SGodfrey
There seem to be quite a few negative posts about LANDR which I find a bit surprising.  Mastering has often been referred to as a "black art" and whilst I'm sure it would be interesting to learn, there can't be that many who have the time and resources (room treatment, tools, etc.) to "master" it (excuse the pun).  There must be plenty of Sonar users out there who's mastering (like me) consists of no more than a bit of light compression (probably using default settings), a cursory attempt at bit of EQ and judicious use of Boost11.  Not terribly advanced in other words.
 
I've always checked the posts about the latest releases each time they've come out and often been amazed at the positive reaction to stuff I thought was of minimal use.  This time I was certain that people would love LANDR and the reaction is quite the opposite.  Go figure!
 
I for one, am really looking forward to hearing what LANDR can do.

Mastering is not a "black art" - it's an art and it is a profession and requires more than pure analytics ... I rather trust ears than algorithms ...
 
<<removed the rest of my original chain of thoughts>>
 
 

chriswickens
I pay for Sonar. I don't pay for them to program in useless BLOATWARE. They spent time and man power to integrate this piece of software that could have been better used fixing issues or creating other features in the main program.

Well, some users may find this useful.  I did a test on a recent project.  It took so long to upload it, I didn't think the service was all that practical.  And the results were pretty good, but not clearly better than what I was able to accomplish in a couple of minutes with Ozone.  I then went looking for examples on the LANDR site.  I had to do a bunch of Google searching, but eventually found a page with 8 examples.  Those all seemed really misleading to me because the dB in the mastered versions were all much higher than the levels from the mixes.  You can't make an objective comparison that way.  That seems just a little sleazy to me.
 
However, regarding your point about the investment from Cakewalk's side, given that LANDR is a paid service, it is possible that Cakewalk is sharing in some of that revenue, which would help fund other Sonar developments.

M@
Am i missing the point or could people have been using/can use LANDR even without Sonar? Never heard of L&R before and now all if a sudden the majority of Sonar users would (want to) need it?

 
LANDR has been around for a while. Actually online mastering services have been around for a while as well, even Sony and Abbey Road offer it. The difference is LANDR doing it automatically and offering free previews so you can decide if you actually want the resulting master or not.

Not saying it's bad: haven't tried it yet, but why on earth must it be part of Sonar?

 
Think of all the people who complain that SONAR doesn't come with an inherent integrated MP3 export. They find it too much of a hassle to change programs, load the file into Quicktime or whatever, convert it, and then listen to the results which may require switching drivers or importing back into SONAR. That's what you would need to do with LANDR if it wasn't integrated into SONAR.
 
If the next question is "if SONAR can integrate LANDR, why don't they integrate MP# export?" the answer is because there's a license fee for MP3 which would get passed along to users, whether they needed it or not, or had purchased the MP3 encoder years ago (the license doesn't expire) and didn't want to have to keep paying for it over and over again. LANDR has no licensing fee, Cakewalk doesn't have to pay them anything.

I was REALLY hoping TH3 was going to drop this month (as I believe this is the last month on my script).
 
As far as this LANDR thing... meh. I would have much rathered they partnered up with Izotope to get a "Sonar" version of Ozone or even approached Melda Productions about some of their more advanced tools.
 
I hope this doesn't mean mastering tools/improvements are going to continue to be ignored. I kind of find the few dedicated "mastering" plugs we have NEVER make my tunes sound better so I end up using more general plugs (such as Sonitus, Prochannel and Nomad). Of course that is likely more a matter of lack of skill and personal taste however I just find the LP EQ/Multiband (and the Tube Leveler) inevitably add some nasty harshness. There's really not much in the way of analysis either. The QuadCurve flyout is something but it doesn't seem all that precise or informative and the discontinued "Analyst" plugin (which is still really cool for a few reasons) isn't ultra precise either.
 
We could also use some nice warm (or at least more flexible) saturation options.
 
Anyway... point is, although this LANDR thing may be useful for some it's not really what I think folks had in mind when they request more mastering oriented tools.
 
Maybe a better option (for now... until the toolset can be expanded) is to get Craig and a bunch of Baker's with extensive mastering experience (or even tap outside sources and/or some of our forum members like Danny, Jeff and Bit) to sit down and create some good Mastering chains/presets/templates that cover a wide range of styles using the tools we have on hand.
 
I know some templates were released recently for "mastering" but I mean really dig in, create the chains/templates and even get them to write articles/create vids explaining WHY the effects are used and how/why one would go about tweaking them to suit the material. Put it in categories like "Acoustic, Pop/Dance, Pop/Rock, Hard Rock, Metal, Electronica, Hip Hop, Orchestral, Big Band, etc". It could get continually added to. Ya?
 
Also include chains where commonly owned paid Cake plugs like the Concrete Limiter, CA2A and I guess maybe the Softube bundles (or other PC addons) are included to give a bit more flexibility (for those who own those plugs). For example I often use the Concrete Limiter as my main mastering limiter (but also use the Blue Tubes one as well if I find it suits the tune better... it also has some nice presets too).
 
Food for thought.
 
As far as this LANDR thing... from what I'm gleaning all that's really been added here is some option to export and their upload tool? Anything else has to be paid for but we get maybe some limited "sample" formats of our mixes?
 
Does seem like this should be a separate install. Never heard of these guys and am hesitant to add "cloudy" type uploader tools. The option to "remove" it isn't quite as good as a fully separate install for those who want it.
 
I'm also gleaning that if one wanted to upload to their service they could do so manually anyway? Yes? That's how I'd go about it and always have for any of these auto upload options.
 
I really don't like extra things creeping around my system "helping" me. They always seem to do dumb crap that slows down my system(s) like that Dropbox folder thing or the plethora of other upload tools. I do most of that crap on a completely separate system anyway. If it's just an export option (like the youtube/soundcloud things) I guess that's rather benign but then why is there a 100MB program that goes along with it?
 
Not trying to kvetch. Just some observations and trying to understand what's what here.
 
It was a good year though. Ya'll been working hard and I personally never expected big bombastic new features EVERY month. Just not feelin' this one and REALLY wanted that TH3 Sonar update before I lapsed. I wanted to use it to get a feel for the new design before decided whether I need the full version (and to stay reasonably up to date on how things are done so I can remain semi useful to others using the program). I was maybe going to see if I could reup next month at the discount price but that deal got pulled so I've abandoned that plan.
 
Cheers.

BeepsterMaybe a better option (for now... until the toolset can be expanded) is to get Craig and a bunch of Baker's with extensive mastering experience (or even tap outside sources and/or some of our forum members like Danny, Jeff and Bit) to sit down and create some good Mastering chains/presets/templates that cover a wide range of styles using the tools we have on hand.

 
I don't think that's possible. As I've said in so many workshops, there are what I call "Mastering with a capital M" (mission-critical mastering) and "mastering with a small m" (the example of mastering a daughter's piano recital or the audio coming off a camcorder). Something like LANDR has no problem doing the mastering stuff. But Mastering is about much more than processing, it's about making artistic decisions, which at least in my case often requires waveform-level editing. No preset can accommodate that, but that kind of detail is why people use professional mastering engineers. 
 

As far as this LANDR thing... from what I'm gleaning all that's really been added here is some option to export and their upload tool? Anything else has to be paid for but we get maybe some limited "sample" formats of our mixes?

 
Read the eZine, and my post immediately prior to yours. LANDR will make my life as a professional mastering engineer easier, so of course I like it 
 

Anderton

BeepsterMaybe a better option (for now... until the toolset can be expanded) is to get Craig and a bunch of Baker's with extensive mastering experience (or even tap outside sources and/or some of our forum members like Danny, Jeff and Bit) to sit down and create some good Mastering chains/presets/templates that cover a wide range of styles using the tools we have on hand.

 
I don't think that's possible. As I've said in so many workshops, there are what I call "Mastering with a capital M" (mission-critical mastering) and "mastering with a small m" (the example of mastering a daughter's piano recital or the audio coming off a camcorder). Something like LANDR has no problem doing the mastering stuff. But Mastering is about much more than processing, it's about making artistic decisions, which at least in my case often requires waveform-level editing. No preset can accommodate that, but that kind of detail is why people use professional mastering engineers. 
 

As far as this LANDR thing... from what I'm gleaning all that's really been added here is some option to export and their upload tool? Anything else has to be paid for but we get maybe some limited "sample" formats of our mixes?

 
Read the eZine, and my post immediately prior to yours. LANDR will make my life as a professional mastering engineer easier, so of course I like it 
 

Right... but you get what I'm saying here about the chains being setup for general usage and logic behind them being explained a bit so us clowno gruntos who just want to add a bit of extra polish to our mixes can play around. right?
 
I've actually been trying to study all this quite a bit lately but as I'm sure you know the info out there is erratic at best and you'll pretty much NEVER find (aside from maybe a couple vids you've done in the distant past) tutorials using the included Sonar tools (or the addons).
 
The suggestion really is, and let's use yourself as an example, if you were forced to use Sonar Platinum and it's base package to master (small m) various styles of music how would you set up the chain (and then setup that chain in a Project Template or FX Chain)? How would you decide what parts of that chain needed to be applied (turned on) and adjusted based on things you are hearing from the raw mix?
 
If doods like you and others got commissioned to create these types of templates based on their own personal styles/comfort zones and wrote/created companion articles/vids to explain your own personal logic using the tools available I think it could actually help us aspiring "small m" mastering engineers get more out of the program than we can flitting about the intertubes at large trying to sort through all the not so useful/not so product specific intructional volumes.
 
The things I've been learning can be applied using a lot of the on board tools of course but it's a lot of effort and experimentation with a LOT of failures. I think if we had some good starting points with some good tutorial from trusted and proven engineers it could be quite valuable to many of us. Honestly I think this type of thing tossed into the occasional monthly releases/eZines would be far more beneficial and attractive to us kind of "intermediate" users just trying to toss up some decent sounding demos. I also do think that we CAN get quality output with the current tools as far as final polish BUT a bit of a helping hand from experienced pros familiar with said tools (and taking such minimalist approaches) is required to do so.
 
Knowaddimean? Seems like it could be a huge boon to the userbase without any real cost aside from maybe bribing the contributors to put these things together.
 
Ya... you know what I mean. You're really one of the very few whom I've seen even approach such materials and tool chains.
 
Cheers. I'll scuttle off to my dirty corner now. lol

Vastman
Both FF and Izotope are top of the line programs most people find the way to afford.  I can't imagine either company coming up with a freebe or limited version for DAWs... they want you to buy them and offer good deals from time to time... save your beer/coffee money for awhile... that's what I do.  For casual users, none of them are necessary and there are freebes available. Furthermore, the ProChannel gives you the tools to get pretty great mixes already.
 
I sometimes wonder at the insanity of people these days... there is only so much a DAW company can "bundle" as it takes away from their margins and I'm sure those margins are slim enough as it is.  They would have to pay a significant premium to incorporate such programs, full knowing that most of us have such tools... IK, Izo, etc... already.
 
Thanks for the bug fixes, bakers!  

Thanks. I appreciate being called insane.
 
If you look at what Izotope just did with the RX Plug-in Pack, it is not inconceivable that they could be encouraged to do something similar with elements of Ozone and offer (portions of ) same to DAW manufacturers such as Cakewalk.  Incorporation of such things would be an inducement for DAW users to upgrade to the full product suites and would give entities like Izotope additional exposure.  This itself is an economic boon for such companies and would drive down the cost for SONAR to bundle such things.  It is a win-win.
 
Just look at AD2-- I'm sure part of XLN's incentive there was that people would like the product and be drawn to buy more ADPacks, etc.
 

anxiousmofo
If you look at what Izotope just did with the RX Plug-in Pack, it is not inconceivable that they could be encouraged to do something similar with elements of Ozone and offer (portions of ) same to DAW manufacturers such as Cakewalk.

They already have an arrangement with Sony.

scook

anxiousmofo
If you look at what Izotope just did with the RX Plug-in Pack, it is not inconceivable that they could be encouraged to do something similar with elements of Ozone and offer (portions of ) same to DAW manufacturers such as Cakewalk.

They already have an arrangement with Sony.

Yeah, I figured maybe they'd already been previously engaged (but now I know with whom). Melda seems like a good fit though if they aren't already on someone else' team. A base version of Spectral or getting them to lend their basic suite to not replace but allow 64bit tools akin to the Sonitus suite might be nice.

SONAR has use Izotope algorithms for Audio Snap offline rendering for a few years now:
https://www.cakewalk.com/Documentation?product=SONAR%20X2&language=3&help=AudioSnap.23.html#1124421
 

Paul P

Keni
I can understand involved mastering for mixes that have problems, but why would I want to change the sound of a mix I like? That would tell me I need a remix...?

To me it's more a question of procedure.  Things should advance and converge from your recordings, through mixing, then through mastering and on to distribution.

I had the same thought process that Keni raised.  You can certainly do a lot of the polish in-line within Sonar by throwing effects on the master bus.
 
I have become persuaded it is better to not try to polish the sound at the mixing stage.  Now I use the minimum compression necessary to get the tracks to "play well together" and trust that there is another incremental improvement in the overall sound at the mastering stage.
 
This is not the workflow with the fewest steps, as the 2 separate stages are additional.  But I do feel like I get a better overall result by not mixing the two. 
 
As a simplistic approach, I put the minimum effects on the buses during mixing.  Only a limiter, and maybe some reverb, although it usually seems better to do the reverb on each track.  No multi-band compression during mixing.  I might do some stereo width on individual tracks if I am going for a specific effect.  I only do eq at the track level and only to fix problems that interfere with the mix.  Then I take the whole thing over to Ozone. 
 
There have been a few cases where I had to go back and adjust the mix and that does waste a bit of time.  There are suggestions that Sonar should have separate support for mixing.  Certainly you can set up an independent project and bring in your stereo mix, applying multi-band compression, EQ, stereo width etc.  So if there is to be an enhancement, it would be nice to see this become more seamless, perhaps where there is a new "mastering bus" that we can switch to after we like the mix.  Maybe Sonar can have two separate modes, mixing mode and mastering mode.  In mastering mode, you would work only on the mastering bus, but there would always be the option to switch back to mixing mode if something needed to be adjusted up-stream.

icontakt
Also, I think the changes I suggested above will help new users. They shouldn't have to widen the header width a bit and save it as a new Basic template.

They won't even know how to do either
 

Anderton

Beepster
Ya... you know what I mean. You're really one of the very few whom I've seen even approach such materials and tool chains.
 
Cheers. I'll scuttle off to my dirty corner now. lol

 
What's really needed is a course, using SONAR as a basis for the lessons. Meanwhile, remember this:
 
Most of mastering is about analyzing the source material.
 
Only then can you decide what shortcomings there are, which means only then can you decide what techniques need to be applied, after which you can then decide which plug-ins or surgery need to be done to implement those techniques.
 

Zactly and of course it's a moving target BUT there are obviously some standard tools and procedures and different engineers would approach different material in different ways.
 
So, you yourself who is accustomed to modern pop and classic to modern rock could do something like create a couple chains where everything starts "Off" then gets introduced/increased to warm up and strengthen the material. For stuff like EQ which would be the most challenging just make sure the EQ's appear at the "correct" point in the chain with maybe some preset attenuation bands and instructions for the user as to how to invert them to find the "whistles" then cut and/or where to add broad boosts/hi passes adjust. Really the EQ aspect seems like the hardest part to nail as far as "preset" stuff BUT if they are placed correctly and a few bands are available to compliment the chain/common usage it might work.
 
To me I'd just be more interested in the placement of effects and which ones to use. Like where should my multiband go? Where should my EQ's go? Where should the saturation go?
 
Again totally moving targets but that'd be the point of having mutliple experienced engineers create the chains (using the included tools) for various styles so folks can peruse them and see how they work and tweak them for themselves.
 
I am personally STARTING to get the hang of some of this stuff based on some of the broader material out there but there is a lot of translation between a) the tools involved and b) the styles being shown in the tutorials.
 
I just think it would be highly educational and useful and I guess really make some of the assertions that "mastering" (small m or otherwise) can more or less be acheived to the quality most of us would be happy with for our releases when pro (big M) mastering isn't an option.
 
I guess it's the idea that, and let's compare it to carpentry, although it's great to have a fully kitted up lazer guided woodworking shop in your garage or access to someone who does, with some know how you can use modest but reasonably precise hand tools to craft something quite nice.
 
Point is... if an online service can do "it" with a simple upload, we as Sonarites (being the tweakhounds we are) could certainly use the simple tools on hand to DIY the bugger.
 
The MOST important part though is that we are interacting with the software and learning as we go. It says it right there in the eZine that this LANDR thing is more for the less hands on crowd. Little gifts like this could be for us more "advanced" tweakers and theoretically would only cost some time invested by certain parties to set the chains up and explain the logic behind them. Then we, as the recipients, can scurry about playing with them.
 
Much more satisfying.
 
Juuuuuust some suggestions conjured up on an ultra dreary Canuckian day.
 
Cheers.