shouldn't "K-Weighted" only affect the metering in A.O.M Invisible Limiter G2 ?
when I engage it it changes the sound a lot: the mid-highs become much more louder
A.O.M Invisible Limiter G2: "K-Weighted" changes the sound
-
- KVRAF
- 25015 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
Did you not consider simply checking the manual before starting a thread here?
I don't even know the plugin and (using Google) it only took me a minute or two to find that info.When K-Weighted Switch is active (filled), “K” frequency weighting (specified in ITU-R BS.1770-3 Annex 1 2) is applied before RMS/VU calculation.
-
- KVRist
- 77 posts since 5 Nov, 2015
How does this help at all? How does this info explain why the sound is changing when k-weighting is engaged?jens wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:23 am Did you not consider simply checking the manual before starting a thread here?
I don't even know the plugin and (using Google) it only took me a minute or two to find that info.When K-Weighted Switch is active (filled), “K” frequency weighting (specified in ITU-R BS.1770-3 Annex 1 2) is applied before RMS/VU calculation.
-
- KVRist
- 77 posts since 5 Nov, 2015
It seems there was a bug fix that addressed this:
"[Invisible Limiter G2] K-weighting filter was unintentionally applied to main signal line when K-weighting setting is enabled. This bug was introduced in version 1.9.5. – fixed."
"[Invisible Limiter G2] K-weighting filter was unintentionally applied to main signal line when K-weighting setting is enabled. This bug was introduced in version 1.9.5. – fixed."
-
- KVRAF
- 25015 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
Yeah - totally my bad, it appears - I assumed the RMS calculation would affect the detector too, not just the metering.MrBeagleton wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:02 amHow does this help at all? How does this info explain why the sound is changing when k-weighting is engaged?jens wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:23 am Did you not consider simply checking the manual before starting a thread here?
I don't even know the plugin and (using Google) it only took me a minute or two to find that info.When K-Weighted Switch is active (filled), “K” frequency weighting (specified in ITU-R BS.1770-3 Annex 1 2) is applied before RMS/VU calculation.
Move along folks, nothing to see...
-
- KVRian
- 1016 posts since 16 Aug, 2010 from almost everywhere...
It doesn't, Jens just loves to be a d!ck.MrBeagleton wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:02 amHow does this help at all? How does this info explain why the sound is changing when k-weighting is engaged?jens wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:23 am Did you not consider simply checking the manual before starting a thread here?
I don't even know the plugin and (using Google) it only took me a minute or two to find that info.When K-Weighted Switch is active (filled), “K” frequency weighting (specified in ITU-R BS.1770-3 Annex 1 2) is applied before RMS/VU calculation.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1078 posts since 24 Apr, 2008 from USA
Took you a minute to google but how long did it take you to not understand my post correctly and not use some common sense ?jens wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:23 am Did you not consider simply checking the manual before starting a thread here?
I don't even know the plugin and (using Google) it only took me a minute or two to find that info.When K-Weighted Switch is active (filled), “K” frequency weighting (specified in ITU-R BS.1770-3 Annex 1 2) is applied before RMS/VU calculation.
Read my OP again and compare it to what the manual says.
Hope you’ll figure it out that’s not that hard.
Main Computer Specs: MacBook M1 Max, 32GB, 4TB, Cubase 13.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1078 posts since 24 Apr, 2008 from USA
Ahh good catch. Thanks. Im using an older version time to updateMrBeagleton wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:05 am It seems there was a bug fix that addressed this:
"[Invisible Limiter G2] K-weighting filter was unintentionally applied to main signal line when K-weighting setting is enabled. This bug was introduced in version 1.9.5. – fixed."
Main Computer Specs: MacBook M1 Max, 32GB, 4TB, Cubase 13.
-
- KVRer
- 7 posts since 5 Nov, 2014
I would like to share my experience as a paying customer of A.O.M. Invisible Limiter, because I believe this situation raises serious concerns regarding long-term license reliability and customer treatment.
Over the years, I purchased both the original Invisible Limiter and later Invisible Limiter G2 as legitimate paid/perpetual licenses. I am a professional audio engineer and mastering engineer, and like many professionals in this field, I invest significant amounts of money into software legally because long-term project recall and system stability are extremely important in professional work.
At one point in the past, I temporarily canceled a subscription/product arrangement with the developer because the software was not functioning correctly on my system at that time. Later, during communication with the developer, I was told that I had effectively been placed on a blacklist because of this situation. Honestly, I was shocked by that response, especially considering that I had already spent substantial money purchasing the products legitimately.
I tried to explain that I am not someone abusing refunds or pirating software. On the contrary — I regularly purchase plugins and support developers because I believe professional developers deserve to be paid for their work.
Unfortunately, after that communication, the relationship completely deteriorated. My emails eventually stopped receiving meaningful responses.
Recently, after reinstalling my system and rebuilding my professional mastering environment, I discovered that my previously issued Invisible Limiter G2 license file no longer works with the currently available build/version. As a result, I lost practical access to software that I had legally purchased.
To be absolutely clear:
I am NOT requesting a free upgrade.
I am NOT demanding new products.
I am NOT asking for special treatment.
I am only asking for continued access to the perpetual licenses I already purchased legally.
I contacted the developer again requesting:
* access to compatible installers,
* replacement license files,
* restoration of activation,
* or any reasonable solution that would allow me to continue using the software I paid for.
Unfortunately, I have not received meaningful assistance.
For casual users this may sound minor, but for professional engineers this is a serious issue. Old mastering sessions, archived projects, client recalls, and long-term compatibility are critical parts of professional audio work. A perpetual license becoming unusable after a system reinstall creates a major trust problem.
What troubles me most is not even the technical issue itself, but the feeling that a paying customer can effectively lose access to purchased software based on a damaged relationship with a developer.
I understand developers need to protect themselves from abuse. However, completely cutting off a legitimate customer from previously purchased perpetual products is, in my opinion, not an acceptable way to treat professional users.
I am posting this calmly and factually so other users can be aware of the risks of depending on licensing systems where long-term access may become uncertain.
If the developer is reading this, I still hope for a professional resolution:
either restoration of access to the perpetual licenses I purchased, or a reasonable refund solution.
Over the years, I purchased both the original Invisible Limiter and later Invisible Limiter G2 as legitimate paid/perpetual licenses. I am a professional audio engineer and mastering engineer, and like many professionals in this field, I invest significant amounts of money into software legally because long-term project recall and system stability are extremely important in professional work.
At one point in the past, I temporarily canceled a subscription/product arrangement with the developer because the software was not functioning correctly on my system at that time. Later, during communication with the developer, I was told that I had effectively been placed on a blacklist because of this situation. Honestly, I was shocked by that response, especially considering that I had already spent substantial money purchasing the products legitimately.
I tried to explain that I am not someone abusing refunds or pirating software. On the contrary — I regularly purchase plugins and support developers because I believe professional developers deserve to be paid for their work.
Unfortunately, after that communication, the relationship completely deteriorated. My emails eventually stopped receiving meaningful responses.
Recently, after reinstalling my system and rebuilding my professional mastering environment, I discovered that my previously issued Invisible Limiter G2 license file no longer works with the currently available build/version. As a result, I lost practical access to software that I had legally purchased.
To be absolutely clear:
I am NOT requesting a free upgrade.
I am NOT demanding new products.
I am NOT asking for special treatment.
I am only asking for continued access to the perpetual licenses I already purchased legally.
I contacted the developer again requesting:
* access to compatible installers,
* replacement license files,
* restoration of activation,
* or any reasonable solution that would allow me to continue using the software I paid for.
Unfortunately, I have not received meaningful assistance.
For casual users this may sound minor, but for professional engineers this is a serious issue. Old mastering sessions, archived projects, client recalls, and long-term compatibility are critical parts of professional audio work. A perpetual license becoming unusable after a system reinstall creates a major trust problem.
What troubles me most is not even the technical issue itself, but the feeling that a paying customer can effectively lose access to purchased software based on a damaged relationship with a developer.
I understand developers need to protect themselves from abuse. However, completely cutting off a legitimate customer from previously purchased perpetual products is, in my opinion, not an acceptable way to treat professional users.
I am posting this calmly and factually so other users can be aware of the risks of depending on licensing systems where long-term access may become uncertain.
If the developer is reading this, I still hope for a professional resolution:
either restoration of access to the perpetual licenses I purchased, or a reasonable refund solution.