, I realised that this guy doesn't have a clue 😄
@@AnalogueGround Well, thing is, dynamic mix sounds better even with airpods FOR ME... It's a matter of taste. Jordan's taste is different.
What’s with your name transistor
LSD?
@@AnalogueGround uhh this guy has mixed for some pretty big artists so i think he has a clue
Great video. Played along with the blind testing, through IEMs and some open back headphones, I had Metropolis in first place and Fiverr in 2nd. Good for you for giving the Fiverr person a shout out.
I agree, it has better punch
had the same result with 1st and 2nd, also felt the abbey road was the worst. For me the most important quality in a master is preserving the good qualities in the OG mix, and AR completely messed up the low mids for me. The transients (esp the kick) became really thin. Pretty shocking when you consider the reputation and quality of gear.
Same. Low mids were clearer. Fiver felt a touch bloated.
@@mcpribs my thoughts exactly. Was really solid but a bit of mud
@@amberlightstudios9940 that's weird I thought abbey road just wasn't loud enough but really good
You should have adjusted the volume for fair comparison.
True that. Most streaming services would do that anyway.
What would be interesting is, send all these versions to each of the companies that mastered them and ask them to Rank them.
Brilliant!
I think you should have adjusted for LUFS, like every streaming service does.
Maybe that's why the Abbey Road sounds quieter, but could end up being louder when you stream it.
Excellent video
In my opinion, you should give this guy a link to the fivver you did with him, it's not obvious that he gives such quality at such a price. He deserves a lot more work, the little thing you should do in my opinion is just send people to him if you've watched this video.
If you can even make an epilite with it, great :)
Just my little advice
Agreed!! I wanna hire this guy.
agreed 100% was actually going to comment this too.
@@737simviator good you!
I must have missed it, thanks :)
Yes!!
I've definitely got this guy (Tide Studio, UK) at the top of my list for my next rock or metal project. Big props to him, and it looks like he has a lot of happy customers.
I knew 3 was abbey road because they were smart enough to not completely squash the dynamic range. A couple of the others sounded like they just crushed it with compression and scooped the mids
100% agree. no dynamics just brick walled
the boy was honest. view this video like i did == proof positive that reputation and cost means nothing and only evaluate this piece of art authentically. technically all mixes were superior. they understood protocol for streaming platforms and as far as i could tell they were all equally good. any one of the masters would have served the tune well. i didn't like the song though --- effeminate, pretty boy rubbish. i don't think anyone will hear this song because it's lousy.
@@J3unG not my style, but times are changing. teens love this stuff and they are the ones who are gonna actually care.
@@J3unG I think it comes down to genre and taste. I quite liked it because it sounded "smooth" rather than screaming vocals or wall-to-wall distorted guitars. But a lot of people like that, too - and that's cool. 😎
I just posted the same thing up top. Anyone can maximize with a brick wall.
my fav was 5th one, 'cause i love how drums punches and cymbals feels in the mix with this round low end. yeah, it's quite bright, but i like the way it sounds - i think his work has been underrated too, however it's very individual thing depending on a taste
That is totally correct. It is ALL subjective. Which is why you should always do two things when you pick an engineer to mix your stuff. Pick an engineer whose work you know and like, and then STICK WITH THEM.
Abbey Road were the only ones who did a MASTER that was not limiting the shit out of the tune. It had what modern productions often lack: dynamics. It was quiet because your stereo has a master volume!
Yeah, that was the most pleasing. The winner was fine, but the whole time through I kept thinking, this one (which turned out to be Abbey Road) sounds richer and more dynamic. It just wasn't as limited, or as loud.
Absolutely!
yep i agree
what's that mean? limiting the sht out of the tune? most people can't hear that shit and we're not talking about mitigating needle skips on vinyl (the original reason for mastering protocol). you know nothing.
I have to agree as well
Version 3 sounds the most hifi. As in, not being pushed to stupid levels. If you want your record to have longevity and not be a forgotten iTunes jam. It sounds pre loudness wars. I think that master trusted your original mix and tried to do a classic master for it just covering the basic technical corrections
Version 2 is what I would pick if I were doing a digital release
Version 4 comes in 3rd for me. It sounds good tonally in many ways. I agree with what you are saying. It sounds a little mushy and indistinct in the vocal, like it's buried a little.
Version 5 is nasally and not good at all.
Version 1 is kind of boring
Well said.
Exactly my thoughts
Engineers on forums overhype the loudness wars. People usually repeat what they hear rather than think for themselves. Those that think for themselves will always blaze a trail into the future.
I've tried dozens of different mastering techniques, software, and programs, and I almost always feel they have squashed life out of the mix. I like a live, dynamic sound, and I have learned a lot listening to people like you. Thank you
Interesting outcome! Still I would compare them with loudness normalised (like how most platforms play out), just to avoid any loudness bias.
I actually like the Abbey Road one best. There was a weird spot at the end which could have been fixed with an adjustment in the mix, but the level of detail and clarity were superior. The "mid" sound you preferred was due to over-compression in getting the mix in range. Abbey Road left it a little under range, but had a more faithful sound overall.
not full enough imo
It's even simpler. He immediately reacted to and said that the most-sausaged one sounded "best".
Basic Fletcher-Munson effect.
Man, that Fiverr dude 🤣 Congrats!
I've never seen Jordan with such a huge grin on his face. He's usually so restrained 😆
The best way to get a great sounding mix and master is through open communication between the band and engineer. Often times, bands misunderstand the recording process as just showing up to the studio and playing. In reality, the recording process is a collaborative effort from beginning to end. As a final note, one might take care to strongly consider any suggestions an engineer may offer.
speaking of "leave about -6dB of headroom", i think that the request is actually easy to address by the mastering engineers themselves with pre-chain gain reduction considering it's usually so that the mix doesn't push the plugins/hardware gear too hard.
on the one hand it's a bit of an industry standard, but on the other hand it's basically a nonissue if you're handing off a 32-bit file.
@@timnordberg7204 It's a non-issue with any file. The leave 6dB headroom thing makes no sense at all.
@@MichaelCosta_ it really doesnt make any sense!! 🤦🏼♂
I think it's just a way to avoid getting premasters that are already compressed or limited too much. The 'ask for twice as much you want to get at least half' approach
@@blackmateriaofficial2383 I don't understand. You can still squeeze the hell out of a track and then turn it down by 6dB. The headroom argument doesn't correlate at all with the loudness or too squashed argument. Two different things.
#3 - Abbey Road master was my favorite of the bunch. More dynamic, better separation, could turn up the volume for added punch without becoming muddled.
You should also do an experiment in which the unmastered mix is disguised as a master!
But he'd know and wouldn't be able to fool himself.
@@havable😊8o
6:30 I'm surprised that you were surprised over these requests. I've used 4 or 5 different mastering services. Every single one of them told me straight up front before I submitted anything: Take off any master bus compression and/or limiting, and leave at least 6db headroom.
To my ear version 2 was by far the best. It felt immersive. The kick had a good punch. The cymbals were bright and present but not harsh the vocals are warm its very dynamic. Its what id expect from a master
Agree that mix was smoother imo
v2 was by far the best. it was balanced, dynamic, and not super ultra crushed. the only thing was their limiter wasnt great because in the loudest parts it kind of lacked body compared oto v4
I picked out the Metropolis and Abbey Road as my top two favs before the reveal. That $20 was way overcompressed.
Thank you!
Totally agree. These were my first 2 choices, too. And I had the Fiverr guy last for the exact same reason.
Out of curiosity, did you bump up the volume of the quieter masters to compensate for the “louder = better” phenomenon?
He didn't
Hi, I think that before comparing you should have normalized the versions to the mix LUFS, because loudness changes frequency perception
that kind of defeats the purpose. A good mastering engineer should also make sure the end result is in the right loudness ballpark.
@@mrblablablabla I agree, but this way you can't correctly compare equalization
@@giulianovideo exactly! 😉
Great video, bro! That Fiver dude needs to set his rates at $100 and call it a day. Props for shouting him out.
If you want to best evaluate them against one another, you should adjust them to all be -14 LUFS. Then, and only then, will you be removing the loudness bias, which irrationally favors louder signals.
Not necessarily -14LUFS, just find the quietest master and bring everything else down to match it. In this case, it probably would be somewhere between -10 and -12 LUFS.
@@TransistorLSD -14 LUFS is typically ideal as it leaves plenty of headroom for uncrushed transients. -14 LUFS is the recommendation by most online services, including Spotify, TH-cam, Tidal, Amazon Music, and album normalization according to the official AES recommendation.
@@nathan43082 Yep, but this particular mix is already really compressed, it's already loud and there's no need to leave more than -1DBTP of headroom. So, it will end up being louder than -14LUFS even without any limiting.
@@TransistorLSD Agreed. But it's still better to shoot low for all the mixes, especially if you can target a known industry standard. More headroom won't hurt and one can always turn up the volume knob on the output device to compensate.
You know that fiver guy is hustling his passion if he's getting the no. 1 spot. What an inspiration for giving it his all.
for real!
Funny if he just used a preset on a mastering plugin
@@martinheath5947 😂
@@martinheath5947 It be like that these days, for sure 😂
He'll go out of business soon. Fiverr takes a 20% cut from sellers. So from 20$ he actually got 16$. And that's before Costs that as a contractor you have to deal with, so it's not the same as 16$ as an employee. After that you have taxes. This doesn't take into account time spent communicating with clients, uploading/rendering, accounting, possible revisions, and other unpaid hours spent running the business that should be priced into the flat rate. Once you take this into account you realize that the client is paying him less than the UK minimum wage for a skilled job, he'd be better off working at McDonalds.
Before knowing which one is which, my votes are (best to worst): 2, 4, 5, 1, 3.
Listening in a good treated room. Version 2 is the best one, but I'd be happy with 4 as well, and 5 is personal taste but I love bright mixes.
3 shouldn't be last if you volume-match them. Just turn it up when 3 is playing.
@@TransistorLSD totally fair!
@@MilesAwayOfficial unironically, yes
Happy to know you enjoyed our mastering! ❤
It would be interesting to see you do it again with a second track from the same group/ep/lp to see if they match and you still make the same choice. (Nice recording, by the way.)
Nah...one track from this lousy, artist was enough for me.
Oh, very very good idea!!!
It's not "best to worst" - it's in order of your personal aesthetic preference.
This goes to show that there's a lot of "reputation bias" in the music industry. I would argue that many people would still trade the best sounding master for the "most famous/expensive" master in the end just because... people trust the reputation more than they trust their own ears.
But the Abbey Road one is indeed the best, vocals loose clarity for the first two.
You can have the best equipment , the best acoustic treated room, and even the best software, and none of that matters. It's the individuals ears that matter. Some people see better than others, and some hear better. Combine the knowledge with ears, and they can make magic.
I had the same experience, many years ago, with a mix a sent to a world renown mastering engineer (who’s worked for Mariah Carey, among many, many other equally famous artists) working at a popular studio in NYC for mastering. Never heard anything in terms of corrections from the mastering engineer (and it wasn’t because I’m amazing or anything. The mix wasn’t bad, but it did have some sibilance issues), and the master I got back was underwhelming. It wasn’t bad, but not what you would expect from a big shot mastering engineer. Like I could’ve done the same thing with Ozone, is what I was left feeling.
My belief is that these big Studios don’t really care about a client unless it’s a big shot Artist. Ever since that experience, I master my own music. My masters might not be perfect, but at least I’m not wasting hundreds of dollars getting suboptimal másters that leave me feeling I could’ve done the same, if not better (especially with the tools we have these days, like Ozone 10, which is WAY better than it was back then).
Anyway, not surprised by the results.
I had the same experience but what I did was change the engineer, because, I'm paying to get a second set of ears, nothing else really. And that is, I think, very important.
@brianhuether8815that's right. Nobody even told here before that already good mixes don't require much of mastering (if even any in some cases).
If you have no back and forth communication with the ME, you are for sure better off to try it yourself with Ozone 9 or 10. The quality is really astonishing, as soon as you are working with audio references, that sound like in the ballpark what you like to hear for the song. I have the impression, that manual mastering could become a dying art, that may only be interesting when it comes to name-dropping and legal liability that the needle does not jump with 5,000 vinyl LPs or similar cases.
Hi Sir, I want to record my written poetry professionally. Suggest me a good audio interface and microphone. But my room is not sound proof. The sound from outside comes inside our room. My total budget is $350.
Many people told me to take a dynamic mic. Can I mix it after recording with dynamic mic? Like in condenser mic.
I called the Abbey Road one before even hearing them because you can see by the waveforms they didn't obliterate the dynamics.
Wow do we think alike, I was just concluding that version 3 isn't loud but boy does it sound natural and on par as 4. Shout out to the fiver guy though
Sometimes we don't want dynamics, specially if you want the sound to be tight and powerful
@@JaoBehold For a club track - maybe. But for something like a rock ballad song the loud and punchy just destroys the mood that the song is meant to create.
It looks to me that Abbey Road mastered with the track style in mind, not just going for the loudest and punchiest result. I think they also level-automated it, to make the beginning sounding nice and soft (much lower LUFS, compared to others), while getting the chorus to sound louder, on par with others. That's some extra professionalism to my ears.
@@DolphinWave the thing is they got the style wrong. i think this song derives from post hc style of music, which is a style that lack that subtle dynamics a lot and people who like this music will prefer a big fat waveform lol
An engineer with this reputation doesn't need to fake your ears using extreme loudness. They do their job right. Thats why you pay that kind of money.
That‘s so cool! If you did this again, could you include a section where you switch the phase from the mix to the master and lay them onto each other so you can here the actual difference between them? I guess that would be interesting
Abby road looked like there was more bandwidth left for headroom. Louder tracks sound great quiet, or on headphones, but as soon as you try to drive the music at more realistic sound pressure levels with quality hifi kit louder tracks just become tiresome and fatiguing, you want the track to have some headroom. That’s just my opinion
Metropolis was the clear winner for me in terms of how they opened up the mix which - listening through sound corrected (sonarworks) Sennhsr HD650s - would've been my priority task in creating the master. Interesting to see the shift in your perception going to earbuds. I thought you were initially going to overlook the Metropolis one!
Version 4 definitely sounds good, but version 2 was my pick right off the get. The music industry is SOOOOO difficult. A complete nobody can actually be the biggest monkey in the room, but if no one else knows them, they are the smallest fish in the biggest lake. The plain and simple way to command your place in the music world is to know what you are worth and stick to a price model that reflects that. The hardest part of that idea is being objective and realistic about your talent. The cream rises to the top in this industry, if you charge high and get pushback, but your client is super happy in the end, you are doing good. Conversely, if you are charging high and you get no return business, well, you are out of your league.
mine too, version 2 immediately
yeah me too ... abbey is disgusting compared to metropolis
Couldn’t have been said better, Metropolis was my first off pick.
And like @Gloaming rightly said, the metropolis guy could be an intern😂
Thank you for your support!
At the end of the day, you like what you like. I see a lot of people commenting on how the Abbey Road master has more dynamic range, which is to be expected. But I think it's important to remember that mastering is for making your music sound not just as good as it can, but as good as it can across all speakers (car, phone, headphones, eaebuds, soundbar, small bluetooth, home theater, etc.). I'm not sure if you went out of your way to test these tracks on many different listening devices (other than the monitors and airpods), but I think that would be the most considered approach to determining the "best master"
Yep, through my surprisingly capable portable speaker #1 immediately sounded best as the more bass heavy eq it uses for EDM doesn’t cause the song to blow apart with in your face low-mids and bass like in 2, 4 and 5. Also many sub-premium car stereo systems can’t keep up with that much mid/bass AND give any clarity for guitar and drums in rock music. They just end up a mushy mud with washy pulsing clash overtop.
Nice video Jordan! Thanks for sharing this. You know I HAD to watch this one!! :-)
I picked the same 3 as my top 3 masters, and felt any of them could potentially have been acceptable, especially if the M.E. was given the opportunity to do 1 revision based on notes.
Theoretically, I wouldn’t want to decide on a final order until I heard number 3 level matched with the other two, and listened against a few reference tracks in the genre to help determine which had the most appropriate frequency balance.
That said, there’s a pretty good chance #3 still would have been in third place for me. There was something welcoming about the slightly less hyped vibe, but it felt less “modern”, and my instinct is that even with level matching, we’d find the M.E. could and should have pushed things a bit more in general to make it really feel right.
Without hearing tracks this one would want to playlist alongside, my instinct is that #4 has the best overall tonal balance… BUT, the size and weight and enveloping smoothness it gives the band seemed to make the vocal take a bit more of a backseat than in #2. So I’d almost want to hear #4 on a revised vocal up mix to get the best of both worlds.
But one big problem with all of these comments I just made is that I’m making them without first tuning my ears by listening to a handful of tracks in the style that the mixer and artist LOVE the sound of first. That’s the last double check I’d need to make to be certain we’re winding up in an ideal spot.
This points to one potential advantage the fiverr guy has over the others: He’s a genre specialist. This is still uncommon in mastering, but perhaps it will become more common in the future? I don’t know.
Your overall experience here pretty much confirms mine though!:
1. Mastering Engineers who charge around $100 or more generally do acceptable work that could serve well as a final master. When they fall short, a quick conversation about sonic goals and references can usually make it right with 1 revision.
2. Mastering engineers who charge around $50 rarely do very good work, and so far, I’ve never had a great experience with a mastering engineer in that price range on my own mixes. Most of them have made the record sound worse, and took multiple rounds of revisions to get it anywhere near acceptable for my tastes. I wish this wasn’t true, but it’s been my experience so far.
3. Sometimes, there are amazing undiscovered diamonds out there who do great work and should charge more! People that skilled will eventually charge more, or will eventually move on to doing something else instead if they don’t raise their rates with time.
4. I am also surprised when mastering engineers have comments about the loudness or headroom of a mix when confronted with a good mix that happens to be loud. (And this mix is good!)
If the mix works, the received headroom is pretty much irrelevant in the digital age.
In those cases where I master a mix that does need some work, it’s fairly rare that excessive loudness or lack of headroom is the issue. Maybe that’s 10-20% of cases.
If anything, in the vast majority of novice and intermediate mixes in genres like this, the problem is too little compression and limiting in the mix, not too much! Please tell me if you experience is any different :-)
Thanks for a fun video,
Justin
His eminence, Justin Colletti himself!
He never described these as masters. He called them mixes. Your post reveals a huge part of the problem with modern music. Not one of these sources offered mastering services. They ALL listed what they do as mixing. Ask yourself a question:
Do you honestly think that Taylor Swift's engineering and production team fails to separate the mixing and mastering phases? Why would they? If you understand the process from an educated point of view, the mixing and mastering processes serve two completely different functions.
And what you like is really just some guy's version of the FINISHED SONG, not a proper mix.
As a result, neither you, nor the guy who did this video realizes that you have circumvented a really important part of the music production process because neither of you has a clue what mixing or mastering is.
In your case, that is only proper, because you are a consumer, not a musician. And before you say otherwise, I don't care at all if you play AND record. You don't understand sound, which makes you like everyone else who listens to the hyper-compressed garbage on Spotify or Apple Play and thinks it sounds great.
Hey, but it's cool. Record companies are still getting your dollars, huh?
@@SamlovesLulu I think you might be missing the title of the video... all of these are mastering services. Also lighten up bud, its music :)
@@SamlovesLulu maybe we’re commenting on two different videos? This one is indeed about mastering.
As a professional mixing engineer in Jordan’s case, and a professional mastering engineer in my case, I hope we know what mixing and mastering are…
…If we don’t, we really are in trouble! :-)
@@JustinColletti It's time for a few admissions. I spoke without full knowledge of who the poster was. I also didn't fully understand that the video deals ONLY with having your mix, whatever that may be, mastered by an outside source. I now fully understand how my comments and criticisms do not line up with the video.
Let me start with a prepositional question:
Is a mix a single track? The actual technical term is, if I am not mistaken, a "MIXDOWN"... a master is done on a single track that is the result of a mixdown with editing and filters, that is accepted by the band and its team as the final best technical set-up for the band, the sound, and most of all, the song.
Mastering is a "sweetening" of the track. A mastering engineer may add stereo width, reverb, some compression, etc., to a finished mix to give the track that is commercially released (or, in the case of an amateur, accepted as "final") more "sizzle". In this context, sizzle is a relative, subjective term, because the purpose of the master remains the same regardless of the style or genre of the music. what is added is what is best for the song and the audience for which the song is intended.
Mastering individual tracks, or stems, or whatever, has only come about since the widespread use of DAWs and digital audio editing software, such as plug-ins. With every single garage band on Earth having access to ProTools, or another fully functional, highly capable DAW, but NOT to the knowledge of WHY technical procedures are set up the way they are, and why certain procedures help protect the integrity of both the tracks and the song. These amateur engineers have up-flooded millions of projects into the hands of more serious engineers for final production work, and that has caused a massive shift in how we all talk about mixing and mastering of songs.
Any talk of sending a track off for mastering by ANYONE should center on WHAT IS BEING SENT. You pick a mastering engineer by listening to his or her work with other artists. But if you send them shit, they can't magically make it smell like roses.
That's why mixing and mastering are separate, and why mastering, if done properly, should not be done on isolated tracks.
Sorry. I just wanted to explain that I'm not ranting with no basis or cogent train of thought. I apologize for my previous misreading of this video, but I feel my point is still relevent.
Cheers to any who made it this far.
What you monitor on and your preference obviously factors in.
I think the #2, at the start, was best.
I am shocked. Such an eye opening experiment. I had many band coming to my studio overtime saying they hired very expensive known engineers/studio for some previous work and were utterly disappointed. Expensive doesn't mean bad, but doesn't mean good either.
Almost everyone has stated that they did not like the AR mix, yet technically it is almost certainly the most "sound" of all the mixes. I have 200-watt powered Mackie studio monitors in my home studio. That's what I listened to these tracks through. The AR track has a ton of subtle changes that you can't hear through a laptop speaker or a set of ear buds. They did a LOT more than you hear here.
These are MIXED tracks, not MASTERED. If the process was done correctly, as it was with the AR mix, the mixed track can be sent to a professional MASTERING engineer for final rendering of the track for radio. That is the time for special seasoning, so to speak, to make the track sound really awesome. It is in the MASTERING stage where SOME compression and other filters might be applied to make the track ready for release. If these things are done when the song is mixed, it isn't a mix, it's a MASTER, and that means neither process was used to make the original recording sound as good as possible.
In the video he calls them mixes. In the description he calls them masters. They are neither, really, Although the results of the AR track and the other non-compressed track were likely suitable for mastering, if the musician was happy with the mix over all.
Three of the tracks are clearly brick-walled, meaning they were artificially rendered so that EVERYTHING in the mix is at the same LOUDNESS LEVEL. No matter what your ear may tell you, it is a fact that what they sent him back in no way resembles what he sent them, and this guy doesn't even know why that is a problem.
I feel like #4 ended up on top because it was the loudest... Our ears are very easily tricked by loudness and we instinctually think loudness = good. Watching your initial run of the masters kinda confirms this to me since pretty much immediately after you put it on you said "this is the best so far" when just about the only thing you could really tell at that point was that it was way louder than the others.
I'll say too that the Abbey Road master was admirable in its aversion to the ever-present brickwall yet it's true that it felt like it was missing something
4 sounded very decent except that to my ears, the snare had this incessantly tappy top end that kept pulling my focus away from the lead vocal and the lyrics.
The Abbey Roads master is the online (fast) masters that Jr engineers do. If you want the Seniors eg master it's another procedure and is more expensive. Also they leave it with more head room bc for streaming (wich is 80% of the use) you don't need loudness, instead you need dynamics, bc all the streaming services have a limiter in their player or their process. Meaning that all the tracks will sound at the same level and the ones with more gain would lose dynamics (and they didn't have much already)
soundcloud got no limiter, they leave it as it is. When you then upload a track which lacks loudness, you're lost
please make more such experiments going further, it's exciting
I thought Metropolis edged out the top spot for me. I LOVE the low end on the one you chose, it's really pleasing but the sides on the metropolis sound amazing.
- thanks, V2 Metropolis Engineer. ❤
We are glad you liked our mastering! ☺
Maybe mention the band, they've got 47 monthly listeners on Spotify since releasing their EP of May this year...The Longest Year - All I Find is You
I picked version 2. And imo, the loudness shouldn't have been an issue. Loud isn't better, as we all know. Fascinating video!
I also picked version 2, Metropolis. The problem regarding loudness is that their master is final. Unless their master is designed to work with Spotify adjustments, then the louder master is always going to have that impact.
I agree...when I saw it all chunked on most the first thing I thought was he sent it too loud and should have given them more headroom. It still had some and is probably workable but coming in more conservative to see what they would do to it would be much better in my opinion. Some people just normalize to chunk it out. I am not so egotistical to doubt someone's capability if they were asking me to change something in my mix (if I ever didn't master my own), I would instead listen to their reasons first before making judgements. Oh any would have been nice to hear them all at the same peak volume I don't think I saw him adjust it.
Thankful to know you enjoyed the work!
A fairer comparison would have been to level match all of them before deciding in order to eliminate loudness bias. You might then have found that a less squashed master that retained some of the original dynamics of your mix sounded better.
To the people asking who the band is, it’s The Longest Year. This song is actually not released but we can change that. We split up about five years ago. Here’s a link to a song of ours.
th-cam.com/video/Ccw64QLsXXw/w-d-xo.html
Let me know if you want this master to release it.
I was going to comment and ask who the band was - the song is absolutely exquisite - just beautiful post-HC tones and your vocalist had Anthony Green vibes. I'm going to look you guys up but... Please release this song! Also this track had an amazing mix, especially the drums but overall the presentation of everything was very lush and full and survived dynamic reduction well.
@@hardcoremusicstudio Yes please! Let me know what you need from me. Thank you.
@@sorashima Thank you! We recorded in Seymour, Wi at Initial Sound with Michael Weidner. He’s a killer engineer.
Yes please release this I need to hear the full song
Great video. One thing I'd actually disagree with from years of experience as a mixing and mastering engineer: Since we all know that taste varies quite a lot, communication is absolute key to me. That black box approach might work with someone who knows your style and preferences from working with you for a long time or happens to have a very similar taste - but expecting that from a random stranger on the very first project without talking to them (!) I think is fairly unrealistic. Good way to get a fair shootout but not exactly great for securing a satisfying result.
I personally think either taking the engineer's notes into consideration so they can deliver their own vision of the track or telling them what you want so they can try matching YOUR vision is absolutely necessary. I don't start working on a master with new artists anymore unless I either get reference tracks from them or a description of what they want. Still, very cool experiment. Cheers!
I’d be interested to hear the same test again but with each master level matched. The mix sounded killer. Definitely not requiring a mix revision!
people here complaining about dynamic range and the volume difference keep forgetting one crucial thing - music is meant to be exciting. the average listener doesn´t care about the nuances of the production, they just want to enjoy the music. and more brightness will always sound more exciting than more dynamic range. you can call boosting the top end, low end and heavier limiting cheap tricks all you want. what matters is the end result. and the fiverr guy definitely delivered.
The AR version kept the dynamics. The Fiverr master was too squashed IMHO. Version 2 was kind of a good medium between your top choice and AR.
Crazy how different ears are. Listening blind I picked Abby Road and Sound Pure as my favorites. The Fiver mix was decent but way too thick in the mids for me. Very fun video.
I got tired of paying for disappointing masters that I didn't think sounded competitive. I do my own masters now. They may not be perfect, but they sound significantly better than what I was paying for. Just looking at the wave forms in the video, I guessed number 2 would be the winner -- good control of the loudness, while still leaving some of the dynamics in-tact. My default is to trade a small bit of LUFS for musicality (I'm old). But, I agree that 4 edged it out. I actually agreed with your selections all the way down. Good on the Fiver guy! Hopefully, more work will come his way.
Bro I recommend you izotope ozone ai master with a little bit change in parameters for entrance to mastering. It can sound better
Hi have almost no knowledge about this topic, but please look at the signal. It looks like versions 2, 4 and 5 are so loud the peaks are cutted off. I think this is not good. Only version 1 and 3 keeps all the information there. It does not need to be too loud. Why do we have a volume on our amplifiers?
Or am I completely wrong?
Interesting video!
There's some great merit to the way you blind tested these,; but it would have been good to also A/Bed these level matched too; the humans ear perception of the relative mid range shifts as the overall playback loudness changes;
It's no surprise that the Fivver one, won out; there are so many incredible engineers doing great work at an insane price; it's not to discredit the larger studio's but it's all about value proposition and market position;
Re; the "black box" style of mastering; that's a biproduct of the business model; and I've come across this doing more harm than good where people have received masters back from both these places with artefacts which were present in the mix or dropouts from edits;
I know many class-act mastering engineers that will flag issues in a mix to the clients ahead of onboarding; that's one of our main jobs it to pick up issues which may have slipped through;
5:00: "Version 3 just sounds kind of thin, it sounds there's a bit of hole in the mids or the lower mids" 5:42: "I think version 3 would translate better because it has a more forward mid-range"
The best, by far, was the third from the bottom before you rearranged them. They somehow managed to give you better dynamic range than they got from your original.
Loudness should not be a main decision point (unless it's wildly too high or low).
awesome man, thank you. Underdogs rock! Good for him and koodos to you for doing this and getting a great sound for your mix
Would have been interesting if you had one of those automatic master services thrown in just to see how it ranks
Oh yes. Always seen them advertised and always wondered what the professionals think.
On my Boston Acoustic computer speakers I chose 2 on the first pass through, which was moved to 3, which turned out to be the one that got the comment about the lower mids and that was Abbey Road. I like the transparency of it and the crisp attack on the toms as it translated over youtube. TH-cam audio doesn't accurately reflect what the source is, so that is something to consider and I have repeatedly seen comparisons where the video creator is hearing amp or pedal changes that I don't hear any difference in at all, but from what I heard here I would choose the Abby Road master.
I listened to them with educated ears on a set of 200-watt Mackie studio monitors. My educated ears appreciated the two tracks that were not hyper-compressed immediately.
Brick wall compression and limiting destroys tracks. The easiest way for someone who knows what they are hearing to tell that someone else DOES NOT, is to let them state what they like. Uneducated ears, with no reference to compare to, always prefer LOUDER. It's kind of the same process as bright colors and shapes appealing to simple minds. LOUD is easier to process intellectually than SUBTLE is.
If it were me, I'd take the result I got from Abbey Road, which is almost certainly set up as a proper MIX, and send it off to someone who lists their services as providing a MASTERED, radio-ready version of a proper mix.
All that can be learned from this video is that the guy who made it doesn't know squat about mixing or mastering.
He reached #4 at 1:40 and I thought "Eww, that's the worst so far. Overcompressed to the max!"... then he immediately stops it and says, "This one sounds the best so far." 😂😂 Is it a matter of personal preference or is one of us WRONG?
I'll admit the EQ is very nice, probably the best of the four, but that compression is unforgivable.
EDIT: Okay, I reached the end of the video. I promise I didn't know it was the Fiverr master 😂 I'm as surprised as Mr. Hardcore Music Studio. I actually liked the Metropolis master the best, so I do think it's a personal taste matter.
Excellent video.
I had the same reaction. The compression is way too much for my taste. I guess everybody had different tastes for different sound.
that is just like when i flip thru EQ presets in Ozone mastering
I thought the Abbey Road mix was the most accurate and listenable. My ears are 61 years now so don't have much above 10khz. The over compression of two of the mixes, including your winner just squeezed all the life out of the music.
Quick Q, around 3:22 you say the mix is lacking mid range. Can you elaborate a little please? What pops out or doesn't? I often struggle getting the mids balanced across the mix.
Midway thru the vid....VERSION 2 is the clearest, most natural with all the good dynamics.
❤🔥❤🔥❤🔥
We appreciate the support, thank you! 🥰
although fiver won in this test you got lucky with the fiver artist... that could of ended up in my hands or even worse than me
Version 1 and 3 were my favourite, 1 especially. While 1 could have done with some more midrange I enjoyed the fact that they didnt make the master obnoxiously loud to the point that the music became highly unpleasant to listen to. While loudness like that can be asset to some forms of music with the song you sent it certainly wasnt and in all honesty, unless it is specific artistic choice I suspect that even the brutalest metal needs master that loud. 5, 3 and 4 were, just no, if someone sent me a master that loud I would ask them to make it quieter.
Interesting. But was the last one too bright or were all the others too dark? Also pay attention to stereo spread because they are all imaged differently. This didn't become apparent to me until I listened to them on my little Logitech computer speakers.
Ooh, good thought. It certainly sounded that way on my PC screen speakers.
I really liked version 2, this Metropolis guys know what they are doing. Fiverr was good too (but I liked Metropolis more - kinda matter of taste).
We are delighted to hear you enjoyed our mastering, thank you! ☺
YT recommendation.. man, this was an awesome vid to make, and you did it well!
This is really interesting. Most people will hear the song online first though, with matched loudness
If you can bear it I’d love to hear the same test with everything matched to the same integrated LUFS
Would've been the first thing to do for a fair comparison
Are you kidding? We are not comparing the quality of mixing studios. Isn't mastered track supposed to go straight into Spotify without any other loudness manipulations? If I take -9db track and upload to Spotify it will already sound like a shit comparing to -6db.
Nope - Spotify has Normalization enabled by default, and less than 17% of users disable it. So both the -6 and the -9 LUFS songs will be heard by most people @ -14, which is why I suggest people also check listening in that way. I’d say that’s more important than the raw level, even, these days
Which one do you think is better?
I don’t have an opinion yet, I stopped listening carefully once I realised they weren’t loudness-matched 🤷♂️
I paid 5 guys to master my track, but all I got was a cheeseburger and fries.
I liked Version 2 (Metropolis) the best. However, Version 4 (Fiver) is definitely second.
I'm with you
Pleased to know you liked our work! 🥰
@@MetropolisStudios ❤
Hmmm. I think you should add your mix, anonymize, loudness match, and compare again. This mix sounded fantastic to start with so I think you should put it into play. Great video.
You don't listen to each one very long before going to the next. I would never only listen so briefly to choose; although I might go through once that quick to compare. I preferred #3 from the git-go. I thought it had nice balance and sound; like I could hear the parts of the vocal harmonies more clearly without them overdoing it. So, it's not as loud as others in the genre. Run it through LoudMax, bump it up a few dB. Done deal. Damn. The one I liked had to be the expensive one!
In relation to dealing though streaming platforms (Apple Music currently restricts -16 LUFS @-1db TP), If may copy/paste the text from the Sound On Sound Forum Aug 25, 2022 for something to think about. Text as follows:
"If your track measures a higher LUFS integrated loudness value than the platform's target loudness the track will be turned down until it matches the target. There is NO LIMITING INVOLVED in this process.
So if the track measures -8 LUFS with a True Peak level of -1dBTP, but the platform target is -14 LUFS, the track will be turned down by 6dB, and it's true peak will now be -7dBTP.
That may sound fine depending on the musical genre, but it would be missing out on 6dB of potential dynamic range and will sound flat and lifeless compared to tracks making full use of the available dynamics.
Limiting would only occur if the track had an integrated loudness below the target, and a true peak level close to -1dBTP, and the platform policy is to raise lo-level tracks. Many don't, and just leave them as is."
"The heavy compression used to create -8 LUFS tracks results in very quiet, flat and lifeless music when compared to tracks mixed at -14LUFS (-16 LUFS M.H) with a full dynamic range."
I agree with the top two but I actually prefer your second preference to your first, I'd swap them. The second one is slightly less squashed. Writing this before the reveal so no idea yet which one it is but I'd go with your second choice if I was to pay for one of them.
EDIT: Ha, that's a crazy result! Great advert for Tide Studio too! Tho I still prefer the Metropolis one personally, they're very close. Good video. Cheers
Super appreciative of the support! ☺
What's the artist/band and the song name please? Fell in love with it 🤍
I preferred Version 3 right from the start - most natural sounding especially the drums!!!
I wish you had matched the LUFS then compared them, cause that how they will be heard on streaming platforms, the guys mastering quieter might have had a point...
The second version (Metropolis)worked best for me on my speakers.Before you revealed whose is which. I agree with the rest of the order. :)
Happy to hear that you enjoyed our work!
0:13 IME higher passion usually means higher quality. but there are also so many with immense passion and no ability to afford the top gear.
OMG!! WHAT! 9:05 see what i mean? man im tellin ya. those people got passion out the assss
I reckon Abbey Road masters the songs up to modern standards - putting an end to a pointless dynamic-crushing loudness war and doing it specifically so it sounds even and good on streaming platforms. And it sounds good too!
A master like abbey road’s will inevitably sound lower in volume than other songs on streaming platforms, which is annoying to users. That, most of the time translates on your song getting skipped.
@@GreatBurningNullifier I disagree! Platforms cap LUFS and apply "penalty" volume decrease to loud masters. It's safest to master not to quiet but not too loud. not -14 LUFS, but also not -6. somewhere in between like -9-11 always works for me and is great.
@@oysterboymusic damn straight seem you do understand modern music and computer recordings. so yes louder is good just bring down the LUFS and its all good. as long as the levels are not spiking on peaks. and weirdly yes -9-11 seems to even out to near 14 LUFS for me with the averages.this many people do not know. good on you for pointing it out for people!!!!! ;)
Forgive me for being so critical, but is this music? Whatever happened to good tunes, interest, personality, dynamics, articulation…? This track is utterly forgettable.
#4 was my favorite too!
I like version 3 by far the best. I think it would have been a better comparison if we listened to the tracks without seeing the waveforms. I had my preconceptions already before the listening started.
This is also about motivation. The big studios will get clients anyway, so they don't really need to do the absolute best job they can. For them it becomes a cost (time) vs benefits (pay+reputation) equation. Any well run business is aiming for good enough, rather than perfect. Fivver guy might still need to make a name for himself, so he's doing the absolute best that he can.
Also, would be interesting to also compare the free mixes heheh
Thanks for sharing this experiment with us!
Fiver guy doesn't need to live of this, or get food and expenses for his family When you're older you do. Also, noone can live like this forever, working overtime to impress people to get some market share/clients/recognition from the boss. No way to live.
If anyone only ever hired enthousiastic young people trying to make a name, those same young guys would be pretty miffed when getting older.
First thing I'd have done is to loudness-match them all by ear (including the original mix) to eliminate the loudness factor.
That is what I thought right at the begining...
Interesting video! So much depends on the equipment, especially the speakers. Of course you, as the artist, were looking for something specific in the sound that the rest of us wouldn't have known to look for. In my Sony MDR-V6 headphones, version 1 was the clear winner on the parts I heard, providing a spaciousness that I felt appropriate for this tune that was absent in the others. Version 3 was my second pick, but a little too warm, the attenuated high end masking any sense of space. The others were all EQ'd slightly differently, but equally uber-compressed, so louder and equally unexciting to my ear. Louder can trick the ears, so I wonder what reevaluating these tracks with the average, rather than max, DB levels matched would provide different results. PS: No affiliation with any of the mixing companies LOL!