CygnusX-1Bk2 Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Hey all! One of the guys I've been playing with found a free music mastering engine online that seems to sound ok. If you are like me (most are not :) ) then your mixes are fairly dynamic and at a moderate to low level volume-wise. It's hard to do proper mastering without a specific room and equipment. I usually end up using a two track editor to raise the overall volume before peaking or clipping. Our cover band has been working on a gig demo so we gave eMastered a try. Right now it's free and it only takes a few minutes per song plus you will be able to download a full rez wave. Other mastering engine sites are charging $9.99 per CD rez waves and $19.99 for full rez (24 bit/ 96 kHz) while mp3's are free but their masters don't sound near as good. It's best if your files are around -6 to -12 dB peak but will still work on louder files. https://emastered.com/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueschica Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 Hey all! One of the guys I've been playing with found a free music mastering engine online that seems to sound ok. If you are like me (most are not :) ) then your mixes are fairly dynamic and at a moderate to low level volume-wise. It's hard to do proper mastering without a specific room and equipment. I usually end up using a two track editor to raise the overall volume before peaking or clipping. Our cover band has been working on a gig demo so we gave eMastered a try. Right now it's free and it only takes a few minutes per song plus you will be able to download a full rez wave. Other mastering engine sites are charging $9.99 per CD rez waves and $19.99 for full rez (24 bit/ 96 kHz) while mp3's are free but their masters don't sound near as good. It's best if your files are around -6 to -12 dB peak but will still work on louder files. https://emastered.com/ Thank you so much, Cygnus X-1 B2 !! I had a beloved Eric Church boot with poor volume and decided to experiment with putting the tracks in emastered after you posted this. They sound fantastic now and it was very interesting! Thanks again! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Permanent-Rush Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 Aw. They should make it free forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoopid Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 I just tested the service using one of my unmastered mixes. It does the job adding some loudness (mild normalization), but it didn't seem to do anything else with the file. Although it does what it says, I'd hardly think of it as a substitute for proper mastering. For old files you're just looking to archive or rough mixes for sharing on soundcloud/youtube, this would be fine. But if you've worked hard one something, this wouldn't be a wise choice in polishing the final product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CygnusX-1Bk2 Posted June 6, 2016 Author Share Posted June 6, 2016 No this is a quick and dirty fix for unmastered files. From what I got it was more than mild normalization, then again my target is -12 to -6 dB (because my room is calibrated to K14 for post production) which gets pushed up considerably. If your mixes have headroom (which they should) then this is a considerable help because of how it handles peaks. It is more of a limiter which I really hear, not simply normalized, because the bottom of the dynamic range is brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoopid Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 No this is a quick and dirty fix for unmastered files. From what I got it was more than mild normalization, then again my target is -12 to -6 dB (because my room is calibrated to K14 for post production) which gets pushed up considerably. If your mixes have headroom (which they should) then this is a considerable help because of how it handles peaks. It is more of a limiter which I really hear, not simply normalized, because the bottom of the dynamic range is brought up. It sounds like the loudness normalization used by radio stations to bring everything up to roughly the same level in the song. During the quieter parts you can hear it 'swell'. Whatever it's doing, it only does an adequate job. It's a bit of a misnomer the way they offer it as a "mastering" tool, as it does that function rather poorly when compared to *actual* mastering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CygnusX-1Bk2 Posted June 7, 2016 Author Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) Radio and TV use limiters not normalization. A limiter is a compressor with a ratio of anywhere from 10:1 or 20:1 to infinity:1. Normalization is simple gain changing based upon peaks in a given audio file. This is a robot engine created by mastering engineers that analyzes mixes and applies compression and EQ based upon what type of music it thinks it is. It is more mastering than simply normalizing. It also recommends that files submitted have headroom of at least -6 dB (highest peak being -6 dB not average level of -6 dB). It is free when other mastering engines similarly charge more. A real mastering engineer charges as much as $400 per song because they work with specialized tools & speakers in a specialized control room (the mastering room at the Plant in Sausalito was about 30-40 ft. from speakers to mastering position. I spent some time in there before they closed). So this is a bargain. You get what you pay for. I am just passing it along. Anyone can claim to be a mastering engineer and charge $20 a song, but again you get what you pay for... Edited June 7, 2016 by CygnusX-1Bk2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fridge Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 I've tried this on a couple of tracks and was generally pleased with the results...I too try and record tracks at -6to -12 db, and I found that when I put the "mastered" track into Audacity, it looked to me like it had used some form of compression/limiting...the quieter parts of the track still had a lesser amplitude, so I don't think it was too heavy on the normalisation.........was it as good as a properly engineered song?...no, but for a free product it was excellent and more than good enough for posting to soundcloud etc. Good find Cygnus.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoopid Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) Radio and TV use limiters not normalization. A limiter is a compressor with a ratio of anywhere from 10:1 or 20:1 to infinity:1. Normalization is simple gain changing based upon peaks in a given audio file. Yes, that is correct. I was thinking normalization using a target RMS, say -10db. The compression ratio is adjusted, as needed, as the track is processed. Meaning it can be anywhere from 2:1 to 15:1 (or more) . It's still called normalization, and it isn't *just* limiting at one ratio either. Normalizing using peak values is useless as a one-and-done. It was clear I wasn't referring to this. These terms are often incorrectly tossed around. I'm aware of their differences, but thanks for trying to call me out. Edited June 7, 2016 by stoopid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoopid Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 You get what you pay for. I am just passing it along. Good, so there's no need to defend it. It is what it is, and it's scope of usefulness is inherently limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CygnusX-1Bk2 Posted June 7, 2016 Author Share Posted June 7, 2016 Radio and TV use limiters not normalization. A limiter is a compressor with a ratio of anywhere from 10:1 or 20:1 to infinity:1. Normalization is simple gain changing based upon peaks in a given audio file. Yes, that is correct. I was thinking normalization using a target RMS, say -10db. The compression ratio is adjusted, as needed, as the track is processed. Meaning it can be anywhere from 2:1 to 15:1 (or more) . It's still called normalization, and it isn't *just* limiting at one ratio either. Normalizing using peak values is useless as a one-and-done. It was clear I wasn't referring to this. These terms are often incorrectly tossed around. I'm aware of their differences, but thanks for trying to call me out.I only "call out" incorrect information, not individuals. :) Actually broadcast limiters are indeed fixed ratio. And RMS normalization vs. Peak normalization are different from each other but neither are compression so the terms are not interchangeable. :) RMS will alter a waveform destructively where Peak is a straight gain change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoopid Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) Radio and TV use limiters not normalization. A limiter is a compressor with a ratio of anywhere from 10:1 or 20:1 to infinity:1. Normalization is simple gain changing based upon peaks in a given audio file. Yes, that is correct. I was thinking normalization using a target RMS, say -10db. The compression ratio is adjusted, as needed, as the track is processed. Meaning it can be anywhere from 2:1 to 15:1 (or more) . It's still called normalization, and it isn't *just* limiting at one ratio either. Normalizing using peak values is useless as a one-and-done. It was clear I wasn't referring to this. These terms are often incorrectly tossed around. I'm aware of their differences, but thanks for trying to call me out.I only "call out" incorrect information, not individuals. :) Actually broadcast limiters are indeed fixed ratio. And RMS normalization vs. Peak normalization are different from each other but neither are compression so the terms are not interchangeable. :) RMS will alter a waveform destructively where Peak is a straight gain change. If anyone wants to learn more, there's a couple thousand (even more detailed/accurate) discussions on the subject in various places on the web: https://www.google.c...s normalization Edited June 8, 2016 by stoopid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoopid Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Anyone can claim to be a mastering engineer and charge $20 a song, but again you get what you pay for... I only "call out" incorrect information, not individuals. :) We both know that was a cheap shot. At least be a man and admit when you're not being one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CygnusX-1Bk2 Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) $20 for mastering is cheap. Too cheap to be credible. My "shot" was not however. :) Anyone claiming to be a mastering engineer while charging only $20 per song is no better than a mastering engine and/or trying to take advantage of people who don't know any better. Real mastering engineers post their clientele & projects and are not threatened by a robot engine. I have worked with name mastering engineers and there is another moderator here who is also an excellent mastering engineer. I am certain they can charge a good deal more than $20 per song. Go ahead and report more of my posts. The reports go directly to me. I'm the moderator of this section. :) http://jimdiazaudio.com/ Edited June 8, 2016 by CygnusX-1Bk2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoopid Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) $20 for mastering is cheap. Too cheap to be credible. My "shot" was not however. :) Anyone claiming to be a mastering engineer while charging only $20 per song is no better than a mastering engine and/or trying to take advantage of people who don't know any better. Real mastering engineers post their clientele & projects and are not threatened by a robot engine. I have worked with name mastering engineers and there is another moderator here who is also an excellent mastering engineer. I am certain they can charge a good deal more than $20 per song. Go ahead and report more of my posts. The reports go directly to me. I'm the moderator of this section. :) http://jimdiazaudio.com/ Keep your sny remarks to yourself, as you don't know everything about everyone. I have credibility. Nowhere do I state anything about being a "mastering engineer", and if anything sell my services for exactly what they are - a budget alternative to people whose prices are so insanely high they can't even list it on their site. The fact you're going out of your way to squash an insignificant little bug in the industry says a lot (too much) about you, as a human being. Edited June 8, 2016 by stoopid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Anyone can claim to be a mastering engineer and charge $20 a song, but again you get what you pay for... I only "call out" incorrect information, not individuals. :) We both know that was a cheap shot. At least be a man and admit when you're not being one. You challenged his authoritah. How else could he respond but to go personal? (Rhetorical question, that one.) Trust me, you're not the first recipient of that behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1-0-0-1-0-0-1 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Maybe this topic need not continue to get personal? We're here to share ideas, not argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Maybe this topic need not continue to get personal? We're here to share ideas, not argue.Sharing ideas can be difficult in this particular forum if those ideas do not support the opinions of the leader moderator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoopid Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Maybe this topic need not continue to get personal? We're here to share ideas, not argue. Sadly one of your moderating crew is incapable of properly moderating themselves. May I suggest they be replaced, or perhaps at the very least put into time out with the rest of us lowly internet children? It's come to my attention that the moderator in question has a long history of this behavior. REALLY? What the heck are they doing still holding that position on this forum?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Mover and Shaker Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 $20 for mastering is cheap. Too cheap to be credible. http://jimdiazaudio.com/ That's not what your mom said. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CygnusX-1Bk2 Posted June 13, 2016 Author Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Nowhere do I state anything about being a "mastering engineer", and if anything sell my services for exactly what they are - a budget alternative to people whose prices are so insanely high they can't even list it on their site. The fact you're going out of your way to squash an insignificant little bug in the industry says a lot (too much) about you, as a human being.I am not trying to squash anything. You get what you pay for. There are a lot of "budget alternatives" on the internet, one of which I posted. Chances are this robot can do what you are doing for free and you popped up to complain that someone posted direct competition to what you are trying to do. I tried to pass it along. Professional mastering costs a lot of money because of the specialized tools and space needed to perform that particular function. If one spends only $20 for this service chances are more than likely they will need to take their project to another mastering house who will indeed charge the market rate to get it done properly. If you want to take that personally then go right ahead. It is not personal, it's business. Also note that I posted my professional audio credits so feel free to take shots at me. I am thick skinned enough to take whatever perceived slights thrown my way. I love being attacked for trying to help people. :) Edited June 13, 2016 by CygnusX-1Bk2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CygnusX-1Bk2 Posted June 13, 2016 Author Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Anyone can claim to be a mastering engineer and charge $20 a song, but again you get what you pay for... I only "call out" incorrect information, not individuals. :) We both know that was a cheap shot. At least be a man and admit when you're not being one. You challenged his authoritah. How else could he respond but to go personal? (Rhetorical question, that one.) Trust me, you're not the first recipient of that behavior.I am not trying to dupe people into using my services. My apologies if people cannot handle discourse. I have stated repeatedly that my opinion is no more important than anyone else's. Edited June 13, 2016 by CygnusX-1Bk2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CygnusX-1Bk2 Posted June 13, 2016 Author Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Real mastering engineers. Please note rates and clientele list where posted: Bob Katz (invented the K System):http://www.digido.co...tists-page.htmlhttp://www.digido.com/ratesheet1.html John Cuniberti (whom I have worked with personally):http://www.johncunib...tering-history/http://www.johncunib.../rates-options/ Ian Shepardhttp://mastering-media.co.uk/about/ Edited June 13, 2016 by CygnusX-1Bk2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobK Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Mastering can be done irrespective of cost and space... it's in the ears, and the results are the proof. That being said... an algorithm can NOT master a recording. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CygnusX-1Bk2 Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) Not if it is to be done correctly. Space is especially crucial for proper mastering, specifically where low frequencies are concerned. As are monitors. Most commercially available speakers cannot adequately handle the frequency range needed for mastering. Same thing goes for a space. This is not opinion, it's physics. It is not as simple as purchasing software. Please read through Bob Katz' Digital Domain listed above. He is THE mastering authority. Algorithms can do many things including mastering a recording. It won't be great. In fact many of the robot sites charge around $20 for a standard res file. I posted this one because it's free and it does a decent job of getting tracks into the top of the volume spectrum without peaking or distorting badly. Anyone is free to check my production credits and professional projects (posted earlier) to call me on anything... Edited June 14, 2016 by CygnusX-1Bk2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now