artturner
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 187
- Joined: 2014/10/16 12:59:07
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/24 19:47:16
(permalink)
So how about a Sonar discount at the Landr site? 
ASRock X99 Extreme4 with Intel i7-6800k 3.4 Ghz32 GB DDR4 Ram | Windows 10 Pro x64 Sonar Platinum x64 | RME Babyface ProSoundcloud
|
auto_da_fe
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1866
- Joined: 2004/08/04 21:32:18
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/24 20:15:45
(permalink)
This is perfect for me. I am lazy and crunched for time and this does do a decent job. I tried my two free, and I am pleased. I will try two more free ones next month and if the next two are like the first two - sign me up. I think it is really neat to watch that guy on PBS doing all that word working without power tools, and I really am blown away by the skill and the mastery. However, that is not me - I am lazy and impatient, so this fits right in my wheel house.  JR
HP DV6T - 2670QM, 8 GB RAM, Sonar Platypus, Octa Capture, BFD2 & Jamstix3, Komplete 10 and Komplete Kontrol Win 10 64 SLS PS8R Monitors and KRK Ergo https://soundcloud.com/airportface
|
bapu
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86000
- Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/24 20:27:49
(permalink)
I've never used everything in SONAR and I will probably not use LANDR (maybe).
Not meant as an analogy, just saying. To each his own.
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/24 22:14:53
(permalink)
joeb1cannoli
My studio budget for the year went to upgrading my monitors and upgrading Ozone 7 from standard to advanced ...
I'm gonna be really pissed if LANDR does a better job than me I doubt that you need to worry about that. The examples I have heard were all about making it louder and the jump in dB was so great I couldn't really hear if anything was qualitatively improved. I presume they must be doing SOMETHING besides just compressing and pushing to max volume, but it seems there isn't much insight into their process nor much control over it. What would be really cool would be if Ozone could evolve to have a "wizard" mode where Ozone would offer up some settings based on an analysis of the audio. That would be a big step forward from the static presets. I'd pay serious money for that. I think the big objections to LANDR are: 1) The options less than $108/year are completely worthless, and even the $108 option still gives you a compressed file. We are spending about that same amount for ALL of Splat. This seems way out of proportion as a value proposition. If it were more like $25/year maybe people would feel differently. 2) It was forced on the users, and appears to be more to Cakewalk's benefit than the user's benefit. Had it been presented as an option that one doesn't need to install, I doubt there would be objections.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/24 22:27:31
(permalink)
stxx
YOU MUST NOT PEAK HIGHER THAN -5! LANDR says this for a reason!
I hear that comment a lot regarding mastering. I don't get it. Of course if the mix is clipping, that is a problem, but otherwise, why can't they just normalize the input to any level that is suitable as input to the mastering process?
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/24 22:29:10
(permalink)
cparmerlee
I doubt that you need to worry about that. The examples I have heard were all about making it louder and the jump in dB was so great I couldn't really hear if anything was qualitatively improved. This post uses the low setting and provides some stats. 1) The options less than $108/year are completely worthless, and even the $108 option still gives you a compressed file. Whether that's worthless or not depends on your gig. It was forced on the users, and appears to be more to Cakewalk's benefit than the user's benefit. Had it been presented as an option that one doesn't need to install, I doubt there would be objections. It would like have reduced the number of objections, but then there would still be the objections that the concept itself is flawed, and since creating a separate installer would take more time and testing, there would still be the complaints that Cakewalk spent time on something particular individuals didn't want.
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/24 22:39:36
(permalink)
Anderton
Whether that's worthless or not depends on your gig.
Would you give a 192 kb MP3 to a client? I wouldn't. I didn't realize anybody worked on those levels other than for radio streaming or something else where quality isn't critical. One of the pieces of advice that I have found most useful on this forum recently was to try the Sonnox encoder. One of the features of Sonnox is a VST that will show you visually how much fidelity you are losing at different compression levels on different material. This has been quite revealing. I expected that the losses would all be at one part of the spectrum, (most likely the high end). What Sonnox shows is that the encoding losses can happen anywhere in the spectrum, depending on the material. For my stuff, 256 is really the lowest fixed bitrate that isn't extremely lossy. And with rates under 200, I see losses all over the spectrum pretty much continuously. I just don't get the point of software that is supposed to polish the sound, but then returns the product in such a lossy format. I am not against the concept of using computer intelligence / automated analysis to assist in the mastering process. On the contrary, I like that idea. I just don't think this particular value proposition is very strong.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
mixmkr
Max Output Level: -43.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3169
- Joined: 2007/03/05 22:23:43
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/24 23:06:33
(permalink)
bitflipper
I'm curious...has LANDR really become "the leading online mastering service"? And in such a short time?
"Leading" suggests there are competitors, but I don't know of any. At least, not any with that business model.
All the way to Abby Road Mastering. Online mastering is extremely popular, with the mastering engineers all having fun bashing HarBal ;-D
|
Leee
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 783
- Joined: 2004/12/21 11:31:00
- Location: The Great NorthWest
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 01:00:03
(permalink)
So I was kind of excited when I saw "AI" and "Mastering" in the same sentence. For me (as I suspect for a lot of musicians) mastering is the hardest part of post-production work. So I was really eager to try out LANDR, I figured this "artificial intelligence" will probably know how to master my songs better than I do. Well the first red flag went up went I realized it had to upload the song to the LANDR site. With my Internet connection, with my son hogging the bandwidth with his video games, uploading a 4 minute wav file took way too long (over 7 minutes). The second red flag is finding out that you have to pay the highest subscription plan, just to get a decent choice of options. I already shelled out a bunch of money recently upgrading to Izotope's Ozone 7 Advanced. And I get by with the dozens of presets it offers (usually tweaking them a bit to get the sound I want). But even if I didn't own Ozone, Sonar Platinum offers many off-line mastering tools that are available within the program itself...immediately ready to use. But the most important reason I won't be using LANDR, is ironically because I realized I do NOT want to use the AI to master my songs. Even though Ozone comes with presets, you still have to tweak the various modules to get the sound just right for each individual song. And working hands-on with compressors, exciters, EQ's, and all the other mastering tools, you are actually LEARNING how to master. I have learned a lot from using not only Ozone, but with all the other tools within Sonar. And I think mastering is an important part of the music production experience, and from what I've seen with LANDR, you are missing out on "getting your hands dirty" and learning how to do it on your own. But I guess some folks just want to write their songs, and press the "Doesn't Suck" magic button, to make their songs sound better. In which case, if you don't mind waiting for the upload, and don't mind paying extra money for tools you already have, then LANDR is probably something you'd want to invest in. I think a lot of people were surprised at the added expense, and ultimately disappointed that this new feature is not free. Maybe to ease the sticker shock, Cakewalk should add a little footnote on the Updates page, stating that LANDR costs additional money to use. (I haven't read all the previous posts in this thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating something that was already said)
post edited by Leee - 2016/02/25 01:18:32
Lee Shapirowww.soundclick.com/leeshapiro Welcome BandLab and thank you for giving Cakewalk and Sonar a new lease on life.
|
skitch_84
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 480
- Joined: 2012/09/23 07:14:47
- Location: Okayama, Japan
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 02:08:20
(permalink)
Here's what Steven Slate had to say about Landr and this kind of technology. Spoiler: he was actually very optimistic about it. https://www.gearslutz.com/board/10438197-post77.html
Followed are plenty of people arguing against his statements, so have fun reading!
post edited by skitch_84 - 2016/02/25 02:24:56
Chris Porter www.cportermusic.comListen to my original work on Soundcloud and YouTubeGet my original soundtracks on Bandcamp Sonar Platinum "2017.04", Windows 10 64-bit, ASUS Z170-A, i7 6700K (4.0GHz), 32GB DDR4 RAM, 250GB SSD 850 EVO (OS/Sonar/Plugins), 1TB SSD 850 EVO (Sample Libraries), 3TB WD Black HDD (projects/audio), Noctua NH-D14 Cooling Unit, PreSonus AudioBox USB Interface, M-AUDIO Oxygen49
|
mettelus
Max Output Level: -22 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5321
- Joined: 2005/08/05 03:19:25
- Location: Maryland, USA
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 02:37:20
(permalink)
Be very wary about thinking of "AI" as a selling point, since it is only as intelligent as the programmer. Nice term to throw out, but in reality it is more likely an analysis tool followed by a preset choice. Beyond that point it is unknown, but if a human never touches it, that is all there is.
ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero (Wi-Fi AC), i7-8700k, 16GB RAM, GTX-1070Ti, Win 10 Pro, Saffire PRO 24 DSP, A-300 PRO, plus numerous gadgets and gizmos that make or manipulate sound in some way.
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 07:49:16
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby Mitch_I 2016/02/25 11:36:46
That's not accurate - Landr uses Machine learning. If you look at the theory, machine learning is as accurate as the DATA its given rather than as intelligent as the programmer. Unlike conventional programming where you write an algorithm to solve a problem, machine learning is a branch of data science where the data is used to solve the problem. One definition is "Machine learning is a field of study that gives computers the ability to learn without being explicitly programmed" There is a brief overview here. Machine learning is being used widely for all kinds of applications today including DSP, studying the brain, medicine and finance. As I mentioned earlier, our Vocal sync feature was designed using machine learning to understand how to analyze and extract data from a huge subset of vocals samples. I'm not sure why there is so much resistance and doubt about applications that use modern science to solve problems. It sounds like a repeat of fears people had about computers taking over when I first started out in programming 35 years ago :) Did that happen - of course not, people just use them to work more efficiently now.
post edited by Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk] - 2016/02/25 13:16:09
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 08:34:42
(permalink)
skitch_84
Here's what Steven Slate had to say about Landr and this kind of technology. Spoiler: he was actually very optimistic about it.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/10438197-post77.html
Followed are plenty of people arguing against his statements, so have fun reading!
That's actually a great thread. I hadn't seen it - its great that Steven Slate is so open minded and gets this technology. Some great quotes from that thread that resonated with me: "Ultimately, if someone uses LANDR or any similar service and LIKES THE RESULT, then they got their money's worth. Perhaps they could have gotten a better result from a mastering engineer... perhaps that would have cost them money they didn't have... and... perhaps they would have gotten WORSE results from a mastering engineer. Human Mastering doesn't mean quality either. I've had some mastering engineers butcher my mixes, others have made them sound amazing." "Abstraction and innovation is to often confused with "oversimplification". But this increase in efficiency is what drove humanity since the beginning. This efficiency is what secures your rent, cares for your health and increases your living standard (which is much higher than what we had just 20 years ago, isn't it?)."
|
thepianist65
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 644
- Joined: 2004/07/30 15:09:51
- Location: Boston, MA
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 08:48:48
(permalink)
I tried it out yesterday. I was disappointed that you only get a 30 second preview to decide if you want to make the master. I, too, feel like the price for quality ratio is kind of poor, I would prefer a different business model, at least less expensive. I also use Ozone and feel like their presets and my ears do a pretty good job, but I'm not at all opposed to the LANDR concept, just the execution. It also took quite a while to load my 2:30 length song, which surprised me, my internet is very fast. But I'm going to play around with it a while, try a few different use cases (such as outlined in the ezine, which I agree is a must-read) before I decide if I wish to purchase a subscription or pay by the song for a finished mastered version.
|
fireberd
Max Output Level: -38 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3704
- Joined: 2008/02/25 14:14:28
- Location: Inverness, FL
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 08:56:38
(permalink)
I just uninstalled it. For my uses, I don't need or want it.
"GCSG Productions" Franklin D-10 Pedal Steel Guitar (primary instrument). Nashville Telecaster, Bass, etc. ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero M/B, i7 6700K CPU, 16GB Ram, SSD and conventional hard drives, Win 10 Pro and Win 10 Pro Insider Pre-Release Sonar Platinum/CbB. MOTU 896MK3 Hybrid, Tranzport, X-Touch, JBL LSR308 Monitors, Ozone 5, Studio One 4.1 ISRC Registered Member of Nashville based R.O.P.E. Assn.
|
jpetersen
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1499
- Joined: 2015/07/11 20:22:53
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 09:09:05
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
That's not accurate - Landr uses Machine learning. If you look at the theory, machine learning is as accurate as the DATA its given rather than as intelligent as the programmer....our Vocal sync feature was designed using machine learning to understand how to analyze and extract data from a huge subset of vocals samples.
In the Vocal sync case I can see the mechanism behind analyzing many vocal examples to find out common characteristics in these files. But with LANDR, what is it learning? Who is giving it feedback to say, "That sounds better, what you did this time is right"? It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out all it does is figure out genre based on tempo, harmonic density, etc. and then applies a preset, possibly even on a commercially available mastering tool.
|
Sooperbohl
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 46
- Joined: 2008/07/21 20:42:01
- Location: Seattle WA
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 09:09:34
(permalink)
I for one have loved using Cakewalk since Sonar 5. I know some of you go way back. I loved Sonar for its simplicity and what it did best, record great tracks. Pretty decent effects and to run smooth with no pop's, hiss or down time. Lately, all the added gizmo's and third party collaborations, lite version this and lite version that, all added with the intention of upgrading to the full version. I can do without all that. Just give me a good simple product and I can buy whichever add on I like and choose. I love the forward thinking from Cakewalk but don't make this great product too complicated. Just my two cents.
Soop
Studio Cat DAW!, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, Fractal Audio Axe FX, TC Helicon Alesis Midiverb 4, M Audio Axiom 49, Kurzweil PC3X, Korg Triton, Roland Gaia and on and on and on!
|
gswitz
Max Output Level: -18.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5694
- Joined: 2007/06/16 07:17:14
- Location: Richmond Virginia USA
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 09:41:36
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
That's not accurate - Landr uses Machine learning. If you look at the theory, machine learning is as accurate as the DATA its given rather than as intelligent as the programmer. Unlike conventional programming where you write an algorithm to solve a problem, machine learning is a branch of data science where the data is used to solve the problem. One definition is "Machine learning is a field of study that gives computers the ability to learn without being explicitly programmed" There is a brief overview here.
Machine learning is being used widely for all kinds of applications today including DSP, studying the brain, medicine and finance. As I mentioned earlier, our Vocal sync feature was designed using machine learning to understand how to analyze and extract data from a huge subset of vocals samples.
I'm not sure why there is so much resistance and doubt about applications that use modern science to solve problems. It sounds like a repeat of fears people had about computers taking over when I first started out in programming 35 years ago :) Did that happen - of course not, people just use them to work more efficiently now.
Noel, I don't think people doubt the science, at least I don't, but there is a difference between a clear view and a short distance. By this I mean that just because you apply decision trees or Bayesian or an attribute importance algorithm, doesn't mean the machine will solve the problem reliably. There are models and programmers involved not just data fed into a perfect machine. Lots of places for flaws. We can get there if we try is not the same as we have arrived. I am hopeful, just careful.
StudioCat > I use Windows 10 and Sonar Platinum. I have a touch screen. I make some videos. This one shows how to do a physical loopback on the RME UCX to get many more equalizer nodes.
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 09:42:22
(permalink)
cparmerlee
Anderton
Whether that's worthless or not depends on your gig.
Would you give a 192 kb MP3 to a client? I wouldn't. I guess you didn't follow the link, so here's the pertinent part: Well if there's one thing I've learned from all the back-and-forth here, it's that apparently there aren't a lot of professional mastering or mix engineers who frequent this forum. I guess they're off making money and doing projects. MP3s are the lingua franca for giving quick demos to clients. They don't want uncompressed WAV files to put on their iPhones to listen to mixes. They don't want something with no EQ or multiband limiting, because they're going to be listening in context with other material. They want a ballpark approximation of a finished product while they listen to rough mixes to figure out what to do next. A lot of mix engineers do not consider themselves mastering engineers, with good reason; they're different skill sets. The client can either do the supremely stupid thing of paying a mastering engineer several hundred dollars to master a mix that will never be released so they can listen to it on their smart phone, pay the mix engineer to do a mastering job at the usual rates, or with LANDR, get a ballpark approximation for very little $$ in a couple minutes while the rest of the band is fidgeting and waiting to go home.
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 10:03:32
(permalink)
jpetersen
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
That's not accurate - Landr uses Machine learning. If you look at the theory, machine learning is as accurate as the DATA its given rather than as intelligent as the programmer....our Vocal sync feature was designed using machine learning to understand how to analyze and extract data from a huge subset of vocals samples.
In the Vocal sync case I can see the mechanism behind analyzing many vocal examples to find out common characteristics in these files.
But with LANDR, what is it learning? Who is giving it feedback to say, "That sounds better, what you did this time is right"?
It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out all it does is figure out genre based on tempo, harmonic density, etc. and then applies a preset, possibly even on a commercially available mastering tool.
This is a gross oversimplification but machine learning, like classical numerical analysis takes an input, parametrizes it and then applies a transformation function to produce a new output. I don't know the specifics of what Landr does obviously, but its quite likely the transform does a spectral analysis of the audio and then using that data maps the input parameters to multiple plugin parameters that reside in the mastering chain. I expect that the parameter mapping would be done dynamically using automation so as to react to changes in the audio content on the timeline. Its not simply applying a preset but dynamically changing the DSP to produce the final result, much like a human mastering engineer would do by listening to the audio and making decisions to correct the frequency balance or loudness. The machine learning is what generates the mapping from the source data to the final parameters. Machine learning essentially builds a data driven algorithm. In the learning process you feed it thousands or more samples of human curated data sets of input and output data. The software learns from that data and generates the transform that predicts the mapping. The more data you feed it the closer to reality it gets. It's exactly the same approach we used for vocal sync just applied to solve a different problem. If you aren't familiar with machine learning, its quite astonishing how accurate the results get over time especially as you give it more exception cases and boundary conditions.
post edited by Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk] - 2016/02/25 10:31:07
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 10:16:46
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby gswitz 2016/02/25 13:52:48
Although I haven't much use for LANDR I say the more the merrier. As above, there are home recordists w/o the time to learn mastering, or new to recording and just don't want their songs self-butchered in mastering. Many SONAR users are more musician than engineer, so this can be a help.
Doesn't mean you have to use it, and I'm sure it didn't cost Cake a penny, or much anyway and some users will benefit. I don't see a downside at all, except for the surprise of a big honking shortcut on my screen.
@
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome
http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 10:17:07
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
If you look at the theory, machine learning is as accurate as the DATA its given rather than as intelligent as the programmer.
That only works in a closed loop system where the "AI engine" can make judgments (actually, try things randomly) and then determine QUALITATIVELY whether the outcome is better or worse. That's the rub. If we knew algorithmically how to judge "goodness", then we really wouldn't need an AI engine. That's why 99.9999% of the AI promises made over the last 50 years have ended in failure. In 1985,people were talking about the imminent times when medicine would be practiced by AI. The computer would have much better knowledge than the very best doctors. But not only do we still not have AI practicing medicine, Siri still can't carry out the most basic request with more than about 20% accuracy. I would love to have a magic button to make all my mixes sound better. So far, I'm not seeing anything very special in this LANDR stuff that I can't do in the same amount of time with Ozone.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 10:21:41
(permalink)
Anderton
I guess you didn't follow the link,
Yes, I did read that. But I asked you a very specific question. Would you provide a client an MP3 file crunched below a 200 kb bitrate? I would not, regardless of whether it was targeted for an iphone or not. If your answer is "yes", that's OK with me. I just don't get the point of going to all the trouble to make the music sound its best and then crunch the life out of it.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 10:22:58
(permalink)
cparmerlee
That only works in a closed loop system where the "AI engine" can make judgments (actually, try things randomly) and then determine QUALITATIVELY whether the outcome is better or worse. That's the rub. If we knew algorithmically how to judge "goodness", then we really wouldn't need an AI engine.
Its definitely possible to judge "goodness" using machine learning. Its based on how much data is fed into the learning engine. By feeding the engine thousands of samples of human curated "good" masters the system learns to predict what is considered to be good. There will always be exception cases where the system fails but its surprisingly accurate. As explained even in the vocal sync case the system learned to make good predictions as it was fed more curated data.
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 10:32:23
(permalink)
jpetersen
But with LANDR, what is it learning? Who is giving it feedback to say, "That sounds better, what you did this time is right"?
PRECISELY. I have some knowledge of AI systems with missile guidance. In a system like that, instruments are able to measure the target, They can provide instant feedback as to whether the "AI" maneuvers are helping to reach the target or working against that objective. Over time, such a system can "learn" what maneuvers under what circumstances are likely to be most productive. There is no such feedback loop in this mastering thing. jpetersen
It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out all it does is figure out genre based on tempo, harmonic density, etc. and then applies a preset, possibly even on a commercially available mastering tool.
Once again, PRECISELY on the mark. I question whether there is even any real "AI engine" involved in the process. It does seem to be a case of software analyzing the sound file and selecting a preset that fits a profile. It is not computer learning without that feedback loop. At best, one might stretch to call it an "expert system" because presumably there are some mastering experts involved to help fit different sound patterns to different presets. If done well, that could be useful, but the examples I have seen so far don't seem to do much more than compressing and jacking up the dB level. I think a person could get pretty much the same results simply by adding a multi-band compressor and the Concrete Limiter to the master bus in their mix.
post edited by cparmerlee - 2016/02/25 10:47:36
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 10:40:28
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
cparmerlee
That only works in a closed loop system where the "AI engine" can make judgments (actually, try things randomly) and then determine QUALITATIVELY whether the outcome is better or worse. That's the rub. If we knew algorithmically how to judge "goodness", then we really wouldn't need an AI engine.
Its definitely possible to judge "goodness" using machine learning. Its based on how much data is fed into the learning engine. By feeding the engine thousands of samples of human curated "good" masters the system learns to predict what is considered to be good. There will always be exception cases where the system fails but its surprisingly accurate. As explained even in the vocal sync case the system learned to make good predictions as it was fed more curated data.
I take your point. However goodness is quite a subjective thing, and varies widely across musical genres. In theory, with enough curation, what you say is possible. From what I have seen so far, it ain't ready for prime time. It may provide a quick-and-dirty improvement more times than not, which could be worth something to some people. But again, I am not hearing results that seem to be substantially better than simply dropping a MB compressor on the master bus and then using Concrete Limiter to crank the whole thing up to max dB (which itself isn't necessarily a good thing in the first place.) At the right price and the right speed and right quality of output files, I might use the thing on occasion. But IMHO, this offering is wrong on all three counts.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 11:23:09
(permalink)
cparmerlee
jpetersen
But with LANDR, what is it learning? Who is giving it feedback to say, "That sounds better, what you did this time is right"?
PRECISELY. I have some knowledge of AI systems with missile guidance. In a system like that, instruments are able to measure the target, They can provide instant feedback as to whether the "AI" maneuvers are helping to reach the target or working against that objective. Over time, such a system can "learn" what maneuvers under what circumstances are likely to be most productive.
There is no such feedback loop in this mastering thing. Actually, there's at least one that I know of. There are three levels of intensity. I would never use the high level but then again, I don't master Metallica . To my ears the low level "does no harm" on pretty much anything, and the medium level may or may not work, depending on the program material. If 60% of the users choose the low one, 30% the medium one, and 10% the high one, then if the people running LANDR took that into account they would bump up the intensity of the middle one somewhat, and insert another option that splits the difference between low and medium to round out the three options. Also, I highly doubt that no humans are involved in any aspect of LANDR. I assume they have a database of well-mastered material they use for comparison. I also suspect they do the "this call may be monitored for quality assurance" thing. If masters in particular genres are constantly being rejected, it would be foolish if a human didn't listen to them and try to analyze what doesn't work. Then they can program the algorithms to take a different path. Here's an example. When I master, I always look for resonances that are a constant throughout a piece. This is most common with acoustic projects and live recordings due to room resonances. I then apply a notch to deal with this. If this isn't in LANDR's algorithm, and they find that acoustic and live recordings keep getting their masters rejected, someone might tell LANDR to look for resonances above a certain peak value that don't change with different notes and keys. The article I linked to about "sonic signatures" is very much a part of understanding mastering. And, anyone who has asked for more analytics in SONAR, like being able to detect average levels, understands that many aspects of audio (note I didn't say music) CAN be quantified in the mastering stage. The human ear is much less sensitive to level variations than pitch variations, which is why something like Pleasurize's attempts to end the "loudness wars" are commendable. They provide a measurement tool that quantifies dynamic range, and makes recommendations on what dynamic range to aim for with particular styles of music. In conjunction with understanding the "sonic signature" of different kinds of music, this is something a machine could handle easily. It could also handle looking for frequency response anomalies, like excessive buildup in the 300 - 400 Hz range, which is a common problem with many mixes. I don't believe we're at a stage where algorithm mastering can replace a good mastering engineer, and although "never say never," I don't see that happening any time soon. But there are a lot of people out there who don't know how to master and can't afford to pay for it. Getting an acceptable mastering job is a big improvement over no mastering at all, and if they want a stellar mastering job, then can pay a couple hundred bucks for it instead of $10. cparmerlee
I think a person could get pretty much the same results simply by adding a multi-band compressor and the Concrete Limiter to the master bus in their mix. Not if they didn't have at least 8 stages of EQ, and probably some imaging. But that's not the point. The point is that they'll only get the same results if they know how to set the EQ, dynamics, and imaging to create an acceptable master. That's not a given. If they know how to master, then they don't need to hire a mastering engineer, nor do they need to use LANDR. If they get the results they want with a preset from Ozone, great. But I've yet to find a preset that replaces what a mastering engineer can do; the preset doesn't know to look for resonances or frequency buildups. It seems to me that LANDR sits somewhere between calling up a preset, and calling a mastering engineer.
|
jpetersen
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1499
- Joined: 2015/07/11 20:22:53
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 11:34:02
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Its definitely possible to judge "goodness" using machine learning. Its based on how much data is fed into the learning engine. By feeding the engine thousands of samples of human curated "good" masters the system learns to predict what is considered to be good.
OK, I can accept that. And it turns out genre detection is, indeed, central to what they do. Quoting Justin Evans from LANDR: "Genre detection is something I can really get enthusiastic about discussing. It's been around in a pretty robust form for a number of years....Genre recognition isn't rocket science, similar processes are driving ... facial recognition in photos, recommendation engines, etc...we are hoping to release a live system that should be able to achieve a successful level of genre recognition within 1 second of live music, if not shorter." These guys at MixGenius are mix engineers by trade. With experience you take a listen to a project and pretty much automatically know, ah. One of those bands. And you pull out an old, similar project. They clearly decided to automate this process. Then, detecting and fixing nasty resonances is not far from what feedback suppressors do. And making broad assumptions about scooping heavy rock whilst pulling up vocals in ballads is what I mean by "presets". Software-wise, it's possible their analysis engine generates preset files that get loaded by the mastering tools. That's how I would do it. Nowhere do they claim to have built their own mastering tools. What else? Varying degrees of compression/limiting, exciters, etc. Give the user some settings to play with and the result is good enough for an "audio instagram" public. I am a bit skeptical on this. I remember similar attributions of voodoo surrounding the Audio Enhancers from BBE back in the day.
|
stxx
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 406
- Joined: 2010/01/31 17:32:02
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 12:01:24
(permalink)
Plain and simple. Landr does a lot - way more than just compression. I've used it for multiple projects that are out on CD and clients and listeners are happy with the sound. Again, YOUR MIX IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF MASTERING. The headroom is needed so things don't get overly crunched from the get go. They apparently do not do any pre-master level adjustments so your mix level as they are submitted become the starting point. Mastering is a difficult art and regardless of what many people say, I'm willing to bet LANDR does as good if not better job than most who are NOT real mastering people One key quality I like from them is CONSISTENCY. If I send 8 songs from a project there, they comes back sounding like they belong together. For me, when I attempt mastering, that is a difficult result to get. My mixes are excellent and I am a very very good mix and recording engineer but mastering is a whole other story and it drives me crazy, When I can't afford a real mastering person, I have no qualms using Landr instead. Low, medium or high all work depending on the style of music. Also, As I've said before, I pay less than half the normal rate so I get unlimited 44.1/16 wav files back as opposed to MP3s which I agree are not professional enough for many of our needs but to check you mix and get an idea how your stuff WILL sound mastered, its a great tool as well.
Sonar Platinum, RME UFX, UAD 2, Waves, Soundtoys, Fronteir Alphatrack, X-Touch as Contl Srfc, , Console 1, Sweetwater Creation Station Quad Core Win 8.1, Mackie 824, KRK RP5, AKG 240 MKII, Samson C-Control, Sennheiser, Blue, AKG, RODE, UA, Grace, Focusrite, Audient, Midas, ART Song Portfolio: https://soundcloud.com/allen-lind/sets/oth-short
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: The LANDR Thread
2016/02/25 12:09:48
(permalink)
cparmerlee
Yes, I did read that. But I asked you a very specific question. Would you provide a client an MP3 file crunched below a 200 kb bitrate? It depends. If I was creating the MP3 myself and it was a single, I'd just go for 320 kbps out of habit, regardless of whether people can hear the difference or not. I have the Sonnox encoder and have done extensive comparisons of bit rate vs. perceived quality. Most people can't hear the difference between 160 kbps and 320 kbps, let alone 192 kbps and 320. Once the bit rate gets below 160 kbps most, but certainly not all, people can tell the difference. But people don't know that, so they assume that 320 kbps is better based on the "it goes up to 11" principle. However if it was an album, that's a different issue. A typical album will take 145 MB at 320 kbps. Look at how many people complain because LANDR adds 100 MB on a desktop, probably with terabyte drives, then imagine your rock and roll buddy's iPhone with a music library, a couple movies, a bunch of apps, and because they never deleted and re-installed Tunein.com, there's 3.9 GB of playlist data files ...and another 2 GB of photos. At 192 kbs, that same album would be around 73 MB. That's a big difference in size, and unless they're listening through an outboard DAC and really good headphones, they're not going to notice a difference. (If they're listening through Beats, they wouldn't tell the difference if it was 128 kbps .) And remember that we're talking about something disposable - rough mixes. I would even argue that it's desirable for someone to hear what the average consumer will hear instead of what an audiophile hears if they're doing a "reality test." If they put even a 96 kHz/24-bit song on YouTube it will end up being compressed to much worse than 192 kbps. It's the same reason why people listen to mixes on Auratones. I would never demand that someone not listen on Auratones because I wanted them to hear the full quality of the mix. They can do that on the main speakers. Now, also remember that some people might be wanting to test out different song orders. I do that all the time where I have several versions of the same album on my portable player. Three versions at 320 kbps is going to be be close to half GB. At 192 kbps, a quarter GB. Right now I have 1.9 GB available on my iPhone. Which version do you think I'd put on there? But, this is why mastering engineers exist: they can make value judgments and tailor something to a specific situation. I think it's short-sighted to say you would "never" do something if it was against the client's best interests. I just don't get the point of going to all the trouble to make the music sound its best and then crunch the life out of it. Try this: get some musician friends in a room. Encode a rock song at 320 kbps and another version at 192 kbs. Do blind testing and switch back and forth. Let me know how many can identify the difference with better than random consistency.
|