I have been struggling with mastering for years. I always struggled to get my songs sounding perfect.
I gave your AAMS Mastering Software a chance and I was absolutely blown away.
Even the songs I thought sounded great, sounded even better. Its a whole new level for me.
I have read many negative reviews anout the software, but I cannot agree.
Taking into account that the average home Producer, mixes and Masters his own tracks.

Regards
Brandon.

Dénis van der Velde of AAMS Auto Audio Mastering System, who's mathematical genus out surpasses any one!
www.curioza.com

Gene Weed,Studio57

GregGraves

I have gone to great lengths to self-master my various CDs out there in the void. I have had AAMS for a number of years but never used it because I didn't understand how to use it ... because I never read the manual. Duh. So, anyway, being bored, I read the manual couple times and watched the videos. Listening to what it does against the various "references" it seemed that the "modern.aam" reference worked best for my stuff. Choosing to use the 50 band EQ and 8 band compression, I fed it a few of my already "mastered" mixes and was very pleased. Once I looked at what it had done to the EQ, I saw that I did have a bit too much low end in some of my tunes, etc. Bottom line is that I agreed with what AAMS was showing me as deficiencies in my technique, and that the result sounded better than it did before processing. So I'm kinda blown away I've had this and never gave it a try. For example on my self-mastered song "Always Me", all of the EQ bands consisted of tweaks in the 1 - 2 db +/- range which seemed to indicate that I had generally done a fairly good job, and that AAMS was not going EQ-batsh*t. However, it did choose a 3.7 boost at 56 Hz and a 4 db cut at 103. So I listened closely to the 2 versions, and I had to admit that the AAMS version had a cleaner sounding low end, and that the kick stood out tighter and more clear. The compression across the 8 bands was a gentle 2:1 with 1 to 3 db compress which is what you might expect from mastering. I helped construct a million dollar studio (that immediately went bankrupt), and have been recording more years than I would care to admit. I've treated my room to handle early reflections, and have bass traps in the rear corners. I have sophisticated and costly plug-ins. Pro for AAMS is that it helps identify the error in your EQ and suggests how to correct it.  It also (as stated above) does a seemingly good job on compression and loudness.

I've studied to make myself better at what I do. Both me and my wife (who has perfectly flat 20 to 20,000 hearing) think that AAMS re-masters of my masters sound better than my masters. Damn.

I use AAMS, and it's been a huge help!
I rarely match another EQ curve exactly, but it certainly points me in the right direction.
1. When I've got things sounding pretty good in the overall mix and I'm not sure why it's not quite right, I run an EQ analysis and compare it to a commercial mix
2. As a safety feature to make sure I don't have too much bass because of my less than ideal mixing space
3. On individual tracks - if my vocal or guitar isn't quite cutting it, I'll do an EQ analysis against an isolated commercial vox or gtr, and make adjustments accordingly.

Obviously, I don't just make these adjustments without listening. The usefulness of this tool is that it gives you a starting point, so if I notice that my vocal has several db less 3K but several db more 5K, I'll start messing around with those frequencies until it sounds better in context of my mix. You have to look at it like a pro engineer taking a listen and saying, "Hmmm - sounds like there may be a bit too much 5K, and not enough 3K."

There has been a lot negative said about this type of program, but I couldn't disagree more.

AAMS has been one of the single biggest contributors to the improvement of my knowledge and the sound of my mixes!

Remora Flector

Well the AAMS software Pro Version, has 200 different algorithms to choose from. So you can pick different styles of processing for your specific song. It's not a one size fits all type of deal. You can also create your own algorithms and save your sound for other recordings. It's interesting software, I've never heard of anything like it. I like the idea that I can master a whole song or just a track if I want. Today in my experiments with it, I mastered a short vocal track, just to see what it would sound like...I was very impressed. The track came back with some nice EQ and Compression and was just a tad bit louder.

Martin Maniac

I'm really liking what I'm hearing so far with AAMS. The depth of this program is very impressive. Every song I've run through it so far has sounded better and smoother after AAMS.

Leadfoot

I really liked what the compressors did. They took the sharp edge off but kept the punchy attacks.
The program is sort of amazing from the amount of work that the dev put into it.
He needs someone to help with his English since it is not his first language. :-)
I'm going to download the latest and give it a try again.

Mike Docy

I only messed with one song since getting the key code, so I don't have much to report yet, except that I'm glad I bought the license. Thank you for creating this thread, Mike. I would have never discovered AAMS by myself. The reference file I used was in the Rock folder. It had 1990-2015 in the title. Admittedly, I didn't audition many reference files, so I'm sure there are more suitable ones for my music. I like how you can create your own. I made one from a Soundgarden song I really like the sound of, and used it on one of mine. Very cool program. There are so many things you can do with AAMS. I haven't even scratched the surface!

Leadfoot

I have gone to great lengths to self-master my various CDs out there in the void.  I have had AAMS for a number of years but never used it because I didn't understand how to use it ... because I never read the manual.  Duh. 
 
So, anyway, being bored, I read the manual couple times and watched the videos.  Listening to what it does against the various "references" it seemed that the "modern.aam" reference worked best for my stuff.  Choosing to use the 50 band EQ and 8 band compression, I fed it a few of my already "mastered" mixes and was very pleased.  Once I looked at what it had done to the EQ, I saw that I did have a bit too much low end in some of my tunes, etc.  Bottom line is that I agreed with what AAMS was showing me as deficiencies in my technique, and that the result sounded better than it did before processing.  So I'm kinda blown away I've had this and never gave it a try.
 
For example on my self-mastered song "Always Me", all of the EQ bands consisted of tweaks in the 1 - 2 db +/- range which seemed to indicate that I had generally done a fairly good job, and that AAMS was not going EQ-batsh*t.  However, it did choose a 3.7 boost at 56 Hz and a 4 db cut at 103.  So I listened closely to the 2 versions, and I had to admit that the AAMS version had a cleaner sounding low end, and that the kick stood out tighter and more clear.  The compression across the 8 bands was a gentle 2:1 with 1 to 3 db compress which is what you might expect from mastering.
 
I helped construct a million dollar studio (that immediately went bankrupt), and have been recording more years than I would care to admit.  I've treated my room to handle early reflections, and have bass traps in the rear corners.  I have sophisticated and costly plug-ins.  I've studied to make myself better at what I do.  Both me and my wife (who has perfectly flat 20 to 20,000 hearing) think that AAMS re-masters of my masters sound better than my masters.  Damn.

Greg Raves