interpolated
TBF I given up on lossy formats.

I love the new limiter.  I have other tools that will show the MP3 loss, but it makes perfect sense for this to be in the limiter because that is often the last effect in the entire process.
It may be my imagination, but it seems that the Adaptive Limiter shows more compression artifacts than other tools.  With other tools, compression at 320 shows almost no loss, but Adaptive Limiter shows quite a bit of loss even at the highest compression.  I don't doubt that AL is doing, but I just ask the question.
 
The real issue is acceptance of FLAC.  I just got a FIIO Bluetooth player that supports FLAC.  I see CD Baby supports FLAC.  I can't imagine anybody NOT using FLAC if it is supported.

I thought all fiio players accepted flac. It's my main format. Quality over quantity. Sorry read your statement wrong.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Try inserting Ozone on 10 tracks and buses just to see the MP3 preview and see what it does to your performance :)

Hello, :)
So you could put this on your master buss out? Do you need to use any specific settings?
also, would you leave it on when exporting or take it off like the IK ARC?
 
Thanks!
 
 

interpolated
I thought all fiio players accepted flac. It's my main format. Quality over quantity. Sorry read your statement wrong.

You are probably right.  This is the first Fiio I have owned.  I like it a lot.  I use it in small venues for background music, connected to the Samson XL800, which is really a great little system with Bluetooth receiver built in.
http://www.samash.com/expedition-xp800---800-watt-portable-pa--sxp800xxx-p
 
Even though it uses 8" speakers (plus a HF driver) it really has a very nice balanced sound.  I do have a 12" subwoofer I will add in if it is a little larger room.  And the XPD1 wireless mic at $80 integrates right into this system.  That's great sound quality for $80.  I know this is off topic, but I thought it was worth a mention for anybody who needs a very compact system with good sound quality, and loads of power.
 
Having said all that, everything I have loaded to the Fiio is MP3 because that's the source.  There is no point in converting MP3s to FLAC.  The horse has already left the barn.
 
It seems that iTunes supports FLAC but Amazon does not:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-not-lossless/forum/Fx3UK3J1FANZLQ9/Tx33D3DWUY99M8Z/7/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg7?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B002QD2PNY
 
But I wonder about iTunes because I think they still allow artists to upload material in MP3.

Such banter.....
 
Anyone planning on upgrading to a new i9 Machine..... CPU makers have gone core crazy.
 
In the future CW will have to build in latency as an artificial feature just to feel normal....

You are right: AL's "differences" test produces different results than Ozone's.
 
What I did was export a portion of a project twice, first with Ozone's artifact-monitor on and then with AL's artifact-monitor (both set to 320 kb/s). I exported them as 32-bit waves to avoid any differences from encoding or bit depth changes or dither. I then imported the two files into a new SONAR project and level-matched them. I then used exclusive-solo to bounce between them. 
 
To my surprise, they were audibly different from one another. Of course, they did not null, either. It does not appear that one is superior to the other, just different. Still, it raises some interesting questions about how two MP3 encoders could produce different results, given that they are both presumably using the same patented algorithms.
 

Maybe the speed at which the compression was performed makes a difference? (You know, the "faster/slower compression" option a lot of encoders have). It does with the LAME encoder - if you export a file with "quality = better" or "quality = faster," they won't null even though the kbps is the same. Also maybe a high or lowpass filter is enabled behind the scenes.
 
Encoders may use the same algorithms, but that doesn't mean the implementation is identical.

I get your point, truly I do, but I always feel this is a little bit of a LAME argument.
 
 
 
 
 
 
...I'll get my coat.

Craig is correct: the Adaptive Limiter's MP3 artifact preview may differ from other implementations due to the selection of the LAME parameters. 
 
Suppose you upload your mixed and mastered .wav file to some service which uses MP3 for hosting/playback. As a user, you can't be sure what LAME parameter settings are being used for encoding/decoding behind the scenes. For this reason, we decided to err on the side of "default" as opposed to "ideal" encoding parameters, so you can expect your final rendered MP3 to sound "at least as good" as the preview given in the Adaptive Limiter.
 
Imagine making careful adjustments based on MP3 codec preview, only to have your final MP3 contain additional artifacts that didn't show up in the preview...now that would be LAME!

Jon Downing [Cakewalk]
Suppose you upload your mixed and mastered .wav file to some service which uses MP3 for hosting/playback. As a user, you can't be sure what LAME parameter settings are being used for encoding/decoding behind the scenes. For this reason, we decided to err on the side of "default" as opposed to "ideal" encoding parameters, so you can expect your final rendered MP3 to sound "at least as good" as the preview given in the Adaptive Limiter.

That seems like a..."sound" engineering decision