bluzdog

pwalpwal
 
yet another: how different is this from harbal-on-a-server? (http://www.har-bal.com/ )

There is nothing automatic about Har-bal, there's not even presets. The EQ section is fantastic and a great learning tool. I have never been able to get my head around the dynamics section. I would say Landr and Har-bal are apples and oranges, 2 completely different animals.
 
Rocky

are they so different? isn't it just the "automatic" parts?
landr sets the style/genre by its analysis/machine learning, harbal needs user input/reference track
landr decides the required tweaks via its analysis/machine learning, harbal requires user input
landr applies those tweaks, harbal applies those tweaks
it seems like landr's replacing the human input required by harbal by its own analysis/machine learning, but both are still applying eq/compression changes according to a referenced goal, those input variables are the same? or was it just a lazy comparison?
 

Every time I see the name of this product I think of this:
 
http://www.startrek.com/database_article/landru

Anderton

Psychobillybob

Anderton

Psychobillybob
It seems odd to me that Cakewalk wants to be taken seriously by the industry but then instead incorporates services that no real industry engineer would use...it's like saying we want to be professional just like the amateurs are...if you think people like Brad Blackwood or other mastering guys are not worth paying then you have no idea what you are doing, if you think some paid subscription service can get even remotely close to what those guys do you are uninformed...this is a bad idea just like gobbler and you guys need to hire some real audio studio engineers to work with your product development the team you have now is missing the boat.

Read pages 6 and 7. Even LANDR itself says this is NOT designed to replace traditional mastering engineers, but complement what they do. Anyone who thinks that the purpose of LANDR is to substitute robot-driven mastering on gigs normally done by professional mastering engineers is clueless about the concept.
 
I'm a professional mastering engineer. I've already explained how it benefits professional mastering engineers if they have clients with access to LANDR. 
 

Craig I appreciate that you've taken the time to look at this but really, its an algorithm...no matter what style of music you throw
at it, the results will be the same, how is that helpful in the slightest? Think it through, it is no different than slapping a "preset" across the master bus, the difference is it is supposed to emulate a "pre-master" preset...really? 
 
I really have a hard time believing a real mastering engineer would support this idea on any level.

What in the following from the linked material does not make sense to you as why I would welcome clients having access to this:
 
As a professional mastering engineer who is not threatened by LANDR at all (remember, LANDR doesn't do surgical mastering or restoration, only processing), I would have LOVED it if people could have had a free preview of what the dynamics processing they ask me to do would actually do to their music. For many clients I do separate masters with varying degrees of squashing, particularly if they ask me for maximum squashing and I'm trying to talk them out of it. It would be so easy if they compared what they wanted to one of the three options in LANDR.
 
And as any pro mastering engineer knows, adding dynamics and EQ changes will change the mix. I've had to do many a back-and-forth with a client because doing what they wanted altered the mix, so I suggested how to tweak their mix to preserve it in the light of what they wanted, and did another round. It would have saved me a lot of time if they could have had a rough idea - for free - before sending me their mix to master.
 
 

 
Yes Craig I read your comments before I posted, but frankly I don't see your point, I get that as a "mastering engineer" you want to help the client get somewhere faster, but this math program is not going to help very many do that, it is to ambiguous on the user input end. 
 
Frankly it seems like a "short cut" and you should know by now there are no such things...not in the real world...
 
I'm still waiting for anything worthy done by this program to step up to the plate and demonstrate its advantages...it seems like "snake oil" in code...the fact that you are claiming as a mastering engineer to support it does not give credibility to you or it in my book, post a file example of before and after that means something.
 
This is NOT how professional mastering guys work by the way...not the ones I work with and I have invoices from Sterling and Brad, besides providing gear for a few others...as usual your mileage may vary and apparently does...

bentleyousley
Every time I see the name of this product I think of this:
http://www.startrek.com/database_article/landru

It is supposed to be pronounced "Ell and Arr" - L = left ... and ... R = right.
 
L and R.

chilldanny

Beepster
 
Are there any settings in the app relating to "Auto Updates" or is always going to be hunting around for an internet connection/updates?
 
Cheers.

In the LANDR desktop app go: File > Preferences > Account tab > Next to App settings un-tick 'Enable Notifications'
One would assume this would stop update notifications, I have no idea to be honest.  I only got the update prompt when opening the LANDR app, so I doubt you'd ever see it if you never use it.

Again, thank you for the extra info. Disabling notifications of course does not imply the program isn't going to seek out an internet connection and download/upload/generally creep around... but it's something.
 
I will reiterate here (as I did in the Newbury thread) that I am not opposed to LANDR as a tool for those who wish to use it.
 
I simply want it removed from the main installer/download.
 
Cheers.

I'll give you another example of why I look forward to clients who have LANDR.
 
I've dealt with hundreds of clients over the years. The majority are not knowledgeable about mastering. I am often asked to make something "as loud as possible." Well, "the customer is always right," so I give them what they want. However, I have a fiduciary responsibility to present their music in the best possible light, and to me, that doesn't mean squashing the living crap out of it. So, I take the time to do one or even two more versions that are what I would want to hear. I would say over 90% of them end up choosing one of the versions with more dynamic range.
 
Imagine if I could have said "Do me a favor. Go to LANDR and put your mix through the most intense version. Then try the medium version, Let me know which you like better." I think in quite a few cases it would have saved me the time of trying to talk people out of squashing their mixes and I wouldn't have had to run off another version on my own dime just because I wanted to do the right thing by them.

Psychobillybob
Yes Craig I read your comments before I posted, but frankly I don't see your point, I get that as a "mastering engineer" you want to help the client get somewhere faster, but this math program is not going to help very many do that, it is to ambiguous on the user input end. 
 
Frankly it seems like a "short cut" and you should know by now there are no such things...not in the real world...
 
I'm still waiting for anything worthy done by this program to step up to the plate and demonstrate its advantages...it seems like "snake oil" in code...the fact that you are claiming as a mastering engineer to support it does not give credibility to you or it in my book, post a file example of before and after that means something.

 
Seriously - 
 
How can you not see what I've described in terms of LANDR's use TO ME has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "before" and "after"? How can you not see that I am not proposing that the LANDR master serve as anything more than a tool to help clients see what dynamics control does to a song? 
 
If you don't understand that, either I'm not capable of explaining, or you're not capable of listening. 

I have not used LANDR yet, but I think this will be nice for (new) people who do not have the opportunity to have their songs professionally Mastered. It might give them some insight in what their "somewhat mastered" songs will sound like, and maybe use as reference (track). I will give it a go before I have more opinions
All the best.

Psychobillybob
I'm still waiting for anything worthy done by this program to step up to the plate and demonstrate its advantages...

 
Listen to the before and after gswitz posted yesterday and decide for yourself. IF I had mastered it, would the mastered version have been better? I'd like to think so. Was he going to pay me to do it? I highly doubt it. Did he have the expertise to do what LANDR did? I don't know. He has another tool he can choose to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. And you have a problem with that because...?
 

the fact that you are claiming as a mastering engineer to support it does not give credibility to you or it in my book, post a file example of before and after that means something.

 
You seem confused as to exactly what aspects of it I support. I think you are not taking what I say at face value, but interpreting it through your own filters.
 

This is NOT how professional mastering guys work by the way...not the ones I work with and I have invoices from Sterling and Brad, besides providing gear for a few others...as usual your mileage may vary and apparently does...

 
I find it very difficult to believe that pro mastering engineers don't do alternate versions that they think will serve the client better than what the client thinks he wants, or at least give them a choice. But maybe you believe in "here, take it or leave it, I'm expert." If professional mastering guys work by having disregard for their clients, and if their goal is to keep their clients in the dark about the process so they can make themselves seem like they're so special, then yes, my mileage most definitely does vary. 
 

And one more thing, Psychobillybob. I LOVE it when a client brings in something they like and say "I want my record to have this kind of sound." Only someone with zero experience in mastering, or a tremendous amount of hubris, would think there is one and only one valid way to master a piece of music. When a client can provide a reference, it saves time, avoids misunderstandings, and ends up costing the client less. LANDR even suggests using their service as a way to provide a reference to a pro mastering engineer for people who want to take that route. 
 
If the three flavors of LANDR can help give me a better idea of what the customer wants to hear...why on earth would anyone have a problem with that?