[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Don't need to, more than 3 or so consecutive samples at dFS is usually
considered over, (unless it's a test recording of a square wave) how far
over is irrelevent to the definition (if not the sound), it's still
clipped.

Strange, the Tascam machines don't light the over light until five
consecutive
FS samples occur. And my RTW bench meter lights the over light when only
two
consecutive ones do.

Well 2 is clearly wrong (but safe) while 5 is certainly better than the
100's you commonly see these days, but being a little generous.
That's why I said 3 OR SO, and NOT hundreds as many seem to accept.

Trevor.

[Mark]

semantically speaking

a limiter or compressor changes gain slowly and modifies primary the
ENVELOPE of the signal and does not modify the instantaneous
waveform.. it does this by having an attack and decay time that is
longer compared to the cycle to cycle waveform but shorter compared to
the envelope changes.

a clipper has a very fast attack and decay time and changes gain
faster then the cycle to cycle time and therefore does modify the
waveform.

the distinction between limiting/compression and clipping therefore is
the SPEED of the gain change i.e. the attack and decay times...

this is distinct from the slope or ratio, Clippers, limiters and
compressors can have various slopes... the term brickwall would mean a
large slope or ratio.

A brickwall limiter would have a large slope so the signal level would
not increase above threshold but the attack and decay would be slow so
as not to change the waveform too much, it still looks like a sinewave

A brickwall clipper also has a large slope and has a fast attack/decay
so it slices the waveform.

Mark





the distinction

[Trevor]

"Mark" wrote in message
...

A brickwall limiter would have a large slope so the signal level would
not increase above threshold but the attack and decay would be slow so
as not to change the waveform too much, it still looks like a sinewave

Well that's an interesting interpretation of a "brick wall limiter", not
shared by many other audio pro's that I've ever met. Can you point out a
commercial BRICK WALL limiter that meets those specs?
And having a sharp cut off (as in brick wall not "slope") that prevents a
signal from any further excursion whilst NOT changing the signal shape is
only possible if the signal was below the threshold to begin with!

I though this was a PRO audio group where people had some idea of basic
concepts, terminology (and differences between compression and limiting),
apparently not.

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

I though this was a PRO audio group where people had some idea of basic
concepts, terminology (and differences between compression and limiting),
apparently not.

The pros are easy to spot: they're the ones who discuss the topic, rather than
each other.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message
...

A brickwall limiter would have a large slope so the signal level would
not increase above threshold but the attack and decay would be slow so
as not to change the waveform too much, it still looks like a sinewave

Well that's an interesting interpretation of a "brick wall limiter", not
shared by many other audio pro's that I've ever met. Can you point out a
commercial BRICK WALL limiter that meets those specs?

The L1.
--scott

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

[Anahata]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:42:56 +1100, Trevor wrote:

"Anahata" wrote in message
o.uk...
Feeding a sine wave into a "brick wall limiter" over the limiter's
threshold produces a sine wave attenuated so the peaks just reach the
threshold level.

Better look up what a "brick wall" limiter actually is. Hint: there's a
good clue in the name!

So I did. There's a good clue he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cl...o_limiting.svg

See also:
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/dr...01_compres.pdf

Where "brick wall limiting" is clearly described as an extreme
application of compression in the context of a device which is a
compressor. Under the heading "Overload protection" brick wall limiting
is described as a means of *preventing* clipping. I should have thought
that's explicit enough, or have TC Electronics (and everyone else here,
it seems) got it wrong?

This topic is getting old quickly: I'll say no more.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
The pros are easy to spot: they're the ones who discuss the topic, rather
than
each other.

So that makes you an amateur then, explains all.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
A brickwall limiter would have a large slope so the signal level would
not increase above threshold but the attack and decay would be slow so
as not to change the waveform too much, it still looks like a sinewave

Well that's an interesting interpretation of a "brick wall limiter", not
shared by many other audio pro's that I've ever met. Can you point out a
commercial BRICK WALL limiter that meets those specs?

The L1.

Does that mean you think the L1 is ONLY a "brick wall limiter"? Wave seem to
disagree with you!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Anahata" wrote in message
o.uk...
See also:
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/dr...01_compres.pdf

Where "brick wall limiting" is clearly described as an extreme
application of compression in the context of a device which is a
compressor. Under the heading "Overload protection" brick wall limiting
is described as a means of *preventing* clipping. I should have thought
that's explicit enough, or have TC Electronics (and everyone else here,
it seems) got it wrong?


Nope, but first you have to understand WHAT is being prevented from
clipping, and I already stated brick wall limiting is to stop equipment
overload/clipping, and compression is used if you want to prevent the music
from clipping.
Beyond that it is merely semantics. If you think music with long flat tops
isn't clipped, then call it whatever you want! I guess that's what the
mastering engineers have done, simply redefined the concept, and managed to
get others to follow it seems.

Trevor.

[Anahata]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:25:06 +1100, Trevor wrote:

If you think music with long flat
tops isn't clipped, then call it whatever you want!

If you're just looking at the envelope in a DAW and it has long flat
tops, it could be the result of limiting or clipping.

Zooming in till individual wave cycles are visible on the screen will
reveal which it is. Clipping and limiting are not the same and don't
sound the same or look the same. Excessive limiting doesn't sound nice,
but it isn't the same thing as clipping at the same level which would
sound even worse. That's not "merely semantics".

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Trevor]

"Anahata" wrote in message
...
If you think music with long flat
tops isn't clipped, then call it whatever you want!

If you're just looking at the envelope in a DAW and it has long flat
tops, it could be the result of limiting or clipping.
Zooming in till individual wave cycles are visible on the screen will
reveal which it is.

No **** sherlock!

Clipping and limiting are not the same and don't
sound the same or look the same. Excessive limiting doesn't sound nice,
but it isn't the same thing as clipping at the same level which would
sound even worse.

They will ONLY be different if your limiter is not a "perfect brick wall
limiter", which is ALL I ever claimed. You perhaps choose to ignore that, or
not undersatnd the basic concept of clipping.
In any case IF there are long flat tops, damage HAS been done to the music,
and maybe it won't sound bad to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't clipped.

That's not "merely semantics".

In your opinion perhaps.

Trevor.