![]() How do you even have a chance to be better than AI if companies are falsely changing the definition of mastering to current and future generations? I have plenty of new and recurring clients each month, and it’s been increasing for years so I don’t see things like this as a direct threat. The “be better than the AI and you have nothing to worry about” comments are really short sighted. Among others, LANDR, ARIA, eMastered, and now Plugin Alliance/Brainworx are now comfortable dumbing down and redefining what the mastering process is. One component of that process is stereo bus processing. Mastering isn’t processing, mastering is a process. I wasn’t expecting the actual definition of mastering to be so subjective, but now it is thanks to these AI services attempting to dumb down what the process entails. I’ve purposely not even commented on the actual sound of these AI services because it’s subjective. What I think is disingenuous to users of so-called “automated mastering services” is that by calling it that, it gives users, particularly less informed users, a false sense of receiving the same treatment that a human mastering engineer would do. If these services called themselves “automated stereo bus processing” services, I’d have no problem with that. Mastering is more than just stereo bus processing. I’m a firm believer that a project isn’t fully mastered until it’s 100% ready for distribution and production. Instead, this article focuses on facts regarding a few things that what people call “automated mastering” simply cannot do for you, and why that is important or perhaps detrimental to your project. If you’re expecting an article that critiques and dismisses the intrinsic sound qualities of what people are now calling “automated mastering” or “AI mastering,” this is not that type of article.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |