Elephant vs. PL...Is PL more transparent ???
-
- KVRer
- 29 posts since 23 Jan, 2006
Would be nice if somebody could develop a limiter with dual stage limiting. One with transients preservation (sharp) and the other one rounder one (smooth) with some kind of a blend knob.
-
- KVRian
- 933 posts since 14 Jun, 2004 from Guanajuato, Mexico
I've never used the dither in Elephant myself. Would it be better toLazlo Minimart wrote:Aleksey -- I've been wondering if you would ever consider offering the dither in Elephant as a freebie. I really, really like it, but feel like loading Elephant just to get it (when I don't need the limiting) is a bit awkward.
a) Dither with Elephant (always the last plug in my mastering chain) and export a 16-bit file
or
b) Export a 24-bit file and dither it later in my audio editor (Acon Acoustica)?
-
- AcousticHippie
- 4769 posts since 12 Mar, 2003
HarBal does that (without the blend knob though afaik)Eric Sundance wrote:Would be nice if somebody could develop a limiter with dual stage limiting. One with transients preservation (sharp) and the other one rounder one (smooth) with some kind of a blend knob.
-
- KVRAF
- 4030 posts since 7 Sep, 2002
Sorry to bring this topic back... Just wanted to ask one thing:
mark4man, what kind of dithering have you used on PL output? Just wanted to be sure output after PL was not truncated without dithering. Hope the same applies to Elephant
I seem to remember such 'crispness' may appear on non-dithered tracks. Of course, that's distortion on phycho-acoustic sonic levels.
mark4man, what kind of dithering have you used on PL output? Just wanted to be sure output after PL was not truncated without dithering. Hope the same applies to Elephant
I seem to remember such 'crispness' may appear on non-dithered tracks. Of course, that's distortion on phycho-acoustic sonic levels.
-
- KVRist
- 31 posts since 4 Nov, 2005
I assume there is no need to use any dithering if bouncing 32bit float into 32 bit float right?!
Also, what kind of dithering is implemented in Elephant? and what kind of dithering is generally preferred for mastering let’s say classical music? Or should I be using noise shaping as oppose to dithering?
Also, what kind of dithering is implemented in Elephant? and what kind of dithering is generally preferred for mastering let’s say classical music? Or should I be using noise shaping as oppose to dithering?
-
- KVRAF
- 4030 posts since 7 Sep, 2002
DannyZ, it's impossible to say what 'kind' of dithering Elephant implements. It is my own finding - not Pow-r for sure.
I've asked about dithering because WAV files mark4man sent are 16-bit files.
I've asked about dithering because WAV files mark4man sent are 16-bit files.
-
- KVRAF
- 4030 posts since 7 Sep, 2002
OMU, you may see its curve at the spectrum analyzer by passing silence through it. Other than that it's really hard to tell anything about dithering. This 'pow-r 3 is designed for classical music' is a hype in my opinion (more over, does that mean it should work equally well for pop music production?)
Scientific research would be an answer to that, but 'Pow-r Consortium' does not provide any public scientific information that can be a base for their solution (please correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm basing my solution solely on the noise spectrum distribution shape and the way it 'sounds'. A purely empiric approach.
Scientific research would be an answer to that, but 'Pow-r Consortium' does not provide any public scientific information that can be a base for their solution (please correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm basing my solution solely on the noise spectrum distribution shape and the way it 'sounds'. A purely empiric approach.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 72 posts since 4 Dec, 2004
Aleksey...
No dithering...not yet, anyway? This is a 16-Bit (44.1kHz) SONAR project (don't ask...it was the lead guitarist's fault) bounced to a 24-Bit (44.1kHz) stereo .wav (24-Bit to grab the xtra ambience provided by the project's higher res plug-in DSP)...to now be BRC'd (w/ dither) back down to 16-Bit in WaveLab.
BTW - Without oversampling activated in Elephant...a lot of the "warmth" created before is gone. But enough is still present to continue to make the claim that PL is more transparent than Elephant.
Well...'ya know what? When I replicate my CD? I really don't want my paying customers to hear this "illusion" either.
mark4man
BTW2 - If that's not what you meant...forget what I said. Bit it ain't me who's biassed here; & I'm certainly under no illusions.
Now...to be fair...in the intro...I have noticed that PL kills some of the sparkle on the first voice synth passage...enough so that it doesn't ring as nicely. This is the part of the tune where no limiting is necessary...meaning that UA is also full of poop when it says no audio is affected unless the limiter is kicked in.
No dithering...not yet, anyway? This is a 16-Bit (44.1kHz) SONAR project (don't ask...it was the lead guitarist's fault) bounced to a 24-Bit (44.1kHz) stereo .wav (24-Bit to grab the xtra ambience provided by the project's higher res plug-in DSP)...to now be BRC'd (w/ dither) back down to 16-Bit in WaveLab.
BTW - Without oversampling activated in Elephant...a lot of the "warmth" created before is gone. But enough is still present to continue to make the claim that PL is more transparent than Elephant.
bmaniac...I sincerely hope that you're not suggesting that this user is hearing an illusion...'cause he's not. I listened to this project with completely unbiassed ears. I was even hoping that Elephant was more transparent than PL...&; if it had been...I was fully ready to jump ship. Then I played both the .wma's & .wav's for several co-workers in my office...on several different systems (bookshelf, PC, etc)...& they all said that Elephant was warmer.Tools for most people are not math, they use their ears (or more often than not, eyes! ) . In this case, what the user may think is more transparent is actually not but might be more pleasant sounding and thus creating the illusion. Same kind of description for compressors exist.
Well...'ya know what? When I replicate my CD? I really don't want my paying customers to hear this "illusion" either.
mark4man
BTW2 - If that's not what you meant...forget what I said. Bit it ain't me who's biassed here; & I'm certainly under no illusions.
Now...to be fair...in the intro...I have noticed that PL kills some of the sparkle on the first voice synth passage...enough so that it doesn't ring as nicely. This is the part of the tune where no limiting is necessary...meaning that UA is also full of poop when it says no audio is affected unless the limiter is kicked in.
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
Actually, if you run an audio signal through PL just below the threshold, the output file will phase cancel. If you run it through just over the threshold it will not. That's fairly good evidence that it does nothing until the limiter kicks in.mark4man wrote:...meaning that UA is also full of poop when it says no audio is affected unless the limiter is kicked in.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer
-
- KVRAF
- 4030 posts since 7 Sep, 2002
mark4man, OF COURSE Elephant is warmer, and your original RAW file is warmer than PL version as well. Check this out - this is important.
I can hear these psycho-acoustic differences, but this has nothing to do with limiter's performance directly (the thing we were seemingly arguing about in the first place). It is simply a subtle coloration arising from differing math resolution of Elephant and PL. And I insist that PL is less transparent in this aspect. RAW an PL versions should sound equal on passages where limiter does no limiting.
I can hear these psycho-acoustic differences, but this has nothing to do with limiter's performance directly (the thing we were seemingly arguing about in the first place). It is simply a subtle coloration arising from differing math resolution of Elephant and PL. And I insist that PL is less transparent in this aspect. RAW an PL versions should sound equal on passages where limiter does no limiting.
-
- KVRAF
- 1894 posts since 19 Apr, 2006 from Montreal, Canada
I so totally agree with this. Just finished cleaning up this monolog recording that was part of a semi-amateur theater production; recording was awful, noisy and level all over the place.bmanic wrote: Probably this is true for all things with sound. The more you have random glitches/noise/scratches in the background the more 'interesting' and organic the sound. Dead quiet spaces, like anechoic chambers, freak people out. It's un-natural, hence the reaction.
Last operation after noise removal was to gate the recording so as to remove remaining noise between phrase. I used Reagate for that and dialed it to bring level to -120 dB between spoken phrases, I figured the less noise the better... that was godawfull spooky and horrible sounding, it made the hair on my arms stand-up, no shit; had to quickly dial some noise back in. Noise, in proper quantities and at proper level, is a good thing.
No, that wasn't me.