Opinions; W1 Limiter and TLS Pocket Limiter

[Lunch Money]

I guess that's why I became a teacher.

[martian]

Yes, but it's an imitation of analog clipping. It's not actual "digital clipping."

A separate but related point: you can't actually clip in 32-bit. Maybe in theory, but best of luck trying to pull it off. Pushing something above 0dB while mixing in the 32-bit (or for the most part, 24-bit) domain isn't actually clipping.

Greg

assuming you are talking about 32bit float opperation in a daw,
sure you cant clip regular channels but the master fader clips as soon as you go over 0db.

just to clarify, here's my understanding of clipping:

it isnt just about going over 0db, it happens at any point above which the imformation is simply cut off. furthermore, my interpretation of it being 'digital' clipping is if there was a point where the knee became hard and produced a flat line (always the case with true digital overload), maybe before which there was a slight softness which retained some of the waveforms shape and introduced more related harmonics, but if it goes flat then it doesnt really matter if it was achieved with analog or digital.

if im incorrect please correct me. i live to learn (amongst other things )

[martian]

I'm convinced more than ever that you're not sure what you're talking about.

What he's saying is that with percussive material (which is already making a "pop" and "noise"-type sound) you might not notice a digital over, especially if it's only one sample. A piano, which is melodic and contains sine-like waveforms, will make overs more noticeable.

A full song contains a combination of all these kinds of sounds, and you can be assured that if you push your track so that it's registering greater than fullscale at many points, you will get completely unusable tracks as a result.

its interesting how you explained that catz comment in your own mind. you maybe havent tried clipping heavy transient beat based material? and are yet to hear the clipping on so many commercial masters? which would render this discussion fairly worthless.

contrary to what you say i believe it is common practice. not that that justifies it, but then everything for loudness is a futile compromise of some kind.

You can't really set a limiter to +20dBu, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with your example. Most limiters (all that I'm aware of, but since I haven't used them all, I don't want to say for 100% certain that it's all) have an upper limit of 0dBu, because it's fullscale and nobody in their right mind would want to limit at anything more than digital fullscale.

So, I can't really answer the question, "what does that tell you," because I can't picture what you're talking about!

sorry i meant turn the in gain up +20db on a limiter, making for 20db of gain reduction. the point being you cant 'flat line' (ie. get many consecutive samples at one amplitude) with most digital limiters (unless they had no look ahead, instant attack instant release, bascially making them a clipper), so how do you suppose the waveforms of much commercial music look (and more importantly sound) the way they do?

[Leonardus]

This thread is of particular interest to me.
I'm studying to build a Softsample optimized DAW-PC. As of this moment, Waves Co has built-up a $150 backpay penalty for me-a registered Native Power Pack user. This is for failure to pay annual dues; I failed to join into their WUP at it's inception, Jan 2004. Waves does not allow those of us who were Licensed Users-prior to inception of WUP who've opted NOT to join-access to Waves anti-piracy interface. I have a choice. Pay Waves CO $150 to gain temporary access to their anti-piracy interface or show Waves and my licensed copy of Native Power Pack Bundle my backside.
The problem is I am absolutely addicted to nearly every plug-in in NPP ...especially: L1!

My music has a bit of everything in it. Open broad orchestral. Intimate jazz, balls out fury, a lone classical guitar, etc. I need a quality replacement limiter. I'm not in the loudness game, I like subtlety with my loud, I want a clean high quality limiter.

Please offer suggestions! Please include a snippet about yourself- your history, your qualifications. with your suggestion.

In reading this thread, I find myself backtracking to the fundamental question, asking myself: What exactly IS digital clipping? It seems as if we're not talking apples and apples in this discussion anymore. For us DAW-101 guys and those humble enough to look back, check this out: [url]http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/spe ... Trends.php[url/]
Thank you. Leonard
Please-please, offer suggestions!! thx

[sinkmusic]

Why not going for Buzroom compressor pack ?
I think it is very goood, and can do very transparent limiting, expanding, compression & multiband compression..
It is not expensive(49 dolalrs I think), the guy is nice and the plugins are VERY tweakable, with a large bunch of features... You can shape your sound without audible artifacts, or just limit the overall level, or use it as a tool to make something new with your audio...
Maybe L1 has more "bollocks" with the basses, but it should be very easy to find something as good as L1.
I made a master of a track in a studio using Waves L-1, but I had to do it again (too many basses). So I used Acuma FinalMix, and I was quite astonished : it is very good with high frequencies, it can enhance the sound very well, and the bass keep their presence without being nor muddy (it keeps a lot of their dynamics) nor to forget them !
This is my own opinion, but you should go and find something cheaper and as good as the ones you're used to... The biggest difficulty is when you're "used to" a plugin...

[martian]

Thank you. Leonard
Please-please, offer suggestions!! thx

well W1 ( http://www.kvraudio.com/get/1510.html ) is a clone of L1 and free, so theres your virtually exact replacement. but since you want a 'clean high quality' limiter then you can do way better than L1, which is comparitively dated and has a distorted sound, even if in a pleasant way.

i find with each limiter its a balance between the artifacts which least affect your music, ie. pumping, distortion, dynamic loss, etc. so one that offers some control will be more widely applicable, since generally faster limiting yeilds more distortion but preserves the transients better and thus punch (although not with L1). whereas slower limiting will be far more transparent but can pump on music with big transients. then theres clipping which could be viewed as super fast limiting, and whilst it preserves transients even better than any limiting it creates way more 'nasty' non linear distortion.

from your music description it definately sounds like something very transparent would be best. so i suggest you try 'pocket limiter' (free) and 'elephant', both clean and high quality. but really, only you can decide. compare them all at equal loudness to your unprocessed mix and note the sonic destruction and futility of loudness.

if you make acoustic music, have you considered not using a limiter at all?

[ddummer]

And don't forget that the Pocket limiter uses
a R5P-LSBL core....
(Rectangular 5 point Linear Spacing Brickwall Limiting)

Does make things way cooler than everybody elses right!

No actually it's a piece of c-rap that you should stay away from.. or...

//Daniel

[defjamm]

I'm convinced more than ever that you're not sure what you're talking about.

What he's saying is that with percussive material (which is already making a "pop" and "noise"-type sound) you might not notice a digital over, especially if it's only one sample. A piano, which is melodic and contains sine-like waveforms, will make overs more noticeable.

A full song contains a combination of all these kinds of sounds, and you can be assured that if you push your track so that it's registering greater than fullscale at many points, you will get completely unusable tracks as a result.

its interesting how you explained that catz comment in your own mind. you maybe havent tried clipping heavy transient beat based material? and are yet to hear the clipping on so many commercial masters? which would render this discussion fairly worthless.

contrary to what you say i believe it is common practice. not that that justifies it, but then everything for loudness is a futile compromise of some kind.

i think he agrees with you, just that he doesn't call it digital clipping but wave-shaping. i know it as clipping, i refer to it as clipping and i call it clipping. the key-word was digital for him.

it IS common practice in modern music, not just a belief. i'm sure we 3 agree on that.

[Lunch Money]

Well, I certainly appreciate the diplomacy and gentle touch, but I still disagree with what he's saying. There is certainly some shaping of the wave going on with a limiter (of course! It doesn't look the same when the limiter is done with it!) but I hesitate to use that word since "waveshaping" is a broad and general category designed to produce any number of special effects including distortion. A limiter may "shape the wave", but it's not generally considered a "waveshaper" if you catch my meaning.

What's being referred to by the people I'm disagreeing with is the typical "black line" effect of heavy limiting that's present in today's commercial releases. This black line isn't caused by digital clipping, ie. intentional "overs", and in any genre that you could think of, NOBODY is "digitally clipping" their track intentionally to achieve loudness. The only people intentionally digitally clipping material are people who are after the nastiest and harshest kind of cold, brittle distortion that you can think of.

Back to the black line: what is universally agreed upon is that modern music is hard-limited to the point of silliness.

This is still not digital clipping.

I didn't explain the Katz comment in my own mind, I read what he said and realized exactly what he was saying, and agreed with it. He thinks that people are limiting too hard, and he's noticing that it's gotten to the point that some really slack engineers are even allowing actual clips, which sometimes go unnoticed due to the genre of the material.

Even if present, clips are still something that engineers would avoid rather than pursue. As such, it's also rare. And as technology gets better, the same engineer with the same stupid attitude towards limiting and using the same techniques, will at least have tools that will prevent the clip while still allowing that ridiculous and ear-tiring "black line" of sound.

And even still-- if you could prove to me that there is massive audible digital clipping in large numbers of commercial releases, that wouldn't change the fact that somebody here is still not understanding the difference between clipping and limiting, regardless of whether or not they accidentally turn out to be "correct".

sorry i meant turn the in gain up +20db on a limiter, making for 20db of gain reduction. the point being you cant 'flat line' (ie. get many consecutive samples at one amplitude) with most digital limiters (unless they had no look ahead, instant attack instant release, bascially making them a clipper), so how do you suppose the waveforms of much commercial music look (and more importantly sound) the way they do?

There are some confusing points being made here. Are you actually trying to say that you can't get a "flat line" with a digital limiter? Then are you saying that a limiter is actually a clipper? Followed by the assumption that the way commercial music LOOKS is proof that its been clipped rather than limited? I can't tell what you're trying to say exactly, but I'll try again:

A limiter doesn't allow clips, at least no limiter that I'm aware of. The entire purpose of a limiter (hence the name) is to limit audio to a certain level. With a master limiter, this level is usually 0dB. So, what's happening is that as you lower the threshold and match with make-up gain, more peaks are being squashed up against the 0dB limit. You can get a super thick black band of a waveform, that is completely devoid of dynamics (no visible peaks and valleys). But t still hasn't clipped. It has been limited.

I'm sorry, but you're simply not understanding what digital clipping is, and your words show this fact. You're confusing the 'flat top' look of limited waveforms with a clipped waveform. I don't know if I can explain it any better than I have been, but I'll keep trying:

You have a pointy wizard hat. You take a pair of scissors and cut off the top. This is clipping because you have removed part of the hat. If you run your finger over its profile, you will encounter an empty space where the peak once was!

But if you instead take your hand and squash the top down so that it's now flat, from the "profile" it might look the same (the peak is flat now!), but all of the information is still there. You haven't cut it off. If you run your finger over the profile of the hat, you won't encounter an empty space, but rather, the squished-down peak of the hat.

I hope this is helping SOMEONE out there.

-----

Now, if all you're saying is that by pushing a track into "clipping" territory a bit, you might not even get any noticeable audible clipping on your "overs", then I guess we agree. But that's not what it sounds like you're saying.

An example of digital clipping. I've pushed the track so that it's practically constant; however, you can imagine that if not pushed 'extremely', you will still get sufficient crackling from the digital clipping that it would not be at all desirable. I can't think of anyone who would intentionally do this except as an effect:

Digital Clipping snippet

Greg

[martian]

What's being referred to by the people I'm disagreeing with is the typical "black line" effect of heavy limiting that's present in today's commercial releases.

nope, not what im saying at all. you are confusing this 'black line', with what i am refering to: consecutive samples of one amplitude.

This black line isn't caused by digital clipping, ie. intentional "overs", and in any genre that you could think of, NOBODY is "digitally clipping" their track intentionally to achieve loudness. The only people intentionally digitally clipping material are people who are after the nastiest and harshest kind of cold, brittle distortion that you can think of.

im astounded you can make such an assumption when you are clearly not an ME.

And even still-- if you could prove to me that there is massive audible digital clipping in large numbers of commercial releases, that wouldn't change the fact that somebody here is still not understanding the difference between clipping and limiting, regardless of whether or not they accidentally turn out to be "correct".

its not massively audible, its subtle for the most part, not audible through consumer hifi, hence the meaningful compromise in many situations. where it is very audible its not always as unpleasant to the degree you'd suggest.

There are some confusing points being made here. Are you actually trying to say that you can't get a "flat line" with a digital limiter? Then are you saying that a limiter is actually a clipper? Followed by the assumption that the way commercial music LOOKS is proof that its been clipped rather than limited? I can't tell what you're trying to say exactly, but I'll try again:

i'll try again:

if you push a limiter into say 20db (or even 6db) gain reduction, you get a solid black block of a waveform when viewed 'zoomed out' like you say, but if you zoom in to sample level you will notice the transients have no clipping (ie. many consecutive samples in a flat line), the original shape of the waveform has been retained to a degree. with clipping it is not retained, it is just cut off like in my example pic.

then i explained the circumstances a limiter could be considered a clipper.

thats all!

I'm sorry, but you're simply not understanding what digital clipping is, and your words show this fact. You're confusing the 'flat top' look of limited waveforms with a clipped waveform. I don't know if I can explain it any better than I have been, but I'll keep trying:

You have a pointy wizard hat. You take a pair of scissors and cut off the top. This is clipping because you have removed part of the hat. If you run your finger over its profile, you will encounter an empty space where the peak once was!

But if you instead take your hand and squash the top down so that it's now flat, from the "profile" it might look the same (the peak is flat now!), but all of the information is still there. You haven't cut it off. If you run your finger over the profile of the hat, you won't encounter an empty space, but rather, the squished-down peak of the hat.

I hope this is helping SOMEONE out there.

-----

Now, if all you're saying is that by pushing a track into "clipping" territory a bit, you might not even get any noticeable audible clipping on your "overs", then I guess we agree. But that's not what it sounds like you're saying.

An example of digital clipping. I've pushed the track so that it's practically constant; however, you can imagine that if not pushed 'extremely', you will still get sufficient crackling from the digital clipping that it would not be at all desirable. I can't think of anyone who would intentionally do this except as an effect:

Digital Clipping snippet

Greg

the fool you take me for...

i think the problem is you and your wizard dont understand what a sample is or the whole shannon-nyquist sampling theorem.

[Mr. Tingle]

martin, you don't understand what digital clippping is.

[martian]

since you guys know so much about clipping in general, maybe you could set me straight on some of the other places it can/will occour on the music we listen to:

1. intersamples at playback D/A
2. peaks from mp3 conversion (strange gregs 'normal' music doesnt seem compensated for?)
3. a broadcast processors distortion-cancelled clipping, often the primary peak reduction system.
4. the 'shred' practice used to get around a cd pressing plants simple clipped waveform detection system, and avoid rejection.
5. the pre-gain/normalise past 0db process used by old electronic artists for drum loudness.

thanks,

[bmanic]

I also would like to know why:

Running the signal into my RME 9632 and on purpose going over 0dBFS into the converters is not called "clipping"? This is basically what is done over and over again in mastering studios (except they have nice lavry or benchmark converters). Let me also tell you that it works extremely well on pop/hiphop/dance material.

Cheers!
bManic

[fabi]

I also would like to know why:

Running the signal into my RME 9632 and on purpose going over 0dBFS into the converters is not called "clipping"? This is basically what is done over and over again in mastering studios (except they have nice lavry or benchmark converters). Let me also tell you that it works extremely well on pop/hiphop/dance material.

Cheers!
bManic

but is it digital clipping, are the devices digital? sorry, don't know the equipment you're refering to.

[diverdee]

Isn't digital 'clipping' kinda 'crack, squawk, click'
& analogue 'clipping' kinda 'vhroom, whump, mmngmmmmn'
?
(ish).