Gear 300x100
Music Software Bundles from Pluginboutique.com

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Testing CloudBounce

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Testing CloudBounce

    So my DAW of choice just added CloudBounce - another one of those automated online mastering services.
    I thought I'd give it a try and have produced a blind test to see if anyone can tell the difference and which approach is preferable.
    My blog has more on it including a voting poll but you can also listen and reply below.
    Thanks in advance. :thumbsup:
    https://soundcloud.com/secretkillero...nce-blind-test
    Last edited by Makrotulpa; 08-22-2016, 06:55 PM. Reason: Soundcloud embed doesn't work :(
    Makrotulpa - SKON - Blog - Soundcloud

  • #2
    I preferred test No. 1. It thought there was more LF content at key places. It also seemed louder, although that is not always a bad thing, and the EDM kids will lap it up too. Better transients and more dynamics on 1 as well.

    I have no idea which was yours and which was the auto-master (Unix joke)
    Whatsisname's Little Fluffy Clouds | Campsite | Hearthis | SeismicTC | Twitter | Ello

    Comment


    • #3
      I found test 1 to seem more detailed and yes, louder. Overall I preferred 1 and thought it the better of the two, but there was something appealing to my personal tastes in 2's seeming a bit softer and less focused.



      Found out something about SC; if you start play on test 1, then immediately on test 2, you can click back and forth on them listening to a few seconds at a time. Didn't know the tracks retained where you left off. cool.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by aoVI View Post
        Found out something about SC; if you start play on test 1, then immediately on test 2, you can click back and forth on them listening to a few seconds at a time. Didn't know the tracks retained where you left off. cool.

        That's one good thing about SC then :razz:

        Thanks for listening... i'll let you know which is which when I get a few more votes.

        cheers
        Lloyd
        Makrotulpa - SKON - Blog - Soundcloud

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by aoVI View Post


          Found out something about SC; if you start play on test 1, then immediately on test 2, you can click back and forth on them listening to a few seconds at a time. Didn't know the tracks retained where you left off. cool.
          Ha. That's exactly how I did it :biggrin:
          Whatsisname's Little Fluffy Clouds | Campsite | Hearthis | SeismicTC | Twitter | Ello

          Comment


          • #6
            Test #1 sounds better to me.
            ahornberg.bandcamp.com
            soundcloud.com/ahornberg

            Comment


            • #7
              Results are posted.
              TL;DR CloudBounce is track 1.
              You all have a higher opinion of my mastering skills than reality!
              Makrotulpa - SKON - Blog - Soundcloud

              Comment


              • #8
                Interesting.

                $4.90 per track seems quite reasonable, and I think the results here show that it should not be dismissed out of hand. I probably wouldn't use it regularly. I actually enjoy playing with my imaging, saturation, mastering EQ, and occasional compression/limiting tools. I usually learn something new from each "mastering session", and the process is almost therapeutic. Having said that, I might try putting one of my techno-oriented pieces (Parallax, Refrigerant or LV-426) through Cloudbounce to give me an idea of what it would sound like without my meddling.

                Were you using a "default" setting (First Master), or did you select one of their more specific options?

                This was a real eye-opener.
                Whatsisname's Little Fluffy Clouds | Campsite | Hearthis | SeismicTC | Twitter | Ello

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seismic1 View Post
                  Interesting.

                  $4.90 per track seems quite reasonable, and I think the results here show that it should not be dismissed out of hand. I probably wouldn't use it regularly.
                  It isn't much. If you go for the mid-level $9.90 subscription you get 5 masters plus you can still pay $4.90 for any additional.

                  I actually enjoy playing with my imaging, saturation, mastering EQ, and occasional compression/limiting tools. I usually learn something new from each "mastering session", and the process is almost therapeutic. Having said that, I might try putting one of my techno-oriented pieces (Parallax, Refrigerant or LV-426) through Cloudbounce to give me an idea of what it would sound like without my meddling.
                  You can try it free (which is what I did for the test). If you use this link I get another freebie! :thumbsup:

                  Were you using a "default" setting (First Master), or did you select one of their more specific options?
                  "Default" as I didn't see any specific options. Not sure if I have to unlock them?
                  Makrotulpa - SKON - Blog - Soundcloud

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    TBH, I was an out-of-hand dismisser of these sorts of services, at least for the sorts of material I generally produce (I like my swirly fog and mud). This test has made me reconsider.

                    I'll try it over the next couple of days via your link and see what it can do.


                    StudioOne just partnered with LANDR. Cloudbounce looks a bit more affordable.

                    Would be interesting to compare the two.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      That's an interesting experiment.

                      I see how #1 grabs you; louder, fuller (low mids?), just... juicier.

                      BUT, think I'd choose #2 as it seems more... natural? Not perfect but feels more real to me (which is a whole new discussion, how we perceive synthetic sounds, judging them against acoustic sounds etc etc).
                      Latest release: never to be repeated

                      Hearthis | Soundcloud

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I may give it a try at the weekend. I think I'll try using Paraxial for the test. It's my latest track so things are still relatively fresh in my head. It clocks in at around -6dB peak on each channel so shouldn't stress their algorithms too much.
                        Whatsisname's Little Fluffy Clouds | Campsite | Hearthis | SeismicTC | Twitter | Ello

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I couldn't get the upload to work. I tried twice. It hung each time. I was trying to upload a 24-bit 96k wav file. Their FAQ states that they require 24-bit 44.1k Wav minimum.
                          Whatsisname's Little Fluffy Clouds | Campsite | Hearthis | SeismicTC | Twitter | Ello

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have decided not to pursue this. I have spent over 2 hours trying to upload a file, and the guys at Cloudbounce keep suggesting alternative upload methods, none of which will work for me. Uploading files to the internet ain't rocket science. I've been doing it for almost 30 years. If something goes wrong, it should be a simple matter to check the system logfiles and change a debug level for logging purposes. If they can't handle the uploads correctly, I certainly can't trust their mastering algorithms.
                            Whatsisname's Little Fluffy Clouds | Campsite | Hearthis | SeismicTC | Twitter | Ello

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by seismic1 View Post
                              I have decided not to pursue this. I have spent over 2 hours trying to upload a file, and the guys at Cloudbounce keep suggesting alternative upload methods, none of which will work for me. Uploading files to the internet ain't rocket science. I've been doing it for almost 30 years. If something goes wrong, it should be a simple matter to check the system logfiles and change a debug level for logging purposes. If they can't handle the uploads correctly, I certainly can't trust their mastering algorithms.
                              I still get issues with Soundcloud every so often. I wonder if there are specific issues in your case. I uploaded a 44/24 with no problems. I asked about length of file and was told anything under 30mins should be ok.
                              Makrotulpa - SKON - Blog - Soundcloud

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X