Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The World's First Multi-Band Auto-Summing Limiter !!!

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 6:24:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Has anyone heard the new L3 from Waves??!!!
Check it out:
http://www.waves.com/content.asp?id=1529
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 6:36:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Holy batshit, Flat-Line Man.... didn't we just see this slop about a week ago ?
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 8:46:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I have been playing with the 2 versions of L3 (the Ultra and the Multi) for
a week of so. You could get that "Nashville" (just kiddin' you Nashville
Katz) sound with either of these, or you could use them sensibly and have
one of the best limiters and the only multiband limiter available! Got a any
of those ASUS 8-CPU socket motherboards laying around?
Max Arwood



"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:KaeUc.9585$Kf4.1754@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> Holy batshit, Flat-Line Man.... didn't we just see this slop about a week
ago ?
>
>
Related resources
August 18, 2004 3:50:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <p4gUc.8142$8P7.2830@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>, Max Arwood
<marwoodNOSPAM@hnb.com> wrote:

> I have been playing with the 2 versions of L3 (the Ultra and the Multi) for
> a week of so. You could get that "Nashville" (just kiddin' you Nashville
> Katz) sound with either of these, or you could use them sensibly and have
> one of the best limiters and the only multiband limiter available!



Waves quite excellent C4 sure looks a lot like the L3. Mebbe they
grafted the L2 limiter onto the C4 while removing the compression
algorithms and adding another xover point. Mebbe they shoulda called it
the L5.

btw the C4 is a wonderful & powerful tool. I'm sure lotsa folks will be
doing serious damage to their mixes with the L3. ;>





David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 4:29:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Chad Clark" <chad@beautypill.com> wrote in message
news:b8ad7fc0.0408172246.7da77472@posting.google.com...
>I like the concept of multi-band compression but I have
> yet to hear it executed gracefully in the digital realm.

Check out the latest version of Izotope's Ozone... I don't own it (yet),
but I've tried the demo & the multi-band comp/lim on that one is eminently
useable & sounds pretty good to these ears.

It's designed as a mastering plug, though and requires a lot of CPU power,
so you couldn't use it on more than a couple channels/instances at a time.
Point is, there's hope... someone out there got it right, IMO lol
--


Neil Henderson
Saqqara Records
http://www.saqqararecords.com
August 19, 2004 8:56:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <b8ad7fc0.0408172246.7da77472@posting.google.com>, Chad
Clark <chad@beautypill.com> wrote:

> Respectfully, I must very strongly disagree with this last statement.
>
> IMHO, the C4 is an awful tool that appeals only in theory and never
> in practice. I like the concept of multi-band compression but I have
> yet to hear it executed gracefully in the digital realm.
>
> The C4 makes everything sound worse no matter how you toy with the
> settings. Struggle to get attacks and releases just right, crossovers
> set in musically appropriate places, etc. Then once you've got
> everything set, put it in bypass. The bypassed sound invariably
> sounds better! Try this over and over again and see if you don't
> agree. At some point you have to let your ears over-rule your
> admiration for the ideal espoused by the designer.
>



I've used it probably only 5 times, but each time I got it to do
*exactly* what I wanted it to do, each time mastering a song I did not
record or mix myself.

In fact, one of those songs was on an album I mastered that was
nominated for a Grammy this year. (Roomful of Blues.)



David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com
Anonymous
August 19, 2004 8:47:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I can't tell if you're asserting the Grammy credential in a defensive
posture. If so, then that means that you felt I was attacking C4
users. If I came across that way, it's my fault and I apologize I
meant to attack the C4 not its users. I hope the difference in spirit
is an important discernment to others on this thread. In other words,
Peace, brothers and sisters.

That being said, I stand by my opinion of the C4. I consider it to be
an outrageously terrible design.

I lead a dual life. I'm a musician for fun and self-expression but I
also work professionally as a mastering engineer. In this work, the
situations that call for multiband dynamic treatment are largely
archival/re-issue projects and I tend to take a purist stance about
this kind of work. I own and use a multiband Tubetech compressor
(smc-2b) which I do not love but vastly prefer to Waves offerings.
There are instances where I will use Waves multiband (the Linear
Multiband, NEVER the C4) plug-ins but I consider them to be a
last-ditch kinda thing.

It is not beyond conception that there are skilled professionals who
have greater affection for the C4 than I do. This is what I love
about the world of audio: even in the forensic world of mastering,
subjectivity is the name of the game.

I was amused/frightened by Mr. McGuire's suggestion that perhaps my
distaste for the C4 might be due to a failure to use make-up gain (!)
I'm trying to avoid a supercilious tone here --- and maybe I don't
visit online forums often enough --- but I would think that the word
"pro" in the name of this forum would preclude the possibility that
anyone posting here would not have a grasp of the concept of make-up
gain. This makes me wonder if maybe Walter Sear's cranky rants in
Tape Op had some merit?

Or perhaps someone should start a forum called
rec.audio.reallyactuallyseriouslypro?

:) 

--- c



> I've used it probably only 5 times, but each time I got it to do
> *exactly* what I wanted it to do, each time mastering a song I did not
> record or mix myself.
>
> In fact, one of those songs was on an album I mastered that was
> nominated for a Grammy this year. (Roomful of Blues.)
>
>
>
> David Correia
> Celebration Sound
> Warren, Rhode Island
>
> CelebrationSound@aol.com
> www.CelebrationSound.com
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 4:53:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <b8ad7fc0.0408191547.23420cc2@posting.google.com>,
chad@beautypill.com (Chad Clark) wrote:
> I was amused/frightened by Mr. McGuire's suggestion that perhaps my
> distaste for the C4 might be due to a failure to use make-up gain (!)
> I'm trying to avoid a supercilious tone here --- and maybe I don't
> visit online forums often enough --- but I would think that the word
> "pro" in the name of this forum would preclude the possibility that
> anyone posting here would not have a grasp of the concept of make-up
> gain. This makes me wonder if maybe Walter Sear's cranky rants in
> Tape Op had some merit?

A lot of different people post here, and I tend to assume very little.
What I was hearing was a person not having a good time with C4, so I
offered some suggestions, ranging from the subtle to the obvious.

I'm not trying to make a pronouncement on your professionalism, but
rather see exactly how you were using the C4 to get such uniformly
unsatisfactory results.

It's fine if you don't like C4, but as a C4 user, I'm curious as to how
someone could _never_ find a good use for it!


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 4:53:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> In article <b8ad7fc0.0408191547.23420cc2@posting.google.com>,
> chad@beautypill.com (Chad Clark) wrote:
> > I'm trying to avoid a supercilious tone here --- and maybe I don't
> > visit online forums often enough --- but I would think that the word
> > "pro" in the name of this forum would preclude the possibility that
> > anyone posting here would not have a grasp of the concept of make-up
> > gain.

"Pro" in rec.audio.pro means "production" and not "professional." No
snobs here, no sir. However there are many posting here who don't know
what gain is, much less make-up gain, and have no idea of how to use
their tools. And a subset of those don't come here realizing that they
may not be using their tools correctly and ask for assistance, they
immediately conclude that the tools don't work.

>> This makes me wonder if maybe Walter Sear's cranky rants in
> > Tape Op had some merit?

That issue never made it here, but having read comments about it, I
suspect that he has a valid point.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
August 21, 2004 4:33:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

they couldn't just do an upgrade, here's why:

you go to pull up an old session with your old c-4 plugins mixed in
there. then nothing sounds right because your new c4 is messing with
the old stuff. it's *not* the same plugin, so you can't just do a
free upgrade and swap it out seamlessly.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 5:41:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.comedy> wrote:

> * make-up gain


See Tammy Faye Baker.

--
ha
August 23, 2004 11:42:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> > Tape Op had some merit?
>
> A lot of different people post here, and I tend to assume very little.
> What I was hearing was a person not having a good time with C4, so I
> offered some suggestions, ranging from the subtle to the obvious.
>
> I'm not trying to make a pronouncement on your professionalism, but
> rather see exactly how you were using the C4 to get such uniformly
> unsatisfactory results.
>
> It's fine if you don't like C4, but as a C4 user, I'm curious as to how
> someone could _never_ find a good use for it!
>

I know Chad won't blow his own horn, so just in case you were
wondering who he is, here's a reference to an article written about
him in Tape Op

http://www.tapeop.com/magazine/backissues/issue36.html

and if you're still not impressed, go get the Beauty Pill CD. You will
be.

Paul
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 2:19:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:42:58 -0400, Paul wrote
(in article <9cde3583.0408231842.79f6ec8c@posting.google.com>):

>>> Tape Op had some merit?
>>
>> A lot of different people post here, and I tend to assume very little.
>> What I was hearing was a person not having a good time with C4, so I
>> offered some suggestions, ranging from the subtle to the obvious.
>>
>> I'm not trying to make a pronouncement on your professionalism, but
>> rather see exactly how you were using the C4 to get such uniformly
>> unsatisfactory results.
>>
>> It's fine if you don't like C4, but as a C4 user, I'm curious as to how
>> someone could _never_ find a good use for it!
>>
>
> I know Chad won't blow his own horn, so just in case you were
> wondering who he is, here's a reference to an article written about
> him in Tape Op
>
> http://www.tapeop.com/magazine/backissues/issue36.html
>
> and if you're still not impressed, go get the Beauty Pill CD. You will
> be.
>
> Paul

The Aphex Studio Dominator is a tri-band stereo Limiter. To what do you refer
as auto-summing?

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
!