Mastering choices
Automated or personal mastering?
Both paths can produce a useful master. The difference is how much judgment, conversation, and custom delivery the record needs.
Decision table
Scrolls sideways →
| What you need | Automated mastering | Personal mastering |
|---|---|---|
| Fast direction check | Strong fit. Hear a finished-level preview quickly. | Usually more process than an early check needs. |
| One approved stereo mix | Strong fit when the balance already works. | Useful when the mix needs detailed judgment or several delivery versions. |
| Conversation and revisions | No engineer conversation. Change the input or selected mastering direction. | Built for notes, context, and a revision discussion. |
| Stem processing or mix repair | Not supported by the stereo automated path. | Discuss scope with the engineer before booking. |
| Special format delivery | Use the formats shown at checkout and download. | Better fit for project-specific sequencing or unusual deliverables. |
| Budget and timing | Preview in minutes; pay when you choose to download. | Quoted and scheduled according to the project. |
Choose automated when the mix is ready
The stereo balance feels settled, you want a fast and measurable result, and the available downloads match the release plan. Listen to the full-level preview against the original. The master plays louder, and louder tends to sound better, so judge tone, punch and balance as well as level.
Hear the automated master of your own mix before you choose. You pay only if you want the file.
Master a track, freeChoose personal when context changes the answer
An engineer can discuss references, investigate a fragile mix, coordinate several songs, and prepare nonstandard versions. Personal mastering is also the clearer path when you need to explain why a result is not working.
Neither path can recover an unrecorded performance or fully separate instruments inside one stereo file. Return to the mix when the requested change is local to one part.