Eventide Newfangled Audio Elevate (mastering bundle)
-
Arrested Developer Arrested Developer https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=278287
- KVRian
- 677 posts since 8 Apr, 2012
i could already get some valuable results from both in the last couple of days.
The match function of EQuivocate works beautifully, it really sculpts the material in a smooth way.
And i also think the multiple transient shapers are extremely useful.
A great addition to Ozone 8, that's a fantastic combination.
The match function of EQuivocate works beautifully, it really sculpts the material in a smooth way.
And i also think the multiple transient shapers are extremely useful.
A great addition to Ozone 8, that's a fantastic combination.
-
- Banned
- 480 posts since 28 Apr, 2017
Which AOM Invisible Limiter?? There's is newer one now. And the day L1 is the only limiter I need is the day I give up music. L1 sounds like ass compared to today's limiters.do_androids_dream wrote:AOM Invisible trounces the lot.. Although I long for the day, as a mastering engineer, that we come down to an average of -13/14 LKFS/LUFS so that we won't need any of these tools to push silly loudness 'boundaries'. The day I only ever need L1 as my final plugin will be a grand day indeed.mcbpete wrote:Fabfilter Pro-L vs iZotope Ozone 8's limiter vs DMG Limitless vs Newfangled Elevate vs PSP Xenon.... Who would win in a big limiter battle royale ?
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 5967 posts since 8 Jul, 2009
In the end, I decided on DMG Limitless over Elevate. Since the purpose of Elevate is, in part, a mastering limiter, that implies it is "the" finalization limiter in the mastering chain. It fails in this purpose because it's not a true peak limiter. Limitless offers similar functionality and is also very nice sounding. It doesn't have the transient feature but I don't consider that vital. If I am going to replace my "standard" mastering limiter (Nugen ISL2) it has to be with something that is better. I don't typically use different mastering limiters and perfer to use the same one on all projects. Limitless brings more to the table than ISL2 but Elevate just doesn't cut it if not because of the lack of true-peak, I find it not as easy to use (eg. get good sounding [transparent] results fast) as Limitless.
#NONFR Check out my music at Bandcamp Free Streaming!
Free music with your support on Patreon | Youtube: Music of Plexus Videos (music videos) | Youtube: Plexus Productions (audio related) Stop whining. Make music.
Free music with your support on Patreon | Youtube: Music of Plexus Videos (music videos) | Youtube: Plexus Productions (audio related) Stop whining. Make music.
-
- KVRAF
- 4718 posts since 26 Nov, 2015 from Way Downunder
Elevate has won me over and I'm fully onboard with the whole concept and innovations put forward in its design. It's actually kind of revolutionary/genius in the way it handles transients - I'm struggling to get the same kind of LOUD but punchy results (electronic music) with Limitless. But I still really enjoy Limitless, it had a steep learning curve for me but once I got deep into it there was no equal... til' now. Both will have their strenghts though.
Ozone Maximizer catches ISPs like a total boss - not a single sample over your ceiling if you set it right. So I'm chucking that after Elevate. They are looking at implementing true peak handling in Elevate by the way. Unfortunately Limitless isn't incredible in the ISP dept.
All this money I spent on limiters I could have gotten super experienced famous people to master my tracks with proper monitoring and analog gear.. oops!
Ozone Maximizer catches ISPs like a total boss - not a single sample over your ceiling if you set it right. So I'm chucking that after Elevate. They are looking at implementing true peak handling in Elevate by the way. Unfortunately Limitless isn't incredible in the ISP dept.
All this money I spent on limiters I could have gotten super experienced famous people to master my tracks with proper monitoring and analog gear.. oops!
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 5967 posts since 8 Jul, 2009
If I give Limitless a -0.3dB ceiling, it generates no ISPs when driven hard. Glad you find Elevate useful. For me, not so much. It's good there's such a plethora of tools out there so we can all suit our workflows and ideas.
#NONFR Check out my music at Bandcamp Free Streaming!
Free music with your support on Patreon | Youtube: Music of Plexus Videos (music videos) | Youtube: Plexus Productions (audio related) Stop whining. Make music.
Free music with your support on Patreon | Youtube: Music of Plexus Videos (music videos) | Youtube: Plexus Productions (audio related) Stop whining. Make music.
-
do_androids_dream do_androids_dream https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=164034
- KVRAF
- 2908 posts since 26 Oct, 2007 from Kent, UK
Catching the odd peak at -1dB or so it will be completely transparent. That's the situation I want to see - where the LUFS is at a very healthy -13 or so which means that limiters will only be used to catch a few peaks and not to heavily squash music. If that is the case, it really won't matter what limiter you're using.jbarish wrote:Which AOM Invisible Limiter?? There's is newer one now. And the day L1 is the only limiter I need is the day I give up music. L1 sounds like ass compared to today's limiters.do_androids_dream wrote:AOM Invisible trounces the lot.. Although I long for the day, as a mastering engineer, that we come down to an average of -13/14 LKFS/LUFS so that we won't need any of these tools to push silly loudness 'boundaries'. The day I only ever need L1 as my final plugin will be a grand day indeed.mcbpete wrote:Fabfilter Pro-L vs iZotope Ozone 8's limiter vs DMG Limitless vs Newfangled Elevate vs PSP Xenon.... Who would win in a big limiter battle royale ?
I mean the original AOM Invisible - I haven't used the more 'advanced' version although it's based on the same code.
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 5967 posts since 8 Jul, 2009
Keep in mind that when a PCM render is compressed into a stream or compressed file format, all bets are off for inter-sample peaks. A render with no ISPs in PCM may generate a stream of ISPs once compressed. This can be a factor of the nature of the limiter as well as the compression algo.do_androids_dream wrote:Catching the odd peak at -1dB or so it will be completely transparent. That's the situation I want to see - where the LUFS is at a very healthy -13 or so which means that limiters will only be used to catch a few peaks and not to heavily squash music. If that is the case, it really won't matter what limiter you're using.jbarish wrote:Which AOM Invisible Limiter?? There's is newer one now. And the day L1 is the only limiter I need is the day I give up music. L1 sounds like ass compared to today's limiters.do_androids_dream wrote:AOM Invisible trounces the lot.. Although I long for the day, as a mastering engineer, that we come down to an average of -13/14 LKFS/LUFS so that we won't need any of these tools to push silly loudness 'boundaries'. The day I only ever need L1 as my final plugin will be a grand day indeed.mcbpete wrote:Fabfilter Pro-L vs iZotope Ozone 8's limiter vs DMG Limitless vs Newfangled Elevate vs PSP Xenon.... Who would win in a big limiter battle royale ?
I mean the original AOM Invisible - I haven't used the more 'advanced' version although it's based on the same code.
#NONFR Check out my music at Bandcamp Free Streaming!
Free music with your support on Patreon | Youtube: Music of Plexus Videos (music videos) | Youtube: Plexus Productions (audio related) Stop whining. Make music.
Free music with your support on Patreon | Youtube: Music of Plexus Videos (music videos) | Youtube: Plexus Productions (audio related) Stop whining. Make music.
- KVRAF
- 2772 posts since 22 May, 2017
The upgrade from EQuivocate to Elevate has got me drooling, but I can't take the plunge just yet due to lack of funds. But boy oh boy, she looks like a beaut. I've long been a fan of Eventide and I'm fast becoming a fan of Newfangled!
- KVRist
- 477 posts since 25 Dec, 2002
Buy it from JRR Shop and save an additional $12.64 by using discount code "group" at checkout. As a matter of fact, this "group" code has worked for me on pretty all the gear (software and hardware) I've purchased at JRR.Russell Grand wrote:The upgrade from EQuivocate to Elevate has got me drooling, but I can't take the plunge just yet due to lack of funds. But boy oh boy, she looks like a beaut. I've long been a fan of Eventide and I'm fast becoming a fan of Newfangled!
https://soundcloud.com/djlawya/this-sty ... al-to-none
Last edited by summer2000 on Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mac Studio M1 Max 10-core CPU, 32-core GPU, 64GB RAM, 4TB SSD | Logic Pro 10.7.5 | Cubase Pro 12 | Nuendo 12 | Studio One 6 | Seagate 8TB external HDD | Focusrite Scarlett 18i8 2nd Gen | Akai MPK261 | Akai MPC X
-
- KVRist
- 459 posts since 31 Dec, 2010 from Perth
Which is why it is a good idea to set the threshold/ceiling in your limiter to something closer to -1.0db than 0db.plexuss wrote:Keep in mind that when a PCM render is compressed into a stream or compressed file format, all bets are off for inter-sample peaks. A render with no ISPs in PCM may generate a stream of ISPs once compressed. This can be a factor of the nature of the limiter as well as the compression algo.
Lately I've set the Threshold at -0.8db with good results.
So even if streaming generates some ISPs you still have some headroom.
Latest Album :: https://beatworld1.bandcamp.com/album/well-be-right
-
do_androids_dream do_androids_dream https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=164034
- KVRAF
- 2908 posts since 26 Oct, 2007 from Kent, UK
L1 does have isp protection now.Beatworld wrote:Which is why it is a good idea to set the threshold/ceiling in your limiter to something closer to -1.0db than 0db.plexuss wrote:Keep in mind that when a PCM render is compressed into a stream or compressed file format, all bets are off for inter-sample peaks. A render with no ISPs in PCM may generate a stream of ISPs once compressed. This can be a factor of the nature of the limiter as well as the compression algo.
Lately I've set the Threshold at -0.8db with good results.
So even if streaming generates some ISPs you still have some headroom.
There's far too much fuss about isp's. They are the least of anyone's worries. As an ME though I make sure they're eliminated so that clients don't get caught up in it. Waves WLM+ is the one I use - it's also Waves best limiter anyway.
- KVRAF
- 40424 posts since 11 Aug, 2008 from clown world
If that's the case, I would never, ever let you near my babies.do_androids_dream wrote:L1 does have isp protection now.Beatworld wrote:Which is why it is a good idea to set the threshold/ceiling in your limiter to something closer to -1.0db than 0db.plexuss wrote:Keep in mind that when a PCM render is compressed into a stream or compressed file format, all bets are off for inter-sample peaks. A render with no ISPs in PCM may generate a stream of ISPs once compressed. This can be a factor of the nature of the limiter as well as the compression algo.
Lately I've set the Threshold at -0.8db with good results.
So even if streaming generates some ISPs you still have some headroom.
There's far too much fuss about isp's. They are the least of anyone's worries. As an ME though I make sure they're eliminated so that clients don't get caught up in it. Waves WLM+ is the one I use - it's also Waves best limiter anyway.
Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
-
do_androids_dream do_androids_dream https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=164034
- KVRAF
- 2908 posts since 26 Oct, 2007 from Kent, UK
Fair enough, but why? I still make sure they're eliminated even though I know they are very unlikely to ever be a problem even if they are present. They're present on 10's of 1000's of commercial releases from the last 25 years or so. Almost all digital playback systems have analog headroom to account for problems such as isp's - a good amount of headroom usually, that will negate any issues. Wouldn't you rather use an ME who actually has knowledge of the issue rather than someone who just uses an isp capable limiter because 'that's what everyone else does'? Isp's are something to be aware of sure, but they are not the 'problem' most seem to believe they are (which is certain plugin companies fault imo).Aloysius wrote:If that's the case, I would never, ever let you near my babies.do_androids_dream wrote:L1 does have isp protection now.Beatworld wrote:Which is why it is a good idea to set the threshold/ceiling in your limiter to something closer to -1.0db than 0db.plexuss wrote:Keep in mind that when a PCM render is compressed into a stream or compressed file format, all bets are off for inter-sample peaks. A render with no ISPs in PCM may generate a stream of ISPs once compressed. This can be a factor of the nature of the limiter as well as the compression algo.
Lately I've set the Threshold at -0.8db with good results.
So even if streaming generates some ISPs you still have some headroom.
There's far too much fuss about isp's. They are the least of anyone's worries. As an ME though I make sure they're eliminated so that clients don't get caught up in it. Waves WLM+ is the one I use - it's also Waves best limiter anyway.
There is also the problem of metering to consider. There is no such thing as a truly 100% accurate meter. They basically make an 'educated' guess at what a reconstructed waveform will look like. There may well be isp's present even when the supposed 'best' meter says there isn't.
EDIT: If your comment was based on my choice of limiter well.. Limiting represents about 10% of what an ME does. It's the necessary thing at the end of the process - and what with LUFS levels coming down it's doing very little actual limiting these days which is a good thing. I tried many isp capable limiters. The Waves one did the least damage to the signal so I went with it. It was the most transparent (of the ones I tried) compared to my non isp limiters at the same gain reduction level (because an isp limiter will be reducing gain much sooner than a non isp limiter and it WILL be audible).
- KVRAF
- 40424 posts since 11 Aug, 2008 from clown world
> They're present on 10's of 1000's of commercial releases from the last 25 years or so.
I don't care how many MEs are doing it. It sounds terrible.
> Wouldn't you rather use an ME who actually has knowledge of the issue rather than someone who just uses an isp capable limiter because 'that's what everyone else does'?
I don't care how many ...
I would rather do it myself. At least I'll know I've put my best effort into it.
I don't care how many MEs are doing it. It sounds terrible.
> Wouldn't you rather use an ME who actually has knowledge of the issue rather than someone who just uses an isp capable limiter because 'that's what everyone else does'?
I don't care how many ...
I would rather do it myself. At least I'll know I've put my best effort into it.
Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
-
do_androids_dream do_androids_dream https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=164034
- KVRAF
- 2908 posts since 26 Oct, 2007 from Kent, UK
They're virtually inaudible. Also, they're not 'doing it' on purpose - they were, by and large, unaware of isp's. Some meters don't even pick them up.Aloysius wrote:> They're present on 10's of 1000's of commercial releases from the last 25 years or so.
I don't care how many MEs are doing it. It sounds terrible.