Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #123   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On 10/14/2015 1:03 AM, gray_wolf wrote:
I presume this is where the exciter comes in. Adding harmonics while
making not it sound like a fuzz box .


If you're talking about the Aphex Aural Exciter, that added 2nd harmonics.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #125   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On 10/14/2015 3:47 AM, John Williamson wrote:
Apart from the simplest case of a pair of back to back diodes across the
signal path, a limiter running within its design spec shuold not
noticeably clip the waveform, as they work by reducing the gain in an
amplifier stage according to the input level.


A limiter reduces the gain above the threshold, but with sufficiently
fast rise time, it doesn't change the slew rate of the waveform. This
changes the shape of the waveform, and that's, by definition, distortion.

"Clipping" is a specific case of distortion, but it seems to have
entered the public domain to mean anything that makes all the waveform
peaks the same amplitude.

Compression can, and often is used to modify the rise and fall times of
a waveform, which can significantly alter timbre. You can think of it as
working like a synthesizer that has adjustable attack and release times.
But when used as means to reduce dynamic range, the attack and release
times are slow enough so that they operate on the envelope (many cycles)
rather than individual cycles. The waveform isn't buggered once the gain
change stabilizes for a few cycles.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com


  #126   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On 14/10/2015 6:47 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 14/10/2015 03:13, Trevor wrote:
On 14/10/2015 7:20 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 2:34:38 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
:
Hmmm.. When I limit(flat top) a pure sine wave, even by
just .5dB, it sounds different to me

if you flat top it, then it is not limiting, it is clipping
that is the essesnce of the difference


So you think a limiter cannot cause clipping? I guess you have no idea
what one does then!

Apart from the simplest case of a pair of back to back diodes across the
signal path, a limiter running within its design spec shuold not
noticeably clip the waveform, as they work by reducing the gain in an
amplifier stage according to the input level.


Absolute BS. They work however the operator sets the knobs. BUT the
whole point of a limiter as opposed to a compressor is to catch
unexpected transients, and since the output is finite, at some point it
MAY clip when doing the job it is designed to do! Of course if there are
NO unexpected transients that exceed the knee of the limiter it will not
clip, in which case you probably didn't need it and a compressor would
have done the job better. But in a live situation you don't always know
that. And in a studio I would never use a limiter myself. (as opposed to
a compressor)
And to be clear, just because a single box MAY contain both a compressor
and a limiter, they are still 2 separate processes from a technical
aspect. Many here just don't seem to grasp that.

Trevor.


  #127   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

thekma @ thekma.thekma.thek.ma ranted and drooled in message
...
"You've been making a huge stinking public display of what you don't
understand, for some years now. What makes you think nobody would
notice"

YOU HAVEN'T CONTRIBUTED ANYTHING TO THIS CONVERSATION - SO BUTT OUT,


Despite your little caps-lock toddler tantrum, the fact remains that
you have made a huge display of what you don't understand. Anyone
who's been reading this groups for any significant amount of time
knows a lot about what you don't understand, and your denial of that
fact is pathetic. And here you are, back to your tricks of not
understanding something that's been explained to you in detail, over
and over and over and over again. And whining like the little bitch
you are, when someone mentions what you don't understand.

SO BUTT OUT,


Despite your little caps-lock toddler tantrum, the fact remains that
you are not the moderator. You aren't allowed in moderated groups,
because you're not smart enough to follow the rules. So here you are
on Usenet, where nobody can moderate you. And you can't moderate
anyone. Sucks to be you.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DID TO OFFEND YOU, AND YOU NEVER TOLD ME.


Despite your little caps-lock toddler tantrum, the fact remains that
you have been told this, repeatedly, and you just ignore it. Every day
is like groundhog day to you, you start with a clean slate of
dumb****ery.

(The rest of your "filthy diatribe" has been flushed.)

Please, put on your hockey helmet, and get back on the short bus. If
you want to know the answers to your little questions, just go back
and re-read all the explanations that have been given to you in the
years since you decided to ride your little hobby horse in this group.
All the answers are there, if you only had a brain. (Doo doot, doo
doodoodoodoo doot). YRATSAY? FCKWAGFA!




  #129   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
A transformation T is linear iff

T(a*x1 + b*x2) = a*T(x1) + b*T(x2)

So let's consider a very simple limiter that does this:

L(x) = x, |x| 1
L(x) = sgn(x) * 1, |x| = 1.

Is this linear by the definition above? Nope. Here's
a simple counterexample.

Let x1 = 0.75, x2 = 0.75, a = 1, and b = 1. Then


a*T(x1) + b*T(x2) = 1 * 0.75 + 1 * 0.75
= 1.5

but

T(a*x1 + b*x2) = T(1.5) = 1.

Not linear.


Signals and Systems 101. Nothing better than to the heart of the
issue.

However, the debate will rage on, fueled by opinion, lore, ignorance,
sloppy terminology, and of course, hobbyhorse dumb****ery.

  #130   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

In article , Trevor wrote:
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.


I don't live in the pop world. I'm an engineer. I live in the math world.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #131   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

In article , Trevor wrote:

But you do appear to be claiming that all limiting is 'clipping',
which is crap.


Dunno where how you managed to extrapolate that out of anything I've
said! In fact I have been VERY clear to spell it out even if you can't
read or understand. Let me try once more for the slow learners, Limiting
CAN become clipping when the knee (if there is one) is past.
Not all limiting causes clipping, but it certainly CAN!


If you haven't passed the knee, you aren't limiting. Below the knee, the
transfer function is 1:1. Above the knee, it's not.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #132   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 8:55:19 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
A transformation T is linear iff

T(a*x1 + b*x2) = a*T(x1) + b*T(x2)

So let's consider a very simple limiter that does this:

L(x) = x, |x| 1
L(x) = sgn(x) * 1, |x| = 1.

Is this linear by the definition above? Nope. Here's
a simple counterexample.



Hi Randy,
agreed, except that what is described above I would call a clipper, not a limiter...

If it alters the envelope AND the waveform, its a clipper.

If it alters only the envelope and NOT the waveform, its a limiter, compressor or AGC.

Mark

  #133   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

Limiting is not more than special case of compression ie compression with
infinite ratio. All the attack, release, envelope, waveform ... talk is an
unnecessarry waste of energy.

Also, IMO, signal may be clipped, but clipping is the gear, pushed to work out of
speced range of operaation. The result is seen as charachteristic distortion
of the waveform, but that is just a sign the gear was pushed into clipping, so it
produced such a waveform which we've conveniently named "clipped" after the
clipping gear that produced it.
  #136   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

Limiting is not more than special case of compression ie compression with
infinite ratio. All the attack, release, envelope, waveform ... talk is an
unnecessarry waste of energy.

Also, IMO, signal may be clipped, but clipping is the gear, pushed to work out of
speced range of operation. The result is seen as charachteristic distortion
of the waveform, but that is just a sign the gear was pushed into "clipping",
so it produced such a waveform, with clipped tops, so we've conveniently named process after the looks of it. What I want to say, clipped waveform is not a
problem unless produced by clipping gear. As I already said in my previous post.
  #137   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

Ñреда, 14. октобар 2015. 17.38.38 UTC+2, Randy Yates је напиÑао/ла:
I also do not know what you mean by the terms "envelope" and
"waveform" in this context.


Mike Rivers introduced those into discussion, Mark is merely building on it..
  #138   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On 10/14/2015 11:38 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
I also do not know what you mean by the terms "envelope" and
"waveform" in this context.


Envelope is a line drawn through the peaks of every cycle over whatever
period of time you want to look at. In the context that y'all are
arguing about here, it would likely be a whole song. If it's darn near a
straight line with no squiggles, that's what we call "toothpaste tube"
limiting. The amplitude value may not be full scale but it might as well
be - it won't sound any worse than if the envelope is flat-topped at -6
dBFS, but it'll be louder.

The waveform is what you see when you blow up the display so that you
can see individual cycles. You can see the peak level of each cycle, and
whatever goes up, comes down. It's the peaks of the waveform that you
connect to get the envelope.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #139   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

Mike Rivers writes:

arguing about here, it would likely be a whole song. If it's darn near a
straight line with no squiggles, that's what we call "toothpaste tube"
limiting. The amplitude value may not be full scale but it might as well


Must be a regional thing. Out west we call it "cinderblock" limiting. Picture a raw
cinderblock in profile, and then a bunch of them lined up in a row (the waveforms of
the songs on your favorite mashed album displayed in your DAW, for example).

Hard, rough, gray, brittle, unmoving. "Toothpaste" sounds too benign. w

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
  #140   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 11:34:52 AM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
writes:

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 8:55:19 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
A transformation T is linear iff

T(a*x1 + b*x2) = a*T(x1) + b*T(x2)

So let's consider a very simple limiter that does this:

L(x) = x, |x| 1
L(x) = sgn(x) * 1, |x| = 1.

Is this linear by the definition above? Nope. Here's
a simple counterexample.



Hi Randy,
agreed, except that what is described above I would call a clipper, not a limiter...

If it alters the envelope AND the waveform, its a clipper.

If it alters only the envelope and NOT the waveform, its a limiter, compressor or AGC.

Mark


Hi Mark,

Define envelope. Define waveform.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com



see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envelope_(waves)

Blue is the waveform

red and green are the envelopes which for audio work are almost always the inverse of each other

or see Richard Lyons's book page 366 in the 2nd edition

he defines it mathematically as the abs value of the complex analytical signal

which = sqrt of real part squared + imaginary part squared






  #141   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

Luxey wrote:
Limiting is not more than special case of compression ie compression with
infinite ratio. All the attack, release, envelope, waveform ... talk is an
unnecessarry waste of energy.


This is true. But clipping is just a special case of limiting if you look
at it that way... with a much more discontinuous knee.

Also, IMO, signal may be clipped, but clipping is the gear, pushed to work out of
speced range of operaation. The result is seen as charachteristic distortion
of the waveform, but that is just a sign the gear was pushed into clipping, so it
produced such a waveform which we've conveniently named "clipped" after the
clipping gear that produced it.


The thing is, even soft knee limiting can produce some amount of that
distortion. The question is how much makes it clipping? That puts us back
to the definition of "if you can hear it working it's clipping and not limiting"
which is good but not very rigorous.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #142   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

Luxey wrote:
=D1=81=D1=80=D0=B5=D0=B4=D0=B0, 14. =D0=BE=D0=BA=D1=82=D0=BE=D0=B1=D0=B0=D1=
=80 2015. 17.38.38 UTC+2, Randy Yates =D1=98=D0=B5 =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=
=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BE/=D0=BB=D0=B0:
I also do not know what you mean by the terms "envelope" and=20
"waveform" in this context.


Mike Rivers introduced those into discussion, Mark is merely building on it=
.


It's true though that you can't alter one without altering the other in some
way. They are both different ways of _thinking about_ an arbitrary function.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #143   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,481
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On 15/10/2015 5:19 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/14/2015 11:38 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
I also do not know what you mean by the terms "envelope" and
"waveform" in this context.


Envelope is a line drawn through the peaks of every cycle over
whatever period of time you want to look at. In the context that y'all
are arguing about here, it would likely be a whole song. If it's darn
near a straight line with no squiggles, that's what we call
"toothpaste tube" limiting. The amplitude value may not be full scale
but it might as well be - it won't sound any worse than if the
envelope is flat-topped at -6 dBFS, but it'll be louder.

The waveform is what you see when you blow up the display so that you
can see individual cycles. You can see the peak level of each cycle,
and whatever goes up, comes down. It's the peaks of the waveform that
you connect to get the envelope.


Or 'waveform' is the shape of individual cycles, and 'envelope' is the
outline of a bunch of cycles over time (as when zoomed out).

geoff
  #144   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,481
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On 15/10/2015 7:08 a.m., Frank Stearns wrote:
Mike Rivers writes:

arguing about here, it would likely be a whole song. If it's darn near a
straight line with no squiggles, that's what we call "toothpaste tube"
limiting. The amplitude value may not be full scale but it might as well

Must be a regional thing. Out west we call it "cinderblock" limiting. Picture a raw
cinderblock in profile, and then a bunch of them lined up in a row (the waveforms of
the songs on your favorite mashed album displayed in your DAW, for example).

Hard, rough, gray, brittle, unmoving. "Toothpaste" sounds too benign. w


Much of the world has no idea what a cinderblock is or looks like. I
guess 'toothpaste tube or sausage may fail by that logic too though ...

;-)

geoff
  #145   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,481
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On 15/10/2015 9:22 a.m., geoff wrote:



Or 'waveform' is the shape of individual cycles, and 'envelope' is
the outline of a bunch of cycles over time (as when zoomed out).

geoff



.... but I'm sure Trev will find a way to lambast me for my apparent
ignorance on this subject too ;-)

geoff


  #146   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

geoff wrote:

Or 'waveform' is the shape of individual cycles, and 'envelope' is the
outline of a bunch of cycles over time (as when zoomed out).


If you take the waveform and take the absolute value and low-pass it, you
get the envelope. But how far do you have to low-pass it for it to be the
envelope? Depends.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #147   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

Randy Yates wrote: "- show quoted text -
Hi Mark,

Define envelope. Define waveform.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com "

THANK YOU VERY MUCH for asking this!

Because frankly, NOBODY has satisfactorily
distinguished the two!
  #148   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,481
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On 15/10/2015 10:09 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
Or 'waveform' is the shape of individual cycles, and 'envelope' is the
outline of a bunch of cycles over time (as when zoomed out).

If you take the waveform and take the absolute value and low-pass it, you
get the envelope. But how far do you have to low-pass it for it to be the
envelope? Depends.
--scott


Depends on the context of what is being described. Envelope of a
half-dozen cycles, or a whole song, or album.

The joys of 'visual low pass filtering' - a simple flick of the
mouse-wheel to achieve each scenario !

geoff
  #149   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,481
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On 15/10/2015 10:29 a.m., wrote:
Randy Yates wrote: "- show quoted text -
Hi Mark,

Define envelope. Define waveform.


Clearly explained to you many many times, including with pictures.
Apparently to no avail ....

geoff
  #150   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

thekma @ gmail.com wrote in message news:7335a01f-be1a-4e3e-9659
Because frankly, NOBODY has satisfactorily distinguished the two!


Dorsey just posted a concise and useful definition (below). Perhaps
you were too busy ranting to notice.

"If you take the waveform and take the absolute value and low-pass it,
you get the envelope. But how far do you have to low-pass it for it
to be the envelope? Depends."






  #151   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On 10/14/2015 4:24 PM, geoff wrote:
Much of the world has no idea what a cinderblock is or looks like. I
guess 'toothpaste tube or sausage may fail by that logic too though ...


I don't know about toothpaste, but practically every nationality has
sausage of some sort, though the word might need translation.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #152   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

Scott Dorsey:

An analogy with a city skyline: The individual buildings are
the waveform, while an imaginary line from the top of each
building to the next would be the envelope. But remember:
the 'envelope' is just an outline.
  #153   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On 10/14/2015 6:09 PM, None wrote:
Dorsey just posted a concise and useful definition (below). Perhaps you
were too busy ranting to notice.

"If you take the waveform and take the absolute value and low-pass it,
you get the envelope. But how far do you have to low-pass it for it to
be the envelope? Depends."


That's not a definition, it's a mathematical process. The terms here
have been explained several times. Anyone who cares and doesn't
understand what they mean must not understand something more fundamental.

The pictures are good. They explain all you need to know. What you do
with that information, however, depends.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #154   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

No^#%.\!{:

I said ZIP IT unless something other than ****
is going to flow from your keyboard!
  #156   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

krissie krybaby @ dumb****sRthekma.shortbus.edu wrote in message
...
No^#%.\!{:

I said ZIP IT unless something other than ****
is going to flow from your keyboard!


I see that you're still ignoring the hell out of me. Have you noticed
that when you tell me to shut up, it doesn't work? No, just because
it's happened hundreds of times, you haven't noticed, because you're
an idiot. Not a moderator; an idiot. IHTSIYC. WAFTH.


  #157   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

krissie krybaby @ dumb****sRthekma.shortbus.edu wrote in message
...
No^#%.\!{:

I said ZIP IT unless something other than ****
is going to flow from your keyboard!


I see that you're still ignoring the hell out of me. Have you noticed
that when you tell me to shut up, it doesn't work? No, just because
it's happened hundreds of times, you haven't noticed, because you're
an idiot. Not a moderator; an idiot. IHTSIYC. WAFTH.


  #158   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

Mike Rivers wrote: "understand what they mean must not understand something more fundamental.

The pictures are good. They explain all you need to know. What you do
with that information, however, depends. "

Word games played all too often on
here....

Hey Mike: you good friends with Donald
Rumsfeld? 'Cause you sure sound like
him above! lol
  #160   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default 0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering

On 15/10/2015 12:38 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:

But you do appear to be claiming that all limiting is 'clipping',
which is crap.


Dunno where how you managed to extrapolate that out of anything I've
said! In fact I have been VERY clear to spell it out even if you can't
read or understand. Let me try once more for the slow learners, Limiting
CAN become clipping when the knee (if there is one) is past.
Not all limiting causes clipping, but it certainly CAN!


If you haven't passed the knee, you aren't limiting.


You mean if you haven't *reached* the knee, then of course.


Below the knee, the transfer function is 1:1. Above the knee, it's not.


Well duh.

Trevor.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reference Levels for Editing, Broadcasting and Mastering hskiray Pro Audio 3 April 2nd 08 09:24 PM
Digital Levels on CD's Steve[_3_] Pro Audio 16 December 8th 07 03:22 AM
Mastering output levels. Barry Pro Audio 45 May 18th 07 12:15 PM
Mixdown Levels--Mastering? [email protected] Pro Audio 7 April 19th 05 03:55 PM
"0dBFS+ Level in Audio Production." Nick H Pro Audio 13 September 29th 03 04:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:49 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"