The best limiters for mastering

[ISedlacek]

It would be interesting to hear about your experience and suggestion for the best sounding tools for a nice, transparent peak limiting during mastering (i.e. not compressing the mix as such but just cutting the extra peaks)

Do you feel that some analog limiters could do a better sounding job than the digital ones (L2, Elephant, UAD etc.) ? Or the digital ones are simply more powerful ? Can a decent compressor (like Pendulum OCL-2) act also as mastering limiter just for cutting the peaks ?

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

It would be interesting to hear about your experience and suggestion for the best sounding tools for a nice, transparent peak limiting during mastering (i.e. not compressing the mix as such but just cutting the extra peaks)

Do you feel that some analog limiters could do a better sounding job than the digital ones (L2, Elephant, UAD etc.) ? Or the digital ones are simply more powerful ? Can a decent compressor (like Pendulum OCL-2) act also as mastering limiter just for cutting the peaks ?

Most times, the purpose of the peak limiter is to transparently (with hopefully no effect on the sound) raise the level and not allow any digital overs, then analog limiters need not apply. They don't have the sample-accurate speed. That said, if you like the sound of an analog peak limiter then you can use it and follow it perhaps with a digital peak limiter with a threshold of, I guess -1 dBFS...

Most people would use the analog compressor more than the peak limiter, but when peaks are obviously bothersome and you want to control them AUDIBLY, I could see the use of an analog peak limiter. But the number of times I've used an analog limiter in place of a compressor for mastering? Very little. I only turned on the peak limit function of my STC-8 once, and then for an occasional 1 dB flicker, to aid "semi transparently" the compressor in doing its job.

BK

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Most times, the purpose of the peak limiter is to transparently (with hopefully no effect on the sound) raise the level and not allow any digital overs, then analog limiters need not apply. They don't have the sample-accurate speed. That said, if you like the sound of an analog peak limiter then you can use it and follow it perhaps with a digital peak limiter with a threshold of, I guess -1 dBFS...

Most people would use the analog compressor more than the peak limiter, but when peaks are obviously bothersome and you want to control them AUDIBLY, I could see the use of an analog peak limiter. But the number of times I've used an analog limiter in place of a compressor for mastering? Very little. I only turned on the peak limit function of my STC-8 once, and then for an occasional 1 dB flicker, to aid "semi transparently" the compressor in doing its job.

BK

Hi Bob.

So it sounds like you are using digital limiters then? Sorry if I missed this on any of your other posts but what are you using? Also what do you think about the Sonic Timeworks Mastering Compressor?

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Most times, the purpose of the peak limiter is to transparently (with hopefully no effect on the sound) raise the level and not allow any digital overs, then analog limiters need not apply. They don't have the sample-accurate speed. That said, if you like the sound of an analog peak limiter then you can use it and follow it perhaps with a digital peak limiter with a threshold of, I guess -1 dBFS...

Most people would use the analog compressor more than the peak limiter, but when peaks are obviously bothersome and you want to control them AUDIBLY, I could see the use of an analog peak limiter. But the number of times I've used an analog limiter in place of a compressor for mastering? Very little. I only turned on the peak limit function of my STC-8 once, and then for an occasional 1 dB flicker, to aid "semi transparently" the compressor in doing its job.

BK

Thank you. Very interesting comment ... So an analog equaliser - analog compressor - digital peak limiter could be a good mastering chain.
Usually there are always some few not very helpful peaks in the piece, so just cutting them a bit (without squashing everything) is good ...

I usually use IBIS - OCL-2 (very very slight compression with just 1-2 dB cuts) - Elephant chain ... It seems to work nicely in most cases. I was just thinking whether adding an analog limiter (like for example DAV BG-6) would make it sounding better ... Seems it may not ....

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

Hi Bob.

So it sounds like you are using digital limiters then? Sorry if I missed this on any of your other posts but what are you using? Also what do you think about the Sonic Timeworks Mastering Compressor?

Hi, Michael.

Yes.... usually as a "necessary evil", either inaudible, or living with the degradation, but there are the occasions when it sounds better with the limiter in. My two choices are the TC Electronic Brickwall limiter, either in loud autorelease mode or dynamic; or the Waves L2, in auto release most times. As long as I'm not trying to "push it" I haven't found much use for the manual release.

I'm sorry, I haven't tried the Sonic Timeworks.

BK

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Thank you.

I was just thinking whether adding an analog limiter (like for example DAV BG-6) would make it sounding better ... Seems it may not ....

If you need something like that, it may make it sound better! Just remember that the analog limiter will not have the infinite ratio and instant attack time of the digital limiter, and so you will not catch all the overs. But it just might help give you the sound you want, and if it does, just follow that with the tiniest amount protection limiting from the digital side.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Hi, Michael.

Yes.... usually as a "necessary evil", either inaudible, or living with the degradation, but there are the occasions when it sounds better with the limiter in. My two choices are the TC Electronic Brickwall limiter, either in loud autorelease mode or dynamic; or the Waves L2, in auto release most times. As long as I'm not trying to "push it" I haven't found much use for the manual release.

I'm sorry, I haven't tried the Sonic Timeworks.

BK

Thanks Bob.

So I have the demo of Sonic Timeworks on my computer right now. Mind you I am not in any way shape or form an ME, I am a track an mix guy, but so far I am really digging the Timeworks comp. Folks around here were talking about how it seems to leave the snare where you put it in the mix unlike the L2.... damn if they were not right. It really seems to just go louder without folding the middle like the L2 seems to do for me.

Yep it can get pretty messy sounding pretty fast if pushed too hard just like the L2 but it is a different vibe.

Again what do I know, you ME's and your black magic but you might want to check the demo out. It's pretty cool and not very expensive if you like it, maybe anopther tool for the bag of tricks.

Thanks again Bob.

[Cellotron]

The L2 is fine and does what you expect it to do as long as you don't ever try and get more than 3dB of Gain Reduction out of it. One cool trick in using it: a lot of ME's seem to prefer the hardware unit - and one big reason I can suss out is that it allows you at the push of a button to process L & R channels unlinked - so if you're using the software version you can emulate this by splitting the stereo track to two mono tracks L/R and using two instances of the plugin to process.

My usual go to digital limiters when average levels requested is in the "sensible" range (which seems to be a rarer request these days) is the SAWStudio native plugin by RML Labs, the Levelizer, as it uses a very unique algorithm which works by redrawing each seperate wav form based on the threshold you set - and it simply will not flat top the wave form no matter how hard you push it - so that it preserves transients a lot better than things like the L2. The disadvantage with this is that if you really smash things with it beyond a "sensible" amount of GR you get flutter distortion, which can get ugly really quick.

I also use on occasion the L3 Multimaximizer, which is a multiband limiter with more than enough controls for the novice to metaphorically use as rope to hang themselves, but for some material with a bit of tweaking from the default settings allows some very nice options for reshaping things for tracks which could benefit from this kind of thing.

I was really unimpressed with the initial version of Voxengo's Elephant - but I just demoed out the recent 2.5 version and just purchased it as I think it offers a very good alternative to the above that for some material can work a lot more transparently (especially when in oversample modes) for very little bucks.

As far as analog limiters vs. hardware ones:
my direct experience with analog limiters is limited (pun not intended) to those that were included as an option with European compressor/limiter modules usually found in cutting lathe transfer consoles, such as the NTP 179-120 or Neumann U473. While I really dig these units as compressors, I've found the limiters on these to be very colored and obvious, and really don't think they are useful for most mastering applications.

I've yet to try out more "modern" analog limiters such as the Pendulum or Maselac stuff so I have to reserve judgement as to how useful these things are.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Andy Krehm]

I mastered for years with an Apogee PSX-100 using its Soft Limit. The Soft Limit is actually an analog peak limiter. As an interim measure, we clocked it with the Big Ben, which did improve the sound but probably only b/c its own clock was of an early design.

As I upgraded my ears and my gear, I decided to get a better analog peak limiter before auditioning new converters. When I started looking, Pendulum was just about to release its PL-2 analog peak limiter. After a discussion or two with Greg, owner and designer, I signed up to audition one of the first units made.

We put it in last in the analog loop just before the Apogee so we were able to toggle between the PL-2 and the Soft Limit function.

As Greg promised, the PL-2 was the clear winner. Cleaner and more transparent with more control than the Soft Limit. Well, actually, the Apogee Soft Limit has no controls other than on or off.

We brought in the Lavry Gold ADC, liked it a lot and kept it. We use it to clock our studio also so the Big Ben is waiting patiently on the side for a new home.

I use the PL-2 almost every day just before the Lavry. However, one still needs a touch of digital peak limiting. For me that is the L2, L3, TC Brickwall or the Sony Inflator, the latter very, very occasionally. I have also tried the Sony Limiter and liked it a lot and may buy it one of these days.

[dcollins]

And no mention of straight digital clipping, which iirc, was the choice in some blind tests.......................

DC

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by dcollins

And no mention of straight digital clipping, which iirc, was the choice in some blind tests.......................

DC

Geez - didn't the 20 or so threads on these boards a couple of months ago regarding every variety of clipping under the sun suffice as a mention??

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[bonne]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

It would be interesting to hear about your experience and suggestion for the best sounding tools for a nice, transparent peak limiting during mastering (i.e. not compressing the mix as such but just cutting the extra peaks)

Here's another option, if you have a little more time on your hands: manual limiting.

Find stray, instantanious highest peaks in your program using a good wave editor. Zoom in to sample level on each, highlight and attenuate by a couple of dB as needed. These peaks can be as short as a couple of milliseconds to well below one millesecond. Your attenuation won't be audible. For peaks longer than a couple of milliseconds use your DAW's level automation. Follow this "handmade" limiting with just a touch of L2 or similar and you'll have what you're looking for.

With a little practice this doesn't take too long. For a busy, full time mastering studio it may be too time consuming though.

Jørn

[Synthi]

I tend to use hardware limiters followed by a digital software limiter.
In the analog side I use either the ntp 179-160 in limiter mode (just a bit for controlling peaks is great), the 179-400 limiters (those are pretty obvious and colored, but great for certain tracks!) or the Höf audio dynamic master (this one have an analog/digital switch, in digital mode acts as a digital limiter and nothing pass the level you set) that is transparent.

I like the combination more than using just software, about 1-1.5dBs limiting in hardware and 0.5dB-1dB in software, IME, the software limiters add a lot of distortion when limiting more than 1-1.5dBs

Best regards,

Synthi

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by bonne

Here's another option, if you have a little more time on your hands: manual limiting.

Yes, I already did it before and it is very reliable, good sounding, organically grown method ...

[lucey]

Originally Posted by dcollins

And no mention of straight digital clipping, which iirc, was the choice in some blind tests.......................

DC

You just mentioned it


Was the PL-2 in those tests?





Andy I'm with you on the PL-2 ... very nice but still needs a db of L2. The L2 also pops vocals in a way that I've gotten used to expecting.

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by Synthi

I tend to use hardware limiters followed by a digital software limiter.
In the analog side I use either the ntp 179-160 in limiter mode (just a bit for controlling peaks is great), the 179-400 limiters (those are pretty obvious and colored, but great for certain tracks!) or the Höf audio dynamic master (this one have an analog/digital switch, in digital mode acts as a digital limiter and nothing pass the level you set) that is transparent.

I like the combination more than using just software, about 1-1.5dBs limiting in hardware and 0.5dB-1dB in software, IME, the software limiters add a lot of distortion when limiting more than 1-1.5dBs

Best regards,

Synthi

I use the same NTPs (mostly for tracking and mixing) good stuff !
for mastering, aren't you hindered by the lack of sidechain on the 179-160?

[Synthi]

Hi reptil,
So finally you found another 179-160 I guess good, I`ll keep mine a s a spare.

I`m not using the 179-160 as compressor in mastering for everything, but it works with almost all when used post-eq. As a limiter, try it!
Best regards,

Synthi

[Andy Krehm]

Originally Posted by dcollins

And no mention of straight digital clipping, which iirc, was the choice in some blind tests.......................

DC

Hi Dave:

That's the second time I've seen you post that comment when the subject of limiters or clipping the ADC but I can't tell whether you are serious or not!

Could you give us some insight as to your "end of the line" approach when you master loud albums? It would seem that you prefer the sound of ADC clipping as opposed to analog limiting.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Andy Krehm

That's the second time I've seen you post that comment when the subject of limiters or clipping the ADC but I can't tell whether you are serious or not!

It's in regard to a PSW test of the L2, tc 6000, and dumb old digital clipping. The audiophiles were waxing on about the "depth" of what had to be the fancy 6000 limiter, but in fact they were preferring clipping..........

Could you give us some insight as to your "end of the line" approach when you master loud albums? It would seem that you prefer the sound of ADC clipping as opposed to analog limiting.

Actually I don't get level by clipping the A/D, my "philosophy" if you can call it that, is to run a relatively low analog level (-14dBFS = 0.775V) and to just hit zero or so in the conversion.

Then I clip the liv^h^h^h add gain digitally in the 6000 fader, set the L2 to a deeb or two GR and Roberto es su tio.

[Ged Leitch]

Originally Posted by dcollins

It's in regard to a PSW test of the L2, tc 6000, and dumb old digital clipping. The audiophiles were waxing on about the "depth" of what had to be the fancy 6000 limiter, but in fact they were preferring clipping..........



Actually I don't get level by clipping the A/D, my "philosophy" if you can call it that, is to run a relatively low analog level (-14dBFS = 0.775V) and to just hit zero or so in the conversion.

Then I clip the liv^h^h^h add gain digitally in the 6000 fader, set the L2 to a deeb or two GR and Roberto es su tio.

But what prey tell is a " liv^h^h^h" ?????????

[stellar]

I think that read "living shit" until it was clipped and the bits ran into the overrun........

[Ged Leitch]

Originally Posted by stellar

I think that read "living shit" until it was clipped and the bits ran into the overrun........

No clipping of the A/D? so what is Dave clipping then?

[stellar]

Originally Posted by Ged Leitch

No clipping of the A/D? so what is Dave clipping then?

just turn it up.......

[Ged Leitch]

Originally Posted by stellar

just turn it up.......

Ok...

[stellar]

ok..................

say that digital processing isn't really your thing.

what are your options??

There were a lot of good CD's made before all of these plugins existed. what did people use?

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by stellar

ok..................

say that digital processing isn't really your thing.

what are your options??

There were a lot of good CD's made before all of these plugins existed. what did people use?

Well "back in the day" (actually not that long ago) when I started in 1991 - for digital pre-masters at the studio I was working at (Multimedia in Baltimore - out of biz since '94) we'd eq to taste and then just use a single analog comp/limiter (forget the dbx model # we were usually using), maybe a little additional digital compression in the Sound Designer II, workstation we had (which was seriously ugly back then but unfortunately we didn't know any better!! - as since it was digital the feeling back then was it had to be good!), maybe a manual pull down of a few of the biggest peaks in SDII, and then normalize - and that was it. i.e. a big reason why average levels back then were lot lot saner!!

I think maybe even then there were a number people clipping the inputs of the converters and then backing things down so that the CD plants wouldn't reject the master for having overs (which none of them do any more) - but the general impression I had of then was that for the most of engineers this was seriously frowned upon - i.e. I was taught to rerun the entire transfer if the over light went off even once.

From what I've read in interviews Bob Ludwig seemed to have favored the NTP 179-120's comp/limiters in a lot of his earlier "hot" work, and also used the Neve Digital Transfer Console (aka "DTC") which came out in the 80's a bit. The all digital DTC featured what was a remarkably decent sounding digital compressor for the time - but man the limiter on the thing could get ugly quick - but who knows, maybe he used the limiter too.

Brian "Big Bass" Gardner gained a rep in the early-mid 90's for making really hot CD's - from what I've read seemed he favored a heavily modded Aphex Dominator II (an analog multiband limiter) at that time. The Dom II ain't exactly something I'd go to over other options now though.

Mid 90's saw the introduction of a lot of digital brick wall peak limiters in hardware form - i.e. SPL Loudness Maximizer, Waves L1 (and soon L2), the Junger (forget the model #), TC M5000, and of course - the Finalizer.

And I guess you could say it was all downhill from there. Still - if you're going for serious "crush" honestly the digital tools will give a lot more "transparent" (i.e. less obviously damaging to the original mix) than analog limiters (such as the Fairchild 670, etc.) set to stun alone. Of course the analog limiters "blowing things up real good" might be your cup of tea.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[stellar]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

I think maybe even then there were a number people clipping the inputs of the converters and then backing things down so that the CD plants wouldn't reject the master for having overs (which none of them do any more) - but the general impression I had of then was that for the most of engineers this was seriously frowned upon - i.e. I was taught to rerun the entire transfer if the over light went off even once.

If I had to guess (like most things recording) I would wonder if they weren't doing the "clipping" with some other piece of gear other than their converters. perhaps a line input of sorts or maybe a tape machine but there has got to be something better than overloading your converters while still accomplishing the same concept. ?

side note: I have used el cheapo dbx in the past with very good results. I would be interested to hear if you could recall what model you used to use.

[WunderBro Flo]

I have used some limiters that you are speaking of and here are my findings:

L2 - if used lightly it is very transparent and usable, if hit hard (more than 4dB GR) it can often make the mix sound "pressed" adding something to the uppermids that makes things cloudy. it also takes a loud snare to the back. but: peaks are not clipped

UAD Precision Limiter - sounds "rounder" than L2 when used hard, no uppermid distortion and to me more "expensive" sounding. also takes snares to the back and avoids clipping.

SonicTimeworks MasterLimiter - this is about the limiter section only...this one definiteley does clipping along with limiting, but if the source material allows it (gotta try, can sound cool or not) it can be cooler than non-clipping limiters, it does not take the snare to the back as much as the others! i like it for rock and rough hiphop tracks. on "expensive" sounding stuff it might be too obvious in it´s distortion characteristics.

Sony Inflator - great inbetween thing. can give you shapeable distortion/saturation. with minimal overtone-setting it can be similar to the L2 and PrecLim, without pumping. in overtone-mode it can add that extra "analog" overtone material that brings digital mixes alive and together. I use it like this: If i want let´s say 6dB GR in total, I take away 3dB with my limiter of choice and then use the Inflator after that for another 3dB. Works beautifully on almost everything and used this way the Inflator is very much "under control".


Never had an analog piece that did what a brickwall limiter does. Dominator does different things, as well as any other analog compressor set as a limiter. Final level is a digital thing in my opinion...

Hope this helps!
Rock on!
Pat

[carlsaff]

I'm going back and forth between UAD's Precision Limiter and Voxengo's Elephant 2. Both are siginificant improvements over the Waves limiters in my opinion. Both can be pushed harder (if necessary) with good results.

Which one I choose depends a lot on the source material. As others have mentioned, the PL seems rounder and seems to retain a bit more low end. Elephant seems to do a better job of keeping transients intact, and has a lot more features... variable linkage, variable oversampling (great for catching intersample peaks on higher sample rate material) , a decent dither, mutliple HPF options, several different modes of operation, etc.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by rufus13

Rejection of the Aphex Dominator 700, 720, and 722 by radio stations in favor of cleaner digital tools (to better demolish "loudness enhanced" music programs) has sent a bunch to e-bay. When I got mine, I was very pleased at the excellent build quality inside. Not beautifully clear on a complex mix (mastering use) but still pretty darn useful for individual tracks and for manufacturing the "clear channel communications" announcer voice. There is "a sound" when not bypassed, even when no limiting is indicated. Often under $200.

I don't use one in mastering, but there are several pretty obvious mods that can be done to remove some of that "sound."

Actually a very interesting design, that box.

DC