Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 13/10/2015 8:42 p.m., Trevor wrote:
Rubbish, When someone claims clipping is not clipping simply because it's level has been post reduced, or that clipping is not clipping simply because it was done by a "limiter" that is FARRRRR from hair splitting about definitions, that is about that person not understanding the basic fundamentals of recording!!!!! Dunno where how you managed to extrapolate that out of anything I've said. But you do appear to be claiming that all limiting is 'clipping', which is crap. geoff |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 4:43:41 PM UTC-4, wrote:
geoff: STOP telling me what I don't understand! You don't know me at all. That said, here is a good diagram illustrating clipping: http://www.gmarts.org/pix/fx/fx_clip1.jpg When I utilize "hard-limiter" in a DAW, the result zoomed in looks exactly like the red lines in that diagramSo does anyone know what the F- limiting looks like in a DAW?! Limiting will maintain the sine wave shape of the WAVEFORM. Limiting can squash the ENVELOPE (what you see when you don't zoom in) Mark |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
wrote: "Limiting can and will flat top an envelope but not the waveform. "
Ok, flatten the loudest parts of a whole song envelope. But when I zoom down in my daw to individual waves what do I see? FLAT TOPS on the tallest waves! Explain THAT, professor. |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
|
#85
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
I'm going to try to distill this down as simple as i can.
Clipping will alter the WAVEFORM and the ENVELOPE. Since the waveform is altered, harmonics are created. Pure limiting will NOT alter the WAVEFORM (and hence not create harmonics) but limiting will alter the ENVELOPE of course. over and out.... Mark |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 5:02:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
wrote: "Limiting can and will flat top an envelope but not the waveform. " Ok, flatten the loudest parts of a whole song envelope. But when I zoom down in my daw to individual waves what do I see? FLAT TOPS on the tallest waves! Explain THAT, professor. Then you also have clipping Mark |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
In article ,
wrote: wrote: "Limiting can and will flat top an envelope but not the waveform. " Ok, flatten the loudest parts of a whole song envelope. But when I zoom down in my daw to individual waves what do I see? FLAT TOPS on the tallest waves! Explain THAT, professor. You might want to go back to the discussion a year or so ago where a dozen people attempted futilely to explain to you the difference between envelopes and waveforms. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 4:20:19 PM UTC-4, 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 -- I just want to know HOW to get a sinewave to clip. No crest, no sound. Flat-topping would create the harmonics. Thanks. Jack that is the essesnce of the difference Mark |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 4:43:29 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 14/10/2015 8:19 a.m., JackA wrote: O I tend to think, if I could actually clip a sine-wave, I would not hear anything for a brief moment. You couldn't clip with magnetic tape, since it just keeps saturating more. However, you may be able to do it with digital, but maybe not, where it ends up as DC, then I'd think you'd hear harmonics. Great subject. Jack " I tend to think " - yeah right .... Easy to clip program with the electronics prior to the actual tape. I know, I know, show me a clipped sinewave on an oscilloscope, smart guy!! :-) Jack geoff |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 3:42:38 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 13/10/2015 7:50 AM, geoff wrote: On 13/10/2015 3:23 a.m., Trevor wrote: On 13/10/2015 12:25 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: geoff wrote: No CD that I've purchased in the last decade exhibit clipping that I've noticed, though a few are over-compressed to hell (not many fortunately). And some I've been prompted to actually check ! Not much 'current' pop though I concede. The problem is that in the digital world, clipping is whatever you define it as. I tend to set metering so three consecutive FS samples light the over light, and so that is clipping. No, you first have to normalise the gain back to 0dBFS for that to work since many CD's are first *severely clipped* then normalised to about -0.3dBFS, so your clip lights will never come on. BUT the flat tops remain regardless! Aggressive limiting that flat-tops the signal isn't necessarily clipping, it's just aggressive limiting. Rubbish, peak limiting that causes flat tops IS clipping. YOU simply don't understand what they have done, or the difference between compression and limiting it seems. I think this is the only thing where we really disagree. The rest of your debate seems hair-splitting about definitions of terms. Rubbish, When someone claims clipping is not clipping simply because it's level has been post reduced, or that clipping is not clipping simply because it was done by a "limiter" that is FARRRRR from hair splitting about definitions, that is about that person not understanding the basic fundamentals of recording!!!!! I say that 'clipping' is only the result of a digital or analogue *overload*, where the actual mathematical or electrical constraints of the process are exceeded and nothing can exist above. Right, as occurs when a limiter exceeds it's absolute peak level, a mixer or amplifier exceeds it's maximum rail voltage, or a digital device exceeds it's digital full scale level, whether OR NOT, that level is subsequently reduced AFTER clipping!! 'Limiting' is the *controlled* result of a digital or analogue process. And yes, that can be extreme to the point of resembling clipping, but is not the same thing. Bull****!! A limiter by it's very nature will produce CLIPPING when it exceeds it's knee and reaches it's maximum level. That's the whole point of the device after all. One may choose to use it so it never exceeds the knee (and hard limiting may not even have a knee!) but IF it does exceed absolute maximum, then CLIPPING will occur! That you choose to believe it is somehow not clipping just because YOU prefer to call it limiting only shows you ignorance!!! Achieving, or adding to, limiting by clipping (sadly) is done, presumably by those who are incompetent, lack understanding of the implications, or have cynical intent. Yep, but limiting is NOT necessarily the same as compression. You and many others still seem to be totally confused about that. And of course one can drive a compressor into clipping as well! Clipping is clipping no matter how it is achieved. Arguing that it is not is simply TOTAL BS! Trevor. I guess you could say clipping is when a steady state occurs in audio, nothing is changing. Nothing changes, no sound. Sort of like listening to a battery connected to a speaker - power is used, but no sound. Jack |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
whineybitch @ gmail.com wrote in message
... geoff: STOP telling me what I don't understand! You don't know me at all. 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? |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
thekma @ shortbus.edu wrote in message
... wrote: "Limiting can and will flat top an envelope but not the waveform. " Ok, flatten the loudest parts of a whole song envelope. But when I zoom down in my daw to individual waves what do I see? FLAT TOPS on the tallest waves! Explain THAT, professor. It's been explained to you, probably hundreds of times now. Explaining it is a waste of time. You're not capable of understanding. |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 5:09:12 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 14/10/2015 9:43 a.m., wrote: geoff: STOP telling me what I don't understand! You don't know me at all. That said, here is a good diagram illustrating clipping: http://www.gmarts.org/pix/fx/fx_clip1.jpg When I utilize "hard-limiter" in a DAW, the result zoomed in looks exactly like the red lines in that diagramSo does anyone know what the F- limiting looks like in a DAW?! Depends on the DAW and what it is doing when you implement it's 'hard limiting'. If it clips (actually clips) and that's not what you want, tweak the controls, use a different plugin, or buy a different DAW (or editor). And may I say, most people who hang-out in usenet have pirated copies of Pro Tools; same with Photoshop. That's why, after several years, I decided to purchase Goldwave. Goldwave can even remove varying DC Offset, even though Scott said there is no such thing, but since he now ignores me, he must have found out there is such a thing!! Welcome to usenet. Jack Jack geoff |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
thkema @ gurgle.dum****sRus.com wrote in message
... A SIDE NOTE: Via google groups, this thread, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Usenet does not give a **** about gurgle groups. Get a real newsreader or stop your whining. |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
ignorant-ignoramus @ shortbus.edu wrote in message
... So I DO understand what's going on Mike, Scott, geoff, and Still utterly failing to ignore me, I see. You understand how to ignore me about as much as you understand audio. Dumb****. who shall remain nameless, Heh. You just posted about me, again. You're as sharp as a bowling ball! it's putting things into words where I stumble. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 12:15 p.m., JackA wrote:
And may I say, most people who hang-out in usenet have pirated copies of Pro Tools; same with Photoshop. That's why, after several years, I decided to purchase Goldwave. Maybe the other odd places that you hang out, with amateurs dabbling. Here most people are professionals who pay for their software geoff |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 7:27:24 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 14/10/2015 12:15 p.m., JackA wrote: And may I say, most people who hang-out in usenet have pirated copies of Pro Tools; same with Photoshop. That's why, after several years, I decided to purchase Goldwave. Maybe the other odd places that you hang out, with amateurs dabbling. Here most people are professionals who pay for their software I hope you don't mind me, an amateur, hanging out with the professionals!! I feel so honored! Jack geoff |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 1:58 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote: a good way to differentiate clipping from limiting from compression is by considering the attack and decay times relative to the features of the waveform That's half of it... and the other half is the shape of the knee. But how fast is fast? When does soft clipping become limiting and vice-versa? There is NO such thing as "soft clipping". It's either clipped or it's not. There is soft limiting however which you probably mean, and it's very simple, when the knee ends and the signal flat tops for a few samples (usually accepted as at least 3 or more) then it has gone into clipping. I'm surprised you still don't grasp this? Trevor. |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
"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, YOU OVERFLOWING BED PAN! I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DID TO OFFEND YOU, AND YOU NEVER TOLD ME. EASY TO BERATE SOMEONE ANONYMOUSLY, OVER THE INTERNET. Dorsey, geoff, Mark, & Rivers, do not let this used sanitary napkin deter you from mature adult conversation. And do not offer it ANY help when it is having trouble or asks a question. Too many threads have died because of it. Even if I am the only one it attacks, that doesn't mean anyone should be strengthening alliances with it. |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
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. |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
writes:
At what point does limiting end and clipping begin? there __is__ a definitive answer to that question with clipping , the gain changes fast enough to follow the cycle by cycle waveform ____and therefore creates harmonic and intermodulation distortion___. If you clip a sine wave, you can hear the harmonics. Mathematically, this is a non-linar process. Anything slower than that, is limiting, compression or AGC. These are mmathematically linear process They are? I don't think so, Mark. Let's go back to basics. 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. I think you knew this. I'm not sure why you think it's linear. --Randy and do not create harmonics or intermod. If you limit or compress or AGC a sine wave, you will not hear harmonics. (I'm not saying these are good, they can still ruin the aesthtics by squashing the dynamic range, but they do not cause harmonics or intermod. Clipping casues harmonics and intermod. Matematically, clipping alone creates new frequencies, The others do not. Mark -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
|
#104
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
|
#106
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 7:43 AM, geoff wrote:
On 14/10/2015 8:19 a.m., JackA wrote: I tend to think, if I could actually clip a sine-wave, I would not hear anything for a brief moment. You couldn't clip with magnetic tape, since it just keeps saturating more. However, you may be able to do it with digital, but maybe not, where it ends up as DC, then I'd think you'd hear harmonics. Great subject. " I tend to think " - yeah right .... :-) Easy to clip program with the electronics prior to the actual tape. And the tape itself does not have infinite flux capability so it MUST clip eventually. The only difference is it soft limits before that point. Trevor. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 7:49 AM, geoff wrote:
On 13/10/2015 8:42 p.m., Trevor wrote: Bull****!! A limiter by it's very nature will produce CLIPPING when it exceeds it's knee and reaches it's maximum level. That's the whole point of the device after all. One may choose to use it so it never exceeds the knee (and hard limiting may not even have a knee!) but IF it does exceed absolute maximum, then CLIPPING will occur! That you choose to believe it is somehow not clipping just because YOU prefer to call it limiting only shows you ignorance!!! Bull**** you ! A crude limiter might - a sophisticated limiter will produce a 'knee' region that should not resemble clipping if you look closer. As I have been saying ALL along, BUT will still clip past the knee. Do you NOT get this? Or didn't bother to read what you are replying to? Glad my ignorance keeps such good company. Yes, you are in fine company here. Judging by others posts many have a problem with both the technicalities AND reading comprehension! :-( Yep, but limiting is NOT necessarily the same as compression. You and many others still seem to be totally confused about that. And of course one can drive a compressor into clipping as well! Clipping is clipping no matter how it is achieved. Arguing that it is not is simply TOTAL BS! Limiting should be a process closer to extreme compression that clipping. And it IS, until the maximum level is reached, at which point it clips, How many times do I have to say the same thing? Trevor. |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 7:50 AM, geoff wrote:
On 13/10/2015 8:24 p.m., Trevor wrote: Yep, and yet MANY Cd's have HUNDREDS of consecutive samples at maximum level :-( No-one can argue THAT is *NOT* clipping simply because the CD is normalised to -0.3dBFS, CAN THEY? Or are some people who claim to be "pro's" really that stupid? Was I ever suggesting that some (even many) CDs or other digital media does not exhibit clipping ? Where did I suggest you did? Certainly not many of the sort that I purchase. Good for you. Trevor. |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
|
#110
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 7:59 AM, wrote:
. That said, here is a good diagram illustrating clipping: http://www.gmarts.org/pix/fx/fx_clip1.jpg When I utilize "hard-limiter" in a DAW, the result zoomed in looks exactly like the red lines in that diagramSo does anyone know what the F- limiting looks like in a DAW?! Yes, you must Zoom in to see the WAVEFORM rather than the ENVELOPE. Nope it is all waveform (the envelope is simply imaginary) but yes you must zoom in to see the waveform clearly, or in any detail. And if the WAVEFORM appears as in the .jpg, then i would call that clipping (as the link does) even if the box that did it is called a limiter. Dead right! However what is labelled "soft clipping" is technically incorrect, that is compressed, but not yet clipped. Trevor. |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 7:59 AM, geoff wrote:
On 13/10/2015 8:42 p.m., Trevor wrote: Rubbish, When someone claims clipping is not clipping simply because it's level has been post reduced, or that clipping is not clipping simply because it was done by a "limiter" that is FARRRRR from hair splitting about definitions, that is about that person not understanding the basic fundamentals of recording!!!!! Dunno where how you managed to extrapolate that out of anything I've said. Easy, just put back the bit I responded to and you deliberately snipped, and it will all become clear. Of course I think it might have been someone else I replied to anyway and you are being even more silly with that reply. 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! Trevor. |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
|
#113
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
|
#114
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 8:09 AM, geoff wrote:
On 14/10/2015 9:43 a.m., wrote: geoff: STOP telling me what I don't understand! You don't know me at all. That said, here is a good diagram illustrating clipping: http://www.gmarts.org/pix/fx/fx_clip1.jpg When I utilize "hard-limiter" in a DAW, the result zoomed in looks exactly like the red lines in that diagramSo does anyone know what the F- limiting looks like in a DAW?! Depends on the DAW and what it is doing when you implement it's 'hard limiting'. If it clips (actually clips) and that's not what you want, tweak the controls, use a different plugin, or buy a different DAW (or editor). Love to hear YOUR definition of HARD limiting? And the difference between HARD limiting and clipping? :-) Trevor. |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 4:05 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 14/10/2015 8:09 AM, geoff wrote: On 14/10/2015 9:43 a.m., wrote: geoff: STOP telling me what I don't understand! You don't know me at all. That said, here is a good diagram illustrating clipping: http://www.gmarts.org/pix/fx/fx_clip1.jpg When I utilize "hard-limiter" in a DAW, the result zoomed in looks exactly like the red lines in that diagramSo does anyone know what the F- limiting looks like in a DAW?! Depends on the DAW and what it is doing when you implement it's 'hard limiting'. If it clips (actually clips) and that's not what you want, tweak the controls, use a different plugin, or buy a different DAW (or editor). Love to hear YOUR definition of HARD limiting? And the difference between HARD limiting and clipping? :-) Trevor. Clipping = individual cycles of waveforms clipped level, 3 or more cycles (yes, even if subsequently reduced in level). Limiting = reduced variation of waveform envelope, with the threshold usually higher which differentiates it from compression. Hard limiting = very small variation in the amplitude of the waveform envelope. Arguably including a degree of individual cycle waveform distortion resembling the previously-linked 'soft-clipping' picture (as long as no more than 3 samples over 0dBFS, even in a prior processing stage and subsequently reduced). geoff |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 3:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
Not all limiting causes clipping, but it certainly CAN! Trevor. " As I have been saying ALL along, BUT will still clip past the knee. " So any limiting is clipping, and if it isn't clipping it isn't limiting ! I give up. You win. Bye. geoff |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 2:29 PM, geoff wrote:
On 14/10/2015 3:55 p.m., Trevor wrote: Not all limiting causes clipping, but it certainly CAN! " As I have been saying ALL along, BUT will still clip past the knee. " ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So any limiting is clipping, Wow you *DO* have a problem with reading comprehension! and if it isn't clipping it isn't limiting ! Not totally wrong actually, it's really just compression until it "limits", ie clips. But then the word "limiter" is used for a reason after all, it's NOT just another compressor. Trevor |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 2:23 PM, geoff wrote:
On 14/10/2015 4:05 p.m., Trevor wrote: On 14/10/2015 8:09 AM, geoff wrote: On 14/10/2015 9:43 a.m., wrote: geoff: STOP telling me what I don't understand! You don't know me at all. That said, here is a good diagram illustrating clipping: http://www.gmarts.org/pix/fx/fx_clip1.jpg When I utilize "hard-limiter" in a DAW, the result zoomed in looks exactly like the red lines in that diagramSo does anyone know what the F- limiting looks like in a DAW?! Depends on the DAW and what it is doing when you implement it's 'hard limiting'. If it clips (actually clips) and that's not what you want, tweak the controls, use a different plugin, or buy a different DAW (or editor). Love to hear YOUR definition of HARD limiting? And the difference between HARD limiting and clipping? :-) Clipping = individual cycles of waveforms clipped level, 3 or more cycles (yes, even if subsequently reduced in level). Limiting = reduced variation of waveform envelope, with the threshold usually higher which differentiates it from compression. Hard limiting = very small variation in the amplitude of the waveform envelope. Arguably including a degree of individual cycle waveform distortion resembling the previously-linked 'soft-clipping' picture (as long as no more than 3 samples over 0dBFS, even in a prior processing stage and subsequently reduced). OK, if that very subjective definition suits you, but obviously would only work with post processing, because no real time limiter can know where the peak level input is ahead of time to make sure it doesn't clip with a high threshold setting and small knee. So what do you call all those analog limiters I wonder? Clippers perhaps? Maybe not a bad idea! :-) Trevor. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 10/13/2015 1:46 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/13/2015 2:34 PM, wrote: Hmmm.. When I limit(flat top) a pure sine wave, even by just .5dB, it sounds different to me That's good, because when you clip off the tops it has more frequencies in it than without. But this isn't always a bad thing. Adding harmonics can make a boring timbre sound more musically interesting. It's done all the time, sometimes even naturally. But whether it's beneficial or harmful, it's still distortion. I presume this is where the exciter comes in. Adding harmonics while making not it sound like a fuzz box . |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
I think, ...
Problem with invisible clipping is not in the sound, because presumably, all interested parties have heard it prior to commiting to it. It is in "silent" overloading of output stages and what comes with it, possibly all the way to blown out tweeters, depending on quality of playback gear and the way digital and analog meters were alligned to each other. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Reference Levels for Editing, Broadcasting and Mastering | Pro Audio | |||
Digital Levels on CD's | Pro Audio | |||
Mastering output levels. | Pro Audio | |||
Mixdown Levels--Mastering? | Pro Audio | |||
"0dBFS+ Level in Audio Production." | Pro Audio |