universal audio precision mastering limiter

i bought it as it came out and i never used L2 again, it works great, sound is tight and undistorted, it has very good metering and even auto mode works great. maybe you should try it out, it definetly changed my perspective on how a mastering limiter should sound.

I use it mostly for leveling purpose and dithering. I used it a couple of time also as a safety limiter not pushed hard. These are the roles that are assigned the the L2 for me. Could be very transparent but I think you are right about the "dullness" of it limiter's sound.

Richard

Right now for digital brick walling I'm primarily using the RML Labs Levelizer, the L3 or a combo of the 2. I've found chaining the 2 with both of them set real subtly often tends to work better than trying to get all the limiting out of a single plug.

The Levelizer is proprietary to the SAWStudio workstation, which has the advantage over some other DAW's in that it uses 64bit integer math for most of its processes, and can be set to process fx in a real time pass through mode that is snap shot automateable so that you can use it the same way you would use hardware if you like. This way I can also monitor what it's going to sound like on top of the analog process chain without having to load in first - and without having to commit to its settings until load out. It has a unique algorithm that doesn't flat top waveforms at all. Instead it recalculates each seperate wav forms average level. This sounds amazingly transparent when used subtly as you don't destroy transients the way a lot of limiters do. When you really really slam it though you get really horrible sounding flutter distortion - so to me it can only be used to go for "sensible" levels. When I need a bit more of "squash" for clients demanding "competitive" levels I usually tend to add 1-2 db more attenuation with the L3.

The L3 requires a little bit of patience as there's a lot of parameters you can tweak but if set right in my tests it was indeed possible for it to be more tranparent than the L2. I usually have it set multiband but with a single threshold.

The MD4 actually got some of my interest - but right now the next purchases are going to be analog dynamics processors - both the API2500 and the DW Fearn VT-7 have my interest.

Omnia requires way deeper pockets than I have to put towards a single piece right now - so even if it sounds totally transparent (which I'll believe when I hear it!) it ain't going to happen this year.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

that is universal audio precision mastering limiter,

I still use the L2. I use it in a very subtle way though, if I get more than about .5-1.5 of reduction it's too much and I back off. I shudder to think how I used the L1 when it first came out..yow...I'm just getting tired of the loudness wars and my clients don't seem unhappy with the results now that I'm trying to get them to accept "quieter" masters.

random logic wrote: that is universal audio precision mastering limiter,

I seem to remember John Scrip saying really positive things about the UAD Precision Limiter also. I'm not really a fan of emulation plugs for mastering (tracking and mixing being a different story) but this one makes me think picking up a UAD-1 wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

random logic wrote: that is universal audio precision mastering limiter,

I seem to remember John Scrip saying really positive things about the UAD Precision Limiter also. I'm not really a fan of emulation plugs for mastering (tracking and mixing being a different story) but this one makes me think picking up a UAD-1 wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

I'm very tired of the "limiter sound", I'm blaming it for the biggest reason why CD releases sound so alike... that "in your face" sound is on almost every CD release!!

So that's why I'm trying to do all my masters without a limiter.

If I'm forced to use a limiter I use the DS1 and sometimes together with the L2 to take the 0.5-1db overs.

Best Regards

Well it looks like i'm going to get a demo of the omnia. Had to jump through a couple of hoops because they didn't even have one. but they are putting one together for me to take for a test drive. I have a homemade brew of what they are doing in their limiter but it would be nice to see what it does. If it blows my socks off, I guess i'll figure out a way to pay for it. I'll let everyone know what I think of the unit after i've had a few days with it.

Please post som tests so we can listen to it!...

Michael -
I'd definitely would also love to hear some downloadable blind a/b/c's (i.e. Omnia, L2, straight clipping) ala the stuff posted comparing the MD4 and L2 on Brad Blackwood's forum as I'm mighty curious also.

Still - 12large is heckuva hard expense to justify for a single processor on the economic front - especially considering that while analog pieces retain their value digital ones seem to become obsolete after about 5 years. For $12g's I'd expect to get a pretty darn nice custom transfer console happening - or pickup 2-3 kewl processors for more flavors - it would be very hard for me to justify putting all that into a single digital limiter.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

TotalSonic wrote: Michael -
I'd definitely would also love to hear some downloadable blind a/b/c's (i.e. Omnia, L2, straight clipping) ala the stuff posted comparing the MD4 and L2 on Brad Blackwood's forum as I'm mighty curious also.

Still - 12large is heckuva hard expense to justify for a single processor on the economic front - especially considering that while analog pieces retain their value digital ones seem to become obsolete after about 5 years. For $12g's I'd expect to get a pretty darn nice custom transfer console happening - or pickup 2-3 kewl processors for more flavors - it would be very hard for me to justify putting all that into a single digital limiter.

Isn't trend the only reason why ME's use a limiter?
It's also hard for me to consider spending 12K on something that no matter how you put it destroys the sound.

Best Regards

I will definately post an a/b/x sample here and probably on Brad's if and when I get the unit. maybe like 3 different levels of push. I'll play with it for a few days and then compile something. First i have to get one though. It seems to have a fair amount of tweekability to it so i'm not sure how to do an accurate compare. Maybe it will have to be a/b/c/x. It will be interesting none the less. The price is almost funny it's so high.

Ammitsboel wrote:
Isn't trend the only reason why ME's use a limiter?

Sometimes I think certain tracks can have dramatically more impact with a little bit of limiting - especially if it's a case where just a few transients that really peak out over the rest of the mix - and often digital tools are the most transparent way to deal with this. It's not the use of brickwall limiting that I think is generally bad - just the amount of it that has been applied as a default on a lot recent releases to the point of distortion and completely lost transients and dynamics.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

TotalSonic wrote:
Sometimes I think certain tracks can have dramatically more impact with a little bit of limiting - especially if it's a case where just a few transients that really peak out over the rest of the mix -

I'm sure this was what the limiter was intended to do when it was originally designed. I have not anything against this method as long as it is used with causion.

TotalSonic wrote:
and often digital tools are the most transparent way to deal with this. It's not the use of brickwall limiting that I think is generally bad - just the amount of it that has been applied as a default on a lot recent releases to the point of distortion and completely lost transients and dynamics.

Yes, I blame this for the "sameness" of every popular album released today.

Best Regards

hi

I wished TC released MD3 or MD4 for the tdm guys.

Time to say bye bye to Master X (3+5).

PSP Vintage Warmer is colored but not bad for quick references.

To me L1 totally sucks in a mastering secario.

From what I have heard between L3 and L2, L3 is slightly better, butI´d better dig into it deeper so as to get the real thing functioning.

Hank Williams (Mastermix) uses an SPL Loudness Maximizer among other boxes. He keeps geting new limiters (including an L2) but still goes back to the SPL.

http://www.spl-usa.com/Loudness_Maximizer/in_short.html

For whatever reason, whenever I put a Cranesong Phoenix plug in right in front of my L2, the more yucky aspects of the L2 is minimized. It's a completely risky and horrible workaround, comepensating for MY OWN processing, but everyone wants the brick wall, and this method is more pleasing to my senses. I think it is just rounding out the distortion.

Anybody else using a Phoenix/HEDD/similar for these purposes/results?

Also, Henrik, you have to share HOW you get clients to accept masters without limiting...maybe your clients are more sophisticated than mine...but if I turn something out that isn't "hot", I lose future business. I think in most peoples' minds mastering has come to mean "homogonizing".

Excuse my rambling.

Well you can get hot levels without limiting. But it's a nasty word that begins with C. I think what Henrik likes and so do I, is the ability to tailor the attack and release to the material. Boxes like the L2 and MD4 don't allow this. ARC is nice on the L2 but not when pushed hard and not on dense mixes. Any of the intelligent boxes that do a lot of the work for you will only do it well to a point. If you need to go beyond this point, this is where they fall short. Another thing that happens is that the sides get flattened out (the 2D effect). you loose depth and highth. Another thing that happens is you loose low end impact. I've spent a lot of time researching and testing a technique that restores that 3D image to the sides, retains the low end impact and doesn't kill the detail. What I haven't come up with is how to deal with aliasing and IMD. Keeping it simple minimizes IMD but seems to increases aliasing and visa versa. reducing alias distortion is pretty good just by working at 96k and using a good SRC to downsample. The trick is a good algorhythm to address IMD if you want to get more complex and split the signal. Alias distortion is one reason why I think the L2 sounds better at 96k and reduces IMD by keeping it wideband. But it flattens the mix if you push it, and I don't mean just dynamically. ARC completely freaks out if the peak to ave signal gets too close. At reasonable levels, a lot of limiters do very well. I don't think we have problems here, it's the extreme levels that we have problems with. I feel comfortable with how i've delt with 2 of the 3 problems, now i'm looking for a way to split the signal without IMD.

Yeah, but when you're talking about clipping, you have no control over the attack and release either - if you do, you are some kind of audio goenie...For me, I have a hard time trusting my judgement especially at the end of the day to venture into clip-land...maybe I need more experience/confidence, but it's a little too risky for my tastes.

I usually end up turning the ARC off whenever it sounds "mushy", AND since much of my work is hip-hop/urban/dance, where it's not as dense as alot of "band" stuff, I don't run into that problem as much. And, I agree, the L2 can start to sound awful quickly with that kind of material. If I know ahead of time that the clients want a smashed sound, I'll have them give me a "drums up" mix - which for whatever reason is usually the sound they are looking for in the end anyway.

When you've run your tests, I'm reading that you're feeling that the high end is getting much of the "exciting" (for lack of a better word) while the lo end is getting the short end of the processing stick. Yes/No?

I've not done any REAL experiments, but my ears tell me that by the way the L2 "redraws" the wave, it brings out some high-mid frequencies...by addng the Cranesong, I feel the Cranesong similarly brings out some of the lower frequencies, "balancing" the distortion. So I guess I would say that I'm actually going more for a fullband sound to the distortion using some somke and mirrors, rather than try to eliminate it. Again, it sounds good on hip hop, maybe not what you're doing.

I'll bet that this makes NO sense. For your sake, I hope the $12000 box is the answer to these issues. For my sake, I hope not, cause I can't afford it! :twisted:

Also, we got to have the :SRC shootout" one day. I'm VERY interested in that as I get more and more projects sent to me at 88.2/96. 8-)

Since we are talking about how to make it LOUD:

Why not use a compressor with a slow attack instead of asking for a drums up mix?

Michael have you tried the big C in multible stages at the same time? both digital and analog?

Best Regards

Ammitsboel wrote: Why not use a compressor with a slow attack instead of asking for a drums up mix?

This (in my experience) is the easiest way to give them what you want. Usually instead of a compressor with a slow attack, they really just want LOUDER DRUMS!!!!!! (y)

So, Henrik, are you able to persuade your clients that their tracks don't need to be LOUDER THAN THE CD IN THEIR CAR? Or, are, like I said before, your clients just a little more sophisticated than mine? THIS is something I would rather learn than how to get something louder. Henrik Mind Tricks 101. 8-)

mixandmaster wrote: [quote=Ammitsboel]Why not use a compressor with a slow attack instead of asking for a drums up mix?

This (in my experience) is the easiest way to give them what you want. Usually instead of a compressor with a slow attack, they really just want LOUDER DRUMS!!!!!! (y)

So, Henrik, are you able to persuade your clients that their tracks don't need to be LOUDER THAN THE CD IN THEIR CAR? Or, are, like I said before, your clients just a little more sophisticated than mine? THIS is something I would rather learn than how to get something louder. Henrik Mind Tricks 101. 8-)

Yeah... hmm... some of them are more sophisticated, but others are hard to convince.
You have to learn something about hypnose 8-)

Best Regards

I'm not talking about clipping, I'm talking about a limiter/compressor setting that allows you to adjust some parameters. what you do after that is up to you. If you use a compressor/imiter, you don't have to ask for drums up, You can controll the attack and release. No more buried snares and kicks. I struggled with this for a long time before I came around. L2 is now used for catching an over here or there on jazz stuff. It's no longer my main limiter.

I read this...

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: But it's a nasty word that begins with C.

But somehow failed to "read" this...

I think what Henrik likes and so do I, is the ability to tailor the attack and release to the material.

:? Comprehension grade = F-

No wonder my Math SAT scores were like 200 points higher than the English back in the day! I assumed clipping inputs was the nasty C dressed in red over my left shoulder, and compression was the nice C dressed in white over my right shoulder.

Ahhh, but if what they REALLY want is drums up (ghost notes, shadow hats and all), compression settings are never going to get it there through the rest of the arrangement. Don't know...too late for me to type anything meaningful.

Well, if they really want the drums up, there's nothing better than a drums up mix.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: ARC is nice on the L2 but not when pushed hard and not on dense mixes. Any of the intelligent boxes that do a lot of the work for you will only do it well to a point. If you need to go beyond this point, this is where they fall short. Another thing that happens is that the sides get flattened out (the 2D effect). you loose depth and highth. .

I've made the exact same observations, however I find it somewhat difficult to turn off ARC and find the optimum release setting.

Also I find it interesting that the ARC function on the L2 is not acting in the same way as on the Waves Renaissance Compressor (i.e. the ARC responds to your manual release setting on the WRC but ignores it on the L2).

I am considering trying clipping the A/D before the L2.

DAW -> Waves Linear Phase EQ -> D/A -> Gyraf Gyratec X Vari-Mu -> NTP 179-170 Comp (not in my chain yet) -> A/D (with some clipping) -> DAW -> Waves Linear Phase Multiband (only on bass if needed) -> L3 UltraMaximizer

Well the problem with that is the L2 and arc act even funnier if you add clipping to the equation. Don't know about the L3 though. Once you start messing with peaks on something else, the L2 acts like a jealous girlfriend and stops being nice.

Certain pieces of gear inserted before the L2 can make it behave a little better. My wiess eq in LP mode seems to be able to get another DB out of the L2. So maybe the cranesong stuff is doing the same thing.

still use the L2

sounds great......when you shut off that awful ARC and the dither/noiseshaping....

then just turn it up to 5-8dB of GR :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

hate the L3

and holger.... i've seen people who loves their wives alot less than you love plug-ins..... your chain is downright amazing :shock:

Lagerfeldt wrote:

DAW -> Waves Linear Phase EQ -> D/A -> Gyraf Gyratec X Vari-Mu -> NTP 179-170 Comp (not in my chain yet) -> A/D (with some clipping) -> DAW -> Waves Linear Phase Multiband (only on bass if needed) -> L3 UltraMaximizer

What's your DAW? If you can swing the $$ and be compatible, the GML hi-res EQ is unbelievable for a plugin. Also, it might be a good idea to try the multiband before your other compressors...seems to work best for me, but maybe the way you do it is best for you.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Well the problem with that is the L2 and arc act even funnier if you add clipping to the equation. Don't know about the L3 though. Once you start messing with peaks on something else, the L2 acts like a jealous girlfriend and stops being nice.

I second that!

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: My wiess eq in LP mode seems to be able to get another DB out of the L2.

How is that?

mixandmaster wrote: it might be a good idea to try the multiband before your other compressors...seems to work best for me.

Actually I experimented with this the other day, and found it provided me with a better result for two reasons: 1) the broadband comp not being pushed so hard in the low freqs and 2) multiband tends to pull the mix apart so a following broadband comp tends to put it together again . So I would try this more in the future indeed.

--As for the clipping before L2 being bad... what are my choices if I want clipping for that extra dB? No matter how I EQ/Comp/Multiband and L2 things, I'm still missing at least 1.5dB in the end.

Visually my final signal doesn't look as clipped as most other super hot stuff, but doing more to it via the L2 will be suicide. The maximum I can get from the L2 is around 4dB, and then I'm well into squashing territory. So I concluded that soft clipping could be the solution in my case.

I'm currently in the process of getting a custom made Stonefield Audio A/D D/A, but I'm also considering getting the Apogee Rosetta 200 since Apogee converters should be great for soft clipping (and I'm not talking their horrible Soft Limit feature). I did have the old Rosetta, but I sold it, so I've been unable to compare it today.

I have the rosetta 200 and I like it. The soft limit feature is improved over the older ones and find it usefull on certain pointy mixes.

you want an extra 1-2db? doesn't everyone. what's going to happen when you get it? you'll want another 1-2db.

I'm trying to build a box that will give it to you. just trying to find a way to put it all in one unit. Unless the omnia is the ticket. Still waiting for it to arrive.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote:
you want an extra 1-2db? doesn't everyone. what's going to happen when you get it? you'll want another 1-2db.

So true. But I just know that 1-2dB are out there somewhere, waiting for me to catch them.

Give up the L2/L3 concept and you'll find them.

If you have any usable suggestions I'd appreciated them very much, be it sofware or hardware. I'd also love to get rid of the L2/L3 but I see no alternative?

iznogood wrote:
hate the L3

If you love the L2, I suspect you're not talking about the L3 UltraMaximizer but rather hating the L3 MultiMaximizer?

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Give up the L2/L3 concept and you'll find them.

Give up anything and you are just great 8-)

I've find when the L2 get's bitchy my DS1 can still pull some more.
So Michael, do you always use the EQ1 before the limiter?

EQ1 before DS1 then L2 if used.