"Anthony Airon Oetzmann" <airon(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> David, you wrote:
>> I have a question though, how does the gradual attenuation work? How
>> about something that clips yet isn't continuous, like a cymbal crash?
>> And are all those graduations for the setting necessary? I think
>> instead of this, a self-adjusting attenuation would be even better. It
>> should work at an aggressive level however, and step back or
>> un-attenuate as soon as the clipping stops. What I'm thinking is
>> something like the concept of variable bitrate MP3 encoding. When the
>> decoder sees the first instance of a clipped sample, it automatically
>> attenuates the full level, but after so many samples of no clipping, it
>> steps back to no attenuation. And so on. What I fear is that a large
>> spike could occur in the beginning or middle of a file, setting a high
>> attenuation level, and then muffling the rest of the song which might
>> not clip at all.
>
> What you're describing is a Limiter. It would indeed be neat to have this
> function.
>
> Of course this should be a lookahead limiter. The Ultramaximizer L1 by Waves
> looks ahead by up to 68 samples on a Protools TDM system(that's its
> processing latency anyway). I don't think having a second latency i our case
> would be all that bad. Problem is, who can write a Limiter like that ?
> Perhaps one the authors of a free VST plugin would include his Limiter code
> in here. For short peaks this would be the right thing.
Are there any papers or web sites that discuss the pros/cons of limiters? I
have always had the impression limiters are undesirable because of the
continuous fluctuation of the output signal level.
The way attenuation is currently implemented in the MAD plug-in, doing any
kind of look-ahead is unfortunately promblematic. This could be changed, but
the primary benefit of the current method is that attenuation changes are less
audible than they would be otherwise.
-rob