Budget Master Bus Limiters?

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Effects Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS
BW-LIMIT 87 HoRNet Magnus L1 Ultramaximizer Limited-Z Limiter No6 TLs Pocket Limiter

Post

ghettosynth wrote:So here you're largely talking about flexibility which the simple limiters don't give you. But the 670 clones don't give you much here either, just some tailoring of the time constant.
The point I was trying to make was that the limiter plays around with release times automatically so you don't have to. The Fairchild uses a very simple analogue circuit to move between the two extremes of "high rate of change->fast release" and "low rate of change->slow release". Developers can choose to implement as many variations on that approach as they can think of - and they may be present in both high-price and low-price limiters.

On the sideband thing, I imagine there are tests you can run to see whether a limiter is using that kind of processing. I would think a series of sine wave pulses being hit really hard would generate sidebands easily and then you could look at the FFT to see whether some limiters are suppressing those sidebands. I haven't tried it simply because it seems more productive to listen to what a limiter does to actual speech or music.

Post

Gamma-UT wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:So here you're largely talking about flexibility which the simple limiters don't give you. But the 670 clones don't give you much here either, just some tailoring of the time constant.
The point I was trying to make was that the limiter plays around with release times automatically so you don't have to. The Fairchild uses a very simple analogue circuit to move between the two extremes of "high rate of change->fast release" and "low rate of change->slow release". Developers can choose to implement as many variations on that approach as they can think of - and they may be present in both high-price and low-price limiters.
I see, I missed that, thanks.
On the sideband thing, I imagine there are tests you can run to see whether a limiter is using that kind of processing. I would think a series of sine wave pulses being hit really hard would generate sidebands easily and then you could look at the FFT to see whether some limiters are suppressing those sidebands. I haven't tried it simply because it seems more productive to listen to what a limiter does to actual speech or music.
Yes, absolutely, that's what a two tone test does, well by that I mean that it generates predictable IMD products which you could then look at with an SA.

http://electronicdesign.com/communicati ... asurements

I was more asking if you knew specific limiters that used that kind of technology.

I'm a bit of a nerd about stuff like this, so this sounds like some fun testing of the freebies.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:I was more asking if you knew specific limiters that used that kind of technology.
No, not at all. You tend to see vague references to "moving/redistributing energy around the peaks" when devs talk about what's in their limiter which makes me think of those kinds of tricks, but I don't recall anyone referring to specific techniques.

Post

Interesting...

I have Barricade (full version demo) and Barricade CM right next to each other in my DAW, loaded into the master mix channel.

Barricade is reporting 1023 samples latency, while Barricade CM is reporting 511. I'm guessing that this has something to do with the look-ahead functionality of the full version?

And the really interesting part: I am A/B'ing between them and yes this is a sonic difference. I have an instance of Massive with a huge supersaw and the volume (on the synth) max'd... so it is a hot signal and is digitally clipping horrifically. Sounds awful but this is a good test as it's making the Barricades work pretty hard. Firstly, after activating either of them, both Barricade and the CM version effectively stop the signal clipping, right off the bat.

The difference in sound is not dramatic but it is noticeable. Barricade CM seems to be cutting (or perhaps not coping as well with) high-end where the full version of Barricade is letting more through. Note that this is only what I'm hearing in this scenario with this particular synth sound, at this particular volume, on my home setup etc - sorry I don't have a Soundcloud account. Also note that I used both in their stock, initial preset state. It would likely be different on a full mix... maybe that'll be my next test. They may also behave very similarly in less extreme tests.

Post

MogwaiBoy wrote:Interesting...

I have Barricade (full version demo) and Barricade CM right next to each other in my DAW, loaded into the master mix channel.

Barricade is reporting 1023 samples latency, while Barricade CM is reporting 511. I'm guessing that this has something to do with the look-ahead functionality of the full version?

And the really interesting part: I am A/B'ing between them and yes this is a sonic difference. I have an instance of Massive with a huge supersaw and the volume (on the synth) max'd... so it is a hot signal and is digitally clipping horrifically. Sounds awful but this is a good test as it's making the Barricades work pretty hard. Firstly, after activating either of them, both Barricade and the CM version effectively stop the signal clipping, right off the bat.

The difference in sound is not dramatic but it is noticeable. Barricade CM seems to be cutting (or perhaps not coping as well with) high-end where the full version of Barricade is letting more through. Note that this is only what I'm hearing in this scenario with this particular synth sound, at this particular volume, on my home setup etc - sorry I don't have a Soundcloud account. Also note that I used both in their stock, initial preset state. It would likely be different on a full mix... maybe that'll be my next test. They may also behave very similarly in less extreme tests.
Interesting. That must be the "multiband" limiting. That is a rather stringent test though, I'll try it tomorrow on some of my material.

Post

Limiters get choked up on material with extremely high crest factor (peaks over RMS). I know one test tone that is monophonic harmonic and has a crest factor of +18dB, I can post it up if anyone's interested.

Post

camsr wrote:Limiters get choked up on material with extremely high crest factor (peaks over RMS). I know one test tone that is monophonic harmonic and has a crest factor of +18dB, I can post it up if anyone's interested.
Please.

Post

I have conducted a test (using the test tone I described above, included in the 96khz WAV file) comparing how two limiters with completely different topologies sound and what they do in regards to DC offset generation and spectral content. It also compares clipping stages with settings as close to equivalent as possible.

It compares Limitless to SmoothLimiter in both clip and limit modes, no lookahead was used. The test tone is 80hz and all user-adjustable time constants were set to 60ms (roughly 5 x period of 80hz). And the knee on both units was set to 12dB with input gain of 24dB. Because of the difference in topology, the gain reduction is not equal, but the amount of input to limit to 0dBFS is. Differences in output peak in SmoothLimiter were no greater than 1dB.

The way to interpret the results is not simple, it's an analytical look at how the algorithms behave and what parasitic components they generate.
-Loss of energy around and below nyquist indicates decreasing broadband headroom or simple clipping type intermodulation.
-Amount of DC offset generated reflects reduction in crest factor and improvement in RMS, albiet with DC offset. (this is a byproduct of this test signal)
-Positive to negative peak change by convergance to 0dBFS from the dry input should indicate the reduction of pumping or dynamic change of RMS level. It can be seen in the clip modes because there convergance is greater.
All this assumes that there is no phase distortion (as caused by IIR filters) in the audio path.
It does NOT signify how any given signal will sound at equal settings.

The test tone was generated by a standard sawtooth wave, oversampled 8x (minimum phase) and Hilbert transformed to shift all phases by 90 degrees. It would have been better to have a linear phase oversampling on the sawtooth but it was unavailable.
Important to note that this test hides aliasing of each unit because the tone frequency is an integer divisor of the sampling rate. This improves the display of the spectrum, but the aliasing still exists as minute level changes in what is displayed.

Since the topologies are so different, I had to choose how to set Limitless to best compare to the less modifiable SmoothLimiter. In all cases of limiting, Limitless' dynamics control is set to 100 as both units have auto-release, and SL was set to full AR. Also in addition to the wideband mode, I only used the default band placements for the MB test, and the slope was set to 12dB. When the limiter was tested, no input clipping was used, but SL uses clipping automatically even when limiting, and I could not get a distinct idea of how to set the LM clipper to compare. The envelope shape of LM was tested also and differences in settings are marked in the WAV with markers. SL will have a new de-emphasis control to help limit intermodulation.

Limiter test WAV file

Please be careful with the volume of this file if listening, it is very harsh and probably not good for speakers.
The first half of the file is the raw tests, each normalized. The second half (which I recommend you don't play through speakers) is each test DC centered (using Edison's center waveform function, a windowed average) and re-normalized to show the DC level.

Post

So there's lots of tradeoffs in limiters between RMS and peak level based on how they intermodulate or generate sidebands by enveloping. Just reducing peaks over time by enveloping for the sake of keeping them below 0dB is fine, but sounds like the test signal show how intermodulation can become a filter like effect and actually improve the quality in some cases.

Post

^^^ Dude knows his stuff :)

Speaking of lower priced limiters - any experience with this one? It looks like a poke at Waves:
https://www.jrrshop.com/nomad-factory-e-3b-maximizer

Post

MogwaiBoy wrote:^^^ Dude knows his stuff :)

Speaking of lower priced limiters - any experience with this one? It looks like a poke at Waves:
https://www.jrrshop.com/nomad-factory-e-3b-maximizer
no.

Post

MogwaiBoy wrote:^^^ Dude knows his stuff :)

Speaking of lower priced limiters - any experience with this one? It looks like a poke at Waves:
https://www.jrrshop.com/nomad-factory-e-3b-maximizer
Its ancient
Amazon: why not use an alternative

Post

VariKusBrainZ wrote:
MogwaiBoy wrote:^^^ Dude knows his stuff :)

Speaking of lower priced limiters - any experience with this one? It looks like a poke at Waves:
https://www.jrrshop.com/nomad-factory-e-3b-maximizer
Its ancient
How about this one then? OK it's mainly a compressor but it does limiting too - and is well inside the pricerange.

http://www.klanghelm.com/DC8C.php

Post

MogwaiBoy wrote:
VariKusBrainZ wrote:
MogwaiBoy wrote:^^^ Dude knows his stuff :)

Speaking of lower priced limiters - any experience with this one? It looks like a poke at Waves:
https://www.jrrshop.com/nomad-factory-e-3b-maximizer
Its ancient
How about this one then? OK it's mainly a compressor but it does limiting too - and is well inside the pricerange.

http://www.klanghelm.com/DC8C.php
Did you check out the LVC plugins?

http://lvcaudio.com/plugins/limited-max
“Limited-MAX is a flexible master bus limiter that delivers results on a par with the more pricey competition. Impressive!” – 4.5 out of 5 star review from musicradar.
Amazon: why not use an alternative

Post

LVC's is quite nice, I like the style adjustment.

Post Reply

Return to “Effects”