I tried it for fun, and while I agree that software like this can never replace good ears of an experienced mastering engineer. AAMS did a better job than I had expected, has quite a few tweakable parameters, and can even be used in a sort of hybridized fashion by disabling some or all of the automated features. As much as I hate to say it since I do some mastering work, this may be a great product for the "weekend warrior" musician/engineer who wants a quick "finessing" before offering their newest tunes to a friend or at a party. And now that it is free/donationware, it may entice more people than ever to not pay for better mastering until they think they are ready. I know that this should be a good thing, making it all accessible, but there is a part of me that is afraid that software like this, while being ok, it may also lower the standards for some people of what is "finished". I felt the same way the first time I tried the ready-made presets of both IK Multimedia's T-Racks and Izotope Ozone. Once people are convinced that what these software's do is "mastering", then the desire for a better job can be diminished. Or am I just being paranoid and self-serving ? Anyway, it did a better job than I had expected, and for some reason this bothers me...lol.

William

After working with AAMS on and off for a couple weeks, I've found it to be fairly useful in its spectrum analysis. I wouldn't let it auto master anything, as the results were usually pretty bad. However, I had it do the analysis on a mix that sounded pretty good, but wasn't quite there yet. Rather than just letting it do the mastering, I went back to the mix and applied some of the changes to individual tracks from the spectogram after analysis. This has made a substantial improvement to the mix. It's not quite pro yet, but it's a lot closer than it was a week ago. It certainly pointed out some frequency things that were problematic that I wasn't catching. I also had it analyze a few different commercially released songs to compare the spectra.
In the same genre, it was surprising how similar most were. There were certainly some differences, as we would expect, but not as many as I would have thought. Given that there are differences, I'd suggest adjusting the frequency balance of the mix according to the spectogram, then make the mix sound good again by ear. Great learning tool for a mix, and later on master that improved mix from learing tool AAMS and make the final master with AAMS.
Works Great!

Moribund

I downloaded this to see what all the excitement is about. For the record, my knowledge of mastering is limited, but I do know that you should get your recording to sound as good as possible before sending it out to an ME. So far, I'm most intrigued by the spectrum analyzer.  I've always felt that my recordings are lacking in a proper frequency balance, so this should be a big help.  Not because I want to match frequencies, but because if can hear that something's not quite right with my mix, this might at least point me in the right direction. My plan is to adjust the frequencies in the mix to keep them more in line with the suggested spectrum, and then listen to it from there, not to follow it religiously. I'm kind of looking at it as a learning tool rather than an automated ME. Incidentally, to check the validity of at least the spectrum suggestions, I had it analyze a commercially released song by prog giants Yes. Using the Instrumental Rock file for the reference, the results were virtually identical.

Nosey

Very cool! I just tried it on a file that I did when I hardly knew what I was doing. Always felt the tune was a good idea but needed a "little something." Worked fine. Guess I'll have to listen to both again in various environments. I'm not experienced enuf to know if I could do better?
Thanks for bringing this AAMS to me.

Msea

I downloaded it last night after not knowing a thing about it. All I can say is "wow"- kinda. It is really cool to see what it figures out, but I'm reluctant to commit to any tool that my ears aren't surgically attached to. That- and I have a really good relationship with a very, very good mastering engineer and I can't see that changing. BUT- very cool tool. I like it and will probably use it from time to time. But how good is this program at making tracks translate to a variety of different types of speaker systems.. Or giving a particular style of music impact and vibe..
It might be a good tool, but can't work every time.. You need your mixes also to be rightfully done.. Before inputting it!

Prezbass

I tried it for fun, and while I agree that software like this can never replace good ears of an experienced mastering engineer, AAMS did a better job than I had expected, has quite a few tweakable parameters, and can even be used in a sort of hybridized fashion by disabling some or all of the automated features. As much as I hate to say it since I do some mastering work, this may be a great product for the "weekend warrior" musician/engineer who wants a quick "finessing" before offering their newest tunes to a friend or at a party. And now that it is free/donationware, it may entice more people than ever to not pay for better mastering until they think they are ready. I know that this should be a good thing, making it all accessible, but there is a part of me that is afraid that software like this, while being ok, it may also lower the standards for some people of what is "finished". Once people are convinced that what these software's do is "mastering", then the desire for a better job can be diminished..... Or am I just being paranoid and self-serving.....? Anyway, it did a better job than I had expected, and for some reason this bothers me...lol.

Richie

I used the stock "rock" profile and it tightened up the bass very well and tamed the harshness.  So far so good. I REALLY like that it gives you a text file detailing all of the (M/S) EQ changes and multiband comp settings.  I had no changes greater than 2db so at least I know my mix isn't completely whacked out.  I'm going to go back and try to re-balance the mix with these EQ suggestions in mind. Even if I don't use AAMS to "master" it could prove to be a very useful tool. Thanks for the heads up Smurf! I'll definitely check out AAMS. I have to say, this concept seems to fall in the "too good to be true" category for me. But I'll try it

Magicbuss

I know this is heresy to an ME, but I kind of like it. I was worried that it might squash my files with over-compression, but no. I only lost 1db of DR using AAMS. The changes it makes to my files is subtle and, so far, pleasing. It certainly can be a substitute for the ears of a real mastering engineer, but for the home hobbyist, it's really an interesting tool!

Jim Rogenski

I never heard of this, I grabbed a download yesterday and had to try it. Spent most of last night on it in fact. I had mixed results with a variety of bad quality un-mastered mixes of a band I belonged to long ago. Reading the output Word document gives a little insight into the world of Mastering, something I'd never have access to otherwise... I'd put it down to another learning tool. Thanks for the link, I'll throw the devs a few $ asap.
And I agree with Richie, it does a good job.

Can anyone tell me if the AAMS wav file that results after processing has the suggestions in the .doc file applied ? I ran a song of mine through it and it does sound different, sure it is better. Just wondering if you're to then go through and try the suggested tweaks, or if the wav file that results already has the suggested tweaks applied. Yes and yes! Thank you and thank you!