bluzdog

pwalpwal
 
yet another: how different is this from harbal-on-a-server? (http://www.har-bal.com/ )

There is nothing automatic about Har-bal, there's not even presets. The EQ section is fantastic and a great learning tool. I have never been able to get my head around the dynamics section. I would say Landr and Har-bal are apples and oranges, 2 completely different animals.
 
Rocky

are they so different? isn't it just the "automatic" parts?
landr sets the style/genre by its analysis/machine learning, harbal needs user input/reference track
landr decides the required tweaks via its analysis/machine learning, harbal requires user input
landr applies those tweaks, harbal applies those tweaks
it seems like landr's replacing the human input required by harbal by its own analysis/machine learning, but both are still applying eq/compression changes according to a referenced goal, those input variables are the same? or was it just a lazy comparison?
 

Anderton

Psychobillybob

Anderton

Psychobillybob
It seems odd to me that Cakewalk wants to be taken seriously by the industry but then instead incorporates services that no real industry engineer would use...it's like saying we want to be professional just like the amateurs are...if you think people like Brad Blackwood or other mastering guys are not worth paying then you have no idea what you are doing, if you think some paid subscription service can get even remotely close to what those guys do you are uninformed...this is a bad idea just like gobbler and you guys need to hire some real audio studio engineers to work with your product development the team you have now is missing the boat.

Read pages 6 and 7. Even LANDR itself says this is NOT designed to replace traditional mastering engineers, but complement what they do. Anyone who thinks that the purpose of LANDR is to substitute robot-driven mastering on gigs normally done by professional mastering engineers is clueless about the concept.
 
I'm a professional mastering engineer. I've already explained how it benefits professional mastering engineers if they have clients with access to LANDR. 
 

Craig I appreciate that you've taken the time to look at this but really, its an algorithm...no matter what style of music you throw
at it, the results will be the same, how is that helpful in the slightest? Think it through, it is no different than slapping a "preset" across the master bus, the difference is it is supposed to emulate a "pre-master" preset...really? 
 
I really have a hard time believing a real mastering engineer would support this idea on any level.

What in the following from the linked material does not make sense to you as why I would welcome clients having access to this:
 
As a professional mastering engineer who is not threatened by LANDR at all (remember, LANDR doesn't do surgical mastering or restoration, only processing), I would have LOVED it if people could have had a free preview of what the dynamics processing they ask me to do would actually do to their music. For many clients I do separate masters with varying degrees of squashing, particularly if they ask me for maximum squashing and I'm trying to talk them out of it. It would be so easy if they compared what they wanted to one of the three options in LANDR.
 
And as any pro mastering engineer knows, adding dynamics and EQ changes will change the mix. I've had to do many a back-and-forth with a client because doing what they wanted altered the mix, so I suggested how to tweak their mix to preserve it in the light of what they wanted, and did another round. It would have saved me a lot of time if they could have had a rough idea - for free - before sending me their mix to master.
 
 

 
Yes Craig I read your comments before I posted, but frankly I don't see your point, I get that as a "mastering engineer" you want to help the client get somewhere faster, but this math program is not going to help very many do that, it is to ambiguous on the user input end. 
 
Frankly it seems like a "short cut" and you should know by now there are no such things...not in the real world...
 
I'm still waiting for anything worthy done by this program to step up to the plate and demonstrate its advantages...it seems like "snake oil" in code...the fact that you are claiming as a mastering engineer to support it does not give credibility to you or it in my book, post a file example of before and after that means something.
 
This is NOT how professional mastering guys work by the way...not the ones I work with and I have invoices from Sterling and Brad, besides providing gear for a few others...as usual your mileage may vary and apparently does...

chilldanny

Beepster
 
Are there any settings in the app relating to "Auto Updates" or is always going to be hunting around for an internet connection/updates?
 
Cheers.

In the LANDR desktop app go: File > Preferences > Account tab > Next to App settings un-tick 'Enable Notifications'
One would assume this would stop update notifications, I have no idea to be honest.  I only got the update prompt when opening the LANDR app, so I doubt you'd ever see it if you never use it.

Again, thank you for the extra info. Disabling notifications of course does not imply the program isn't going to seek out an internet connection and download/upload/generally creep around... but it's something.
 
I will reiterate here (as I did in the Newbury thread) that I am not opposed to LANDR as a tool for those who wish to use it.
 
I simply want it removed from the main installer/download.
 
Cheers.

Psychobillybob
Yes Craig I read your comments before I posted, but frankly I don't see your point, I get that as a "mastering engineer" you want to help the client get somewhere faster, but this math program is not going to help very many do that, it is to ambiguous on the user input end. 
 
Frankly it seems like a "short cut" and you should know by now there are no such things...not in the real world...
 
I'm still waiting for anything worthy done by this program to step up to the plate and demonstrate its advantages...it seems like "snake oil" in code...the fact that you are claiming as a mastering engineer to support it does not give credibility to you or it in my book, post a file example of before and after that means something.

 
Seriously - 
 
How can you not see what I've described in terms of LANDR's use TO ME has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "before" and "after"? How can you not see that I am not proposing that the LANDR master serve as anything more than a tool to help clients see what dynamics control does to a song? 
 
If you don't understand that, either I'm not capable of explaining, or you're not capable of listening. 

Psychobillybob
I'm still waiting for anything worthy done by this program to step up to the plate and demonstrate its advantages...

 
Listen to the before and after gswitz posted yesterday and decide for yourself. IF I had mastered it, would the mastered version have been better? I'd like to think so. Was he going to pay me to do it? I highly doubt it. Did he have the expertise to do what LANDR did? I don't know. He has another tool he can choose to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. And you have a problem with that because...?
 

the fact that you are claiming as a mastering engineer to support it does not give credibility to you or it in my book, post a file example of before and after that means something.

 
You seem confused as to exactly what aspects of it I support. I think you are not taking what I say at face value, but interpreting it through your own filters.
 

This is NOT how professional mastering guys work by the way...not the ones I work with and I have invoices from Sterling and Brad, besides providing gear for a few others...as usual your mileage may vary and apparently does...

 
I find it very difficult to believe that pro mastering engineers don't do alternate versions that they think will serve the client better than what the client thinks he wants, or at least give them a choice. But maybe you believe in "here, take it or leave it, I'm expert." If professional mastering guys work by having disregard for their clients, and if their goal is to keep their clients in the dark about the process so they can make themselves seem like they're so special, then yes, my mileage most definitely does vary. 
 

cparmerlee

pwalpwal
they still have to be explicitly programmed to self-learn...

This may fall into the realm of semantics, but the "explicit programming" in this case would be embedded in the AI framework.  The typical AI system consists mostly of "training" the system by feeding in data and having having the responses scored.  The system "learns" how to respond to various patterns in ways that produce the best score.  other than the "engine" itself, that isn't really programmed explicitly.
 

semantics for sure: the "self-learning engine" has to be programmed

Sylvan
Craig,
 
I read the ezine and understood immediately everything that you are saying over and over and over again. Newburyport has provided a new tool to use if I choose to use it.
 
I completely understand what LANDR is and is not intended to do. I guess my advantage is that I actually read the ezine and interpret it literally; it makes perfect sense.
 
I am sorry you are having to beat a dead horse over and over again. Your patience is notable indeed.

I think the problem is that these options have never existed before, so they're outside of peoples' frame of reference. They can relate these options only to that which existed before, so they have to put it into a box with which they're familiar. As soon as they hear "master" they can think of only one context, and their minds are closed to any other possible interpretation.
 
Thanks very much for understanding what I'm trying to communicate. 
 

Beepster
Disabling notifications of course does not imply the program isn't going to seek out an internet connection and download/upload/generally creep around...

This kind of thing should be clearly declared in big, red letters before releasing on an unsuspecting Sonarship. I consider myself fortunate I didn't install it.

Beepster
...while these other, purely subjective, arguments rage on...

They're not all purely subjective. It's clear from this thread that a lot of people have no idea what LANDR can and cannot do, and indeed, know little about how professional mastering works, or why LANDR says the goal isn't to replace traditional (i.e., good) mastering engineers but complement them. I'm simply trying to tell people what its applications are, and giving examples. Those "arguing" with me are arguing about points I didn't make.
 
As to your installer issue, it's not being ignored; there have been plenty of comments. (FWIW, it also seems Bitwig and PreSonus will be integrating LANDR with their programs in a similar fashion.)
 
 
 

@Craig... I meant it's being ignored by the Bakers (unless they've commented elsewhere on the point). You're the only one who's even acknowledged the installer thing.
 
As to how those other companies handle their bundling... well I don't use those programs so it doesn't matter. If I did though I'd be saying the same thing. Put it in a separate download.
 
Is LANDR aspiring to become the MCafee of the digital audio world?
 
Anyway, I'll give this a rest for now but I hope the Bakers consider this (as do the LANDR folks when negotiating deals with other beloved programs).
 
Sorry to be a spazzo dill. Just a little frustrated about this situation.
 
And of course, I still lurvs you The Craig so I'm especially sorry to cause you in particular any extra stress. As far as I'm concerned most of this other rabble is pointless because (if it were a separate install) it's a take it or leave it tool that people can use or not use. No harm in that.
 
Cheers.

No offense taken Beeps, it's a new thing and new things have birthing pains.
 
But in reference to my GoPro comments, I think a lot of the "pros" didn't get the memo that audio has been democratized. It used to be that working with audio was solely the province of pro musicians in pro studios using pro engineers. Apparently some people just can't shake that mindset, and recoginize there is a whole "underground" of millions of consumers who are playing with audio and video, and have absolutely zero interest in hiring a mastering engineer to master little Susie's school play, or Reverend Bob's Sunday sermon on "The Internet: The Ideal Place to Practice Turning the Other Cheek."
 
And if a neighbor comes to me and says "Hey, I hear you're a mastering engineer, can you do your mastering thang on Susie's school play? It's only an hour long!"...well if it's a really cool neighbor I would...if not...there's LANDR 

I'm a little bit dissapointed about this LANDR implementation to Sonar.
I do remember some discussions and questions here about a more specialized mastering section to Sonar. Is Landr now the result on this considerations? Hopefully not.
 
I'm not sure if it's a shame, that a DAW software full of creative tools and plugins, offers an unflexible dummy online mastering tool instead of a more sophisticated mastering section.
 
But, I gave LANDR a test drive with some of my latest orchestral based scoring tracks. It sounds not bad , but not really good. It gives the track a little bit more presence and more loudness. The same as I can achieve with some presets of a multiband compressor and a limiter.
What I miss in LANDR is more control over the result. It's always the same open eq presence with more highs and lows and 3 fixed loudness profiles.
 
-Markus

mdages
I do remember some discussions and questions here about a more specialized mastering section to Sonar. Is Landr now the result on this considerations? Hopefully not.

In the immortal words of Herman Cain "I don't have facts to back this up," but I'm pretty sure there are still plans to develop the mastering end of things...

DSP designers will supersede human ability to produce "goodness" uniformly on various input data. :-)

Any real LANDR users her?
Do you find LANDR sluggish today or is it just me? Every function takes forever to complete. :(