This thread shows me a bunch of musicians and recordists have a wide varying opinion over some fairly different mastered versions. Almost reinforces the idea that if it is a good performance and mix...get it mastered to satisfy ..well...some of the listeners. Or... nowadays with what we can do now in our personal studios, save your money and do it youryelf. Dont be shy of your own opinion.

mixmkr
nowadays with what we can do now in our personal studios, save your money and do it youryelf. Dont be shy of your own opinion.

well, maybe others can, but I admit I can't do it. whenever I have completed a mix and then try to apply some of the mastering tools, it just doesn't work - the "mastered" version just does not sound as good anymore. well, now you could say go and learn the mastering tools (and you would be right - I'm not a mastering engineer and have only scratched the surface of what is to know about it), but I think the real problem is the second set of ears that gets lost ... and having spent hours on the mix, it hurts to downgrade it by squashing it to what is expected ;-) hence, whenever project budget allows, tracks go out to a different studio/engineer to fiddle with the final balances

Andrew Rossa [Cakewalk]

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 love these blind tests!! I'm with you Andrew.
 
Approached from one viewpoint there really are no "winners",  only a consensus  of the people that happen to be here. This could have gone differently with different ears. The votes for all tracks are a strong enough indication that the other tracks all have value to the people who like them. Personal preference, listening environment and equipment could have been a deciding factor.
 
From another viewpoint a gathering of experienced or semi-experienced mixers should be a good representation. I feel like it was a good representation and reflection of the overall subjectivity of a master involving personal taste. 
The only other considerations, at least for me are, LANDR has several settings which sound a lot to me like the intensities of a multi band compressor or a limiter at different settings > Genre > Intensity > Master. For some this approach is fine.
 
Using other methods offers more possibilities if a person wants them. For instance, if I don't like the slap of the ride I can change it in the mix or modify the master. 
 
It's great that we have all of these possibilities! JMO this isn't anything written in stone :)
 

Starise

Andrew Rossa [Cakewalk]

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 love these blind tests!! I'm with you Andrew.
 
Approached from one viewpoint there really are no "winners",  only a consensus  of the people that happen to be here. This could have gone differently with different ears. The votes for all tracks are a strong enough indication that the other tracks all have value to the people who like them. Personal preference, listening environment and equipment could have been a deciding factor.
 
From another viewpoint a gathering of experienced or semi-experienced mixers should be a good representation. I feel like it was a good representation and reflection of the overall subjectivity of a master involving personal taste. 
The only other considerations, at least for me are, LANDR has several settings which sound a lot to me like the intensities of a multi band compressor or a limiter at different settings > Genre > Intensity > Master. For some this approach is fine.
 
Using other methods offers more possibilities if a person wants them. For instance, if I don't like the slap of the ride I can change it in the mix or modify the master. 
 
It's great that we have all of these possibilities! JMO this isn't anything written in stone :)
 

Yeah this was fun for us too. We will definitely do more. It does go to show how subjective this can be at times. I like #3 too but I thought a few of them were pretty good. Personally, for me, I could see myself using LANDR just to see how a mix sounds so far (as a reference point). Even if I wanted to do pro mastering (and I have paid for it before), I would be curious to see how it's sounding so far. And I could test listen to it in places like my car where I've always had bad luck getting mixes to sound good but for some reason love playing my own music when I drive. :)

Maybe I missed it.  Was there a count of how many votes for each master?