apogee soft limit

in the rosetta 800 manual it sayd that soft limit gives compression similar to tape. do you guys think it acts like tape? of course ill try it out for myself, but i just got the 800 and will be tracking drums next wekend with no chance beforehand to try out the soft limit and see if i like it. the tape machine at my disposal is an otari mx5050 mk3, which is ok but maybe not ideal.

suggestions anyone?

[NathanEldred]

Originally posted by chikkenguy
do you guys think it acts like tape?

No, not even close...forget about it sounding like 'tape'...using it for an effect (i.e. trying to emulate tape) is basically bastardizing the original intent of it's usage.

I would leave it completely off during all recording, and leave plenty of headroom so you don't have to worry about it. The whole theory behind soft limit is that's it's to compensate for 'overs'. There is no reason you should ever have overs with 24 bits. Either your converter, or whatever analog line level device that is before it is set far too hot if that happens.

Why don't you try three things: Record to the Otari (and transfer to your DAW into the ADC using no soft limit), record with the soft limit only to digital, and record with no soft limit to digital. Tell us what you think.

ill try all those out sometime. i just probably wont have time to do it on the spot during the limited session time i have coming up. once i can test it out a little more extensively ill write about it.

[heinz]

I've done a ton of drum tracking on the r800 and IMO soft limit is pretty transparent, just gives you a measure of safety. On really transient stuff like snare I like to run my levels a little hotter w/soft-limit on because the meat of the sound is in a pretty narrow space, and I'm not a big fan of compression.

[faeflora]

Don't some ME's use it for slamming? That's what I read. I'm getting some DA/AD16X's and I think they have softlimit so I'll try it out and report back.

[RichT]

Originally posted by heinz
I've done a ton of drum tracking on the r800 and IMO soft limit is pretty transparent, just gives you a measure of safety. On really transient stuff like snare I like to run my levels a little hotter w/soft-limit on because the meat of the sound is in a pretty narrow space, and I'm not a big fan of compression.

Yup, I agree with heinz.

[bloodstone]

Before I started mixing into a PC, I owned a Rosetta 48, and tried using it to mix to outboard CD-R or DAT through each device's SPDIF in. The only way I could get a signal level (loudness) I was happy with was by using soft limit. However, I definitely feel it added an harsh grainy quality to the mix that was undesireable. I sold the Rosetta on Ebay evantually because I found the analog ins of the devices yielded better results. Unless they've improved it, I think soft limit is garbage.

[logichead]

Originally posted by bloodstone
Before I started mixing into a PC, I owned a Rosetta 48, and tried using it to mix to outboard CD-R or DAT through each device's SPDIF in. The only way I could get a signal level (loudness) I was happy with was by using soft limit. However, I definitely feel it added an harsh grainy quality to the mix that was undesireable. I sold the Rosetta on Ebay evantually because I found the analog ins of the devices yielded better results. Unless they've improved it, I think soft limit is garbage.

Soft limit has been improved. In the past, I used it for drums / percussion only (on an AD8000se). The new Rosetta 800's have a much improved version - I use it far more often (though never for mixes) with great results on guitars, drums, percussion, brass, even vocalists who are "unpredictable".

It doesn't sound like analog tape. It just gives you a safety net to prevent overs. When used properly, it works great. Push it too hard and you will hear it.

Best...H

[Bob Olhsson]

It originated on the AD-500 where it sounded pretty good. The AD-1000 and later were not as good and most of us stopped using it.

[bloodstone]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
It originated on the AD-500 where it sounded pretty good. The AD-1000 and later were not as good and most of us stopped using it.

Let 'em know, Bob!

[RichT]

Safe to say that with Soft Limit the results are subjective and (wait for it) YMMV

[Oortjes]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
It originated on the AD-500 where it sounded pretty good. The AD-1000 and later were not as good and most of us stopped using it.

Bob,

From your several postings I do get the impression, you haven’t heard any of our converters since the AD1000. A fine converter, but a twelve year old design!
Our current line has as much in common with the AD500 and AD1000, as a Macintosh G5 has in common with the 1994 Power Mac. Nothing! Not a single part.
The majority of our customers do use soft-limit. I know. I talk to them, because just like the rest of our technology, it is a continual work in progress and user feedback is vital.
So please refrain from commenting on our products if you don’t know what they are. If you happen to be in Santa Monica one day, I’ll be happy to show you what our newer products look like and especially…how they sound

Thanks,

[primomusic]

how does that rosetta sound. is the qualiy better than the digi 192 i/o . and how does it compare with , mytek , lavry, lucid.

[bloodstone]

Originally posted by primomusic
how does that rosetta sound. is the qualiy better than the digi 192 i/o . and how does it compare with , mytek , lavry, lucid.

I have owned the Rosetta 48 and Lucid AD9624. I found the Lucid had a nice smooth top end, but the low end conversion was too thin for my taste. IMHO, the Lucid is a better converter than the Rosetta 48, but still wasn't good enough to meet my sonic standards. I returned my Lucid to the dealer I bought it from in exchange for other items I needed to bolster my rig. Now I'm using an EMU 1212M. I haven't put it through the paces yet, but so far I'm pretty impressed with it, especially considering the cost. I need to really put the A/D through some trials before I give a final verdict.

[chap]

I've used soft limit for years with great results.
It is transparent and in the new X series, it does not reveal itself at all. The Trac2 has some other 'limit' options. Some great, some not.
I don't believe it was ever meant to emulate tape.
If you need to emulate tape, buy a tape emulation device or use tape. Soft limit is a value added feature that, used wisely, enhances functionality.

There is nothing worse sounding than a mix where Fatso has been abused or the 'tape' fuctions on Hedd have been pushed too hard.
Ok, there are worse sounding things but let's leave goats out of this.
chap

[tunesmith]

Originally posted by Oortjes
Bob,

From your several postings I do get the impression, you haven’t heard any of our converters since the AD1000. A fine converter, but a twelve year old design!
Our current line has as much in common with the AD500 and AD1000, as a Macintosh G5 has in common with the 1994 Power Mac. Nothing! Not a single part.
The majority of our customers do use soft-limit. I know. I talk to them, because just like the rest of our technology, it is a continual work in progress and user feedback is vital.
So please refrain from commenting on our products if you don’t know what they are. If you happen to be in Santa Monica one day, I’ll be happy to show you what our newer products look like and especially…how they sound

Thanks,

Dear sir,

I am an owner of the R800 and a big fan of your products, but I must take issue with you. Bob has proven time and time again that he knows what he is talking about, and that he doesn't play favorites when it comes to pimping or slagging off gear.

While I respect your right to comment on your product, I would be wary of using such abrasive and disrespectful statements towards one of the more respected members here at Gearslutz, as we tend to have long memories.

I am only suprised that someone else hasn't yet taken you to task on such an ill advised statement. We are more then happy to live in the tension of having vendors and gear pimps actively involved in discussions that should be unbiased, but you have to be willing to look at the cats (fletch and nathan spring to mind) who have earned the trust of people over the months and years. I take their opinions at face value. After 5 posts and one in particular that grated on me, I am not yet inclined to grant you the same level of regard.

Sincerely,

Tunesmith

[beats workin']

the soft limit is just what it's supposed to be- a safety net. not something to "use as an effect". (unless, of course, that's your aim) Get a compressor. i've always left mine on in tracking and never noticed an undesirable artifact. never had an over-level either, with lots of live drum tracking.

[chap]

I think that an informed designer, who generally refrains from jumping into the fray, has every right to defend his product (especially a good one),
from an unfair appraisal. Now let's just be like Fonzy.
Tunesmith, Lucas MAKES this stuff. I know that I'm lucky to make a living making music but to be able to MAKE stuff that sounds amazing from an idea in your head is a very credible skill, so chill.
Sincerely,
Jeeves

[ToddS]

Originally posted by NathanEldred
I completely agree with Tunesmith. That was rude. I think Bob has earned the right to do and think whatever he wants. He was being helpful and constructive. Even if Apogee recalled and destroyed all the old units, you will just have to live with the fact that people comment on designs from the past. Don't take it personally.

I just purchased and AD16X and DA16X and they are incredible. If Bob has not heard them or any of the other new Apogee products as the Apogee designer claims, than he is right to challenge Bob's credibility. Saying you used soft limit on a 12 year old piece of gear and using that experience to form an opinion on newer products is just silly.

I think the reason most people have not taken the Apogee guy to task is because we realize Bob's statement was kind of ridiculous.

[Oortjes]

Originally posted by tunesmith
Dear sir,

I am an owner of the R800 and a big fan of your products, but I must take issue with you. Bob has proven time and time again that he knows what he is talking about, and that he doesn't play favorites when it comes to pimping or slagging off gear.

While I respect your right to comment on your product, I would be wary of using such abrasive and disrespectful statements towards one of the more respected members here at Gearslutz, as we tend to have long memories.

I am only suprised that someone else hasn't yet taken you to task on such an ill advised statement. We are more then happy to live in the tension of having vendors and gear pimps actively involved in discussions that should be unbiased, but you have to be willing to look at the cats (fletch and nathan spring to mind) who have earned the trust of people over the months and years. I take their opinions at face value. After 5 posts and one in particular that grated on me, I am not yet inclined to grant you the same level of regard.

Sincerely,

Tunesmith

Dear Tunesmith,

I respect your political correctness and your desire to come to the rescue of Bob Ohlson. I am also very glad you are a user of one my products. I would be happy to meet you one day.

Now why do I give Bob flak? Exactly BECAUSE he is such a respected forum member. Take this analogy: when your neighbor says the US should invade Iraq because of WMD and it turns out there are none, you shrug your shoulders and think, oh…he is just an idiot. But when a respected person, as the President of the US, makes the same statement, he should be held responsible. In his position he should know better. Makes sense, no?

So Bob manages to make two statements in one single line, he pretends to be truths, while in fact they are generalizations based on assumptions!
First of all, the soft-limit circuitry went through many generations since the AD1000. So how can you say they are no good when they are all different. That is like someone saying that you haven’t written a good song, since the one you wrote in ’94. While the person never listened to anything you produced since then.
Secondly and this is even a bigger offense to me. He says that “most of us stopped using it”. Who is “us” to begin with? I speak to a lot of Apogee users and I know the majority uses soft-limit. So it is a lie. Why would we maintain and optimize a function nobody uses on our gear? Take this example: I once designed a special version of the PSX-100se for a respected engineer, that would allow him to record PCM and DSD at the same time, while using the soft-limit circuitry. This engineer was willing to write an extra check, to use soft-limit in this special way.
So again, who are “us”?
Would Bob have written “I don’t use it anymore” OK, that can be. I am fine with that.

Now on me having just five posts. Very simple. No time. I have to design that stuff. It is a day job. We released seven products in roughly two years…so yes that will take my time. However if I see someone criticizing my designs on an unjust basis, I feel I have the obligation to defend my products. So your future Apogee product has to wait an hour.
I do not understand though. why having a lot of posts gives someone more credibility. Following that logic, someone like Bob Clearmountain (who loves to use soft-limit, btw) would not have any, since he hardly, if ever, posts on this site….

I hope this makes things more clear.
Respectfully,

[kevinc]

Originally posted by chap
I think that an informed designer, who generally refrains from jumping into the fray, has every right to defend his product (especially a good one),
from an unfair appraisal. Now let's just be like Fonzy.
Tunesmith, Lucas MAKES this stuff. I know that I'm lucky to make a living making music but to be able to MAKE stuff that sounds amazing from an idea in your head is a very credible skill, so chill.
Sincerely,
Jeeves

Well personally I think somebody who designs audio products would have to be a complete idiot to talk down to someone like Bob Olhsson who is respected not only on various internet forums but much much more importantly in the the REAL life audio community.

That doesn`t seem like the smartest buisness tactic and it`s starting to be the norm around here from Apogee. Theres better way`s of handling things like this. Do your homework before you say shit like that Oortjes.


You stated that the " MAJORITY " of people that use your converters use the soft limit function and you know because your in contact with them ?

Bullshit !!!

I owned a PSX100 in which I refrained from using the soft limit because it didn`t sound good.
I don`t recall discussing it with you at any point in time so obviousley you aren`t really in "contact" with the "MAJORITY" of your customers.

Furthermore everything I`ve read around here says the soft limit function is basically unusable outside of an occaisional cool effect people use on certain things.

In other words it`s useless as an actual "limiter" and is more like a stomp box pedal or something used to make something sound "weird" or "cool".

On the whole your converters have improved quite a bit over the years so why go to this level to defend a feature that as far as I can see nobody really uses too seriousley anyway.

[Oortjes]

Originally posted by kevinc
Well personally I think somebody who designs audio products would have to be a complete idiot to talk down to someone like Bob Olhsson who is respected not only on various internet forums but much much more importantly in the the REAL life audio community.

That doesn`t seem like the smartest buisness tactic and it`s starting to be the norm around here from Apogee. Theres better way`s of handling things like this. Do your homework before you say shit like that Oortjes.


You stated that the " MAJORITY " of people that use your converters use the soft limit function and you know because your in contact with them ?

Bullshit !!!

I owned a PSX100 in which I refrained from using the soft limit because it didn`t sound good.
I don`t recall discussing it with you at any point in time so obviousley you aren`t really in "contact" with the "MAJORITY" of your customers.

Furthermore everything I`ve read around here says the soft limit function is basically unusable outside of an occaisional cool effect people use on certain things.

In other words it`s useless as an actual "limiter" and is more like a stomp box pedal or something used to make something sound "weird" or "cool".

On the whole your converters have improved quite a bit over the years so why go to this level to defend a feature that as far as I can see nobody really uses too seriousley anyway.

Kevinc. We sold more then one PSX-100. So you cannot be a majority, sorry....;-)
Come to the AES in the US and Europe, the NAMM show, the NAB show and you'll have a chance to talk to me...just like a lot of our other customers.

[kevinc]

Originally posted by Oortjes
Kevinc. We sold more then one PSX-100. So you cannot be a majority, sorry....;-)
Come to the AES in the US and Europe, the NAMM show, the NAB show and you'll have a chance to talk to me...just like a lot of our other customers.

I know I`M not the majority. But it`s a very bold statement to say you have talked to the MAJORITY of your customers and they all use the soft limit feature and are happy with it.

It just doesn`t ring true with what I`ve experienced or read and the majority of your customers are not people who make it to the shows every year.

[C.Lambrechts]

I used to own a psx-100 and actually had the soft limit on at all times ... thought it worked like a charm.

[tunesmith]

Mr. van der Mee,

Your initial comments were disrespectfully stated. The tone of your rebuttal is inflammatory and strident. Bob made a very brief statement that was benign at best, and misguided at worst. Perhaps there have been other comments made that you felt were untrue of your product, and I am simply not aware of them.

Just as your argument was starting to make sense, you accuse Bob of lying. Give me a break! I don't know what part of Santa Monica you're from, but up here in Hicksville Ventura County, you had better have your gloves on if you're going to accuse someone of purposefully, maliciously distorting the truth.

The fact remains that you slapped Bob on the wrist publically, instead of perhaps in a PM, so a public forum shall be used to critique your manner of speaking.

I commented specifically on the number of your posts because, while I understand and appreciate your hard work and the time it consumes, this is a community. Communties are built on relationship and trust and respect and you have, thus far, earned very little. Perhaps you have relationships with members of this forum in the real world, but I am certainly not aware of them.

Oh... by the way, you attempted to make a parallel with the case of WMD and Bush. You make a HUGE assumption that I am of that political mindset because I live in Los Angeles. To me, it simply reveals someone who makes BIG leaps to BIG conclusions and then has what is becoming a chronic tendency to post them on the internet.

Keep in mind... this is coming from someone who is a FAN on your work. You have every right to defend your product and set whatever records straight you wish. I would encourage you, if for no other reason then to give people reason to buy your fine products, to choose your words carefully, less you raise the ire of the only politically moderate musican in L.A.

Sincerely,

Tunesmith



You know what happens when you make an assumtion?

You make an Ass out of U and Mption.

- Samuel L. Jackson, "The Long Kiss Goodnight"

[tunesmith]

you know what else?


As I re-read most of the posts, people are DEFENDING your position. You didn't need to say a damn thing. You need to realize that what I (and others) am reacting to is not your product, but your conduct.

[chap]

Kevin, I respect your right to post anything you want but feel the need to take you to task on this. Nothing personal and I hope you hear it in the spirit in which it's offered.

Originally posted by kevinc
Well personally I think somebody who designs audio products would have to be a complete idiot to talk down to someone like Bob Olhsson who is respected not only on various internet forums but much much more importantly in the the REAL life audio community.

Audio products enable 'real life' musicians to exist today. Otherwise, you and I would be dressed in tights strumming a lute for our supper. You're defending Bob (who doesn't need it simply because he voiced a misinformed opinion) Stick to the topic in an informed way.
Remember, Lucas has a knowledge of audio design that is vastly superior to you , me and Bob too. He's most cetainly not 'an idiot'. He was maligned and needs to quickly make his point and get back to work.

That doesn`t seem like the smartest buisness tactic and it`s starting to be the norm around here from Apogee.

That's simply wrong. There are some here who cannot sell the product line so resort to bashing. Others speak about Apogee without even hearing them. I've mixed Billboard charting tunes with Apogees and dared to use
Soft Limit.

Theres better way`s of handling things like this. Do your homework before you say shit like that Oortjes.

good advice, try it.


You stated that the " MAJORITY " of people that use your converters use the soft limit function and you know because your in contact with them ?

I just beta tested the X series and Soft Limit was one of the first features to get tested because I use it.

Bullshit !!! - whatever

I owned a PSX100 in which I refrained from using the soft limit because it didn`t sound good.
I don`t recall discussing it with you at any point in time so obviousley you aren`t really in "contact" with the "MAJORITY" of your customers.

Did you make any effort to contact Apogee?
Years ago, I did just that and while I've never spoken with Lucas, everyone I've known there has been friendly and honest. They have all been informed in a passionate way

Furthermore everything I`ve read around here says the soft limit function is basically unusable outside of an occaisional cool effect people use on certain things.

key word 'read' - I prefer to listen carefully before launching a rant.

In other words it's useless as an actual "limiter" and is more like a stomp box pedal or something used to make something sound "weird" or "cool".

I can't make Soft Limit sound weird but it is cool. 50% on that one.

On the whole your converters have improved quite a bit over the years so why go to this level to defend a feature that as far as I can see nobody really uses too seriousley anyway.

The bottom line is that we're arguing about tools and everyone builds things in a different, personal way. That's what makes music cool.
So in the end, are we arguing over 'soft limit' or Bob's legacy (which remains intact)?

If you don't like it or can't make it work for you,
there are plenty of dealers and manufacturers who lurk here on a regular basis. They love guys like you. Just use your ears before launching a full, frontal attack on someone who has the ability to transcend preconceptions and design a great converter and a brand new clock in less than 2 years. This isn't about taking sides. Bob is a big boy and can defend himself
perfectly well if he feels attacked.
off to work,
peace,
chap

[Rep]

I really like having softlimit on for an insurance of some run away tangent signal failing to come in to compression after the compressors and before hitting the DAW, always did Its job for me .
don't run a hot signal, if it is engaging often.

[Beech]

Lucas,

Will you please get back to working on the Rosetta 200! It was originally supposed to be ready at the beginning of July. Personally I'm not too interested in soft limit except as a way to hide some bad recording techniques. It has to be better then digital oversfuuck.

[ToddS]

Originally posted by tunesmith
Oh... by the way, you attempted to make a parallel with the case of WMD and Bush. You make a HUGE assumption that I am of that political mindset because I live in Los Angeles. To me, it simply reveals someone who makes BIG leaps to BIG conclusions and then has what is becoming a chronic tendency to post them on the internet.

Yea, he lost me on this one too. Still, I do not feel that his comments were out of line when you look at the whole picture. Looking back on some of Bob O's comments in the past, it is pretty clear that he has some kind of anti Apogee bias. when I was thinking about Big Ben, Bob O. was one of many (Kevin C. another) that posted disparaging comments about the performance claims of Big Ben despite never trying one out. If it wasn't for the functionality, I never would have even tried it based on Bob's recommendation, after all, I already had the Prism clock.

Turns out they were both very wrong on Big Ben and are both very wrong about the usability of the current version of Soft Limit. Lucas has probably just had it with the bullshit being thrown around and there being very few people around Gearslutz willing to call the bullshitters on it, probably because some are named Bob O.