kennywtelejazz
I'm gonna contribute something along the same lines once I run down a couple of disclaimers

That's a lovely song.  Nothing to feel insecure about.
 
I do think it illustrates a fundamental dilemma.  While LANDR did some good things to the recording, it seems to have perked up the hi frequencies that exaggerate the finger noise.  That is very much a matter of artistic taste.  Some people might see that as an improvement.  Others might think that is a step backwards.  And there is nothing you can do about it.  One either accepts the LANDR results or else you throw the whole thing away.  That isn't a proposition that appeals to me.
 
I very much like the idea of software helping me to make better judgments.  I hate the ide of software putting me into a box.

cparmerlee

kennywtelejazz
I'm gonna contribute something along the same lines once I run down a couple of disclaimers

That's a lovely song.  Nothing to feel insecure about.
 
I do think it illustrates a fundamental dilemma.  While LANDR did some good things to the recording, it seems to have perked up the hi frequencies that exaggerate the finger noise.  That is very much a matter of artistic taste.  Some people might see that as an improvement.  Others might think that is a step backwards.  And there is nothing you can do about it.  One either accepts the LANDR results or else you throw the whole thing away.  That isn't a proposition that appeals to me.
 
I very much like the idea of software helping me to make better judgments.  I hate the ide of software putting me into a box.

You could always re-Eq the guitar fret noise and send back to LANDR.  If you paid someone you might then be actually stuck with the mastered version. (I think this is the best reason for LANDR test you audio) At least with LANDR you have the chance to redo the mastered version as many times as you like.  
Then you could choose to go with LANRD
or send to someone like:
Hank Williams
Bob Katz 
Glenn Meadows
John Vestman
Eddie Shreyer
Jay Frigoletto
Ted Jensen
Doug Sax 
Brad Blackwood
 
Also Thanks for your post Kenny
 
Max Arwood

cparmerlee

kennywtelejazz
I'm gonna contribute something along the same lines once I run down a couple of disclaimers

That's a lovely song.  Nothing to feel insecure about.
 
I do think it illustrates a fundamental dilemma.  While LANDR did some good things to the recording, it seems to have perked up the hi frequencies that exaggerate the finger noise.  That is very much a matter of artistic taste.  Some people might see that as an improvement.  Others might think that is a step backwards.  And there is nothing you can do about it.  One either accepts the LANDR results or else you throw the whole thing away.  That isn't a proposition that appeals to me.
 
I very much like the idea of software helping me to make better judgments.  I hate the ide of software putting me into a box.

Thank you for taking the time and being honest
I picked that song for a reason ..it sat in limbo for a long time ...I was stuck ...I knew a good deal of things I need to change ..ex the Choir , some bad edits , some over cooked phrases .
Got at least 35 nits off the top of my head .
 
As a musical song I'm sure some folks are what the heck ...the song was created for a zero budget film I shot using a zoom Q 3 
I do agree with much of what you have said ...
one nice thing , there are a couple of sections I would extract and use once I'm in a position to get a better file than an MP3 at 192 ...I would cut them out and fix all the rest of the sounds that need fixing ..
 
thank you
 
Kenny 

cparmerlee
I do think it illustrates a fundamental dilemma.  While LANDR did some good things to the recording, it seems to have perked up the hi frequencies that exaggerate the finger noise.  That is very much a matter of artistic taste.  Some people might see that as an improvement.  Others might think that is a step backwards.  And there is nothing you can do about it.  One either accepts the LANDR results or else you throw the whole thing away.  That isn't a proposition that appeals to me.
 
I very much like the idea of software helping me to make better judgments.  I hate the ide of software putting me into a box.

Well its a simple thing to adjust what Landr masters in this case. Just put a eq notch on the frequencies that you don't want on the guitar bus to compensate that and redo the master. There are a few things you can do outside the box, including using Lander to master stems and then mix them together. There are many ways to skin a cat (figuratively, I love my two cats!)

Paul P

MacFurse
Once again the only thing you demonstrate, is your lack of ability to understand what people have been saying to you over and over again. Nobody suggests this as a method to master anything. How much clearer do you need this stated?

Not to argue, but just in the interest of balance, this is the first sentence of the LANDR part of Cakewalk's "official release" statement for the Newburyport update :
 
"LANDR is integrated directly into SONAR allowing you to master your tracks instantly. LANDR uses highly developed and tested A.I. technology to profile and deliver you the most accurate master for your style and genre."

No argument taken. I agree the official line is that mastering is the supposed intent, but my statement relates to previous posts, and read alone, is out of context.
 
Your point is taken. I could have said it better. Thanks.

MacFurse

Paul P

MacFurse
Once again the only thing you demonstrate, is your lack of ability to understand what people have been saying to you over and over again. Nobody suggests this as a method to master anything. How much clearer do you need this stated?

Not to argue, but just in the interest of balance, this is the first sentence of the LANDR part of Cakewalk's "official release" statement for the Newburyport update :
 
"LANDR is integrated directly into SONAR allowing you to master your tracks instantly. LANDR uses highly developed and tested A.I. technology to profile and deliver you the most accurate master for your style and genre."

No argument taken. I agree the official line is that mastering is the supposed intent, but my statement relates to previous posts, and read alone, is out of context.
 
Your point is taken. I could have said it better. Thanks.

:-)

Have intellectual integrity: several posters pointed out many places where the service is being sold as "mastering". They have not taken anything out of context. Know when to stop defending an indefensible position - it's the smart and honest thing to do.

Have a nice weekend!

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

cparmerlee
I do think it illustrates a fundamental dilemma.  While LANDR did some good things to the recording, it seems to have perked up the hi frequencies that exaggerate the finger noise.  That is very much a matter of artistic taste.  Some people might see that as an improvement.  Others might think that is a step backwards.  And there is nothing you can do about it.  One either accepts the LANDR results or else you throw the whole thing away.  That isn't a proposition that appeals to me.
 
I very much like the idea of software helping me to make better judgments.  I hate the ide of software putting me into a box.

Well its a simple thing to adjust what Landr masters in this case. Just put a eq notch on the frequencies that you don't want on the guitar bus to compensate that and redo the master. There are a few things you can do outside the box, including using Lander to master stems and then mix them together. There are many ways to skin a cat (figuratively, I love my two cats!)

Doesn't the theory go that the people who might find LANDR useful would not know how to 'put an eq notch on the frequencies that you don't want on the guitar bus'?

I'm pretty sure that Kenny who is the OP has more than enough chops to add a simple eq notch to his recording to compensate.
In either case most SONAR users learn how how to use EQ pretty fast so I wouldn't consider that to be expert knowledge unlike mastering.

Thanks Kenny. I am going to go with it. What you say makes a lot of sense and I was reading earlier, ezine maybe.. (short term memory is whacked!) that if you don't like something about the master you get from Landr you can go back into Sonar, remix a bit and then redo the Landr master.
It really does sound like a good tool for learning... and for helping us make better music and hey, it's only money! LOL.
 
I went to their site and listened to the samples they have there in the different genres. Some I liked, some I thought were a bit to much high end and well, too much everything. Others sounded pretty good. I think the ones I liked were probably done on Low. I had to lower the volume on a couple and some genres, if you turn the volume up on the original and down on the Landr mastered there is little difference. I finally just set the volume on the OC at noon and just listened. I guess it comes down to what you like and in the end it is a good tool, at least for me... but what would McCue say?  
 
 
I certainly can see it helping me and anyone to get unstuck. Going to update now. I think I am going to backup my C drive and move my Studiocat to Windows 10 this weekend too... maybe, lol.
 
You really are helpful to me. Thanks again.
 
Julien

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Well its a simple thing to adjust what Landr masters in this case. Just put a eq notch on the frequencies that you don't want on the guitar bus to compensate that and redo the master.

Yes, I suppose that is a possibility.  But that seems like a bas-ackward work flow to me.  The solution that I would be much happier with would be one where a product like Ozone would incorporate some AI to get me close to its idea of "the ideal master", yet still give me the ability to do additional mastering tweaks right there.  And of course that would eliminate any of the upload/download hassles and would also give me unlimited processing for a one-time investment.
 
If course, Ozone doesn't offer anything like this today, so it isn't an option.  I'm just saying if I had that option to put beside what Landr is doing, it would be a no-brainer in favor of the full mastering tool.
 
Part of my objection is the same as the resistance you have heard from the Sonar subscription model.  And this may be a generational thing.  I can afford to pay Landr's price.  But that is because I have had the financial discipline over the decades to avoid monthly, pay-as-you-go costs whenever possible.  I hate my cable and phone bills for this reason, but there is little else that I do on a monthly basis.  I don't do car loans.  If I can't afford to pay cash for a car, I wait until I can, etc.
 
In other words, I just have a big philosophical objection to these "gotcha" payment plans.  In other words, it isn't the money as much as it is the scheme.  I only mention that to encourage the good folks at Gibson/Cakewalk to not assume everybody is OK with these pay-as-you-go deals.
 
Let me say it another way.  If Cakewalk had an AI-based mastering module that was very convenient in the workflow and produced good "one-click" results while giving me the ability to make additional tweaks after the "one click", I would pay hundreds of dollars for that -- probably more than this Landr solution would cost.  But when you are asking for me to hit my charge card every month or every time I have a project to finish, I hate that.  I REALLY hate that.