R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Apogee soft limit  (Read 4292 times)

innesireinar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 84
Apogee soft limit
« on: February 25, 2005, 10:08:35 AM »

Because I think that tracking with a moderate compression (or limiter) allows to take advantage of the available dynamic range instead of lowering the level for some occasional and insignificant peaks, some months ago I've asked in another forum which was the best unit for doing this job and most of the replays indicated the TT CL1B. Since I have the Roseta 800 that has the soft limit feature on board, is this a valid alternative to the TT for tracking by limiting these peaks? Obviousy I'm not meaning the compression effect that can only be reached by a real compressor unit.

ranieri senni
Logged

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: Apogee soft limit
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2005, 10:23:11 AM »

innesireinar wrote on Fri, 25 February 2005 10:08

Because I think that tracking with a moderate compression (or limiter) allows to take advantage of the available dynamic range






What "available" dynamic range are you referring to? When tracking to a 24 bit converter there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHATSOEVER to "soft limit" or "clip" or anything of the sort. It is perfectly acceptable, and in fact, desirable, to stay below full scale and be done with it. There is, to repeat, no need to "maximize" levels with a 24 bit converter.

Remember, you would have to drop the level by 48 dB to reduce a 24 bit signal to approximately 16 bit resolution! That's a lot of extra "footroom", guys, so use that additional footroom to gain some more headroom.

Get rid of your protective limiters, damaging clippers, and the rest and just record at a sensible level, peaks up to, say, -10 dBFS for a practical discussion are even acceptable with 24 bit. Or, for the anal types, don't feel the least bit concerned if your highest peak is, say, -3 dBFS. No need to kiss the zero, guys...

BK
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

innesireinar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 84
Re: Apogee soft limit
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2005, 10:49:03 AM »

Thanx, Bob.
The reason why I've though this is because in a 24 bit system I would have about 16 milions of amplitude steps, in a theorically dynamic range of 144 dB. What was in my mind is that, apart from s/n ratio, lowering the level by some dozen of dB (let say 24 dB) in order to accomodate those sporadic peaks under 0dB, I lost 4 bit of resolution and therefore the sample of my material will have 1/16 of steps number and these steps will be 16 times bigger. Less nearest to analog wave. But this is only a my personal intuition. Do you think that practically this "bit reduction" will be not audible?
Logged

PRobb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2057
Re: Apogee soft limit
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2005, 10:53:43 AM »

Mr. Katz is right. it took a while to realize it after being so used to fighting for resolution 16 bit, but in 24 it actually sounds better if you leave some space on top of the meters. I leave the soft clip on on the apogees, its there, might as well use it just in case, but I try not to to get there.
Logged
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
-Edmund Burke

Extreme Mixing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Apogee soft limit
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2005, 11:37:35 AM »

innesireinar wrote on Fri, 25 February 2005 07:08

...instead of lowering the level for some occasional and insignificant peaks...

ranieri senni


Besides, if you can't hear the "insignificant peaks" at the top of the dynamic range, what makes you think you'll hear sttuff 100, or more, db down?

Steve

Bob Olhsson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Apogee soft limit
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2005, 10:06:26 PM »

Limiting is going to damage the signal far more than lower record levels will. My old Apogees sounded worse with soft limit on even when it wasn't doing anything so I'd do some careful testing.

PookyNMR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
Re: Apogee soft limit
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2005, 12:03:27 AM »

Bob Olhsson wrote on Fri, 25 February 2005 20:06

Limiting is going to damage the signal far more than lower record levels will. My old Apogees sounded worse with soft limit on even when it wasn't doing anything so I'd do some careful testing.


The Apogees that I had sounded worse when they were on too.

Razz
Logged
Nathan Rousu

Bryson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2005
Re: Apogee soft limit
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2005, 03:06:01 AM »

PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 25 February 2005 21:03

Bob Olhsson wrote on Fri, 25 February 2005 20:06

Limiting is going to damage the signal far more than lower record levels will. My old Apogees sounded worse with soft limit on even when it wasn't doing anything so I'd do some careful testing.


The Apogees that I had sounded worse when they were on too.

Razz


I never use the soft limit on my PSX100. It sounds distorted to me.

Timmy
Logged

innesireinar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 84
Re: Apogee soft limit
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2005, 03:16:46 AM »

Extreme Mixing wrote on Fri, 25 February 2005 16:37

innesireinar wrote on Fri, 25 February 2005 07:08

...instead of lowering the level for some occasional and insignificant peaks...

ranieri senni


Besides, if you can't hear the "insignificant peaks" at the top of the dynamic range, what makes you think you'll hear sttuff 100, or more, db down?

Steve



For istance, during a vocal session, you can get 1 P or 1 S only once in a 2 minutes take. This is what I mean "insignificant peak".
During the night I've done a search about this thread and I've found a gm point of view

"Erik wrote on Thu, 05 August 2004 11:32

guitarbth wrote on Thu, 05 August 2004 00:12

In my humble studio, the only compressor i have is a dbx 160 (original) [...]



How are you recording? To digital?

If so, then just reduce the gain on the mic pre. There's no reason to use a compressor on a vocal to prevent clipping in a digital system... there's just too much clean, noise-free recording medium available.[...]



Erik,

Given what i assume to be substantial dynamic range from the vocalist, I respectfully disagree with this. Yes, I'm a big fan of getting the range right onto hard disk (which used to mean riding a vocal more and more effectively as you rehearse and then do takes) but with surprise dynamics and the most important criteria which is to capture the first take onward as faithfully as possible you really need a very good analog compressor before the converter. After the converter, for every 6dB you drop your input - presumably to be raised later by a compressor in the digital path - you lose another bit of resolution. Doing 24dB of compression digitally? That pseudo-24 bit converter (really 21bits if you're lucky) is now a 17 bit converter.

Oh, and I like 160's better than anything else mentioned here so far. They're one of only a handful of true RMS converters.

Your mileage may vary.
George".[/I][/I]

I'm going to be confused. However, what I've understood from your answers the soft limit isn't a good tool for tracking.
Logged

antti

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 69
Re: Apogee soft limit
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2005, 06:35:34 AM »

Tried it once and that was it. It made one lead vocal unusable.
It was all distorted in a very unmusical way. Had to do it again.
My 2 cents.
Logged

innesireinar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 84
Re: Apogee soft limit
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2005, 08:23:20 AM »

Thanx. I will leave it off.
Logged

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: Apogee soft limit
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2005, 04:30:52 PM »

PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 26 February 2005 00:03

Bob Olhsson wrote on Fri, 25 February 2005 20:06

Limiting is going to damage the signal far more than lower record levels will. My old Apogees sounded worse with soft limit on even when it wasn't doing anything so I'd do some careful testing.


The Apogees that I had sounded worse when they were on too.

Razz


I third that emotion. Don't turn on any processing that you absolutely don't need. You're asking for trouble (same answer as: "never turn your back on digital".
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Kenny Gioia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
Re: Apogee soft limit
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2005, 05:19:11 PM »

And keep in mind.

When you hit those DAW meters at 0VU, it is equal to hitting tape at +18.

Most high end mic pre's won't distort up their but it is not what they were designed for.

Record alot lower.

Peace
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 20 queries.