The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
LoudMax is the best limiter...here's why
Old 22nd March 2011
  #1
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
LoudMax is the best limiter...here's why

Good morning everyone,

Before I go any further I am NOT an expert nor a mastering engineer. My point here is not to bash other limiters. I am simply curious as to why this happens and if it's something I can fix. The problem with LoudMax is that it only has threshold and output option which is not enough in many cases. I have tried the following limiters:

-Oxford Limiter
-TLs Maximizer
-T-Racks Classic Multiband Limiter (and the new Brickwall Limiter)
-Kjaerhus Audio Classic Mastering Limiter
-Voxengo Elephant 3.6

I know I tried more I just can't remember right now but I'll add as I remember. Ok so now to the point. Why do I say LoudMax is best? Because it seems all the limiters have trouble with the SAME part of a song when pushed hard.

The song is "Fall For Your Type" by Jamie Foxx and Drake. I have attached a short snippet of the part that has trouble. The difficult part is when Drake sings "I just can't explain this **** at all, I just can't explain this **** at all, I believe in people like you." with an effect is on his voice.

LoudMax, when set to -30 threshold (yes -30db) and -2.0 for output, does that part nice and smoothly. But the other limiters I listed, whether at 0db ceiling or -2.0db ceiling, distort it badly...

What does LoudMax do differently? My first guess (not being an expert remember ) was the release time that LoudMax handles automatically. But no, in all the other plugins the release has no effect.

I'd love to hear from the experts on why this happens. It could very well be my mistake somewhere (and if it is, please tell me where I'm going wrong).

Thanks

EDIT: I tested Elephant 3.6 and it had very little distortion on that part but still audible distortion.
Attached Files

DRAKESNIP.mp3 (496.0 KB, 11149 views)

Old 22nd March 2011
  #2
Gear Addict
 
fradoca's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
i guess you should try these :

voxengo elephant
fabfilter pro-l

and last but not least the updated version of the ddmf limiter.

for sure the the elephant and the pro-l are better than the ones
you listed.
Old 22nd March 2011 | Show parent
  #3
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by fradoca ➑️
i guess you should try these :

voxengo elephant
fabfilter pro-l

and last but not least the updated version of the ddmf limiter.

for sure the the elephant and the pro-l are better than the ones
you listed.
Good point. I need to try the Elephant. I know Oxford Limiter is highly respected here and that is why it was one of the first ones I tried.

I'll give Elephant a try right now and post results.
Old 22nd March 2011 | Show parent
  #4
Lives for gear
 
huejahfink's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
Just because one limiter performs better on one particular sound example, does not necessarily make it the most effective limiter overall.
I would argue that the "better" limiters would be those that have proven themselves to be reliably effective time after time, on a wide range of material.
I don't say this to try and refute your claim - if you find LOUDMAX satisfying then good for you! But I'd be looking to test a broader range of material before making any decisions like that.
The fact that certain limiters may have a steeper learning curve than the 'set and forget' ones should also be kept in mind.
Old 22nd March 2011 | Show parent
  #5
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by huejahfink ➑️
Just because one limiter performs better on one particular sound example, does not necessarily make it the most effective limiter overall.
I would argue that the "better" limiters would be those that have proven themselves to be reliably effective time after time, on a wide range of material.
I don't say this to try and refute your claim - if you find LOUDMAX satisfying then good for you! But I'd be looking to test a broader range of material before making any decisions like that.
The fact that certain limiters may have a steeper learning curve than the 'set and forget' ones should also be kept in mind.
And I fully agree with what you're saying. I found it very interesting that one part of a song causes all those so-called "great" limiters trouble. I don't know why it happens and I like limiters with options. I've tried playing with the options and I since LoudMax doesn't let you customize it's sound at all, I've been trying to understand what it does differently.

Let me also add that I have another song with a part at the beginning and it sounds VERY similar to the clip I attached above. Just about all the limiters have the same problem with it. Which makes me think it's the frequency at which the voice is at. If that's the case, then we could conclude that all limiters have issues with a certain frequency range? If that's the case, is there an knob/option that one can adjust to correct help in that particular frequency range? I am just shooing ideas here. Here's the other little clip I just mentioned. Also, LoudMax performs flawlessly on this one too while the others have trouble (although not as much trouble as on the first clip).
Attached Files

ARCANGELSNIP.mp3 (409.3 KB, 10527 views)

Old 22nd March 2011 | Show parent
  #6
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
MRmusic - How hard is it to download & upload into Samplitude MS 15? I have been very frustrated by a few plugs I have actually bought & was unable to upload them into Samplitude's VSTs......
Old 22nd March 2011 | Show parent
  #7
Lives for gear
 
wwjd's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
LoudMax looks ahead to see what is coming. That's not cheating, it's the beauty of digital. I love loudmax because sometimes I just wanna set it once, and get back to being creative - not spend the next 20 minutes trying to dial in proper settings
Old 22nd March 2011 | Show parent
  #8
Here for the gear
 
DirkZuber's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
loudmax

Hey there,

Actualy Loudmax stops further limiting after reaching a certain point (i guess right before distortion sets in). Its preventing itself from introducing distortion.
Lower the threshold you will notice that around a certain point there is no noticable difference in the processed audio. The gain reduction meter says that its reducing the gain by 20, 30 or whatever value, but the actual gain reduction stops at 6 or maybe 10 dbFs (depends on the source).

Try to use loudmax a serveral times on the same source it starts to do the same thing as every limiter does (introducing distortion).

Dirk
Old 23rd March 2011 | Show parent
  #9
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkZuber ➑️
Hey there,

Actualy Loudmax stops further limiting after reaching a certain point (i guess right before distortion sets in). Its preventing itself from introducing distortion.
Lower the threshold you will notice that around a certain point there is no noticable difference in the processed audio. The gain reduction meter says that its reducing the gain by 20, 30 or whatever value, but the actual gain reduction stops at 6 or maybe 10 dbFs (depends on the source).

Try to use loudmax a serveral times on the same source it starts to do the same thing as every limiter does (introducing distortion).

Dirk
Well if that's the case, that just gives it another reason it's great. The only thing I noticed is taht I cannot keep the output at 0db. It has to be at -1.5db or -2db (I keep it at -2db just to be extra safe).
Old 23rd March 2011 | Show parent
  #10
Lives for gear
 
wwjd's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
functionally, on tracks I use it to bring things up, then the OUTPUT I use as the channel's gain trim and drop it back by -6 or -18, whatever I feel works best. two great functions in one easy plug
Old 26th March 2011 | Show parent
  #11
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Last I checked, LoudMax is a fairly slow limiter and with a quite long look-a-head. At least Pro-L and Voxengo Elephant can both be set so that it is virtually impossible to distort them but this of course means they will not go as loud. Same thing with LoudMax, it doesn't do commercially loud levels easily without noticeable gain riding.

Remember: The louder you go and the more transparent you want the limiter to be (meaning it retains the illusion of preserved transients and overall dynamics = short release times / clipping) the more distortion you get. The less distortion you want, the slower the limiter release will be and the longer the look-a-head/hold relation will be. It's really that simple.

Then there are of course other tricks to bring up loudness without doing any kinds of limiting of peaks but that'd be for another topic.

EDIT: yep, I checked loudmax and set it to -30dB limiting threshold on the DRAKE clip. It is has VERY slow release times at that low threshold. Surely you must notice the severe pumping that is happening? It isn't at all transparent and completely transforms the dynamics of the mix. It's obviously programmed to cause as little distortion as possible at the cost of not being transparent, at least not at heavy limiting settings.

I've attached a preset for Elephant that is without any audible distortion, slightly louder than LoudMax and overall much more transparent. Same with Pro-L, here's a preset which you can quite safely turn up to maximum limiting without any audible distortion. You'll also see it clearly visualized how the limiting functions and how slow it is. Finally, you'll get BETTER results from LoudMax if you do NOT turn the threshold down to -30dB. Try to set it at -8 or -9 for this particular clip. It'll be a tiny bit louder and have noticeably less pumping. Don't get fooled by the meters/sliders! Use your ears. heh

Cheers!
bManic
Attached Files
File Type: zip Elephant_Very_Low_Distortion.zip (1.2 KB, 257 views) File Type: zip Pro-L_very_safe_limiting.zip (243 Bytes, 238 views)
Old 27th March 2011 | Show parent
  #12
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmanic ➑️

It's obviously programmed to cause as little distortion as possible at the cost of not being transparent,
I haven't been following this thread, just glanced at your post.

I have a quick question. Hopefully its not off-topic.

How are you squaring the terminology "as little distortion as possible" with "not being transparent"?

It seems to me that lack of transparency necessarily implies distortion, by definition.
Old 27th March 2011 | Show parent
  #13
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by editronmaximon ➑️
I haven't been following this thread, just glanced at your post.

I have a quick question. Hopefully its not off-topic.

How are you squaring the terminology "as little distortion as possible" with "not being transparent"?

It seems to me that lack of transparency necessarily implies distortion, by definition.
I'm not sure I understand you?

Transparent limiter = end results after limiting will be as close to the original sound file as possible (dynamics, tonality etc)

Lack of distortion does NOT mean a limiter is transparent. Here is why:

To create a limiter that is as transparent as possible you will need extremely fast attack and release times. Clipping is basically as transparent as it can get (instant attack and release) because the DA converter will kind of reproduce the original waveforms even though there are "flat" tops. This happens on a "micro-dynamics" level which means that the overall flow and dynamics of a song will be intact. All this happens at a cost of added distortion though (usually very noticeable buildup of in-harmonic nasty stuff in the high-mids and highs).

To counter this distortion, caused by clipping, one can create a limiter with look-a-head, hold and long release times. However, this kind of limiter will NOT be as transparent as the clipping because now it is severely shaping the dynamics of the song, sometimes over a period of several seconds! Transients will become smeared/flattened/lowered in amplitude, in relation to their surroundings and the overall dynamic flow of the music is changed. Especially long look-a-head + hold times can cause very audible loss of "impact" on drums. You can also end up with audible gain riding/pumping on a song, even if there was none to begin with.

So, again, in short:


- Very fast limiter
Pros: transparent, retains original dynamics well
Cons: a lot of distortion is added to the signal

- Slow limiter
Pros: much less distortion or completely clean
Cons: not transparent. A lot of dynamic "reshaping" is happening, to avoid distortion.

I hope this clears up the point I tried to make.

EDIT: It's possible to demonstrate this phenomenon by doing a simple phase reversal test. Load up an audio clip you want to limit. Clip the audio.. perhaps some 3dB of clipping. Do the same with a slow limiter, limit the audio 3dB. Now lower the volume of each file by 3dB (the same amount you clipped/limited the audio), phase reverses them and compare them one at a time to the original audio. Listen to the residue of the phase reversal. The clipped one will have much shorter, sharper.. almost noise burst like residue while the slow limiter will have much more and chunkier residue, sometimes you might even hear small sections of a song (happens during heavy and slow limiting). This demonstrates which one is more transparent as the amount and especially the length of the residue chunks will show you how much was altered in the audio clip you processed.

It's good to remember though that physics dictates how far we can go with limiting. There is no magic, nor will there ever be. What a good limiter does is an illusion. With good algorithms it is possible to fool the ear, to shift the amount of distortion to various places and to minimize the amount of bad stuff that happens to transients in a look-a-head/hold situation. It's all about a precious balancing act.

Cheers!
bManic
Old 27th March 2011 | Show parent
  #14
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
"There is no magic, nor will there ever be."
tutt

Says the spellbound mind. No offense. But there is magic. It's just not what people think it is. Words are magic. Even the word "magic" is magic. Magic is the effect of words on thought. Words have no meaning and no effect on reality, they only have effect within the mind. That is magic. Words are symbols made up of symbols. You think the way you do because you use the english language. A language can only go so far until we realize that reality is more complex than our language can describe. There are those who think only within language... I like to call them "human recording media" ... but the most brilliant minds think WITHOUT it. Did language evolve like living tissue... or was it designed? Or both?

Sorry to be off topic... but this is important occult information... this knowledge can determine success or failure in any field. Even now, the old recording magic is wearing off, people are becoming aware of details in a new way. The old "tubes are warm" thing is a good example. Tubes ARE always warm.. it's true... to the touch... ya dig? Magic. Of course... that's just my opinion

PS: There is sorcery too... but that's a very dangerous dangerous animal. And it's used every day, sadly, on every single human being on the face of the planet. Check out that money in your pocket. Sorcery. Again, my opinion. What *CREDIBILITY* (credit-ability?!) do I have? None. There you go. Ignore this post. I'm just a po'boy, nobody loves me.
Old 27th March 2011 | Show parent
  #15
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by psykostx ➑️
reality is more complex than our language can describe.
I agree with this part of what you said ...
Old 27th March 2011 | Show parent
  #16
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmanic ➑️
I'm not sure I understand you?

Transparent limiter = end results after limiting will be as close to the original sound file as possible (dynamics, tonality etc)

Lack of distortion does NOT mean a limiter is transparent. Here is why:

To create a limiter that is as transparent as possible you will need extremely fast attack and release times. Clipping is basically as transparent as it can get (instant attack and release) because the DA converter will kind of reproduce the original waveforms even though there are "flat" tops. This happens on a "micro-dynamics" level which means that the overall flow and dynamics of a song will be intact. All this happens at a cost of added distortion though (usually very noticeable buildup of in-harmonic nasty stuff in the high-mids and highs).

To counter this distortion, caused by clipping, one can create a limiter with look-a-head, hold and long release times. However, this kind of limiter will NOT be as transparent as the clipping because now it is severely shaping the dynamics of the song, sometimes over a period of several seconds! Transients will become smeared/flattened/lowered in amplitude, in relation to their surroundings and the overall dynamic flow of the music is changed. Especially long look-a-head + hold times can cause very audible loss of "impact" on drums. You can also end up with audible gain riding/pumping on a song, even if there was none to begin with.

So, again, in short:


- Very fast limiter
Pros: transparent, retains original dynamics well
Cons: a lot of distortion is added to the signal

- Slow limiter
Pros: much less distortion or completely clean
Cons: not transparent. A lot of dynamic "reshaping" is happening, to avoid distortion.

I hope this clears up the point I tried to make.

EDIT: It's possible to demonstrate this phenomenon by doing a simple phase reversal test. Load up an audio clip you want to limit. Clip the audio.. perhaps some 3dB of clipping. Do the same with a slow limiter, limit the audio 3dB. Now lower the volume of each file by 3dB (the same amount you clipped/limited the audio), phase reverses them and compare them one at a time to the original audio. Listen to the residue of the phase reversal. The clipped one will have much shorter, sharper.. almost noise burst like residue while the slow limiter will have much more and chunkier residue, sometimes you might even hear small sections of a song (happens during heavy and slow limiting). This demonstrates which one is more transparent as the amount and especially the length of the residue chunks will show you how much was altered in the audio clip you processed.

It's good to remember though that physics dictates how far we can go with limiting. There is no magic, nor will there ever be. What a good limiter does is an illusion. With good algorithms it is possible to fool the ear, to shift the amount of distortion to various places and to minimize the amount of bad stuff that happens to transients in a look-a-head/hold situation. It's all about a precious balancing act.

Cheers!
bManic
You have your terminology wrong, imo, and it seems to me that your posts may be misleading to others who also may not have a grasp on some fundamentals.

The "phase reversal test" you describe does not demonstrate differences in "transparency", as you call it.

Also, the word is "inharmonic", not "in-harmonic" [defined very roughly as: "discordant, an overtone that is not an integer multiple of the fundamental"].

Hope this helps.
Old 27th March 2011 | Show parent
  #17
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Most times I prefer analog clipping to any digital limiter. YMMV
Old 27th March 2011 | Show parent
  #18
Lives for gear
 
cyrano's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by psykostx ➑️
"There is no magic, nor will there ever be."
tutt

Says the spellbound mind. No offense. But there is magic. It's just not what people think it is. Words are magic. Even the word "magic" is magic. Magic is the effect of words on thought. Words have no meaning and no effect on reality, they only have effect within the mind. That is magic. Words are symbols made up of symbols. You think the way you do because you use the english language. A language can only go so far until we realize that reality is more complex than our language can describe. There are those who think only within language... I like to call them "human recording media" ... but the most brilliant minds think WITHOUT it. Did language evolve like living tissue... or was it designed? Or both?

Sorry to be off topic... but this is important occult information... this knowledge can determine success or failure in any field. Even now, the old recording magic is wearing off, people are becoming aware of details in a new way. The old "tubes are warm" thing is a good example. Tubes ARE always warm.. it's true... to the touch... ya dig? Magic. Of course... that's just my opinion

PS: There is sorcery too... but that's a very dangerous dangerous animal. And it's used every day, sadly, on every single human being on the face of the planet. Check out that money in your pocket. Sorcery. Again, my opinion. What *CREDIBILITY* (credit-ability?!) do I have? None. There you go. Ignore this post. I'm just a po'boy, nobody loves me.
Even as a scientist, I have to agree!
Old 27th March 2011
  #19
Here for the gear
 
spstudios's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmusic2k11 ➑️

-Oxford Limiter
-TLs Maximizer
-T-Racks Classic Multiband Limiter (and the new Brickwall Limiter)
-Kjaerhus Audio Classic Mastering Limiter
-Voxengo Elephant 3.6
I have used all of them but not LoudMax!

I also have one which I'm constantly using which is RND Finis...

My preferable limiters are Oxford and Finis... I can make them transparent and with color too... they are versatile and very tweakable... they sound awesome specially Oxford!
Old 27th March 2011 | Show parent
  #20
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by editronmaximon ➑️
You have your terminology wrong, imo, and it seems to me that your posts may be misleading to others who also may not have a grasp on some fundamentals.
Saying this means that now the ball is in YOUR court. Explain please. What fundamentals am I missing? How is my terminology wrong and misleading?

Quote:
The "phase reversal test" you describe does not demonstrate differences in "transparency", as you call it.
Yes it does.. unless you want to go into psychoactustic mumbo-jumbo and purely subjective opinion. In a pure scientific way it actually does demonstrate transparency very well.

Quote:
Also, the word is "inharmonic", not "in-harmonic" [defined very roughly as: "discordant, an overtone that is not an integer multiple of the fundamental".

Hope this helps.
It does thanks! EDIT: On second thought, reading some of your other posts and corrections of other people you seem quite arrogant and intolerant so I'm not sure if I should be offended or just pity you. How about I have you write your answer to me in Finnish next time? That'd be one of my mother tongues. Please try to remember that we are on an international forum. Don't patronize or look down upon people who do not grasp the English language fully. It's hardly such a big deal, is it?

Anyways, have you actually TRIED the phase reversal test and understand how it works? Do it exactly as I stated it. Compare a clipper with a limiter with a slow release. Compare the residue you get from the phase reversed original sound source.

Can we at least agree that the word "transparent" means that the process of altering an original signal to something else corresponds as closely as possible to the original source? Thus "transparent" processing. I've got this correct, no?

Thus, if in a phase reversal test you get MUCH larger residue (both in the amplitude and time domain) in one process than in another, surely that pretty much proves that one process is more transparent than the other. No?

Cheers!
bManic
Old 27th March 2011 | Show parent
  #21
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd ➑️
I agree with this part of what you said ...
Really, that's it? Even though you used the magic of italic text (sounds mystical ahahah) to make the narrative in my head inflect it's voice on "this" ... All you have to do is put a "?" after something, and the reader asks themselves question. That's not magic? Mastering/recording magic is much the same...it's just in a different language...the language of music. Disney magic ... warner brothers magic... lucasfilm magic ... industrial light and magic... hmmm I guess they are all doing something that doesn't exist... they should find new jobs...
Old 27th March 2011 | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrano ➑️
Even as a scientist, I have to agree!
Old 27th March 2011 | Show parent
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Table Of Tone's Avatar
 
Verified Member
8 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmanic ➑️
I'm not sure I understand you?

Transparent limiter = end results after limiting will be as close to the original sound file as possible (dynamics, tonality etc)

Lack of distortion does NOT mean a limiter is transparent. Here is why:

To create a limiter that is as transparent as possible you will need extremely fast attack and release times. Clipping is basically as transparent as it can get (instant attack and release) because the DA converter will kind of reproduce the original waveforms even though there are "flat" tops. This happens on a "micro-dynamics" level which means that the overall flow and dynamics of a song will be intact. All this happens at a cost of added distortion though (usually very noticeable buildup of in-harmonic nasty stuff in the high-mids and highs).

To counter this distortion, caused by clipping, one can create a limiter with look-a-head, hold and long release times. However, this kind of limiter will NOT be as transparent as the clipping because now it is severely shaping the dynamics of the song, sometimes over a period of several seconds! Transients will become smeared/flattened/lowered in amplitude, in relation to their surroundings and the overall dynamic flow of the music is changed. Especially long look-a-head + hold times can cause very audible loss of "impact" on drums. You can also end up with audible gain riding/pumping on a song, even if there was none to begin with.

So, again, in short:


- Very fast limiter
Pros: transparent, retains original dynamics well
Cons: a lot of distortion is added to the signal

- Slow limiter
Pros: much less distortion or completely clean
Cons: not transparent. A lot of dynamic "reshaping" is happening, to avoid distortion.

I hope this clears up the point I tried to make.

EDIT: It's possible to demonstrate this phenomenon by doing a simple phase reversal test. Load up an audio clip you want to limit. Clip the audio.. perhaps some 3dB of clipping. Do the same with a slow limiter, limit the audio 3dB. Now lower the volume of each file by 3dB (the same amount you clipped/limited the audio), phase reverses them and compare them one at a time to the original audio. Listen to the residue of the phase reversal. The clipped one will have much shorter, sharper.. almost noise burst like residue while the slow limiter will have much more and chunkier residue, sometimes you might even hear small sections of a song (happens during heavy and slow limiting). This demonstrates which one is more transparent as the amount and especially the length of the residue chunks will show you how much was altered in the audio clip you processed.

It's good to remember though that physics dictates how far we can go with limiting. There is no magic, nor will there ever be. What a good limiter does is an illusion. With good algorithms it is possible to fool the ear, to shift the amount of distortion to various places and to minimize the amount of bad stuff that happens to transients in a look-a-head/hold situation. It's all about a precious balancing act.

Cheers!
bManic
Nicely put!
Old 2nd June 2011 | Show parent
  #24
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
... i found b manic answers very good.
b manicm is voxengo elephant your current favorite limiter?
Old 2nd June 2011 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
wwjd's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
and so... anyway.... Loudmax does just what it should: very little, and easily. Everyone should AT LEAST try it. There is nothing to learn. Just move the slider... done. compressed, limited, no distortion, easy.
Old 3rd June 2011 | Show parent
  #26
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
I use LoudMax occasionally for peak limiting. I only set the output slider to -0.1 dB, nothing else.

Question: why the actual peak level seems to always read 0.5 dB less than the value I've assigned to Loudmax's output ceiling?

E.g. If I set Loudmax to -0.3 dB, my DAW meters (which I believe are sample accurate) show it as -0.8 dB and so on.

Thanks.
Old 3rd June 2011 | Show parent
  #27
Lives for gear
 
AlexDaCat's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmusic2k11 ➑️
Good point. I need to try the Elephant. I know Oxford Limiter is highly respected here and that is why it was one of the first ones I tried.

I'll give Elephant a try right now and post results.
Oxford limiter is awsome. What is exactly did you find wrong with it. How did you set it?
Old 3rd October 2012 | Show parent
  #28
Gear Head
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Another Alan Moore fan I take it? I guess you must be.
Only a handful of writers I can think of talk about language and magic in this way very refreshing to hear!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by psykostx ➑️
"There is no magic, nor will there ever be."
tutt

Says the spellbound mind. No offense. But there is magic. It's just not what people think it is. Words are magic. Even the word "magic" is magic. Magic is the effect of words on thought. Words have no meaning and no effect on reality, they only have effect within the mind. That is magic. Words are symbols made up of symbols. You think the way you do because you use the english language. A language can only go so far until we realize that reality is more complex than our language can describe. There are those who think only within language... I like to call them "human recording media" ... but the most brilliant minds think WITHOUT it. Did language evolve like living tissue... or was it designed? Or both?

Sorry to be off topic... but this is important occult information... this knowledge can determine success or failure in any field. Even now, the old recording magic is wearing off, people are becoming aware of details in a new way. The old "tubes are warm" thing is a good example. Tubes ARE always warm.. it's true... to the touch... ya dig? Magic. Of course... that's just my opinion

PS: There is sorcery too... but that's a very dangerous dangerous animal. And it's used every day, sadly, on every single human being on the face of the planet. Check out that money in your pocket. Sorcery. Again, my opinion. What *CREDIBILITY* (credit-ability?!) do I have? None. There you go. Ignore this post. I'm just a po'boy, nobody loves me.
Old 4th October 2012 | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmanic ➑️
Cons: not transparent. A lot of dynamic "reshaping" is happening, to avoid distortion.
I think the "fundamentals" editronmaximon is referring to, is that traditionally, the endeavor of "sound recording & reproduction" is mainly concerned with the least amount of distortion possible, AND the definition of distortion is basically ANYTHING in the output that was not a part of the original sound captured. It is not limited to the clipping of circuits or software.

So a limiter is basically a "distortion box" that deliberately changes the signal.

As far as the word "transparency", in my years in audio (bachelors degree plus 25 years) I have never even heard the word except in gear marketing and on GS. It's not one of the "fundamentals".

So when I am confronted with the word transparency, my natural instinct is to imagine "someone is trying to describe a lack of distortion", probably like editronmaximon.
Old 4th October 2012
  #30
Gear Head
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
I thought transparency was used to define a dynamic effect with minimal colouration i.e letting all sounds through with out artefacts?

Surely this term has been used for a long time now?

surely there is difference between dynamic volume change processing and adding distortion?
I thought they where two different things in that distortion by definition and in context would be an undesirable change to an audio signal where as
a transparent dynamic change in volume would be desirable

So a flute might be recorded as an original signal at say -14db this of course is to cold
a signal to balance out with the rest of the tracks, by making the flute hotter are
we introducing distortion by making the flute louder and there by changing the original
signal?

That's how I understand it correct me if I am wrong
all up for learning new things
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 217 views: 47038
Avatar for wavemechanic.net
wavemechanic.net 8th November 2016
replies: 62 views: 23541
Avatar for MarkyGoldstein
MarkyGoldstein 30th December 2014
replies: 181 views: 37411
Avatar for ~ufo~
~ufo~ 3rd April 2020
replies: 71 views: 15736
Avatar for stsieq
stsieq 2 weeks ago
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace 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…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump