Sonic Timeworks Mastering Compressor...New Approach ???

[mark4man]

Looking for that "hit the A/D Converter hard" mastering sound in the software world (which, in the hdwe. world, is normally associated w/ the digital "soft saturation" functions on units like the Lavry AD122 or dbx Quantum II)...& I've heard that the Sonic Timeworks Mastering Compressor had the best (cleanest) sound when it comes to soft limiting or soft clipping...or if that's what it actually is (?)

A) Is this true?

B) If it is...have they discovered the perfect algorithm (as Lavry has w/ their Soft Saturation or dbx has w/ their Type IV Conversion?) These functions, used to produce hotter recordings (w/o loosing punch, clarity & high fr.'s) are implemented post conversion...whereby both processes work by first setting a high threshold (-4dB to -12dB)...& then boosting the signal below the threshold in a typical linear curve (input = output)...but everything above is squeezed between the threshold & 0dBFS...expanding the dynamic range in that region (what dbx calls an "overload region") by increasing the # of bits that represent the signal there through logarithmic mapping.

Is this what Sonic does w/ their Mastering Compressor, to get this supposed world-class hot level...or is it just another typical soft clipping function, like Elephant (for example) has?

Thanks,

mark4man

[mark4man]

None of you guys have (or have heard) this plug-in?

Forget the tehnical mumbo-jumbo...is it the best?...is it good?...does it suck?...what?

mark4man

[fred2112]

Well ...no Mather what the technologies, when i try it 6 years ago, maybe more, I didn't think it sound good as the competition !

They haven't update it sins the release I believe !!

[munchkin]

Do you mean the compressor? The fact that it's seldom used now may say something about it's reputation. I've tried it and prefer Voxengo. There are far better compressors on the market and it's worth demoing them.

[Suspended In Dusk]

Don't know if it sucks, but it did not stand out particularily well when I tried it a few years ago...

Now, considering the aforementionned technical mumbo-jumbo, I'd be tempted to say that it doesn't live up to the hype - so I guess it does suck.

[KleVeR]

IMHO you all guess wrong or remember it wrongly
Or you mix it up with WaveArts or TC limiters.. dunno.

But I think Timeworks Mastering Compressor is the only mastering limiter that is able to bring that in your face loudness while keeping the transients pretty intact.. Snares no longer get burried or ducked down, etc...

I tested it along a wide range of competitors and for me it won by a mile in regards to achievable loudness and punch.
It does introduce some distortion but not much more than let's say Elephant.
As much as I love Voxengo products but in that regard Elephant lost against L2 even with all the possibilities it offers (and I tried any combo of the available settings to match to the loudness).
Viewed under the microscope (C.Budde VSTPlugin analyzer) Elephant did some really nasty things..

And MPL-1 seems to be the total opposite of Timeworks Mastering Compressor: It can't get that in you face punch and pretty drastically flattens the dynamic content.. Snares and other percussive elements get burried down in the mix and the feelable difference in loudness is like 4 dB lower than the Timeworks.
But maybe it suits better to 'softer' music genres...

just my 2 c

[bmanic]

I agree with KleVer. I do remeber the Timeworks mastering compressor as a quite good limiter. It was by far the most superior when it came out (I much prefered it's sound over the original Waves L1).

However, now, to get that same 'in your face' clipped AD/DA kind of sound, you would probably be better off with iZotope Ozone and set it's limiter into clipping mode (intelligent limiter algo and set the slider to 0.0 or around that).

Also, the observation about MPL-1 is excatly my feeling too. The "clipping" kind of limiters work very differently than MPL-1 (which is ultra smooth) and are more suitable for tight pop/electronica mixes where all the transients are short and stabby. The MPL-1 (although an excellent limiter) flattens the transients and buries all the percussive elements in the mix. It simply doesn't allow for fast enough release (to avoid distortion I would guess).

So, to answer the original question: iZotope Ozone, without a doubt.

Cheers!
bManic

[Westex]

Sonic Timeworks:
Mastering Comp + V1 EQ + 4080L Reverb =

[mark4man]

KleVer & bmaniac...

The "hit the A/D hard" sound is not just about clipping. That's why I threw in the info on the Lavry Gold & the Quantum II.

What I'm trying to find out is...does the STMC work in the same way. Those hdwe. units actually change the bit-for-bit linearity of the signal. They don't limit in the conventional analog (or digital emulation) sense, whereby peaks are controlled as a function of signal voltage...they expand the dynamic range by mapping more bits to respresent the top of the scale.

Since both Lavry & dbx have said that their process is software code implemented, post conversion...if the same thing is possible in the world of software limiters (& if Sonic had stumbled upon it...I don't know...)

mark4man

[Arksun]

Tried the Sonic Timeworks one a long time ago, didn't like it, sounds just like its flatline hard clipping, which introduces too much distortion for me.

Can't stand the MPL-1 either, a surprising dissapointment from Kjaerhus (was expecting great things from them given the quality of some of their classic/gold plugs). Way too soft and pumps in an unpleasent way when you try to push it to the kind of levels other limiters cope with with ease.

Elephant still wins hands down for me, takes longer to tweak it, but its worth it. Sounds great.

The plugins I did like by Timeworks all those years ago were their reverbs, the 4080L sounded way better than any other native reverb when it was released.

[kilroy]

The "hit the A/D hard" sound is not just about clipping. That's why I threw in the info on the Lavry Gold & the Quantum II.

What I'm trying to find out is...does the STMC work in the same way. Those hdwe. units actually change the bit-for-bit linearity of the signal. They don't limit in the conventional analog (or digital emulation) sense, whereby peaks are controlled as a function of signal voltage...they expand the dynamic range by mapping more bits to respresent the top of the scale.

That Sonic Timeworks limiter is using a hard clipping algo in one of the limiting modes, and in my opinion it does do a reasonable job of giving you that "clean" clipped smash...but it would be pure speculation as to what the developers approach was concerning the design and implementation of this particular algo. The best source for detailed information, should they be inclined to share it with you, would of course be the developers themselves.

I am always amused/interested when the topic comes to limiting, or any dynamic processing really. There are a number of approaches to limiting, all of them have erm...limitations, and all of them "distort" the sound. The popularity of any one particular limiter is basically determined by ones individual preference/tolerance to these distortions, and to a great degree depend on the spectral and dynamic distribution of the audio they are required to process. Hard clipping has gotten a pretty bad name, but as far as I am concerned it is still appears to be the most transparent way to get loudness, primarily because the limiting "waits" until the last moment to shape the transients...and then does so brutally. If that scares you, then you must consider the fact that soft limitng will start to "shape" that transient alot sooner, introducing its own peculiar distortion and, as a result, its own peculiar sound. I think it is reasonable to expect more limiting artifacts from soft limit approaches when the goal is primarily one of loudness. One might arguably consider soft limiting to be taking more intimate liberties with your audio than does hard clipping. Hard clipping, when not taken to silly extremes, often enhances, or at least minimally detracts from, the impression of impact and smash on the transients. This despite the fact that you might be removing a significant portion of transient material. It might be considered a psycho acoustic by product of clipped distortion, if you like. Of course, all of us can think of some record or another that capably demonstrates clipping done to silly excess.

Life can be grotty like that some times.

The real solution is to throw the mix limiters in the bin...turn up the amps...and let the dynamics speak for themselves. That would be just spiffy.

[mark4man]

kilroy...

Thanks for that post...you're obviously a pretty knowledgeable fellow, so let me ask you a question.

Everybody who knows about these things is saying basically the same thing...& that is that, hard clipping preserves the transient loudness info the most accurately, but the resultant aliasing distorts the bottom end. Hard limiting provides for a tighter bottom end but changes the overall spectral balance. Waveshaping is somewhere in the middle.

As you said...the former has gotten a bad name but ranks the most transparent. That's fine for CD listening only...but I'm hearing that radio play processing, with it's own brand of squashing...will make those hard clipped aliases sound completely weird.

I have a chance to get a hdwe. L2; & I'm wondering if I should just go w/ that. I tried the software about a year ago; & I'm hoping the hdwe. sounds livlier (since the software seemed to beef up the bottom end but dull the highs.)

Right now I'm caught betyween the two approaches; & can't figure out which way to go...oy veh.

mark4man


How about the MD3 powercore?

[kilroy]

...but I'm hearing that radio play processing, with it's own brand of squashing...will make those hard clipped aliases sound completely weird.

Well...those Oram processors make everything sound weird to my ears.

Actually, I never master a record with any regard for radio processing whatever. That might seem a bit careless, but my feeling is that if you worry too much about radio processing you probably are not going to deliver the best master. Mastering for radio is like shooting at a moving target. Oram processors have to be set very carefully, but they are all over the map...there is no consistency from station to station. The best advice I can give anyone who wants the best shot at decent transposition for radio broadcast is simply don't mash the crap out of it, and have your low end well under control. Otherwise, with the way some of these stations have their Orams set, you will be very fortunate to even recognize your work when you hear it played on the radio. I heard a Dave Matthews Band tune the other day in my car that I know sounds good...a decent loud mastering but not beaten to pulp...good bass depth, present mids, crisp highs, nice balance...but it sounded nothing like the record. In the end, it is just not worth the exasperation.

I have a chance to get a hdwe. L2; & I'm wondering if I should just go w/ that. I tried the software about a year ago; & I'm hoping the hdwe. sounds livlier (since the software seemed to beef up the bottom end but dull the highs.)

I would never discourage anyone from buying an L2 if they can afford it. You hear them everywhere, it's a good tool...if you are a good engineer...and have good taste. The convertors are fine, and that gives you another option. It has knobs. Mice are cute, but I always feel like such a mollyboy with my hand laying on a mouse just so, going *click*...*click*. I'd much rather work with knobs and shove stuff about.

If you want the most out of the L2, or any clipping limiter, my advice is always to push into it using a good compressor. Don't go digging for RMS with the limiter. Use good EQ and dynamics shaping ahead of the L2 to drag up whatever level you are comfortable with and just let the L2 keep the ceiling. If you work it too hard it will rip things up bad. You just can't use the thing as a one step wonder mastering gizmo. I never ever use the limiter for loudness. For me, 95% of the work that goes into delivering a tastefully done master happens on the other side on the limiter inputs.

Right now I'm caught betyween the two approaches; & can't figure out which way to go...oy veh.

If you really want to be a mastering monster, direct most of your effort into learning to carve and shape with the EQ.

[Fredrikgroth]

I posted a comparison between L2, L3 and the Timeworks limiter on Gearslutz a while ago. My opinion is that Timeworks is incredibly good for metal mixes! Check out the comparison in post #20 in this topic: http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=64871&

[bmanic]

mark4man:

I've got a DBX unit which has the Type IV softsaturation built in. It's NOT anything to use for loudness, in fact, it sucks IMHO.

As for the lavry, no, I don't think the older units have any softsaturation either and also I'm sure Prism, Benchmark etc converters have none of that bullshit in them and they still clip very nicely.

It's somehow the precision of the AD/DA stage that determines how 'cleanly' the transients are cut (that is, how little damage is done to the part right after the transient), though this is just guessing on my part.

As for what Kilroy said, I agree 100% with that! Don't go for the loudness trough the limiter. This is a completely false assumption. What the 'big boys' do is they send their signal trough an analogue chain, from one unit to another, hotter and hotter signal. This way the high end units slightly compress the signal and add even and odd harmonic distortion which also works as a psychoacustical effect of 'loudness'. The final link in the chain, the AD converter or limiter (many use the L2 for both) keeps the last dB or so as the ceiling. I'd say that for loud mastering, EQing is most important of all. Especially that critical low end from 150hz and down. It's where most of the energy in modern music is and that's what creates problems for the limiter.

Cheers!
bManic