Originally posted by J.J. Blair:
Less dynamic range, when talking about in terms of this type of limiting, mean more information. With a compressed file like an mp3, there is less room for all that information. I'm simply trying to say that before you go trying to make things louder, think about the implications this is going to have down the road. The MEs I contacted about this, when researching the article, agreed unanimously that heavily brickwall limited material sounds even worse when converted to mp3. Now, I wrote this article months ago, and sadly I can't recall the exact scientific reasoning. But if you'd like to put the theoretical reasons that it shouldn't sound worse aside and do a practical experiment of seeing what happens when you heavily L2 something and then convert it to 128 bit mp3 or aac, let me know what you hear.

There's the distortion artifact factor. After comparing 1/4" masters to the finished product, I (and many others) have noticed that certain limiters add distortion when brickwalled.

I have personally noticed a certain distortion when the Waves L1 and L2 limiter have been used on music. An informal poll of ME and recording engineers seems to indicate that it actually exists. I first noticed it when I received the CD of an album that I mixed. The artists insisted that the CD be “really loud”, and the ME did exactly as they asked and used L2 to make it happen. I was so embarrassed when I heard the CD, thinking, “Wow. Did I not hear that all this distortion gong on when I mixed this?” So I pulled out the 1/2” masters and listened, and none of that distortion was there.

Originally posted by J.J. Blair:
Here's some before and after for ya!

The article says:

Quote:

There's the distortion artifact factor. After comparing 1/4" masters to the finished product, I (and many others) have noticed that certain limiters add distortion when brickwalled.

Now, what I originally wrote and turned in was:

Quote:

I have personally noticed a certain distortion when the Waves L1 and L2 limiter have been used on music. An informal poll of ME and recording engineers seems to indicate that it actually exists. I first noticed it when I received the CD of an album that I mixed. The artists insisted that the CD be “really loud”, and the ME did exactly as they asked and used L2 to make it happen. I was so embarrassed when I heard the CD, thinking, “Wow. Did I not hear that all this distortion gong on when I mixed this?” So I pulled out the 1/2” masters and listened, and none of that distortion was there.

See the irony? In an article about limiting, I've been limited by my editor! And even worse, I have the indignity of people thinking that I mix to 1/4" and not 1/2"!

Craig,

I appreciate your honesty in this manner. I understand that mistakes can be made, especially when transcribing between a Mac and a PC (which seems absurd in 2007!). But as a subscriber of EQ, I do hope that not only the magazine takes a more objective look at the gear that's reviewed, but that there's better editing when those types of articles are written.

Just last year, I read an article where Butch Vig is stated as using a Shure "FM7" microphone on guitars, along with many other poorly edited mistakes. In all honesty, it kind of made me sick that I had subscribed for three years to a magazine that would allow such misprints. But after reading articles you've written for probably twenty years, I have faith that these types of issue won't occur in the future.

One more suggestion, if I may. I understand that it's difficult to criticize the very people that are paying for your magazine to be in circulation, but could there be a little more objectivity in the reviews and possibly even links to what exactly the reviewers have heard and recorded?

No offense, but that is an example of the type of "journalism" that sends newbies to the various forums asking "How can solid state sound like tubes?" or "What's a great tube mic pre? I don't want a solid state pre because I want something warm". The type of comments elicited in that review are confusing to those who haven't used higher end gear before, and very it's difficult to get a point across after someone's "read it in a magazine".

Bottom line is I certainly didn't think the Germanium came across as "just another preamp," but of course, YMMV.

I really think the applications aspect is key. An excellent example is the Neve Portico review, which I felt explained what feedforward compression was about in a concise and intelligent manner. To me, that's of more enduring value than printing only the author's opinions.

To be fair, the reviewer was careful to say that it didn't sound like a tube preamp, but that he felt it offered the thickness you get with tubes. That's really only one element of the tube sound, although in retrospect perhaps it would been useful if he'd offered an opinion as to how it held up with respect to other tube aspects (distortion characteristics, transformer ringing if transformers are used, clarity compared to tube circuitry that minimizes the Miller effect, etc.).

Ultimately I'd like to re-invent the review concept to deal more with what's the best and worst applications for a given piece of gear. For example, I really like Sonar, but so what? There are thousands of Pro Tools, Logic, DP, etc. users who probably think I'm a moron for not using their program of choice. But there are certain things Sonar does better than other programs, and which are important for the type of work I do. On the other hand, there are some things that Pro Tools does better than Sonar, and some things that Acid Pro does better than either one.

I think the purpose of a review should be to describe what a product does so accurately that the reader can decide for himself if it might rock his world or not. (FYI: I decided after reading the Germanium review it's probably not the pre for me, because I don't really want the sound to be processed, even if it is a subjectively pleasing type of processing - I go for the clean/straight wire with gain kinda thing most of the time.)

Hope this is useful, or at least interesting, information Thanks for the opportunity to engage in a dialog about this stuff. We at EQ think about these kinds of things all the time, so any feedback is really, really helpful.

I understand that EQ can't be tailored to my every whim

Hey all,
....we have a finite amount of space

Let us know what you want from us and, if it's a good and reasonable idea, we'll see what we can do.

Hey all,

We'll run more lightly edited articles (pieces that have only been touched to factual inaccuracies or glaring typos, as we can't justify running misinfomation anywhere) here and in the LTE forum.

Dealing with the limitations of print (in that we have a finite amount of space) we will always have to prioritize what information makes it in the pages--it's a necessary evil--but in order to help compensate for those sometimes unfortunate decisions we must make, we're willing to throw the unedited versions up for everyone's perusing pleasure.

J.J. approached me with this idea just a few weeks back, and I brought it to Craig not long after. He thinks it's worth a shot and so do I.

Feedback is good. Let us know what you want from us and, if it's a good and reasonable idea, we'll see what we can do.