Leee
I'm starting to read good things about LANDR, so hopefully they have fixed the speed problem.

Not to discount your problem at all, but it has always been very fast for me, less than a minute for upload and processing. (But then again, I have a gigabit connection).

My 2 cents...

1. Landr - when I realised it wasn't a plugin but a paid subscription service, I felt a little betrayed. Sonar has become awesome since the intro of the new business model but this diminishes that IMHO. 
2. I understand Noel's partner argument like Melodyne or Addictive. This is not the same thing at all.   
3. Having listened to a number of Landr pre-post masters, I really don't like it - everything seems to sound the same!
4. I haven't seen EBUR128 / ITU BS.1770-3 mentioned yet. How does Landr conform to the CALMS act in the USA or the new European broadcast standards. That's a biggie!
5. Doesn't do vinyl (I think)
6. It might be useful for music students or independents on a shoestring budget.
7. I teach mastering and critical listening skills. Mastering is an excellent process for understanding what makes a great mix - kind of reverse engineering approach. Landr hides this valuable point.  
8. It shouldn't be integrated. 
9. If anything, perhaps the Cakewalk team are realising the considerable sense of ownership and loyalty their clients have toward this! 
10. If you want to offer mastering, consider this:
    1. developing the mastering preset chains and a mastering plugin suite 
    2. offering a mastering flow like Audition does with spectrum analyser and, ITU/EBUR128 LUFS -23 metering (a la TC Electronic /Waves WLM PLus) 
    3. Include a facility for creating Red Book CD output i.e. DDP file, PQ code, CD-Text info 
11. I'd rather put the money into Sonar for point 10 rather than running a separate mastering DAW.

There, my ...um 5 dollars worth...
 
G 

garyhb
My 2 cents...

1. Landr - when I realised it wasn't a plugin but a paid subscription service, I felt a little betrayed. Sonar has become awesome since the intro of the new business model but this diminishes that IMHO. 
2. I understand Noel's partner argument like Melodyne or Addictive. This is not the same thing at all.   
3. Having listened to a number of Landr pre-post masters, I really don't like it - everything seems to sound the same!
4. I haven't seen EBUR128 / ITU BS.1770-3 mentioned yet. How does Landr conform to the CALMS act in the USA or the new European broadcast standards. That's a biggie!
5. Doesn't do vinyl (I think)
6. It might be useful for music students or independents on a shoestring budget.
7. I teach mastering and critical listening skills. Mastering is an excellent process for understanding what makes a great mix - kind of reverse engineering approach. Landr hides this valuable point.  
8. It shouldn't be integrated. 
9. If anything, perhaps the Cakewalk team are realising the considerable sense of ownership and loyalty their clients have toward this! 
10. If you want to offer mastering, consider this:
    1. developing the mastering preset chains and a mastering plugin suite 
    2. offering a mastering flow like Audition does with spectrum analyser and, ITU/EBUR128 LUFS -23 metering (a la TC Electronic /Waves WLM PLus) 
    3. Include a facility for creating Red Book CD output i.e. DDP file, PQ code, CD-Text info 
11. I'd rather put the money into Sonar for point 10 rather than running a separate mastering DAW.

There, my ...um 5 dollars worth...
 
G 

This (overall) LANDR thread just has me so annoyed.   There  are many things in here that are just crazy.   Also, I have interacted with some LANDR personnel and they are very dedicated to the art of making music!  
 
 LANDR is a tool!   If you don't want to use it, don't.  It doesn't prevent anyone from learning about mastering anymore than using an Ozone preset does.  If someone wants to learn, they'll learn but in the meantime, maybe not at the expense of getting their current projects finished. I happen know a lot about it but find it difficult and time consuming and prefer to leave to it someone (or now something) else.  Thats like saying using a preset on a plugin prevents you from learning how to use the plugin.    
 
How does offering offer LANDR diminish anything?   Its just another choice given to the users, and potentially a very helpful one
 
It IS the same thing as melodyne or Addictive.   SONAR had just made another agreement with a partner to help us make music.  That is all.

LANDR is useful for everyone!  It just depends on where in your workflow you choose to use it.  Its a great way to check your mix along the way. I will go out on a limb and say I bet MOST of us are on low budgets  and with Mastering being a very expensive final and I mean FINAL step.     As Ive said, LANDR sounds better than MOST budget mastering engineers I've encountered including Discmakers and other independents thats Ive tried.  The only consistently better choices are the true pro Mastering houses that charge over 1K for an album.  I don;t have that kind of cash and neither fo my clients.  Problems with independent and lower cost mastering is brittle hi-end, over compressed/limited,  too loud, not loud enough, dull sound.  LANDR:  The sound is even and consistent and if your Mix is exciting, so will your master be.  It may not add the absolutel mahjor release sheen but its pretty close and my music hangs with major releases.  If my song came on after something else, no one would look around and say, " that song sounbd liuke crap and was probably mastered by LANDR"  My LANDR masters maintain the personality "I" put into them.  Period

Why shouldnt it be integrated?   Just don't use it then.  FOr me, I might enjoy the integration and like the fact I don;t have to do separate steps.  It doesnt hurt anyone having it integrated and will only help those who use it.

LANDR is here to stay as is many other AI and technological inovation on the forefront.   Embrace them and learn to move forward with them .  THEY WILL NOT BE GOING AnAY