irvin
Well, everything has been said: LANDR is a mastering solution for people who have no idea how to prepare a rough mix for themselves or their clients (hard to believe anyone would have clients under those circumstance, but whatever). True professionals would not touch LANDR (as Anderton so eloquently put it) as it offers no benefit to them.
I'm flattered that you consider me eloquent, but there's nothing "eloquent" or particularly revelatory about stating that people who are professional mastering engineers already know how to master.
If anything I've said has been eloquent, it's my other posts that have explained the changing world of audio and mastering, the role of mastering engineers, and the rationale for software that can assist others in mastering (with a small 'm'") as well as assist pro mastering engineers when dealing with clients. You addressed none of those points.
Your patronizing attitude toward musicians who may be extremely talented in many other ways but don't know how to master is insulting.
You apparently don't understand the difference between mixing and mastering if you think that LANDR is a "solution for people who have no idea how to prepare a rough mix for themselves or their clients." Maybe I missed it but where has anyone, in any of these threads, talked about doing rough mixes for clients?
You misrepresent and inaccurately paraphrase what I say. I can think of only two reasons for doing that: you truly don't understand what I'm saying, or the rationale for your agenda falls apart if you represent what I say accurately.
I wrote a conciliatory post that explained how someone who has a singular definition of mastering based on what it was in the past is "right" to feel the way you do, just as those who are open-minded to recognize that the nature of mastering has changed over the years are "right" to embrace tools like LANDR (or Har-Bal, for that matter, which was greeted with similar derision by close-minded people when it was introduced). You ignored it. I tried to conduct a civilized dialog with you, yet all you can do is keep repeating points that have already been refuted. This is apparently your
modus operandi, because it's exactly the same M.O. as in your previous series of posts in a different thread where you kept complaining about having to pay money for content you found generic and substandard in SONAR. Yet when invited to give some examples of said content, you did not...so I can only conclude you could not.
Once again, this is a tool for total beginners or experienced people who, for whatever the reason, have not developed the most basic of skills (like slapping an EQ and Limiter combo on the master bus).
Your stating repeatedly that you feel "the most basic of skills" in "slapping EQ and a limiter combo on the master bus" means that someone is capable of mastering their material speaks for itself.
With that said, I think the reasonable thing to do for everyone is to decide if the current trend of bundling 3rd party services to maximize income for Cakewalk and its partners is something that is worth supporting by a subscription renewal
The last time SONAR offered a third-party service was Gobbler and that was what, 2-3 years ago, around the same time it was integrated in Pro Tools? That's hardly "current," and one service-based offer since then - that BTW also provides free functionality - hardly constitutes a "trend."
I've presented several practical examples of how to use LANDR for applications beyond traditional mastering. I apologize for not explaining them with sufficient clarity that you could understand them, but most people did, so overall it was worth the time to do so.