jpetersen
Is Sonar Platinum not going to be a pro tool anymore, then?

It is a pro tool in the hands of a pro otherwise, it is just a tool.

I installed a couple of days ago. I'm going to do a fresh reset and install of my System at sometime soon. If it's not available in CCC as a separate option by then. I won't really be able to trust CCC with every update. 
 
Please make these things optional

scook

jpetersen
Is Sonar Platinum not going to be a pro tool anymore, then?

It is a pro tool in the hands of a pro otherwise, it is just a tool.

a tool is a tool, the competence of the user doesn't change that; picasso didn't use pro paintbrushes

pwalpwal
picasso didn't use pro paintbrushes

that is not what I wrote

Scook, Beepster - After what Craig and Noel revealed sunk in, I began to understand where the priorities really lie. And must do. I tried replying 3 times and that was all I could say.
 
Puts our diligently assembled lists of bugs and feature requests properly in their place.
 
It's left me shattered.

Beepster
 
[...] I don't know if you guys got pressured by Gibson to cram this thing in there [...]

This thought has come up for me over the past several months as well. I had told others last year that I do not feel CW has the freedom that others are led to believe - the names in the ezine alone prove that CW is not "left to do its own thing." Users request features, and vote on them; yet last year Craig finds an "earth shattering" upsampling with VSTis and BOOM, it happens right away. Arranger tools... a year and counting... #2 on the feature request list when I last checked.
 
When I made the comment of lowering expectations last year I had half-heartedly hoped it would be a wake up call rather than a prediction. Paying customers deserve far more than to have their expectations be reduced to "meh" and be fine with it.

jpetersen

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
That's not accurate - Landr uses Machine learning. If you look at the theory, machine learning is as accurate as the DATA its given rather than as intelligent as the programmer....our Vocal sync feature was designed using machine learning to understand how to analyze and extract data from a huge subset of vocals samples.

In the Vocal sync case I can see the mechanism behind analyzing many vocal examples to find out common characteristics in these files.
 
But with LANDR, what is it learning? Who is giving it feedback to say, "That sounds better, what you did this time is right"?
 
It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out all it does is figure out genre based on tempo, harmonic density, etc. and then applies a preset, possibly even on a commercially available mastering tool.

well said.
 
BTW, last time anyone checked, LANDR was actually Reaper plus a couple of plugins scripted to apply different settings based on certain aspects of the file to be 'mastered'. Basic conditional logic that is totally useless in this context.
 
If someone doesn't know even the basics, that person is still much better off using a few presets from eq's and limiters, even those native to whatever DAW they are using. The benefits are multiple:
 
1. No additional cost
2. They learn in the process
3. They can apply/tweak many more settings until they find something the like
4. Faster and more professional approach short and long term
 
Pretending that you can "master by the numbers" (all this LANDR thing is doing) is no different than trying to manufacture hits by applying a formula that creates the parts for you.
 
I'm truly appalled Cakewalk is defending this gross misstep. 
 

jpetersen
Scook, Beepster - After what Craig and Noel revealed sunk in, I began to understand where the priorities really lie. And must do. I tried replying 3 times and that was all I could say.
 
Puts our diligently assembled lists of bugs and feature requests properly in their place.
 
It's left me shattered.

This. I can't speak for others, but this describes my reaction to the LANDRing.
 
Out of all the bugs and features passionately requested and discussed on the forum, I don't remember any that were looking for an "add track" button or the ability to export to LANDR. We pay for rolling updates and look forward to what will be fixed next, then discover that the bakers have used their time to produce updates that few people seemed to need. They then spend time explaining why this is what we should have wanted all along.
 
Ever since the new rolling update model began, it seems to me that the primary focus is to reduce beginning user support calls first and serve pro users coincidentally.
 
For the record, I won't be leaving Sonar over this. But the "sigh...denied again" feeling is all too familiar.

cparmerlee

jpetersen
But with LANDR, what is it learning? Who is giving it feedback to say, "That sounds better, what you did this time is right"?

PRECISELY.  I have some knowledge of AI systems with missile guidance.  In a system like that, instruments are able to measure the target,  They can provide instant feedback as to whether the "AI" maneuvers are helping to reach the target or working against that objective.  Over time, such a system can "learn" what maneuvers under what circumstances are likely to be most productive.
 
There is no such feedback loop in this mastering thing.

jpetersen
It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out all it does is figure out genre based on tempo, harmonic density, etc. and then applies a preset, possibly even on a commercially available mastering tool.

 
Once again, PRECISELY on the mark.  I question whether there is even any real "AI engine" involved in the process.  It does seem to be a case of software analyzing the sound file and selecting a preset that fits a profile.  It is not computer learning without that feedback loop.  At best, one might stretch to call it an "expert system" because presumably there are some mastering experts involved to help fit different sound patterns to different presets.
 
If done well, that could be useful, but the examples I have seen so far don't seem to do much more than compressing and jacking up the dB level.  I think a person could get pretty much the same results simply by adding a multi-band compressor and the Concrete Limiter to the master bus in their mix.

Most likely it is what we have seen: Reaper plus a Dynamiq EQ / Maximizer/Limiter combo scripted to do some basic conditional logic processing: if the input average volume is "this" and the user requested the "low" setting, do "x". The dynamic EQ would do its best to get the file to conform to a pre-determined distribution of frequencies across the spectrum.
 
No real science, "learning" or "Artificial intelligence" involved. Let's get real. 
 
The most interesting - and revealing - part is the are using Reaper, which can be easily scripted the way I just described.
 

Sorry man, but most of your argument is pure speculation. If you don't want it, don't use it. I did an update using verbose install and it's not even an option for me now. Simple.
 
You shouldn't post all this negative speculation about something you wont even use. Your opposition is out of proportion on this issue.