The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
AOM Invisible Limiter G2
Old 28th May 2016
  #61
Lives for gear
 

This one distorts way too easy compared to Limitless in a mastering context with low gain reduction. On all audio I've tried it with so far. But it sounds focused.
Good job!
Old 29th May 2016
  #62
Gear Maniac
 

I'm going to have to check this out as a user of version 1. As far as the music style I do, mainly hard rock and metal, Invisible Limiter just nails the sound I want. I do understand Limitless may be more flexible or appear to be more flexible but sometimes simplicity yields better results. And as always it is more about the user than the tools. People that suck at their craft can use excellent plugins and still put out garbage. Garbage in garbage out as they say. Anyway, I will have to check this new version out and prepare the wallet to be violated.

I will say though Invisible Limiter has been my go to since I got it about 2 years ago or so and it still to this day is what I turn to.
Old 3rd June 2016
  #63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atsuto Kubo View Post
Thank you for comments.

You can try Quality=4 setting, then the limiter goes to 8x internal sampling ratio. Current oversampling ratio is shown below or right of that drop-down list. The number of quality parameter is not a straight number of oversampling ratio but based on power of 2.

Oversampling parameter was slightly hard to understand especially on actual internal sampling rate and user's expectation about CPU load. Let's take an example,
  • Project sampling rate=48kHz, oversampling=1x -> 48kHz internal sampling rate
  • Project sampling rate=48kHz, oversampling=8x -> 384kHz internal sampling rate
  • Project sampling rate=96kHz, oversampling=1x -> 96kHz internal sampling rate
  • Project sampling rate=96kHz, oversampling=8x -> 768kHz internal sampling rate
Under 96kHz 8x setting, the limiter doubles CPU load, and brings different (maybe unexpected) sound comparing to under 48kHz 8x setting. This behavior is not good to make presets. If you make your own preset for 48kHz and try to reuse it in another 96kHz project, the limiter may bring different sound and CPU load than 48kHz. Since sampling rate range which plugins should assume is getting wider and wider, I have introduced this abstraction first in tranQuilizr.

Quality parameter internally represents target sampling rate for oversampling, such as Quality=1: 50kHz, Quality=2: 100kHz, Quality=3: 200kHz, respectively. Actual oversampling ratio is calculated as:
  • Project sampling rate=48kHz, quality=1(50kHz target) -> 1x, 48kHz
  • Project sampling rate=48kHz, quality=4(400kHz target) -> 8x, 384kHz
  • Project sampling rate=96kHz, quality=1(50kHz target) -> 1x, 96kHz
  • Project sampling rate=96kHz, quality=4(400kHz target) -> 4x, 384kHz
  • Project sampling rate=192kHz, quality=1(50kHz target) -> 1x, 192kHz
  • Project sampling rate=192kHz, quality=4(400kHz target) -> 2x, 384kHz
We can get same internal sampling rate independently from project sampling rate, except for lower quality settings and higher project sampling rate.

Thanks for reading my long explanation!

Dear Atsuto,

Thank you once again for your kind and most informative answer, and sorry for my own delayed answer.

You explanation was very clear but still is uncertatin as why the 16X OS is gone from Invisible Limiter G2.

Why no quality 5= 800kHz target -> 16x ...?
Limiting doesn't sound any better after 8x?


Thank you in advanced for your kind reply.
Old 27th June 2016
  #64
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by morfi View Post
You explanation was very clear but still is uncertatin as why the 16X OS is gone from Invisible Limiter G2.

Why no quality 5= 800kHz target -> 16x ...?
Aah, sorry, I should take an example from 16x for explanation. 16x oversampling lives also in Invisible Limiter G2. As for higher settings:

Project sampling rate=48kHz, quality=5 (800kHz target) -> 16x, 768kHz
Project sampling rate=48kHz, quality=6 (1600kHz target) -> 32x, 1536kHz
Project sampling rate=48kHz, quality=7 (3200kHz target) -> 64x, 3072kHz
Project sampling rate=48kHz, quality=8 (6400kHz target) -> 128x, 6144kHz

Thus you can have 16x oversampling by selecting quality=5 under 48kHz project.

Quote:
Originally Posted by morfi View Post
Limiting doesn't sound any better after 8x?
Higher oversampling ratio is "better" to let computers see corresponding analog waveform in signal processing, however, this does not say anything about output sound. In my perception higher quality setting gives more analog/slick feeling, lower setting does edgy/coarse-grained feeling. I think what is better for sound engineers changes depending on each one's or album's mastering goal, so I often use the quality parameter to adjust sound, as similar as other knobs. (I slightly regret to choose the word "quality", it might be confusing.)
Old 29th June 2016
  #65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atsuto Kubo View Post
Higher oversampling ratio is "better" to let computers see corresponding analog waveform in signal processing, however, this does not say anything about output sound. In my perception higher quality setting gives more analog/slick feeling, lower setting does edgy/coarse-grained feeling. I think what is better for sound engineers changes depending on each one's or album's mastering goal, so I often use the quality parameter to adjust sound, as similar as other knobs. (I slightly regret to choose the word "quality", it might be confusing.)
Very clear now! Arigatou-gozaimazu Atsuto-san!
Old 29th June 2016
  #66
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atsuto Kubo View Post
Aah, sorry, I should take an example from 16x for explanation. 16x oversampling lives also in Invisible Limiter G2. As for higher settings:

Project sampling rate=48kHz, quality=5 (800kHz target) -> 16x, 768kHz
Project sampling rate=48kHz, quality=6 (1600kHz target) -> 32x, 1536kHz
Project sampling rate=48kHz, quality=7 (3200kHz target) -> 64x, 3072kHz
Project sampling rate=48kHz, quality=8 (6400kHz target) -> 128x, 6144kHz

Thus you can have 16x oversampling by selecting quality=5 under 48kHz project.



Higher oversampling ratio is "better" to let computers see corresponding analog waveform in signal processing, however, this does not say anything about output sound. In my perception higher quality setting gives more analog/slick feeling, lower setting does edgy/coarse-grained feeling. I think what is better for sound engineers changes depending on each one's or album's mastering goal, so I often use the quality parameter to adjust sound, as similar as other knobs. (I slightly regret to choose the word "quality", it might be confusing.)
Thank you for explaining this. I would suggest that you rename Quality as OverSampling as this misunderstanding has prevented me from trying G2. 16x Oversampling is the most important feature of the original Invisible Limiter.

I am now excited to try G2.
Old 29th June 2016
  #67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterstreet5 View Post
16x Oversampling is the most important feature of the original Invisible Limiter.
Same here. And has been so far the only brickwall limiter I know that's capable of 16x OS.

And if I understood correctly G2 has now up to 64x OS...? That's amazing.
Old 2nd July 2016
  #68
Lives for gear
 
jsvalmont's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atsuto Kubo View Post
Interesting. I'll reconsider about the name of 1y-to-lifetime option e.g. extension, which does not imply cross-product things. Thanks.
You may want to consider using the term "perpetual license"
Old 30th August 2016
  #69
Dear Atsuto, one quick question.

Every time I try quality=8 and even sometimes quality=7 I get gaps and stutters in my sound, as if my computer couldn't handle such a heavy CPU load from the extreme oversamplig.

My machine is a powerful one and REAPER shows that it still has processing power after Invisible Limiter G2 is activated under quality=8, so I wonder what this bumps in sound could be...?

Thank you in advanced.
Warm regards from Buenos Aires.
Old 30th August 2016
  #70
Lives for gear
 
rectifried's Avatar
Thumbs up

I like Invisible
great work!
thank you
Old 30th August 2016
  #71
Lives for gear
 
Jpga's Avatar
 

Hi friend, trouble here to whit strange stutter sound when use the latest update.
Mac pro, latest osx, latest ableton/logic pro x.
Old 20th September 2016
  #72
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by morfi View Post
And if I understood correctly G2 has now up to 64x OS...? That's amazing.
Yes, it also supports 128x OS. And in next update CPU load will be reduced and 256x OS is introduced. (but it causes very high CPU load, may only be used with track freezing.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvalmont View Post
You may want to consider using the term "perpetual license"
Thanks, I consider changing the name. After I complete testing my order processing system, I apply the change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by morfi View Post
Dear Atsuto, one quick question.

Every time I try quality=8 and even sometimes quality=7 I get gaps and stutters in my sound, as if my computer couldn't handle such a heavy CPU load from the extreme oversamplig.

My machine is a powerful one and REAPER shows that it still has processing power after Invisible Limiter G2 is activated under quality=8, so I wonder what this bumps in sound could be...?
Thank you for a good question. Shortly, Reaper seems to show smaller value of CPU load. Where there is only one instance in project and CPU has 4 cores, real CPU load is 4 times of displayed.

This (maybe strange) behavior is coming from the meanings of 'CPU load'. In real-time audio processing, this means the ratio between the time amount that DAW actually consumed, and the time amount that DAW has been given. Commonly it means CPU utilization (100% minus 'no-operation' instruction ratio).

Let's see some examples. Example 1 is when there is single core in CPU and single instance in project. The most outer box (pink + white) is a time frame, a deadline which DAW must complete processing until. Time frame is normally same as audio driver's I/O size. When I/O size is 1024 samples and project sample rate is 48kHz, the length of time frame become 21.3msec (= 1024 / 48000).

In example 1, since ILG2 (pink box) consumes smaller amount than time frame, DAW can complete all process of plugins in time.

In example 2, the number of core is increased. We assume 4 cores in CPU, thus add three extra boxes to example. I think this is quality=8 glitch case. When we set quality=8, ILG2 takes more time to complete its processing. Since the box can not be divided into cores (*), DAW fails to meet the deadline. In this case, most DAWs show 100+ % CPU load, because they calculates load based on consumed amount of time frame. Reaper shows 25-30% load. I guess that Reaper calculates load based on CPU utilization, like Windows task manager.

(*) Actually can be, but results slower and unpredictable processing time.

Example 3 is more complicated. There is three tracks and one master bus, five plugin instances. I think this is quality=7 glitch case. Plugin groups in each track can be processed in parallel, for there is no data dependency among tracks. Inside of track1, yellow-orange pair should be processed in serial. An important point is, because of data dependency, master bus can not start processing until all tracks are completed. So master bus starts its processing after the orange plugin complete its processing. Now the time frame given to master bus become shorter, ILG2 is more likely to cause overload even in lower quality setting.

Hope this explanation makes sense. Please ask me if unsure.
Attached Thumbnails
AOM Invisible Limiter G2-timeframe.png  
Old 20th September 2016
  #73
Dear Atsuto,

Thank you so very much for such an extended and complete reply. I know now that Quality = 7 and 8 doesn't work in my system because of plain CPU consumption.

After your graphical explanation, my case would actually be "Example 3", as I now use the limiter on the Master Fader due to the implementation of the dithering optiontion inside ILG2.

Let me explain: I need to monitor thru the 16 bit dither inside ILG2, but I don't want to print tracks that are dithered to 16 bits because I want to do fades and edits afterwards still with my 64 bit files. So after that is done I will render my final files thru the Master Fader and thru ILG2, 160-bit-dithered and all.

I don't know if this will make sense to anyone, it's still my personal signal flow inside the studio, but what I mean here is that - maybe in future updates - having a separate dither plug-in outside of ILG2 would make some sense for people running this kind of signal flow in the studio.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atsuto Kubo View Post
Yes, it also supports 128x OS. And in next update CPU load will be reduced and 256x OS is introduced. (but it causes very high CPU load, may only be used with track freezing.)
256x OS would be even more amazing (if my compute can handle it…) but, if I may suggest, do not think it is a good idea if it can only be used with track freezing/rendering.

As a mastering engineer, I would definitely NOT work in a track with ILG2 set to a certain quality, and then when I'm ready to print the final track, change that parameter. The Quality Modes in ILG2 sound a lot different (wonderfully...!) so if I can't play audio in real time under Quality = 8 then I'm not going to use it afterwards for rendering.



Thank you again for your kind reply!
Ezequiel Morfi
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Old 18th April 2018
  #74
Just tested this limiter and the new version. In "Clip" mode ("Modern II" is great too) with 512x oversampling (my Threadripper 1950X CPU can handle this in real time indeed!) this is THE most transparent limiting I´ve ever heard in my whole life as a mastering engineer (and I´ve had them all from hardware to software). Will be purchasing this right away.
Old 10th May 2018
  #75
Quote:
Originally Posted by XARC Mastering View Post
Just tested this limiter and the new version. In "Clip" mode ("Modern II" is great too) with 512x oversampling (my Threadripper 1950X CPU can handle this in real time indeed!) this is THE most transparent limiting I´ve ever heard in my whole life as a mastering engineer (and I´ve had them all from hardware to software). Will be purchasing this right away.
512x oversampling?! and there is a computer that can play this back IN REAL TIME with not stutter and no smoke coming out of the box?
Old 11th May 2018
  #76
Quote:
Originally Posted by XARC Mastering View Post
Just tested this limiter and the new version. In "Clip" mode ("Modern II" is great too) with 512x oversampling (my Threadripper 1950X CPU can handle this in real time indeed!) this is THE most transparent limiting I´ve ever heard in my whole life as a mastering engineer (and I´ve had them all from hardware to software). Will be purchasing this right away.
Welcome to the club!
Old 11th May 2018
  #77
Quote:
Originally Posted by morfi View Post
512x oversampling?! and there is a computer that can play this back IN REAL TIME with not stutter and no smoke coming out of the box?
Haha, absolutely. 512x oversampling maxes out just 1 core on my Threadripper 1950X @ 3.95 GHz (slight overclock). Also, any current Intel i7 can handle this without issues too.
Old 12th May 2018
  #78
Quote:
Originally Posted by XARC Mastering View Post
Haha, absolutely. 512x oversampling maxes out just 1 core on my Threadripper 1950X @ 3.95 GHz (slight overclock). Also, any current Intel i7 can handle this without issues too.
mmmmmmmm...

I've demoed Invisible Limiter 2 on max OS mode on my i7 running under REAPER (very low CPU usage) without being able to playback a stereo track (mastering session) in real time. Always thought this was meant as an offline/render setting. Am I doing something wrong here?
Old 12th May 2018
  #79
Question is: which i7 and, is it overclocked? As I said, it´s very much at the edge with 512x on my overclocked Threadripper CPU. I cannot run any other plugin within that chain, just the limiter with 512x, otherwise I get stuttering as well. Also, you should try it with the "Clip" mode (which sounds even more transparent to me than "Modern II"), as it needs a bit less CPU too and sounds superb at 512x. All that is at 10ms ASIO latency, if raising latency to 100ms (max here), I can run a few more plugins with it too.

Last edited by XARC Mastering; 12th May 2018 at 09:45 AM..
Old 18th May 2018
  #80
Vielen Danke XARC

You're right: I have an i7 chipset but the 2011 generation, so it's not so new. Also I'm not running my system overclocked at all (should I?). Thank you for the clarification
Old 18th May 2018
  #81
Haha, bitte, kein Problem :-)

It´s up to you if you overclock or not, personally I am an oldschool guy and already have overclocked my first 386 CPU back in the days. It never was a question for me if I will take the free extra speed or not, being a computer enthusiast. So everything in my system is overclocked, CPU, RAM, GPU. Of course it takes ages to find the max in terms of stability and temperature, but since I use huge coolers, I pretty much never had any issues overclocking. You just have to run all the stability tests for days and not everyone wants to do that, but once settled, I have a computer that I can easily use the next 5 years without any problems and at an usual 25% - 35% extra speed, meaning I can upgrade later than if running on stock speeds. So for me, it was always worth the efforts, beside the "nice" feeling of having maxed out what you´ve bought. I also never ever killed any CPU, even though they usually run overclocked to the max for at least 5 years. And the people that get my used CPUs later on (usually my friends), still use them nowadays, so overclocking also did not ever shorten the lifetime of any of these CPUs, and if it did, it is within such a low margin that they will never ever be used that long anyway in that it would matter.

Well, good luck to you :-)
Old 18th May 2018
  #82
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by morfi View Post
Vielen Danke XARC

You're right: I have an i7 chipset but the 2011 generation, so it's not so new. Also I'm not running my system overclocked at all (should I?). Thank you for the clarification
Before attempting an overclock of your system, google your processor and motherboard. If it seems like other people are doing it successfully then invest in what others are using to cool their overclocks before actually boosting anything. This is all assuming you're on a desktop that's not made by Dell, HP, or any of the other large PC companies. They all handicap the BIOS to prevent overclocking. And if you're on a laptop, it's never a good idea to overclock.

Bitte,
prof
Old 19th May 2018
  #83
Obviously you should only do something that you actually can do, so I absolutely agree, don´t just overclock, but read into that universe first before going ahead. Overclocking, overclocking, and much more! Like overclocking. is a good starting point, and there especially: https://community.hwbot.org/forum/12...-overclocking/
Old 19th May 2018
  #84
Thank you XARC and prof.

Yes, I get around computers pretty much but mine is not currently overclocked, although motherboard and chipset have been chosen to be able to be overclocked should I choose so. How much advantage do you get out an overclocked system? Is it just a little more CPU % available or does it make a difference? Thank you!
Old 19th May 2018
  #85
Nice, sounds like you could give it a try - it´s very enjoyable too, something else to music :-)

Overclocking the CPU is scaling along 1:1 with what you do. If you run a CPU benchmark without overclocking, then overclock by 25%, the benchmark will be 25% faster. Same for any other CPU intensive application.
Old 19th May 2018
  #86
THANK YOU

I have more questions but do not want to hijack this thread
Old 19th May 2018
  #87
I bet you do, it´s a rather complex topic of course, but maybe you can go ahead and ask them over at hwbot.org, that would be the right place. Or do we have a overclocking thread here at GS?
Old 19th May 2018
  #88
I'm not sure; I've never intended to overclock my system and was just recently tempted to do so by this thread :P
Old 9th January 2019
  #89
Tested this baby out on a friend's computer, and I am impressed. I compared it with Voxengo Elephant and then ended up using both. AOM Invisible Limiter worked great as my first, faster limiter; and Voxengo followed it nicely to do slower limiting & handle true peaks. I'll post updates if this system ends up being comparable to my other options... but it definitely saves CPU (but I have to process at quality of 1 & elephant on 1x oversample & remember to switch to 10 & x8 before rendering... which can be an issue).

Hitting the signal by 1-2 dB, in slightly adjusted settings from 2 presets, was extremely clean and transparent (ie invisible). It can do compressor style stuff and it can add coloration, pumping, etc. I haven't tried to see how far I can push it, but my guess is that 3-3.5 would be more than enough... as long as it is 1 of 2 limiters in my chain and is complimented by possible clippers.

My normal go-to limiters have recently been Ozone 8 and DMG Limitless, but they've been using too much CPU on my current system (since adding 2 TDR Nova GE's to my chain, for sum & diff); with Eventide Elevate being one that I'd prefer if I had 400 hours to play with it & learn how to use it in a more quick-to-dial-in type of way.

I'll need to read up on it, to make a final review. I'm mostly wondering how well it handles true peaks, and I'm curious as to what people are doing with various configurations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by morfi View Post
I'm not sure; I've never intended to overclock my system and was just recently tempted to do so by this thread :P
I haven't read all the way up, so unsure if I'm saying this out of context or whatever; but I wanted to mention that most real geeks have told me to never over-clock. It basically will cause throttling, which will cause your DAW to act in a less stable manner. I'll read up further, though... but I think its a bad idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XARC Mastering View Post
Question is: which i7 and, is it overclocked? As I said, it´s very much at the edge with 512x on my overclocked Threadripper CPU. I cannot run any other plugin within that chain, just the limiter with 512x, otherwise I get stuttering as well. Also, you should try it with the "Clip" mode (which sounds even more transparent to me than "Modern II"), as it needs a bit less CPU too and sounds superb at 512x. All that is at 10ms ASIO latency, if raising latency to 100ms (max here), I can run a few more plugins with it too.
The clip mode did not impress me, but thats because I have superior clippers. I haven't really tested it enough to say with 100% certainty... but unless it can compare to my recent discovery ofthe superiority of AirWindows OneCornerClip & ADClip7 (over the oversample hero's, StandardCLIP and Kazrog KClip 3 Pro). I'll have to read the manual, to see exactly what is going on with this clipper.
Old 10th January 2019
  #90
Thank you @ theMuzzl3 .

This is still a fun thread with some good info in here, so I'm happy to still come back and read and post stuff.

My usage of Invisible Limiter 2, on the other hand, has thoroughly stopped. TDL's Limiter 6 has become my go to brickwall limiter and has an awesome sounding clipper as well which makes perfect company for the already mentioned beautifully-sounding clippers by AirWindows.

In the end I never did overclock my computer either
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump