LANDR.com - the future of mastering??

[doinky]

This guy pretty well sums up why I use it and experiences the same things like having to resubmit a track for correction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EdfLwzQPEU

[ionly]

Pumping, distorted, pants. In this case, you get what you pay for (or don't pay for). An algorithm is NOT a set of human ears that offers objective feedback of your music. I can understand the market it is targeting, but no thanks this end.

[FrankJaeger]

This guy pretty well sums up why I use it and experiences the same things like having to resubmit a track for correction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EdfLwzQPEU

All I heard was "I'm lazy and cheap as f***"

[doinky]

All I heard was "I'm lazy and cheap as f***"

Exactly it's cheap and convenient, well said!

Artists who create their tracks are not lazy by a long shot. Mastering with Landr can actually be very smart both in money and getting a better expert to master for you while you focus on your tunes without wasting money on an engineer.

I am quite fine being 'lazy' in finding an expensive mastering engineer who will gouge me for money just to post up a tune and I'll Let Landr worry about mastering for me instead so I can focus on what I do best, create music.

[Gaja]

So I could hear the landr version totally squashing the song on my iPad speakers... If I can hear compression on these it usually means here's too much compression.
I'd like to hear a version with low intensity. If this is medium intensity, then I don't want to hear high intensity, like... Ever...
EDIT: also since I believe that 90% of the song happens before mixing and mixing and mastering share the last 10% (I would say that mixing should take up at least 8%) I personally don't think that mastering is as important as the hype around it suggests.
If your song is awesome, then people won't care about how it's mixed (well let's say the average listener). If the mix is really balanced and nice, then people won't care about how it's mastered. Mastering only ever really matters, if your song isn't really good to start with, or you write in a genre that doesn't accept proper composition and relies solely on mastering. Also mastering can't fix a poor mix, the same as mixing can't fix a poor performance, a great performance can't fix poor instruments, and great instruments can't fix a poor song.
And then many people who offer "mastering" services simply slap an ozone preset on the song and that's it (which as I understand is just about what landr seems to be doing). So I think it's all overhyped. I have a nice set of studio speakers, adjusted to perfectly fit the nicely treated room they're sitting in. I don't want my music to be so compressed that I can hear the compression through my ipad speakers, so I just sit down myself and do the last 2% of the process, namely getting a level and do minor EQ adjustments (EQ should not be necessary, ie the song should be mixed in a way that makes EQing in mastering unnecessary) such as remove resonances or add a dB or two of high end (if necessary).

[Theo.M]

I actually can't believe someone voted the LANDR version as better in this case. I must admit I am really shocked!

[mcatalao]

There's another issue at stake, when you work with other people, and in particular Mastering Engineers, you get an additional set of ears, from someone very detached from the other production processes.

In result, Master Engineers, often ask the engineer to change things in order to correct issues from the mix, give opinions and advice.

ALSO... The mastering process, looks at your work as a Whole. A set of 12 songs, will get different mastering processes and settings, but the M.E. will always consider the full work, not separated songs. He will find the conducting thread and discuss orders, timings between songs if they are recorded to CD, and other important stylistic considerations.

[mcatalao]

BTW, i heard the examples, and what i feel is that the LANDR version is loosing a lot of depth to the point the Reverb tails are completely lost. It's also pumping a lot (when the bass plays you feel everything going down, so it seems to me an exaggerated amount of limiting).

Seriously, i prefer to loose some loudness for the sake of musicality.

BTW, i wonder if they generate a "mastered for itunes" compatible file!

[FrankJaeger]

Exactly it's cheap and convenient, well said!

I think you meant to say "Exactly, it sounds cheap but who cares because its convenient". WELL SAID!!

Artists who create their tracks are not lazy by a long shot.

I don't know what fantasy world you live in but if I had a dollar for every time I watched somebody slop a track together and, when asked why, tell me "I'm just trying get paid/rich" I WOULD BE well on the way to being rich. Especially with this something for nothing generation that I am unfortunately apart of.

Philgarlic's LANDR version is a lifeless LOUD mess while his own master is quite the opposite. His own may not be as loud but I actually enjoyed listening to his version with the dynamic range controlled, but still intact.

[doinky]

Philgarlic's LANDR version is a lifeless LOUD mess while his own master is quite the opposite. His own may not be as loud but I actually enjoyed listening to his version with the dynamic range controlled, but still intact.

Respectfully, I admire the poster for even attempting to try it. I totally agree his is butchered by Landr. I don't know what he did.

If you can master yourself great, if you can afford a real engineer masterer great. I never insinuated Landr was better, here. But it can be good used elsewhere by others.

[JoshuaPhilgarlic]

Philgarlic's LANDR version is a lifeless LOUD mess while his own master is quite the opposite. His own may not be as loud but I actually enjoyed listening to his version with the dynamic range controlled, but still intact.

Respectfully, I admire the poster for even attempting to try it. I totally agree his is butchered by Landr. I don't know what he did. If you can master yourself great, if you can afford a real engineer masterer great. I never insinuated Landr was better, here. But it can be good used elsewhere by others.

Honestly I'd like to get my tracks a little bit louder so that they can approximately compete with what other people post on Soundcloud. But I'm no mastering guy. I use the master compressor in the SSL mixer, (sometimes) a master EQ and Ozone. I rise Ozone until it starts to sound ugly. That isn't as loud as other people do, but at the end, I prefer sound quality over loudness. And of course: when I finished producing a track I've no more patience to deal with mastering any longer and like to get rid of it. The journey is the reward .

[darkmode]

Very interesting thread. I'm still getting my head, (and ears) around mixing let alone mastering...what is the view on the AAMS Auto Audio Mastering System that's offered online?

 I'm hitting the sack now so will have to pick up your responses tomorrow. Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

[Theo.M]

I believe the free mastering, that gives the MP3 output, doesn't allow for selecting of intensity. I think you always get the medium setting.

That's it! The free service doesn't offer any settings.

actually it does have control over intensity.. I just tried it.. You might have had it on max by accident.

I am doing one of my own tracks now to compare it to a professional Don Batley master.. will see how we go!

[Theo.M]

Also sorry if you don't mind Josh, could you confirm that the file of your own master you uploaded to sound cloud is also 192 mp3? Cheers mate.

[selig]

Actually that's the true relationship of an artist and a mastering studio. The artist makes sure his song is perfectly up in levels, submits it and then the mastering studio does all the compression, equalization. Or is it we all expect to master our tunes before giving it to a professional mastering studio these days?

That's my understanding, too-- and if I were to even try Landr, I would do just that. I made sure to remove all compression and mix to the best of my ability before sending it to my Engineer. I think I prefer people over algorithms, but I think it's an interesting exercise.

Hey Jules, you're in a unique position to compare the two if you have time and the inclination. You could send in a mix from your latest project and compare the results to the "IRL" mastering Bob Olhsson did for you. Would be interesting to compare the two without knowing which was which!

[JoshuaPhilgarlic]

actually it does have control over intensity.. I just tried it.. You might have had it on max by accident.

Where??? The only thing I can do with the free demo is to select a file. What did I miss?

Also sorry if you don't mind Josh, could you confirm that the file of your own master you uploaded to sound cloud is also 192 mp3? Cheers mate.

I used the same master for both: 44.1kHz/16bit, so both MP3s are done by the websites automatically.

[Theo.M]

actually it does have control over intensity.. I just tried it.. You might have had it on max by accident.

Where??? The only thing I can do with the free demo is to select a file. What did I miss?

Also sorry if you don't mind Josh, could you confirm that the file of your own master you uploaded to sound cloud is also 192 mp3? Cheers mate.

I used the same master for both: 44.1kHz/16bit, so both MP3s are done by the websites automatically.

Hi, when the song is circling saying "mastering" there is a knob "change intensity"

however, the default IS medium so that's what yours would have been, and the compression is unacceptable - the high would have been REALLY bad!

I just did one of mine on the low setting, and it's "ok".. but the professionally mastered one is super loud (NOT by my request, i just went to this guy cause he's well known and let him do it all, plus I had made an error of hard panning the vocal left and right  as it was a genuine double tracked vocal and i hadn't done that before, this is well over 10 years ago, you live and learn! and the ME managed to center it more - LANDR can't do that).
But the point is, even at super loud the pro mastered one sound OK imo. 
I am going to post it to soundcloud now, it's been on itunes for a while.. 
But to be fair to volume levels i have to do the LANDR at at least medium to compare with the pro one as that is super loud, and it's making me re upload the wav again LOL.

The other thing is, I have noticed a pop in the unmastered one I have here, so i think it's not the final one, it was a bad render in Cubase.. So i have to throw these disclaimers as i have so many backups of this song all over the place on different drives and CD's but obviously the unmastered one on my laptop that I am feeding LANDR is not the good one :frown:

RE upload, you couldn't have uploaded the LANDR one as a wav to soundcloud as you said you used free which means it's 192.. I am not familiar with what soundcloud encodes wavs to, but if you uploaded a 192 mp3 for the Landr one and then a 16 but 44.1 for your version, perhaps couldn't that have given soundcloud a big advantage with your own master?

Anyway, I just checked soundcloud and I am a bit concerned as this song is an original remake from scratch of a 79 track, but the singer said he had done all the legal stuff to sell it on itunes, so i presume it will be ok, but for now i might just upload it as pvt and put the link only here.

It's taking ages, I am on adsl

[JoshuaPhilgarlic]

Hi, when the song is circling saying "mastering" there is a knob "change intensity"

Really ?? What a bullshit! Do they really expect me to sit here watching the % spinning without doing other stuff in the meantime????

RE upload, you couldn't have uploaded the LANDR one as a wav to soundcloud as you said you used free which means it's 192.. I am not familiar with what soundcloud encodes wavs to, but if you uploaded a 192 mp3 for the Landr one and then a 16 but 44.1 for your version, perhaps couldn't that have given soundcloud a big advantage with your own master?

Oops, you're right, I forgot I had to upload LANDR's 192kHz MP3 . But keep in mind that the main issue of the LANDR version is this massive over-compression, and that has definitely nothing to do with Soundcloud's encoding.

//Edit: Man, what did I write earlier ?? It wasn't the same file at all I uploaded, 'cause for a proper test I bypassed the Ozone leveling for LANDR of course!!

[Theo.M]

this is the proper mastered one

edit - my goodness it sounds weird on soundcloud.. first track i have ever uploaded there so i have been reading up on it since the upload.. uploading an already very loud compressed master is not the best thing apparently.. there is no headroom for the mp3 conversion (soundcloud converts to 128 so in your case josh it would have reconverted the 192 landr file).  I can clearly hear added distortion/muffle that simply isn't there in the wav.. so...I guess in future when i upload to S/C it will be "mastered for SC" if that makes sense.. Don't even know if i have the guts to UL the Landr one LOL.

Hmm have changed SC to my artist name and it's still showing my real name.. so new to this!   Edit again - It's working now LOL.

[ionly]

Here's what Ian Shepherd had to say about it.

Bump. This sums it up best IMO.

I'll bet anyone on this forum could do a better job with a little guidance. Not to mention the communication with the artist. I'm all for apps, and all that, BUT...

[Julibee]

Actually that's the true relationship of an artist and a mastering studio. The artist makes sure his song is perfectly up in levels, submits it and then the mastering studio does all the compression, equalization. Or is it we all expect to master our tunes before giving it to a professional mastering studio these days?

That's my understanding, too-- and if I were to even try Landr, I would do just that. I made sure to remove all compression and mix to the best of my ability before sending it to my Engineer. I think I prefer people over algorithms, but I think it's an interesting exercise.

Hey Jules, you're in a unique position to compare the two if you have time and the inclination. You could send in a mix from your latest project and compare the results to the "IRL" mastering Bob Olhsson did for you. Would be interesting to compare the two without knowing which was which!

Yeah, that had occurred to me, too-- but I wasn't entirely sure how to best map out the experiment and post it, knowing the limitations/compression of Soundcloud. I could Dropbox it? But-- I've never even looked at Landr-- should I try multiple settings? Any recommendations?

Selig is right, I do have an album mastered by Bob Olhsson, and of course, my original mixes that I could "Landr-ize" at different settings for the purpose of comparison.

My main problem is that I got a new MacBook for Christmas, and then I disconnected my old system a week later when we got new floors and essentially had to move everything out of the house for a week... I've not hooked my PC back up yet, but I would, if you guys could help me outline what you'd like to see.

[eusti]

It's working now LOL.

Mmh... The link is not right now, though...

D.

[Theo.M]

It's working now LOL.

Mmh... The link is not right now, though...

D.

Sorry to bump this but do you mean the song isn't working? i should take it down anyway as I can't find the same unmastered one to do a proper LANDR comparison, however i suppose i can leave it up if anyone enjoys listening to it.

Anyway back on topic, LANDR just sent me an email that their MP3 unlimited free service is finished.. what funny timing after I just joined.. it's now 10$ a month.

[Janvier]

Lander has ruined the mix, the last third especially, it is awful and lifeless.. however the question remains, what landr setting did you choose? Did you go for the ultimate loudness one which would explain this and if so did you try the softer settings? Cheers

I use it ! And always use the lowest settings, Im against the loudness war ! Also, keep in mind that you need to let enough headroom for LANDR to work. I let 10dB of Headroom and get good result.

If your mix isnt good then as always don't expect LANDR to fix your mix.

Also, if I try to master by my own, I will probably screw my mix because overtime its hard to keep objectivity. 

But I agree that it will not replace an engineer. If I had the budget I would pay for an engineer. 

[ambeant]

Some weeks ago I read about it: LANDR.com, the new online service that does all the cumbersome mastering stuff for you - automatically, cheap and perfect(?).

Here's an interview from NAMM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9htueuU07Y

Well, as I said before, I checked it out a couple of weeks ago, and here are the results:

My own "mastering"

My track butchered by LANDR

Of course, the LANDR version is much louder, but is it better :nono: ?????

Check it out, 'cause it's free for MP3s! And of course: poste your results!!!!

//Edit: added a poll .

Everyone's goals and taste are different but from my perspective is that using a service like LANDR takes the creative fun out mastering your own or someone else's material, Mastering is an art in itself so some artists/producers like to be involved in it's evolution.