Please note it's not an in-depth comparison, yes i could/should have played with Pro-L2 modes and time constants. I'm not trying to null them, just willing to give a rough impression of where these tools can take you. Yes Newflanged Elevate limiter cracks first BUT its clipper is amazing and i LOVE the transient enhance tool when needed. It's not about choosing one that would be BETTER than others but knowing what tool you need/want for what job.
I have the feeling i am going to like this channel. Subbed. That said, what i missed is that you are switching for example to Limitless but do not show what settings you are using, what mode etc . Limitless has so many options i always like to know what was used in an example cause they have huge differences in my experience. As i said before, in LimitOne i find the waveform visualizer so low resolution that they might as well leave it out of the plugin.
@saardean4481 thanks for the feedback and you're totally right about me just scratching the surface with limitless. It was the basic default setting when loading it. Same goes for Pro-L2. Indeed they offer a very broader palette and playing with the modes, lookahead, attack/release times are making tremendous differences... so big that it becomes a headache to try comparing them... I had in mind doing one day a video where I try to get them to null or to really squash some masters and see how far I could push things without adding too much disto but I don't know how relevant this is. I think having a general idea of where a tool goes is the starting point and while using it you fine tune your use. For example I noticed elevate can be cleaner and more respectful of the transients than proL2 but then somehow with heavy bass material it kinda eq's out the lows changing the tonal balance. It this kind of case I had better results with klcip3 multiband before hitting proL2 keeping more the tone and the punch, yet limitless does this naturally and in a very clean way, but then sometimes that little grit is what gives more character to a track... how to put all this in a shootout? If you have some ideas I'm all ears as at the end it's a path of continous trying and learning :) Thanks for your interest !
Part 2: While i have tested most these limiters i think it would still be an interesting video. You could make it in a „how far can each tool go?“, try them before filming and then prepare the video with only the essential parts-conclusions since you will not have to find out while filming. This might save you video time and make it more interesting and less fatiguing to watch. So i imagine you will have your notes for each plugin and then in the video show-do a quick run-conclude to WHERE you ended with the settings and WHY you chose them-what do you hear. In my experience the limiters fall apart at different points and in different ways so people would find it interesting. I would find it interesting. You seem like you have aa very competent ear and you are down to earth and admit your flaws. That is meant as a compliment.
@@saardean4481 thank you very much for the thorrough feedback, much appreciated! I totally agree about being more "efficient" / catchy for the "youtube game". To be honest not only is it an exercise that is totally new to me but also i wanted to jump on the spot trying LimitOne and felt like "not cheating" while just shooting the whole video. I still wonder what's best, making "editorial choices" and just showing my conclusions or giving content on which people can make their own conclusions... Because at the end no-one is holder of the absolute truth and life is a path a (self)learning while both straightening and breaking previous beliefs and assumptions :) Again thank you very much for your attention and kindness, it's very touching!
The most difficult thing a developer can achieve is absolute transparency. An ideal limiter should neither colour nor distort. It is well known that Limitless is the best in this respect and is therefore used by many mastering engineers. The question is: Is it still better than Limitone? I would appreciate a more detailed comparison between the two. Pro-L2 and all the others are good, but not like Limitless.
@Hasan-bl3fo IMHO the beauty of LimitOne is the blend from transparent to a more gritty sound that is just another layer of "texturing"(or not) your sound in a very smooth and progressive way. I don't see it as better or worse I see it as a tool to grab if ever the mix received is a bit too sterile and your usual coloring tools don't get the job nailed, it's another tool in the toolbox to go towards a desired goal
Thank you for mentioning and you're totally right Ursa Dsp Boost is an amazing piece of gear but works totally differently (upwards instead of downwards as the traditional limiters) hence not being featured here but indeed in the quest of loudness it's an very interesting piece of gear! In fact i started years ago with parallel comp/limiting on my masters to get some extra dB when needed, then switched to waves MV2 (just a touch as it can sometimes behave weirdly), later i just used Ozone maximiser for the upward part (not the clipper and limiter) then i discovered Ursa Dsp Boost and it made its spot in my chain, again only when mixes have a very high crest factor and the genre of music (electronic played by dj's) requires to fit in a specific loudness ballpark.
Pretty sure the clipper is *always on* and what you're doing by going from 0 to 100 is going from soft to hard clipping. Also very confused by how the "quality" of the delta signal would be relevant to test - it is literally what the limiter is "taking away" from the audio.
Hi, and thx for your interest! As per the manual "clipping parameter controls the balance between Pufferfish and Hedgehog. Move this parameter closer to 100 for harder clipping characteristics. Default setting is 0." When it comes to listening to the delta it's not what the plug-in removes from the signal it's the difference between processed and unprocessed. The difference is both what is removed and what is added (mostly distortion). It's a common practice to monitor the delta in order to clearly hear what/how a clipper/limiter alters the signal. Is the delta clean and "spiky" or dirty , are only the transients altered or also the body of the sound, does the low end in the delta remains clean/clear or does it become saturated. Ultimately you make your final decisions listening to the audio not the delta but it's a very handy starting point to use as kind of magnifying glass to know what to pay attention to when listening to the resulting processed audio.
@@incidence.studiodelta is indeed the "difference", which means what the process adds and what it removes - and a limiter is of course known for "removing peaks" (while also adding distortion to some extent). I do not understand how this would be a way of comparing limiters out of any context. As for the clipping, that sounds like what I wrote :)
@@lastboxofsparklers i think you must have misread the manual... "pufferfish" is the limiter mode and "hedgehog" is the name they give to their clipper... look they even phrase it like this on their website "Variable control over the balance between softer limiting or hard clipping" ... when you look at the signal path it enters first the (soft) limiting then feeds the hard clipper. As for the delta you might think it's irrelevant, that's up to you but companies like fabfilter and izotope are integrating this in their limiters for quite some time as monitoring the delta is a nice magnifying glass of what happens to your signal. For a same given amount of gain reduction it makes it easy to hear how much distortion the plugin is adding to the signal, how clean (or jittery) the transients are removed and if the remaining low end you hear is "pure" or distorted. Again final decision should always be made while listening to the resulting audio (hence the fact the second part of the video is made while listening how the resulting audio sounds but i stand by my point that monitoring the delta is a great starting point to know easily what to pay attention to. cheers
Part 1: Its all good. I still enjoyed the video. Because i own Limitless and in this case know how different the modes can be this is why i wondered what you used. For example Aggressive vs Transparent is like using a different plugin. Its that big of a difference. It is impossible to show all aspects of every plugins in shoot outs like this i know or else the video will be days long. You say: I try to get them to null or to really squash some masters and see how far I could push things without adding too much disto but I don't know how relevant this is..
Part 1: Its all good. I still enjoyed the video. Because i own Limitless and in this case know how different the modes can be this is why i wondered what you used. For example Aggressive vs Transparent is like using a different plugin. Its that big of a difference. It is impossible to show all aspects of every plugins in shoot outs like this i know or else the video will be days long.
Please note it's not an in-depth comparison, yes i could/should have played with Pro-L2 modes and time constants. I'm not trying to null them, just willing to give a rough impression of where these tools can take you.
Yes Newflanged Elevate limiter cracks first BUT its clipper is amazing and i LOVE the transient enhance tool when needed.
It's not about choosing one that would be BETTER than others but knowing what tool you need/want for what job.
I have the feeling i am going to like this channel. Subbed.
That said, what i missed is that you are switching for example to Limitless but do not show what settings you are using, what mode etc . Limitless has so many options i always like to know what was used in an example cause they have huge differences in my experience.
As i said before, in LimitOne i find the waveform visualizer so low resolution that they might as well leave it out of the plugin.
@saardean4481 thanks for the feedback and you're totally right about me just scratching the surface with limitless. It was the basic default setting when loading it. Same goes for Pro-L2. Indeed they offer a very broader palette and playing with the modes, lookahead, attack/release times are making tremendous differences... so big that it becomes a headache to try comparing them... I had in mind doing one day a video where I try to get them to null or to really squash some masters and see how far I could push things without adding too much disto but I don't know how relevant this is. I think having a general idea of where a tool goes is the starting point and while using it you fine tune your use. For example I noticed elevate can be cleaner and more respectful of the transients than proL2 but then somehow with heavy bass material it kinda eq's out the lows changing the tonal balance. It this kind of case I had better results with klcip3 multiband before hitting proL2 keeping more the tone and the punch, yet limitless does this naturally and in a very clean way, but then sometimes that little grit is what gives more character to a track... how to put all this in a shootout? If you have some ideas I'm all ears as at the end it's a path of continous trying and learning :)
Thanks for your interest !
Part 2: While i have tested most these limiters i think it would still be an interesting video.
You could make it in a „how far can each tool go?“, try them before filming and then prepare the video with only the essential parts-conclusions since you will not have to find out while filming. This might save you video time and make it more interesting and less fatiguing to watch. So i imagine you will have your notes for each plugin and then in the video show-do a quick run-conclude to WHERE you ended with the settings and WHY you chose them-what do you hear. In my experience the limiters fall apart at different points and in different ways so people would find it interesting.
I would find it interesting. You seem like you have aa very competent ear and you are down to earth and admit your flaws. That is meant as a compliment.
@@incidence.studio my comments keep disappearing. I cant for the love of God post the first part. I love YT . Really annoying
@@saardean4481 weird indeed i saw your comment on part 1 as notification and as soon as i clicked it disappeared :(
@@saardean4481 thank you very much for the thorrough feedback, much appreciated!
I totally agree about being more "efficient" / catchy for the "youtube game". To be honest not only is it an exercise that is totally new to me but also i wanted to jump on the spot trying LimitOne and felt like "not cheating" while just shooting the whole video. I still wonder what's best, making "editorial choices" and just showing my conclusions or giving content on which people can make their own conclusions...
Because at the end no-one is holder of the absolute truth and life is a path a (self)learning while both straightening and breaking previous beliefs and assumptions :)
Again thank you very much for your attention and kindness, it's very touching!
The most difficult thing a developer can achieve is absolute transparency. An ideal limiter should neither colour nor distort. It is well known that Limitless is the best in this respect and is therefore used by many mastering engineers. The question is: Is it still better than Limitone?
I would appreciate a more detailed comparison between the two.
Pro-L2 and all the others are good, but not like Limitless.
@Hasan-bl3fo IMHO the beauty of LimitOne is the blend from transparent to a more gritty sound that is just another layer of "texturing"(or not) your sound in a very smooth and progressive way. I don't see it as better or worse I see it as a tool to grab if ever the mix received is a bit too sterile and your usual coloring tools don't get the job nailed, it's another tool in the toolbox to go towards a desired goal
Nothing beats Ursa Dsp Boost
Thank you for mentioning and you're totally right Ursa Dsp Boost is an amazing piece of gear but works totally differently (upwards instead of downwards as the traditional limiters) hence not being featured here but indeed in the quest of loudness it's an very interesting piece of gear!
In fact i started years ago with parallel comp/limiting on my masters to get some extra dB when needed, then switched to waves MV2 (just a touch as it can sometimes behave weirdly), later i just used Ozone maximiser for the upward part (not the clipper and limiter) then i discovered Ursa Dsp Boost and it made its spot in my chain, again only when mixes have a very high crest factor and the genre of music (electronic played by dj's) requires to fit in a specific loudness ballpark.
@@incidence.studio even my answer here keeps disappearing. Whatever. Who knows how this algorithm works
Pretty sure the clipper is *always on* and what you're doing by going from 0 to 100 is going from soft to hard clipping. Also very confused by how the "quality" of the delta signal would be relevant to test - it is literally what the limiter is "taking away" from the audio.
Hi, and thx for your interest!
As per the manual "clipping parameter controls the balance between Pufferfish and
Hedgehog. Move this parameter closer to 100 for harder clipping
characteristics.
Default setting is 0."
When it comes to listening to the delta it's not what the plug-in removes from the signal it's the difference between processed and unprocessed. The difference is both what is removed and what is added (mostly distortion). It's a common practice to monitor the delta in order to clearly hear what/how a clipper/limiter alters the signal. Is the delta clean and "spiky" or dirty , are only the transients altered or also the body of the sound, does the low end in the delta remains clean/clear or does it become saturated. Ultimately you make your final decisions listening to the audio not the delta but it's a very handy starting point to use as kind of magnifying glass to know what to pay attention to when listening to the resulting processed audio.
@@incidence.studiodelta is indeed the "difference", which means what the process adds and what it removes - and a limiter is of course known for "removing peaks" (while also adding distortion to some extent). I do not understand how this would be a way of comparing limiters out of any context. As for the clipping, that sounds like what I wrote :)
@@lastboxofsparklers i think you must have misread the manual... "pufferfish" is the limiter mode and "hedgehog" is the name they give to their clipper... look they even phrase it like this on their website "Variable control over the balance between softer limiting or hard clipping" ... when you look at the signal path it enters first the (soft) limiting then feeds the hard clipper.
As for the delta you might think it's irrelevant, that's up to you but companies like fabfilter and izotope are integrating this in their limiters for quite some time as monitoring the delta is a nice magnifying glass of what happens to your signal. For a same given amount of gain reduction it makes it easy to hear how much distortion the plugin is adding to the signal, how clean (or jittery) the transients are removed and if the remaining low end you hear is "pure" or distorted. Again final decision should always be made while listening to the resulting audio (hence the fact the second part of the video is made while listening how the resulting audio sounds but i stand by my point that monitoring the delta is a great starting point to know easily what to pay attention to.
cheers
Part 1: Its all good. I still enjoyed the video. Because i own Limitless and in this case know how different the modes can be this is why i wondered what you used. For example Aggressive vs Transparent is like using a different plugin. Its that big of a difference.
It is impossible to show all aspects of every plugins in shoot outs like this i know or else the video will be days long.
You say: I try to get them to null or to really squash some masters and see how far I could push things without adding too much disto but I don't know how relevant this is..
finally it appeared :)
Part 1: Its all good. I still enjoyed the video. Because i own Limitless and in this case know how different the modes can be this is why i wondered what you used. For example Aggressive vs Transparent is like using a different plugin. Its that big of a difference.
It is impossible to show all aspects of every plugins in shoot outs like this i know or else the video will be days long.