|
|
Post by Dan on Jul 12, 2024 10:04:28 GMT -6
I’ll offer some perspectives for consideration. If you are publishing files with levels over -15dBFS(rms) then you are over the line. You have already accepted distortion. Any kind of limiter you apply to it will just exchange one type of distortion for another. If the levels are anywhere near “commercial” level then the distortion will be unavoidably significant. Being concerned about the potential distortion from that last dB of “true” peak measurement (which are in fact unknown, predicted peaks) is myopic. Kind of like telling someone their fly is open in the midst of a nudest convention. Coming from decades of classical acoustic recording I appreciate the rejection of such distortion. Clean is peace and love. But I have also spent the last few decades at a chart topping mastering studio. What can I say? Show me the records on the charts that remain below -1dB true peak. Even just one? If you’re swimming with sharks you gotta know how to handle yourself. Craft that distortion for best possible outcome. Fixating on that last dB may help some, but it’s not the real, tragic flaw. They use limiter that are close to clipping on things that are not unsharp sources. Attack and release are just smoothing filters to get the gain reduction away from clipping. Making them absurdly fast is awfully close to clipping but that is good for very brief, sharp transients, but then it has to slow down. Limiters and compressors that cannot detect the signal, cannot do this. Most old compressors have to be doing the right amount of gain reduction to do this. PCM limiters, ie limiter that only limit the signal based on the pcm samples, can only erratically reduce very sharp unharmonic transients. On a piano or something, they sound awful. Limiters that act upon the signal can do better but still produce distortion. Moving the signal up into them is stupid but this is what happens with modern masters and why so few of them translate. For example, the amount of loud metal records that translate is shockingly few. The limiters horrifically distort most of the noisy guitar tones into white noise. Now of course, the manufacturers of later digital limiters let everyone apply a stupid long lookahead so that it doesn't distort because it's not reducing the transient, the music just pumps down right below the transient. This can aid translation of slammed productions by having them pump around or sound extremely stupid. The multiband limiters that do this pretty much undo the mix because you cannot even ride the faders up into them to constantly rebalance the music. It usually sounds stupider than just having distortion on transients. |
|
|
|
Post by andersmv on Jul 12, 2024 10:11:44 GMT -6
If you’re swimming with sharks you gotta know how to handle yourself. Craft that distortion for best possible outcome. Yup, it is what it is... I still get complaints about "not loud enough" when crushing stuff at -7 sometimes. I've learned that sometimes it's as simple as turning the vocal up a bit more on modern music. Some clients just fixate on one single thing that you need to turn up, they don't actually want the whole mix hotter. This is why I like the idea of Atmos more and more  . I'm half way tempted to start making "Non-Mastered" mixes where we make a polite, not overdone master of the song, I send that right to the Left/Right speaker beds in an Atmos session, turn off the binaural distance data, and people can just click on the "Atmos" version and listen to the good sounding version through their normal stereo setup... |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jul 12, 2024 10:33:24 GMT -6
I’ll offer some perspectives for consideration. If you are publishing files with levels over -15dBFS(rms) then you are over the line. You have already accepted distortion. Any kind of limiter you apply to it will just exchange one type of distortion for another. If the levels are anywhere near “commercial” level then the distortion will be unavoidably significant. Being concerned about the potential distortion from that last dB of “true” peak measurement (which are in fact unknown, predicted peaks) is myopic. Kind of like telling someone their fly is open in the midst of a nudest convention. Coming from decades of classical acoustic recording I appreciate the rejection of such distortion. Clean is peace and love. But I have also spent the last few decades at a chart topping mastering studio. What can I say? Show me the records on the charts that remain below -1dB true peak. Even just one? If you’re swimming with sharks you gotta know how to handle yourself. Craft that distortion for best possible outcome. Fixating on that last dB may help some, but it’s not the real, tragic flaw. They use limiter that are close to clipping on things that are not unsharp sources. Attack and release are just smoothing filters to get the gain reduction away from clipping. Making them absurdly fast is awfully close to clipping but that is good for very brief, sharp transients, but then it has to slow down. Limiters and compressors that cannot detect the signal, cannot do this. Most old compressors have to be doing the right amount of gain reduction to do this. PCM limiters, ie limiter that only limit the signal based on the pcm samples, can only erratically reduce very sharp unharmonic transients. On a piano or something, they sound awful. Limiters that act upon the signal can do better but still produce distortion. Moving the signal up into them is stupid but this is what happens with modern masters and why so few of them translate. For example, the amount of loud metal records that translate is shockingly few. The limiters horrifically distort most of the noisy guitar tones into white noise. Now of course, the manufacturers of later digital limiters let everyone apply a stupid long lookahead so that it doesn't distort because it's not reducing the transient, the music just pumps down right below the transient. This can aid translation of slammed productions by having them pump around or sound extremely stupid. The multiband limiters that do this pretty much undo the mix because you cannot even ride the faders up into them to constantly rebalance the music. It usually sounds stupider than just having distortion on transients. I've encountered this problem in doing quick "poor man's masters" of piano heavy material. Exactly what you're describing. So what is the solution in a scenario where the track needs to be at least somewhat competitively loud (like, reasonably balanced with commercial mixes) but there is no budget for mastering... so we're talking streaming only, not even official releases. But just cuz it's streaming only doesn't mean it's OK for the piano to distort like a tubescreamer every time there's a fortissimo part. |
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead89 on Jul 12, 2024 19:17:31 GMT -6
Interesting topic. For me it depends on the song and style of music. Most of the time I feel best around -10db/-12db LUFS if I want to return any dynamic and have a fat bottom end. If I want that pushed, really exciting feeling, it has to be over -8db LUFS. Probably closer to -6db LUFS. Like someone said, you can’t fight the what’s going on. You have to be a part of it, embrace it and add your own style or flare somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jul 12, 2024 21:32:51 GMT -6
They use limiter that are close to clipping on things that are not unsharp sources. Attack and release are just smoothing filters to get the gain reduction away from clipping. Making them absurdly fast is awfully close to clipping but that is good for very brief, sharp transients, but then it has to slow down. Limiters and compressors that cannot detect the signal, cannot do this. Most old compressors have to be doing the right amount of gain reduction to do this. PCM limiters, ie limiter that only limit the signal based on the pcm samples, can only erratically reduce very sharp unharmonic transients. On a piano or something, they sound awful. Limiters that act upon the signal can do better but still produce distortion. Moving the signal up into them is stupid but this is what happens with modern masters and why so few of them translate. For example, the amount of loud metal records that translate is shockingly few. The limiters horrifically distort most of the noisy guitar tones into white noise. Now of course, the manufacturers of later digital limiters let everyone apply a stupid long lookahead so that it doesn't distort because it's not reducing the transient, the music just pumps down right below the transient. This can aid translation of slammed productions by having them pump around or sound extremely stupid. The multiband limiters that do this pretty much undo the mix because you cannot even ride the faders up into them to constantly rebalance the music. It usually sounds stupider than just having distortion on transients. I've encountered this problem in doing quick "poor man's masters" of piano heavy material. Exactly what you're describing. So what is the solution in a scenario where the track needs to be at least somewhat competitively loud (like, reasonably balanced with commercial mixes) but there is no budget for mastering... so we're talking streaming only, not even official releases. But just cuz it's streaming only doesn't mean it's OK for the piano to distort like a tubescreamer every time there's a fortissimo part. Honestly, you need to just use a Massenburg or Tokyo Dawn compressor (Weiss has discontinuities in the response from the short forced hold. Unisum when unsmoothed out can sound like a Distressor) and an effective true peak limiter for only stray peaks. If the material can take distortion, MJUC mk 1 or mk 3, a real Manley Varimu (the plugs don't really do it because so much of using it translucently is hitting it hot and letting it modulate the volume a little bit and I say this despite often being a Manley detractor), or DDMF Magic Death Eye Stereo (if it can take phase shift) can be very cool. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Jul 13, 2024 13:44:35 GMT -6
I've encountered this problem in doing quick "poor man's masters" of piano heavy material. Exactly what you're describing. So what is the solution in a scenario where the track needs to be at least somewhat competitively loud (like, reasonably balanced with commercial mixes) but there is no budget for mastering... so we're talking streaming only, not even official releases. But just cuz it's streaming only doesn't mean it's OK for the piano to distort like a tubescreamer every time there's a fortissimo part. Well... the first step would be to up your self-mastering game and/or tool chest. Probably the second step, and best advice I can give overall is don't take on projects with brokeass people who can't afford to actually finish what they started. Mastering is the least expensive part of anything that comes through my shop. Partly because, and something everyone should consider (especially those hiring themselves out) is that I've spent years developing relationships with mastering engineers who I can beat up and, as needed... get into the range of $50-75 a track. And if someone can't afford $50 a song for mastering? They sure as shit can't afford to have me onboard anyway! Problem solved..? Avoided..? Either way this is not a problem. Not in my world anyway. Past all that - and to the point... Intersample overs are absolutely a thing. And more then likely can't be avoided. Completely inevitable. Some number of years ago I was doing mix & archival work for a well known jamband... Shows got multi-tracked, popped onto a server... mixed & mastered by me, then back to the mothership as 24bit 44.1 stereo wav files. As requested. The interesting & relevant part that I did A LOT of experimentation about was putting the final 24 bit masters back onto the server... which then, for the consumer would pop out whatever they requested... 24 bit wav... 16 bit... FLAC... mp3? Whatever 'ya want. Was enlightening to spot check what what left my shop vs what comes back. In all cases sample peaks, coming back where usually at least a half dB higher then where I had the limiter ceiling parked. Sometimes 1.5dB higher! So - My final masters started with waves L3 parked at -.3dBfs and after a while? The first dozen shows I ended up backing down to -.5dBfs which seemed to clean things up and make less red lights come on. Now that did take the average RMS down a little but, these were live shows with raging crowds & dynamic range... they only had to be competitive. IMO the whole idea of setting the limiter ceiling at -1dB to avoid intersample / post mastering / format conversion overs? Kinda goofy. Sure it keeps that last dB clean but now we're squeezing everything else that little bit more... making the limiters work in a slightly different way... Ultimately we're just trading one kind of distortion for another. Like Pueblo Audio said if your putting something, meaning "music" out there for competitive release then you've already accepted the distortion and are swimming with the sharks. Now its solely about how you handle, and craft that distortion. |
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Jul 13, 2024 14:47:52 GMT -6
So all those plugs that claim to limit intersample peaks aren’t?
Cheers,
Geoff
|
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Jul 13, 2024 16:32:20 GMT -6
So all those plugs that claim to limit intersample peaks aren’t? Cheers, Geoff Once the music leaves the 'safety' of the DAW production enviornment? Released into the real world? All bets are off. It is the wild west out there. |
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Jul 13, 2024 20:25:45 GMT -6
YouTube seems to the worst as far as peaks clipping the codec. I’ve heard lots of professionally mastered top 40 songs on YouTube where the peaks are clipping the codec. I also remember a “Produce Like a Pro” video that Warren Huart uploaded on YouTube that was clipping the codec terribly and Warren was in the comments expressing confusion as to why it sounded so bad.
Bob Katz has covered this issue for a long time. I’ve always mastered at a -1 peak to prevent codec clipping later down the line. You never know how your songs are going to be converted or what codecs they will be run though, and how many conversions and codecs. Maybe I’ll back off to 1.5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jul 14, 2024 14:57:59 GMT -6
So all those plugs that claim to limit intersample peaks aren’t? Cheers, Geoff Once the music leaves the 'safety' of the DAW production enviornment? Released into the real world? All bets are off. It is the wild west out there. The problem is the waves l1, l2, and l3 and such do not work. They do not even attempt to limit the signal peaks only the pcm samples and aren’t even good at that. They’re essentially crappier downwards bit crushers with a smoothed attack and a multistage release, brief almost clipping for small transients, what you set it at otherwise, and l2 has a release for rms content but of course they cannot even attempt to detect the reconstructed peaks to obtain the reconstructed rms. They can only sometimes, and I mean only sometimes, reduce very heavy noise like percussive transients without a lot of issues but will heavily distort everything and can not even effectively limit the pcm samples from attack / release switching misfires. The good old L1 manual recommends setting pcm threshold to -.3 dbfs to not clip even the pcm samples, yet alone the reconstructed peaks which can massively digitally clip in the da chip after the reconstruction filter and then the crazy sometimes aliased infinite digital harmonics from that clip or overdrive the analog parts for infinite harmonics of infinite harmonics. Now the 25 anniversary edition of L1 has analog and true peak and the L2 auto release making L1 25th anniversary version only functional Waves Limiter along with less flexible WLM+ meter limiter. Later limiters are partially effective like Oxford with pcm bus compressor pre-process section followed by limiting through distortion enhance slider (safe mode is 100% enhance and you can push that) and an additional auto comp that limits based on the reconstructed signal. Or Xenon with the oversampled limiter that can be dirtier than waves or softer and cleaner than Oxford from a longer lookahead and oversampling but the leveler does not appear to be over sampled but seems to mostly keep transients away from the limiter sometimes at the expense of breathing and aliasing. DMG Limitless with its over sampled clipper is the extreme version of this but will distort, soften, or remix the mixes you receive. Elevate is similar to Oxford with the deliberate distortion but will remix your tracks to all sound like crappy modern metal if you let it do its thing. Now we have processors that can limit peaks based on the reconstructed signal like Limiter 6, Stealth Limiter, and Boost. Try them. Limiter 6 GE set to insane can take off peaks like nothing else. Use it to smash down stray peaks the limiter portion and has 3 lookaheads and a release (that is the slower release not the almost instant release for sharp peaks). True peak limiter after is a safety limiter. Highly recommended and it’s better than stealth limiter at just whacking down some excessive peaks. Set output to like -1. IK stealth limiter is more of a traditional maximizer. Think Waves if sounded great and worked when not pushed stupid hard. No controls. Just a couple various optional distortions. No crazy transfer curve editing like in Invisible Limiter g3 that can control what and how someone gets clipped off. Nothing forcing. No multiband bullshit to remix your tracks. No optional too long lookaheads undoing your fader rides or stupid plastic or dull sounding clippers. Highly recommended and set output to like -1 and isp to x16. Johnkenn recommended this and it is killer Ursa Boost is some cool clean to distorted to pumpy stuff. That can be hard to make not pump but it sounds cool. True peak overloads are always an estimate and the BS-1770 algorithm is better than straight PCM stuff but sample clipper and true peak clipping should still be avoided because of the completely unpredictable behavior of converters. Usually, there will be digital clipping and then analog clips. This cannot be predicted. The only way to predict it and control the translation and insure translation is not to clip the file in sample value or true peak. The typical hack mastering “engineer” neither understands nor cares. Go to gearspace mastering forum and read the comical threads 🍿 hear the comical stupid masters. Hear them defend their magic distorted chains in interviews. “Digital is 93% of analog.” “Apple doesn’t know how to copy or round floating point values.” “EveAnna Manley wants to rip you off and sell you the same gear again with the Manley Power supplies.” Idiotic statements 🤯 🔫 |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 14, 2024 15:44:39 GMT -6
Once the music leaves the 'safety' of the DAW production enviornment? Released into the real world? All bets are off. It is the wild west out there. The problem is the waves l1, l2, and l3 and such do not work. They do not even attempt to limit the signal peaks only the pcm samples and aren’t even good at that. They’re essentially crappier downwards bit crushers with a smoothed attack and a multistage release, brief almost clipping for small transients, what you set it at otherwise, and l2 has a release for rms content but of course they cannot even attempt to detect the reconstructed peaks to obtain the reconstructed rms. They can only sometimes, and I mean only sometimes, reduce very heavy noise like percussive transients without a lot of issues but will heavily distort everything and can not even effectively limit the pcm samples from attack / release switching misfires. The good old L1 manual recommends setting pcm threshold to -.3 dbfs to not clip even the pcm samples, yet alone the reconstructed peaks which can massively digitally clip in the da chip after the reconstruction filter and then the crazy sometimes aliased infinite digital harmonics from that clip or overdrive the analog parts for infinite harmonics of infinite harmonics. Now the 25 anniversary edition of L1 has analog and true peak and the L2 auto release making L1 25th anniversary version only functional Waves Limiter along with less flexible WLM+ meter limiter. Later limiters are partially effective like Oxford with pcm bus compressor pre-process section followed by limiting through distortion enhance slider (safe mode is 100% enhance and you can push that) and an additional auto comp that limits based on the reconstructed signal. Or Xenon with the oversampled limiter that can be dirtier than waves or softer and cleaner than Oxford from a longer lookahead and oversampling but the leveler does not appear to be over sampled but seems to mostly keep transients away from the limiter sometimes at the expense of breathing and aliasing. DMG Limitless with its over sampled clipper is the extreme version of this but will distort, soften, or remix the mixes you receive. Elevate is similar to Oxford with the deliberate distortion but will remix your tracks to all sound like crappy modern metal if you let it do its thing. Now we have processors that can limit peaks based on the reconstructed signal like Limiter 6, Stealth Limiter, and Boost. Try them. Limiter 6 GE set to insane can take off peaks like nothing else. Use it to smash down stray peaks the limiter portion and has 3 lookaheads and a release (that is the slower release not the almost instant release for sharp peaks). True peak limiter after is a safety limiter. Highly recommended and it’s better than stealth limiter at just whacking down some excessive peaks. Set output to like -1. IK stealth limiter is more of a traditional maximizer. Think Waves if sounded great and worked when not pushed stupid hard. No controls. Just a couple various optional distortions. No crazy transfer curve editing like in Invisible Limiter g3 that can control what and how someone gets clipped off. Nothing forcing. No multiband bullshit to remix your tracks. No optional too long lookaheads undoing your fader rides or stupid plastic or dull sounding clippers. Highly recommended and set output to like -1 and isp to x16. Johnkenn recommended this and it is killer Ursa Boost is some cool clean to distorted to pumpy stuff. That can be hard to make not pump but it sounds cool. True peak overloads are always an estimate and the BS-1770 algorithm is better than straight PCM stuff but sample clipper and true peak clipping should still be avoided because of the completely unpredictable behavior of converters. Usually, there will be digital clipping and then analog clips. This cannot be predicted. The only way to predict it and control the translation and insure translation is not to clip the file in sample value or true peak. The typical hack mastering “engineer” neither understands nor cares. Go to gearspace mastering forum and read the comical threads 🍿 hear the comical stupid masters. Hear them defend their magic distorted chains in interviews. “Digital is 93% of analog.” “Apple doesn’t know how to copy or round floating point values.” “EveAnna Manley wants to rip you off and sell you the same gear again with the Manley Power supplies.” Idiotic statements 🤯 🔫 Hell - I didn’t know it was doing all that…but it sounds good lol. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jul 14, 2024 23:28:36 GMT -6
I've encountered this problem in doing quick "poor man's masters" of piano heavy material. Exactly what you're describing. So what is the solution in a scenario where the track needs to be at least somewhat competitively loud (like, reasonably balanced with commercial mixes) but there is no budget for mastering... so we're talking streaming only, not even official releases. But just cuz it's streaming only doesn't mean it's OK for the piano to distort like a tubescreamer every time there's a fortissimo part. Well... the first step would be to up your self-mastering game and/or tool chest. Probably the second step, and best advice I can give overall is don't take on projects with brokeass people who can't afford to actually finish what they started. Mastering is the least expensive part of anything that comes through my shop. Partly because, and something everyone should consider (especially those hiring themselves out) is that I've spent years developing relationships with mastering engineers who I can beat up and, as needed... get into the range of $50-75 a track. And if someone can't afford $50 a song for mastering? They sure as shit can't afford to have me onboard anyway! Problem solved..? Avoided..? Either way this is not a problem. Not in my world anyway. Past all that - and to the point... Intersample overs are absolutely a thing. And more then likely can't be avoided. Completely inevitable. Some number of years ago I was doing mix & archival work for a well known jamband... Shows got multi-tracked, popped onto a server... mixed & mastered by me, then back to the mothership as 24bit 44.1 stereo wav files. As requested. The interesting & relevant part that I did A LOT of experimentation about was putting the final 24 bit masters back onto the server... which then, for the consumer would pop out whatever they requested... 24 bit wav... 16 bit... FLAC... mp3? Whatever 'ya want. Was enlightening to spot check what what left my shop vs what comes back. In all cases sample peaks, coming back where usually at least a half dB higher then where I had the limiter ceiling parked. Sometimes 1.5dB higher! So - My final masters started with waves L3 parked at -.3dBfs and after a while? The first dozen shows I ended up backing down to -.5dBfs which seemed to clean things up and make less red lights come on. Now that did take the average RMS down a little but, these were live shows with raging crowds & dynamic range... they only had to be competitive. IMO the whole idea of setting the limiter ceiling at -1dB to avoid intersample / post mastering / format conversion overs? Kinda goofy. Sure it keeps that last dB clean but now we're squeezing everything else that little bit more... making the limiters work in a slightly different way... Ultimately we're just trading one kind of distortion for another. Like Pueblo Audio said if your putting something, meaning "music" out there for competitive release then you've already accepted the distortion and are swimming with the sharks. Now its solely about how you handle, and craft that distortion. Actually your jamband thing is much closer to what I'm doing. For actual clients I don't go anywhere near mastering, but what I'm talking about is archival stuff I'm doing for myself. Hours and hours of material from rehearsals and live shows some of which I post, some of which I don't. But more recently I've been wanting to get the mixes into kind of finalized versions so I can just move on mentally. That said... I would love to know of good mastering engineers that are working for $50 - $75 per track. I get super paranoid on hiring mastering so I either don't hire it out at all or I go straight to the top and pay whatever, I had Greg Calbi master my last project just because I feel like if you're gonna do it... do it. But I don't often do it. Not for my own stuff anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jul 15, 2024 6:10:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Jul 15, 2024 13:58:20 GMT -6
Actually your jamband thing is much closer to what I'm doing. For actual clients I don't go anywhere near mastering, but what I'm talking about is archival stuff I'm doing for myself. Hours and hours of material from rehearsals and live shows some of which I post, some of which I don't. But more recently I've been wanting to get the mixes into kind of finalized versions so I can just move on mentally. That said... I would love to know of good mastering engineers that are working for $50 - $75 per track. I get super paranoid on hiring mastering so I either don't hire it out at all or I go straight to the top and pay whatever, I had Greg Calbi master my last project just because I feel like if you're gonna do it... do it. But I don't often do it. Not for my own stuff anyway. I wasn't dealing with any rehearsal & personal/development material... only actually shows as a finished product. But I get it... for my own groups I'll record rehearsals & whatnot, and basically just toss a limiter on for a little boost & call it a day. So much of that stuff, at least here tends to be what we'd call "Dead taper style" - pair of mics in the room. No reason for any of it to be as loud as an actual release... all crushed up to -8 & flat like Kansas. It'd actually sound really unnatural. That's not how our brains hear & interpret live music. AoK to let that kind of material breathe. Past that..? Hiring mastering? Remember what I said above about developing relationships with other people in the industry? I won't / can't name my guy because that lo $$ rate is way off card. The "family favor" rate. Reserved for special times & rad people trying to do something rad. The mastering cat knows, coming from me that things are going to be extremely streamlined & insulated from most of the usual BS. And we know we're gonna make it up on the next one... Probably won't get any 'favor rates' & treatment from someone like Greg Calbi. Cats like that are too established. Why would they work for less when they have a line of people (read - corporate labels) who'll pay full boat with zero pushback? Haven't used Scott @ Old Colony myself but I've heard the name forever... good suggestion. Maybe one day I'll send something that way? |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Jul 15, 2024 14:52:47 GMT -6
YouTube seems to the worst as far as peaks clipping the codec. I’ve heard lots of professionally mastered top 40 songs on YouTube where the peaks are clipping the codec. I also remember a “Produce Like a Pro” video that Warren Huart uploaded on YouTube that was clipping the codec terribly and Warren was in the comments expressing confusion as to why it sounded so bad. This is more inline with the kinda thing I've experienced & talking about... About 2 or 3 years ago I mixed a thing that, when the first single dropped I... we were all horrified at how terrible it sounded on utoob. That bad underwater, baked cassette tape 128k mp3 tone got slathered over the top. Sounded fine coming off my desk. Sounded fine coming back from mastering (guy I've used for a decade). The producer, who's a really picky & demanding guy was happy... we were all happy... and then have no idea how or why it went off the rails. Crazy part is that material is good everywhere else. Spotify. Sirius XM. Bandcamp. Even fakebook! Something in the utoob algorithm nuked it. What codec or plugin fixes that? None. None at all. Because the damage is done after production. After its out of the studio. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jul 15, 2024 15:11:37 GMT -6
The problem is the waves l1, l2, and l3 and such do not work. They do not even attempt to limit the signal peaks only the pcm samples and aren’t even good at that. They’re essentially crappier downwards bit crushers with a smoothed attack and a multistage release, brief almost clipping for small transients, what you set it at otherwise, and l2 has a release for rms content but of course they cannot even attempt to detect the reconstructed peaks to obtain the reconstructed rms. They can only sometimes, and I mean only sometimes, reduce very heavy noise like percussive transients without a lot of issues but will heavily distort everything and can not even effectively limit the pcm samples from attack / release switching misfires. The good old L1 manual recommends setting pcm threshold to -.3 dbfs to not clip even the pcm samples, yet alone the reconstructed peaks which can massively digitally clip in the da chip after the reconstruction filter and then the crazy sometimes aliased infinite digital harmonics from that clip or overdrive the analog parts for infinite harmonics of infinite harmonics. Now the 25 anniversary edition of L1 has analog and true peak and the L2 auto release making L1 25th anniversary version only functional Waves Limiter along with less flexible WLM+ meter limiter. Later limiters are partially effective like Oxford with pcm bus compressor pre-process section followed by limiting through distortion enhance slider (safe mode is 100% enhance and you can push that) and an additional auto comp that limits based on the reconstructed signal. Or Xenon with the oversampled limiter that can be dirtier than waves or softer and cleaner than Oxford from a longer lookahead and oversampling but the leveler does not appear to be over sampled but seems to mostly keep transients away from the limiter sometimes at the expense of breathing and aliasing. DMG Limitless with its over sampled clipper is the extreme version of this but will distort, soften, or remix the mixes you receive. Elevate is similar to Oxford with the deliberate distortion but will remix your tracks to all sound like crappy modern metal if you let it do its thing. Now we have processors that can limit peaks based on the reconstructed signal like Limiter 6, Stealth Limiter, and Boost. Try them. Limiter 6 GE set to insane can take off peaks like nothing else. Use it to smash down stray peaks the limiter portion and has 3 lookaheads and a release (that is the slower release not the almost instant release for sharp peaks). True peak limiter after is a safety limiter. Highly recommended and it’s better than stealth limiter at just whacking down some excessive peaks. Set output to like -1. IK stealth limiter is more of a traditional maximizer. Think Waves if sounded great and worked when not pushed stupid hard. No controls. Just a couple various optional distortions. No crazy transfer curve editing like in Invisible Limiter g3 that can control what and how someone gets clipped off. Nothing forcing. No multiband bullshit to remix your tracks. No optional too long lookaheads undoing your fader rides or stupid plastic or dull sounding clippers. Highly recommended and set output to like -1 and isp to x16. Johnkenn recommended this and it is killer Ursa Boost is some cool clean to distorted to pumpy stuff. That can be hard to make not pump but it sounds cool. True peak overloads are always an estimate and the BS-1770 algorithm is better than straight PCM stuff but sample clipper and true peak clipping should still be avoided because of the completely unpredictable behavior of converters. Usually, there will be digital clipping and then analog clips. This cannot be predicted. The only way to predict it and control the translation and insure translation is not to clip the file in sample value or true peak. The typical hack mastering “engineer” neither understands nor cares. Go to gearspace mastering forum and read the comical threads 🍿 hear the comical stupid masters. Hear them defend their magic distorted chains in interviews. “Digital is 93% of analog.” “Apple doesn’t know how to copy or round floating point values.” “EveAnna Manley wants to rip you off and sell you the same gear again with the Manley Power supplies.” Idiotic statements 🤯 🔫 Hell - I didn’t know it was doing all that…but it sounds good lol. I have no idea what it is doing, yet it is better than the multiband limiters, Waves, and Ozone. Maybe the Ozone mode IV that remixes the entire track can get louder but I hate anything that messes with the tonal balance that drastically. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jul 15, 2024 15:12:32 GMT -6
YouTube seems to the worst as far as peaks clipping the codec. I’ve heard lots of professionally mastered top 40 songs on YouTube where the peaks are clipping the codec. I also remember a “Produce Like a Pro” video that Warren Huart uploaded on YouTube that was clipping the codec terribly and Warren was in the comments expressing confusion as to why it sounded so bad. This is more inline with the kinda thing I've experienced & talking about... About 2 or 3 years ago I mixed a thing that, when the first single dropped I... we were all horrified at how terrible it sounded on utoob. That bad underwater, baked cassette tape 128k mp3 tone got slathered over the top. Sounded fine coming off my desk. Sounded fine coming back from mastering (guy I've used for a decade). The producer, who's a really picky & demanding guy was happy... we were all happy... and then have no idea how or why it went off the rails. Crazy part is that material is good everywhere else. Spotify. Sirius XM. Bandcamp. Even fakebook! Something in the utoob algorithm nuked it. What codec or plugin fixes that? None. None at all. Because the damage is done after production. After its out of the studio. I've ran into this. The high end is never right on youtube. The cymbal levels are always way off. It's either super dull or nasty. It doesn't matter if you select HD or not. It is worse than an MP3. |
|
karlo
Full Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by karlo on Jul 15, 2024 20:24:52 GMT -6
Limitless won’t do anything to your mix unless you dial it in that way. It’s a deep program. I’ve been using it for years (with excellent results) but I’m still learning how to dial it in better and better every session. It can do single band limiting. I think the only reason people shit on it is because they don't put the time in to learn how use it to their own liking.
|
|
. I'm half way tempted to start making "Non-Mastered" mixes where we make a polite, not overdone master of the song, I send that right to the Left/Right speaker beds in an Atmos session, turn off the binaural distance data, and people can just click on the "Atmos" version and listen to the good sounding version through their normal stereo setup...
