Some people like it and some don't. Fair enough. I can't figure out why Craig and the Bakers are giving it such a hard sell. There's nothing to defend and it's not even a Cakewalk product. Seems to be a lot of bandwidth devoted to a product that they didn't develop.
 
Does LANDR pay companies to embed it in their programs?

Funny details about LANDR:

They conducted a demo and it turned out to be Reaper with a couple of plugins doing the "mastering". TRUE - unbelievable as it might be. The developer admitted it and offered some lame excuse for the fiasco. Check it out:

https://www.gearslutz.com...mixgenius-landr-3.html

I'm sure Cakewalk knows what's going on - the question is why are they pushing this monstrosity on their loyal customers? Maybe they didn't have enough "features" for this month? Honestly, I'd not mind a few months of bug fixing and code optimization, without these "features" that do more harm than good.

ampfixer
Some people like it and some don't. Fair enough. I can't figure out why Craig and the Bakers are giving it such a hard sell. 

Because I've mastered hundreds of tracks, and know the difference between people who spend thousands of dollars for what I call mastering with a capital M - mission critical projects that will affect someone's career - and mastering with a small m, those who simply want something to sound better and don't have the knowledge to master it themselves, or the money to pay an engineer. So, what are their options?
 
Well, they can try any of the existing online mastering services, of which there are dozens, if not hundreds. But I don't know of any that give instant previews. To answer cparmarlee's question, which is valid - "What does one do when their process doesn't work?" - the answer is simple: use someone else. It hasn't cost you a cent, or more than a couple minutes. A lot of my clients came to me because they weren't satisfied with what they got from a pro mastering engineer, in one case a Grammy award winner. If someone can be not satisfied with a Grammy award winning mastering engineer, they can certainly be not satisfied with an online automated mastering service. There's no crime in getting a second opinion, or taking your business elsewhere. 
 
I've already explained that as a pro mastering engineer, LANDR would be tremendously helpful when working with clients, for multiple reasons - primarily in terms of saving me time and saving them money be cutting down on the back-and-forth, and helping clients give me better mixes that I don't have to send back to them with instructions on needed changes. I'm not going to go through describing it all over again. the short form is in the eZine. So I guess if you want to ascribe dark motives, okay...I would indeed benefit from working with  a client who has access to LANDR.
 
My job is helping people make better music. That's what I do at Harmony Central, that's what I do with the Tip of the Week, that's what I do with articles for Gibson.com, and especially, when someone entrusts me with their mixes to enhance their talent and help them express their vision. Helping musicians is why I put all my circuits in the public domain instead of patenting them. That's why Peavey, Steinberg, Electro-Harmonix, TASCAM, Line 6, Kurzweil, and many others have used my designs without my asking, or wanting, anything in return. I get nothing from the content I'm generating for Cakewalk, including projects for which they charge money, like the Gibson Bass Collection. The reward is when I get a PM from someone saying they did a shootout of virtual basses, and they liked mine best. I helped them make better music. Mission accomplished.
 
So now there's a tool that could be genuinely helpful to people - how many threads have you seen in this forum about mastering and/or getting a better sound? - and Cakewalk thinks people would appreciate having it available as part of SONAR so a file can be exported to LANDR as easily as it can be exported to FLAC. And they're accused of forcing things down peoples' throats, disseminating bloatware, partnering with a company that "preys on the ignorant," etc. Even people who've never tried LANDR feel eminently qualified to say it's crap.
 
You want to put LANDR out of business? Here's how: start a web site, and tell people you'll master anything they send you for $9 (you want to compete with LANDR, so charge a buck less for a WAV file one-off). You'll give them three versions within a couple minutes at any time of the day or night, and if they don't like the results, they don't have to pay anything. Oh, and make sure you give better results than what LANDR gives, or there's no point in trying to compete.
 
I've gotten into trouble with professional mastering engineers by telling people it's not a black art, and if you have great ears, good acoustics, accurate monitors, and know how signal processing and waveform editing works, you can do mastering. You'll suck at first, but the  more you do it, the better you'll get. It took me 20 years to reach a skill level to where I was worth being paid thousands of dollars to master peoples' music, but I got there. People who consider themselves "great" mastering engineers don't like my attitude that anyone can do it if they work hard enough. They want people to think it's a black art (well it is for vinyl, but that's a whole other story, and that's how they got that black art reputation).
 
Now I'm getting into trouble for recommending that people try something with the potential to make their music sound better. But, that's not why I'm being persistent. I don't want people who could truly benefit from this to be swayed by people with closed minds and hateful attitudes. All we hear from the haters is "LANDR won't do what a great human mastering engineer can do."
 
The irony, of course, is that they are unknowingly repeating what LANDR itself says on their site**, and even in their press release. What the haters aren't saying is what LANDR does do, probably because they don't know. It's frustrating to have spent hours checking it out, testing it, doing evals, discussing it with others, then distilling that experience into 25 minutes of writing a quick read in the eZine to give people a head start on understanding what it can and cannot do...and then realizing that work was for nothing. Those with open minds will try it out and figure out what's useful about it and what isn't, so they don't need to have it explained to them because they're smart and will figure it out anyway. Those with a "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up" attitude won't read it.
 
So, that also means there's no point in continuing this dialog because I've said everything I need to say. If people want to limit their options, then vaya con dios. Go learn how to master, you'll learn a lot in the process.
 
 
**"The polish and balance achieved through the subtle adjustments of a skilled mastering engineer is not something we would ever diminish. There are some very talented engineers out there with exceptional ears, capable of brilliant work. It’s a beautiful art form, but there’s also a lot of science behind it, as our resident astrophysicist can attest. What we've designed is a tool that’s so easy and affordable to use, it just makes sense to try LANDR out first. If you’re unsure of the results, and can afford to invest more time, effort and money, then pro mastering may well be worth your while. Having a LANDR file as a reference can be a useful tool; along with your feedback it will guide a mastering engineer in the right direction." - LANDR FAQ

rcklln
I think it would be best to have the LANDR installation/integration listed as a separate install item in C3.

X 1000