Eventide Newfangled Audio Elevate (mastering bundle)

[Arrested Developer]

i could already get some valuable results from both in the last couple of days.
The match function of EQuivocate works beautifully, it really sculpts the material in a smooth way.
And i also think the multiple transient shapers are extremely useful.
A great addition to Ozone 8, that's a fantastic combination.

[jbarish]

Fabfilter Pro-L vs iZotope Ozone 8's limiter vs DMG Limitless vs Newfangled Elevate vs PSP Xenon.... Who would win in a big limiter battle royale ?

AOM Invisible trounces the lot.. Although I long for the day, as a mastering engineer, that we come down to an average of -13/14 LKFS/LUFS so that we won't need any of these tools to push silly loudness 'boundaries'. The day I only ever need L1 as my final plugin will be a grand day indeed.

Which AOM Invisible Limiter?? There's is newer one now. And the day L1 is the only limiter I need is the day I give up music. L1 sounds like ass compared to today's limiters.

[plexuss]

In the end, I decided on DMG Limitless over Elevate. Since the purpose of Elevate is, in part, a mastering limiter, that implies it is "the" finalization limiter in the mastering chain. It fails in this purpose because it's not a true peak limiter. Limitless offers similar functionality and is also very nice sounding. It doesn't have the transient feature but I don't consider that vital. If I am going to replace my "standard" mastering limiter (Nugen ISL2) it has to be with something that is better. I don't typically use different mastering limiters and perfer to use the same one on all projects. Limitless brings more to the table than ISL2 but Elevate just doesn't cut it if not because of the lack of true-peak, I find it not as easy to use (eg. get good sounding [transparent] results fast) as Limitless.

[MogwaiBoy]

Elevate has won me over and I'm fully onboard with the whole concept and innovations put forward in its design. It's actually kind of revolutionary/genius in the way it handles transients - I'm struggling to get the same kind of LOUD but punchy results (electronic music) with Limitless. But I still really enjoy Limitless, it had a steep learning curve for me but once I got deep into it there was no equal... til' now. Both will have their strenghts though.

Ozone Maximizer catches ISPs like a total boss - not a single sample over your ceiling if you set it right. So I'm chucking that after Elevate. They are looking at implementing true peak handling in Elevate by the way. Unfortunately Limitless isn't incredible in the ISP dept.

All this money I spent on limiters I could have gotten super experienced famous people to master my tracks with proper monitoring and analog gear.. oops!

[plexuss]

If I give Limitless a -0.3dB ceiling, it generates no ISPs when driven hard. Glad you find Elevate useful. For me, not so much. It's good there's such a plethora of tools out there so we can all suit our workflows and ideas.

[do_androids_dream]

Fabfilter Pro-L vs iZotope Ozone 8's limiter vs DMG Limitless vs Newfangled Elevate vs PSP Xenon.... Who would win in a big limiter battle royale ?

AOM Invisible trounces the lot.. Although I long for the day, as a mastering engineer, that we come down to an average of -13/14 LKFS/LUFS so that we won't need any of these tools to push silly loudness 'boundaries'. The day I only ever need L1 as my final plugin will be a grand day indeed.

Which AOM Invisible Limiter?? There's is newer one now. And the day L1 is the only limiter I need is the day I give up music. L1 sounds like ass compared to today's limiters.

Catching the odd peak at -1dB or so it will be completely transparent. That's the situation I want to see - where the LUFS is at a very healthy -13 or so which means that limiters will only be used to catch a few peaks and not to heavily squash music. If that is the case, it really won't matter what limiter you're using.

I mean the original AOM Invisible - I haven't used the more 'advanced' version although it's based on the same code.

[plexuss]

Fabfilter Pro-L vs iZotope Ozone 8's limiter vs DMG Limitless vs Newfangled Elevate vs PSP Xenon.... Who would win in a big limiter battle royale ?

AOM Invisible trounces the lot.. Although I long for the day, as a mastering engineer, that we come down to an average of -13/14 LKFS/LUFS so that we won't need any of these tools to push silly loudness 'boundaries'. The day I only ever need L1 as my final plugin will be a grand day indeed.

Which AOM Invisible Limiter?? There's is newer one now. And the day L1 is the only limiter I need is the day I give up music. L1 sounds like ass compared to today's limiters.

Catching the odd peak at -1dB or so it will be completely transparent. That's the situation I want to see - where the LUFS is at a very healthy -13 or so which means that limiters will only be used to catch a few peaks and not to heavily squash music. If that is the case, it really won't matter what limiter you're using.

I mean the original AOM Invisible - I haven't used the more 'advanced' version although it's based on the same code.

Keep in mind that when a PCM render is compressed into a stream or compressed file format, all bets are off for inter-sample peaks. A render with no ISPs in PCM may generate a stream of ISPs once compressed. This can be a factor of the nature of the limiter as well as the compression algo.

[Russell Grand]

The upgrade from EQuivocate to Elevate has got me drooling, but I can't take the plunge just yet due to lack of funds. But boy oh boy, she looks like a beaut. I've long been a fan of Eventide and I'm fast becoming a fan of Newfangled!

[summer2000]

The upgrade from EQuivocate to Elevate has got me drooling, but I can't take the plunge just yet due to lack of funds. But boy oh boy, she looks like a beaut. I've long been a fan of Eventide and I'm fast becoming a fan of Newfangled!

Buy it from JRR Shop and save an additional $12.64 by using discount code "group" at checkout. As a matter of fact, this "group" code has worked for me on pretty all the gear (software and hardware) I've purchased at JRR.


https://soundcloud.com/djlawya/this-sty ... al-to-none

[Beatworld]

Keep in mind that when a PCM render is compressed into a stream or compressed file format, all bets are off for inter-sample peaks. A render with no ISPs in PCM may generate a stream of ISPs once compressed. This can be a factor of the nature of the limiter as well as the compression algo.

Which is why it is a good idea to set the threshold/ceiling in your limiter to something closer to -1.0db than 0db.
Lately I've set the Threshold at -0.8db with good results.
So even if streaming generates some ISPs you still have some headroom.

[do_androids_dream]

Keep in mind that when a PCM render is compressed into a stream or compressed file format, all bets are off for inter-sample peaks. A render with no ISPs in PCM may generate a stream of ISPs once compressed. This can be a factor of the nature of the limiter as well as the compression algo.

Which is why it is a good idea to set the threshold/ceiling in your limiter to something closer to -1.0db than 0db.
Lately I've set the Threshold at -0.8db with good results.
So even if streaming generates some ISPs you still have some headroom.

L1 does have isp protection now.

There's far too much fuss about isp's. They are the least of anyone's worries. As an ME though I make sure they're eliminated so that clients don't get caught up in it. Waves WLM+ is the one I use - it's also Waves best limiter anyway.

[Aloysius]

Keep in mind that when a PCM render is compressed into a stream or compressed file format, all bets are off for inter-sample peaks. A render with no ISPs in PCM may generate a stream of ISPs once compressed. This can be a factor of the nature of the limiter as well as the compression algo.

Which is why it is a good idea to set the threshold/ceiling in your limiter to something closer to -1.0db than 0db.
Lately I've set the Threshold at -0.8db with good results.
So even if streaming generates some ISPs you still have some headroom.

L1 does have isp protection now.

There's far too much fuss about isp's. They are the least of anyone's worries. As an ME though I make sure they're eliminated so that clients don't get caught up in it. Waves WLM+ is the one I use - it's also Waves best limiter anyway.

If that's the case, I would never, ever let you near my babies.

[do_androids_dream]

Keep in mind that when a PCM render is compressed into a stream or compressed file format, all bets are off for inter-sample peaks. A render with no ISPs in PCM may generate a stream of ISPs once compressed. This can be a factor of the nature of the limiter as well as the compression algo.

Which is why it is a good idea to set the threshold/ceiling in your limiter to something closer to -1.0db than 0db.
Lately I've set the Threshold at -0.8db with good results.
So even if streaming generates some ISPs you still have some headroom.

L1 does have isp protection now.

There's far too much fuss about isp's. They are the least of anyone's worries. As an ME though I make sure they're eliminated so that clients don't get caught up in it. Waves WLM+ is the one I use - it's also Waves best limiter anyway.

If that's the case, I would never, ever let you near my babies.

Fair enough, but why? I still make sure they're eliminated even though I know they are very unlikely to ever be a problem even if they are present. They're present on 10's of 1000's of commercial releases from the last 25 years or so. Almost all digital playback systems have analog headroom to account for problems such as isp's - a good amount of headroom usually, that will negate any issues. Wouldn't you rather use an ME who actually has knowledge of the issue rather than someone who just uses an isp capable limiter because 'that's what everyone else does'? Isp's are something to be aware of sure, but they are not the 'problem' most seem to believe they are (which is certain plugin companies fault imo).

There is also the problem of metering to consider. There is no such thing as a truly 100% accurate meter. They basically make an 'educated' guess at what a reconstructed waveform will look like. There may well be isp's present even when the supposed 'best' meter says there isn't.

EDIT: If your comment was based on my choice of limiter well.. Limiting represents about 10% of what an ME does. It's the necessary thing at the end of the process - and what with LUFS levels coming down it's doing very little actual limiting these days which is a good thing. I tried many isp capable limiters. The Waves one did the least damage to the signal so I went with it. It was the most transparent (of the ones I tried) compared to my non isp limiters at the same gain reduction level (because an isp limiter will be reducing gain much sooner than a non isp limiter and it WILL be audible).

[Aloysius]

> They're present on 10's of 1000's of commercial releases from the last 25 years or so.

I don't care how many MEs are doing it. It sounds terrible.

> Wouldn't you rather use an ME who actually has knowledge of the issue rather than someone who just uses an isp capable limiter because 'that's what everyone else does'?

I don't care how many ...

I would rather do it myself. At least I'll know I've put my best effort into it.

[do_androids_dream]

> They're present on 10's of 1000's of commercial releases from the last 25 years or so.

I don't care how many MEs are doing it. It sounds terrible.

They're virtually inaudible. Also, they're not 'doing it' on purpose - they were, by and large, unaware of isp's. Some meters don't even pick them up.