Brickwall Limiting?

I don't understand what I'm doing wrong here...
 
Using the Concrete Limiter I'm trying to reduce a few select peaks that have been yielding -0.6 or -0.3 in the final mix while the average peaks for the piece are at near -1.2
 
So I would think that if I set my threshold at -0.9 and my ceiling at -0.3 my end result should have nothing above 0.3?
 
So why do I get overs? I have the limiter inserted in the master's PC as the only working item and I've verified that everything is routed to the master... and though I'm seeing input and output on the Concrete, I don't see any gain reduction...
 
I would expect to get -0.3 peaks???
 
Thanks...
Keni
 

Keni, try this and see if it helps. Right click on the blank space where the power button is on the concrete limiter (not on the power button)....select post effects bin. See if it does what you're after.

-Danny

John

Danny Danzi


Keni, try this and see if it helps. Right click on the blank space where the power button is on the concrete limiter (not on the power button)....select post effects bin. See if it does what you're after.

-Danny

Yep that caught me too. I finally figured it out about pre/post FX bin. 

Yeah, quite amazing the difference this makes.
 
Another tip since we're talking about that pre/post thing.
 
Those using Drum modules in a virtual track situation....say, Superior or something....you will gain more PC eq control enabling post for this. You will notice if you do not, you gain just about 0 eq changes at all other than volume boosts.
 
This only happens when you create a drum template where Sonar connects all the virtual tracks so you can use your own effects or whatever while using a drum module.
 
You know, when you insert a drum module and have it create all the tracks in Sonar....this is when you have to use "post" to really hear differences. The same with those of you still using Sonar 8.5 or earlier where you use a Sonitus on each track. Anytime you have virtual tracks, change the eq/processors to post to get more eq control as well as smaller movements with more sound being altered.
 
This is NOT to be confused with pre/post effects send/returns. This is only on individual tracks where pro channel or anything is used while NOT in an effects bin.
 
-Danny

You'd not be "brickwalling" if you're only using -0.9 threshold. You're really not even using the limiter enough to make much of a difference at all there. But, it should keep you from going over -0.3 dB. What is the volume set for on the track you're using it on? That makes a difference too. To get a true -0.3 dB this is assuming the fader is set to 0 dB.

Here's a good example. When I mix something, I do my best to make sure the mix peaks at -3 dB and do my best to achieve this using the track faders without touching the master bus. If I don't do this and just adjust the master bus fader and say it ends up being the master fader set to -4 dB to achieve a -3 dB peak in a full play of the song, a limiter is not going to get me to -3 dB because the fader is set to -4 dB.

Let's do the opposite now. You have you mix set up, but to get to -3 dB you have your master bus fader set at +2 dB. When you put the limiter on and set it for -0.3 peak, you're going to get peaks based on a +2 master bus fader, understand?

Set the master to 0 dB, get your mix via faders where you want it peak wise on your master LED read-out after a full pass of the tune, then add your concrete limiter, set it for -0.3 dB ceiling, and you can put the threshold anywhere you want and it will NOT go over -0.3 dB if it is set for "post". Try it, you'll see what I mean. :)

-Danny

Keni


Nice Explanation Danny...

But I do know my engineering somewhat and I've checked such... My Master fader is at 0 and my levels are reaching zero peak with a new mix I created, but it only happens once in the song, and another two similar that come to -0.6 and -0.3...

So what I thought to do was leave all as is, and setup a limiter to catch those three peaks so that I would have a little more even signal to work with for mastering...

Nothing I've tried yet allows me to do this and I've done it in the past in the analog world... But I don't seem to own a compressor with separate input and threshold controls... It seems that all the limiters are using the input-gain-as-threshold approach which I'm ok with in the right situation... This isn't one of them... I'm not trying to increase the gain of the mix, only to limit those three peaks...

When I use the Concrete in my mastering, It works as expected... but there it is increasing the gain a little but it does stay to the set ceiling.... Why is it not doing so when used on the mix's master bus?

I've been using this approach for a long time and it's worked quite well for me as I do my best not to use any limiters during my mix session... But this is one of those situations where this should have been a quick-fix...?

Thanks for taking time to try helping me...

Keni

Hi Keni,
 
Sorry if I shared stuff you had already known about. I wasn't sure what you may or may not have known so I figured I'd share it just in case. :)
 
Well to be honest, it's been rare for me to have had to use a limiter the way you use using the CC. I'm not even so sure the CC would be the right tool to be honest because though it does brick wall, it's a bit of a different animal. I've not used it on my tracks so I'm really not sure I can be of any help to you. I use it for quickie ITP (In The Project) projects for myself, but that's as far as I go with it as it's not really a good enough limiter for me to finalize with. Great for ideas I do to where I export a quick mp3 idea to my band and drop the file right in our band drop box.
 
Do you know where the peaks are coming from on your tracks? If so, have you tried to control them from the source tracks that are creating them? Most times a compressor takes care of them for me. Like for example, if you know the track and the spot, you can split the clip on both sides while zooming in, and then place the compressor right on the clip at that spot on the clip. This works really well.
 
For me, in case this may help you, my biggest peaks come from snare drums. I control them one of two ways or sometimes both...
 
1. My most popular method is to use a UAD Fatso Jr compressor on the track in the bin. It's absolutely amazing for controlling peaks of this nature. Have you tried a Sonitus or PC bus compressor? That bus compressor is suprisingly good and goes beyond "bus duties" in my realm.
 
2. Method 2 is Zoom in, split the clip, lower the gain on the peaks only and you should be fine. When you zoom in really tight and take care of them, if you were to loop the section you were working in, it usually just comes in as a pop/click sound that won't really degrade the sound you have. 
 
For example, here's a piece of a clip that has a nasty peak in it: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4909348/4Keni1.JPG
 
Here's what it looks like when we zoom in on it: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4909348/4Keni2.JPG
 
If I press play on that spot, all you hear is a "pip" sound. Reducing this spot does nothing to the sound other than lowering the peak or transient, if you will, due to how tight we're zoomed in.
 
You could always try the transient shaper on the peak as well to control how much that transient is lashing out too. It's amazing how well that tool works in situations where peaks may come from transients such as snare drums, percussion, hats, beginning vocal phrases, hard piano strikes, hard acoustic guitar strikes etc.
 
I'd definitely try the above methods before I'd use a limiter on anything. When I use a limiter, it's only when I have mastered something and am finalizing it as that is always my last step. I have used the Waves L-3 a few times when something needed to be limited in a track and it worked perfectly. -2.5 to -3.0 threshold, and whatever output ceiling you decide. It will keep whatever it's limiting right to the numbers. You may need to work with the ARC settings/profile settings if you have the L-3 or the LL-3 (not to be confused with IK Multimedia ARC lol. This ARC stands for "Automatic Release Control")
 
That's how I'd handle it. I know it still doesn't answer your question which I'm sorry I don't have the answer to. When I've used the CC on my master bus, it's worked fine for me. As long as my fader is at 0, whatever I set it for ceiling wise, it stays right there for me. I hope you sort it out, good luck.
 
-Danny

I'm in NY on business, so I'm not sitting behing my DAW...but does n't right clicking and picking pre or post put the entire PC in that mode, not just the Concrete Limiter.  I believe that is a Pro Channel choice you make when you select pre or post.

Keni


I don't understand what I'm doing wrong here...
 
Using the Concrete Limiter I'm trying to reduce a few select peaks that have been yielding -0.6 or -0.3 in the final mix while the average peaks for the piece are at near -1.2
 
So I would think that if I set my threshold at -0.9 and my ceiling at -0.3 my end result should have nothing above 0.3?
 
So why do I get overs? I have the limiter inserted in the master's PC as the only working item and I've verified that everything is routed to the master... and though I'm seeing input and output on the Concrete, I don't see any gain reduction...
 
I would expect to get -0.3 peaks???
 
Thanks...
Keni
 

In the absence of any official documentation about the attack time or the attack slope... and with the experience you are having in mind... it is time to turn down the threshold.

Do you know of any limiters that can clamp down a signal where the threshold is only 0.6dB lower than the intended absolute, highest level peak? 

I don't.




I've seen some hard limit processes that make squared waves on purpose... but that's another story. 


best regards,
mike

daveny5


Do you have the limiter as the last effect in the chain? Are you using it in the ProChannel or in the Fx bin?

This is the direction I was thinking. Is there anything at all adding volume or changing literally anything about the output after that limiter? Another channel or buss added to this buss after the limiter, even a slight EQ or volume fader change; something dumb, usually in my case. Also try a different limiter, not assuming you've already tried that. Does that brickwall limiter have a Post make-up gain? Does the FX, if used in ProChannel set to Post? 

Silly things, all of these, but also, Cakewalk's meters will report incorrectly in many cases. I don't deem them accurate.

Hi Kenni,
 Do you have a copy of Adobe Audition?

 It has a hard limit process that simply cuts off the tops of the peak at any line you define.

 It's not very *musical*. The settings you are using are asking the signal to achieve an infinity:1 ratio within 0.6dB. That's a pretty sharp "knee".

 The CC wants to put a little curve on it... and may be... I'm just guessing here; something like a 40:1, or 20:1 ratio.

 If you really want the hard limit to cut off the tops with a square wave you can always just mix it so the peaks hit 0dBFS and then back the final wav down 0.3dB. You don't need a fancy plugin to cut a peak off square.

 Adobe Audition has an offline process known as hard limit that will cut a peak off at any line defined instantaneously. A true squaring of the wave. It just does what I described above as a macro.


 Have fun.

 best regards,
mike

There are a couple of threads floating around about the CL not working ...

You sure you're just not chasing your tail?

Real peaks will almost always be higher than what your meters read. For a limiter to prevent that, it needs to calculate the projected actual peaks that can occur between samples (intersample peaks, or ISPs) AND it needs a lookahead feature to allow it to see those peaks coming and pull them down in an unobtrusive way.

Not all limiters are capable of this. If you're stuck using such a limiter, all you can do is bring your levels down accordingly. Of course, the ideal solution would be to acquire a more capable limiter. Ozone would be my recommendation.

Danny Danzi

Keni


Hi Danny...

Nothing to be sorry about... I'm very pleased that you've given me of your time and experience to try helping me. It's only thru conversation that we get to know about each other and what level of assistance is needed...

Your ideas are all excellent and in line with my usual work... I rarely do this, but it seemed a simple matter (from my experience) to quickly solve in the manner I tried. I've done this in analog,,,

You're absolutely right that the CC is not the right tool for the job... I can't find another that I own that is any better suited. I used to have the Timeworks compressor which has separate input and threshold setting which allowed me to do this kind of thing tho it's brickwall never seemed to catch everything even with a fast attack setting... I'd try it but it's no longer available on this new machine...

Last night I suddenly started experiencing a new and weird problem (which I'll be posting separately) and it made this a not-needed-till-later issue which I will likely approach from one of the other methods...

But I still don't understand why a brickwall limiter's ceiling isn't strictly enforced...?

Much thanks again...

Just in the spirit of getting to know each other... I'm a professional engineer from back in the days of analog tape... I've been a studio designer/builder/owner/operator for most of my life in one capacity or more... Lots of credits... No money! ;-)

As a performing musician prior to getting into engineering, I'm a Berklee alumni (Class of '71)...

So I wear a lot of different hats for sure... But these days I mostly create and help others create...

A dedicated Cakewalk user since Cakewalk for Windows as I switched from being a beta tester and alpha site for the MIDI program Texture...

Best to you and thanks again for your efforts... I was guessing I knew the reason for the CC's not being right for this but was surprised the the brickwall was made of rice paper! ;-)

Much Thanks Again...
Keni

Hi Keni,
 
Ah ok, so you're a REAL engineer with a musical background to boot! *bows* :) I like to consider myself a real engineer...lol...I come from the full analog days myself, a little school, some out of school classes, loads of intern work and "in the field experience" with more time being spent in the field recording on various machines and formats. I even still have tape machines and a few racks of gear sitting here that I don't use much anymore. I should have went to school for music, but got pretty lucky as a hacker that could pick up just about any instrument and make a sound with it enough to use on a recording. LOL! After 40 plus years of that, my hacking skills as a musician have improved a bit also. :)
 
Yeah some of these processors we have available ITB won't get you those analog results nor will they react like you hope at times. I will say this though, if you get the cash, two recommendations that I think an engineer of your caliber should really have....definitely the UAD 2 stuff at some point. They've come down on their prices and you'd probably be fine with a UAD 2 Duo, unless you have the cash for a quad. Between the UAD Fatso and the NEVE 33609, you're pretty covered as these babies really so sound and react "analog" to me and are two of the best compressors I have EVER used in my life.
 
The other thing I'd be lost without, is the Waves API 2500 compressor. Fantastic piece that is a must have in everyone's tool box in my opinion. As for limiters, that PSP Xenon is a beast and the Ferarri/Bently/Bugatti of limiters. It's just not something I use for dirty hip hop/rap rock or metal due to how clean it is. You know how it goes...sometimes we need a little dirt under the old fingernails. :)
 
I keep calling rhe Concrete Limiter CC...not sure why, lol....but I meant CL. :) Like Bub, I too have read a few things about people having some issues, so it very well could be that limiter.
 
Another option to consider is what Mike had to offer. Adobe is such a great program for stuff like this. In my opinion, Audition 3 is one of the most under-rated programs ever made. Seriously. Not for the recording aspect, but due to the editing possibilities in its "edit mode". It has things in it that you just can't get anywhere and they truly work. It's been doing some of the stuff that iZoptope Rx Advanced is doing now....and it's been doing it for 100 years longer. LOL! The effects look a bit lame at times...but man, this is one program where the lack of GUI talent doesn't bother me in the least. LOL!
 
If you have it, Scott Garrigus has an awesome little tool you can grab here: 
 
http://www.digifreq.com/digifreq/downloads/SetupSonarUtils__302.exe
 
What this enables you to do is, if you have Adobe, it allows you to add it to Sonar's "tools" menu. You can hightlite a track, click on tools, then Adobe, and it will import just that file into Adobe's editor section. You can do what you need to do using the tools in Adobe, then save it as "edited version" or whatever and re-import it right back into Sonar without messing up your original track. This has really saved my butt quite a few times and is worth having as an extra tool in the box.
 
Anyway, hope some of this helps. I'm curious, just for my head...what track or tracks are creating these peaks? Like, what instrument(s) is it?
 
It sounds like you got it figured out though, so I'm glad about that. Take care man...nice chattin' with you. :)
 
-Danny

Hi Danny...

Thanks... I've heard a bit of your work and you do a great job... Schooling and the likes are only a particular path to achieving results... It's mostly in the desire and determination that it emerges...

I don't have Audition, and these days I'm so broke I can little afford such a "luxury"... Same with UAD... I've been aching to buy a quad from them but I can barely keep my electric on... I'm currently living in a small town and disconnected from the most business... I did homecare for my folks (simultaneous stroke victims) for a number of years and have lost much of my connections and continuing work through that time... during which I was world-trouble site for Soundscape (back in the SSHDR1 days) as it only entailed phone support...

Fortunately, the current Cakewalk pc76 and ca2a are competitive quality with the UAD's and I find them both quite pleasing... As much of my work is in very controlled environments/situations, I find little need for many "exotic" methods anymore...

But due to many things in this song, I've been remixing it for many days (over a few weeks) and I still have issues with the mix... These are mostly due to my radical use of flanged vocals which I typically would not do.... But the artist in me likes what I hear...

My problem is that no matter what I've tried, I can't get the vocals comfortable for myself and other listeners... I have a mix which sounds great to me... in stero... When played in mono, the vocal essentially disappears and I'm guessing there's some phase cancellation going on? I want the vocals subdued, but not loost and the mono isn't important to me tho many people do quick playback via iphone/ipad/etc and it makes it sound very bad...

So I had opted to try a "simple" idea to resolve these peaks being tired of working this tune! ;-) I guess that isn't going to work, but even worse is that along the way a new problem has reared it's ugly little head and now vocal clips are intermittently playing back (see my other post)... This is truly driving me crazy and making work on this song really drag....

But I have some errands to run and a simple session at noon, so I must run... I will try to post more later...

All My Best - And thanks again to everyone for chiming in with help and support...

Keni

Hi Keni,

Sorry to hear about your folks, that's a tough one. You're a good son. :)

On the flanged vocals, I know this is probably a dumb question, but have you eq'd the actual flange on those vocals and maybe even thought of compressing the flanger itself? This can really work well...especially with a good eq curve on the flanger due to how it can dip down and take certain "up front" elements away from the vocals. An additional compressor AFTER the flange (if you are using it in a bus) can really work wonders on how the flange literally executes itself over the vocal part. Just some more things to think about that may help you with this. :) Best of luck brother...keep us posted.

-Danny

Danny Danzi


Hi Keni,

Sorry to hear about your folks, that's a tough one. You're a good son. :)

On the flanged vocals, I know this is probably a dumb question, but have you eq'd the actual flange on those vocals and maybe even thought of compressing the flanger itself? This can really work well...especially with a good eq curve on the flanger due to how it can dip down and take certain "up front" elements away from the vocals. An additional compressor AFTER the flange (if you are using it in a bus) can really work wonders on how the flange literally executes itself over the vocal part. Just some more things to think about that may help you with this. :) Best of luck brother...keep us posted.

-Danny

Hi Danny...

Yes, I'm doing both... I've rolled off a considerable amount of lows (high pass at 144k) as well as a somewhat wide eq boost at something near 2k  and I'm compressing the flanged output with the CA2a (after the eq)...

As soon as I figure out why clips are intermittently and randomly not playing (see other post), I'll be back to fixing this issue...

Thanks again for all the good ideas and assistance...

Keni

bitflipper


Real peaks will almost always be higher than what your meters read. For a limiter to prevent that, it needs to calculate the projected actual peaks that can occur between samples (intersample peaks, or ISPs) AND it needs a lookahead feature to allow it to see those peaks coming and pull them down in an unobtrusive way.

Not all limiters are capable of this. If you're stuck using such a limiter, all you can do is bring your levels down accordingly. Of course, the ideal solution would be to acquire a more capable limiter. Ozone would be my recommendation.

intersample peaks, you don’t own stock in a limiter development company do you?