MasteringBox on-line file mastering (a Landr alternative)

**Jim Soloway** · 08-09-2016, 12:26 PM

I've tried and quite liked the on-line mastering by Landr but there's limited free access so I started looking around for the alternatives and came up with MasteringBox. They charge for high definition files but low-rez and high(ish) rez MP3's are free.

I think the results are pretty good, especially for a drop and drag system. (For the high-rez files, there is user control of the volume level and EQ but for the free MP3's, the process is fully automated).

Two things to note: the files it produces are both a lot louder than what goes in and the high end it much brighter. That has to be accounted for in the recording process or it can get really shrill in a hurry. My first attempt sounded pretty god before mastering but the result was way too brittle. I did a second take with the tone rolled back a bit on the guitar and the results were still very bright but much better. (I'd love to try the paid version where I had some control of the levels and EQ).

Here are both mastered and unmastered files and you can just for yourselves. I'd love to here some thoughts, good, bad or indifferent on the results.

BTW, I don't know if this belongs here or on one of the other fora but I do think of this as a Gizmo, just one that is accessed on-line. To give it a try, go to https://www.masteringbox.com

And if anyone is wondering, I played this on my new Godin Kingpin II HB (the humbucker model)

Mastered

Unmastered

**feet** · 08-10-2016, 11:24 AM

i'm not sure if i fully understand the concept, but you pay $1 and a robot makes your track loud? that's it?

especially for the purposes of folks here, i would recommend consulting something with ears, first. preferably someone with a bit of knowledge in the niche you're in. but i also sort of doubt a lot of guys here are mastering their stuff, so...

all the same, this is interesting, at least. mastering isn't something i'm super clear on, but i know it isn't cheap. i'm sure you could send your files to a real mastering house just as easily, but it'll cost you. for guys like us knocking out a quick recording or two... for a few bucks, its hard to be upset at it. though i suspect you may do just as well with a judicious slapping on of whatever plug ins came with whichever daw you are using. full band tracks is one thing, but for single guitar... still, its just a buck, or less, even.

**Jim Soloway** · 08-10-2016, 12:11 PM

First, just for clarity, the MP3 versions from MasteringBox are free.

What mastering does (based on my extremely limited knowledge and understanding) is raise the volume, using a combination of EQ, compression and other tricks in a way that, ideally, maintains most of the dynamics and doesn't push the mastered track into distortion. The most obvious value of it is that virtually every medium reduces the audio quality of the track so that unmastered tracks start to sound lifeless. I've loaded things onto YouTube that sounded great on my setup and then sound half dead when I play them back on YouTube. It also brings the volume level to about what is expected on the medium on which they are being used.

You're right that there are plug-ins that will do most of this but frankly, I already operate right near the technical limits of my knowledge when I'm recording and putting time into learning to really control more sophisticated software is time that doesn't go into playing. Anything that makes recording more complicated makes it less likely that I'm going to get any recording done so having some of it done for me, either by human beings or an automated system is a big plus. My album was mastered by Bill Wolfe, a well known mastering pro with decades of experience but I was only able to get him involved because he liked the project and even still, it was expensive (at least from the perspective of my limited budget). It's definitely not an option for tracks going on to YouTube or SoundCloud so anything that improves the playback quality of my tracks that I use for that purpose is a welcome option, especially when it's free.

**Boston Joe** · 08-10-2016, 12:30 PM

I don't know that I'd use it for polished tracks (I might), but I definitely like it for rehearsal recordings. Sounds nice and lively!

**Jim Soloway** · 08-10-2016, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Boston Joe

I don't know that I'd use it for polished tracks (I might), but I definitely like it for rehearsal recordings. Sounds nice and lively!

At some point I'd like to try the paid version for WAV files, even if it's just a couple of tunes. Unlike the free version, there are some user controls including some sort of EQ and volume settings. I'd be really curious to see how well that works.

One of the selling points from bot MasteringBox and Landr is that is gives you at least an idea of what your tracks will sound like after mastering. When I did the album, I had to re-record two of the songs after the first pass in the mastering process. The high end was too hot and he couldn't get a mastered track without distortion.

**Boston Joe** · 08-10-2016, 12:53 PM

I like what it does for the bass. My little recorder does a pretty good job of getting good sounds, but depending on where it's located, sometimes the bass comes out kind of muddy. The site does a nice job of tightening it up.

**pkirk** · 08-10-2016, 01:14 PM

I just tried it, and the bass on mastered track was seriously distorted.

**mercosound** · 08-10-2016, 01:18 PM

I'm not familiar with many currently available audio recording/mixing programs; I'm still using a version of Adobe Audition. There's a plethora of features available in the Audition software, including a few mastering "apps". I'm thinking that other, newer programs probably have similar mastering features included; chances are good that you may already have the tools to be able to fool around with some mastering techniques on your own...

As an aside, every time an MP3 file is opened, modified and saved, it goes thru the MP3 compression algorithm again. You may or may not be able to hear the effect of another pass thru the MP3 processing, but, as a general rule, it's best to work with .wav files until you have things tweaked to your satisfaction, and then make an MP3 copy of the .wav file master.

**Jim Soloway** · 08-10-2016, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by pkirk

I just tried it, and the bass on mastered track was seriously distorted.

That's what I was talking about in regards to previewing what mastering would do to your track. If it makes the bass distort, then supposedly that means that the bass is too hot on your track (or in your mix) to begin with. When I submitted my first version of the song I posted, the high end came back too brittle. I re-recorded t with the tone control on the guitar rolled back a little further and it came back with a much smoother high end. So part of what the service is doing is help me to make better decisions about my recorded tone before it goes to mastering.

**Vladan** · 08-10-2016, 05:22 PM

Here's a proposal, if you want your track mastered, send it to me and I'll send you mastered mp3. if you're satisfied you can pay me via pay pal, as much as you feel like it, but not less than 1EUR. If you do not like it, don't pay.

There's only one condition: all mp3s I will make available to public, so anybody could hear how lousy/ good I did it.
of course, I will not put any monetization on them, so I will not exploit your effort and will not make any money on it.

**Jim Soloway** · 08-10-2016, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Vladan

Here's a proposal, if you want your track mastered, send it to me and I'll send you mastered mp3. if you're satisfied you can pay me via pay pal, as much as you feel like it, but not less than 1EUR. If you do not like it, don't pay.

There's only one condition: all mp3s I will make available to public, so anybody could hear how lousy/ good I did it.
of course, I will not put any monetization on them, so I will not exploit your effort and will not make any money on it.

An excellent idea .... but I think I'll stick with free, private and immediate ... at least for now

**Vladan** · 08-10-2016, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Jim Soloway

An excellent idea .... but I think I'll stick with free, private and immediate ... at least for now

Well, if you don't want them public, I will make it just an honorable mention.

Sent from VladanMovies @ YouTube

**feet** · 08-10-2016, 11:22 PM

i always thought of mastering like mixing, but for the entire album instead of just per track. like assembling your trees into a forest.

when tracking, you want to keep your levels in the -20 - -12db range so you have some headroom to work with for all your fancy mixing techniques and mastering down the road. if your levels are too hot when you record, there is nowhere for it to go once you start adding compression and stuff, so it'll distort. which is generally unpleasant, unless you are working with tape. its like your guitar- you can always add gain later, but you can't remove it once its there.

i'll probably store this away in my mind for later and give it a try some day. just to see what happens, as you guys suggest. what could it hurt? for me, "mastering" has always meant "slap an extra compressor on the master bus to make it loud" once i was done with everything else.

i would imagine most daws come with compressors or whatever that have generic "mastering" presets you could play with. but its another skill, and after writing, performing, engineering, and mixing, you have to draw the line somewhere.

**princeplanet** · 08-11-2016, 12:31 AM

I'm a 25 year veteran in this field (strictly Pro at elite level - dozens of Gold / Platinum releases etc). Here's all you need to know:

With software alone it is possible to quickly attain "mastering" results that are up to as much as 90% as good as Pro mastering. (ie possible if not probable). With a good ear, good monitoring (incl room), a way to achieve A/B comparisons easily and many years of trial and error, it is possible to achieve results up to around 95% of what to expect from Pro Mastering.

The real game, unfortunately, is all up in the last top 5%. If you're not up there then you're running with the turkeys...

So until you're ready to compete with the best music in your field, it's probably OK to try to learn some home mastering skills to make your home recordings translate well on typical home playback systems, but beware that using any on-line "one size-fits-all" form of processing- even the sophisticated ones that perform spectrum analysis in order emulate a specified reference (a mastered recording you admire)- is a rank newbie mistake. Avoid, even if you think that louder and brighter really does mean "better". That's the Fletcher Munson trick that fools the newbie ear every time....

**grahambop** · 08-11-2016, 08:07 AM

Frankly, youtube and soundcloud sound like sh*t whatever you do. They apply so much compression.

A couple of years ago I took some of the audio tracks I had recorded for my youtube/soundcloud clips and made a CD of them. All I did was a bit of subtle remixing to make them sound right on my home hi-fi system, also I took trouble to get the overall volume level of each track to sound appropriate and consistent. I had never heard these tracks on a CD before, only in my headphones when doing the original mix, and then in their 'youtube/soundcloud' incarnations. The CD version sounds fantastic by comparison, I could not believe the difference. And I am not really an expert at this stuff, I just did it using Audacity and my ears.

Also it's worth remembering that these days, everybody listens to youtube clips on crappy little iPhone/iPad speakers or tiny little earbuds. So none of it sounds as good as it should!

**Jim Soloway** · 08-11-2016, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by princeplanet

I'm a 25 year veteran in this field (strictly Pro at elite level - dozens of Gold / Platinum releases etc). Here's all you need to know:

With software alone it is possible to quickly attain "mastering" results that are up to as much as 90% as good as Pro mastering. (ie possible if not probable). With a good ear, good monitoring (incl room), a way to achieve A/B comparisons easily and many years of trial and error, it is possible to achieve results up to around 95% of what to expect from Pro Mastering.

The real game, unfortunately, is all up in the last top 5%. If you're not up there then you're running with the turkeys...

So until you're ready to compete with the best music in your field, it's probably OK to try to learn some home mastering skills to make your home recordings translate well on typical home playback systems, but beware that using any on-line "one size-fits-all" form of processing- even the sophisticated ones that perform spectrum analysis in order emulate a specified reference (a mastered recording you admire)- is a rank newbie mistake. Avoid, even if you think that louder and brighter really does mean "better". That's the Fletcher Munson trick that fools the newbie ear every time....

I understand what your saying but I also think it's a question of purpose. For my album I had the mastering done by someone with decades of experience including having mastered a number of legendary guitar recordings. It felt like I got the last 5% from that experience but I'm definitely not going to do that for a performance recording that I'm putting on YouTube or SoundCloud. For that application just louder and brighter makes some sense. Just having a volume level well below other videos on YouTube is enough reason for many people to hit the back button rather than having to increase the volume on their computer or speakers and the brightness, however it's acquired does (at least to my ears) counter at least some of what YouTube takes away.

**princeplanet** · 08-11-2016, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Jim Soloway

I understand what your saying but I also think it's a question of purpose. For my album I had the mastering done by someone with decades of experience including having mastered a number of legendary guitar recordings. It felt like I got the last 5% from that experience but I'm definitely not going to do that for a performance recording that I'm putting on YouTube or SoundCloud. For that application just louder and brighter makes some sense. Just having a volume level well below other videos on YouTube is enough reason for many people to hit the back button rather than having to increase the volume on their computer or speakers and the brightness, however it's acquired does (at least to my ears) counter at least some of what YouTube takes away.

Gotcha, Mastering can be expensive. So to go for the 90 - 95% option, learn to use something like Ozone and roll your own, you'll sound much better for it, and retain some creative control...

Hint, when mastering for digital upload (iTunes, Bandcamp, Soundcloud etc) be sure to set the loudness limiter to - 0.7 dB. Whereas CD players interpolate intersample peaks into the analog out beyond theoretical zero, lossy formats (mp3 etc) DO NOT! This may be why you're hearing nasty artefacts.