Hi everyone!
I’ve been working on finding a good reference for one of my songs I’m starting to master. I have a good selection of FLAC music on my computer to use as reference tracks but they all have their own quirks and unique qualities that make them different than my song. I was curious to see if there was a program, website, or software that could possibly listen to my track, and find the most sonically similar song to use as a reference to master with. This would help as far as eq and stuff goes to reference while working on my master. I can use the tracks I have for things like loudness, compression and peaks but the frequency spectrums are overall different in their own unique ways and I want to find the most similar sound to use as I’m mastering for the most accurate reference. Any tips or insight would be appreciated! Thank you and have a good day!

 

Such as?

 

1. You sould not use a reference track when doing mastering. It is not necessary. If you don't know and can't find a reference track forget about it. Just correct mistakes and levels. This is the main goal of mastering rather than matching your sound with the sound of other compositions.

2. If you really want it try random tracks. And look what you get.

 

There are some good articles available out there.
All you have to do is search things like:
"Do professional mastering studios use reference tracks?" - and -
"How to use reference tracks when mastering" - and -

Anything to do with professional mastering in a pro mastering studio.

 

Best Reference Track For All Genres --> www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/learn/best-reference-track-for-all-genres

 

Here is a website that will assist you, but you need to register first. After registering, you will receive five free uploads per month. Make sure to select the "Similarities" option, which will then search for ten songs that sound similar to yours on Spotify. You can choose the one that is closest to your song. Keep in mind that you may need to try multiple times to achieve the best results.

https://app.cyanite.ai/

 

you can use AI but then what's the point of making own original music?

reference tracks are supposed to recalibrate/refresh your ears, not serve as shortcut to lack of composition, mixing and mastering skills

 

id chime in with a couple i use for myself, but rather than believing some rando on some site, search google and you'll find lots of examples from better trusted sites, like SOS, Tape OP etc. and also you'll find tips of ref tracks from pros such as bob katz etc.

 

Not a fan of posting AI answers, but in this instance, probably it's for the best, really solid take, so take it for what is worth.

Spoiler: ChatGPT's take on DIY aspect

This is a really good question, and it gets to the heart of why the traditional separation between mixing and mastering existed in the first place—and how that separation has blurred in modern, self-produced workflows.

I’ll break this into four parts:

1. Why mixing and mastering were historically separate
   
   
2. What mixing is responsible for (even when you’re self-mastering)
   
   
3. What mastering is responsible for (and what it is not)
   
   
4. How this applies to the forum question about “finding a sonically similar reference”
   

1. Historical context: why the roles were separated
Traditionally, mixing and mastering were split for practical and psychological reasons:

Technical reasons

• Mixing happened in studios optimized for balance, imaging, and depth.
  
  
• Mastering happened in highly controlled rooms with full-range monitoring, capable of revealing subtle tonal imbalances and translation issues.
  
  
• Mastering engineers worked with stereo program material only, not multitracks.
  

Human reasons

• The mastering engineer was a fresh set of ears.
  
  
• After weeks or months of hearing a mix, mixers lose objectivity.
  
  
• Mastering was partly about quality control—catching problems no one else noticed.
  

Format reasons

• Mastering originally meant preparing audio for vinyl, cassette, CD, etc.
  
  
• This involved technical constraints (RIAA curves, side length, groove spacing).
  
  
• Sonic shaping was often minimal compared to modern expectations.
  

Historically: If something sounded wrong in mastering, it was usually a mix problem.

2. What mixing is responsible for (even if you master yourself)
When you are both the mixer and mastering engineer, the biggest danger is trying to fix mix problems at the mastering stage.

Mixing is responsible for:
1. Balance

• Relative levels of vocals, drums, bass, instruments
  
  
• If the vocal is too quiet or harsh → that’s a mix issue
  
  
• Mastering EQ should not be “finding the vocal”
  

2. Frequency allocation

• Each element should have a place in the spectrum
  
  
• Low end: kick vs bass clarity
  
  
• Midrange: vocal vs guitars/synths
  
  
• Highs: air vs harshness
  

If your reference track has a very different spectrum, that usually means:

• Different arrangement
  
  
• Different instrumentation
  
  
• Different mix decisions
  

Not a mastering problem.

3. Dynamics within the song

• Compression choices on individual tracks
  
  
• Transient control (drums, plucks)
  
  
• Groove and punch
  

Mastering compression is macro-dynamics, not micro-control.

4. Stereo image and depth

• Panning
  
  
• Reverb placement
  
  
• Width decisions
  

Mastering can slightly enhance width, but cannot fix a narrow or cluttered mix.

3. What mastering is actually responsible for
Mastering is about translation, cohesion, and final polish—not rebuilding the mix.

Mastering responsibilities:
1. Global tonal balance

• Very broad EQ moves (often <1–2 dB)
  
  
• Correcting overall darkness, brightness, or low-end weight
  
  
• Ensuring the song translates across systems
  

Think:

“Does this mix feel too dark compared to the genre norm?”
Not:
“Where did my snare go?”

2. Macro dynamics

• Overall punch vs density
  
  
• Loudness vs impact
  
  
• Controlled peaks without killing transients
  

3. Consistency

• Between songs on an EP or album
  
  
• Loudness, tonal balance, perceived energy
  

4. Format readiness

• Streaming loudness norms
  
  
• Headroom
  
  
• True peak control
  
  
• Dither, sample rate handling
  

4. Applying this to the forum question (the “sonically similar reference” idea)
The user’s instinct is understandable—but there’s a misconception underneath it.

The misconception
“If I find a song that’s sonically similar to mine, I can match its EQ in mastering.”

The problem:

• Two songs can be “similar” emotionally or stylistically but structurally different
  
  
• Arrangement dictates spectrum more than mastering does
  
  
• Matching a spectrum can break a good mix
  

Why reference tracks differ spectrally

• Different instrumentation
  
  
• Different key ranges
  
  
• Different vocal timbres
  
  
• Different production eras
  
  
• Different aesthetic goals
  

A sparse acoustic song and a dense synth track should not share the same spectrum.

So what should you do instead?
1. Use references during mixing, not just mastering

• Compare balances, not just EQ curves
  
  
• Ask:
  
  • Is my vocal sitting similarly loud?
    
    
  • Is my low end as controlled?
    
    
  • Is my mix as clear in the mids?
    

2. Use multiple references, not one
Each reference teaches something different:

• Low-end control
  
  
• Midrange clarity
  
  
• High-end smoothness
  
  
• Loudness without fatigue
  

3. Accept that mastering is not where “similarity” is created
Similarity is created in:

• Arrangement
  
  
• Sound selection
  
  
• Mixing decisions
  

Mastering just ensures your song stands confidently next to others, not that it becomes them.

My take, philosophically
The blurring of mixing and mastering roles today is inevitable, but the discipline still matters.

If you self-master:

• Mentally separate the stages
  
  
• Leave time between mix and master
  
  
• Print a mix that already feels 90–95% finished
  
  
• Master quietly and subtly
  

The best mastering jobs often sound like:

“Nothing happened—but it feels better everywhere.”

And if you ever feel like you need drastic EQ to “compete” with references?
That’s almost always a sign to go back to the mix.

and for the sites and services you are looking for

Spoiler: ChatGPT's take on services and conclusion of the whole subject

Short answer: there is no tool that can reliably do what you’re asking in a musically useful way, and even the ones that claim to will not give you a reference that actually helps you master better.

Here’s why, and then I’ll mention what does exist and how to use it safely.

Why this doesn’t really work
“Sonically similar” is not something an algorithm can meaningfully determine for mastering purposes.

Most systems that try to do this compare:

• Overall spectral averages
  
  
• Loudness
  
  
• Possibly dynamics or timbral descriptors
  

What they cannot understand:

• Arrangement density
  
  
• Instrument roles
  
  
• Vocal prominence vs instrumentation
  
  
• Intentional tonal choices
  
  
• Genre-specific aesthetics at a mix level
  

Two tracks can measure as “similar” and still be completely wrong references for EQ decisions. In practice, matching your master to an algorithmically chosen song often pushes you toward over-correcting things that are actually fine.

Tools that exist (and their real limits)
There are tools that do parts of what you’re describing, but none should be treated as “find my ideal reference” solutions.

1. Tonal balance / match EQ tools
Examples:

• iZotope Ozone Match EQ
  
  
• FabFilter Pro-Q match EQ
  
  
• SoundID Reference / Tonal Balance Control
  

What they’re good for:

• Showing macro trends (too much low end, overly bright, mid-heavy)
  
  
• Sanity checks
  

What they’re bad at:

• Telling you what your song should sound like
  
  
• Choosing a correct reference for you
  

They assume your mix already belongs in the same structural category as the reference—which is often not true.

2. Music recommendation / similarity engines
Spotify, Echo Nest–style analysis, AI tagging tools.

These are built for:

• Listener taste
  
  
• Playlist generation
  

Not for:

• Engineering decisions
  
  
• Mastering references
  

They optimize for perceived similarity, not production equivalence.

The real answer to your problem
If you feel the need for a “sonically similar” reference, that usually means one of two things:

1. Your mix isn’t clearly defining its own tonal identity yet
   
   
2. You’re trying to solve a mix-level question at the mastering stage
   

No software can choose a better reference than:

• Your genre expectations
  
  
• Your arrangement
  
  
• Your intended emotional impact
  

The correct reference is not “the closest spectral match,” but the track that occupies the same musical role in the listener’s world.

Practical workaround (that actually helps)
Instead of asking software to find a reference:

• Pick 2–3 well-known tracks in your genre
  
  
• Ignore EQ curves
  
  
• Compare:
  
  • Vocal-to-music balance
    
    
  • Low-end tightness
    
    
  • Perceived density vs openness
    
    
  • How hard they hit at similar loudness
    

If your EQ feels radically different, the fix is almost always back in the mix, not in finding a smarter reference.

Bottom line
There is currently no program, website, or AI that can listen to your song and reliably choose the “right” mastering reference for you.

Any tool that claims to do this is, at best, a rough statistical guide, and at worst, a distraction that leads to worse decisions.

The reference track is a creative and contextual choice, not a computational one.