i feel that it sound very grainy and harsh in the high-end. i prefered the clean method after many listening tests, i'm pretty sure you will come to the same conclusion. of course, a waveshaper will virtually preserve the transient loudness infomation, but that's one of the few positive things. compare both methods, they are equally effective, they just sound completely different. a real limiter is not a static input/output function - a waveshaper is.īeside all technical details, simply listen to it. Now with "real" limiters: the difference is that they have a state, some kind of 'memory' to smooth out the reduction process avoiding any reshaping the harmonic content. an input value gets mapped to an output value. The L2 uses a look-ahead sidechain to look in the future, it lowers the gain in a soft way with an attack time and a release time, slow enough to change the level without reshaping the waves - they are just scaled.Ī limiter with an attack and release time of zero is a clipper/waveshaper - a simple, horrible sounding but effective limiter without any state. feed it with a sine at any amplitude and watch the spectrum, no new frequencies are created = no waveshaper. Yes the L2 is digital, but doesn't use any distortion to limit the signal. use clean limiting during mastering to sound the best possible when played on TV or radio. distortion is something reserved to the broadcast guys, let them the freedom (undistorted headroom). a real limiter should not distort the waves AT ALL, it should softly turn the level down when needed. listen to the low-end and low level details, they are completly messed up, you get very harsh sounding high-frequencies and cannot get rid of anymore. well it is, but only on cheap monitoring systems. is a fooling limiter/clipper, beginners percieve this distorted sound as "powerfull" and "loud". an additional problem is that the digital domain has serious problems with waveshaping, because very high frequencies are created by the process, they will create alot (harsh & digital sounding) aliasing artifacts. is one of the badest limiters i've ever heard, simply because it is not a clean gain reduction (like true limiters should do), it's nearly pure waveshaping, you can compare it with a guitar distortion (and distortion is really the last thing you want to apply during mastering). 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?įirst, what is the "Timeworks Mastering Converter"? a piece of software? i think you mean their "mastering compressor". 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 (?)ī) 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. Looking for that "hit the A/D Converter hard" mastering sound in the software world (which, in the hdwe.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |