An excellent strategy of course, but it needs to be done judiciously. I guess this has been done to ‘smooth out’ any harshness and make listening at high volumes more tolerable. Scanning up the spectrum in my mind’s eye, the next thing I noticed was the dip in the upper midrange. The two had been smudged, especially in the low mid/bass area around 160Hz. This was particularly noticeable with the kick drum and bass relationship.
Cut ‘n’ Boost: Counting The CostĪfter another 10 seconds or so I noticed how the extra overall level had come at a cost – space around the sounds had been brought to a minimum or removed altogether. All too often they are relied upon to provide ‘false excitement’ to the audience – rendering a 22” kick drum to chest-crushing levels, dominating the sound and dwarfing the more subtle elements of the music.Īs a result of this ‘mono lump’ here seems to be some thinning of the low mids in the wide sounds, I’d estimate that from 160Hz any information in the sides starts getting brought to the middle. This ‘shock and awe’ tactic reminds me of festival sound where there’s a huge array of sub cabs in the PA. I must admit my first reaction after 1 second was “oh no it’s better than my master!” the bass/low mids have been reformed and presented as a large lump in the middle of the soundfield which gleefully slams with the kickdrum. I listened to my own master first, just a 30 second clip to acclimatise my ears to the already familiar sound. Note – the middle pane is the pre-mastered track for reference. By turning the Landr master down by 3dB, both tracks sounded the same volume. I did this by running a loudness meter over each track:Īs you can see my master was 3dB quieter but both had the same dynamic range. This is important as louder sounds almost always sound better to the human ear. I paid £8 for the ‘standard’ (cheapest) service on Landr and got them side by side in Logic.īefore listening I spent a while balancing the levels so I would be listening at the same perceived level. So, the tune is my own track that I mastered months ago before this test was a twinkle in my eye. So, everyone is not using Landr….time to find out why. I tend to think that if automated mastering was really good then everyone would be using it, and saving lots of money on the way. Am I being a Luddite? Well, I’m enthusiastic about some advances in technology, just not all. Confirmation Bias: I Like Music ProductionĬards on the table, I’m really skeptical about automated mastering.
LANDR REVIEW PROFESSIONAL
This seems to emulate the process of online mastering but without a professional at the other end of the broadband transfer.
LANDR REVIEW DOWNLOAD
The only difference that I can see is that you have to upload and download the files. “How does this differ from a plugin on in your DAW with some automatic settings then?” you might say. It’s an online service which you upload your track to, and receive the master to download within minutes. The mastering is carried out by a computer.Īn algorithm has been carefully designed by some really cleaver people to ‘listen’ to the track, decide what’s best and to carry out the mastering. They differ from traditional studio or online mastering services in one key way. These automated mastering services like Landr, and eMastered have been around for quite a few years now. Is Landr any good? Is Landr Legit? I thought it would be interesting to compare a Landr automated master to my own master. LANDR Automated Mastering vs Human Masteringĥth May 2021 A Comparison And Review Between Automated Mastering and Human Mastering
0 kommentar(er)
