Voxengo needs a freeware compressor.

[brok landers]

same to you!

[Kingston]

i initially wanted to show a way of how you get your mixes as loud as when mixed with analog gear, which is slightly harder to achieve in digital.

uh. I'm going to have to give up as well. I thought I had already understood where you came from but oh well. I still think you have some misconceptions on how analog vs. digital mixers and gain staging work, but then again what does it matter when you get satisfying results nevertheless.

[brok landers]

yeah, back to topic:
i also miss a mix option in cruncessor, so that i'd be able to mix the compressed/uncompressed signal ...

[inverseroom]

What Voxengo really needs is a spyware compressor. It will download itself onto your computer and then force-justify all your emails.

[Aleksey Vaneev]

What Voxengo really needs is a spyware compressor. It will download itself onto your computer and then force-justify all your emails.

What an awkward humour. Sounds like a 'bomb' spoken in an airport. Bad idea (if we are serious about all this).

[Lee702]

Finally got around to buying analog flux i guess the others in the bundle are more useful than i was thinking...thanks

Aleksey can i beta test also

[krank]

uh. I'm going to have to give up as well. I thought I had already understood where you came from but oh well. I still think you have some misconceptions on how analog vs. digital mixers and gain staging work, but then again what does it matter when you get satisfying results nevertheless.

I think the point Brok has been trying to get across the entire time is that limiting the transients in a track as opposed to letting them run to the master bus and then taking care of overs are different procedures with diffferent results, since the latter involves running your entire mix through a limiter. You've responded by repeatedly questioning his basic knowledge. I just don't get why Brok has bothered taking the time to write all these polite explanations in the face of that.

[wsaidah]

how about a compressor with a diode type clipper on the out put

[brok landers]

uh. I'm going to have to give up as well. I thought I had already understood where you came from but oh well. I still think you have some misconceptions on how analog vs. digital mixers and gain staging work, but then again what does it matter when you get satisfying results nevertheless.

I think the point Brok has been trying to get across the entire time is that limiting the transients in a track as opposed to letting them run to the master bus and then taking care of overs are different procedures with diffferent results, since the latter involves running your entire mix through a limiter.

well, actually it started with the explanation why i think it is so important to have a brickwall limiter after the track compressor, which i kindly asked alexey for in his compressors ... but one fact leaded to the other, so,
summed up, yes, thats exactly what i wanted to point out (thats where we ended in the voyage throug the realm of mixing and mastering ), besides the sideeffects or "can-be-done-this-way, too" ...
the "taking care of overs" in the mastering stage can be a big problem if the individual transients are not correctly shaped in the individual track ... one "not-beeing-taken-care-of" transient of just one channel can f**k up your whole mix by simply triggering the masterlimiter ...
so, in your mix, the louder you can get the loudest signal in rms, not overshooting, the louder your mix can be, as the summary, still unmastered signal is beeing more calm, thus you can adjust it with a higher level, still not overshooting.
that leads to the fact that the mastering compressor doesn't have to be adjusted too extreme, which leads to a more natural sound, but as loud as you want the mix to be, without the negative side effects of overcompression in the mastering stage ...
see? i just can't hold it ... i did it again ...

but i really assume its my english ...
i just can't really go deep without structural or grammar errors ... need to improove that a lot ... but there's no time ...

You've responded by repeatedly questioning his basic knowledge. I just don't get why Brok has bothered taking the time to write all these polite explanations in the face of that.

because i'm a nice guy ...

btw, thanks krank!

[Kingston]

I think the point Brok has been trying to get across the entire time is that limiting the transients in a track as opposed to letting them run to the master bus and then taking care of overs are different procedures with diffferent results, since the latter involves running your entire mix through a limiter.

I understood this part very well. But the reasoning behind it and some of the analog vs. digital voodoohoodoo in his posts fully justify questioning his knowledge. He did give a clear explanation of it once, but unfortunately it fought against how mixing, gain staging and something he labelled "analog summing distortion" work in reality.

I do now understand brok is of the school of over-processing, because of the spurious peak paranoia that he thinks does harm in mastering. It's hardly a "more natural sound" if everything is over-processed with a brickwall as well.

[brok landers]

I understood this part very well. But the reasoning behind it and some of the analog vs. digital voodoohoodoo in his posts fully justify questioning his knowledge.

kingston, sorry, but thats a fact, no myth.
i could proove it, but
1.i strongly assume you just don't want to believe it
2. my english is too far from good so that i
3. type my fingers wounded still leading to the fact that you don't understand me

so i just don't do it.

He did give a clear explanation of it once, but unfortunately it fought against how mixing, gain staging and something he labelled "analog summing distortion" work in reality.

in no way.
i was
1. talking about the fact that transients are very necessary for a mix, thats why i wanted to shape them with a compressor
2. if i do, the rms level gets lower
3. i cannot raise the signal without a limiterstage, otherwise it clips at the mastering stage, which leads to teh fact, that
4. the summed signal cannot be adjusted so loud until clipping, thus
5. the mastering limiter has to work way more, which can greatly affect the master in a bad way.

so it's a carefully act of balancing of how much transient is needed (punch) and how much body is needed ("felt" level) in an idividual channel.
you simply cannot let the mastering limiter take care of that, as the mastering limiter affects the summed signal, beeing triggered by various sources, of which only _one_ (if not more) mistaked signal can destroy the whole master ...

that has more to do with taking care of the mix/mastering process than overprocessing because of paranoia, like you say below.
the "fix it in the master-myth" just won't work.
now, who's the one believing in myths here?

I do now understand brok is of the school of over-processing, because of the spurious peak paranoia that he thinks does harm in mastering. It's hardly a "more natural sound" if everything is over-processed with a brickwall as well.

correct.
if overprocessed.
i never spoke of overprocessing, nor did i speak of _all_ signals, thats what you did.
i allways spoke of the _loudest_ signal in the mix.
you just don't read.

[bool]

you just don't read.

Haven't you noticed that yet? He is too full of his -wisdom-.

[brok landers]

sadly it seems like it ... but i'm a good target, as i am a calm person ...

[Kingston]

I understood this part very well. But the reasoning behind it and some of the analog vs. digital voodoohoodoo in his posts fully justify questioning his knowledge.

kingston, sorry, but thats a fact, no myth.
i could proove it, but
1.i strongly assume you just don't want to believe it
2. my english is too far from good so that i
3. type my fingers wounded still leading to the fact that you don't understand me

so i just don't do it.

The reason I tend to get itchy about this particular subject is because,

1. I design and build (tube) preamps and understand summing busses and buffers very well.
2. I program and design various DSP processes which obviously include summing and clipping.

Hence when I see obvious erroneous information on these particular issues I jump on it. Sorry about that. I simply can not read all of your posting seriously because of the analog vs. digital assumptions you have.





And finally, the rest of your last post makes perfect sense, now that it's purely about the craft, and not spiced with technical misinformation. This then comes down to different school of thought and mixing, and that I can understand very well. I just can't see a situation where a mastering compressor needs to be protected and "work harder" because of a few sharper transients here and there. And I can't see its effect on final mastered loudness and sound as bad.

[defjamm]

there is a simple way to find out who's right:
take a mix and process it both ways

1. you put a limiter on the master bus, solo every track that you feel to be limited and write down how much limiting took place (but when they are soloed, push them into the limiter as much as you need) and then 'unsolo' them again and bounce the whole song.

2. then you take the same song (the one you started with, without the limiter on the master bus) and put a limiter on every track(the same tracks which you pushed into the master bus limiter in the first example), with the same exact gain reduction like in the first example with the limiter on the master bus. bounce again and compare with the first one.