[samdafi]

A lot of what these AI tools do would classically be considered trying to “fix” a subpar mix, rather than just mastering. This is often not a super transparent change to the sound. For example, right up front, the first thing Logic’s mastering assistant does is put a full spectrum, highly detailed EQ curve over the track, ostensibly to hit some genre-dependent targets. Then it brags to you about it by graphing out the curve. This is not something many professional mastering engineers would do. Their job often consists of taking all the creative decisions made up to this point in the process and make subtle changes that bring them all out, much like adding the right amount of salt to a dish when cooking or polishing a car that’s already been detailed. They need to do this while making the track loud enough to compete in the consumer market, without crushing the dynamics or adding uncomfortable harshness to the sound. Generally, I think these AI products need to do less, not more, to get better results.

That said, this over-zealous AI modification isn’t always a bad thing, as the democratization of music recording has ushered in an era where many more people of various aptitudes are mixing music! But it does mean that AI-based mastering solutions run the risk of ossifying the “sound” of music genres, and while they can gussy up a poor mix, they often clobber a mix that’s already great. I don’t know of many major label albums where any of the tracks were mastered with an AI-based solution, although Ozone is in extensive use in the industry for its non-AI features.

Disclaimer: I make a non-AI mastering audio plugin called Master Plan.