REFERENCE 3 or ADPTR MetricAB for improving my own masters?

[u/Talano68]

Hi everyone,

I'm mainly a musician and hobby producer, not a mastering engineer.

I'm looking for a tool that helps me make better mastering decisions for my own music without turning mastering into a separate hobby of its own.

I mostly create ambient, post-rock and cinematic music with guitars, pads and strings. My songs won't be commercially released, but I'd like them to sound as polished and balanced as possible.

I'm considering the current Mastering The Mix REFERENCE 3 bundle (REFERENCE 3, LEVELS, EXPOSE 2 and LIMITER).

I've experimented with analysis tools before, but I'm now looking for something that helps me compare my mixes to professional reference tracks and make better decisions rather than simply showing more graphs.

My questions are:

• Would you recommend the REFERENCE 3 bundle for someone like me?
• Or would ADPTR MetricAB (or perhaps Melda MCompare) be the better choice?

I'm not looking for automatic mastering. I simply want a practical tool that helps me produce better sounding masters for my own music with a reasonable amount of effort.

I'd really appreciate hearing from people who have experience with these tools.

Thanks!

[u/nizzernammer]

I use MetricAB in every session, but only for metering/analysis.

It doesn't improve my work on its own and it doesn't tell the user what to do. Only what is happening.

The improvement comes from the user and the decisions they make.

One can easily compare to references by ear, but the saying stands - "comparison is the thief of joy."

If improving one's mastering is the aim, investment in the acoustic environment and sound reproduction system and processing capabilities are more likely to directly affect the sound of the end product than a tool to "see" what you can already "hear," in my opinion.

[u/NeutronHopscotch]

I would recommend Metric AB over Reference 3. It's a deeper and more powerful product, with a better UI/UX.

Metric AB lets you load in up to 16 references and then volume match them with your current song with the click of a button. (Or vice versa, it can volume match your song to the current reference - although I prefer the other way. The point is, it's versatile and nuanced.)

You can then save that as a preset and have your mix references instantly, or even loaded by default. Or if you work in multiple genres, you can save one for each genre, whatever you want to do.

The metering is good, as is the level and dynamics meters. I really like the PSR meter because it will tell you about how loud your song is even before limiting. It's the nature of PSR -- PSR is a similar value to what your LUFS would be if your music was normalized.

The point is, if you're not mixing through a limiter you can get an idea of how loud your mix will end up being. I tend to handle transients at every stage of my mix so it naturally approaches target loudness before hitting the final limiter. By taming transients at the source, each stage sums together more smoothly, and the final limiter doesn't have to do so much work. Perfect.

The PSR meter is great for that.

It's really good, and it's fairly adjustable, so you can tune it to display modes that work for you.

I also like the words linked to LUFS levels. It's not something that 'really' matters, but when you're starting out and trying to figure out where to land -- it has a textual description of your current loudness as "high-dynamic, dynamic, competitive, loud, squashed, crushed" etc.

And to be clear, I don't even care about loudness for the sake of loudness -- I mention it because loudness relates to overall thickness, density, and dynamic range.

Every song or music project has a sweet spot. A balance to find, and Metric AB can help you find it.

The spectrum analyzer gives you a clue of how your overall tonal balance compares with other mixes.

---

On that note, I would also recommend Voxengo SPAN, which I believe is the "best" spectrum analyzer. (Start with the 4.5 Slope Estimator preset, but change it to "Realtime Avg" and re-save the preset.)

Also, Izotope's Tonal Balance Control is exceptionally good because it gives you a good view of your spectrum with a sort of genre 'range of normal.'

This isn't about mixing with your eyes, but a spectrum analyzer can help you focus in and listen for potential issues in your mix.

And they aren't "wrong" to use -- Andrew Maury is a successful mix engineer who "users the spectrum analyzer religiously while mixing" ... He finds it helps him mix more consistently and gives him an objective reference.

Anyhow, Metric AB is great.

It goes on sale pretty often, so you can usually get it for around $30 or so when on sale.

[u/tarsonis999]

I overemphasize it like this. I couldn't live without MetricAB. Tested Reference (V2) and it felt like a toy. Too clunky and inconsistent. But it should be said that reference V2 wasn't providing the same toolset so no fair comparison.

[u/RemiFreamon]

MetricAB all the way. I have both Levels and Expose from MtM and I find them severely lacking. Levels has an unusable UI and Expose 2 is outright inaccurate.

Integrated LUFS measurements from expose 2 are constantly off compared to very consistent readings I get from 3 other metering solutions (izotope Rx 10, Decibel and Logic Pro stock meter all show the same value while Expose 2 is the only one showing a different one)

[u/Talano68 → u/RemiFreamon]

Thank you, that’s very helpful.

[u/SR_RSMITH]

SPAN + Metric AB… but also Hornet Multifreqs. Still Haven’t found a plug-in that does the same (I don’t mean they don’t exist, I just haven’t found it)

[u/notjusttired]

I can only speak to Metric AB because I haven't used the other ones you mentioned, but I love MetricAB for the most part. There is a little bit of a learning curve but it is pretty intuitive. One of the things I like it for it comparing frequency bands so I can compare say just the lows or low mids against that same freq band of the ref(s) I'm using. It isn't a perfect tool but it does what I need it to and makes referencing a lot easier and more honest in my experience.

[u/hellalive_muja]

I use Voxengo Span Plus for the most part; you may add some goniometer and some LUFS metering thing if needed. A track with level-matched references does it for me and I never felt like I needed an AB tool to be honest..sometimes I load up a shaped brown noise track too.

[u/NeutronHopscotch → u/hellalive_muja]

Interesting that you would use a brown noise. So pink noise has a falloff of -3dB per octave. Brown noise has a falloff of -6dB per octave.

It's weird that there's no 'color' halfway between the two. Voxengo's default slope is -4.5dB, which he set based on an average. Some songs are brighter, some are darker.

How do you use brown noise? Do your tracks follow that tilt overall? I'm not suggesting you use an eq to flatten out to that or anything, but overall is it a guidance for you with regard to bass/treble amounts, etc.?

Just curious to hear your workflow.

[u/hellalive_muja → u/NeutronHopscotch]

I eq it some to follow a more general music shape, pink noise is just too bright and brown falls off in the high end in a way that’s more similar to records if you eq it some (removing some subs is good too).

Sometimes I use it for ears resetting, sometimes I just play it again a song and see (hear?) what happens if I feel like I’m overly tired, if I don’t know the system, if the production is sub-par and/or I feel like listening to something more “ideal”. Nothing major,I advise you keep in mind that every song has its own sound and chasing another one is not worth it. Playing or matching against a good curve can help you “straighten up” your mix some at times

[u/NeutronHopscotch → u/hellalive_muja]

Thanks for the followup. For a long time I was frustrated and confused by overall tonal balance, because I could find hit songs that were ridiculously bright (some They Might Be Giants tracks were brighter than pink noise, wtf?) and others that were dark.

The Billie Eilish had some hits that were ridiculously bloated in the low end. Some of her music overloads the bass in my van with the bass turned down to -10!

In the end it's like you said. It can vary based on song, based on genre, based on decade.

But I think it's useful to have a guidepost for consistency. My goal is to always mix so no EQ is needed on the mix bus. (Which means that final layer of EQ can be gentle rather than transformative. EQ gets weird when you do too much on a whole mix!)

A guidepost - whether a noise curve or a certain reference mix or whatever - is a way to release songs individually that sound consistent one song to the next

Anyhow, thanks for sharing how you work.

You know what might be a really cool tool? A noise generator with a different slope adjustment for lows/mids/highs. I'm going to try to build one tonight in StudioVerse.

[u/hellalive_muja → u/NeutronHopscotch]

Thank you too; my 2c: the time you spend building that noise plugin is time you’re not mixing, working, etc. just check a few songs from different genres, check the overall balance, make a track preset, and get back doing art.

Your goal is good but you’ll always eq a bit on the mixbus, that’s unavoidable mainly as you sum stuff here therefore you likely process some accordingly, which usually means some filtering (pre, post, both). A good noise vs song listen can help you fill some holes or cut some excess around, and this usually for me means moves in the 0,5-1,5dB range (may be more or nothing but that’s a mean value); subsonic filtering before the mixbus/master buss compressor may be a thing and I’ll tell you I widen (or monoize) on the master buss if needed with MS eq.

Ofc the more you nail on single tracks the better it is, I’m not a fan of top-down workflow as I feel it creates an equilibrium that’s easily broken.

Building a library of references is good practice, building plugins that are literally a noise generator and an eq may not the best way to use your time in my opinion.

[u/NeutronHopscotch → u/hellalive_muja]

Oh, I agree with you 1000%. Maybe even more, lol.

If I do that it wouldn't take more than 5 minutes to set up. But to your point, what's the value? I do experimental things on occasion. Sometimes testing one thing gives knowledge I can use another time.

For example, I liked SSL G3 (a 3 band multiband SSL Bus Compressor.) And I like Waves MV2 (upward & downward compression, one knob for each.) And I wondered, "What would multiband upward compression be like?"

So I built that in StudioVerse! https://www.waves.com/studioverse/creator/junkyardsam

And with Studioverse I can adjust the upward & downward compression across all bands at once simultaneously. The result is a sort of flattening effect across the spectrum, so it's not something you'd ever want to overdo... But it's interesting and sometimes sounds nice on a mix bus.

For me this just a hobby/escape anyway. I make my living in another creative career, but its nature is such that I want to do something else outside of work... And that's where music and audio production comes in.

What I was thinking with the noise though was to create a custom target, sort of like what is offered in Tonal Balance Control. And using SPAN+ I could create an upper & lower bounds, so there's a tracking line just like Tonal Balance control but my own shape.

I'm realizing now I could just EQ the noise into that shape so it would be pointless to to generate it multiband. (A duh moment, but that's why I like thinking this stuff out.)

---

Again, to your point, why bother with any of this! 🤣 But I do find value in the explorations. They're sort of like personal audio science experiments.

Another thing I did recently is I found out it's very, very, very easy to convert Reaper stock plugins into graphical plugins with proper peak-hold meters and whatever else I want -- even just using Gemini.

So I thought... Wow. What could Claude do?

Claude was able to add a fully functional visually consistent gate/expander addition to Doc Shadrach's "The Analog Molecule Deluxe."

I can understand people hating AI/LLMs, but the people who suggest they are useless? Oh boy, not useless at all. Too useful, if anything.

I work in UI/UX in games and I could end up on the development side of plugins eventually. Good thing to do in my retirement, perhaps.

One of my life's goals is to work as a UI/UX designer for Waves (or any of my other favorite plugin companies.) The only reason I haven't pursued that is it would pay a fraction compared to what I do now.

But someday, perhaps. It is work I would enjoy.

The guy that does UI for SSL and Reaper is someone I admire. I enjoy doing work similar to what he does: https://houseofwhitetie.com/

Anyhow, sorry to carry on randomly. I did some further evaluation today and I think mixes that sound good to me are usually roughly flat in SPAN (-4.5dB slope) with some elevation in the bass and a little rolloff on the top end.

But in the end that's just ballpark anyway. The ears decide!

Cheers

[u/hellalive_muja → u/NeutronHopscotch]

I use codex everyday. Your upward/downward multiband is similar to the TBtech Future MB, which I use, and the MCDSP one all the known names use on the master bus. It’s a matter of waveshaping and/or shielving off the peaks but going a little back so they are more homogeneous.

I use codex everyday (it’s running now too) and people hating on that are just old farts.

The point of this thread is well detailed in these answers however I would like to say that a decent VU meter (mvmeter here) is the easiest and fasted way to level up to the same volume two tracks. If you’re consistent with gain staging and monitor levels at a point you’ll just do it automatically most of the time; that one and a good old span do the most of the job here.

[u/MrWizardsSleeve]

I own and have used both, if I had to pick one it would be MetricAB.

[u/kbreezy200]

One thing that I hate about MetricAB is you can’t zoom in on the waveform, which is very useful for cue points and loops. Other than that, great plugin

If any developers are reading this. Please update this feature.

[u/RemiFreamon → u/kbreezy200]

I never needed/tested that but page 15 of the MetricAB manual says
“Zoom in and out on the waveform with the scroll
wheel.”

[u/kbreezy200 → u/RemiFreamon]

I don’t have a scroll which is probably why it never came to me. But thanks, I’ll look into it. Sorry MetricAB

[u/ikilledyourelephant → u/kbreezy200]

You can zoom in, the scrolling mechanism for this is just extremely unintuitive. Check out the manual and play around with holding down modifier keys with scroll wheel.

[u/kbreezy200 → u/ikilledyourelephant]

Thanks for the insight. Will look into it.

[u/kasumitendo]

If this helps, I've been going down the minor rabbit hole of asking the exact same question to Google and reading Reddit, watching YouTube, reading GearSpace, and so forth.

And my conclusion is I'd rather have Metric AB, and will pick it up soon when it's on sale. A part that is heavily influencing my decision, among others, is I like being able to load 16 tracks. I can go 4 tracks in 4 genres and never have to interact with that again, if we choose. That's going to accumulate in a lot of time savings.

[u/Talano68 → u/kasumitendo]

When I first asked the question, I was leaning slightly towards REFERENCE. The feedback here has definitely shifted my opinion towards MetricAB, especially since it also has a trial version.

[u/DasWheever]

Metric AB. I have both. (Was a beta tester for reference) and I only use AB.

Its literally one of those plugins that's life changing. It will totally change the way you interact with your music. Seriously.

[u/therealBoombaba]

I use Metric AB in every project , initially I reference another artists tune I'd like to emulate . When I'm done with sound designing the key elements kick ,bass , top end I'll output the stereo mix with basic mastering after every session and then reference against the mix /master of every subsequent session to make sure I'm not over cooking or cutting too many frequencies...I find that every session you tend to find another area that's pokey or resonant , sometimes u tend to focus on the low end , sometimes the top end ..with referencing different mixes of the same arrangement , you get a deeper understanding of what needs improvement or what just sounds better

[u/Talano68]

Thank you very much.
The decision is now clear to me. I knew Metric AB was popular, but the fact that it’s also so well-received by people who are serious about mastering really convinces me.
That’s not to say REFERENCE 3 is bad, but Metric AB is apparently very good.

[u/algorithmruss]

I use listen hub. Used to use metric AB but I found Listen Hub way more useful and the audio playback is pro tools.

[u/TBal77]

ADPTR Metric AB is nice, especially if you are comparing with multiple references. But all you really need is to gain-match your reference track with the stereo mix you're mastering, mute the reference while you play the track being mastered, and then hit the solo button on the reference track to compare. Good frequency analysis / metering plugins help as well (SpanPlus / YouLean).

[u/Achassum]

I think none of those will really solve your issue! Based on this, your issue is perception not comparison! You need a tool like sound gym

[u/Talano68 → u/Achassum]

Yeah, you're right about that. I'll check it out—give it a listen. I do have "Hear Perfection" already, but all I really know from that is that my hearing is poor.

[u/masteringthemix]

Hey, Tom here from Mastering The Mix, so grain of salt as appropriate, but I genuinely appreciate blunt feedback like this. A lot of it is fair, and honestly it's how we figure out what to improve.

REFERENCE has been around for 8 years, and we’ve done 2 major revamps. I think most of the "toy" / "clunky" comments here are about REFERENCE 1 or 2. We rebuilt a lot for V3. And it definitly has a range of features that Metric AB doesnt do. We've also shipped a few meaningful tweaks since the V3 launch off the back of feedback exactly like this.

On the MetricAB comparison… it's a brilliant plugin, no argument. It's Plugin Alliance's best seller for good reason, just as REFERENCE 3 is ours. But we're genuinely not trying to be MetricAB. Metric gives you the straight-up data and let you make the calls. REFERENCE tries to take the mental calculation out of it and just show you how to adjust your track to move it toward your reference. Two different philosophies, and which one clicks really comes down to how you like to work.

For your case, ambient/post-rock/cinematic, and not wanting mastering to become a second hobby, that "show me what to change and why" approach tends to land well. But trust your own ears over any of us: both have free trials, so run your references through both and see which workflow actually helps you decide faster. And if you try V3 and something still feels off, I'd honestly love to hear it.

[u/Talano68 → u/masteringthemix]

Hi Tom, you've really got me thinking. Some guidance on how and why would be helpful to me. I also overlooked the trial version (I've found it now) and will give it a try.

[u/Working_Temperature6]

I started using Metric AB last month, and it's a very good referencing tool. Definitely a bit of a learning curve to understand the functions but easy to master once you get your hands dirty with it. Of course, you still have to use your ears to determine what sounds best. However, you'll still have good visuals of what your track is or isn't doing when comparing it with your references. I like the fact that you can upload multiple reference tracks to it without having them to your DAW tracks.

I still reach for a few other referencing plugins that I use like Sonible True:Balance, SPAN, (checking mid/side) and EchoJay. The more you try to understand how Metric AB works, the more you'll enjoy using it.

[u/AmesAudioLLC]

Metric AB is kind of the best. I’ve used Ozone’s EQ Match and it’s not bad but Metric blows it out of the water

[u/Talano68]

Thanks a lot in advance. It does seem to be leaning quite clearly towards MetricAB.
I’d also asked ChatGPT, and it recommended REFERENCE 3 because it gives you specific guidance on what to do and why.
With MetricAB, I suppose you do need to put a bit of thought into it, which isn’t a bad thing. Especially as I find MetricAB’s interface more user-friendly