The Ultimate Showdown: A.I. Mastering vs Professional Engineer
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- The Lewis Mixing Challenge
- Comparison on Instagram
- Audio Quality on Instagram
- Low Frequency Processing
- The Mix
- Personal Intention in Mastering
- Splitting the Audio Community
- Transients and Limiting
- Technical Comparisons
- Loudness Testing
- The BandLab Master and Spotify Standards
- Uploading to BandLab Mastering
- Conclusion
The Lewis Mixing Challenge: Uncovering the Truth About Online Mastering
In recent years, the world of audio mastering has experienced a transformative shift with the emergence of online mastering services. One such service, BandLab Mastering, claims to be the best online mastering solution that Instantly enhances the quality of your tracks. But is it truly the best option out there? To shed light on this matter, Lewis, a renowned audio engineer, challenged the capabilities of BandLab Mastering and the AI algorithms behind it by conducting a blind shootout on Instagram. The results of this challenge sparked a great deal of confusion and debate within the audio community. In this article, we will Delve into the details of this challenge, analyze the comparison between various mastering versions, and unravel the truth behind the effectiveness of online mastering. But before we explore the details, let's first understand the Context of the Lewis Mixing Challenge.
Introduction
Online mastering has become an increasingly popular option for musicians and producers seeking to give their tracks that professional touch. With the promise of Instant results and top-notch quality, services like BandLab Mastering have attracted a significant following. However, amid the proliferation of such services, questions arise regarding their true effectiveness and reliability.
The Lewis Mixing Challenge
To test the capabilities of BandLab Mastering and AI algorithms, Lewis initiated the Lewis Mixing Challenge a few years ago. The challenge involved comparing the pre-mastered track with the BandLab Mastered version in a blind shootout on Instagram. The purpose was to gauge the opinions and reactions of listeners when presented with three options: A (AI Master), B (Unmastered), and C (Human Master). The comments on the Instagram post revealed a diverse array of opinions, showcasing the perplexing nature of the challenge.
Comparison on Instagram
While the Lewis Mixing Challenge provided valuable insights, the limitations of audio quality on Instagram hindered the ability to make accurate comparisons. The compressed audio quality of Instagram makes it challenging to discern subtle differences in mastering. However, the feedback received from listeners hinted at varying perceptions regarding the AI and human mastering options.
Audio Quality on Instagram
Before diving into the intricacies of the mastering comparison, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations of audio quality on Instagram. The platform's audio compression compromises the fidelity of the tracks, making it difficult to render an accurate judgment. Consequently, the confusion and differing opinions expressed in the comments on the Lewis Mixing Challenge post can be partially attributed to this deficiency.
Low Frequency Processing
One noticeable distinction between the BandLab Mastered and human mastered versions is the difference in low-frequency processing. The BandLab Mastered version appears tighter and more controlled in the low frequencies, while the human mastered version exhibits a slightly looser and grittier quality. This difference can be attributed to the specific intentions of the mastering engineer, as well as the overall balance of frequencies in the mix.
The Mix
To better understand the reasoning behind the decisions made in mastering, it is essential to examine the mix itself. The mix consists of a bassline and keys with unique characteristics in the low end, featuring elements of rumble and energy buildup. The mastering engineer sought to emphasize these qualities by embracing a slightly restless approach to the low frequencies. This deliberate choice aimed to accentuate the energy and impact of the mix, which may have resulted in contrasting interpretations among listeners.
Personal Intention in Mastering
As a mixing engineer, Lewis approaches mastering from a specific perspective, focusing on aligning the final product with his intent during the mix. When evaluating the mastering versions, it is important to consider that personal artistic choices play a role in shaping the outcome. Disagreements among listeners may arise due to differing expectations and interpretations of the artistic direction.
Splitting the Audio Community
The Lewis Mixing Challenge highlighted a pervasive issue within the audio community – the division caused by personal tastes and opinions. Objective facts regarding audio can become distorted and Morph into subjective preferences, resulting in an array of conflicting viewpoints. While some aspects of audio mastering involve technical guidelines and standards, factors like low-frequency balance and compression can also be subject to personal taste and artistic intention.
Transients and Limiting
Analyzing the mastering versions further, it becomes evident that the pre-mastered track exhibits more apparent transients compared to the BandLab Mastered version. This disparity can be attributed to the differing approaches to limiting and overall loudness. Lewis acknowledges that his mastering decisions at the time may have been excessive, prioritizing loudness over preserving the dynamic range. However, the knowledge and experience gained since then have Shaped his Current approach to mastering.
Technical Comparisons
Delving into the technical aspects of the mastering versions, a loudness test reveals surprising results. Contrary to Lewis' initial expectations, his human mastered version adheres closely to the universal standard of -13.9 LUFS (Loudness Units Full Scale) with a true peak of -1 dB. On the other HAND, the BandLab Mastered version stands at -17 LUFS with a true peak at 0 dB. This discrepancy raises concerns regarding compatibility with streaming platforms like Spotify, which recommends all tracks to be at -14 LUFS.
The BandLab Master and Spotify Standards
Taking Spotify as an example, tracks that deviate significantly from the recommended loudness of -14 LUFS may face issues with volume adjustments. In the case of the BandLab Mastered version, which surpasses the recommended loudness, Spotify's normalization algorithm may not be able to Apply the necessary gain adjustments. While the subjective quality of the BandLab Mastered version remains open to interpretation, its level of loudness raises practical concerns when it comes to streaming and playback compatibility.
Uploading to BandLab Mastering
To understand the capabilities of BandLab Mastering in adhering to Spotify standards, Lewis decided to upload the track to the service and assess the results. However, it is worth noting that BandLab Mastering is a free service, and as such, its level of accuracy and conformity to industry standards may vary. The ability to download the mastered track without any adjustment options further reinforces the need for cautious evaluation.
Conclusion
The Lewis Mixing Challenge sheds light on the intricate nature of online mastering services and the varying interpretations within the audio community. While BandLab Mastering and AI algorithms offer convenience and instant results, the subjectivity of personal taste and artistic intent remains fundamental in the mastering process. It is crucial for musicians, producers, and mastering engineers to consider the technical guidelines and industry standards while also staying true to their artistic vision. As the audio community navigates the realm of online mastering, open discussions and explorations like the Lewis Mixing Challenge help foster a deeper understanding of the complexities involved.