.. best mastering limiter to use after Optimaster?

Post by **hubird** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:17 pm

@ VenuZ:
Well done

One thing, important for me as I use the L2:
You wrote:
Waves L2 and L3 has exactly the same response (?), but

you mean L2 shows the same picture as the L3?
if so, that don't tell us in what degree they changed the original freq picture.
Could you tell us how the L2 (and L3) performed exactly?
thanks alot

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 1:29 am

On 2004-09-11 19:30, VenuZ wrote:
today I got some free time and I spent some hours to make test using some maximizer plugins with a spectrum analyzer, printing the results and comparing it...
I noticed that all the plugins add dbs in all the frequency range.. It seems that to increase volume the easiest way is to add db on frequencies.. That's why we can hear distorsion and lack of basses after limiting: most of these plugs add a lot in the high, often more than in the bass.. In some cases i got something like +8/10db.. And this increase of db in the bass often causes a smashing sound in the low freqs.
Btw... Looking in the analyzer the worst plugins are Loudness Maximizer from Steinberg (but it does a lot of extra punch) and Voxengo Elephant (expecially the last is modifying the freq curve a lot...).
The absolutely best I tried is Sony Inflator for PoCo: it's the only one which leave the curve pratically inalterated, adding also more loud (in rms) than the others.
The second one is TimeWorks Mastering, also ff I noticed that it seems to be not so precise in both left and right channel.. But it has definitely the best price value.
Waves L2 and L3 has exactly the same response (?), but I haven't tried the L3 Multimaximizer.
So... Now the question is... What to buy?
I honestly thing that I will start to save moneys for Sony's one, but I also think that all of this it's only differences we can read only in paper... So, as usual, the best thing is to use our ears and try to judge by ourself

gab

P.S.: if i wrote some bullshits, lemme know
P.S.2: excuse my bad english

Hi VenuZ,

What was your testing protocol?

Limiting too much will change the frequency curve, for sure, building hearable harmonic distortions in the audio signal. The general purpose in mastering limiting works is to limit as much as the signal frequency curve remains auditively unchanged ("transparency") or at very least with very minimals euphonics changes. That's where it needs thoroughly educated hears and an outstanding monitoring system to be securely performed. Relying on analysing tools and an average monitoring system can't do this job at full extense and implies that mistakes can be done and not be detected at the right time.

BR,
Grok

Post by **garyb** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 3:16 am

otherwise, do the best with what you have.

VenuZ · Post by **VenuZ** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 5:43 am

For sure I don't think my tests is something so precise and I don't have too much known about it which, maybe, Bob Katz has...
To test it I adjusted and listened well every plugin, to try to not distort the sound and to get the best sound from it. In general the threshold was at about -4db in each plugin (where the threshold it's available: the Sony's one has a different kinf of adjustments).
I forgot to tell how Waves are... For me Waves L2 and L3 (and I repeat: applied in the way and on the same audio material, I got the exact result using L2 and L3) are worst than Sony and Timeworks (not the DX one... I can't sincerely understand why someone is telling that the Dx is the best plug around...) but better than Voxengo and Steinberg.. At least, for me

So... I'm not an engeneer, I'm not a great audio professionist... I've only used my ears and make some test, which gave me, in general, the exact response I approximatively got after printing and comparing the freq curve.
I'm sure if you can try the Sony Inflator, you will understand

)

gab

Post by **hubird** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:15 am

thanks

AltMR · Post by **AltMR** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:24 am

Hallo,
It seems like nobody among you ever heard about PSP Vintage Warmer.
http://www.pspaudioware.com/
If you like analog sound, forget about L2...

[ This Message was edited by: AltMR on 2004-09-13 05:28 ]

Post by **hubird** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:07 am

VW is a supergreat tool indeed, but I wouldn't call it a limiter...

it's a tape saturator, which essentially is a compressor.
The current subject here is limiting without changing the sound, while VW actually is looking after changing the sound (with harmonics).
cheers

musurgio · Post by **musurgio** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:41 am

I have Inflator for poco and although great sounding it cannot raise the ovferall volume as much as Elephant or UAD-1 latest limiter because the poco does not work at 32bit floating so distortion is evident when trying to raise the volume.
And yes it sounds fantastic.
So I use Inflator and then Elephant for a little bit more.
Dimitrios

medway · Post by **medway** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:20 pm

On 2004-09-13 07:07, hubird wrote:
VW is a supergreat tool indeed, but I wouldn't call it a limiter...
it's a tape saturator, which essentially is a compressor.
The current subject here is limiting without changing the sound, while VW actually is looking after changing the sound (with harmonics). You make it sound as if all compressors change the sound with harmonics.
cheers

How is tape sat any more like compression than it is limiting? Tape sat does limit small transients much like limiting. The fact that harmonics are generated is another matter in itself.

[ This Message was edited by: medway on 2004-09-14 19:25 ]

medway · Post by **medway** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:24 pm

On 2004-09-14 07:41, musurgio wrote:
I have Inflator for poco and although great sounding it cannot raise the ovferall volume as much as Elephant or UAD-1 latest limiter because the poco does not work at 32bit floating so distortion is evident when trying to raise the volume.
And yes it sounds fantastic.
So I use Inflator and then Elephant for a little bit more.
Dimitrios

Sounds like you are doing something wrong then. The fact that it's not 32bit floating should not matter. You must be overloading it somewhere where it shouldn't be. Even a hardware comp can overload if you set the levels incorrectly. The way any limiter makes things louder is how it handles and reduces peaks, it has nothing to do with how "hot" the levels are coming out of it. Just reduce your output if thats whats distorting. The idea is to get a higher average level, not max out the output stage (or whatever you are doing to make it distort).

Jesse

Post by **hubird** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:36 pm

@Medway
something went wrong with you quoting me

It was not me who said You make it sound as if all compressors change the sound with harmonics. , I guess it's you

I was just talking about the Vintage Warmer, which is assumed to compress like an typical overdriven tape recorder does, by manupulating the eq and harmonics.
Other compressors indeed produce a more clean signal, like the Waves R compressor.

About the current subject:
Essentially a compressor changes the continu ratio between different dynamic proportions, while the limiter cut off peaks without changing the remaining dynamic proportions...if it works properly.

As you undoubtly know, a limiter doesn't have a ratio parameter, it just cuts, and therefor indeed could produce some (unwanted) harmonics.

We were talking about the qualities of different limiters, from the perspective of a clean resulting sound, specially concerning the hi freqs.
The Vintage Warmer, though an absolute favorite tool in my setup, can't be seen as an explicite example of this

Not because it's a bad tool, yet because of its nature

Agree?

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2004-09-14 22:39 ]

bbrian · Post by **bbrian** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:58 pm

As you undoubtly know, a limiter doesn't have a ratio parameter, it just cuts, and therefor indeed could produce some (unwanted) harmonics.

This is not true...a limiter DOES have a ratio, maybe not all limiters have it accesible to the user and selectable. Limiters usually start at a ratio of 10:1 and go up from there, but I think it is only "brickwall" limiters that have a ratio of infinity:1, and in this case the ratio is not adjustable. In this case, the limiting creates almost a square-wave type of distortion on the input signal, depending upon the release time and other characteristics.

All Powercore plugins can clip if you overdrive them since they are fixed point, so be careful. Even boosting a parametric filter with Oxford can cause digital clipping if the input or output is not turned down to compensate for the boost.

Post by **hubird** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:06 am

thanks Bbrian, you're right I guess

And to Medway, I also should correct myself the other way around, the Vintage Warmer hasn't an accessable Ratio, though I myself called it a compressor rather than a limiter

However, the main point was that the VW explicitely is after changing the sound using 'analog' saturation distortion, while we were looking for 'clean' limiters.

Still I have the idea that the ratio factor is somehow an important distinguishing element between compression and limiter.
With a limiter it is an 'unevitable' thing (unless you want the brickwall), while with a compressor it's an important tool in the concept.
That's how it feels to me, but correct me if I'm wrong

cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2004-09-15 05:09 ]

medway · Post by **medway** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:22 am

On 2004-09-14 22:36, hubird wrote:
@Medway
something went wrong with you quoting me
It was not me who said You make it sound as if all compressors change the sound with harmonics. , I guess it's you
I was just talking about the Vintage Warmer, which is assumed to compress like an typical overdriven tape recorder does, by manupulating the eq and harmonics.
Other compressors indeed produce a more clean signal, like the Waves R compressor.
[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2004-09-14 22:39 ]

Sorry guess I assumed you were making the disctinction of what a compressor or limiter is based on how they produce harmonics or not.

The way tape and VW works is by saturating the peaks and therefore limiting them. At the same time the saturation creates those harmonics. But even clean limiters are making harmonics too, only they are less or not at all related to the music, which is why they often sound harsh. So tape doesnt manipilate EQ and harmonics, it generates them as a by product of the limiting it does.
Tape act more like a limiter because its more of a brickwall effect than something as subtle as compressor (sub 10:1 ratio)

Jesse

[ This Message was edited by: medway on 2004-09-15 07:30 ]

medway · Post by **medway** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:30 am

Btw you can try this yourself. Take something with spiky peaks and then run it through VW, they will be clipped. Try it with a compressor and they wont be anywhere near as much as long as you don't saturate somewhere.

Overall saturation is much more like limiting than it is compression. Tape and saturation has no attack or release to it so you can't get the same subtle smoothing out of overall gain levels as you can with a controlled comp at say 2:1 with med attack and release.

You can slow down VW some but its sat algo with still be clipping peaks as soon as it gets enough level.

Jesse

Post by **hubird** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 7:01 am

On 2004-09-15 07:22, medway wrote:
So tape doesnt manipilate EQ and harmonics, it generates them as a by product of the limiting it does.
Jesse

100% right, I meant it like that, english is not my native language, things will slip through

bbrian · Post by **bbrian** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:21 pm

Tape recorders usually have some EQing going on though, with a pre-emphasis stage at the record head and then another curve to correct it at playback. I think this is for noise/hiss reduction, but I am certainly no expert with tape. I guess the EQ pre-emphasis curve also pushes certain frequency ranges into saturation too, so different emphasis curves can create different sound character.

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:38 pm

Seems like tape is one of the few mediums that softly reduces the transient peaks without reducing the level of everything else in the track like a compressor and even some limiters.

medway · Post by **medway** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:14 am

On 2004-09-15 08:01, hubird wrote:
On 2004-09-15 07:22, medway wrote:
So tape doesnt manipilate EQ and harmonics, it generates them as a by product of the limiting it does.
Jesse

100% right, I meant it like that, english is not my native language, things will slip through

Ah sorry, your english is good enough I didn't think of that.

[ This Message was edited by: medway on 2004-09-16 02:15 ]

medway · Post by **medway** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:21 am

On 2004-09-15 21:21, bbrian wrote:
Tape recorders usually have some EQing going on though, with a pre-emphasis stage at the record head and then another curve to correct it at playback. I think this is for noise/hiss reduction, but I am certainly no expert with tape. I guess the EQ pre-emphasis curve also pushes certain frequency ranges into saturation too, so different emphasis curves can create different sound character.

I'm not 100% on how this works. Here is one link that refers to a HF boost to compensate for HF loss during the recording and playback. But I have also heard of a pre and de emphasis process as well, which includes a LF adjustment.

http://home.flash.net/~mrltapes/equaliz.html

So yes these adjustments as well as bias will all contribute to the sound.

[ This Message was edited by: medway on 2004-09-16 02:22 ]

[ This Message was edited by: medway on 2004-09-16 02:23 ]