tenfoot
Ya know I am really on the fence with regard to Landr. I simply do not yet know enough about it to make an informed decision.  Irvin,  I sense somehow that you have made up your mind ,  so you must have a whole lot more experience with it than I do. I presume you have a Landr account as you surely could not judge anything this harshly in a public forum,  arguing with people who have a track record and credibility in this industry,  without lots of first hand experience. How about posting one of your undoubtedly brilliant compositions in two versions,  one mastered by you,  and one by Landr.  This act of generosity would give at least this one tired, confused old musician two things; more data in order to make up my own mind,  and a better idea as to whether you have the chops to back up your repeatedly expressed but as yet unsubstantiated opinion,  with which all of us are now only too familiar. 

+1

tenfoot
How about posting one of your undoubtedly brilliant compositions in two versions,  one mastered by you,  and one by Landr.

Well, don't forget LANDR offers three "intensity" options. He'll probably choose the worst-sounding of the three. To make it fair he should do all three versions, and let the forum decide which sounds best.

irvin
 
This was NOT an "early prototype". This happened 2 days before release. Even the LANDR developers acknowledged the incident and subsequent report as true: 
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/927991-mixgenius-landr-3.html

 
Why didn't you link to the post itself instead of directing people to a thread with 16 pages? Were you hoping that they wouldn't be patient enough to search for the needle in the haystack (I certainly wasn't) and find out that, at least based on your behavior in this forum, the odds are you're misrepresenting what was said? If your response is to quote the post, I'd want a link to the post itself to see what was actually said, and the context in which it occurred. (If you can't figure out how to link to a post in an internet forum, I can walk you through the process.)
 

If you have VERIFIABLE information as to how the whole thing works, I'll change my mind about it being anything more than Reaper (or some other DAW) plus a couple of plugins (what LANDR is doing is EASILY achieved by a combination of dynamic EQ and Limiter on the master channel).

 
I can do MUCH better than that! Since for whatever reason you can't figure out how to verify for yourself that it's more than a DAW and a couple of plug-ins, I'll help you out by describing an experiment I ran early on because I was skeptical. (Actually to be fair, I was extremely skeptical but I do have this weird habit of keeping an open mind and doing actual research before offering opinions.)
 

1. Mix a song.
2. Export one version with enough of a boost to be annoying at 400 Hz.
3. Export another version with enough of a boost to be annoying at 1.5 kHz.
4. Master both of them through LANDR, then set the intensity to medium (if you have trouble figuring out how to do that, let me know and I'll walk you through it).
5. Compare the two versions. You will note that the annoying 400 Hz boost is reduced in the first master and the annoying 1.5 kHz boost is reduced in the second one. You will also note they're not eliminated, presumably because LANDR figured if you mixed it that way, you probably wanted a bit more boost than usual.
6. Boot up Reaper, then put iZotope's dynamic EQ and a limiter in the master bus. Load both tracks, and solo the first one.
7. Adjust the dynamic EQ to reduce the annoying 400 Hz boost in the first track. 
8. Now solo the second track. The annoying 1.5 kHz boost is not reduced, and furthermore, there is now a cut in the 400 Hz range.

 
The results will speak for themselves, and they will say you are spreading misinformation.
 
I urge anyone who ascribes even minimal credibility to your claims to run similar tests; previews are free. I can tell you right now that LANDR won't nail it every time, but do enough tests and you'll start to see a pattern of how LANDR's treatment differs from song to song, and genre to genre, at different intensities. 
 

So, no, I'm not "spreading false information". The evidence is there for everyone to see.

 
Run the experiment above, and you'll find the evidence is there for everyone to see, and prove to themselves, that you are indeed spreading false information. Here's another test to prove yourself more wrong:
 
1. Have a really good mastering job done by a professional mastering engineer. 
2. Put it in LANDR and listen at the low intensity setting.
3. LANDR will pretty much leave it completely alone because it judges that nothing needs to be done.
4. Load the mastered version (not the LANDR one, the original) into your little Reaper test project above.
5. There will be a reduction in response at 400 Hz.
 
If you want to try yet another test to prove yourself even more wrong:
 
1. Mix a song.
2. Export one version with no changes.
3. Export a second version with an artificially narrowed stereo field, but not narrowed so far as to create a mono signal (e.g., bring in the right and left channel pans to 50%).
4. Run the version with the artificially narrowed stereo field through LANDR at medium intensity.
5. Compare the two versions using a goniometer.
6. Load the version with the narrowed stereo field into your Reaper test project created above.
5. There will be a reduction in response at 400 Hz. The stereo imaging will not be improved, as confirmed by the goniometer.
 
The results will speak for themselves, and they will say you are spreading misinformation.
 
 

 
As other people on that thread mentioned, there is no "machine learning" - because there is no feedback from the client, just a one-way communication (client feeds song, LANDR returns "mastered" file).

 
The client chooses which of three intensities they prefer. That is feedback from the client. I suspect the characteristics of the three intensities for different genres will change over time because of this, but regardless of how they use this feedback, it is in fact feedback so saying there is none is, once again, spreading misinformation.
 

Well, Anderton, of course the results are going to be different because....get this...get this...get this...LANDR is using different plugins with different settings! lol...I can't believe this is your best attempt at a refutation!

To conduct a valid test, why don't you tell everyone what plugins (including settings) and DAW Lander is using nowadays? We know it was Reaper back then when they had the major fiasco right before release. That is a fact not even a full-time salesman like you can dispute.

How did you come to the brilliant conclusion that this 'test' would prove something? I can only imagine how hard Bob Katz and other real mastering engineers are laughing watching you further soil whatever little reputation is left after this blatant spin job...

I propose a very simple, easier test: find out if the average Sonar user (we don't need to involve mastering engineers because I agree with you that LANDR is not capable of doing real Mastering - the one with a capital "M") can get results similar or better than LANDR in less time and FOR FREE by just slapping and lightly tweaking an EQ and Limiter of his choice on the master channel.

I'm 100% sure 100% of users other than absolute beginners will easily pass the test.

Or maybe the real test is explaining why you think LANDR can't do mastering while LANDR itself and you bosses at Cakewalk claim the opposite? That was a major slip, wasn't it, Anderton?

Anderton
The client chooses which of three intensities they prefer. That is feedback from the client. I suspect the characteristics of the three intensities for different genres will change over time because of this, but regardless of how they use this feedback, it is in fact feedback so saying there is none is, once again, spreading misinformation.
 

 
Ok - the client chooses one of the three intensities. Then what? LANDR magically learns what went wrong, what went right, whether the client was happy with the results, whether major or minor problems specific to that file were addressed, etc. etc.?
 
C'mon, man - you can do better than this. 
 
You keep accusing me of spreading false information - but it's clear the one trying to pull the wool over you customer's eyes is you with these desperate attempts at obfuscating the real issue: LANDR can't do mastering. 
 
You said it: LANDR can't do mastering (and I agree with you). That cat is out of the bag and you can't put it back...lol...
 
Look at your own post and how carefully you try (but ultimately fail) to 'hedge your bet': "I ...suspect'..." as in "I don't know" or "I know but I can't tell the ugly truth"
 
"Regardless of how they use this feedback" - there is no feedback!
 
Question for you: why do you consider that LANDR does not doreal mastering and why wouldn't you use it for your own material or anyone else's?
 
Why is LANDR's quality not acceptable to you but it should be acceptable to "lesser people"? Aren't they entitled to aspire to pay for and receive "real mastering"?
 
The more you grow desperate and the fact you can't let go of me (trying to switch the attention away from the real issue of LANDR not being capable of doing what it claims) makes me think something is very, very fishy...it's probably best for you to let go of this issue...you can undo the damage YOU did to LANDR and Cakewalk with your unintentionally candid post.

Anderton

irvin
 
This was NOT an "early prototype". This happened 2 days before release. Even the LANDR developers acknowledged the incident and subsequent report as true: 
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/927991-mixgenius-landr-3.html

 
Why didn't you link to the post itself instead of directing people to a thread with 16 pages? Were you hoping that they wouldn't be patient enough to search for the needle in the haystack (I certainly wasn't) and find out that, at least based on your behavior in this forum, the odds are you're misrepresenting what was said? If your response is to quote the post, I'd want a link to the post itself to see what was actually said, and the context in which it occurred. (If you can't figure out how to link to a post in an internet forum, I can walk you through the process.)

Because if I linked to the single post, you'd be claiming that I took things "out of context" by "selectively picking a single post out of 16 pages"?
 
I did the right thing: I provided the link so that people could read the whole thing without bias (there were many posts there favorable to LANDR).
 
But you're desperately fishing for something to criticize me with....you're really desperate and it smells fishy...why are so bent out of shape over my single assertion that LANDR can't do mastering like it claims? I even agree with you on that! (you said the same thing).
 
I have not asked anyone to not use it. I have not belittled the work of those people who have conducted tests and like the service. I have not asked anything of anyone. I have not berated or insulted any LANDR users. I expressed my opinion (that, once again, concurs with yours: LANDR can't do what it claims) that LANDR is useless as a mastering tool because (as you rightfully claimed) it does not do mastering-quality work.
 
I have not said anything negative or untrue about Sonar, Cakewalk or even LANDR!
 
So why the big fuss? Makes me go hmmmmmmmmmmmm... 

irvin
 
C'mon, man - you can do better than this. 
 
You keep accusing me of spreading false information - but it's clear the one trying to pull the wool over you customer's eyes is you with these desperate attempts at obfuscating the real issue: LANDR can't do mastering. 
 
You said it: LANDR can't do mastering (and I agree with you). That cat is out of the bag and you can't put it back...lol...
 
Look at your own post and how carefully you try (but ultimately fail) to 'hedge your bet': "I ...suspect'..." as in "I don't know" or "I know but I can't tell the ugly truth"
 
The more you grow desperate and the fact you can't let go of me (trying to switch the attention away from the real issue of LANDR not being capable of doing what it claims) makes me think something is very, very fishy...it's probably best for you to let go of this issue...you can undo the damage YOU did to LANDR and Cakewalk with your unintentionally candid post.
 
But you're desperately fishing for something to criticize me with....you're really desperate and it smells fishy...why are so bent out of shape over my single assertion that LANDR can't do mastering like it claims? I even agree with you on that! (you said the same thing).
 
So why the big fuss? Makes me go hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

 
I just took snippets, it isn't an entire quote
 
 
Irvin, well it is pretty obvious that you have got Anderton pegged pretty well, you have him figured out, he is the ultimate Cakewalk/Sonar apologist, that's what he does, makes excuses for both Cakewalk and Sonar, and doesn't let the truth or the facts get in his way. You are also right in that one of his greatest tactics is to turn and twist things, going off onto different tangents, muddying the water with his long drawn out boring discourses attempting to throw all off track and have the original topic forgotten about, I have seen this time and time again. One young lady who frequents these forums also called him out on it in public, explaining to him that she didn't feel like coming here anymore, and that he and his ways were the reason for it.
 
I understand what you are trying to do, but let me tell you, it is a loosing battle, because you will just be set upon by the hoards of rabid mouth frothing fanboi's, and Anderton is never wrong, and he will always have the last word even to the point of locking the thread, and then using his privileges as a mod to go back in just so he CAN have the last word.
 
There was a thread not so long ago where a new user was disagreeing with Anderton, anyway after Anderton had his way, he made a statement that this user was the same user that a week before had been posting under the username TruthBeTold, and had been dealt with. I mean he said it like it was GOSPEL, the truth according to Anderton, he knew for a fact, the proxy server the lot. Well I am here to say that what he said was not in fact true, and that this poor soul was not in fact the user TruthBeTold, I know for certain because I am TruthBeTold, and I can tell you Anderton with 110% certainty that that poor soul was NOT in fact me, so as hard is this may be for you to hear Anderton, you sir are WRONG . . . AGAIN, and you sir are full of it!!!
 
There was also another thread where someone was saying that Sonar was "Hated, despised and neglected" among other things, something along those lines. Then along came a Cakewalk person and made a big stink about how Cakewalk is and has not been neglected, which is true, but the problem is that these people are so quick to jump in at the first sign of dissent or negativity towards Cakewalk or Sonar, that they often miss the boat entirely. When I read the post in question, it was obvious to me that they were talking about people, users, hating Sonar, people, users neglecting Sonar, that is they own it, but have moved on to another DAW, and that is how I took it when I read it, not the way the Cakewalk person who had an itchy trigger finger took it, and it is true, the number of Sonar refugees you see at Studio Ones forums, Reapers forums (heck they even have a special PDF for people coming from Sonar to help ease them in because the demand was and still is so strong, see for yourself the Bitwig forums, Sonar is hemorrhaging, and hemorrhaging fast, that is a fact. These people are so jumpy,.so quick to squash any signs of negativity they often get things wrong.
 
Then you get Anderton crowing about how the Artist version of Sonar made the top 10, well it is obvious it didn't make it very high in the top 10, otherwise he would have been crowing that it came 1st, or 2nd, or 3rd, but no, just top 10. Think about it, yes there are a lot of DAW's, but really there aren't that many at the top, and crowing about coming in at the wrong end of the top 10 is a bit like crowing about how you you came 10th, but there was only 10 in the race. Hello, you actually came last lol (just an example, not saying this is fact) The sad thing is the Star of the line up, Sonar Platinum is not in the same situation.
 
Anderton also goes on about how he is this great conduit between the users and Cakewalk, and between Cakewalk and the users, like he is some kind of Switzerland lol, but come on, he works for the company that owns Cakewalk, how much do you think he is going to go against, or say anything against Cakewalk or Sonar, it's not going to happen, his hands are tied, he is compromised, sure he will tell you he has done this, said that etc, but it's all BS.
 
LANDR, LANDR is crap, absolute CRAP, I have tried it out not from within Sonar, but manually, tried all the options and it is crap. In 10 to 15 minutes tops I can get a far better, better sounding master with a few plugs or my own mastering chains without fail. Of course he has to defend LANDR even though he has said he wouldn't use it personally or for anyone else (lol, come in spinner lol) he has to defend it, he can't just come out and say it is crap, his hands are tied, he is compromised, it's as simple as that.
 
Anyway Irvin, my advice to you would be to just let it go, it's not even worth worrying about, if people can't see through Anderton by now it's there own fault. Myself, I will never return to these forums, they sicken me to the stomach, the blind following, just check out the weekly tips section, you will find the same people over and over saying "Yeah good one Craig" etc, when you can be sure that they have not had a chance to actually try it out, I could name them off by name they are so predictable, but they know who they are, they are just on auto pilot. It's just fanboi city here, never seen anything like it, just full on, the people here, as they say out in the real world, have been 'Sonared' they actually made a term to describe how things are inside these forums, how sad. It's a place where everything is roses, everything is perfect, and if it's not they don't want to know, they are happy in their ignorance, they have been using Sonar for so long they are scared to leave because of the investment of time and money, they don't realize that there IS FAR better out there, with modern code bases, not with code still hanging around from last century, modern features, so I will leave them yo their ignorance and delusion.
 
 
 

Wow! I do not know what to say at this point... Some people never grew up from the kiddie table, and want it their way or no way.
And for the person who said it was their last visit here (I cannot be bothered to mention "it" by name).. Bye, bye...
I have still to try LANDR (as I suspect is the case for more people than just me) before I give judgement. 
All the best.

I think that everyone has the right to their own opinion as long as it is generalized to the topic at hand. Member bashing because you don't agree with what they write is not the way to go. If you have an opinion about Sonar, you can state it in a nice, calm manner and maybe get the answers you need. If the post is only about bashing companies, developers, members etc, then don't post anything at all.

What the big deal abt this. U people can't be this intolerant. It's a new addition that's it. If you don't like LANDR don't use it. We got a nice new add track. If you love it use it. We got some bugs fixed, that's cool right. Now go have fun making music. Don't become way too intolerant over everything. Everything can't be just the way you want them to be. May be as fellow users of sonar, we should also have to consider this from their point of view. May be sonar got paid a little for adding LANDR. So what's the big fuzz now. It's our DAW and our makers have earned a little of someone els money. We just don't have to use it if we don't need it. We can just be happy that our makers have earned a bit. It's not gonna affect us in any way. They might use this money in the development of further more features right. Being loyal users we should also view this from their prespective. They got paid, we got something, which we might or might not use. Anyway we got something. Why should you people break your heads like something is taken away from you.