Before and after mastering: real examples to train your ear

There's a difference between knowing what mastering does and being able to hear it. You can read that the master "improves the tonal balance" or "raises the loudness", but until you perceive it with your own ears on concrete material, that information doesn't turn into judgment. This guide is built for exactly that: listening before understanding. The A/B examples are the tool, not the text.

If you're still unclear on the difference between mixing and mastering as processes, first read the guide that explains them. Here we assume you already know what mastering is and we want to train the ear to detect it.

Why comparing before/after trains your ear

Auditory learning doesn't work well in the abstract. You can imagine what "more lows" would sound like, but imagining isn't hearing. The A/B comparison puts the two states side by side, on the same system and at the same moment, and forces you to identify the difference instead of assuming it.

This has a cumulative effect. After comparing ten or twenty real examples, you start to recognize in your own mixes when something needs the work mastering has to do, and also when your mix arrives healthy and ready for that final step. The ear builds references that words can't provide.

The main risk in an A/B comparison is volume: the "after" is usually louder, and the brain confuses "louder" with "better". Below we talk about how to avoid that trap. For now, when you listen to the examples, try to keep your system's volume constant and compare at similar levels.

What to listen for in a before/after

Before playing the examples, it helps to know what to look for. Mastering acts on several dimensions at once; if you don't know which ones, it's easy to focus only on what stands out (the volume) and miss what really matters.

Perceived loudness

The "after" almost always sounds louder. That's correct: part of the mastering work is to bring the track to the competitive loudness level for streaming platforms, which normalize audio to specific LUFS targets. The mistake is thinking that's all mastering does. Louder isn't better on its own. A poorly configured limiter can raise the volume and at the same time crush the dynamics until it removes all the life from the track. When listening, ask yourself: does the "after" breathe like the "before"? Or does it sound louder but also flatter and more fatiguing?

Clarity and definition

Good mastering makes each element occupy its space better. The vocal appears more defined without going up in volume. The highs gain presence without becoming harsh or sharp. The mids, which in the unmastered mix sometimes pile up and create a sense of "mud", open up. When you listen to the "after", notice whether you can follow the individual elements better: can you distinguish the kick from the bass more easily? Does the vocal have more body without masking the instruments?

Stereo image

The stereo field usually gains width and definition after mastering. The elements that should be in the center —kick, bass, lead vocal— appear more focused. The side elements —backing vocals, guitars, effects— are perceived as wider and more airy. There's also an important technical aspect: mono compatibility. Good mastering checks that the track works well when the two channels are summed into one (as on many phone speakers or PA systems). Listen to whether the "after" sounds more solid when you imagine the sound concentrated at a central point.

Low-end control

The lows are the hardest area to manage in mastering. In the "before", it's common to hear lows that can sound a bit loose, with variations between the kick and the bass, or that don't translate the same on small speakers as on large monitors. Mastering works on consistency: that the weight of the lows is uniform throughout the track, that the kick has punch without the bass disappearing, and that all of it keeps working when it plays on phone earbuds or car speakers.

Global tonal balance and translation

This is perhaps the hardest result to hear in a single comparison, but over time it becomes the most valuable. A well-mastered mix "translates": it sounds recognizably similar on studio monitors, on street headphones, on the laptop speaker and in the car audio system. The "before" can sound fantastic on your reference system and disappear or sound completely different on another. Mastering adjusts the global tonal balance —the relationship between lows, mids and highs— so the track keeps its character on any playback.

Real A/B examples, annotated

Each player has two states: Before (the unmastered mix) and After (the result after the full mastering). Listen first to the "before" in full, or at least a minute, before moving to the "after". Then alternate between the two several times, focusing on a single parameter each time: first the volume, then the lows, then the clarity.

Example 1

In this example pay special attention to the low-end balance and the overall body of the mix. The "before" can sound a bit more exposed or with frequency areas not quite settled. The "after" has more cohesion: the low elements sound integrated with the rest, the mids gain definition and the stereo image appears more rounded. It's a good example to train your perception of tonal balance, because the difference isn't only in the volume but in how the whole breathes differently.

Example 2

Here, focus on clarity and definition. Listen to how the elements that in the "before" tend to stack up in the mids appear better separated in the "after". The percussion gains punch without the rest losing space. The highs, if the mix had some harshness, are smoothed without losing presence. This example also illustrates the difference of correct loudness well: the "after" is louder, but if you match the volume manually, you'll see it's not just "louder", it has more clarity at any level.

Example 3

This example is especially useful for working on the perception of the stereo image and translation across systems. In the "before", the stereo field can feel a bit undefined: the elements don't have such clear positions. In the "after", the center appears more focused and the sides more defined. If you can, listen to this example on headphones: you'll notice the width of the stereo field better. Then try it on the phone speaker: the "after" should hold its presence and clarity much better.

Example 4

To finish, an example that shows the mastering work on the lows and overall dynamics. The "before" can have lows that sound with notable variations between different moments of the track: heavier in some bars, lighter in others. The "after" presents a consistent weight over time. The global dynamics are worked too: the track has more energy without that energy being achieved by crushing the sound. This is the kind of result that marks the difference between a master that gives level and a master that gives level and keeps the music alive.

How to evaluate your own mastering

If you master your own mixes or want to assess the work an engineer delivered, the examples above serve as references, but the method matters as much as the material.

Match the loudness before comparing. It's the most important step and the easiest to forget. When you listen to your master next to your unmastered mix, the master will sound louder. Your brain will interpret that as "better". Lower the master's volume until you perceive the two at a similar level, and then compare. If the master still sounds better at matched volume, it's well done. If you lose the sense of improvement when you match it, the only real work was raising the volume.

Listen on several systems. A master that sounds perfect only on your studio monitors isn't a good master: it's a master well-tuned to one specific system. Check how it sounds on common headphones, on a phone speaker, on the laptop speakers and, if you can, in the car audio system. If something clearly breaks on any of those systems, there's work to do.

Rest your ear before critical reviews. After spending time with a mix, the ear gets used to it and stops hearing certain things. The most important mastering decisions shouldn't be made after a long work session. If you can, let a few hours —or ideally a night— pass between the mix and the master review. A fresh ear catches things a tired ear normalizes.

Compare at low volume. The lows and the dynamics are much more obvious at high volumes. A master that sounds good loud but loses body when you drop the level may have an excess of lows or a tonal balance that depends on the volume to work. Listening at conversation volume —that point where everything is still intelligible but there's no comfort to spare— reveals imbalances that go unnoticed at high volume.

Use genre references. Compare your master with a commercial track you know well and that was professionally produced, within the same genre and for the same target platform. Not to copy, but to have a real point of contrast. If your track sounds significantly different in some frequency, in loudness or in stereo image, that difference deserves explanation. Sometimes it's an artistic decision; other times it's a technical problem. Knowing it helps you decide.

If at some point in the process you're not sure whether your mix is ready to move to mastering, you can read our comparison on LANDR vs eMastered vs a human engineer to understand when automated mastering is enough and when a human ear makes the difference.

Frequently asked questions