Testing CloudBounce

[Makrotulpa]

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/secretkillerofnames/sets/cloudbounce-blind-test

[seismic1]

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)

[Makrotulpa]

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

[seismic1]

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:

[Ahornberg]

Test #1 sounds better to me.

[Makrotulpa]

Results are posted.
TL;DR CloudBounce is track 1.
You all have a higher opinion of my mastering skills than reality!

[seismic1]

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.

[Makrotulpa]

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?

[GaryG]

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).

[seismic1]

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.

[seismic1]

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.

[seismic1]

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.

[Makrotulpa]

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.