I chose Warmer, largely because the other options sounded like corrective measures. Then you choose from mastering options like Louder, Mid Dip, Warmer, Less Bass, Stereo Width and so on. It would be interesting to know what sort of processing is applied for each of these but the whole point of CloudBounce is that you shouldn't have to bother with such thoughts. There's also Techno, Deep House and Drum & Bass / Bass Music. I found myself wondering what differentiated the algorithms of the Tech House, Electro House and EDM settings. I dragged my unmastered file into CloudBounce and was greeted by a list of genre options. Without going into too much detail, I only just touch the needles of the compressors and limiter, having seen professional mastering engineers do much the same. This consists of saturators, compressors, stereo width tools, some notch EQing and a limiter. I set aside the unmastered file for later use on CloudBounce and then applied my usual mastering chain. To use as an example, I bounced out a Soul Capsule rip-off peaking comfortably around -10db. If you do have those plug-ins and rate your DIY masters, the question then is, how does CloudBounce compare to your own mastering abilities? I would never boast about my own basic mastering but it's at least good enough to blend in a mix of professionally mastered material without sounding out of place. Even an annual CloudBounce subscription with unlimited masters costs less than a suite of high quality plug-ins or an actual mastering session. If you don't have the prerequisite saturators, compressors, EQs, multi-band compressors, limiters and whatnot, a one-off mastering fee of $4.90 is pretty attractive. But besides a good ear, good monitoring, a lot of concentration and a light touch, DIY mastering does require multiple, sometimes expensive, plug-ins. However, electronic dance music producers are generally more likely to toy with mastering their own music, given their role is closer to that of an engineer than a regular musician. And it's certainly healthier for a musician to be thinking of creative questions rather than learning the ins and outs of such a demanding technical task. So in that sense, they're not to be sniffed at. Rather, it indicates that they're most useful for amateurs trying to take their craft to the next level-meaning, the vast majority of musicians and producers. The recently launched 2.0 version of their mastering algorithm comfortably covered my own (admittedly rudimentary) masters in these dance music-focused tests. This isn't to downplay what CloudBounce offers. And even then, you might prefer your own DIY mastering skills. If you're a professional producer with a release schedule, you'd at best use cloud mastering to polish up a demo you wanted to play out. But you can get a serviceable master back in a few minutes for a fraction of the usual cost. For instance, you cannot use an algorithmic master to cut vinyl. While they're in the business of mastering music, it's a pretty different service to their human counterparts, offering different priorities, strengths and weaknesses. Indeed, they were developed in Abbey Road's own music tech incubator. CloudBounce don't see themselves as being in competition with humans in studios. These services have strengths but they pose little threat to actual mastering engineers. Considering how new the technology is, the results are pretty good, especially when the process consists of simply paying a few bucks, dragging and dropping your track into a browser and twiddling your thumbs for a few minutes. The likes of LANDR, Masterlizer, eMastered, ARIA and CloudBounce all promise fast, high quality services. Now it's a growing market with an increasing field of competitors. If you suggested the idea of an algorithmic, automated mastering service ten years ago, you would've been laughed out of the studio.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |