Thanks
Mega search for the right limiter
-
- KVRist
- 31 posts since 4 Nov, 2005
For the last two weeks I was downloading and trying every demo/limiter I could find on the net
…here is my short cut to the truth of loudness: In software world nothing beats WavesL3 (btw the only one that I own) but this thing is so not transparent. On most of tracks that I’ve done it often boosts around 400/300 Hz and 60/50 Hz and that’s not the kind of “color” that I normally welcome
…etc so I was looking for something just as strong but with more transparency to it. So far I didn’t find anything that’d be a good compromise between loudness and transparency. I really, liked Voxengo’s Elephant for transparency and overall quality but I had to push it too hard to get somewhat close to L3 and then the sound kind of started falling apart. Anyhow, I still prefer my hardware limiters but this is so incontinent in today’s productions. So what about those UAD limiters? Or maybe there is something about to hit VST market? Maybe Elephant 3?...Any insights and prophecies for 2006 would be very much appreciated.
Thanks
Thanks
- KVRAF
- 4030 posts since 7 Sep, 2002
Danny, you should decide whether you can sacrifice transparency for loudness or not. There's no 'magic' limiter which will bring you loudness without destroying important elements. It's just a nature of things: limiting is a saturation of one kind or another. Saturation means distortion and added harmonics.
In many cases it's better to use multi-band compressor, some kind of dedicated saturation plug-in and a limiter at the end that does not hit too hard.
That way you can: 1. rebalance spectrum so that it sounds loud (by adding energy to special spectrum areas - 1kHz and 3-4kHz mainly). 2. "shave off" peaks with a saturation plug-in - that usually adds 'tube' coloration. 3. Bring the overall mix to modern 'brickwall' condition.
So, it's always a compromise between loudness, transparency, compression pumping and distortion.
In many cases it's better to use multi-band compressor, some kind of dedicated saturation plug-in and a limiter at the end that does not hit too hard.
That way you can: 1. rebalance spectrum so that it sounds loud (by adding energy to special spectrum areas - 1kHz and 3-4kHz mainly). 2. "shave off" peaks with a saturation plug-in - that usually adds 'tube' coloration. 3. Bring the overall mix to modern 'brickwall' condition.
So, it's always a compromise between loudness, transparency, compression pumping and distortion.
- KVRAF
- 4030 posts since 7 Sep, 2002
-
- KVRian
- 1023 posts since 14 Jan, 2004 from germany
the UAD precision Limiter is just fantastic.
But why do u push your music so loud? u'll loose a lot dynamic
i'm always using the limiter as a limiter (to limit peaks over 0 db) and not as a maximizer
But why do u push your music so loud? u'll loose a lot dynamic
i'm always using the limiter as a limiter (to limit peaks over 0 db) and not as a maximizer
-
- KVRian
- 1023 posts since 14 Jan, 2004 from germany
Aleksey Vaneev wrote:In the end you may just try to clip your track - that technique is used quite often nowadays.
who does that and why - sounds terrible*
*i did that for my first album, because i didn't kew it better - the result was that harsh digital distortion
-
- KVRAF
- 2247 posts since 13 Dec, 2003
Aleksy, pls give us an example with your 3 plugins
=======================================
That way you can: 1. rebalance spectrum so that it sounds loud (by adding energy to special spectrum areas - 1kHz and 3-4kHz mainly). 2. "shave off" peaks with a saturation plug-in - that usually adds 'tube' coloration. 3. Bring the overall mix to modern 'brickwall' condition.
===================================================
thanks!

=======================================
That way you can: 1. rebalance spectrum so that it sounds loud (by adding energy to special spectrum areas - 1kHz and 3-4kHz mainly). 2. "shave off" peaks with a saturation plug-in - that usually adds 'tube' coloration. 3. Bring the overall mix to modern 'brickwall' condition.
===================================================
thanks!
-
- KVRist
- 234 posts since 30 Sep, 2002
Verstaerker:
Take a close looks at some material from CDs you've recently bought. Some AD converters can be driven in to clipping without sounding bad, but probably not your soundcard
.
The loudness race is fairly ridiculous anyway. I'd advise you to get your sound in mixing and leave the heavy handed stuff to the mastering folks.
Take a close looks at some material from CDs you've recently bought. Some AD converters can be driven in to clipping without sounding bad, but probably not your soundcard
The loudness race is fairly ridiculous anyway. I'd advise you to get your sound in mixing and leave the heavy handed stuff to the mastering folks.
Will mix for fun
- KVRAF
- 4030 posts since 7 Sep, 2002
verstaerker, secret to that approach is a clever pre-equalizing. It's possible to make it sound less harsh. But of course, you won't get rid of mid-range mud. But usually it is left unnoticed, so nobody cares about it in such situations.
dimitar, you may use Voxengo's Soniformer or CurveEQ, TapeBus and Elephant.
dimitar, you may use Voxengo's Soniformer or CurveEQ, TapeBus and Elephant.
-
- KVRian
- 943 posts since 15 Mar, 2005
i personally think L3 is for people who are prepared to compromise everything for loudness.
as aleksey says much material nowadays is just clipped anyway, and not many notice the difference until played on a decent system.
clipping will preserve the dynamics better than any limiter, but at the expense of enharmonic distortion. the situation is improved by adding a curve to the clippers knee, which helps bias the distortion away from the highs. but this is heading back towards limiter relm and thus you'll loose some dynamics for the same volume ahcieved with hard clipping.
anyway listen to dre's 2001 for some serious clipping. how many people do think who listened to that gave a toss? so maybe its meaningful compromise?
but if you care about sound quality and the original intentions of your mix, get elephant and use sparingly.
whenever you try to maximise your track i'd always compare back at equal loudness to the original mix to understand any compromise/improvement you are really making. i find the loss of dynamics actually ironically makes the maximised version sound quieter, and always worse.
its also a misconception that maximising your tracks will make them sound louder on the radio, in fact it doesnt but instead determines the ammount of distortion it will contain. there's a really good article on this in bob catz's book.
i think ultimately you have to realise the futility of the whole loudness thing. but also the positive psychoacoustic effect it has on the untrained general public.
regards,
as aleksey says much material nowadays is just clipped anyway, and not many notice the difference until played on a decent system.
clipping will preserve the dynamics better than any limiter, but at the expense of enharmonic distortion. the situation is improved by adding a curve to the clippers knee, which helps bias the distortion away from the highs. but this is heading back towards limiter relm and thus you'll loose some dynamics for the same volume ahcieved with hard clipping.
anyway listen to dre's 2001 for some serious clipping. how many people do think who listened to that gave a toss? so maybe its meaningful compromise?
but if you care about sound quality and the original intentions of your mix, get elephant and use sparingly.
whenever you try to maximise your track i'd always compare back at equal loudness to the original mix to understand any compromise/improvement you are really making. i find the loss of dynamics actually ironically makes the maximised version sound quieter, and always worse.
its also a misconception that maximising your tracks will make them sound louder on the radio, in fact it doesnt but instead determines the ammount of distortion it will contain. there's a really good article on this in bob catz's book.
i think ultimately you have to realise the futility of the whole loudness thing. but also the positive psychoacoustic effect it has on the untrained general public.
regards,
-
- KVRian
- 943 posts since 15 Mar, 2005
which begs the question, why dont you just turn down the master? otherwise you are using a limiter for loudness, unless you then turn the output of the limiter down however many db, in which case it seems pointless again. but maybe there is a good reason?verstaerker wrote:the UAD precision Limiter is just fantastic.
But why do u push your music so loud? u'll loose a lot dynamic
i'm always using the limiter as a limiter (to limit peaks over 0 db) and not as a maximizer
-
- KVRist
- 322 posts since 2 Mar, 2005
Whats clipping in the mastering sense?
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Give AAMS a try, it can give some good results, especially in the pre-EQ department and average gain redution on the peaks to get the most effective loudness.
-
- KVRAF
- 5017 posts since 13 Dec, 2005 from The Void
I'm definately not trying to take a potential client away from Alexsey, but if you haven't tried the W1 limiter, you should give it a shot:
http://www.yohng.com/w1limit.html
It's free, and is modeled after the Waves L1..
http://www.yohng.com/w1limit.html
It's free, and is modeled after the Waves L1..

Jens, "B.t.w.: it appears I was wrong"
-
- KVRAF
- 6490 posts since 14 Jun, 2004 from Rochester, NY

