No offense taken Beeps, it's a new thing and new things have birthing pains.
 
But in reference to my GoPro comments, I think a lot of the "pros" didn't get the memo that audio has been democratized. It used to be that working with audio was solely the province of pro musicians in pro studios using pro engineers. Apparently some people just can't shake that mindset, and recoginize there is a whole "underground" of millions of consumers who are playing with audio and video, and have absolutely zero interest in hiring a mastering engineer to master little Susie's school play, or Reverend Bob's Sunday sermon on "The Internet: The Ideal Place to Practice Turning the Other Cheek."
 
And if a neighbor comes to me and says "Hey, I hear you're a mastering engineer, can you do your mastering thang on Susie's school play? It's only an hour long!"...well if it's a really cool neighbor I would...if not...there's LANDR 

Anderton

jpetersen
I read in Forbes they raised 4 million and are seeking a further 5 million (old info - maybe they already got it?). How the investors are going to recoup this kind of money is beyond me.

My guess would be the 10,000,000 GoPro owners who want better audio, the 350,000 churches that record sermons, and every videographer who does weddings. (Never fear, mastering engineers - they weren't going to hire you anyway.)
 
If I can still do math at the end of the workday, if 1.8% of GoPro owners buy the cheapest available subscription, that makes back the seed money instantly, with a little left over for sushi dinners . It's not hard to see how they could make back the investment in 5 years, probably less.

Ah. I was looking at the wrong target market. Yes, I see it now.
 
C'mon. Lets set up a competing website.
 
Put the Concrete Limiter behind it, a bunch of your FX chains, then go to the media spouting all sorts of guff about Artificial Intelligence, Delay Compensation and Academic Analysis. Nobody need know it's just a bunch of presets. Our success rate will probably be about the same as that of LandR.
 
We'll get rich!
We could even pay Cakewalk to get all the bugs fixed!

I'm a little bit dissapointed about this LANDR implementation to Sonar.
I do remember some discussions and questions here about a more specialized mastering section to Sonar. Is Landr now the result on this considerations? Hopefully not.
 
I'm not sure if it's a shame, that a DAW software full of creative tools and plugins, offers an unflexible dummy online mastering tool instead of a more sophisticated mastering section.
 
But, I gave LANDR a test drive with some of my latest orchestral based scoring tracks. It sounds not bad , but not really good. It gives the track a little bit more presence and more loudness. The same as I can achieve with some presets of a multiband compressor and a limiter.
What I miss in LANDR is more control over the result. It's always the same open eq presence with more highs and lows and 3 fixed loudness profiles.
 
-Markus

Three LandR test cases from another POV
http://www.emusician.com/how-to/1334/master-class-pros-and-cons-of-automated-mastering/54015
....
I have no issue with Cakewalk including newer tools that might work for somebody. Given the "democratization" of music technology, there are more than enough examples of poorly performed / recorded / mixed music distributed as mp3s that might see some improvement with equally labor intensive "mastering" services. 
 
I can hardly claim to know anything about their specific design but in general machine learning improves through iteration. It might be possible to process a sufficient number of free user submissions and keep things on track with select profiles of target masters to refine the output. Which might become good enough for a class of users to improve the presentability of their product. Maybe like Powerpoint templates? As detested as they are, they get you to an end point faster and are often less painful than most "home grown" designs.  
 
 

mdages
I do remember some discussions and questions here about a more specialized mastering section to Sonar. Is Landr now the result on this considerations? Hopefully not.

In the immortal words of Herman Cain "I don't have facts to back this up," but I'm pretty sure there are still plans to develop the mastering end of things...

jackson white
Three LandR test cases from another POV
http://www.emusician.com/how-to/1334/master-class-pros-and-cons-of-automated-mastering/54015

From the above link:
 
"The underlying processing, dubbed LANDR, first uses an algorithm to determine your uploaded song’s genre."
 
I wonder how much R&D money went into achieving that?
Just display a comprehensive list of genres for the user to choose from.
Then set up a genre-appropriate preset, process and return to sender.
 
OK, I'll stop now.

DSP designers will supersede human ability to produce "goodness" uniformly on various input data. :-)

Not saying the odd person won't find LANDR useful.
 
I just think people are upset because this is the first update that has not added any true value to having a Sonar membership.
 
'Two low-res MP3s per month' - is the exact same thing you can get for free visiting their website. 
 
So basically - no feature has really been added to Sonar.
 
 
 
 
 

Any real LANDR users her?
Do you find LANDR sluggish today or is it just me? Every function takes forever to complete. :(
 

Anderton

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. 

Ahhh I finally get it, the people you describe as "clients" are not at all the kind of people I deal with...none of the folks I deal with are that clueless. Probably a huge difference in the way we work, I am tracking WITH clients in the studio, they sit with me IN the control room, an actual room filled with analog gear...we can hear "dynamics" immediately anytime we want...if you are dealing with folks in a virtual studio, then by all means use virtual tools.