|
Benefits to hardware limiting?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| armanivespucci |
I've been told that L3 is a phenomenal software limiter. My question is- despite all its complexity, does it stand up to an analog limiter? Or is it arguably better?
I know the analog/digital debate is perpetually cropping up, but can someone give me an objective analysis?
Thanks,
Armani |
|
|
| Chronosis |
| You know, there are a lot of analog limiters. From 100$ Behringers to 3000-4000$ Manleys, UAs, Avalons. I'm sure the latter ones would give you a more "expensive" sound than the L3. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| quote: | Originally posted by armanivespucci
I've been told that L3 is a phenomenal software limiter. My question is- despite all its complexity, does it stand up to an analog limiter? Or is it arguably better?
I know the analog/digital debate is perpetually cropping up, but can someone give me an objective analysis?
Thanks,
Armani |
There is no objective analysis, you're asking for an opinion.
L3 is damn good, a LOT of big recording studios/sounddesigners/producers/mastering engineers use waves because it is good.
But in the end it all comes down to preference.
Hardware analog limites would give another sound, it's up to you to declare if that sound is better or not. |
|
|
| Icone |
I think Storyteller is right. Basically it is al up to what you would prefer. I don't really think there is much a gap between quality performances of an analog or digital limiter, not as much as there was in the past obviously.
People always seem to start worrying when trying to process something digitally. Price-wise - if you look at some Waves products - you might even be cheaper off with a hardware limiter :) |
|
|
| Diginerd |
Digital limiters have one big luxury that analog limiters don't That's the concept of he "Look ahead Bufer". They can start reacting to transients before they actually arrive (if you are with me).
This lets them be true, 100% brickwall limiters, not one sample over the output setting. It also let them (if well designed) reduce the amount of perceived distortion that gets introduced to the signal.
Waves L1 was the reason I started geting into digital audio, though the "Crushed audio" sound has become very prevalent i's actually doing a lo of harm to the sonic quality of what is being passed through.
Waves L2 is basically the same deal as L1, but with automatic (rather than fixed) released times. This makes it sound much more open.
L3 is 3 L2s setup in parallel as a multiband compressor.
Hard limiting has its uses, bu if you send your wor to a mastering house to be properly finished (Ok, not nomal practice for "Bedroom" tracks), but if you're getting released to vinyl the mastering enginer will thank you for leaving off limiting, X3, Finializer or any of the other multiband or single band limiters.
It gives them room to do their work in a highly tuned room and with equipment tha the cabling used is probbably more expensive than many people's setups.
Personally THE NICEST limiter I've ever heard is a Fairchild 670 at Porkies mastering in London (the real 100lb analog monster not any wannabe plug). If anyone is in London in the UK, go to Porkiesand go get your stuff run through there. It's pretty cheap and you will be amazed what Paul can do to your sound. |
|
|
| armanivespucci |
| quote: | Originally posted by Diginerd
Digital limiters have one big luxury that analog limiters don't That's the concept of he "Look ahead Bufer". They can start reacting to transients before they actually arrive (if you are with me).
This lets them be true, 100% brickwall limiters, not one sample over the output setting. It also let them (if well designed) reduce the amount of perceived distortion that gets introduced to the signal.
Waves L1 was the reason I started geting into digital audio, though the "Crushed audio" sound has become very prevalent i's actually doing a lo of harm to the sonic quality of what is being passed through.
Waves L2 is basically the same deal as L1, but with automatic (rather than fixed) released times. This makes it sound much more open.
L3 is 3 L2s setup in parallel as a multiband compressor.
Hard limiting has its uses, bu if you send your wor to a mastering house to be properly finished (Ok, not nomal practice for "Bedroom" tracks), but if you're getting released to vinyl the mastering enginer will thank you for leaving off limiting, X3, Finializer or any of the other multiband or single band limiters.
It gives them room to do their work in a highly tuned room and with equipment tha the cabling used is probbably more expensive than many people's setups.
Personally THE NICEST limiter I've ever heard is a Fairchild 670 at Porkies mastering in London (the real 100lb analog monster not any wannabe plug). If anyone is in London in the UK, go to Porkiesand go get your stuff run through there. It's pretty cheap and you will be amazed what Paul can do to your sound. |
Actually that begs another question. You're saying I shouldn't do much limiting before sending a demo because of a possible vinyl cutting? |
|
|
| Diginerd |
Having some on a demo is fine (and desirable, as it does makes things sound nicer if done well), but on a master that is going to a cutting room you SHOULD NEVER EVER put any form of limiting on.
Every mastering engineer I've spoken too hates people sending crushed audio to them. It seriously hampers what they can do to improve the master.
Leave it to people with tuned rooms and serious hardware.
Put it this way, unless you are a mastering engineer with years of experience and upwards of $100,000 worth of gear you know inside out nothing you can (either as a plug or external device) do will compete with the finished master.
You can make it sound nicer for demos, but again (Sorry for repeating myself, but this is REALLY important), never ever send limited audio to a mastering house if it's going to wind up on Vinyl (Or a professionally released CD).
I've heard tracks from saveral "big names" before mastering, and you'd be surprised at how big a differening the mastering made to the final quality of sound. |
|
|
| Bedlam-UK |
Software audio processing would never surpass hardware audio processing, both in terms of speed and quality. Although it isn't to be said of hardware dsp chips running soft and hard-coded algorithms.
I am of course talking about 'final stage' VST plugins (compressors, limiters, expanders etc..) which IMO are only to be used for 'draft' processing and mastering purposes....not for the commercial producers...if you know what I mean.
VST plugins simply emulate a hardware device and just give you a tickle of what to expect from the hardware equivalent. |
|
|
| thecYrus |
software can be as good as hardware.. e.g there's the md3 brickwall limiter for the powercore which is exactly the same like in the tc system 6000..
as long as it's not an analog hardware limiter it depends only on the algorithm which could be used in a VST plugin too. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Diginerd
Having some on a demo is fine (and desirable, as it does makes things sound nicer if done well), but on a master that is going to a cutting room you SHOULD NEVER EVER put any form of limiting on.
Every mastering engineer I've spoken too hates people sending crushed audio to them. It seriously hampers what they can do to improve the master.
Leave it to people with tuned rooms and serious hardware.
Put it this way, unless you are a mastering engineer with years of experience and upwards of $100,000 worth of gear you know inside out nothing you can (either as a plug or external device) do will compete with the finished master.
You can make it sound nicer for demos, but again (Sorry for repeating myself, but this is REALLY important), never ever send limited audio to a mastering house if it's going to wind up on Vinyl (Or a professionally released CD).
I've heard tracks from saveral "big names" before mastering, and you'd be surprised at how big a differening the mastering made to the final quality of sound. |
I agree with this. You can really do a lot with software, and even more with a DSP like the Powercore/UAD/etc., but it's just not possible to achieve the same results in a home studio as you hear from a professional in a mastering house.
It's easy enough for a professional to recreate your software compressor/limiter if necessary, but if you apply it yourself before submitting the track then you have irreversibly changed the audio and often lost a lot of information (particularly dynamics).
Do your own mastering for demos, not actual releases. The unmastered copy may sound ty, but if you were able to improve the sound so significantly then surely a professional could make it sound even better. |
|
|
|
|
