irvin
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 had an epiphany while reading Irvin's various exchanges.
Everybody's opinion is right about LANDR...depending on how they define "mastering."
Here's an analogy. Years ago, TEAC came out with the 3340 4-track recorder that could do overdubs, and people started putting studios in their homes. They would say "I have a recording studio" because that was the only term that existed. Professional studios got all bent out of shape. "Those aren't REAL recording studios!!" Then someone coined the term "home studio," and Marty Porter of
EQ magazine coined the term "project studio," which was more about doing actual projects than just having fun recording at home. Now we had terms that
accurately described different types of recording studios. If someone said "I have a home studio," no professional got bent out of shape.
It is indeed true that mastering used to be an incredibly difficult discipline, because working with vinyl demanded it. Every decision was a compromise. Digital audio has eliminated most of those constraints, and it no longer became necessary to have the same kind of esoteric knowledge or training - just really good ears, good acoustics, and the knowledge of how to use tools like dynamics control and equalization.
As the
LANDR site itself says, "The polish and balance achieved through the subtle adjustments of a skilled mastering engineer is not something we would ever diminish." They also said in their press release that LANDR is not intended to replace professional mastering engineers, but complement them.
Those who are dissing LANDR should take the preceding paragraph at face value, and keep reading.
It used to be that all recording was done by professional musicians in professional recording studios using professional engineers, producers, and mastering engineers. The world is no longer that way. There are millions of people recording audio on everything from old iPhones to TASCAM hand-helds to flip-cams to 2" 24-tracks they maintain lovingly.
For years I've differentiated between two types of mastering. One I call "Mastering with a capital 'M'," defined as mission-critical work that affected a career, and needed to be done by a pro mastering engineer with a solid track record and preferably, a boatload of platinum albums on the wall.
If that's the only way you define "mastering," you will think LANDR is ridiculous, and I'm not going to argue with you because according to how
you define mastering, you're right.
However as the world has changed, there is a need for what I call "mastering with a small 'm'." I define this as taking a mix and simply having it sound better after you're done with it than it sounded before. 35 years ago, bands didn't have web sites for posting their live gigs. Consumers didn't have iPhones they used to record their daughter's piano recitals, or GoPros to record weddings. Churches weren't recording sermons, and corporate presenters didn't record their presentations. Nor did musicians have an incredible array of affordable professional tools at their disposal, regardless of whether they had the ability to use all of them or not.
None of these people was going to hire a professional mastering engineer to do "mastering with a small 'm'." Sure, maybe they knew someone with a decent recording setup, who as a favor would tweak things a little bit and make them sound better. But by and large,
they just lived with bad sound. If your definition of mastering also encompasses "mastering with a small 'm'," then LANDR has major validity.
Next topic: LANDR should not be in a professional DAW. Let's get real: a professional DAW costs a few hundred dollars. It is within the range of everyone; SONAR Artist costs $99. Many people using this DAW will not know about mastering. They will be making music for themselves or their friends. They may write songs that would put Javahut's songwriting abilities to shame, but they don't know how to master, and there's no way they can afford a pro mastering engineer. They may still be trying to figure out how to mix.
So what are we to do? Tell them "go to hell"? That would seem rather rude. Why not give them a tool that doesn't cost them anything to try, and if what comes out is better than what goes in...who has a problem with that?
Now, let's suppose they
do want to pay a mastering engineer to master their songs. My first question to any client is if they have a particular "sound" in mind, and they'll usually name a favorite recording. It would be much better if they would try the three different LANDR options and be able to say "We want to sound like [fill in the option]." Great, now I have frame of reference as to whether they want minimal processing or want to win the rock and roll arms race. (Granted, I will try to talk them out of it if the latter, but...ultimately the customer is always right.)
I've given plenty of other examples during the course of these LANDR threads of how LANDR can help a professional mastering engineer educate their clients in order to avoid the back-and-forth that can sometimes occur, so I won't bother repeating myself.
Tools are tools. They do nothing by themselves, it is up to the skill of an individual to decide how to apply it. You can use a hammer to kill someone, or build a shelter. The hammer doesn't care.
If you define "mastering" as meaning ONLY work done by a professional human being who is capable of making nuanced creative decisions, then of course you're going to diss LANDR. If you think of "mastering" as making something sound better than it did originally, LANDR is going to help a lot of people...including those professionals who care enough about their clients to educate them, because LANDR provides a powerful tool for education.