Waves Masters vs L3 - opinions?

[uvacom]

The L2 has been used in my studio to save many dull sounding recordings from its doom.

You must be referring to something other than the L2 plugin which I own. The L2 has nothing to do with "dull" or "clear" or any other adjective referring to frequency response.. It simply makes things louder by clipping off the peaks.

Brandon

Anything that's clipping peaks is distorting the spectral content of the audio. It's not just "making things louder" or "reducing the dynamic range". It does those things, but it also adds (and removes) a lot of frequency infomation. Whether or not those changes decrease the "dullness" of a track is highly subjective, but that's another matter entirely.

[brandondrury]

While I certainly would be willing to post some samples, I'm not sure if there is much need. It's pretty clear how the L2 works. It clips off the tops of the peaks. Open up any major label cd from before the late 90s (before brickwall limiting was used as it is now) and look at the waveform. Then open up a modern cd (which are much louder because of brickwall limiting) and you can see that the transients are clearly not rounded, but clipped right off.

If we don't agree on this, I can post audio / and pictures to present my case.

You're simplifying things a bit aren't you? "It simply makes the drums quieter." ?

Maybe I am a tad. But to suggest that the L2 is a useful tool for reducing "dullness" from a mix is a pretty crazy notion in my opinion.

If you don't agree, let's take a dull mix. We'll both do our best to master it. I get to use a multiband compressor or parametric EQ. You get to use the L2. We'll see which tool fixes this "dullness".

While I don't disagree that the distortion will make subtle changes to the tone of the transients (almost always in unpleasing ways to my ears) I think that this hardly qualifies the L2 as tool that should be used to fix dull mixes.

Actually, this is the forum I've seen that has spoken of the L2 in a positive light at all. I'm guessing the reason being that this is a sequencing / sampling forum and most people here are not hardcore engineers (whatever that means). I'm extremely suprised that you guys seam to want the L2 to do something to your mix (other than give an extra dB or 2 to the RMS level). I find that the loss of dynamics is totally horrid when the L2 is used even slightly more than "barely".


Brandon

[xander]

@Brandon

OK -- I understand where you're coming from. It certainly does show clipped peaks in the attenuated waveform when a maximum threshold is used, but there is an increase in the dynamic reproduction of the waveform which *can* present a pleasing audible component -- nothing wrong with attenuating peaks if done right.



I can post a short clip of a completely unmastered, minimally EQ'd lead break of a song I've recently been working on, and I'd be quite interested in the outcome of the exercise to see what we come up with. I am certainly always willing to learn. Game?

Cheers,
Alex

[Jonny Quest]

. I'm guessing the reason being that this is a sequencing / sampling forum and most people here are not hardcore engineers (whatever that means)

The last time I recall Bob Ludwig posting here, I think he was considering trading in his Manleys, Massenburgs, Milennias and other analog processors for a L2 and other software plug-ins

Actually, if you check out his Gateway Mastering site http://www.gatewaymastering.com/masttech.asp

you will see he cites having 6 WAVES L2's in their pro digital studio.

Like Bob Ludwig, and you, most of us are hard-core in one way or another.

Peace,

~jonny

[xander]

Why I like it (L2), conclusively...

This is what I call a 'make it sound good' box. Put sound through it, make some adjustments, and the audio coming out sounds better than what went in. I recently recorded music I wrote for a film trailer, and used the L2 for the first time on that project. The producers wanted the piece to be exciting and punchy, and there were many big orchestral hits and hard-edged sound design type effects. We tracked a combination of prerecorded tracks from the original film score layered and intercut with sequenced music played on my collection of samplers and synths. Everything was mixed to stereo and sent to the L2 for A-D conversion and limiting, then S/P-DIF from the L2 to a MotU 2408 MkII, and from there to disk. The results exceeded my expectations and were noticeably better than the last recording I had made in my studio, pre-L2. Needless to say, the L2 has become a permanent fixture in my signal chain!

I also plan to use it recording acoustic instruments. When I play piano I tend to have a wide dynamic range, which in the past has created the need for multiple takes due to sometimes pegging the meters in loud passages. There is a comfort in dialing -.5dB and then setting reasonable record levels, knowing that there will be no overs on any of the takes thanks to the look-ahead limiting of the L2. Put the preamp outputs into the L2 analog ins, and enjoy a clean signal path right to disk.

As far as IDR versus Apogee UV22, as I stated earlier I didn't do extensive listening tests so I won't make any comparisons. IDR sounds excellent to my ears, and while I'm sure this gets argued very passionately by proponents of either box, I suspect IDR is roughly equivalent to UV22 in terms of sound quality. I bought the Waves L2 for its combination of quality A-D conversion and limiting, and also for the excellent and easy user interface that makes using the device a pleasure.

...and he echoes my sentiments (better articulated too)

Cheers,
Alex

[brandondrury]

The last time I recall Bob Ludwig posting here, I think he was considering trading in his Manleys, Massenburgs, Milennias and other analog processors for a L2 and other software plug-ins

LOL. I guess that emoticon was the "Yeah right!!" (sarcasm) Icon.

you will see he cites having 6 WAVES L2's in their pro digital studio.

I don't deny this. They have a "complex" with multiple mastering engineers. "studio" is an understatment. While I'm not a big fan of brickwall limiting, in general, you need it to get the mega modern loudness that the kids have been tricked into liking.

It certainly does show clipped peaks in the attenuated waveform when a maximum threshold is used, but there is an increase in the dynamic reproduction of the waveform which *can* present a pleasing audible component

The pleasing part is HIGHLY subjective. I don't like what the L2 does to my mixes. It always sounds better to turn up the volume knob than it does to smash my mix with an L2.

There is NO increase in dynamic anything with an L2. You are thinking of an expander or someting. There is a reduction in dynamics. This is why EVERYTHING gets loud. This is why drums don't hit as hard as they one did when you "overuse" the L2. I have a little personal rule that I never let the L2 hit more than 2dB or so on the 2bus.


While there are no rules to this recording game, there are some accepted standards. I couldn't imagine using an L2 as aggressively as you have would do anything but destroy the emotional content of the music that was created. I don't mean anything personal here, I've just never encountered a situation where the L2 sounded good when used to that level on the 2bus.

Don't get me wrong, I've used compression to totally destroy tracks and distort them to death for creative benefit. But I can't think of a time where I've wanted the ENTIRE song to be completely void of dynamics. I think records that have been hit too hard during mastering are hard to listen to for extended periods of time. You can really hear it when you listen to an old song from say 1985 and then listen to a new song now. Most of the time the new songs are very thin and harsh as well.

I can post a short clip of a completely unmastered, minimally EQ'd lead break of a song I've recently been working on, and I'd be quite interested in the outcome of the exercise to see what we come up with. I am certainly always willing to learn. Game?

Sure I'm game. I too am always wanting to learn. I've got a good feeling that I've already learned enough about the L2 to know that it does more harm to my mixes than good, though.

Brandon

[xander]

@Brandon -- Great! Should be quite interesting (remembering that the OP stated that it enhanced his mixes)! Let take this raw wav file and master it to 192kpbs and post it back. I'll use the L2 exclusively and you can use what you like and let's see what's what. I am curious for sure

AJ-Motigation-Testclip-1

It's a totally raw mix with only slight EQ for balance. The percs are dull and the bottom is muddy. We wanna make it bright and punchy -- or as best sounding as we can (best mastered).

Cheers,
Alex

[beej]

Yeah, what he said.

I just don't like limiting mixes, it just makes things mushy - at least with the easily available tools we have to do it. I'm sure pricey analog hardware does a better job.

Obviously, the less limiting you use, the less mushy the results, but I just don't like *any* mush, really.

[xander]

Yeah, what he said.

I just don't like limiting mixes, it just makes things mushy - at least with the easily available tools we have to do it. I'm sure pricey analog hardware does a better job.

Obviously, the less limiting you use, the less mushy the results, but I just don't like *any* mush, really.

Doesn't *have* to be mushy sounding at all -- depends on how you apply it, like any tool.

In fact, I'd say that if anything it is always 'less mushy' and more bright and punchy.

Cheers,
Alex

[defjamm]

@brandondrury: don't be too fast with your conclusion, you're not the only one who doesn't like the l2 and what you described is absolutely right. the l2 is a lot but not punchy
it takes all the punch away(a limiter is a limiter).
i think some guys here confuse loudness with punch.

it reduces dynamics(you could say destroys). there is this knob in the middle between threshold and outceiling, use it and hear what is happening to your music, it becomes smaller the more you use the l2.

[xander]

i think some guys here confuse loudness with punch.

Yeah? So what is "punch" then?

[defjamm]

i think some guys here confuse loudness with punch.

Yeah? So what is "punch" then?

take some music you did on your own(programming) or what you've recorded...maybe something with a lot of transient action, where snare and kick play a dominant role.
mix it but don't look for loudness and don't let it clip, make sure it's punchy with dynamics. load this mix in your daw or program which you use.
load the same mix in your next track, apply your 'punchy' l2. the l2 one will be louder right? and that fools a lot of beginners as to being more punchy...but now reduce by ear your l2 mix to match the unprocessed mix and compare the impact of your drums and your mix. the more l2 you've applied the smaller it will get.

or simply use that knob in the middle, to exactly hear what the l2 is doing to your music, but this time without the increased gain.

it's easy to hear with typical 'hiphop-drums'. your kick will go from bam bam to puff puff with the l2 and the snare from tschak tschak to taff taff
it can work on some things in the mix and some music...put punch is the last thing this thing is providing.
if you want punch and loudness you'll need way more distortion. the l2 will 'kill' your transients(like any other limiter).

[xander]

Well, I'm putting up an A/B comparison as my part of this. I'd rather 'HEAR' results than listen to buzz words.

apply your 'punchy' l2. the l2 one will be louder right? and that fools a lot of beginners as to being more punchy...but now reduce by ear your l2 mix to match the unprocessed mix and compare the impact of your drums and your mix. the more l2 you've applied the smaller it will get.

Better than that -- my track is available as posted above raw, with an average of minus 2db overhead.

The MP3 here is an A/B comparison using no L2 for the first half, then using the L2: 'A' is raw at a plus 2db to equal the volume increase, then the 'B' L2 set at 0db with a limit of .02db and threshold set to -3.2db producing an average attenuation of around 2db -- so there is little to no mechanical volume difference between A/B.

Song A-B comparison


Listen to the difference in the cymbals and kick/toms as they *blend* with the rest.

Where do you hear "transient killing" or muddy drums in the B mix? If you cannot agree that the B mix is better then you need ear training mate

Read the quote from Albert I posted above to further expand what I mean. I really am enjoying this

Cheers,
Alex

[Jonny Quest]

Well, I'm putting up an A/B comparison as my part of this. I'd rather 'HEAR' results than listen to buzz words.

Alex, thanks for taking the time to put up this example.

I think you've demonstrated many of your points about the L2--and I think how you used it is in keeping with the type of results one can expect.

But here's something I did not expect...I actually preferred the A portion

Granted, when A/B ing a few bars at a time, B sounds impressive--the cymbals ring and the guitar shines...however after an extended period of time, my ears became slighly fatigued. Whereas with A, the mix seemed more 'natural' and 'warmer' to my ears (the high hat didn't sit up harshly, the toms didn't pounce at the brink of distortion, etc.)

This was somewhat of a revelation to me, for I fully expected that the L2 version would have been preferred....as I too use the L2 in a similar way as you have.

Others will likely hear things differently and I am curious to read their responses.

BTW--cool track and inspired playing

~jonny

[xander]

Hey thanks Jonny -- Good explanation and your opinion -- fair enough.

I am NOT an engineer -- far from it, so I am no doubt not using the L2 at it's best. I think I can hear what you mean with the fatigue thing, but it's possibly being induced by my particular use of the L2 rather than solely the fault of the L2 itself. I think I purposefully over-did the L2 somewhat.

The track is very busy and still in the middle of production (needs my vocals as yet and various perhaps obvious slight mixing tweaks)-- which is why I chose it for this test.

I am dying to hear what another might come up with -- say with a multi-band comp, etc., in comparison with the L2 on this track. We live and learn eh? I'm still convinced of it's abilities to pull the best out of an otherwise lackluster mix... But hey -- I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if that's the overall consensus!

Hopefully hear Brandon's mix soon.

I'm off to the office now, but will be back in a few hours.

Cheers,
Alex