LANDR???

[alfstone]

https://www.landr.com/

Did anybody try it?

I tried to upload a track, just to see what it happens, but after a while I obtained an error message...

 

Alfredo

[Farrell Jackson]

https://www.landr.com/

Did anybody try it?

I tried to upload a track, just to see what it happens, but after a while I obtained an error message...

 

Alfredo

I just tried it Alfredo. The first time I tried uploading an MP3 song but I got an error message like you did. Next I tried uploading the same song using a .wav file and it uploaded. It did the mastering and let me hear a before and after sample. I chose a song that hadn't been mastered and there was a noticeable difference in fullness and volume. It's an interesting concept. I'm going to mark the link and try it some more before I commit fully with a subscription. Thanks for posting it up!
https://www.landr.com/

Farrell

[Groundy]

I don't remember this , but I must have tried it because I keep getting emails from Landr, now I know what its about......Alex

[leighelse]

I gave it a shot, and tried several similar services. I've gone back and used one of them several times: Masterlizer. It's currently in beta and free, although I have given them a donation because I was impressed enough to want to encourage them.

[Farrell Jackson]

Thanks for the link and info on Masterlizer Leigh! I just did a comparison (as close as I could) between Landr and Masterlizer. I used an older song of mine "True Blue Cowboy" MP3 192k quality. Here's my assessment as viewed and listen to with Audacity: I'm going to use L and M for differentiation purposes. The L available download was an MP3 192k compared to the M's wav file.  L was louder by .5db and more compressed. The listening result was more bottom end with L. M wasn't quite as loud with less bottom (less compression) but more highs which probably accounts for the loudness difference. Both made a significant difference in sound quality compared to the original MP3 sample.

I'm going to save these two files for a better listen later to see if I come up with the same conclusion.

Do you know what the subscription price will be?

Thanks again!

Farrell

[leighelse]

Thanks for the link and info on Masterlizer Leigh!
Do you know what the subscription price will be?

I sent Masterlizer a note commending them on the product and said I was interested to know what their prices would be when they came out of beta. But I didn't straight-out ask. I expect there'll be an announcement and those of us who've created an account will get an email message.

I agree with you that LANDR achieves more loudness, although Masterlizer set to Modern and Standard is close. However, the trade-off to my ears is that the louder result is harsher and less open. My preferred Masterlizer setting is Modern and Soft - it retains dynamics and is less tiring to listen to, while still achieving a higher level of loudness and tonal consistency.

[leighelse]

Update: I've had a reply to the message I sent Masterlizer.

Hi Leigh,

This is Maximilian CEO and Founder of Masterlizer..Thx for your kind words! We are happy that the service is useful for you, please don't hesitate to send us feedback anytime so we can make it even better...yes payment will be introduced soon, sorry we cannot communicate it beforehand, but I can say that it will be affordable and simple...more to be announced very soon!

Stay tuned, there are some cool things coming up in the near future...

Greetings to NZ,  keep making awesome music

M.

P.S nice website, had a look:)

[T.C. Elliott]

I just did a comparison (as close as I could) between Landr and Masterlizer. I used an older song of mine "True Blue Cowboy" MP3 192k quality. Here's my assessment as viewed and listen to with Audacity: I'm going to use L and M for differentiation purposes. The L available download was an MP3 192k compared to the M's wav file.  L was louder by .5db and more compressed. The listening result was more bottom end with L. M wasn't quite as loud with less bottom (less compression) but more highs which probably accounts for the loudness difference. Both made a significant difference in sound quality compared to the original MP3 sample.

I realize this is a late question, but, how much do you think is pure volume and how much is actual EQ etc.,?  In other words, if you reduce the volume of the "mastered" track to the same as the original mp3 do you hear big difference in the sonic spectrum?

My limited experience with LANDR mastering is that it's mostly (but not completely) just compression and an increase in track volume. But, again, that's very limited experience.

[T.C. Elliott]

Also, pricing is out now at this link: https://www.masterlizer.com/index.aspx#pricing

4 pounds a song, 3 songs in one month for 10 pounds, unlimited masters for 20 pounds a month or 200 pounds a year

I should try it out and LANDR and fivr (they have several "mastering engineers" that will do various mastering tasks for as little as five bucks a song) to see if any of them stand above the rest.

And of course, I've been "mastering" my own tracks, so I'd have to do my normal "thing" and compare and contrast as well. But it's definitely feeling like it would be worth the time.

[Farrell Jackson]

I just did a comparison (as close as I could) between Landr and Masterlizer. I used an older song of mine "True Blue Cowboy" MP3 192k quality. Here's my assessment as viewed and listen to with Audacity: I'm going to use L and M for differentiation purposes. The L available download was an MP3 192k compared to the M's wav file.  L was louder by .5db and more compressed. The listening result was more bottom end with L. M wasn't quite as loud with less bottom (less compression) but more highs which probably accounts for the loudness difference. Both made a significant difference in sound quality compared to the original MP3 sample.

I realize this is a late question, but, how much do you think is pure volume and how much is actual EQ etc.,?  In other words, if you reduce the volume of the "mastered" track to the same as the original mp3 do you hear big difference in the sonic spectrum?

My limited experience with LANDR mastering is that it's mostly (but not completely) just compression and an increase in track volume. But, again, that's very limited experience.

Hi T.C. It's been awhile since I did that basic comparison but I've used LANDR several times since they've done some finessing of their product. I've compared their masters with my masters, at the same volumes, and theirs wins every time. That probably says more about my mastering skills than it does about LANDR's,  I just signed up for a 28 day unlimited mp3, wav and HD wav mastering for $28. So I'll be busy the next 28 days getting as much mastering done as I can. It was a very timely offer since I've just finished 12 songs for a cd. I'll be mastering them as wav files so I'll report back my thoughts when I've finished with them. I thought $28 was a cheap way to know if I want to go into a yearly subscription with LANDR.