SurroundByUs.com

The use of compressors/limiters is an interesting topic.

Today, many stereo sources have RMS levels around -15 dB, sometimes even lower. A few years ago, it was more around -20 to -25 dB. When you take a stereo source and run it through an extraction process like SPEC while trying to balance the soundfield with the help of the spreadsheet, you find that all channels "lose" some RMS in the process. You start with -15 dB and you end up with -25 dB with peaks at 0 dB. You did not artificially create an expanded dynamic range which wasn't there in the first place. What happened is that some high transient peaks were created by the extraction process and the spreadsheet had to lower the RMS levels not to cause clips. But you know that's not consistent with the source which had RMS values of -15 dB.

So what can you do to restore the energy that was there initially? With compression, you immediately restore some of that energy. With limiters, you can increase the volume (gains) by a few dB and let the limiters smoothly cut off the clips. As with everything else, this must be used carefully. Too much compression or too aggressive limiting will be annoying, so use it moderately just to restore the initial "feel" of the source.

I think a lot of us struggled with the idea of adding compression to a compressed source. On the surface, it makes no logical sense. In the end, though, like Zeerround said in a previous post, what's far more damaging are the aural exciters, and things of that sort, which come bundled with programs like Ozone. Too much of those will absolutely give you a headache.

I read a question on another forum which asked if upmixing technology has gotten better. While I'd absolutely answer "yes" to that, I don't think it's what should get all the credit as far as better quality conversions. I think we've also learned how to use other tools better. I converted plenty an album in which I used a mastering VST such as Ozone or Yamaha Final Master, stuck to default settings, and settled for a mix which just wasn't pleasing to the ear. If anything, I use simpler tools now, or make sure I am turning off any features within those VSTs except for exactly what I need. I use limiters only when necessary, and only in the case where what is bringing down my mix is one or two isolated transients or peaks.

I agree with Fan51 that, after running through an extraction process like SPEC, you actually may need to add some very light compression back in there.

i did more than 2 thousands conversions and i'm still not convinced to use compression, question of taste, nothing against who use. i really left the tests to stay only with levels(gains).

very nice idea about the 'outputs clips leds', are softers to run than RMS Buddye using less CPU!

the advantage that i can see now of the RMS Buddyes is that you really measure the levels of individual channels and don't need to stay looking as we can "freeze" the high values in the 'preview' before encode but maybe in the new version came seamless mode with the leds not to blink only but to freeze the "light on" after first peak,... etc!

Could make "latching" LEDs an option, or have one of each type.

I'm playing with Synthedit now. Could try to make an RMS buddy replacement that had all the features but that takes up less space.

Need many more hours in the day

right, seems really very nice and softer to the layout/CPU!