Just thought I'd throw this out there and see who's using it as their primary limiter. I have only used mine as a limiter once in the last 2 months. I just got tired of the flat sound I think it gives to aggressive stuff primarily. I've moved over to the weiss DS1 as my main limiter, The only problem is that i've now lost it as a compressor unless I make 2 passes, which I will do if it needs it. I do use the L2 as a volume control to drive digital stuff into analog gear. For that I really like it cause I can also shape some transients if I need to before it hits the analog secret black box. Once in awhile I prefer how it sounds, but as volumes keep increasing over the months on the hard stuff, I just don't think it cuts it anymore. I've tried the L3 software but I only thought it was very marginally better if at all. from the tests in Brad's forum, I don't like the MD4 any better. I haven't tried the Omnia but at $12,000 I don't think I will. Any thoughts?
Comments
Lagerfeldt wrote: [quote=Michael Fossenkemper]Give up the L2/L3
Lagerfeldt wrote: [quote=Michael Fossenkemper]Give up the L2/L3 concept and you'll find them.
What would you suggest alternatively?
The DS1! maybe also an EQ1! Oh, and also don't use plugins. You asked!!! if you want to get that extra 10-20% that gets you where you want to be, then you have to spend the bucks.
Henrik,
Not me, I find that I get more breathing room if I put the EQ1 before the DS1. I can tailor the mix into the DS1. Just my preference though. I had the EQ1 after for a bit but in the configuration I'm working in now, I like it before.
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Henrik, Not me, I find that I get m
Michael Fossenkemper wrote:
Henrik,
Not me, I find that I get more breathing room if I put the EQ1 before the DS1. I can tailor the mix into the DS1. Just my preference though. I had the EQ1 after for a bit but in the configuration I'm working in now, I like it before.
He he... I got you!! -joke
+4db by just putting the EQ after the comp 8-) :?
:lol:
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: [quote=Lagerfeldt] The DS1! maybe a
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: [quote=Lagerfeldt]
The DS1! maybe also an EQ1! Oh, and also don't use plugins. You asked!!! if you want to get that extra 10-20% that gets you where you want to be, then you have to spend the bucks.
Thank you, I have these on my wishing list.
When it comes to software vs. hardware, my biggest revelation was buying the Gyraf Gyratec X Vari-Mu. Apart from testing it up against the Manley Vari-Mu (the Manley was great too, just not as great as the Gyratec X IMO), I found that it absolutely blew *any* plugin away. I'm not talking 10-20%, rather 50%. Not just in volume but in warmth, feeling, and that special magic I was looking for.
However, while I know it is true for many reasons (higher internal ditdepth, no compromise DSP usage, etc.) it's harder psychologically to accept that a hardware digital device *always* will be that much better than a plugin, since in theory, a plugin could be equally good. Don't you think?
Lagerfeldt wrote: However, while I know it is true for many rea
Lagerfeldt wrote:
However, while I know it is true for many reasons (higher internal ditdepth, no compromise DSP usage, etc.) it's harder psychologically to accept that a hardware digital device *always* will be that much better than a plugin, since in theory, a plugin could be equally good. Don't you think?
Holger, trust me when I say you are very wrong.
Ammitsboel wrote: [quote=Lagerfeldt] However, while I know it is
Ammitsboel wrote: [quote=Lagerfeldt]
However, while I know it is true for many reasons (higher internal ditdepth, no compromise DSP usage, etc.) it's harder psychologically to accept that a hardware digital device *always* will be that much better than a plugin, since in theory, a plugin could be equally good. Don't you think?
Holger, trust me when I say you are very wrong.
I readily accept it may be wrong in practicality, and that digital hardware machines are better than their software counterparts. But in theory I see no reason why a proper DAW with a plugin wouldn't be able to do the exact same thing, it's all 0's and 1's after all.
pretty much the same reason that throwing on a pair of high perf
pretty much the same reason that throwing on a pair of high performance racing tires on a pinto doesn't make it a racing car. These boxes are designed from the ground up to be what they are. A computer is a generic box that the software has to conform to. So a dedicated box doesn't have the limitations that a plugin has and has the ability to pick the chips that best suits it. I'm not talking about a $500 box, i'm talking about the real ones. But whatever you want to do, no skin off my back.
So, if I understand well, Michael, you don't like Pintos ? :wink
So, if I understand well, Michael, you don't like Pintos ? :wink:
As I mentioned previously, I find the L2 (Hardware) pretty good for Peak security and get some 1 or 2 db extra. In fact, I hear the difference between the plugin and Hardware and the hw sounds better. 8-)
Also, I think the ARC sounds pretty good too at reasonable levels contrarely to some that said it sound sh%? :shock: . I think if you find it sound s bad it is because you already pushed the L2 too far. Converters are decent and may be useful to have them in the chain.
Funny, looks like this thread turned out to talk about Volume again :? .
I know a lot of people that think that the hardware version soun
I know a lot of people that think that the hardware version sounds better than the software, why is that? It's the same algorhythm running in both. I have both, hardware IMO sounds better. I remember someone saying, I think it was BK that the chips inside the hardware are faster and they're dedicated to only one task. The converters do sound good, for the money, it's worth it just for the converters.
As far as ARC, it's a little picky. If you are pushing the signal a certain way before the L2, it can freak it out a little. It's got to be a pretty unsmashed signal. When I first bought the L2, it worked great. 5 years later, it can't hang anymore with the levels that 50% of my clients are asking for. For my Jazz clients, I still use it with no problems.
Michael, the hardware L2 will sound different to the software ve
Michael, the hardware L2 will sound different to the software version if they use different bitdepths. The hardware is 48 as far as I recall, and depending on what DAW you use, a software L2 could be as low as 32 fixed point.
Anyway, on the talk of levels... today I tried going over my chain on a particular track to get more level. Tweaking the EQ, Multiband (actually less multiband) and Comp, gave me that extra 2dBs without touching the L2 more. Sweet :-)
Now, I just need that 1dB more... :?
In answer to the reason as to why the hardware L2 sounds better
In answer to the reason as to why the hardware L2 sounds better than the software version:
The hardware version uses 48bit fixed point math. The PC native version uses 32bit floating point math. Beyond that every DAW host handles it's signal processing path and interfacing with the DX or VST API a little differently. People are always barking up the to me wrong tree of "digital summing" but I think real DAW differences are in how they handle their signal processing path.
As to the idea that digital hardware audio processor performance will always beat out software hosted digital audio processors: this is an utter crock 'o' doo-doo. First off - which hardware and which software are we comparing here?? i.e. - Lot's of people exclaiming how good the Algorithmix DX eq's sound - ya want to compare them to the eq's in a Finalizer and see which wins out? :P
Second off - math is math and a processor is a processor - with 3GHz + native processors available now if the software is coded properly it can easily do as many computations as dedicated DSP chips - and sometimes can even outperform it. The real key is how the code in either the hardware of host/plugin software combination is implemented. I'd say SAWStudio is a great example of how a piece of software can excel as it's able to do all of its multiples and divides using 64bit integer math for it's process path and still have a lightning fast response because it's engine was coded in assembly language.
As far as plugin processors - I still much prefer to do the "heavy lifting" & primary processing with analog iron - and boxes like the Weiss stuff certainly outperform any plugin I know of - but at this point with plugins using 64bit math that do not cheat their level of calculations (which is usually done by the designer in order to allow multiple instances or to to be used on slower PC's) becoming available the difference between hardware and software digital processors will become even more negligilble within the next couple of years. Good food for thought when making decisions regarding high priced digital processing hardware.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Well, take the best plugin you can find, and the best hardware u
Well, take the best plugin you can find, and the best hardware unit that you can find and compare them. I guarantee that the hardware will out perform. I have no doubt that sometime in the future plugins will perform as well as hardware does now, but hardware will perform better in the future, Because anyone worth their salt in designing algorhythms isn't going to waist their time on a plugin that someone can rip. They are going to place it in hardware that people have to buy.
Plus i'm living in the here and now, and if hardware is going to let me do my job better, then that's what i'm going to get. I'm not going to wait around putting out excuses until it can perform well if I can go get the gear and do a good job now before I die of clogged arteries.
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Well, take the best plugin you can f
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Well, take the best plugin you can find, and the best hardware unit that you can find and compare them.
Don't forget to compare the prices as well =)
What about "the best plugin" vs basically any similar-price hardware box? Like you've said in other posts (and probably in this one), to get "the sound" you usually have to shell out "the bucks", so sometimes what you're getting in a better hardware signal processor is what you pay for. If there was a $3000 compressor plugin (assuming it wasn't just a cheapo plugin that was marked up, of course), then you could try comparing it to a Vari-Mu or something along those lines. Compare $300 compressor plugins to $300 hardware compressors, though, and I'm absolutely sure you could find some combinations where software wins that battle.
Not ALL software is good or bad, and not ALL hardware is better or worse than software. Quality can overlap.
crappy sw good sw
|------------------------------|
|------------------------------|
crappy hw good hw
Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all saying that price is the determining factor when it comes to quality, but I just believe that trying to compare the cream of the software crop to the cream of the hardware crop is a meaningless comparison.
HB
Not if you are trying to achieve the best results, the compariso
Not if you are trying to achieve the best results, the comparison still holds. If you want to compare dollars, then by all means software is a better bang for the buck. I'm not knocking plugs, I have them and use them if it works for that purpose. But for the important things like compression, eq and limiting and achieving the best possible results, then i'm going to go with the best and right now that's hardware. Do I like to spend more, no. But I have found that the people that tend to come up with the best processes will stick it in a box. If I came up with something great, that's what I would do. No worries about cracks, no worries about dongles, no worries about making sure in runs on a G3, blah blah blah. Something like a precision EQ needs to be in a controlled environment to eliminate all the variables in order to work as it was intended.
As far as price performance. you also have to figure in upgrades. How many of us have been slammed with having to upgrade plugs because macs went from OS9 to OSX. So now a $3000 software package now costs $5000 to do exactly the same thing. Everytime a company changes it's program or changes it's hardware, you have to upgrade the plugs just to keep them working. With my hardware, doesn't matter. It does what it does without regard to software. Bought my Weiss EQ 6 years ago and it still works the same as when I bought it. no need to upgrade just to keep using it. Not so with my waves bundle. I originally bought the Waves bundle under OS8, spent like $3000 grand or something like that. Then everything went to OS9 and I had to upgrade the waves so it would work with the new protools, another $1000 or something like that. Then another upgrade to OSX, another $1200. Then digidesign says everyone move over to a new hardware format, because the old won't work on the new G5's and we stopped servicing all our old hardware, another $9000. It never ends. So now over time the initial savings are completely wiped out and in order to keep using the initial thing I purchased, I have to keep pumping money to them. PC users will get slammed when the operating system moves to longhorn and everything moves over to PCI-X. In the meantime, ALL OF MY HARDWARE works exactly as it did when I overpaid for it, no upgrades needed and it still outperforms all the plugins. So in the longrun I win by purchasing the highest quality gear I can and pay as much as they want because I know that 10 years down the line I will still be able to use it no matter what computer I have or what operating system they come out with.
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Well, take the best plugin you can f
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Well, take the best plugin you can find, and the best hardware unit that you can find and compare them. I guarantee that the hardware will out perform.
Well, since we don't even know what 2 things we are comparing I'm sure we'll be able to do a very fair evaluation! :? :lol:
I mean honestly - the greatest piece to do what task in what situation? i.e. Both Al Silverman & Bob Katz rave about how good the Algorithmix stuff is and both have Weiss EQ-1's. I've never heard the Algorithmix Orange or Red EQ plugins - have you demoed these yet yourself?
Anyway to me the greatest hardware for eq and compression is analog in design - but that would really be comparing apples and oranges. I thought the thread was specifically on digital brickwall peak limiters. For the sake of sanity I'm going to keep on that topic with this reply.
There have been a number of digital hardware boxes mentioned in the thread so far - L2, Weiss DS-1mkII, TC6000 (with the MD4), Omnia. Of those I've only have heard the 1st 2 in person and only heard the MD4 in the a/b files posted at Brad Blackwoods forum. Omnia has a lot of hype and a price to match - but hey - maybe it's the magic bullet finally - we just don't know yet. Anyway - the one thing that the limiter shoot out has shown me is that different boxes work better for different things and that opinions are extremely subjective on what is better (i.e. usually there was a majority opinion in the poll but there was never close to a unanimous one). In my own preference I've found that the plugin L3 was capable of being set more transparently for some material in some settings than the L2. Another poster here agreed to the point that he stated he was going to sell off his hardware L2 after getting the L3. Yet another poster stated that he hated the L3 completely (although it seems to me that his objection was that it is multiband and if you rtm you find that it can be set to behave as a wide band limiter). In my own preference also I've found that a $100 plugin (the RML Labs Levelizer) for particular settings for particular material was capable of beating out both L2 & L3. Lots of people giving great reviews to the UA Precision Limiter too - which while DSP based is essentially a plugin also.
Anyway - all I am trying to point out that a host based processor for digital brick wall limiting can often achieve results that are good and even occasionally better than the current hardware choices out there.
I have no doubt that sometime in the future plugins will perform as well as hardware does now, but hardware will perform better in the future, Because anyone worth their salt in designing algorhythms isn't going to waist their time on a plugin that someone can rip.
They are going to place it in hardware that people have to buy.
That final statement has been proven completely unfounded in the past few years. Why? Because a ton of code developers who are enormously talented are also audio engineers who want cool toys for themselves (i.e. Bob Lentini, Jon Marshall Smith, Pieter Stenekes, etc., etc.). The cost to develop and distribute code in hardware is much greater than the cost to just distribute the code for use in a native system so a lot of these choose to just publish a plugin. This decision is even being made by larger companies at this point - i.e. Waves issuing the L3 as software instead of dedicated hardware.
Anyway - I should post a disclaimer to any one reading my post who will misconstrue from my statements that I think a quality master can be achieved through the use of plugins only: I DON'T!! ok?? just wanted to clear that up.
Plus i'm living in the here and now, and if hardware is going to let me do my job better, then that's what i'm going to get. I'm not going to wait around putting out excuses until it can perform well if I can go get the gear and do a good job now before I die of clogged arteries.
I agree - as mastering engineers it's impossible to sit around and wait for the next best thing when you know you just want to get the best possible sound now. I just happen to think that analog hardware processors are much better investments than their digital couterparts.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Always when I'm using directx plugins in Sequoia(Waves and Sequo
Always when I'm using directx plugins in Sequoia(Waves and Sequoia plugs) it makes audible compromises in the quality of my sound.
So I'm never using plugs because i find any of my digital HW many times better than any plugin.
My Sequoia is running 32bit float. maybe it sounds different in another higher bit platform... but my Z-sys also runs at 32bit float!?
Best Regards
Ammitsboel wrote: Always when I'm using directx plugins in Sequo
Ammitsboel wrote: Always when I'm using directx plugins in Sequoia(Waves and Sequoia plugs) it makes audible compromises in the quality of my sound.
So I'm never using plugs because i find any of my digital HW many times better than any plugin.My Sequoia is running 32bit float. maybe it sounds different in another higher bit platform... but my Z-sys also runs at 32bit float!?
Best Regards
There's a big reason why I've chosen to use SAWStudio - it does multiple & divides with 64bit integer math (with native & 3rd party native eq's running 64bit float), always returns a full 32bit DWORD (and not just a 24bit + 8 bit mantissa) through its entire process path until a single final conversion to 24bit at output, and it's native plugin API to my ear enables a cleaner signal path than DX or VST. But if we're talking eq's for primary boosts or cuts I still much much prefer analog eq's (although I don't have a Weiss which I do think is a great box so maybe I'd change my mind for some things that were wanting "transparent"). I'll use a digital eq in the DAW to just do minor touch ups of say a db at max or maybe to automate a per phrase (or sometimes even per note) change if the music needs it - which is something that only plugin automation can give you a sample accurate glitchless performance while still having very quick work flow. Obviously ommv.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
if you're talking about plugins, I thought the L3 sounded a litt
if you're talking about plugins, I thought the L3 sounded a little more open and was able to go a little further than the L2. But I have the L2 hardware and unlinking the sides sounds better, the plugin doesn't do this. I also think the hardware sounds better than the software. The L3 lets you get in there and tweek much more but I haven't spent as much time doing this. But i'm sure that if you sit with it for awhile and learn the ins and outs, you can get better results than the L2 software could hope to do. It does still sound like the L2 though. So if you're looking for a different sound, then you won't be happy. If you are looking for the same sound, just a little better, then you'll be happy.
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: if you're talking about plugins, I t
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: if you're talking about plugins, I thought the L3 sounded a little more open and was able to go a little further than the L2. But I have the L2 hardware and unlinking the sides sounds better, the plugin doesn't do this.
This isn't true at all - thinking out of the box gets you the same result.
Here's how you unlink the sides for L2 processing in a DAW:
*place the same wav or aiff file in 2 simultaneous tracks.
*mute one of the tracks left and channel and mute one of the tracks right channel
*insert an instance of the L2 to each of the tracks. set each as desired
*rout the output of the tracks to the same soundcard device or bounce to disc if you want to create a new stereo file processed with L2 with unlinked sides :)
You can actually achieve more flexibility via the plugins as above than you can achieve with the hardware because you can have the sides set to different thresholds, ceilings or releases.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
TotalSonic wrote: You can actually achieve more flexibility via
TotalSonic wrote:
You can actually achieve more flexibility via the plugins as above than you can achieve with the hardware because you can have the sides set to different thresholds, ceilings or releases.
And you can do the same with the hardware(different thresholds, ceilings or releases)!!... except you won't have to make sepperate tracks and the HW simply sounds better.
Doh!! TotalSonic!
Ammitsboel wrote: [quote=TotalSonic] You can actually achieve mo
Ammitsboel wrote: [quote=TotalSonic]
You can actually achieve more flexibility via the plugins as above than you can achieve with the hardware because you can have the sides set to different thresholds, ceilings or releases.
And you can do the same with the hardware(different thresholds, ceilings or releases)!!... except you won't have to make sepperate tracks and the HW simply sounds better.
Doh!! TotalSonic!
Hey Henrik -
I don't mind admitting making a mistake in a post -
Ya just don't have to be nasty about it!!
:P
Anyway - in my DAW app to "make seperate tracks" including copying all inserted plugins and other settings and transferring these to the 2nd track takes 3 clicks of the mouse and about 2 seconds - so it ain't a big deal.
I don't use the L2 these days so the sound of L2 plugin vs. hardware is kind of moot to me - but I agree that the hardware sounds better than the PC native plugin.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Well the problem with that is the L2
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 tried clipping the RME converter instead of using the L2, it sounds amazing in comparison.
However, I also tried clipping (slightly less) and using 1dB of limiting in the L2, that seemed to do the trick and get the best from both worlds. I didn't experience the L2 acting too weird on a previously clipping signal, but 1dB of limiting isn't that much again.
TrilliumSound wrote: Lagerfeldt, Can you be more specific about
TrilliumSound wrote: Lagerfeldt,
Can you be more specific about "amazing" while clipping the RME and limiting at the L2 ? Are you talking about average volume levels or something else ?
Regards
It sounds amazing compared to using the L2 instead. i.e. a track with 4dB of limiting with L2 will sound duller and more compressed than a track with 4dB of clipping in the RME.
This is true only for some forms of music, some types of music will most likely sound horrible using clipping. On most of my own types of music it sounds excellent though (dance/pop with slamming programmed sampled drums).
The clipping introduces some transient distortion but it sounds quite musical and I prefer it to the L2 now.
I am able to get a higher signal without the same artifacts the L2 unfortunately imposes on the signal. The clipped signal is more open, is louder and has better transient perception (although looking at the waveform it doesn't appear that way).
Henrik, did the L2 sound bad if only doing 1dB of limiting (as in my case)?
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: EQ1 before DS1 then L2 if used. I o
I often find that i can smack an extra +4db by having the EQ1 after the DS1.