It's sad how LANDR markets their services. They exist to
provide a convenient way to master music; emphasis being convenience not
quality. In this press release they're talking about using machine learning to
improve the mastering...so doesn't that mean if the algorithm is constantly be
improved, than any current version of the software would be inferior to the
next version? The problem is that LANDR uses a systematic set of processes,
it's software. The question must be asked, can computers make artistic
choices? I personally don't think so and think artists/music consumers would be
surprised to hear the LANDR (computer algorithm) master against an experienced
human mastering engineer. There are creative choices that are created by the
existence of a collaboration; mastering is not just a formula that can be done
to a song. I'd be happy to do a sample mastering for anyone interested in doing
a listening test between a human and computer. If interested please contact me
at https://www.hybridstudiosca.com/mastering/. There's a reason why
commercially successful songs use a human mastering engineer, because sometimes
quality is more important than convenience.