scook

anxiousmofo
If you look at what Izotope just did with the RX Plug-in Pack, it is not inconceivable that they could be encouraged to do something similar with elements of Ozone and offer (portions of ) same to DAW manufacturers such as Cakewalk.

They already have an arrangement with Sony.

Is it exclusive?

SONAR has use Izotope algorithms for Audio Snap offline rendering for a few years now:
https://www.cakewalk.com/Documentation?product=SONAR%20X2&language=3&help=AudioSnap.23.html#1124421
 

As a cakewalk user everyday since 1998 I would love to see the platform made more for stability and speed (workflow). Some nice new features but there are many broken functions that need to be addressed. (Surround mixes out of sync with some plugins, Editing, automation, ect)  8.5 is still the best release in my opinion. I wish some of these old function would be brought back it was better for workflow by miles. As for LANDR not a fan sorry. I am very happy about the upcoming feature to take suggestions. I'd like to see cosmetic changes as well too hard to read/see numbers and some functions. Please revisit 8.5.  Thank you. :)

Paul P

Keni
I can understand involved mastering for mixes that have problems, but why would I want to change the sound of a mix I like? That would tell me I need a remix...?

To me it's more a question of procedure.  Things should advance and converge from your recordings, through mixing, then through mastering and on to distribution.

I had the same thought process that Keni raised.  You can certainly do a lot of the polish in-line within Sonar by throwing effects on the master bus.
 
I have become persuaded it is better to not try to polish the sound at the mixing stage.  Now I use the minimum compression necessary to get the tracks to "play well together" and trust that there is another incremental improvement in the overall sound at the mastering stage.
 
This is not the workflow with the fewest steps, as the 2 separate stages are additional.  But I do feel like I get a better overall result by not mixing the two. 
 
As a simplistic approach, I put the minimum effects on the buses during mixing.  Only a limiter, and maybe some reverb, although it usually seems better to do the reverb on each track.  No multi-band compression during mixing.  I might do some stereo width on individual tracks if I am going for a specific effect.  I only do eq at the track level and only to fix problems that interfere with the mix.  Then I take the whole thing over to Ozone. 
 
There have been a few cases where I had to go back and adjust the mix and that does waste a bit of time.  There are suggestions that Sonar should have separate support for mixing.  Certainly you can set up an independent project and bring in your stereo mix, applying multi-band compression, EQ, stereo width etc.  So if there is to be an enhancement, it would be nice to see this become more seamless, perhaps where there is a new "mastering bus" that we can switch to after we like the mix.  Maybe Sonar can have two separate modes, mixing mode and mastering mode.  In mastering mode, you would work only on the mastering bus, but there would always be the option to switch back to mixing mode if something needed to be adjusted up-stream.

gunboatdiplomacy

M@
I'm not sure I like the way things are evolving.
There are so many small issues adding up that (FOR ME :)) are just not satisfying.
 
- 'Having' to be online
- Multiple 'Integration' of not full-versions of 3rd party software  (Gobbler, Melodyne-essential, AD2, LANDR, TH2...)
- Long time bugs / worksflow killers described by other users in detail  (gfx visibility, arrangement features,..........& many more.) 
- Monthly releases (being released towards end of the month mostly
 
At the moment I'm especially frustrated because I wasn't able to use my (home)studio as much as I want to, so that's part of the reason for my little "rant"

Welcome to the future, everyone will be online all the time. Otherwise, TASCAM still makes some nice multitrack recorders for you.

And you don't have to install any of the Essential items. if you're Mr. Moneybags, you can buy the full versions. the LANDR thing is just in the export menu. Are you going to complain about MP3 export being baked in?
 
And who cares about when the updates are released? they are all about 30 days apart. if they push them all at the beginning of the month, they are all still 30 days apart.
 
None of the things that are "unsatisfying" to you are in any way related to you not being able to use your studio.

The things I'm not happy about are indeed not the reason for me not being able to use my studio (it's private reasons) but they are the reason for posting my opinion here  
 
My point about the monthly updates was not so much about when, but the fact that they are too many updates a year: quarterly updates would be fine for me.
But....even though this was not my point: if people are paying on a monthly basis they should be entitled to use the software for the full month. How long is the grace-period after a subscription ends??

icontakt
Also, I think the changes I suggested above will help new users. They shouldn't have to widen the header width a bit and save it as a new Basic template.

They won't even know how to do either
 

M@
[Quarterly updates would be fine for me.

 
Then update once a quarter.
 

But....even though this was not my point: if people are paying on a monthly basis they should be entitled to use the software for the full month. How long is the grace-period after a subscription ends??

 
The software keeps working even after your membership ends. That's why it's not the Adobe subscription model.
 

I prefer the monthly release cycle myself.  I like having something new on a regular basis, particularly when it's things like Patch Points/Aux Tracks + Smart Solo, Synth recording, Start Screen updates, Upsampling, VocalSync, etc..    Each of those would have course been available even if the release cycle was quarterly or even annual, but I'm sure glad I've already had them available to me for a longer period of time rather than shorter.   YMMV applies.
 
FWIW, I think the grace period is two weeks.  
 
 
 
PS... there sure is a lot of negativity about such a small thing with LANDR.  One could almost think that LANDR was the entire feature list for 2016.        
It almost looks to me like a graft of the "internet connectivity" functionality originally used with Gobbler combined with the existing export's file format list. 
 

Beepster
Ya... you know what I mean. You're really one of the very few whom I've seen even approach such materials and tool chains.
 
Cheers. I'll scuttle off to my dirty corner now. lol

 
What's really needed is a course, using SONAR as a basis for the lessons. Meanwhile, remember this:
 
Most of mastering is about analyzing the source material.
 
Only then can you decide what shortcomings there are, which means only then can you decide what techniques need to be applied, after which you can then decide which plug-ins or surgery need to be done to implement those techniques.
 

Anderton

Beepster
Ya... you know what I mean. You're really one of the very few whom I've seen even approach such materials and tool chains.
 
Cheers. I'll scuttle off to my dirty corner now. lol

 
What's really needed is a course, using SONAR as a basis for the lessons. Meanwhile, remember this:
 
Most of mastering is about analyzing the source material.
 
Only then can you decide what shortcomings there are, which means only then can you decide what techniques need to be applied, after which you can then decide which plug-ins or surgery need to be done to implement those techniques.
 

Zactly and of course it's a moving target BUT there are obviously some standard tools and procedures and different engineers would approach different material in different ways.
 
So, you yourself who is accustomed to modern pop and classic to modern rock could do something like create a couple chains where everything starts "Off" then gets introduced/increased to warm up and strengthen the material. For stuff like EQ which would be the most challenging just make sure the EQ's appear at the "correct" point in the chain with maybe some preset attenuation bands and instructions for the user as to how to invert them to find the "whistles" then cut and/or where to add broad boosts/hi passes adjust. Really the EQ aspect seems like the hardest part to nail as far as "preset" stuff BUT if they are placed correctly and a few bands are available to compliment the chain/common usage it might work.
 
To me I'd just be more interested in the placement of effects and which ones to use. Like where should my multiband go? Where should my EQ's go? Where should the saturation go?
 
Again totally moving targets but that'd be the point of having mutliple experienced engineers create the chains (using the included tools) for various styles so folks can peruse them and see how they work and tweak them for themselves.
 
I am personally STARTING to get the hang of some of this stuff based on some of the broader material out there but there is a lot of translation between a) the tools involved and b) the styles being shown in the tutorials.
 
I just think it would be highly educational and useful and I guess really make some of the assertions that "mastering" (small m or otherwise) can more or less be acheived to the quality most of us would be happy with for our releases when pro (big M) mastering isn't an option.
 
I guess it's the idea that, and let's compare it to carpentry, although it's great to have a fully kitted up lazer guided woodworking shop in your garage or access to someone who does, with some know how you can use modest but reasonably precise hand tools to craft something quite nice.
 
Point is... if an online service can do "it" with a simple upload, we as Sonarites (being the tweakhounds we are) could certainly use the simple tools on hand to DIY the bugger.
 
The MOST important part though is that we are interacting with the software and learning as we go. It says it right there in the eZine that this LANDR thing is more for the less hands on crowd. Little gifts like this could be for us more "advanced" tweakers and theoretically would only cost some time invested by certain parties to set the chains up and explain the logic behind them. Then we, as the recipients, can scurry about playing with them.
 
Much more satisfying.
 
Juuuuuust some suggestions conjured up on an ultra dreary Canuckian day.
 
Cheers.