Technical

Jan 18, 2026

Tensormix vs LANDR vs eMastered vs SoundCloud

A technical, measurement-based comparison of Tensormix, LANDR, eMastered, and SoundCloud, examining how each automated mastering system handles loudness, dynamics, tonal balance, and stereo processing across the same source material. The analysis focuses on observable trade-offs rather than subjective listening impressions or marketing claims.

A Technical Comparison of Online Mastering Systems

This article presents a measurement-based comparison between four automated mastering solutions:

  • Tensormix

  • LANDR

  • eMastered

  • SoundCloud

The goal is not to rank these services subjectively, but to examine how each system behaves when applied to the same source material, using objective audio metrics.

Test Setup

Source Material

Three finished mixes were selected, each representing a different production context:

  1. Phosphorescence - light, airy melodic breakbeat

  2. I Want It - deep house / melodic techno

  3. Drown - dark, bass-driven liquid drum and bass

Evaluation Metrics

Each output was analyzed using the same toolchain, focusing on:

  • Integrated loudness (LUFS)

  • True peak level (dBTP)

  • Dynamic range and crest factor

  • Spectral balance and tilt

  • Stereo correlation and side/mid energy

All original mixes and mastered outputs are publicly available on Arktide:

Results Data

Track 1 - Phosphorescence


Track 2 - I Want It


Track 3 - Drown

Track-Level Analysis

Track 1 - Phosphorescence (Melodic Breakbeat)

Key observations

  • Tensormix increases loudness moderately (-14.52 LUFS) while preserving more dynamic range than LANDR and eMastered.

  • LANDR and eMastered push slightly louder but reduce dynamics further.

  • eMastered introduces the strongest high-frequency emphasis, reflected in higher spectral center and tilt.

  • SoundCloud applies minimal processing and remains closest to the original mix.

Interpretation

For lighter, dynamic material, Tensormix favors controlled loudness gains and avoids aggressive tonal reshaping. LANDR and eMastered lean toward competitive loudness, with eMastered emphasizing brightness.

Track 2 - I Want It (Deep House / Melodic Techno)

Key observations

  • Tensormix raises loudness to -15.02 LUFS while maintaining the highest dynamic range among the mastering services.

  • LANDR and eMastered push closer to club-level loudness (-14 LUFS and above) with greater dynamic compression.

  • Tensormix shows a noticeable reduction in stereo correlation, indicating wider stereo processing.

  • SoundCloud again performs conservative normalization.

Interpretation

On rhythm-driven electronic material, Tensormix prioritizes dynamic retention and stereo width, while LANDR and eMastered favor loudness normalization typical of EDM-oriented mastering.

Track 3 - Drown (Liquid Drum and Bass)

Key observations

  • LANDR applies the most aggressive loudness target (-12.81 LUFS) with the largest reduction in dynamic range.

  • Tensormix raises loudness significantly but retains more dynamics than LANDR and eMastered.

  • eMastered introduces the strongest spectral tilt and highest spectral center, resulting in a brighter output.

  • Tensormix applies the widest stereo treatment among all services on this track.

Interpretation

For dense, bass-heavy material, Tensormix balances loudness increases with dynamic preservation, while LANDR prioritizes loudness at the expense of transient detail. eMastered trends toward high-frequency emphasis.

Cross-Service Behavior Summary

Tensormix

  • Targets moderate loudness rather than maximum LUFS

  • Preserves dynamic range more consistently across tracks

  • Applies controlled tonal shaping

  • Uses stereo widening more assertively than other providers

LANDR

  • Strong emphasis on loudness normalization

  • Most aggressive dynamic reduction, especially on bass-heavy material

  • Tonal shaping is generally restrained but heavily limited

eMastered

  • Consistently brighter tonal balance

  • Strong spectral tilt on multiple tracks

  • Dynamic reduction is significant but slightly less extreme than LANDR in some cases

SoundCloud

  • Primarily performs normalization

  • Minimal tonal, dynamic, or stereo alteration

Final thoughts

From a purely technical standpoint:

  • Tensormix emphasizes balance: moderate loudness, higher dynamic retention, controlled tonal changes, and expanded stereo image.

  • LANDR prioritizes competitive loudness, often at the cost of dynamics.

  • eMastered trends toward brighter, more forward tonal profiles.

  • SoundCloud should be considered a playback normalization system rather than a mastering solution.

These differences reflect design choices rather than quality judgments. Each system optimizes for a different interpretation of what “finished” audio should prioritize, depending on genre expectations, playback context, and production goals.


How to Master an Electronic Track for Release (Step by Step)>

Blog