Opinions; W1 Limiter and TLS Pocket Limiter

[bmanic]

You are right. It's probably clipping in the analogue domain (at the analogue to digital converter) but I'm not 100% sure how this works. Anybody here know? Kingston?

Cheers!
bManic

[Lunch Money]

...you are confusing this 'black line', with what i am refering to: consecutive samples of one amplitude.

Which amplitude? You're not being very clear if you want to be understood. If you have say, 3 (as you've already mentioned) consecutive samples that exceed 0dBu in the digital realm, you will get shitty sounding distortion. For that small a set, probably just a "pop", but when you do it enough times, it becomes static-like. Did you listen to the clip I posted? That's digital clipping.

im astounded you can make such an assumption when you are clearly not an ME.

I'm astounded at your failure to grasp the obvious. I don't need to be Al Di Meola or Steve Vai to recognize that playing an out-of-tune guitar isn't commonly sought-after, though people have done it from time to time for a certain effect. Don't ever confuse a profession with knowledge, it's a mistake that will cost you.

its not massively audible, its subtle for the most part, not audible through consumer hifi, hence the meaningful compromise in many situations. where it is very audible its not always as unpleasant to the degree you'd suggest.

You are still talking about analog clipping and/or limiting (whether analog or digital). Digital will clip, the moment it exceeds 0dBu, and it is instantly obvious and recognizable. There aren't different "shades" of digital clipping, either you have clipped or you haven't. The only thing changing the sound of it is the number of times it happens in general, and the number of clipped samples consecutively.

if you push a limiter into say 20db (or even 6db) gain reduction, you get a solid black block of a waveform when viewed 'zoomed out' like you say, but if you zoom in to sample level you will notice the transients have no clipping (ie. many consecutive samples in a flat line), the original shape of the waveform has been retained to a degree. with clipping it is not retained, it is just cut off like in my example pic.

Your example pic is zoomed quite far out and doesn't show anything that limiting wouldn't also show. You're right that limiting will shape the wave to a degree, while clipping is, well, clipping. That's EXACTLY my point, not opposite to my point. And since the waveform is NOT retained (like my pointy wizard hat), the sound is horrible and undesirable. I'm not sure how the above point is anything other than what I've already stated. So, since we agree on it, how can you say that digital clipping can be anything but to be avoided?

then i explained the circumstances a limiter could be considered a clipper.

But not very clearly, and in the best situations, a limiter can become an emulation of an ANALOG clipper, not a digital one.
the fool you take me for...

i think the problem is you and your wizard dont understand what a sample is or the whole shannon-nyquist sampling theorem.

Oh, I understand very well what a sample is, and I have a passing (though not expert) knowledge of nyquist theorem. You, on the other hand, are still barking up the wrong tree.

I've already given you a point: when you're only getting a few overs, in busy material, you probably won't notice. If that's still your point, then we still agree. But you HAVE failed to demonstrate an understanding of digital clipping, or at least you have failed to re-state your position.

-----

bManic, I also don't know the entire sequence of what's going on. Without the full information, I can't really address the point.

Greg

[diverdee]

Definately.
mate of mine who's just setting up his little mastering studio streams it out to the analogue domain (fairly hot - but obviously no digital clipping), finalises it & pushes certain audio streams in to the red using the tube comps etc. & then bangs it back into logic.
It then sounds fat - a fatness I don't know if one can get in the digital only realm - fatter than dogod's sir kitty.
Or am I barking up the wrong tree? (or at the moon even?).
I think I am aren't I, that's the demon-weed for ya, i'll post it anyway now i've writen it anyways.

[c_huelsbeck]

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

[Lunch Money]

Can't beat Spinal Tap.

[martian]

Which amplitude? You're not being very clear if you want to be understood. If you have say, 3 (as you've already mentioned) consecutive samples that exceed 0dBu in the digital realm, you will get shitty sounding distortion. For that small a set, probably just a "pop", but when you do it enough times, it becomes static-like. Did you listen to the clip I posted? That's digital clipping.

you are not exactly clear either. its samples not being able to exceed 0db that causes the clipping. furthermore, if the consecutive samples are all of identical amplitude, why does the amplitude matter? that surely only determines the volume of the wave thats been clipped.

as i said in my understanding of digital clipping it doesnt have to be at 0db, it can be performed there and turned down again (shred), or another ceiling lower down can be used to cut everything above like with Gclip.

Your example pic is zoomed quite far out and doesn't show anything that limiting wouldn't also show. You're right that limiting will shape the wave to a degree, while clipping is, well, clipping. That's EXACTLY my point, not opposite to my point. And since the waveform is NOT retained (like my pointy wizard hat), the sound is horrible and undesirable. I'm not sure how the above point is anything other than what I've already stated. So, since we agree on it, how can you say that digital clipping can be anything but to be avoided?

but thats just it, its not zoomed far out, look at the sample readings above. that is 1 bass drum transient you are looking at. furthermore i stated 'over 100 consecutive samples' thinking with the pre-text and picture that'd be enough for some to understand, but it wasnt, so i started including '...of one amplitude' to clarify subsequent replies.

so whats not clear about what ive posted? you cant get a clipped transient (like the pic i posted) from limiting as ive said from the start. if you can show me. you seem to say the same thing but then dont recognise a clipped waveform.

------

i think your audio example shows the level you are pitching your arguement at, and your misunderstanding of whay i say. you clearly dont properly recognise the cirmcumstances digital (or any) clipping can be subtle.

listening to your music (Straight Outta Franx Remix) its fairly easy to see how you'd never be able to appreciate the benefit of clipping, you need something punchy first. ie something important enough to consider saving in a trade for other loudness compromises.

listen (preferably abx: http://www.pcabx.com/) to these clips illustrating varying degrees of digital clipping on a beat and tell me the point you hear unpleasant sound. then note the huge difference in volume if these were all made to peak at 0db. then try using limiting to achieve the same peak reduction and listen to the punch crumble away (note. with 4db limiting its subtle but very apparent through decent monitors).

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=42200

ps. im expecting you to say this is not digital clipping so ive provided the original for you to test yourself, use Gclip or overdrive you daw, same thing.

before this gets out of control, i would like to say i dont like straight digital clipping and thus dont use it on my own music. i prefer some kind or curve to make the distortion less offensive. but through decent speakers i do hear clipping of some unpleasant kind very often in commercial music (original arguement), and it usually corresponds with a visually clipped waveform (not always though), and often the reverse is true: the waveform is clipped but it is inaudible to me.

if you want something really obvious listen to dr.dres '2001'.

pps. still wondering why you havent turned down your mp3s down to avoid clipping?

if you havent already, try this: make one of your mixes peak at a max of say -2db, now convert that track to different mp3 bitrates, what do you notice?

now consider mp3 is the storage medium for radio, the listening medium for the ipod generation, and a streaming/transfer medium for internet. maybe you are already over exposed to digital clipping?

[c_huelsbeck]

Unpleasent is the right word! While I don't discount a slightly different character in driving material this way than with various other compressors I tried on the same drumloop, I don't still think it's a good idea to promote this "wave truncating" (how I would call it). I'm sure there are other ways to get this kind of effect by playing with the transients (Voxengo has some tools for this I believe) without bending the laws of physics in the digital domain...

[martian]

Unpleasent is the right word! While I don't discount a slightly different character in driving material this way than with various other compressors I tried on the same drumloop, I don't still think it's a good idea to promote this "wave truncating" (how I would call it). I'm sure there are other ways to get this kind of effect by playing with the transients (Voxengo has some tools for this I believe) without bending the laws of physics in the digital domain...

unfortunately you wont get the same loudness and punch of todays hottest (ie. loudest) dance music/hip hop without some kind of clipping. its simple physics, you need transients and big drum fundementles for punch. in my mind (currently, maybe im wrong and there is something?) limiting can never preserve transients the way clipping can, unless it effectively became a clipper (instant attack, instant release (sorry for the unclear descrpition greg)).

the solution is to just stick 2 fingers up, and do what sasha's 'airdrawndagger' album does... quietly (up to 3-4db lower than the 'top'). or consider adopting a K-system approach.

[edit: deleted subjective boring rant.]

[Lunch Money]

Martian,

I'm almost done with this argument. You obviously don't understand what is meant by digital clipping. All this talk of punchiness and so forth is irrelevant to digital clipping! It's pointless to address your further points since the argument has now become circular. Please do some research. In almost every reference you've made, you've referred to either analog clipping, or a simulation of analog clipping. You are not at all talking about "digital clipping," and I'm losing track of what your original point was anyhow. You said something about digital clipping, I replied that it's not actually digital clipping that's needed, and now you're trying to prove that it IS... I think... but unfortunately we can't have that discussion until you know what digital clipping is.

Regarding your ad-hominem-- Straight Outta Franx was recorded in 1991 on a Tascam Portastudio. A cheap Radio Shack dynamic microphone and all instruments straight into the "board" (ie. the Portastudio's inputs) with no benefit of effects whatsoever. It's pretty remarkable that headquest was able to remix it at all. Try asking about the track before criticizing it. I'd be curious to hear what you could have accomplished 15 years ago with a Portastudio (the kind without onboard effects) and no actual gear.

I might address your other points later, actually, but right now I'm at a computer with too much glare on the screen and it makes it tough to concentrate. What's clear is this, though: what you keep referring to as digital clipping is NOT digital clipping. You and I might be agreeing in principle, and I know what the state of commercial music is like in terms of the quest for loudness. All I'm trying to tell you is that you're using the term "digital clipping" incorrectly. That's all.

One last try: a digtial clip ONLY occurs when digital information is truncated. 24- and 32-bits have so much headroom that this doesn't happen when you're working at those resolutions. Good luck digitally clipping a track by turning up the gain. It won't happen. And I know you agree, which is why you're now talking about limiters and other ways of "clipping" the waveforms in the digital realm (which aren't "digital clipping" despite being "clipping" and being done in the digital realm). However, when you convert to 16-bit for CD, any of those 'bits' that are above 0dBu are now simply cut off, resulting in a nasty and unusable (except as an effect) sound. It is lost information, which results in a crackling distorted sound. That's gotta be the last time I try to explain it, or I'm going to go nuts.

Whatever it is that you're referring to (the wave being shaped by a limiter or whatever), it's NOT "digital clipping".

Sorry if I missed any other specific points-- I can concentrate on typing because it's just my thoughts and I can touch-type, but I can't concentrate on reading this forum (especially long posts) very well.

Greg

[martian]

so are you saying that driving your daw master fader beyond 0db isnt digital clipping? or that gclip with no softness isnt digital clipping? or that a waveform completely squared off isnt digital clipping?

so what is it then? seems i dont understand.

regards,

[Lunch Money]

Sorry, I just re-stated in an edit; didn't know you were posting. Just a bump so that you can read the above post.

[pw]

The dropping volume bug is fixed.

http://hem.bredband.net/tbtaudio/vstplu ... r_v1-2.zip

//Daniel

Thank you Daniel, for the fix and for this amazing plug-in.

[martian]

Sorry, I just re-stated in an edit; didn't know you were posting. Just a bump so that you can read the above post.

ok, cool.

One last try: a digtial clip ONLY occurs when digital information is truncated. 24- and 32-bits have so much headroom that this doesn't happen when you're working at those resolutions. Good luck digitally clipping a track by turning up the gain. It won't happen. And I know you agree, which is why you're now talking about limiters and other ways of "clipping" the waveforms in the digital realm (which aren't "digital clipping" despite being "clipping" and being done in the digital realm). However, when you convert to 16-bit for CD, any of those 'bits' that are above 0dBu are now simply cut off, resulting in a nasty and unusable (except as an effect) sound. It is lost information, which results in a crackling distorted sound. That's gotta be the last time I try to explain it, or I'm going to go nuts.

Whatever it is that you're referring to (the wave being shaped by a limiter or whatever), it's NOT "digital clipping".

Sorry if I missed any other specific points-- I can concentrate on typing because it's just my thoughts and I can touch-type, but I can't concentrate on reading this forum (especially long posts) very well.

Greg

unfortunately whilst a whole sequencers architecture is designed to have virtually unlimited headroom, at the master fader is where floating point gets scaled to real world linear bits and +0dbfs signals will clip (in real-time). just turn the gain up and listen.

or try this: load my unprocessed beat in your sequencer, set the channel +6db exactly (it should clip the master 3.7db) export as 16bit and reimport, phase reverse the channel. set another channel with the unprocessed and put a Gclip on, turn the Gclip in gain up 6db exactly. play both channels and you should have nothing. is that freak coincidence or are they both performing the same hard knee digital clipping?

look at the reimported waveform too, everything above 0db will now be completely flat.

ps. im genuinely sorry if i critised your track, i was just trying to be frank about punch, which is where this whole clipping thing comes in as useful. and no, i couldnt even make music that long ago.

will,

[Lunch Money]

Cool, the glare is better with the sun having shifted, but instead of addressing previous points, we'll just move forward.

First, you have to forget about GClip. It's not likely doing true truncated digital clipping. It's an effect. It's probably pretty close, with no soft-knee, but it's not the same. Even in the analog world, you can have hard- or soft-knee, but that doesn't mean that it's doing a digital truncation.

Second, not all hosts will clip with the main fader turned up beyond 0. Tracktion, for example, doesn't scale to 16-bit until you decide to export at that resolution. I can't imagine any hosts that DO, because it would defeat the purpose of working in high resolution. If you're hearing distortion, perhaps you're pushing some of your other gear too hard (ie. the speaker cones). What host are you using that's causing clip when you turn up the master fader beyond 0? There's no good reason for it to do so, unless it's a feature that you've enabled intentionally or by accident.

Regarding phase cancellation: I'm sure there are plenty of explanations for the fact that you're not hearing anything upon playback, not the least of which being that ears are imperfect and playback equipment is imperfect. If you're cancelling frequencies *for the most part*, you might still have some noise at -30dB that you're just not hearing.

Then, regarding the visual feedback thing. Depending on zoom level, they'll look pretty much the same. This is not an indicator. I could use 2 different compressors, for example, with very similar settings, and the resulting waveforms would look the same. But they likely wouldn't sound the same, since each compressor should have its own "character" unless it's using just the straight-up same identical algorithm and no additional effects. The point is simply that the visual representation of a "flat-looking" set of peaks isn't telling you that there's clip, or even that the waveforms are the same.

Apology accepted for the track criticism. It could be argued successfully that I couldn't even make music that long ago, either, upon listening to the original (not remixed) files.

Greg

[martian]

Cool, the glare is better with the sun having shifted, but instead of addressing previous points, we'll just move forward.

First, you have to forget about GClip. It's not likely doing true truncated digital clipping. It's an effect. It's probably pretty close, with no soft-knee, but it's not the same. Even in the analog world, you can have hard- or soft-knee, but that doesn't mean that it's doing a digital truncation.

firstly dont ever just tell me to forget something you dont even fully understand yourself, thats pointless.

secondly, i dont understand why you think it cant be doing hard knee digital clipping? its simple maths, and one can be built in a few mins.

try this one (does exactly the same hard clipping): http://illformed.org/users/dblue/code/v ... lipper.zip

Second, not all hosts will clip with the main fader turned up beyond 0. Tracktion, for example, doesn't scale to 16-bit until you decide to export at that resolution. I can't imagine any hosts that DO, because it would defeat the purpose of working in high resolution. If you're hearing distortion, perhaps you're pushing some of your other gear too hard (ie. the speaker cones). What host are you using that's causing clip when you turn up the master fader beyond 0? There's no good reason for it to do so, unless it's a feature that you've enabled intentionally or by accident.

floating point has to be scaled down at some point before going out the s/card A/D which is typically 24bit, and will clip if you are over 0db. i dont own trackton so i wouldnt know how it gets around this?

Regarding phase cancellation: I'm sure there are plenty of explanations for the fact that you're not hearing anything upon playback, not the least of which being that ears are imperfect and playback equipment is imperfect. If you're cancelling frequencies *for the most part*, you might still have some noise at -30dB that you're just not hearing.

again im not that stupid and im very familiar with psychoacoustics, which you are obviously not if you think our imperfect hearing might not hear residue -30db down, either that or your confidence in me is minuscule. but theres no measurable difference here, not even below 16bits -96db range, try it.

Then, regarding the visual feedback thing. Depending on zoom level, they'll look pretty much the same. This is not an indicator. I could use 2 different compressors, for example, with very similar settings, and the resulting waveforms would look the same. But they likely wouldn't sound the same, since each compressor should have its own "character" unless it's using just the straight-up same identical algorithm and no additional effects. The point is simply that the visual representation of a "flat-looking" set of peaks isn't telling you that there's clip, or even that the waveforms are the same.

no. at sample level they look completely different, as far as i know you cant make a limited waveform look like a hard cliped one. i asked you to try quite some time ago, if you really can then show me. i do however agree a waveform often tells me little about how it actually sounds. but someone else more knowledgeable will obviously be able to tell far more.

Apology accepted for the track criticism. It could be argued successfully that I couldn't even make music that long ago, either, upon listening to the original (not remixed) files.

Greg

no hard feelings btw, in general.

will.