Hi,
Did you try them ?
What do you think ?
Topic Tags
Comments
When used PROPERLY, which is becomming SO rare as to find it sho
When used PROPERLY, which is becomming SO rare as to find it shocking, it sounds fine.
When used in a "typical" modern fashion, the sound is similar to a canine relieving itself directly into your ear.
The brickwall limiter that handles the abuse in the most style? UAD's Precision Limiter. Still, easy to abuse, and depressing when it is.
I ended up actually purchasing the L3 soon after it came out aft
I ended up actually purchasing the L3 soon after it came out after comparing it to the software version of the L2 - I found you could get slightly more transparent results from the L3 (read: less artifacts) when getting the same average levels than you could with the L2.
In multiband mode Waves definitely gives you enough rope to figuratively hang yourself with as far as all the various different parameter controls go - you really need to be careful as you tweak as it's capable of doing some radical transformations that might not be what you truly desire to happen if you're not cautious and experienced in working with it.
Anyway - the linear phase crossover points for the multiband are done really nicely so if you do find yourself needing a multiband limiter or "dynamic eq" it can certainly work well for this too - just do lots of level matched a/b's with the thing off to make sure you're really liking the end result and just not getting dazzled by extra sparks or digital hash.
Haven't heard the UAD Precision thingy yet so can't comment on how the L3 compares. I tend to use the RML Labs Levelizer for the more subtly limited stuff as this tends to be extremely transparent when not pushed far - but if I need a "little extra push off the cliff" the L3 seems to function nicely.
Lot of buzz going on about the TC6000's new MD4 algorithm - definitely an option to consider if you have the cash.
As far as a limiter being a bad thing - if you want to get more average level and there's a few transients poking out of the mix a well wriiten digitial brickwall limiter algorithm is the most transparent way I've heard to do this. As far as crushing the heck out of stuff until you achieve clipping, flutter distortion and general sonic crappitude - well - any limiter can be made to destroy the audio if it is set incorrectly - just because this is most commonly done with L2's doesn't make them bad per se - it's a problem with the operator and not the tool as far as I'm concerned. Main key is to have great monitoring that reveals the threshold point where artifacts really start to intrude so that good decisions can be made as to how far to push these things.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Within a few days of hearing the L3 as a demo I'd bought it and
Within a few days of hearing the L3 as a demo I'd bought it and was arranging to sell my L2 hardware box. L3 is the most transparent digital limiter I know (haven't heard the UAD one or MD4 and don't want to take those hardware routes at least for now) and at sensible gain reduction works very well, in my case mostly in single band form. I should also say that much of the loudness I derive doesn't come from the limiter, which is only used as judiciously placed icing on the cake.
There's no doubt that as is probably the case with any limiter you can do really horrible things to the sound, but as a neat L2 hardware replacement (the way I'm set I didn't need the various hardware options anyway, and L2 was always too grungy for my taste) moderately used it works fine for me.
iznogood wrote: tried the l3 as a one-band limiter... far more
iznogood wrote: tried the l3 as a one-band limiter...
far more colored than the L2... and not less distorted
and i never use multiband anyway so....
tried some of the presets..... sounded a bit like tc master x.... awful
i will never own the L3
Just wondering why you never use multiband.
I am at the point where I am starting to feel comfortable charging for my mastering services now, and since in this field there is a constant learning and tweaking of perspective, views like this from people with more experience than me are very interesting to me.
lowland wrote: Within a few days of hearing the L3 as a demo I'd
lowland wrote: Within a few days of hearing the L3 as a demo I'd bought it and was arranging to sell my L2 hardware box. L3 is the most transparent digital limiter I know (haven't heard the UAD one or MD4 and don't want to take those hardware routes at least for now) and at sensible gain reduction works very well, in my case mostly in single band form. I should also say that much of the loudness I derive doesn't come from the limiter, which is only used as judiciously placed icing on the cake.
There's no doubt that as is probably the case with any limiter you can do really horrible things to the sound, but as a neat L2 hardware replacement (the way I'm set I didn't need the various hardware options anyway, and L2 was always too grungy for my taste) moderately used it works fine for me.
Sounds like you are pulling a lot gain with your Limiter?
"Just wondering why you never use multiband." singleband pulls
"Just wondering why you never use multiband."
singleband pulls my mixes together....multiband tears them apart!!!
or
it simply sounds better!!
there can be cases that call for multiband compression however... (rarely) eg. difficult basslines of drum'n'bass tracks... i would then use 2-band compression (bass/rest)
or simply compress less
iznogood wrote: "Just wondering why you never use multiband." s
iznogood wrote: "Just wondering why you never use multiband."
singleband pulls my mixes together....multiband tears them apart!!!
or
it simply sounds better!!
there can be cases that call for multiband compression however... (rarely) eg. difficult basslines of drum'n'bass tracks... i would then use 2-band compression (bass/rest)
or simply compress less
Interesting. Alot of manufacturers seem to push multiband processing as being absolutely essential for mastering as if it is a cure all.
Maybe a few other seasoned MEs could voice their opinions as well?
Sorry for the slight change of topic, not sure if this would be more appropriate as a new thread though.
lucidwaves wrote: [quote=iznogood]"Just wondering why you never
lucidwaves wrote: [quote=iznogood]"Just wondering why you never use multiband."
singleband pulls my mixes together....multiband tears them apart!!!
or
it simply sounds better!!
there can be cases that call for multiband compression however... (rarely) eg. difficult basslines of drum'n'bass tracks... i would then use 2-band compression (bass/rest)
or simply compress less
Interesting. Alot of manufacturers seem to push multiband processing as being absolutely essential for mastering as if it is a cure all.
Maybe a few other seasoned MEs could voice their opinions as well?
Sorry for the slight change of topic, not sure if this would be more appropriate as a new thread though.
I can't think of any well known ME that uses MBC.
I'm far from well known, but I use frequency-dependent compressi
I'm far from well known, but I use frequency-dependent compression often when mastering, usually serving two purposes. First is along the lines that iznogood does for bass (I do a LOT of hip hop)...and second for de-essing. But that's about it. I RARELY use more than two bands.
True multiband doesn't do much of anything for a good mix, but it can be useful for "reclamation" projects, but it's a sure fire way to piss a producer off, too, so be careful. It also will make any clipping in the original track (I get my share of overloaded mixes, too) come WAY up.
mixandmaster wrote: I had a case of the board not accepting my p
mixandmaster wrote: I had a case of the board not accepting my posts...I was like, shit, it KNOWS that I'm famous. I've been hiding behind this sock puppet. I'm not really Christopher Papa from mixandmaster.com. [/takes mask off] I'm Brittney Spears.
:!:
OK, sounds great!
PS. Somebody ban this member... he needs help!
Alot of manufacturers seem to push multiband processing as being
Alot of manufacturers seem to push multiband processing as being absolutely essential for mastering as if it is a cure all.
Maybe a few other seasoned MEs could voice their opinions as well?
They're being aggressively marketed because it makes it easy for anyone with little or no experience make a mix LOUD - No matter how crappy it might sound, or what a bad idea it might be to use it in any particular situation.
I don't use multiband unless I've tried everything else and it d
I don't use multiband unless I've tried everything else and it didn't work. They will quickly suck the life out of a mix. A good eq and compressor will get far better results. Use your EQ to balance the mix first if it needs it. If you are hired to master something that someone spent a lot of time doing and did it well, then why would you use something so destructive to a mix. It completely changes the mix and dynamics relative to each other. I still do some mixing here and there and if I ever got one of my mixes back from mastering and they used a MB on it, I would request that they not be paid for their services.
It's a different story if you get mixes that need remixing. If you don't have an assistant to pass it on to, then a MB might come in handy.
"I'm Brittney Spears." britney... I LOVE YOU!!!! let's do some
"I'm Brittney Spears."
britney... I LOVE YOU!!!!
let's do some serious multiband compression at my place...
:? :-? :? :-? :-? :shock:
I keep telling Kevin to keep his hands off my laser. http://sto
I keep telling Kevin to keep his hands off my laser.
Voxengo plugs? OK, back somewhat on track.... Have any of you g
Voxengo plugs?
OK, back somewhat on track....
Have any of you guys used any of the Voxengo plugs to even out mixes? In particular I was interested in the Soniformer and I think the Lampthruster (? they use weird names). Also interested in opinions on Gliss & Curve EQ, but may be O/T. One of these days I will get around to trying out the demos.
Thanks
Just realizing this thread is a bit old :lol:
Re: Voxengo plugs? Reggie wrote: Have any of you guys used any
Re: Voxengo plugs?
Reggie wrote:
Have any of you guys used any of the Voxengo plugs to even out mixes? In particular I was interested in the Soniformer and I think the Lampthruster (? they use weird names). Also interested in opinions on Gliss & Curve EQ, but may be O/T. One of these days I will get around to trying out the demos.
While I think that Voxengo's DSP algorithms are pretty darn solid in general I really think these are much more useful tools for tracking and mixing than mastering. I find that for most of Voxengo's plugs they give you enough rope with the parameter controls to really hang yourself - i.e. they're hard to easily control and have the potential to really screw up your mix if you're not really careful applying them across a stereo mix - i.e. they can cause a lot more problems than they "fix". I can't really think of a dedicated mastering studio that uses them - and to my ear there's much better more straightforward options out there to work with instead - i.e. if you're really interested in mastering save up and get a great analog eq as I think it will get your results a lot farther to where you want to be. For tracking and mixing in the box though Voxengo's stuff offers a lot of bang for buck though and you can get some pretty cool results from experimenting with them - but in terms of putting them across a stereo mix - personally I would never do this. Obviously ommv.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Possibilities. True multiband doesn't do much of anything for a
Possibilities.
True multiband doesn't do much of anything for a good mix, but it can be useful for "reclamation" projects, but it's a sure fire way to piss a producer off, too, so be careful. It also will make any clipping in the original track (I get my share of overloaded mixes, too) come WAY up.
Every since I was a kid back in the early 70's, I looked for ANY way I could to manipulate sound. When consumer-grade equalizers came out, I'd try any combination of settings I could to alter in a musical manner, the sounds that were already on a recording. (My brother hated that, because he always wants the recording to be the way it originally was. And I DO understand where he was coming from, because it is clear that what many producers do is ART (often as much as the what the musicians themselves do).
The kinds of plugins that are out here today, are valuable to most creative people with a good ear, and willing to take new/unique approaches to using them. That is, they CAN be used in the old ways that real PROS (surely not me) generally know, but they are clearly not limited to those often "tested" ways.
So, the various plugins do serve a great purpose to the newer breed of audio-alchemists who tend to pull ideas out of their heads (sometimes out of other places). :D
I have a few outboard pieces of equipment that CAN indeed do the job, but having the PC be as poweful as it is these days, adds to all the possibilities at my fingertips. Consequently, not being a pro in the mastering world, my methods are unorthodoxed and nothing to brag about really.
I still learn a LOT from the pros who share info here, and I respect the opinions I'm reading. Just because of you guys, I think I'm eventually going to ry the UA limiter.
-Cefshah-
http://www.cefshah.com
Hi all, interesting thread. Please allow me to swoop in. Mult
Hi all,
interesting thread. Please allow me to swoop in.
Multiband processing:
In my opinion, it has indeed been a "marketing lie" that multiband processing is indispensible in mastering. I and just about every mastering engineer I know really only use multiband compression (or expansion) when there is a problem to be fixed and the source material presents the necessary dynamic range in the frequency band. It's not at all a standard tool in the usual signal chains found in mastering.
Marketing has suggested that it's each band's independance from eachother that is what makes multiband compression usefull in mastering. Usually, the contrary is the case. I think most MEs will agree that the delicate pumping of a single band compressor is very desirable if set right. I'd say the single most important thing that diostinguishes a decent mix from a great master in most pop and rock recordings is compression - when it's set just right, when it works with the music, let's it breathe, makes it punch when it should punch, etc.
And on the other hand, multiband compression very actively reshapes a mix. That fact alone makes it valuable as an extreme tool for extreme problems, but certainly not a general tool.
Multiband limiting is, in my view, interesting in mastering however, but only when loud discs are demanded. Certainly, a wide band limiter is the preferable choice when only mild limiting is needed. When it comes to the point where the distortion of a wide band limiter becomes more bothering than the reshaping qualitieds and the crossover-artefacts of multiband limiting at the same amount of gain reduction, then the decision to gor for multiband can't be a bad one (provided that the loudness to be achieved is a given and can not be negotiated).
Another reason to go for the L3 instead of the L2 can be if you want to favour a band for limiting to achieve the desired level. For example, if the producer wishes to keep the impact of the high mids untouch (as much as possible) but can live with losing a bit in the low mids on a musical peak... the ability to steer the limiting to favour different bands is, in my view, what makes the L3 multimaximizer a very usefull tool for mastering.
But then again, this is all not claiming that the L3 is a tool to make anything sound better. To me, the L3 is a demolition device that in many cases allows to to smash the object with a relatively small amount of collateral damage. In other cases the L2, plain analog or digital clipping, heavy, short attack & short release compression, heavy frequency shaping or whatever other tools are available (or any combination of those) may be more appropriate to smash the audio in the most acceptable manner. When talking about limiters, it must be absolutely clear that we are not talking about them sounding good or enhancing the sound. We are talking about which limiters sounds the least destructive. After all, I've never encountered a single musical piece where lessening the transient impact resulted in improved sound quality when compared at equal loudness. Never.
Robin Schmidt
24-96 Mastering
CD - SACD - DVD
http://www.24-96.net
I think there is something un natural about multiband limiting.
I think there is something un natural about multiband limiting. It's strange to hear a mix clamp down in one band and not another. Just as it's strange to hear a mix smashed with the L and R unlinked, the image can jump around too much. I tried the L3 and didn't think it to be very musical. On electronic stuff i think it works good because it sounds un natural to begin with. But on other styles of music, I thought it sounded worse than the L2 or TC. IMO. As far as tailoring an area over another, I find that a compressor set right can do it more effectively.
Specs vs. Musicality Multiband limiting is, in my view, interes
Specs vs. Musicality
Multiband limiting is, in my view, interesting in mastering however, but only when loud discs are demanded.
I tend to agree. But I've heard some BIGTIME professional mastering jobs, using dynamic effects that are far from musical. (Sometimes that's what they wanted though.)
To me, the bottom line is: If some effect squeezes the musical life out of a recording, then it's tme to back off of it (unless that is the desired effect). It's interesting to use various plugins in different and innovative ways. But I agree that NO tool (especially overused) is a cure-all.
But much of it seems somewhat subjective, so I can respect various approaches to handling the music, as long as it hasn't been squeezed to DEATH musically (which I've heard many times...having nothing to do with the L3).
I go back to the days when many dynamic effects were applied to reduce the apparent noise of the recording process. Today, with the digital stuff, I need much fewer dynamic effects than I used to need. But it is interesting just how the sounds of recordings changes from era to era...really. Some conventions seems to stick around and others are discarded. Today's ALWAYS LOUD SOUND, on many recordings, is one I hope subsides very soon.
How a tool is used, makes a BIG difference.
-Seth-
http://www.cefshah.com
They're being aggressively marketed because it makes it easy for
They're being aggressively marketed because it makes it easy for anyone with little or no experience make a mix LOUD - No matter how crappy it might sound, or what a bad idea it might be to use it in any particular situation.
But what if someone wants it loud, likes it loud, and pays for it to be loud?
Mastering is hard I'm been lurking around and have really enjoy
Mastering is hard
I'm been lurking around and have really enjoyed the expertise I see here. I'm new to mastering and home music creation for that fact. I've found mastering to be a very difficult task to do. I've mastered several of my sougs and have really crunched some to death. I'm using Wavelab 5 to do my final mastering.
[edit] I realize this is a pretty newbe question and most of you master for a living, so I hope I don't ruffle too many feathers. I'm starting out from scratch, mastering that is, and want to head in the right direction.
I may be in the wrong section, if so, please direct me to where I should pose the question below... [edit]
Does anyone have good or bad opinions on Izotope's Ozone 3 mastering suite? Can anyone recommend a "good" compressor or limiter VST?
I use Live4 with VST synths only and master using WaveLab 5 using their MultiCompressor.
P.S. I am only interested in mastering a great sound, given my modest resources, rather than achieving a loud mix. :)
Thanks all,
DennisT
Ozone is a good program to start learning about mastering but th
Ozone is a good program to start learning about mastering but the processors really aren't that great in the sound area (I do use the dither on almost everything however, and the digital eq isnt as bad as its other processors).
I use the sonalksis compressor and UAD-1 precision limiter and LA2A for dynamics processing and the UAD-1 precision EQ and Pultec for most EQ work. Really great sounding stuff if your on the non-hardware side.
Appearantly the Algorithmix EQs are said to rival some of the best hardware mastering EQs but for a steep price as far as software goes.
lucidwaves wrote: Ozone is a good program to start learning abou
lucidwaves wrote: Ozone is a good program to start learning about mastering but the processors really aren't that great in the sound area (I do use the dither on almost everything however, and the digital eq isnt as bad as its other processors).
I use the sonalksis compressor and UAD-1 precision limiter and LA2A for dynamics processing and the UAD-1 precision EQ and Pultec for most EQ work. Really great sounding stuff if your on the non-hardware side.
Appearantly the Algorithmix EQs are said to rival some of the best hardware mastering EQs but for a steep price as far as software goes.
Thanks for respondng. I agree, Ozone 3 is a great place to learn about mastering and I'll learn as much as I can. I plan to later upgrade to UAD-1.
I've had a hard time getting a decent compression. I've used Ozone's compressor and WaveLab's compressor, with marginal success. Not sure if it's the compressors or me, probably the later, but I'll check out Sonalksis.
Also, while surfing KVRAudio, I ran into a new VST reverb from a company called, Arts Acoustic that is being released in May 05.
Their MP3 demos sound pretty good. I would be interested in anyone's opinion on this reverb and how it compares to UAD-1's reverbs. Here is a link to their thread...
I have to admit, I've aquired a deep respect for Audio Master Engineers. It is as hard if not, in some cases, more difficult than writing the songs to master.
I've got a lot to learn and really appreciate all the insight and knowledge this forum has to offer.
Thanks again for responding,
DennisT
Yes, and I have mixed feelings toward it... When the 'press rel
Yes, and I have mixed feelings toward it...
When the 'press releases' or whatever came out for it, my first thought was "oh great, something to smash the guts out of music even MORE :roll: "... Then it came out and I dowlnoaded the trial from Waves, to actually check it out =P
Yes, it can smash things to hell, but then so can most other compressors/limiters if they're (mis)used that way. One benefit is that at extreme settings, the ultramaximizer is not as distorted as the L2. The multimaximizer still gets very distorted at extreme settings, but at more reasonable settings it does its job well. Sorta a LinMB with character.
My vote: Better than I expected =)
HB