4 ms·
The point of services like LANDR is that good mastering requires you either become very skilled and experienced, or spend a lot of money. Their output isn't gre
by rudolf0 10y ago
The point of services like LANDR is that good mastering requires you either become very skilled and experienced, or spend a lot of money. Their output isn't great, but it many cases it's better than no mastering at all. Also, I imagine the technology will eventually improve.
I agree Soundcloud's shitty low bit rate MP3s are totally unacceptable, though. I never use Soundcloud for actual music listening.
- tacos 10y agoI suppose. But pushing out a low-quality version of a previously high-quality service isn't disruption; it's just peeing in the pool. LANDR is now on version three of their algorithm and it still sucks. The goal here is to move people emotionally and maybe re-light the spark of a dying industry. This is the wrong direction: "'There are good and bad things about it,' mastering professional Dave Gardner (Louis C.K., the Hold Steady, Black Lips) told Billboard in January. 'If someone can spend $10 a month and get something better than what they have but not very good, I don't know if that's going to make people appreciate mastering even more, or if it's the nail in the coffin.'"
- rudolf0 10y agoStill, I don't think LANDR is intended for people who can regularly afford professional mastering. It's like saying netbooks are going to devalue the Macbook. >LANDR is now on version three of their algorithm and it still sucks. Sure, but can you imagine how difficult it must be to implement good automatic mastering? It may be a decade or so until it comes close, but eventually, I bet it'll become a viable option for many bedroom producers.