If you listen to the latest Imagine Dragons release, it's the perfect example of modern, one-sided production and hand-cuffed Mastering into clipping, but the intended audience will love it, nonetheless. Sometimes, I'm asked to make a recording super-loud, but then bring in dynamics. So, enter volume editing after the master is rendered. I'm sure the Mastering engineer there must have had to do the same.
 
There's a few tricks I learned (one great one for Sonar) to better retain snare pop in a really compressed master. If I could get a decent screencast software for Windows, I could perhaps show them. What Screencast software do you use for recording video, microphone (speech), and audio from the DAW without haveing to capture on two separate machines? Is there a decent one? Even Camtasia doesn't do this very well, from my trials.

Starise
OK guys can we still pick a winner after a winner is picked? C'mon...you know now.  
 
Andrew I wondered if this was a LANDR initiated idea, mainly because the LANDR emblem is on the tracks. Cake had a hand in a few tracks. I think they did a nice job.Thanks.

Actually this was Cakewalk's idea, specifically Jimmy Landry. We thought it would be fun to do a blind taste test and see how different mastering solutions worked. As you can see, the pro mastering won, which goes to show that pro mastering is still very vital. But what's definitely interesting is that each option got a lot of votes. So people appreciated all the options, including LANDR.

I'm going to set up my monitors this weekend and listen again. With my K-240s I couldn't get 2 or 4 loud enough to suit. With the M40s I could but was already biased. Now that I know 2 and 4 are Landr I am really interested in listening again with my KRK-8s. I will also listen in MONO through one monitor.
Has anyone listened to the tracks MONO through one monitor? The resulting opinions of that would also be interesting too.
 
J

I'm disappointed with these results (even smug as I am since I did pick #3 as the professionally mastered clip). File #2 and #4 are LANDR 'low' and 'medium' settings and they are obviously not radio-ready (despite what the softer-is-better counterculture crowd says). A LANDR 'high' version should have been included, but I do believe it too would have fallen short in this test in terms of percieved volume.
 
I've had a LANDR subscription since the Newburyport release because I liked my initial results when trying out the app. But since then I've found it very easy to out-loud LANDR at no percieved dynamics cost. 
 
In fact I ran a LANDR "high" mp3 through the Ozone 7 (intelligent IV algo) limiter and found I could squash it at least another 2 dB with no additional damage done, but with tons more percieved volume as the result. I wonder if the boffins at LANDR have erred on the safe side a bit too much? 
 
At this point I still find the "LANDR" concept very intriguing, but I would definitely like more options with dynamic range choices ranging from "a quiet night in the forest" to "APOCALYPTIC MASSACRE"!!!!!
 
..and also EQ "taste" options like bass boost and high lift and mid emphasis and so on...
 
 
Sven

 
If you level-match the volume of #3 and #4< LANDR, #4 still has an endearing quality mastered sound to it. The main difference imo was the mastering engineers treble-range in the top-end, he added a bit more air and a touch of broad-sweep sparkle. But siting-back and listening at medium-loud volume level, #4 still sounds very nice.
 
It seems all LANDR have to do from now on is offer an option alongside the intensity setting where we can nominate the track to have slightly more 'air' or not, then surely LANDR will be in the house, right on the heels of the results from pro mastering engineers, to the point where one would be silly to then pay a pro mastering engineer exorbitant fees for essentially the same result..
 
Going by the results in the listening tests, I will say that in the near future LANDR will probably have refined their automated algos to such an extent that 90% of the time it will be utterly pointless to use a human mastering engineer.

So I did a quick listen of the same passage for about 20 seconds one after the other. I used the same section of the song and did not listen for too long on each one. I picked 3 because it was the best for my ears. I spend a lot of time listening to mixes and everyone has a preference. 
 
I also like to have a bit less loudness overall compared to many listeners.
 
I use mostly cakewalk and have tried landr but commented to them that it did not make a difference to me compared to what I did using sonar to master my finished mix.
 
Tim Clark

Number #5 was my top pick, so props to that Cakewalk employee. My second pick was #3, the professional master. My least favorite was #4, the Landr one on the low intensity. 

From favorite to least favorite for me were:
#5
#3
#2
#1
#6
#4

Thanks, Jim for putting this out. Makes very interesting listening, and the comments in this thread make good reading afterwards.
 
Not knowing what soundcloud puts on top (but remembering my uploads sounded different there), not having download & proper A/B comparison on studio monitors, I just went for the infotainment experience of this whole exercise, jumping between same song positions, using 25 yr old AKG cans.
 
I did like the non-mastered best, but considering mastering as the necessary evil my top 3 picks were all human. I was not approaching it from a technical level, but more from a gut feeling attitude what was sounding best in an early morning single espresso grumpiness.
 
I ended up jumping between #1, #3 and #5 and eventually settled on #5 followed by #3 ... it's all totally subjective and not knowing what the mastering engineer was told to do, this ranking is actually unfair ... but on the other hand clearly demonstrates skills and dedication of Cakewalk staff
 
What I like best, though, is that there seems to be a consensus that man is still better than the machine :-)
 
 

konradh
As I said above, I had voted online for #3, and the drum sound was one of the main factors.
 
I am surprised there were not more comments about the drums, and the snare in particular (although it is possible I overlooked some).

 
To me snare and vocals somehow don't go well together ... hard to explain, it's perfectly played but somehow drums and vocals don't seem to be on the same stage ... more performance than sound ...

I leveled each track so I was listening at more or less an equivalent level for each track which makes a difference.. I preferred track 4 using this method. The bass and rhythmic elements seemed more defined.  I figured #3 was the professionally mastered track, but I just didn't care for it.  I had used Landr a few months back and didn't care much for it, but in this context, at least on track 4, it worked for me this time.

Only listened thru over ear headphones. Biggest diff between tracks was compression levels so that would be geared toward desired result and listening application. I thought #6 was a nice compromise that allowed the detail to come thru but still meet modern listening standards, which generally are over-compressed.