What's the opposite of a SOFT limiter?

Good people,

I've been learning and used a soft limiter that comes with Sonar LE.

It does a good job..I read that it only works on the peaks and lowers them.

So, now, I'd like to ask if there's such a thing as the opposite of a soft limiter, which would just exactly up the valleys a little, like in vocals, for instance.

What'd it be called? Any free VST's, or does such thing come with Sonar, LE in particular?

Thanks for all replies.

The opposite is a hard limiter!! A soft limiter cuts the tops off but tries to be nice about it and make it very soft. A brickwall or hard limiter is a bit more brutal, as already mentioned.

I think what NoKey is referring to though is known as Upward Compression. Instead of turning everything above a threshold down, it turns everything below the threshold up! It can often produce smoother results, but they are not that common. But have you hearrd of parallel compression? This uses a downwards compressor (aka a normal compressor) to bring up the quiet passages. I won't go into detail as you can read up about it.

So for a unit that does it in one, it's upward compression - but much more commonly used, and probably easier for you to use would be parallel compression. There would be parallel compression plugs on the market that do it in one, but you don't need em. Sonitus and a clone will do the job fine :)

Expansion.  One of the SONAR PROD's new software units has it - I think the vox channel.

Compression/limiting, esp. serial (parrellel is an extreme example) can do the same thing, practically speaking.  By squashing the peaks you can raise the volume of the track(s) w/o peaking.  If you use two units in serial, you can more gentley raise the volume in the first compressor and then use the 2nd to catch any overs produced.  Parellel (or NY Compression, etc.) uses a heavily squashed output or separate track mixed w/ a more less processed or dynamic original track.  Volume control between the two can add weight or punch to the mixed tracks.  Some software can do this internally or you can just use sends or even copy the track, over processing it.

@

Zungle: Upward expansion turns up everything above a threshold upwards. Think of it this way, expansion makes things more dynamic, compression makes them less dynamic. When you bring in the upward word, it means levels are going up, and downwards means levels are going down. So whether or not this happens above or below a threshold, is dependant on if it's compression or expansion.

Downwards compression (aka compression): Attenuates signals above a threshold
Upwards compression: Turns up signals below a threshold
Downwards expansion (aka expansion): Attenuates signals below a threshold (a gate is an expander, but it attenuates the signal to negative infinity)
Upwards expansion: Turns up signals above a threshold


AT: Parallel compression doesn't have to be extreme. You can apply it very subtly. Bob Katz tends to use a ratio of about 2.5:1 with a threshold of -50 when mastering. This is pretty heavy compression, but results in not so extreme sounding results. To get really technical, it should really be referred to as NY compression as parallel compression simply means two compressors set up in parallel. It by no means suggests one should be compressed and the other set at 1:1 with the level of the compressed one brought up to taste. It suggests you use two compressors in parallel with ratios other than 1:1. It's a broad term. Only reason I'm saying this is because you say parallel is an extreme example of serial compression. Yes they CAN be used to produce similar results, but in the way we usually refer to parallel compression (NY compression), they are completely different. Serial compression can only bring down the peaks. NY compression brings up the troughs (but parallel compression can bring up the troughs OR only bring down the peaks - depending on how you use it). Completelly different. You can set them to produce similar results, but if you use them for what you normally would, they will produce pretty different results. I just don't think that practically speaking they do the same thing.

Zungle: Upward expansion turns up everything above a threshold upwards

Understood, I inadvertently used the word ratio instead of threshhold

Good advice, and well taken, Matt.

I am a slow goer on this for lack of breath. But I am still moving on, little by little.

Thanks a lot..Much appreciated information, everyone.

Matt,

good explanation.  I should have said NY compression is the extreme form of parallel compression (however one achieves it).  That is how I've always heard it, anyway.  Layer an extremely compressed version of the track underneath.  That can up the volume of the quieter clips, as the Op seems to want to do.  except for the vox channel in SONAR, I don't think there is a dedicated expander in the arsenal.

As always, it is best to just twist the knobs until you find something that works.  At least he knows where he wants to go.  That puts him up on me about half the time.  I just know what I don't like.

;-)

AT, I never even thought of parallel compression being used in a different way to what is more known as NY compression before! Your post just got me thinking. I think I would like to try it and see how it goes. Sometimes I'll use serial to smooth out the macrodynamics then another to tame the upper end a little (not as hard as a limiter though), but this has got me thinking to try the exact same thing in a parallel configuration. I imagine it would be more subtle than the serial method and would give different results to the typical NY method. We could even use a parallel/serial configuration! Use NY to bring up the quiet parts then some subtle compression on the peaks afterwards. A different result again. Lots of interesting ways this can be done! I must try it soon!!

Philip


Am I too late to cast my vote?

What's the opposite of expansion ... a limiter? ... or a gate?

For vocals and masters, upward expansion may be a terrible thing ... it brings up the backround noise and rumble!  My Home recorded vocals oft require a gate instead.

While upward expansion/parallel compression comes devoutly recommended by Mastering engineer, Bob Katz, in his Mastering Audio book ... I doubt Ethan Winer extoles it for most producers.

On my mixes, I 'feel' it to be exceedingly over-rated and cumbersome ... usually I just use M/U gain on all the 'downward' compressors. 

I'd, personally, use the parallel compression buss for kick and snare ... only.  But I wonder if that's even necessary.  Certainly my ears can't tell ... due to expectation bias.  (but I use the drum sequencers, Superior 2 and Sonar Beatscape ... where most of the expansion is already there.)

Mixing art seems far more important than expansion.

Thank you, Philip for your valuable input.

As I have only so far used the soft-limiter and it seemed to work only in the peaks, I was after something that would only work on the valleys. But your point on increasing noise is quite valid, and of course proper sound from the beginning is the best.

I also can see that in vocals, which are taken via microphone, is where one can have more noise than on soft synths, and that there's no better way than to improve on vocals and on "working the mic".

Thank you.

One thing, though is that some aspects seem to be conditioned..For instance, if I were to use an expander, but only to a small clip portion, and not to the entire track, perhaps would be a matter of benefit over the detriment.

I can now see why it'd be easier to cut from the top than to lift from the bottom.

jcatena


Hahaha, lots of confussion here, i see.
There is not such a thing like a downward or upward compressor: it is exactly the same thing.
To say that gain is reduced for higher levels is exactly the same as to say that gain is increased for lower levels.
ANY compressor will make the difference between the larger and smaller signals smaller.
Any expander will make the difference larger.
The threshold will always adjust the transition point from linear gain to compression, and the ratio the slope of such compression.
With companders or graphic dynamics you can specify different compressed or expanded transfer for each portion of the level range.
A limiter is simply a compressor: a hard limiter is a compressor with 0 attack, 0 release and infinite ratio (puntual transition band); a soft limiter tipically adds some release time and has a small transition band, and very large but not infinite ratio.
 
At the end, every compressor or limiter will lower the larger peaks, or amplify the valleys: it is exactly the same thing described from different points of views.
 
Good use of dynamic processors make your life much easier and can do marvels. And bad use destroys your music, as most masters demonstrate nowadays. Make yourself a favor and learn to master dynamics processing, you won't be dissapointed.
 
 

Thanks for your post jcatena,

So, what's the opposite of a soft limiter?

Thanks again.

Welcome Back Jose!!!

Thanks JCatena and D.J. Espo for the explanations!