Hi Guys

I have just started using the new Flux Elixir Limiter and I am really impressed with it. It is kind of like the pure limiter in some ways, but with a streamlined interface and the ability to use multiple stages of limiting that is easily switched within the plug in.

I was in the middle of a project that had PSP Xenon as the main limiter on most of the songs, no more than 1.5-2 db of gain reduction, so I decided to try out the flux (I usually capture the analog chain so that I have both the Pre limiter audio as well as the post limiter audio) and it beat out xenon on about 6 out of 10 tracks.

I was just wondering if anyone else has tried this out and what your thoughts are.

I been using this too since it came out. It was an instant hit here!

I like the way it sounds, the flexibility and simple GUI. Having all time related controls on one single control (Speed) is a very good thing as it makes it easier to setup and the stages function does work nice too! If you turn high-res mode and start messing with stages it will become a very CPU heavy plug-in though. The difference option is nice too because it allows fine-tuning of the limiter settings or even re-adjusting some EQ to make it work better.

This has replaced my Sonnox Limiter even though I'm still using the Sonnox for the pre-process section sometimes, but that's not limiting anyway. I also have the Pure Limiter but I find the Elixir to be a totally different limiter (way better).

Miguel, did you compare it to the FabFilter Pro-L?

I tried the FabFilter Pro-L a few times but I didn't enjoy it that much. At the time I thought it was very good to make things go loud but other than that I didn't feel the need buy it. It was a few months ago so I didn't compare it directly with the Elixir.

With Elixir I felt an improvement over what I already had...

I tested it too!
I think it's a real improvement compared to their first limiter.
It seems fairly intuitive. I quickly compared to the ozone maximizer 5, Voxengo Elephant limiter, as well as the system Brick2 6000. I find it defends itself well enough, but it appears that I have no use of it !

I've been a long time user of UAD's Precision Limiter and when I compared Elixir, I detected a bit more clarity and transparency. Very nice.

I worked around the high CPU load of the High Res mode - I only turn on HR when I'm ready to bounce a mix/master offline, so it doesn't cause problems, which otherwise it did in real time.

Looks like you have to have/buy a USB dongle to use it though.

I played a bit with the demo. On the material I tested it on I found that Ozone 5's limiter (In ARC III mode) had a slight edge but the differences were small enough that it could be expectation bias.

Anyway, for me this is the first limiter that could compete directly with the Ozone Limiter. (And I've tried them all. Only the Elephant is another contender but on different material and used in a different way).

Alistair

I agree,
between Ozone, Elephant and Brickwall 2 i have enough possible combinations to do what I want, but if i did not have those choices i would consider the Flux !

We got a few packages some months ago. I didn't like it, to lame to handle, sounds maybe good but I don't give a damn about tiny little tools I would have to buy new glasses, and all our engineers use real hardware, possibly didn't even open the packages.

I like it...better than Ozone....better than Pro L...it's a good one.

Some months ago?

It was released exactly 3 weeks ago.

According to the email from Felix Niklasson of Flux, Bruce and I recieved the Flux authorisation keys on 14. 07. 2010, and on the same day I activated all plug-ins.

What's a good setting for this thing? I can't seem to get it to sound better than other limiters I A/B'ed with... Am I missing something here? Eg. Pro-L, Ozone 5, L3-16...

Would like invest on another killer limiter - I'm reading people really loving this, I'd like to hear this working for me - I turned up the stages to 5 and still no luck.. any advance insight on the use of this limiter?

Edit: After tweaking a little more, I finally found Channel link 100%, Speed = 0, HiDef = on, Stages = 5 provided a very beautiful musical result - clear, solid - translates well. Nice one. Did you guys have any other recommendations, be interested to hear your findings... Cheers.

If you didn't open the packages, how did you test it?

There are no tiny tools on this plugin - what are you talking about?

But was the Elixir part of that package, seeing that it was only released 3 weeks ago? It doesn't matter what date your authorization was, if Elixir wasn't part of it.

Also want to test the Flux Pure Compressor for mastering purpose on the main stereo bus.Anybody has experiences with this?
Like the Limiter too.As said here very transparent and also somehow warm sounding to me.

- How big is the plig GUI on you computer monitor? What resolution does you monitors have? Did Felix tell you how you can make the GUI bigger by tweaking something in the registry?


Don't remember of Elixir was part of the deal at start of the endorsment deal, I tested everything. I don't keep track what we test when, I am no bureaucrat.

Bruce doesn't give a damn about plugins, his only comment is: "Would be great if it would sound as good as it looks." All other engineers may use it, I don't ask, simply forward them what we endorse, or what we get for free.

Btw, never use a limiter, except for electric guitar or to sustain and compact a sound.

What's the difference between a limiter/compressor and a volume maximizer? Maximizers do a process not unlike re-drawing peaks manually. You have a half-cycle of a waveform that's 6dB higher than other waveforms. So, you select just that half-cycle and bring it down 6dB, without interfering with the signal around it. That's one way to do maximizing; not all of them work the same way. I do this manually quite a bit.

Compression is different because it's more of a feedback-based process, hence the need for attack and release controls.

Limiting is very similar to maximizing, but tends to deal with broader swaths of volume rather than getting down to the individual wave cycle level.

Because to get the same amount of boost with compression, you'd likely hear artifacts (pumping, breathing, etc.). Those qualities interfere with what the voice does naturally..."breathing" on top of breathing doesn't really work

Another factor is that during silence, a compressor will tend to raise levels; a maximizer won't.

With voice, silence should be silence. Vice-versa, but bringing down peaks by definition brings up the average level, so softer sections are louder as well.



So in this sense a good maximizer is sonically far superior, no matter if you only use the Ceiling to draw back peaks, of both dsp of the maximizer in combination.

It's a similar size to my UAD plugins and other Logic plugins - not too small or difficult to read/see. I have a 23" monitor at max resolution.


So you don't remember if Elixir was part of the package and you didn't keep track of what you tested in July of last year, yet you still felt the need to come into this thread and trash this plugin. Why are you wasting our time with useless comments that aren't relevant? You obviously didn't test Elixir, which was only released 3 weeks ago.

I don't know who Bruce is, but I and many others don't give a damn about hardware. Most top engineers today use many plugins for mixing - the hardware/software debate is over - no one gives a ****. There are so many incredible sounding plugins today, that hardware has lost its dominance.

Hi all,

I think there's an easy way to put the brakes on Angelo's crass behavior. I've sent Bruce a PM linking to this thread. He can decide for himself how he wants his name used in public. I'm guessing based on the fact that he always acts like a gentleman that he will not be dissing products he may or may have tried or dissing other engineers because they like to use a mouse.

57

You're also entitled to your opnion. If you don't have an opinion, I sell you one for five bucks the piece.

Bolero...

Funny kids here of the software church generation.

Mambo...

Oh, that's a good opportunity for 'spam'


In The Studio with Bruce Swedien

In The Studio with Bruce Swedien - The Official Website for Grammy Award Winning Engineer and Producer Bruce Swedien...

I've just given Elixir a test-drive and I'm liking it a lot. High Res Mode combined with 5 stages is a...very noticeable CPU hit, even at 44.1k SR and stereo operation, but that's fine by me. I definitely prefer having the high res option to not having it, and there's always offline-bouncing etc. And even without the "HD" button in, Elixir sounds very nice with a very short amount of time required to get cool results.

I really like the stages concept. It's actually funny because I currently have a limiter design in prototyping stage that uses stages as well as one single time constant with a tendency towards intermodulation distortion at highest rates *and* it tends to sound very similar to Elixir. Probably a similar topology involved, but at any rate: Elixir is a very nicely implemented, great sounding processor and thus I've just purchased two licenses :-)

Angelo,

Someday you may earn a good name and reputation of your own. If that were to happen you might come to realize that if a company sends you a product free to try it's just not cool to go online a trash it. I think Bruce understands this but you've decided to use his name and credibility to go online and trash the Flux Elixir, which it seems you may or not have heard.

This is not about plugs vs hardware, I use mainly hardware for my mastering but plug ins do some jobs better IMO, limiting included.

Assumption is the mother of ****pution.


Sorry to the real ME engineers here, but I must assume we have some self-aggardizing internet kiddos here who have zero clue about anything audio.


- I have my opinion about products I know. Bruce as any other mixer has other opinions - Bruce may tell when he comes here. In case he didn't read your PM, I tell him to go online.

- I don't give a damn about "trashing" whatever. You believe one limiter is better then another, that's fine.

Interesting is that I just explained what compressing/limiting versa maximizing/ceiling is in regards to sonic quality, but you gromerel start assuming something which has nothing to do with the topic limiter.

Angelo...your advice and your reasoning is ridiculous...

Limiting is a huge part of recording...I love limiting...tape limits....hardware limits...software limits......our ears and brain limit...


don't limit is like saying..."don't let gravity get you"

having unlimited headroom is something our ears brains do not want.

I haven't use a limiter in years, and to stop 24-bit or 16-bit clippin at export I use a ceiling tool, sounds simply way better. I wouldn't give you any commision if you would use a limiter witout asking me first.

One idea to make a physical carrier is that from the recordig stage all the way thru to the end product preserving as much as possible energy from the original event, i.e. a symphonic orchestra recording.

With your pop/rock you can do whatever you want, if it sounds good it sounds good and the end consumer will buy it.

This thread is about the Elixir limiter, not the Pure Limiter.

The Elixir Limiter was released about 3 weeks ago. Your post(s) don't make much sense.

So what's the word? does it beat the oxford? I have their previous limiter, it's cool but I like the oxford (that I dont have) better, I heard the fabfilter and liked it... but I still like the oxford better... the slate one is awesome even if it has something wreid to it, it goes real loud without too obvious artefacts but I'm not sure I really like the sound of it... never heard ozone... someone had the chance to make a comparision between all these and the elixir?

I was using the Sonnox before this and felt a real improvement with Elixir which didn't happened when I tried the FabFilter or Slate's thing. Get the trial of the Elixir!

(PS- What the hell happened to this topic?)