Jump to content

Ars Technica Review of Landr Rather Harsh


Recommended Posts

  • Members

For those not familiar, Ars Technica is basically a technology web site. On occasions they will bring in an article about music, typically when it deals with new technology or legal battles that revolve around the technology. In this article they are looking at Landr as it promises that their algorithms can master your mix for a significant cost savings. They weren't impressed. One of the closing lines of the article sums up their scepticism, "Would you trust Siri to determine the final text for this article?"

 

You can read the entire article "SoundCloud’s Free “Auto-mastering” Audio Tool is More of an Auto-turd" at http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/05/soundclouds-free-auto-mastering-audio-tool-is-more-of-an-auto-turd/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

"Landr's landing site describes the mastering process as "complicated and elusive," then insists that its product, which is almost entirely algorithm-driven, delivers a quality product for small-fry musicians by intentionally limiting how many options they can pick from. "Great design is all about limiting the field," Landr says. As a result, the company touts that "we're confident you'll hear the difference" between professional mastering work and what Landr can pull off."

 

Except the statement that describes the mastering process as "complicated and elusive" that's seems like a pretty reasonable statement of who and what the automated mastering process is for. - a "quality product for small-fry musicians." "Mastering" has lost all sense of having an accurate definition or even description. It can be anything you want, or don't want it to be. If you start with a flat sounding mix of tracks that are mostly, if not all, built from loops or virtual instruments, and it's a typical dance tune or pop ballad, the algorithms probably pick out some things to emphasize in the mix and that's the extent that it "masters."

 

My criticism of the article is that they didn't do a very good job of figuring out what the mastering process does to various kinds of music. They should have contacted the company, told them they wanted to write a review of the process, and get them to give them enough free access so they could experiment with various genres and a range of bad to good mixes. Then, and only then could they explain and demonstrate what it can do and what it can't do.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I used Landr for a quick, one-off recording over the holidays. My normal ME was on vacation.

 

I felt like it hyped the high-end too much. I ended up using the Landr master (it was for a music video), but I wouldn't use the service again. The recording I used it on was a simple piano track with 2 singers. I have a feeling it would perform even worse on a more densely layered track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...