[Trevor]

On 14/10/2015 2:02 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
Many samples?

At least 3 or more. (genuine square waves excluded) And as I have said,
some CD's have HUNDREDS of consecutive samples at maximum level, and
often many similar groups in one song. IF there are only 3 in fact I'm
not worried in the slightest, when there are hundreds I am. That is far
more common with pop CD's these days than many people seem to think,
simply because they never look.

Well, that's the degenerate case. Those CDs are clearly clipped. But I'm
talking about the borderline cases, because that's where it gets interesting.

Few borderline cases in the pop world any more.

At what point does limiting end and clipping begin?

As soon as the knee ends and maximum level is reached for at least 3 or
more samples. I'm surprised you don't understand this already It's not
rocket science!

That's a good definition. Although... I might decide it is 2 samples or
8 samples and be able to make a good argument for those too.

Go ahead. As I said 3 doesn't bother me, it's just a minimum. 8 would
mean I've done something wrong, but 1000 doesn't bother some mastering
engineers! :-(


I'm totally amazed that someone with your experience still doesn't have
a vague notion of what clipping actually is. It can occur anywhere in
the chain, and is independent of final level. Just like you can clip a
Mackie mixers mix bus, even if the output fader is well below maximum.
In fact you can clip a single channel on ANY mixer, without clipping the
mixer output, or amplifier input. THAT channel is STILL clipped!!!

Oh, I have a vague notion of what clipping actually is.... and a vague notion
of what limiting actually is.... but I can think of a LOT of examples that
are sitting directly on the border. I don't want a vague notion, I want a
precise mathematical description.

I gave you one above, and it's widely accepted by lots of recording
people, other than yourself.


My line might be "if you can hear it, it's clipping, if you can't, it's
limiting." That's no less vague, though.

Right, that is simply subjective, the accepted (by everyone else)
definition I gave is NOT.

Trevor.