Landr automatic mastering

Please no, don't fall for this.
This is not mastering.

If they've actually pulled off what they say they have, it represents a significant advance in the evolution of music software. Not impossible. I'm open-minded. But the past 30 years has taught me to be skeptical of such claims, as they almost always turn out in the end to be little more than marketing hype.
 
I'm tempted to give it a try so I can attempt to figure out exactly what it is they do. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be the equivalent of a generic Ozone preset.

I'm sure it's a pretty cool plug. But it seems to me that, even if it does work well, it would take all the fun and satisfaction out of doing it myself. I enjoy working to get the sound just right (to my ears anyway). Pretty soon we'll just let the computer do the whole composition and recording for us too. No need for human input.

Don't get me wrong if I could get better results doing it my self then I would. I really seem to struggle getting that last 0.05% I'm never happy or sure if I did it right. My problem is I have to mix in a 10 feet square room which I've tried to treat with home made bass traps etc, so having something like this helps me.

Cheers
Steve.

I have to agree, as I've already tried to get the mix to sound as good as I can. I don't feel I would be cheating sending it out to a mastering engineer and the work wasn't mine anymore, I also think it helps to see where I'm going wrong and what I should be aiming for. But I totally respect anyone who can do it themselves if it's good.

Cheers
Steve.

Seems I can't post links yet sorry!

3

Here you go



Cheers
Steve.

This isn't the mastered file they sent back, is it? It's 44.1 / 32-bit. Surely it's the original file, or perhaps the one you mastered yourself?
 
In any event, we'd need both the original unmastered file and the Landr-mastered version to make any meaningful evaluation.
 

Take your pick Bapu, I selected the uncompressed version to be mailed back but the version I put up was a 24 bit file, I found this out when I tried to burn a CD, I had to convert it in Sonar. I'll try and get the mix up later as I'm away from home at the moment. I'm not trying to plug this product but just wanted to know if you guys thought it did an acceptable job and was worth £11 a month for an unlimited amount of Masters.

Cheers
Steve.

Sorry for the confusion, I paid for the uncompressed version I thought what the hell for £11 a month and I can cancel anytime if its rubbish, in for a penny as they say.

Cheers
Steve.

That first link may be corrupt. I get a 42KB file that hangs Adobe Audition (never seen that happen before!).

OK, so Steve (Digital Dream Division) kindly offered to send one of my own tunes up for the Landr treatment, since he's ponied up the monthly fee for the full service. Thanks, Steve!
 
I'll post three versions of it on my SoundCloud page: the unmastered version, my home-mastered version and the Landr-mastered version, so that you can hear and judge them for yourself. Links at the bottom of this post (I'm uploading them as I write this).
 
I have to admit, the results are better than expected. Their version is more aggressive and brighter (even though Steve asked for the Medium treatment) than my own. Average RMS was a reasonable -12 dB, only slightly higher than mine at -12.8 dB. Can't accuse them of squashing it to death in the name of "radio-ready".
 
The biggest difference was EQ. Here's a screenshot. The green line is the Landr master, the white line is mine. The analyzer is set for a 4 dB per octave slope; the difference looks greater at my usual 4.5 dB/oct setting. That's about a 6dB bump at 3.5 KHz.

 
There were definitely some elements that sounded better than in my own version, in particular the drums and percussion, which were better-defined due to the added brightness.
 
I did not, however, feel that the vocals and guitars benefited at all from the added 3-4 KHz bite. The lead guitars in particular sounded buzzy and thin and made me grit my teeth. However, this could be my own prejudice from having heard them differently for so long.
 
EQ wasn't the only change. As a comparison of amplitude histograms shows, the Landr master had reduced dynamic range over my version, with fewer quiet parts. You can hear this as greater apparent loudness.

 
I admit to a personal preference toward classic equalization curves, a prejudice probably formed in my early years when I listened only to classical music, up until about the age of 13. That's when I was corrupted by rock 'n roll and my hearing acuity began its decline. But even the prog rock stuff I cut my teeth on in the 70's typically had a 5 or 5.5 dB per octave slope, which sounds very different from today's brighter chart material at 3 to 4 db/oct. 
 
In other words, maybe I just like a mellower EQ because I'm an old fart.
 
Here are the links (both are 256 kb/s MP3s):
My version 
The Landr version
 
Want to try your hand at mastering the same tune? Here's the unmastered version (66MB FLAC).

Here's the slammed version, just to note they say there's going to be an update soon which allows for EQ settings to be changed,

https://www.dropbox.com/s...vrbo9xv/LandR-limo.wav

It's not as bad as I thought it was going to be, as I'd not tried the slammed settings before.

Cheers
Steve.