LANDR: Anyone using it?

[Sean]

https://www.landr.com/

I've done a few tracks using the landr free account and it seems pretty good. The tracks pop. I've only mastered a few rough demos and rehearsal recordings so far but I think I'll be using this for the tracks we're recording at the moment.

[lurksalot]

In just tried it with my composition entry for this month and wow , it really added a lot to it , thanks for that . I guess mastering is another tool to the armory

[Dad3353]

[size=4]I gave it a go with my November entry, too. I already use mastering software, which gives me excellent results, but I must admit that the Landr result was even better (disclaimer: I'm more than half-deaf, so pinches of salt could be in order..! ). It's certainly a lot faster than the multi-pass software on my creaking old XP PC..!
I'm going to replace my current Soundcloud entry with the new version and we'll see if it sounds OK to others...[/size]

Edited November 22, 2014 by Dad3353

[Skol303]

[size=4][font=Helvetica]Cheers Sean, this is the first I've heard of Landr. Look good and what a great business idea! [i](damn, wish I’d thought of this…).[/i][/font]

[font=Helvetica]I haven’t tried it yet, but I’ve just listened to lurks and Dad’s entries for the Composition Challenge (good work guys ) and if those are anything to judge by then it seems like a very handy quick fix for mastering. Hard to tell exactly what it’s doing - as I haven’t heard the original tracks - but I’m guessing it’s probably a mix of multi-band compression, stereo widening, loudness limiting (maximising) and high/low pass filtering. Both lurks and Dad’s tracks have plenty of ‘air’ in the high end, so it’s probably boosting up there too.[/font]

[font=Helvetica]It’ll never be a substitute for learning the ropes yourself - or better still, the ears of a proper mastering engineer, of course. But it’s free (for MP3s / WAVs cost on subscription) and the results sound very good. What’s not to like?? [/font][/size]

Edited November 23, 2014 by Skol303

[Dad3353]

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1416770967' post='2613429']
[size=4][font=Helvetica]Cheers Sean, this is the first I've heard of Landr. Look good and what a great business idea! [i](damn, wish I’d thought of this…).[/i][/font]

[font=Helvetica]I haven’t tried it yet, but I’ve just listened to lurks and Dad’s entries for the Composition Challenge (good work guys ) and if those are anything to judge by then it seems like a very handy quick fix for mastering. Hard to tell exactly what it’s doing - as I haven’t heard the original tracks - but I’m guessing it’s probably a mix of multi-band compression, stereo widening, loudness limiting (maximising) and high/low pass filtering. Both lurks and Dad’s tracks have plenty of ‘air’ in the high end, so it’s probably boosting up there too.[/font]

[font=Helvetica]It’ll never be a substitute for learning the ropes yourself - or better still, the ears of a proper mastering engineer, of course. But it’s free (for MP3s / WAVs cost on subscription) and the results sound very good. What’s not to like?? [/font][/size]
[/quote]

I've compared my raw rendered o/p to my AAMS mastered track, and then the Landr result. Yes, it's doing just about the same as AAMS, with all the treatments mentioned, but one doesn't get a choice of algorithm, and so the treatment will be the same for rock as for folk, or pop, or whatever. AAMS gives me a choice of genre. Nevertheless, the more 'airy' Landr o/p pleased me more than the AAMS mastering using the '50s Rock option, with finer treble and a more defined bass. Other tracks may not have such a flattering result, so time will tell if it's a keeper or not, but for the moment, I found it to give a great result, very quickly, and free, from a 192 MP3, so can't be all bad..! I can't say how treatment of WAV files compares, though; I suspect that my tired old ears couldn't tell the difference.
[size=4]I'd just remark that my rendered o/p from Reaper is at a very modest level, and so the mastering has all liberty to play with the headroom. I don't think that a maxed-out track would get the same degree of enhancement; the mastering needs some room to work in. I'd recommend not compressing up to maximum levels (again, depends on musical style, of course...).[/size]

Edited November 23, 2014 by Dad3353

[Sean]

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1416770967' post='2613429']
[size=4][font=Helvetica]Cheers Sean, this is the first I've heard of Landr. Look good and what a great business idea! [i](damn, wish I’d thought of this…).[/i][/font]

[font=Helvetica]I haven’t tried it yet, but I’ve just listened to lurks and Dad’s entries for the Composition Challenge (good work guys ) and if those are anything to judge by then it seems like a very handy quick fix for mastering. Hard to tell exactly what it’s doing - as I haven’t heard the original tracks - but I’m guessing it’s probably a mix of multi-band compression, stereo widening, loudness limiting (maximising) and high/low pass filtering. Both lurks and Dad’s tracks have plenty of ‘air’ in the high end, so it’s probably boosting up there too.[/font]

[font=Helvetica]It’ll never be a substitute for learning the ropes yourself - or better still, the ears of a proper mastering engineer, of course. But it’s free (for MP3s / WAVs cost on subscription) and the results sound very good. What’s not to like?? [/font][/size]
[/quote]

Have a listen:
Before Landr
https://soundcloud.com/belowtheghost/upbeat-rock-idea
After Landr
https://soundcloud.com/belowtheghost/surf-rock-idea-mastered

[lurksalot]

I tried the LANDR on mine for trial purposes , but I did not use it on my entry. I had already pulled my first effort and had another go at the mixing of it and just uploaded the result , so it is out of reaper as I left it , I thought another bite of the cherry would be taking the mick somewhat, so I guess I got something half right about it

[Dad3353]

I replaced my tracks with the Landr versions. I think the sound is improved. It hasn't improved the quality of composition, though..! [size=4] [/size]

[lowdown]

I agree with what Skol has said above about the substitute for the real thing.
Of course if you want to get a bunch of Mp3's to sit up a bit more, a great idea because it
is free.
However, if you want to use Wav files with all the various bit and sample rates,
it will start to get pricey. Plus the fact, if you are not quite happy with the final version
there is no way of amending/fixing it. You are stuck with it.
But at the end of the day, if your stereo mix is good to start with,
it would be a good way to get something finished quick.

I recently got Ozone 6 (£150), and it has a lot of great starting pre-sets.
It's worth trying the 10 day demo with your Wav files.
https://www.izotope.com/en/products/mixing-mastering/ozone

There is a great mastering PDF from Izotope/Ozone, really worth checking out.
No substitute for a good engineer, but an excellent resource if you want to attempt
at getting a final presentable master together, and stop yourself getting carried away with pre-sets (like me).
http://downloads.izotope.com/guides/iZotopeMasteringGuide_MasteringWithOzone.pdf

Edited November 24, 2014 by lowdown

[heminder]

I've always wondered if sites like these use pre-defined algorithms for everything that gets sent their way. In Sean's examples I can hear a hiss in the intro of the mastered track that wasn't in the original.

[Dad3353]

Gasp..! Shock..! Horror..! [size=4] [/size]

[size=4]I've just had a quick blast with Ozone 5.02, using a preset (Rock, Vintage...), just as a 'quick'n'dirty' experiment. Good gracious..! The result, although perfectly listenable (well, if you pardon the composition, the arrangement, the playing and the mix..! ), was turned into an absolutely 'flat-line' dynamic..! I'll dig a bit deeper, and go through the manual and tutorials, which I've ignored for the moment, but I was greatly surprised by the result. Unfortunately, the processing power (or rather; weakness...) of my poor old PC makes trials a bit difficult, as there's too much processor being used to do A/B comparisons in real time. Still, I'll sort something out and give the soft a better chance to shine. My conclusion is that there is no 'magic bullet' recipe for mastering; one has to take into account so many variables that each track will have its own solution, and a preset (or a 'one size fits all'...) will not be as good as a customised treatment by a competent engineer. The trick is learning how to become that competent engineer..! Here we go again; another lifetime of learning in perspective... [/size]

[Skol303]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1416825309' post='2613843']
I've just had a quick blast with Ozone 5.02, using a preset (Rock, Vintage...), just as a 'quick'n'dirty' experiment. Good gracious..! The result, although perfectly listenable ... was turned into an absolutely 'flat-line' dynamic..!
[/quote]

That'll most likely be the maximiser (loudness limiter) squishing the living daylights out of your track! It's sadly unavoidable if you want to compete in the 'loudness war' - ie. produce tracks to what are considered modern loudness levels, which most pre-set settings will be designed to do.

Load up 99% of commercial music into an audio editor, look at the shape of the profile and it'll most likely have all the subtle dynamics of a sausage. That's not to say that these squished tracks can't have dynamics - some maximisers are much better than others are cranking up the loudness without wrecking the differences between loud and soft sections - but it does take some tweaking of the settings to get it right for each track in turn.

All of this is making me think we probably need a section on 'Mastering' in the Beginners Guide thread I'll set to drafting something next chance I get. In the meantime, here's how I usually approach it - bearing in mind I'm certainly [u]not[/u] a mastering engineer (which is a discipline in itself).

So, this is how I begin mastering just about every track I work on...[list]
[*]Firstly - and most importantly - I get the track sounding as good as I can in the mix before I even think about applying any FX on the master bus. I can't emphasise enough how important that is. Every book and tutorial I've read on mastering reiterates this golden rule - get it right in the mix first; don't try to fix a poor mix by mastering it. The old polishing a turd phrase is very true in this context.
[*]I use a high pass filter to cut out everything below around 30Hz (these sub-bass frequencies have lots of energy that can eat into the 'headroom' of your mix, so I cut away the very low ones that are barely audible to all but the best ears on the best monitoring systems.... which mine aren't!).
[*]I add a shallow scoop somewhere around 200-400Hz (e.g. -1 or 2db with a Q setting of 1). I find this helps to remove some of the 'muddiness' from the low end (I also apply similar scoops to all of the individual tracks, where appropriate).
[*]I cut out a notch at around 4.5kHz (high Q setting of around 20, something like -6 to 8db). Why? Because 4.5kHz is the frequency that our ears find most tiring.
[*]I also cut out another notch (or apply a gentle 'roll off shelf' EQ) somewhere around 3kHz, depending on the track. I find that 3kHz can be a real 'bottleneck' for frequencies that can make a track sound harsh or brittle. Again, I apply this rule across each track of the mix before EQing the master bus.
[*]I boost by anywhere from +1 to 2 db around 100Hz (to add low end thump and warmth).
[*]I boost by around +2db at 12kHz (helps to brighten up the mix and add some 'air' to the high end).
[*]I sometimes add a gentle scope around 1kHz (especially on dance tracks, where this frequency is less vital than say, a guitar track).
[*]After all that EQing... I then use a stereo widening device to convert everything below 100-200Hz to mono and then widen everything above this frequency (helps to give the mix some 'size').
[*]Then I add a very slight reverb (2-4% wet), which I find helps everything fit together into the same 'space'.
[*]I use a dedicated master bus compressor to help glue everything together. The one I use is bundled with Reason and mimics the compressor on an SSL mixing console - but any master bus compressor will do. I set the attack to around 10ms, set the release to 'auto', set the gain reduction to -2db and then adjust the threshold until the needle on the dial is just peaking at either -4db (for dance/heavy/loud music) or -1 to 2db (for more quiet//subtle music). Ideally, I try to set it so that the needle on the dial is moving in time to the beat of the music (hep to make the track 'pump'). I then use a maximiser (the Ozone product) and loudness meter to raise the perceived level to whatever is considered the commercial 'norm' for the genre I'm working with (by referencing my mix against a commercial equivalent).
[*]...and that's another important thing to mention: referencing your mixes against commercial tracks of a similar style! Very important.
[/list]
Phew... that sounds like a lot of work but it's actually a very quick process. In fact, I probably spend about 20 minutes 'mastering' a track, but can spend many hours mixing it beforehand. So yeah. Mixing is where the graft needs to be done!

Hope that gives a few pointers to begin with.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Skol303

[Sean]

Thanks very much for that post. Just got to soak it up and try to put it into practice.

[lurksalot]

Fair play Skol a great insight , but what is this 1 or 2db adjustment I see written , 1 or 2db doesn't even register in terms of hearing with me, so getting it any where near listenable is a result ,within 1 or 2 db in the mix is just a dream I have , and then I have to cut it out at 200hz ,
so so confusing .................

[Dad3353]

[size=4][quote name='lurksalot' timestamp='1417040035' post='2616607']
Fair play Skol a great insight , but what is this 1 or 2db adjustment I see written , 1 or 2db doesn't even register in terms of hearing with me, so getting it any where near listenable is a result ,within 1 or 2 db in the mix is just a dream I have , and then I have to cut it out at 200hz ,
so so confusing .................
[/quote][/size]

[size=4]I'm in this camp, too (move over, lurks, you're hogging all the groundsheet..! ). My 'default' shifts are in 3 db chunks; it's very rare (read: never... ) that I can hear 1 or 2 db. I will sometimes (but not often...) use a 1 db shift, to keep something from triggering a red meter reading, for instance, but that's about it. Brutal, maybe, but I can't hear the finer points. How many folks that hear my stuff have ace hearing anyway..? Maybe less than one thinks..? [/size]

[Skol303]

I get what you're saying chaps But again... mastering should be about gently 'shaping' the track as a whole (IMO). If you need to make more significant changes, these should be made 'in the mix' - ie. changes to the relevant individual tracks - rather than applied globally to all tracks. For instance - I commonly EQ anywhere from 2 to 10db when shaping individual instruments! Although I rarely boost by more than 6db... but that's another topic.

However... you can take all that with a pinch of salt. Because generally speaking if it sounds right, it IS right

Personally, I know that an individual track (ie. an instrument/stem) is sitting nicely in the mix when a small adjustment of +\- 0.5 or 1db makes it just slightly too loud or too quiet. I do make changes of less than 0.5db but these are admittedly difficult to hear in most cases and I tend to make such minor changes more with the overall mix in mind - eg. when I know that two instruments are going to be occupying the same frequency; they already sound ok; but I want to help make sure that one of them cuts through just above or below the other... so I might tweak the level or an EQ cut/boost by 0.5db or less, for 'peace of mind'.

Bear in mind that part of my technique is born out of mixing on headphones and 'second guessing' how the finished track will translate on to other systems. So don't take any of this as the Gospel truth

[the boy]

[quote name='lurksalot' timestamp='1416663521' post='2612437']
In just tried it with my composition entry for this month and wow , it really added a lot to it , thanks for that . I guess mastering is another tool to the armory
[/quote]
Cheating bastard. I'm taking my vote back.

[the boy]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1416665773' post='2612463']
[size=4]I gave it a go with my November entry, too. I already use mastering software, which gives me excellent results, but I must admit that the Landr result was even better (disclaimer: I'm more than half-deaf, so pinches of salt could be in order..! ). It's certainly a lot faster than the multi-pass software on my creaking old XP PC..!
I'm going to replace my current Soundcloud entry with the new version and we'll see if it sounds OK to others...[/size]
[/quote]
Et tu brute? I really need to up my game if I'm gonna put a tune together. That's it I'm booking Brian Eno for the December composition challenge.

[lurksalot]

[quote name='the boy' timestamp='1417385777' post='2619942']
Cheating bastard. I'm taking my vote back.
[/quote]

[size=5]NOOOOOOOOOOOO [/size] [size=5][size=4] I neeeed a vote , I know I keep saying it doesn't matter , but I NEEEEED a vote .[/size][/size]

( I didnt enter the 'mastered' track , I just did it to try it out )

[Mornats]

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1416952919' post='2615530'] I then use a stereo widening device
[/quote]

Brilliant advice, I'll give it a go if I ever get round to starting a new track. One question... what is said stereo widening device?

[lowdown]

A Stereo widening device is a waste of money and a gimmick.
You can do it yourself.
Just move your monitor speakers an extra foot apart, job done.

[pantherairsoft]

[quote name='lowdown' timestamp='1417468787' post='2620744']
A Stereo widening device is a waste of money and a gimmick.
You can do it yourself.
Just move your monitor speakers an extra foot apart, job done.
[/quote]

Not strictly true. Doing so will (kind of) widen the way you hear the mix (though it'll only really sound accurate if you move backwards the same amount you spread the monitors to maintain an equalateral triangle with the monitors) in your listening space, but not in the actual mix. Soon as it's not played on your monitors then that widening is gone! That's also not really stereo widening, as the centre/unpanned sounds will remain uneffected as long as you are positioned correctly.

Stereo widening is however certainly not needed if you've made a finely balanced mix. In certain circumstances though it is needed in the mastering process to either slightly widen the panoramic image if the mix is too centre focused, or in rare places, to reduce the steep image where too many elements are panned and the centre of the mix lacks punch.

I'd prefer to never use the process, assuming everyone can create great mixes, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen.

As for LANDR. I tried it. Horrible. I am biased as I do master for a 'living', but the overall results seemed little more than a boost to the top end and some questionable brickwall limiting. Nothing you can't do very easily using almost any DAW. Having a machine finalise your audio is a pretty horrific concept in my opinion. May as well have the computer play your instruments for you too. The human element of mixing and mastering is what makes it so person and effective, IMO.

Edited December 1, 2014 by pantherairsoft

[lowdown]

[quote name='pantherairsoft' timestamp='1417471090' post='2620807']
Not strictly true.
[/quote]

Sorry, posted from a mobile, no smiley or tongue in cheek.
Just a joke.....lol...

And of course what you said is right.

[pantherairsoft]

[quote name='lowdown' timestamp='1417471836' post='2620825']


Sorry, posted from a mobile, no smiley or tongue in cheek.
Just a joke.....lol...

And of course what you said is right.
[/quote]

Ah!

Ironically, I have seen stereo widening discussed in that way in a magazine... I thought you may have read it... And not burnt it!

[the boy]

[quote name='lurksalot' timestamp='1417465827' post='2620689']


[size=5]NOOOOOOOOOOOO [/size] [size=5][size=4] I neeeed a vote , I know I keep saying it doesn't matter , but I NEEEEED a vote .[/size][/size]

( I didnt enter the 'mastered' track , I just did it to try it out )
[/quote]
I believe you.

Edited December 1, 2014 by the boy