Gearslutz.com - View Single Post - use of L2 hardware in mix bad for mastering?

kurtr2 · 20th December 2006

Thanks Bob, i will try that. i bought and read your book, i learned alot! thank you.

about this mix with the L2. let me tell you about what is going on with it. it is a live jazz quintet, 12 mics, 96k. the sounds are great, but there is alot of drums in everything, especially on the peaks, maybe 3db jumps in volume. so sometimes theres more drums in the piano mics than there is piano. i did do alot of volume automation on the drum tracks but the drums are also in the other mics so volume automation doesnt totally solve the problem.

the L2 on the mix bus to my ears is solving this problem in conjunction with my Fearn VT-7. the L2 is limiting the peaks of the drums in every channel and also bringing the body of the mix forward. it is working. i think it sounds very good, and i am a perfectionist.
the adjustment of the L2 is affecting the adjustment of all the other equipment in the chain, allowing me to use less bus compression. if i didnt use the L2 i would have to use much more VT-7 to squash the peaks and keep the drums tamed. that would result in audible compression, which i dont want.

so the L2 is doing three things-
1 taming the peaks of the drums
2 bringing the instruments into balance with the drums
3 maximizing volume to a degree

i can see that one should wait until mastering to decide upon whether or not to use a brick wall limiter for #3, but the tools one uses to mix are already affecting volume and dynamics in the mix. why isnt the L2 just another one of these tools? why should it be left for mastering? why dont people say that bus compression and eq should be left for mastering? is the L2 different because it is truncating the waveform over the ceiling? and this is a much more destructive thing to do to the audio than analog compression or limiting?
what does an analog compressor or limiter do to the waveform? is it more acceptable to the ME to have those types of artifacts or distortion on the mix presented? is there any technical reason why one should only be used by the ME? to my ears the distortion and artifacts introduced by the VT-7 are more audible than the L2, especially when trying to tame 3db peaks.

someone set me straight.

thanks
/kurt

sorry for the long post.

20th December 2006	#13
kurtr2 Gear maniac Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 219 Thread Starter	Thanks Bob, i will try that. i bought and read your book, i learned alot! thank you. about this mix with the L2. let me tell you about what is going on with it. it is a live jazz quintet, 12 mics, 96k. the sounds are great, but there is alot of drums in everything, especially on the peaks, maybe 3db jumps in volume. so sometimes theres more drums in the piano mics than there is piano. i did do alot of volume automation on the drum tracks but the drums are also in the other mics so volume automation doesnt totally solve the problem. the L2 on the mix bus to my ears is solving this problem in conjunction with my Fearn VT-7. the L2 is limiting the peaks of the drums in every channel and also bringing the body of the mix forward. it is working. i think it sounds very good, and i am a perfectionist. the adjustment of the L2 is affecting the adjustment of all the other equipment in the chain, allowing me to use less bus compression. if i didnt use the L2 i would have to use much more VT-7 to squash the peaks and keep the drums tamed. that would result in audible compression, which i dont want. so the L2 is doing three things- 1 taming the peaks of the drums 2 bringing the instruments into balance with the drums 3 maximizing volume to a degree i can see that one should wait until mastering to decide upon whether or not to use a brick wall limiter for #3, but the tools one uses to mix are already affecting volume and dynamics in the mix. why isnt the L2 just another one of these tools? why should it be left for mastering? why dont people say that bus compression and eq should be left for mastering? is the L2 different because it is truncating the waveform over the ceiling? and this is a much more destructive thing to do to the audio than analog compression or limiting? what does an analog compressor or limiter do to the waveform? is it more acceptable to the ME to have those types of artifacts or distortion on the mix presented? is there any technical reason why one should only be used by the ME? to my ears the distortion and artifacts introduced by the VT-7 are more audible than the L2, especially when trying to tame 3db peaks. someone set me straight. thanks /kurt sorry for the long post.