Are any of you guys using one of these or do you have a peak limiter that you like and doesn't cost 2500 USD. I would love to have something clean to just grab a few db's of overs on my mixes.
aphex dominator ii
- Thread starter dandeurloo
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Have a Pico with the higher ratio mods? I've used those in NL (auto) mode for that task, and they stay very clean on revealing sources. Haven't compared that task against a Dominator II, I think I've only used an earlier Dominator and it wasn't so clean. Seems like I generally end up with software on this task, but sometimes speed dictates hardware.
I have thought about making a couple diode clippers as well and seeing how that works. I really just want it to grab the 5 - 10 peaky clips that my buss comp wont grab while I print. That way I can print a little hotter. As it is I am still printing almost to low just to avoid those peaks. It doesn't help that PT meters only show clipping if it is symmetrical. Almost all my problems are from the few Asymmetrical peaks that happen.
Anyone out there have any other suggestions or easy DIY builds that could work for this?
Anyone out there have any other suggestions or easy DIY builds that could work for this?
Kingston
Well-known member
dandeurloo said:
The sooner you realise it's pointless, the better. The media is 24bit wave file isn't it?
Even the sh*ttiest converters can do about 100dB dynamic range these days. Your recordings on the other hand are something like 80dB at best, most likely worse. If you print it hot it will do nothing but record a bunch of your gear noise floor and risk distorting the peaks.
Take that gain down 10db and stop worrying about imaginary things.
How hot are you trying to print? Software does final limit better than most analog, I only ever pick analog when there's no time for a software pass. I try to keep peaks at -6 so mastering has room to work, and that's still as loud as a pre-1992 commercial CD.
I'm printing very conservatively. Plenty of headroom for my mastering guy to do his work. Mainly its so I can print a few db hotter with zero clips from stray fast peaks. I will see if I can find a sample of a wav to show you what I mean.
Here is the thought process behind wanting a simple peak limiter. As we all know when we are trying to win on mix projects the artist or label doesn't really care about the technical stuff of leaving headroom. So if I send them conservative levels it always leaves my mix at an unfair advantage to the next guy who is probably crushing his/her mix. If I use a digital limiter (never more than 4 db, usually 3) in order to get the volume up and then send that to my client as a fake mastering that sometimes shoots me or the mastering guy in the foot because they get use to that or like that. So I am just looking for a nice middle ground that I can just print all at once to grab a few peaks.
Not to mention this could be very useful on stems or drum buss.
The Aphex is cheap enough I may just try one and see if its any good. I also just got a pair of the Great River PWM 501's and I may try those of this. Problem is I have been liking them in the mix so then I would have to get another pair just to do the simple little bit of limiting. There has to be a simpler solution. Or maybe the cranesong STC -8 with its built in limiter is still calling my name.
Here is the thought process behind wanting a simple peak limiter. As we all know when we are trying to win on mix projects the artist or label doesn't really care about the technical stuff of leaving headroom. So if I send them conservative levels it always leaves my mix at an unfair advantage to the next guy who is probably crushing his/her mix. If I use a digital limiter (never more than 4 db, usually 3) in order to get the volume up and then send that to my client as a fake mastering that sometimes shoots me or the mastering guy in the foot because they get use to that or like that. So I am just looking for a nice middle ground that I can just print all at once to grab a few peaks.
Not to mention this could be very useful on stems or drum buss.
The Aphex is cheap enough I may just try one and see if its any good. I also just got a pair of the Great River PWM 501's and I may try those of this. Problem is I have been liking them in the mix so then I would have to get another pair just to do the simple little bit of limiting. There has to be a simpler solution. Or maybe the cranesong STC -8 with its built in limiter is still calling my name.
ITB, have you tried the freebee Rea-Comp (the Reaper compressor)?
It can be set with very short attack and release times, and with arbitrary look-ahead time. It will eat stray peaks for free and can be set-up easily.
Other than that, +1 for a diode clipper.
It can be set with very short attack and release times, and with arbitrary look-ahead time. It will eat stray peaks for free and can be set-up easily.
Other than that, +1 for a diode clipper.
It's a slippery slope, and it's not a problem I've had to deal with in years and years. I guess I'm in such a backwater that no one cares or notices, and I don't interact with 'the industry', because there isn't one. I have had a few projects on the charts over the years, and it's kinda funny, the ones that had the most $$ spent on them at mastering were the ones I had to reject for glaring errors and gross audible distortion in the master. I've never had to 'win' on a mix project. I get them or I don't.
Just do what's right. Don't spend money on something that's about your own psychological comfort, that might also be damaging the mix. I guarantee the mastering guy is gonna wish you hadn't. Some would argue you should just clip the converters occasionally, that it will sound more transparent than using a limiter.
Honestly, I have never had a label interaction (Sony, Columbia, American) require that they handle the dissemination of unmastered recordings to the mastering house. They tell me what to send, and I send it directly. So if the dumbass label rep insists on loud, send him a software limited version, and then send the unlimited version to the mastering house. They will never ever ever never know the difference, and it's a very simple conversation if it ever comes up, in which you can feel secure that you are absolutely 200% right.
Just do what's right. Don't spend money on something that's about your own psychological comfort, that might also be damaging the mix. I guarantee the mastering guy is gonna wish you hadn't. Some would argue you should just clip the converters occasionally, that it will sound more transparent than using a limiter.
Honestly, I have never had a label interaction (Sony, Columbia, American) require that they handle the dissemination of unmastered recordings to the mastering house. They tell me what to send, and I send it directly. So if the dumbass label rep insists on loud, send him a software limited version, and then send the unlimited version to the mastering house. They will never ever ever never know the difference, and it's a very simple conversation if it ever comes up, in which you can feel secure that you are absolutely 200% right.
Kingston
Well-known member
dandeurloo said:
before you embark on this somewhat pointless task I propose a simple test. If this doesn't set an engineer straight, nothing ever will.
1. Record your AD/DA from output directly back to input. This is your lowest possible noise floor for mixdown purposes.
2. Now insert some usual preamp/EQ/Compressor/whatever combo you are using into the loop and record again. This is your printing reference noise floor.
Think carefully what you will "achieve" recording this printing loop several dB louder. Perhaps now you realise what actually happens.
I'm not sure much of anyone cares about that noise floor anymore, given expectational changes in even the last 5 years. All the funky old noisy color gear you could hardly sell in 2007 has been all the rage ever since, commanding higher prices than old quality color gear.
The other answer is to print finals at 32 bit float since it gives free range on final volume without penalty in the digital realm. You could at least use that as a purposely confusing talking point. "Oh yes, it's a tad quieter than a commercial release, but I did that to leave headroom for mastering, and it's 32 bit float so it's not a problem." That is guaranteed to confuse and silence.
I still have fond memories of the label which bought a finished project I'd done. It had already been mastered, and was ready to go to pressing plant as a DDP, they called up and wanted a DAT copy from the mastering house for pressing purposes. Never ever grasp they were walking backwards, and too proud to listen.
The other answer is to print finals at 32 bit float since it gives free range on final volume without penalty in the digital realm. You could at least use that as a purposely confusing talking point. "Oh yes, it's a tad quieter than a commercial release, but I did that to leave headroom for mastering, and it's 32 bit float so it's not a problem." That is guaranteed to confuse and silence.
I still have fond memories of the label which bought a finished project I'd done. It had already been mastered, and was ready to go to pressing plant as a DDP, they called up and wanted a DAT copy from the mastering house for pressing purposes. Never ever grasp they were walking backwards, and too proud to listen.
dmp
Well-known member
It's not outboard, but I wonder why don't you use the Wave L2 maximizer?
Winetree
Well-known member
My old school way was to look at the over-all waveform
and just lower or draw out the peaks.
This allowed for lower amounts or sometimes no compression or limiting.
Thats when everything was recorded to 2" 24 track and everything wasn't so spikey.
I still have the Aphex compeller and dominator in the rack.
and just lower or draw out the peaks.
This allowed for lower amounts or sometimes no compression or limiting.
Thats when everything was recorded to 2" 24 track and everything wasn't so spikey.
I still have the Aphex compeller and dominator in the rack.
Kingston
Well-known member
tv said:
But please remember the folks coming from GS thought of view. Do you want to shave because of the sound - affecting the crunch - or because you think you are "capturing more bits".
re: noise floor examples above.
For the vibe and peace-of-mind, imho. I'm not so sure about OP's noise-floor equations and preferences, but my POV is if somebody uses outboard already, a fast clipper will only take away a little.
For the bits, I think if you tweak the ReaComp with fast timings, you can make it a pretty invisible "shaver" while avoiding much of the "maximizer" ... err ... "sonic signatures".
So there, Mr. Kin.GS.ton, haha!
For the bits, I think if you tweak the ReaComp with fast timings, you can make it a pretty invisible "shaver" while avoiding much of the "maximizer" ... err ... "sonic signatures".
So there, Mr. Kin.GS.ton, haha!
Yeah, noise floor is the last of my concerns honestly. I'm looking for simple fast in all reality no harm shaving of a few peaks that allow me to print a little hotter. And usually its asymmetrical peaks that are the problem here and there. I could just say screw it and let those clips happen but I don't think that is a good solution either.
FWIW, converter clipping is the de facto approach in mastering with some forms of music.
I'd at least print 2 masters, with and without, use a mult and come back in 4 inputs. At least until you are convinced one way or the other.
I'd at least print 2 masters, with and without, use a mult and come back in 4 inputs. At least until you are convinced one way or the other.
Kingston
Well-known member
dandeurloo said:
*sigh*
dandeurloo said:
But all that you will accomplish here is increasing the noise floor!
You will not capture any "more sound" recording it louder. You are simply recording more noise.
Am I really the only one who understands this very simple concept?
Say printing a little hotter one more time and I will confiscate your DIY license!
Err... nope.Kingston said:
I believe OP just wants to get the "leg" a little shinier, with less crest, and "be done with it". We don't know if he has other analog equipment on his DA-??-AD path, which would without doubt dominate the SNR (compared to the loop-back figures), but all in all, I understand BOTH what are you saying AND what I think the OP wants.
Which is not so hard when you think about it (from the practicality POV), haha.
Similar threads
