|
|
Post by jin167 on Aug 28, 2016 6:19:19 GMT -6
So sexy... I must admit that this unit is aesthetically very pleasing (at least for me) but in terms of its functionality.. I couldn't help myself thinking 'well, this is essentially a hardware version of the Ozone 7'.. Is there a real benefit in using an analog limiter? I always thought that limiting is something that can be done equally well or even better in the digital domain than in the analog realm and therefore the reason why there aren't that many analog limiters available in the market.. or is there something that I'm missing?
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Aug 28, 2016 17:24:05 GMT -6
Doesn't look analog in the slightest. Limiting is 900% better in digital. Thus, I'm sure it is.
You're missing that mastering engineers don't use stuff like Ozone. They generally have a workflow around digital edit, convert to analog, do primary tonal processing, recapture to digital, do final tweaky digital editing. Ozone is meant to stay all ITB. Units like this allow them to do their sound sculpting on their analog gear and get a quality lookahead in the monitors at the end of the chain. Patch it in and out....adjust it while also having the analog gear adjustable (vs printing the analog gear back and pulling up whatever lookahead limiter and going "if only I'd have notched a little 80hz out I could get this more transparent..."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2021 22:00:58 GMT -6
Old thread but seen as I've got one, does anyone care to donate some unmastered tracks to test this out on?
I have Ozone-9 as well so I can do a comparison, I'll just send you two tracks (both Ozone and Bettermaker) and if you want to put them on this board for comparison it's up to you. So, no pressure and I appreciate any submissions in advance..
Here's a list of features:
The Limiter has 3 functionalities that are essential to make a perfect master. All of them are recallable by the internal memory and a plugin that also handles automation.
Analog Mastering Limiter:
- 100% analog signal path
- intelligent and manual release
- variable mix between limiting and clipping
-possibility to turn off the clipping section, so you can clip with you favorite AD or other.
Color, for giving that special flavor to your mix:
- Two color modules introducing different saturation that can be used simultaneously
- Color 1 with Majority of odd harmonics
- Color 2 with Majority of even harmonics
- Both color sections can be internally EQed so for example you can present more odd harmonics in the low end to give the mix more bite and sweeten the highs with the even harmonics at the top end.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 27, 2021 3:04:31 GMT -6
So, you just want a final mix 24 bit at whatever sampling rate ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2021 3:40:05 GMT -6
So, you just want a final mix 24 bit at whatever sampling rate ? Yeah, just a 24 bit .wav will do it  .. |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 27, 2021 3:46:04 GMT -6
Email for we transfer ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2021 9:27:13 GMT -6
A massive thanks to kcatthedog for allowing me to use one their tracks and share it with others. You are Epic.! Quick disclaimer then we'll get started: Warning, these files contain mastering limiter tests and the original file which WILL ALL variate in loudness. If anything happens due to this it's not my problem.With that aside I pushed Ozone 9 and the Bettermaker until they started breaking apart. The EQ's are ITB and remained the same across both, the BM has a VCA / clipping function w/ all sorts of harmonic content enhancers which react completely differently to Ozone. The VCA / clipper is intermingled as such so instead of limiting them to match each other I tried to get the best out of both. Let me know and I'll do my own review / impressions later. Link here: Bettermaker Vs. ITB Limiter Test |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 30, 2021 10:02:46 GMT -6
Are these all at the same sampling rate ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2021 10:12:28 GMT -6
Are these all at the same sampling rate ? The original you sent over is 96k innit? Corrected , thanks for the spot. |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 30, 2021 10:24:38 GMT -6
That's why you pay me the big bucks hey wait a sec !  So I loaded all 3 files into a new logic session , definite volume differences so I adjusted track volume by ear My original wav file is the top, ozone the second, Bm the third. In Ozone the mids are more there and bass is more produced in a good way. BM takes the cake for me, much more spacious and more depth and presence, a nice glassy finish to the sound: makes the other two sound a little edgy! Better go burn my credit card ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2021 6:02:08 GMT -6
Okay, time for a mini review.. I thought we'd have more comments on the clips posted but I guess this is primarily a mixing board? Anyway..
Let's get to the crux of the matter, after taxes and an equivalent currency translation this is a $2.5K limiter. Today you can buy an excellent plugin for $60.00's sooo, WHY? Well, for a start there's workflow to consider. If you're constantly printing tracks individually only to remix and change later due to having a mixer / OTB solution that's not ideal. Used as a master bus hardware insert you can mix into it without limitation in an OTB setup.
Also it's more than the sum of its parts, some people will pay the cost of this just for an OTB summing solution and the Bettermaker is a good 2 channel analog summing device with some personality. Then once we consider its other talents like harmonic manipulation (colouration), none destructive M/S widening (if you go easy), clipper functions and limiting the Bettermaker begins to make sense.
My primary concern was a potential inability to stack up against modern ITB limiters, yes the loudness wars are over (in a sense) but modern productions aren't quiet and even the best ITB limiters contain sacrifices when pushed. Let me quell any fear right away, the BM is stupid loud when pushed and does so without any audible distortion. I easily reached -10 Lufs (up to or ) -3.5dB RMS which is shear madness, Ozone couldn't keep up at those levels but then again it really doesn't need to.
Still the perception that OTB limiters can't keep up or exceed digital is (now) from my perspective utterly incorrect. I'm seriously impressed by the way it handled transients and bass as well, instead of squashing or thinning out the mix it actually enhanced imaging and depth the more you pushed it. Everything just sounded urrm "better".. Although one needs to be careful, it tends to push everything to the edge of thunder before dipping into some hefty distortion, but again you'd have to be aiming beyond ridiculous levels for that to happen. My test examples are an extreme case, personally I'd back off the harmonic content a bit, reign in the limiter and use the M/S limiting function but I still enjoyed it on the raggedy edge.
I was definitely apprehensive about this purchase and secretly wished it would be a dud, if nothing else just to save some moolah. If it wasn't for a workflow change I'd have never even considered it. Unfortunately myself, my other half and a fellow engineer all decided the improvement is substantial enough to remain broke. IMO take Kcat's advice and burn your credit card..
|
|
|
|
Post by Omicron9 on Dec 31, 2021 9:01:17 GMT -6
Interesting thread for sure; thanks for the postings to all involved.
-09
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Dec 31, 2021 12:12:19 GMT -6
Okay, time for a mini review.. I thought we'd have more comments on the clips posted but I guess this is primarily a mixing board? Anyway.. Let's get to the crux of the matter, after taxes and an equivalent currency translation this is a $2.5K limiter. Today you can buy an excellent plugin for $60.00's sooo, WHY? Well, for a start there's workflow to consider. If you're constantly printing tracks individually only to remix and change later due to having a mixer / OTB solution that's not ideal. Used as a master bus hardware insert you can mix into it without limitation in an OTB setup. Also it's more than the sum of its parts, some people will pay the cost of this just for an OTB summing solution and the Bettermaker is a good 2 channel analog summing device with some personality. Then once we consider its other talents like harmonic manipulation (colouration), none destructive M/S widening (if you go easy), clipper functions and limiting the Bettermaker begins to make sense. My primary concern was a potential inability to stack up against modern ITB limiters, yes the loudness wars are over (in a sense) but modern productions aren't quiet and even the best ITB limiters contain sacrifices when pushed. Let me quell any fear right away, the BM is stupid loud when pushed and does so without any audible distortion. I easily reached -10 Lufs (up to or ) -3.5dB RMS which is shear madness, Ozone couldn't keep up at those levels but then again it really doesn't need to. Still the perception that OTB limiters can't keep up or exceed digital is (now) from my perspective utterly incorrect. I'm seriously impressed by the way it handled transients and bass as well, instead of squashing or thinning out the mix it actually enhanced imaging and depth the more you pushed it. Everything just sounded urrm "better".. Although one needs to be careful, it tends to push everything to the edge of thunder before dipping into some hefty distortion, but again you'd have to be aiming beyond ridiculous levels for that to happen. My test examples are an extreme case, personally I'd back off the harmonic content a bit, reign in the limiter and use the M/S limiting function but I still enjoyed it on the raggedy edge. I was definitely apprehensive about this purchase and secretly wished it would be a dud, if nothing else just to save some moolah. If it wasn't for a workflow change I'd have never even considered it. Unfortunately myself, my other half and a fellow engineer all decided the improvement is substantial enough to remain broke. IMO take Kcat's advice and burn your credit card.. So you're mixing into a Limiter? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2021 22:18:33 GMT -6
So you're mixing into a Limiter? Always.. Mastering limiters are themselves high ratio compressors which will affect tonal balance, volume, transients etc. It doesn't matter how good your mix is* I'd generally end up splitting the song up M/L/R to modify it which is far easier to do at the mixing stage. Preferably though I'd pass along mixing notes to compensate dependant on the level they wished to obtain. It's nothing new in a roundabout sense, many don't think twice about mixing into an API2500 or SSL G master bus compressor. The SSL is a VCA comp like the Bettermaker, the difference being the latter is a brick wall which will get hit quite a bit harder. Of course usually you'd use both in conjunction, however divvying the process up or how it's achieved between a mixing / mastering engineer is irrelevant because the song will hit a brick wall at some point. ----------------------------------------------- * Problem is every mastering setup affects audio in different ways, Ozone for example tended to push drums back and collapse stereo width to a certain extent. There are transient and independent stereo functions to compensate for this but you're applying the effect holistically which isn't always or often ideal. The BM did the exact opposite but it can become a bit overpowering, it also brought the vocals right to the front. In a mastering scenario I can't just turn down your vocals, I can EQ the vox to be less dominant but that comes with more compromise than simply using a volume fader. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 31, 2021 23:03:25 GMT -6
Sounds really good in the kcat demo! Makes Ozone sound a bit thin.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jan 1, 2022 5:03:58 GMT -6
Always.. Mastering limiters are themselves high ratio compressors which will affect tonal balance, volume, transients etc. It doesn't matter how good your mix is* I'd generally end up splitting the song up M/L/R to modify it which is far easier to do at the mixing stage. Preferably though I'd pass along mixing notes to compensate dependant on the level they wished to obtain. It's nothing new in a roundabout sense, many don't think twice about mixing into an API2500 or SSL G master bus compressor. The SSL is a VCA comp like the Bettermaker, the difference being the latter is a brick wall which will get hit quite a bit harder. Of course usually you'd use both in conjunction, however divvying the process up or how it's achieved between a mixing / mastering engineer is irrelevant because the song will hit a brick wall at some point. ----------------------------------------------- * Problem is every mastering setup affects audio in different ways, Ozone for example tended to push drums back and collapse stereo width to a certain extent. There are transient and independent stereo functions to compensate for this but you're applying the effect holistically which isn't always or often ideal. The BM did the exact opposite but it can become a bit overpowering, it also brought the vocals right to the front. In a mastering scenario I can't just turn down your vocals, I can EQ the vox to be less dominant but that comes with more compromise than simply using a volume fader. Fair enough - sounds good to me. I mix into a SSL VCA then into a Thermionic Phoenix Mastering compressor (Vari MU) back into a HEDD 192 with just a touch of HEDD tape and tube FX (because they are magic and add a sense of space in a very unique way) but I prefer to leave limiting to the Mastering stage - mainly because I've used a the TC Brickwall Limiter for the last 10 years and I've never found anything I prefer sonically speaking. At the Mastering stage I'm adding 1 to 3dB of GR so really I could be adding that at the mix stage as you do - it's a small point of difference to your workflow. One thing though, I aim for my mixes to need virtually no processing at the mastering stage - my view is make your mix sound the way you want it to sound at the mix stage waiting for Mastering to add "magic" makes no sense to me. A finished mix should have all the magic, energy and sonic beauty you wish it to have and if it doesn't .... well then re-mix it! I think we're probably on the same page there. I'm going to get a demo of the Bettermaker as it would slip perfectly into my current workflow :-) |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 1, 2022 5:08:38 GMT -6
There is a 3 month old BM on GS now but its in Lisbon I think: seems great piece of gear ! my 02 cents with tools this good if you can't get your finished product sounding great, in what ever order, time to start selling insurance ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2022 0:31:36 GMT -6
Fair enough - sounds good to me. I mix into a SSL VCA then into a Thermionic Phoenix Mastering compressor (Vari MU) back into a HEDD 192 with just a touch of HEDD tape and tube FX (because they are magic and add a sense of space in a very unique way) but I prefer to leave limiting to the Mastering stage - mainly because I've used a the TC Brickwall Limiter for the last 10 years and I've never found anything I prefer sonically speaking. One thing though, I aim for my mixes to need virtually no processing at the mastering stage - my view is make your mix sound the way you want it to sound at the mix stage waiting for Mastering to add "magic" makes no sense to me. A finished mix should have all the magic, energy and sonic beauty you wish it to have and if it doesn't .... well then re-mix it! It seems a bit contradictory that you're using mastering tools and end chain 2 buss effects for "magic" then saying it makes no sense to so do. However I think we might be getting caught up in semantics, in reality this whole divided definition between processes is a load of idiosyncratic nonsense. By definition 2-buss processing is "mixing" but then we define 2-buss chains as mastering processors. Which is odd because many mastering EQ's, compressors, saturators, M/S processors etc. are better mixing tools than said mixing tools. Where something happens in a chain is completely irrelevant IMV, I could for example use an SSL Fusion via an FX insert or use it as a mastering processor. The end result is exactly the same, I could also limit every channel whilst mixing and make the master limiting process defunct. I'm not trying to trip you up or have a go, I just honestly don't think it matters.. Of course mastering won't save a bad "mix" however you define mixing, just like mixing won't save a bad recording so I agree if I get your gist. In terms of mastering as a job, IMO it seems to be defined by whatever the client needs nowadays. I have a similar setup to you (now), SSL G-Comp > IGS Tubecore Vari-Mu mastering > API 5500 > BM.. So for me it's a second set of ears, distribution readiness and consistency check. For others it can be so much more.. My only point is different mastering limiters knock things out of balance in their own special ways, it's easier to compensate at the mix stage so I just run it all in via a mixing console. Super easy (from a workflow perspective at least).. P.S just a debate, I mean nothing by it if I'm coming across a bit blunt.. Also best of luck with the demo, I hope you like it .. |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 2, 2022 1:18:15 GMT -6
Music, it’s styles and genres naturally vary, thank goodness and so too does our recording gear and approaches.
Personally, I find this interesting and in a way enriching as it makes our musical recording experiences more diverse: different horses for different courses: why not ?
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jan 2, 2022 2:11:33 GMT -6
Fair enough - sounds good to me. I mix into a SSL VCA then into a Thermionic Phoenix Mastering compressor (Vari MU) back into a HEDD 192 with just a touch of HEDD tape and tube FX (because they are magic and add a sense of space in a very unique way) but I prefer to leave limiting to the Mastering stage - mainly because I've used a the TC Brickwall Limiter for the last 10 years and I've never found anything I prefer sonically speaking. One thing though, I aim for my mixes to need virtually no processing at the mastering stage - my view is make your mix sound the way you want it to sound at the mix stage waiting for Mastering to add "magic" makes no sense to me. A finished mix should have all the magic, energy and sonic beauty you wish it to have and if it doesn't .... well then re-mix it! It seems a bit contradictory that you're using mastering tools and end chain 2 buss effects for "magic" then saying it makes no sense to so do. However I think we might be getting caught up in semantics, in reality this whole divided definition between processes is a load of idiosyncratic nonsense. By definition 2-buss processing is "mixing" but then we define 2-buss chains as mastering processors. Which is odd because many mastering EQ's, compressors, saturators, M/S processors etc. are better mixing tools than said mixing tools. Where something happens in a chain is completely irrelevant IMV, I could for example use an SSL Fusion via an FX insert or use it as a mastering processor. The end result is exactly the same, I could also limit every channel whilst mixing and make the master limiting process defunct. I'm not trying to trip you up or have a go, I just honestly don't think it matters.. Of course mastering won't save a bad "mix" however you define mixing, just like mixing won't save a bad recording so I agree if I get your gist. In terms of mastering as a job, IMO it seems to be defined by whatever the client needs nowadays. I have a similar setup to you (now), SSL G-Comp > IGS Tubecore Vari-Mu mastering > API 5500 > BM.. So for me it's a second set of ears, distribution readiness and consistency check. For others it can be so much more.. My only point is different mastering limiters knock things out of balance in their own special ways, it's easier to compensate at the mix stage so I just run it all in via a mixing console. Super easy (from a workflow perspective at least).. P.S just a debate, I mean nothing by it if I'm coming across a bit blunt.. Also best of luck with the demo, I hope you like it .. To clarify, I was trying to say (but not making my point very clear) I prefer to add all the "magic" (stereo bus processing) at the mix stage because trying to do it at the Mastering stage feels like a huge compromise because I'm then effecting a stereo file when I could be making adjustments on the multitrack with no compromise. I've even added in a tube EQ onto the 2 bus (The Swift EQ by Thermionic) something 5 years ago I would of only left for the Mastering stage - but I'm just getting way better results at the mix stage which when you think about it makes complete sense. If something sounds wrong I can go back and adjust the mix not try to fight with a stereo file. This obviously only applies when I’m working on my own music when I have control from start to finish - if someone sends me a mix and wants me to add some hardware 2 bus processing as a Mastering process then I'm stuck with working on their stereo mix file - though at times I've told them to re-mix something if it's too big a compromise to process a stereo file. When I do the "Mastering" on an album of my own material I'll be making very small EQ moves just to technically balance between tracks maybe a touch (1dB GR) of my favourite software mastering compressor (Sonoris Mastering Comp) and at this stage the TC Brickwall Limiter (1-3dB GR) nothing artistic or magical in terms of adding fairy dust just technical shaping. If I really got my mixing spot on I'm very chuffed if a track gets a flat transfer with no EQ at all on the master (it does happen) but usually I'm making very small EQ changes with DMG Equilibrium. There so many different workflows that work and I think we’re basically saying the same thing here just in a different way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2022 8:32:16 GMT -6
P.S just a debate, I mean nothing by it if I'm coming across a bit blunt.. Also best of luck with the demo, I hope you like it .. There so many different workflows that work and I think we’re basically saying the same thing here just in a different way. Ha, I think we are.. Makes sense to me. |
|
.. 
