LJB
I have the (new) Waves L1 and to my ears the Concrete Limiter sounds better, esp in the low end. It's a 64-band compressor if I recall correctly. I use it all the time, though not as a final mastering tool - I have Ozone 8 for that..

I had the old version of Waves L1 as well as L3 which has EQ built into the GUI solving that problem 
 One of my absolute favorite go to Waves mastering plugins is the Waves F6 Adaptive EQ.
 What's so great about the F6 is it only effects the areas at the points where the frequency anomalies occur and leaves the over all broadband EQ curve alone which gives you an over all more constant and predictable sound than a  traditional fixed point EQ even could.
 And yes it can be used on tracks, great for things like killing the boxiness out of close mic acoustic guitars, eliminating PLOSIVES and sibilance from singers who like to grab hold of and eat large condenser mic's, but running too many instances of the F6 will have a serious effect on computer recourses and recording latency, so don't forget to FREEZE all tracks which you use the F6 on.
 It's very much like having Cakewalk Adaptive Limiter built into the MB64 Multiband Compressor in one plugin, plus with a whole lot more functionality and control for zeroing in on just one problem frequency, or separately set and adjust ALL problem frequency band ranges completely independent of each other, each band switchable and assignable to mono, duel mono, stereo, center, and sides.
 It's like a parallel processing matrix with an overhear cam and glass packs, LoL 
 
But the L1 and L3 to me are really good for focusing on Electronica and Club dance music where there is NEVER any shortage of chest thump'in bass and kick drums going on, they were Waves answer to psycho acoustic processors such as the Aphex Aural Exciter and the BBE SonicMaximizer.
 Used judiciously and sparingly, these were really good at beefing up analog tape recordings, especially for restoring 10 to 20 year old tapes that lost all their high end frequencies over the years to prepare and repair them for mastering for digitizing to high quality .mp3 and CD formats. Waves L1 for harmonic tuning and L3 for tone shaping were my weapons of choice back in the day as great software equivalents to the Aphex Aural Exciter hardware which I still own and use occasionally for live sound reinforcement to give the illusion of having a bass sub when there actually isn't one.
 They really work their magic with time delay in the upper mid to high frequency ranges actually fooling your ears and brain into thinking your speakers or the source of the sound is actually clearer and or more airy then it actually is.
 I remember reading a "white paper" on psycho acoustic technology back in my studies for Audio MIDI engineering (Berklee School of Music Home Study courses circa 2002-'03). Typically overloaded with boring, tedious, and seemingly useless physics and stuff us creative musical types couldn't give a dead rat's sphincter bone about (until you finally get a grasp on it), I found Aphex's white paper on PAP unusually festinating and thought... OMG.... aM I tUrNing iNtO a NeRd? 
 And what was really amazing was, to field test my understanding of PAP, I plugged/wired my rack mount Aphex Aural Exciter type C2 into an old cheap Sony car stereo with a Radio Shack cassette player adaptor and hooked the Sony car stereo up to an old 6"x9" car speaker which I simply just placed on the carpeted floor and wasn't mounted in a speaker cabinet. Placing a bare speaker on a thick rug shouldn't produce any real low frequencies which actually radiate from the speaker cabinet itself.
 I wouldn't say it sounded like a Marshall or Fender amp, but quite shockingly it DID sound better than most cheapo bargain basement amps do, ya know, the kind of no name amps music stores like to sucker beginners into buying for $50 that come in any color you want, except for the color you want??
 
 Second gen Aphex's type C (with BIG Bottom) and BBE added bass contour control, a.k.a. sub harmonic synthesizers to fool your ears and brain into thinking the bass is actually there.
 Cakewalk has a plugin for adding sub bass harmonics synthisis that can be used to compensate for the L1's lack of bass control, but I can't remember what it's called at present. The plugin looks like a 19" rack mount unit, and like a lot of Waves plugins it has a switch to cut back on CPU usage so it can be used on tracks without taking much of a hit on computer resources.
 
And so, I'd also like to point out at this point is, assumptions are not only bad, they tend to be ridiculous and absurd coming from the completely negative mindset of those who assume everyone is out to get them, and assume anyone who says something they don't agree with or "believe" is lying to them.
 All I can say about that is PPPPPBBBBBBTTTTHHHZZZzz.. Sounds pretty shallow and narrow minded to me..
What makes anyone think they are so important or special to make such grandiose assumptions like that?
 
 
 And from my experiences, I found 90-95% of SONAR'S stability problems come from user error and poor work flow habits, and from novice user's who feel, just because SONAR can record unlimited tracks supporting 100's of plugins, doesn't mean your computer can!
 And just because you have an early gen Intel i7 machine you purchased on sale at Best Buy, doesn't mean you have a computer workstation capable of running a modern day DAW full steam ahead.
 And while it's very possible to run buss and mastering plugins on tracks, and vise versa, and get good results by breaking the rules and such, as long as you know how far you can push and go before crashing, burning, and crossing over the red line of destruction.
 It's a really good idea to learn what these plugins do and what are really all about and what the recommended uses  and applications are.
 And it's a GREAT idea to learn what the rules are before breaking them.
 
 
 

 

Well, I didn't classify it as a compressor, nor am I a novice or naive. It's a limiter, and the threshold slider controls the level at which compression begins to kick in.
 
I said I found calling it a gain control puzzling. Because ... well it's not a gain control.
I understand how you're talking about using it, which may be cool, but doesn't make it a gain or volume control.  Yes you may use it to apply some gain, but there are other effects there, namely limiting and compression, which you are obviously aware of and taking advantage of in the scenarios you describe.
 
However, to call it a gain or volume control, or use instead of a gain or volume control, it isn't, it's a limiter and functions quite differently. Therefore, to use it as, and call it a volume control or gain control, it's quite correct to call it a "pseudo gain control". I really don't understand why that seems to get such a reaction.

Very contradictive statement Cliffr. 1st paragraph say it's not classified as a compressor, 2sd paragraph you claim, ah, lemme copy and paste to quote a quote "namely limiting and compression".
 I'll try once more to attempt to clear the confusion and try to explain why using Concrete Limiter is much better and easier to make a track “stand out in the mix”  to use than simply cranking up the channel’s trim/Gain control.
 
The very differences you are misunderstanding are gain STAGE not gain CONTROL.
By turning up the channels gain/trim control knob you are also turning up your noise floor level amplifying unwanted room noises. Which are further enhanced by running the signal path thru the channels compressor and EQ and everything else running on the channel and aux. before the signal gets sent out of the channels output to the buss.
 Using the Concrete Limiter anywhere after the EQ and before final output to the buss can be used to set the STAGED level of gain including Compressor and EQ settings without compounding the signal noise floor level set and determined by the channel's gain/trim control.
 By simply turning up the channel's gain/trim control, your are changing/ disturbing and effecting your compressor's settings, which set off a chain reaction thru EQ settings which changes and effects everything differently down the signal paths line.
 
The CONCRETE LIMITER DOESN'T COMPRESS ANYTHING!, ZIP NADA! It just makes everything LOUDER from subtle loudness to full tilt boogie ZERO DYNAMICS where everything is heard at the same MAXIMUM VOLUME.
 And Concrete Limiter is great for full tilt boogie ZERO DYNAMICS mixes as well for anything used in elevators, shopping malls, dance halls, and jamming down the street listening to yer iPhone as well, and with amazing transparency.
 Hense the name Concrete Limiter, or generically called a “Brick Wall Limiter” where and when pushed hard, the wave form loses all dynamic peaks, dips, and valleys, and looks like a solid concrete brick wall. But that’s not all it can do, set it below the limiting threshold, it does a GREAT job at transparent GAIN STAGING!
While it's true the are many types of compressors Like FET (field effect transistor), optical, and vacuum tube, all which achieve basically the same thing of squashing the signal by "lowering" the highest signal level and raising the lowest signal level, but they all do it differently, and all do it in different flavors with the same basic theory of V=S+B. Velocity (sound pressure) = Slope (ratio) and Bias (unity) And as a basic rule of physics, by the very nature of compressors, contrary to popular novice belief,  they in fact REDUCE the overall unity by smoothing and reducing the spaces between HIGHEST signal levels with the lowest signal levels. That’s why a makeup gain control on is typically added final output.
All CONCRETE LIMITER does is bring the lowest sounds from the bottom of the perceived noise floor up to the top once a user determined threshold has been reached. But until that threshold is met (like when it's meter starts registering limiting) it ONLY raises the overall volume level of the signal it receives, very colorlessly and odorless GAIN STAGING without effecting anything before it in the signal path, without any limiting occurring at all.
 
 
And you can argue all you want Cliffr, nothing is going to change that reality.
 
 

Steev
 

Well, I didn't classify it as a compressor, nor am I a novice or naive. It's a limiter, and the threshold slider controls the level at which compression begins to kick in.
 
I said I found calling it a gain control puzzling. Because ... well it's not a gain control.
I understand how you're talking about using it, which may be cool, but doesn't make it a gain or volume control.  Yes you may use it to apply some gain, but there are other effects there, namely limiting and compression, which you are obviously aware of and taking advantage of in the scenarios you describe.
 
However, to call it a gain or volume control, or use instead of a gain or volume control, it isn't, it's a limiter and functions quite differently. Therefore, to use it as, and call it a volume control or gain control, it's quite correct to call it a "pseudo gain control". I really don't understand why that seems to get such a reaction.

Very contradictive statement Cliffr. 1st paragraph say it's not classified as a compressor, 2sd paragraph you claim, ah, lemme copy and paste to quote a quote "namely limiting and compression".
 I'll try once more to attempt to clear the confusion and try to explain why using Concrete Limiter is much better and easier to make a track “stand out in the mix”  to use than simply cranking up the channel’s trim/Gain control.
 
The very differences you are misunderstanding are gain STAGE not gain CONTROL.
>>>Snip

 
No, not contradictive at all.
Limiting and gain reduction are compression by definition. I didn't label it as a compressor, because it's not, it's a limiter. No matter how ancy nancy you want to get about terms and definitions, when you apply gain, limiting, gain reductions, dependent on some threshold, you are compressing the dynamics of the signal. Fact, call it what you want. I'm not misunderstanding anything here.
 
Somebody said "I like to use the concrete limiter as a gain control". Then pointed to a video titled "Using the concrete limiter as a Volume Control".
 
I was pointing out, that it's not a "Gain Control". Or a Volume Control. In that context it's a "pseudo gain control".
 
 

Steev
 

The CONCRETE LIMITER DOESN'T COMPRESS ANYTHING!, ZIP NADA! It just makes everything LOUDER from subtle loudness to full tilt boogie ZERO DYNAMICS where everything is heard at the same MAXIMUM VOLUME.
 And Concrete Limiter is great for full tilt boogie ZERO DYNAMICS mixes as well for anything used in elevators, shopping malls, dance halls, and jamming down the street listening to yer iPhone as well, and with amazing transparency.
 Hense the name Concrete Limiter, or generically called a “Brick Wall Limiter” where and when pushed hard, the wave form loses all dynamic peaks, dips, and valleys, and looks like a solid concrete brick wall.

Tada, when the wave from loses all dynamic peaks, dips, and valleys - guess what. It's been compressed. Maybe not the SAME type of compression that you are getting from what you label as a compressor. But it's compressed. Anything that squashes one part of a signal and not others, is compressing the signal. Fact.
 
Concrete limiter is NOT a gain control, and it's NOT a volume control, it has OTHER effects, which is what I was pointing out. And yes, when the threshold is reached, limiting and gain reduction kick in. The signal dynamics are altered. Quote "loses all dynamic peaks and valleys" = Compressed :-)
 
I didn't come to argue, so I'll leave the last word to you. Go for it :-)
 

Saxon1066
Haha.  Yeah, I can hear you on that.  I've been skeptical about using it on a final product.

+1. All one has to do is compare it to a decent limiter and the decision to use or not is easy to make!

Gmichaelhall

Saxon1066
Haha.  Yeah, I can hear you on that.  I've been skeptical about using it on a final product.

+1. All one has to do is compare it to a decent limiter and the decision to use or not is easy to make!

What is it you find bad about it?

John

Gmichaelhall

Saxon1066
Haha.  Yeah, I can hear you on that.  I've been skeptical about using it on a final product.

+1. All one has to do is compare it to a decent limiter and the decision to use or not is easy to make!

What is it you find bad about it?

The sound it imparts is not subtle. If it is a sound that someone is into, great. Also I believe it has an adverse impact on the mix image both middle to side and back to front.
If you mono everything below 500hz before hitting the CONCRETE limiter, you can better hear its affect on the stereo image as well as the very narrow mono centre. I don't like it at all and I cannot imagine anyone working their butt off to perfect a tonal and spectral balance of a mix to then send it through this thing, and call it a win.

Adaptive Limiter is superior to Concrete Limiter as a mastering limiter. It’s a good limiter however and really simple to use.

michaelhanson
Adaptive Limiter is superior to Concrete Limiter as a mastering limiter. It’s a good limiter however and really simple to use.

It is much better isn't it? I wish it was a more efficient plugin, tends to be a bit of a pig but it certainly doesn't have all the artifacts and blatant decimation of the CL. My favourite limiter is the Precision Limiter from UA, and since a de esser is also a form of compression, if I have a build up of 11khz on my mixbus, I will use the Precision de esser to knock that down and out of the way.
I bought the Newfangled Equivocate and love it but still have not wrapped my head around how to use it efficiently, it too is a bit of a pig but pretty clean with a distinct tonality that is really nice. I hope to spend more time with that plugin in the near future. Because of the situation with Sonar, I wasn't going to invest alot of time in the AL, but if this BandLab move gets the ship back on course, I may. Overall, I find the Cakewalk plugins are not very efficient to use and are often buggy. Rather than BandLab adding new features it would be great if someone got in under the hood and sorted some of these more promising plugins out, and bin the rest.

As far as the master buss is concerned I prefer a clipper, I certainly wouldn't use the concrete limiter on a master, good enough for channels though. In Studio One I use the Waves L1 for individual tracks.

Rasure
As far as the master buss is concerned I prefer a clipper, I certainly wouldn't use the concrete limiter on a master, good enough for channels though. In Studio One I use the Waves L1 for individual tracks.

Ah, but a clipper is an artistic choice and used as such can be a wonderful sound to impart.. Whereas strapping a dirty brickwall limiter across a mix bus seems such a questionable choice to make, it's not 2006 after all. 🤣