Anderton
You are totally distorting what I said because you didn't bother to find out the facts before you made up your outrageous claims and "translations"
What "facts" would they be? That you didn't say what you said? You said it:
"Just to be clear, I would not use LANDR to master my recordings or anyone else's. I know how to master and I often do surgery, not just processing."
Of course, you wouldn't! You know it's crap. But you have a tricky problem in your hands: you need to recommend LANDR to beginners, but you don't want to further soil your reputation by implying you use the crappy service. So, here you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth: 'yes, it great, but I don't use it - I mean, if you are on the market for a quick mastering service, LANDR will serve your purpose'. Of course! If you are looking for crap, yes, LANDR is your product!
Anderton
- like the last time you got into a fit because you said you were paying for "low quality, generic stuff" yet when asked to specify the low-quality generic stuff for which you paid...
Crickets. You were incapable of backing up your claims, you had no facts, so you just disappeared from the thread.
I DID say what it was - right there in my initial post: I do NOT find any value or use in getting 40.000 guitar loops and generally all the crap you produce. Want it more clear than that?
Anderton
You have no idea what kind of mastering I do. I primarily do ALBUMS. An album is a collection of songs that flow together as a cohesive whole. They can involve crossfades, transitions, level matching among cuts, making artistic decisions about the best flow for cuts, avoiding having two songs in the same key follow each other if possible, and trimming intros and outros of songs so they work together. My album mastering ranges from classical to country to EDM to rock. Only someone who is completely ignorant about the mastering process would state "LANDR is crap" because it can't do that kind of mastering.
Everyone who does mastering does that or a variation of that. What's your point? A little, transparent and witless attempt at obfuscating the real issue?
The real issue is you would not use LANDR because you know it's crap. Why would YOU go OUT OF YOUR WAY to CLARIFY you don't use it, while pushing it down your loyal customers throats?
Anderton
I said: hours generating MP3s of rough mixers for clients. Note the "s." Plural. Multiple people over the years. Not spending hours generating an MP3 for a client. If I'd had LANDR, I could have exported and walked away to do things like annotate the session, put away cables, do backups, etc. while LANDR did its thing and gave the client a choice as to which version they wanted.
Even then, LANDR would not be faster or more effective than inserting an FX chain on the master channel. Why should anyone pay for an obviously crappy automated online "mastering" service that was exposed as nothing more than Reaper plus a couple of plugins?
Anderton
You're comparing slapping an EQ and compressor across the master bus to generating three different MP3s and giving clients a choice about which one they want, as well as getting clues about how they're going to want it mastered in the final analysis based on which one they choose.
You can do that faster, better and cheaper by slapping an FX chain on your master channel. And you know that. That's why you and any other semi-knowledgeable person would never use the crappy "mastering" service.
Anderton
Maybe the way you would do business is to slap on EQ and a limiter, hand whatever comes out to the client, and say "take it or leave it." That's not my style. I try to give a little bit extra.
Nope. That's what YOU are selling to Sonar users by shamelessly promoting this "service" that you went out of your way to clarify you DO NOT USE yourself.
I'm not the one slapping an EQ and limiter on the master channel and giving it to my clients. LANDR is - and you know it: once again, LANDR (for everyone's information) was proven to be no more than Reaper with a couple of plugins on the master channel. Even the LANDR developer admitted it and apologized for it with some lame excuse.
Anderton
So you still haven't read the eZine to find out what it can do.
I know what it can do: it can apply automatic levels of EQ and limiting top your mix, regardless of what the mix actually needs. The results are horrendous - and that's why you don't use it yourself. That's why you don't want the slightest confusion about it: you don't use it - but others are free to waste their money.
A lot of pseudo-technical claims and vague statements. But in the end, it was proven (2 days before release, not less) to be Reaper plus a couple of automated (scripted) plugins doing the "mastering".
Do I need to post the link again?