Fabfilter Archives - Black Octopus Sound

Fabfilter l2 Archives

fabfilter l2 Archives

FabFilter Pro L2 Tutorial by Luca Pretolesi Overview Learn how to Master your tracks like 3x Grammy Engineer Luca Pretolesi. This Limiter Basics course. Limiting (Fabfilter L2) questions. Mastering Limiting! i watched the tutorials from fabfilter and get some points not right yet: 1. afaik i know. FabFilter New Timeless 3 and Vintage Tape Delay Plug-in · Thorsten Meyer - Monday, FabFilter Pro-L2, available on Dec, 5th.

Fabfilter l2 Archives - think

Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Post Production > Post - Surround - Video > FabFilter Pro-L2 NEW


PDA

View Full Version : FabFilter Pro-L2 NEW


dr sound

, AM

There is a new Fabfilter Limiter :
storycall.us

We have been using it on an Atmos mix and it is very slick!
It has the ability to work in !
"FabFilter Pro-L 2 features precise true peak level meters and extensive loudness metering with support for the EBU R, ITU-R BS and ATSC A/85 standards. Combined with its unique real-time level display, you have all the information you need to achieve the best possible results."

Since I previously owned the Fabfilter Pro-L1 it was a very reasonable upgrade price! Log into your Fabfilter account to see what deals they have for you.

Definitely be using this on all Immersive Mixes along with mixes.


Rich Breen

, AM

Yeah! Bought it this morning - excited to finally have this fantastic limiter in a surround version. Now, if only we can get a surround version of the Pro-C2 and the Pro-R


vBulletin® v, Copyright ©, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Источник: [storycall.us]
FabFilter Pro L 2 Crack + License Key (Mac) VST Free Download

FabFilter Pro-L 2 Crack + License Key (Latest) Download FabFilter Pro-L 2 Crack is a plugin that will interact with your unparalleled sounds and user interface. The Voice and VST32 sound quality is now available. This is all about the advancement of a new generation in order to perfectly organize the contents of music. However,… Read More »

Category: MAC ToolMusicPluginTags: abfilter pro l, fabfilter l, fabfilter l2, fabfilter limiter, fabfilter pro l 2, fabfilter pro l 2 crack, FabFilter Pro L 2 Free Download, fabfilter pro l 2 license key free download, FabFilter Pro L 2 patch free download, FabFilter Pro L 2 vst free download, fabfilter pro l crack, fabfilter pro l license key, fabfilter pro l license key free, fabfilter pro l2, fabfilter pro l2 free download, fabfilter pro l2 review, fabfilter pro limiter, pro l 2

Iconic One Theme

Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum > Fabfilter PRO-L 2 Released


PDA

View Full Version : Fabfilter PRO-L 2 Released


karbomusic

, PM

Looks interesting, especially with true peak limiting, LUFS and surround support. I have PRO-L and it's my go to limiter so may have to try this out

oMJeWXtJODc


Stews

, PM

Looks amazing!

Find it weird, though, that their CD preset is so loud but their "streaming" one is a lot less so, didn't realise this was a difference that generally existed.


karbomusic

, PM

Looks amazing!

Find it weird, though, that their CD preset is so loud but their "streaming" one is a lot less so, didn't realise this was a difference that generally existed.

Yea, I really like some of the new features but can't try till later. I think he said the CD one was an 'ode to loudness wars' addition and -8 to LUFS is where those usually end up; the streaming one is basically inline with streaming services so you can export and be closer to their target without it being turned up/down during processing.

I've been targeting youtube lately which I thought used LUFS but a recent test made me think it was (just right-click any video and choose "stats for nerds" and you can tell by how much it turned your content up or down based on the loudness it scanned). Either way, I've found it fairly easy to render with a suitable loudness where YT only affected by 1/3 of a dB or less so it's becoming nice to be able to have some real control or better said more predictable control for various services. :)

Haven't seen you lately btw! :)


Stews

, PM

Nice tip with the nerd stats thing!

Happy to hear that Youtube normalise to those levels. I sometimes feel pressured to push up to or in case people find my music too quiet but that's really good if Youtube is making quieter levels more common.

Got a baby about to pop out any day now so don't have much time for foruming these days! Pop in now and then to see if there are new things happening :)


Fergler

, PM

I want an isolated recording of him saying 'phat and punchy' it would make great EDM samples :D


karbomusic

, PM

I want an isolated recording of him saying 'phat and punchy' it would make great EDM samples :D

I saw that LOL. :)


karbomusic

, PM

Got a baby about to pop out any day now so don't have much time for foruming these days! Pop in now and then to see if there are new things happening :)

Contrats! Down stay absent too long. :)


Stews

, PM

Contrats! Down stay absent too long. :)

Cheers bro appreciate it


MRMJP

, PM

Looks amazing!

Find it weird, though, that their CD preset is so loud but their "streaming" one is a lot less so, didn't realise this was a difference that generally existed.

The theory is that with many streaming services like Spotify and TIDAL applying loudness normalization by default, the need to master to -9 LUFS or louder is no longer relevant unless you're into the AUDIO EQUIVALENT OF TYPING IN ALL CAPS.

Songs mastered to a more reasonable level of or LUFS (Integrated) will often have more impact and can even feel louder than something that is brick-walled to -6 LUFS and then turned down roughly by roughly 8 LUFS by the loudness normalization of that streaming service.

We're in a weird transitional phase where for CD and other non-loudness normalized scenarios, people still have a fear of being too quiet but in an ever increasing loudness normalized world with most streaming services and YouTube, dynamic is the new loud. Some people are making two different masters but I prefer to just make one sensible master version when it comes to loudness because the use of limiting to get extreme loudness, or lack of extreme limiting to keep a more dynamic and natural master can change the balance of instruments too much and just confuse the client I am mastering for.

I think the big turning point will be when Apple Music/iTunes has Sound Check (which is their current version of loudness normalization) on by default but for now, it remains off by default so many people don't utilize it.

It would also help if the streaming services would agree on a standard level but at least the tide is shifting.

That being said, there are no rules, only best practices and personal preference.

I think some bands/artists will just have to learn the hard way when they discover that after pushing the mastering engineer to go as hot as possible (-6 LUFS for example), that their master just sounds dwarfed and distorted after loudness normalization.

We can explain this all we want but I think it will be up to the artists and bands to hear it for themselves to start going along with it more easily.


karbomusic

, PM

We can explain this all we want but I think it will be up to the artists and bands to hear it for themselves to start going along with it more easily.

That's such an easy thing to demonstrate - if one turns it up and it sounds better and has more impact as they do, they're getting there - assuming the content has impactful elements such as drums being an example. Being around as long as I have, I witnessed when that used to be the norm then it went away. :( The fact that crushed down to -9 or god forbid -6 literally fatigues the ears should be enough but so many don't have the background/experience to understand that is occurring.


MRMJP

, PM

That's such an easy thing to demonstrate - if one turns it up and it sounds better and has more impact as they do, they're getting there - assuming the content has impactful elements such as drums being an example. Being around as long as I have, I witnessed when that used to be the norm then it went away. :( The fact that crushed down to -9 or god forbid -6 literally fatigues the ears should be enough but so many don't have the background/experience to understand that is occurring.

Yes. There are more and more written and audio examples of this appearing every week but it's ultimately up to the ears of the client which may or may not be as adept as we'd like, and they are often listening on compromised systems.

Even those that get it often revert to being fearful of being "too quiet" rather than preserving the integrity of the audio.

I think we'll get back to a point of reasonable loudness levels and dynamics back in music but we're definitely in a transitional period at the moment and will be for another year or two probably.


karbomusic

, PM

Even those that get it often revert to being fearful of being "too quiet" rather than preserving the integrity of the audio.


Even I get a little paranoid about that but typically live between and I did a test with my wife as an unknowing guinea pig a few years back. Created two playlists on my phone - one was only great tunes with high DR content, the other great songs but crappy DR. Connected it to my surround system in my car ( watts, 17 speakers with subs under each seat) when we went on a trip.

Playlist 2 auto played when playlist 1 ended. I had it fairly cranked all the way through P1, she bobbed her head and sang along - P2 began and with in 10 seconds she literally said "turn that down, what the f*k just happened". She knows nothing about music or any of this and it was that apparent to her.


Stews

, PM

Just realised how close the product now sounds to Waves' L2


karbomusic

, PM

Just realised how close the product now sounds to Waves' L2

That should depend on the settings, it should really be able to outdo L2 in every way IMHO. That being said, I still contend that Voxengo's Elephant is one of the best, most transparent limiters ever made. :)


Stews

, PM

That should depend on the settings, it should really be able to outdo L2 in every way IMHO. That being said, I still contend that Voxengo's Elephant is one of the best, most transparent limiters ever made. :)

Sorry I should have been clearer, I just mean the product name itself "Pro-L2" is quite similar to "L2".

The limiter itself being able to sound like the Waves is certainly no bad thing though, it must be considered a classic.


karbomusic

, PM

Ah gotcha. :)


RJHollins

, PM

I'm finding the Fab L2 much improved over v1.

Beside the sonics, the new metering is very useful.

Side note: INT LUF is becoming quite a common target in
my Mastering work, particularly for streaming destinations.


Magicbuss

, PM

The theory is that with many streaming services like Spotify and TIDAL applying loudness normalization by default, the need to master to -9 LUFS or louder is no longer relevant unless you're into the AUDIO EQUIVALENT OF TYPING IN ALL CAPS.

Songs mastered to a more reasonable level of or LUFS (Integrated) will often have more impact and can even feel louder than something that is brick-walled to -6 LUFS and then turned down roughly by roughly 8 LUFS by the loudness normalization of that streaming service.

We're in a weird transitional phase where for CD and other non-loudness normalized scenarios, people still have a fear of being too quiet but in an ever increasing loudness normalized world with most streaming services and YouTube, dynamic is the new loud. Some people are making two different masters but I prefer to just make one sensible master version when it comes to loudness because the use of limiting to get extreme loudness, or lack of extreme limiting to keep a more dynamic and natural master can change the balance of instruments too much and just confuse the client I am mastering for.

I think the big turning point will be when Apple Music/iTunes has Sound Check (which is their current version of loudness normalization) on by default but for now, it remains off by default so many people don't utilize it.

It would also help if the streaming services would agree on a standard level but at least the tide is shifting.

That being said, there are no rules, only best practices and personal preference.

I think some bands/artists will just have to learn the hard way when they discover that after pushing the mastering engineer to go as hot as possible (-6 LUFS for example), that their master just sounds dwarfed and distorted after loudness normalization.

We can explain this all we want but I think it will be up to the artists and bands to hear it for themselves to start going along with it more easily.

What's a CD?

Mastering for vinyl I get. Theres actually a market for it. I havent bought a CD in a decade. If streaming audio standards de-militarize the loudness wars then I'm all for that.


karbomusic

, PM

I'm finding the Fab L2 much improved over v1.


Same here, used it last night for a couple of hours. Big improvement.


Sound asleep

, PM

Fabfilter is always really solid with their plugins. I am actually a little surprised how long it took some companies to really start getting on board with LUFS normalization.

Idk if I'll end up getting this plugin, but I'm confident it's one of the best limiters you could get.

iZotope is also really great, and I would imagine the modern setting on this is similar to that. It's pretty smart the way that works. waves L2 was a popular limiter of mine for a long time, and L1 also, but it's old tech now, imo. This looks and sounds far superior to it.


MRMJP

, PM

What's a CD?

Mastering for vinyl I get. Theres actually a market for it. I havent bought a CD in a decade. If streaming audio standards de-militarize the loudness wars then I'm all for that.

Yeah, I really don't buy CDs anymore either but I still send out a few DDP masters for CD production every week for clients of mine so it's still a valid format. Bands can still sell them to drunk people at shows that just want to buy something and get it signed.

If I were FabFilter I wouldn't have called this setting "CD" though, I would just call it full scale digital. I think it's a European thing to still cling to the CD term.

While more and more streaming services are doing loudness normalization which is great, there are still some places where full scale digital is relevant such as CD, Bandcamp, and SoundCloud to name a few.


RJHollins

, PM

Many of my Jazz and Classical projects request Master CD's.

[just had to purchase another Plextor burner man, they cost a fraction of what they once were].

Beside How can you have a 'CD Release Party' without CD's !!!

:)


MRMJP

, PM

Beside How can you have a 'CD Release Party' without CD's !!!

:)

Yeah, it is weird when some bands these days have an album release party when there is no CD, and the vinyl STILL isn't ready because all the pressing plants are backed up.

So it's basically just a normal show at that point.


RJHollins

, PM

Yeah that is a problem.

and why we get requests for a Limited Edition CD run JUST for
these release parties.

The Limited CD are considered a 'premium', and can justify the co$t.

This is business, and both new and loyal Fans want to connect and support.

No difference to having plenty of XXXL printed T-shirts, etc.


Stews

, PM

It's interesting that vinyl is making a comeback but it does make sense - if someone is buying either just because they like the idea of buying a physical object rather than data then it makes sense to get the one that has a much bigger album art and where the music is physically engraved onto it rather than just digital data.

P.S. FabFilter's interfaces must be the best in the business by far - they're a thing of beauty. For me they're easily the best interfaces that aren't a picture of hardware that's being emulated.


lolilol

, AM

Fabfilter is always really solid with their plugins. I am actually a little surprised how long it took some companies to really start getting on board with LUFS normalization.

Idk if I'll end up getting this plugin, but I'm confident it's one of the best limiters you could get.

iZotope is also really great, and I would imagine the modern setting on this is similar to that. It's pretty smart the way that works. waves L2 was a popular limiter of mine for a long time, and L1 also, but it's old tech now, imo. This looks and sounds far superior to it.

There was a post by a limiter junkee on KVR (yes that exists), and he had almost every limiter out there (although at the time the FF L2 didn't exist I believe). If i remember well, his favorite limiters were Limitless, iZotope Ozone and ToneBoosters Barricade. He also said that the Waves L2 was completely obsolete, compared to modern limiters.
Personally, I use Barricade almost everywhere, both on tracks and master.


vanhaze

, AM

Total agree.
Barricade is really great.
Also i am a big fan of Sonnox Limiter plugin.
And don't forget the awesome TDR Limiter 6.

L2 sounds like crap nowadays, imho.
Yeah, it can make things loud but then very unpleasant sounding to the ear.


Stews

, PM

There was a post by a limiter junkee on KVR (yes that exists), and he had almost every limiter out there (although at the time the FF L2 didn't exist I believe). If i remember well, his favorite limiters were Limitless, iZotope Ozone and ToneBoosters Barricade. He also said that the Waves L2 was completely obsolete, compared to modern limiters.
Personally, I use Barricade almost everywhere, both on tracks and master.

Some people live very exciting lives :P


bladerunner

, AM

Can't wait for the day limiters become simply a necessary evil to stop audio going over 0dB. They all sound crap when compared to the unlimited signal and if you're doing more than about 2dB of GR on peaks then you're doing it wrong basically.


Stews

, AM

Can't wait for the day limiters become simply a necessary evil to stop audio going over 0dB. They all sound crap when compared to the unlimited signal and if you're doing more than about 2dB of GR on peaks then you're doing it wrong basically.

Surely the day is already here that you can choose to do that if you wish?

I like the sound of it in place of mix bus compression


bladerunner

, AM

Surely the day is already here that you can choose to do that if you wish?

I like the sound of it in place of mix bus compression

I'm just a bit jaded with limiter worship lol. It's just a bloody compressor at very high ratio and super fast attack for gawds sake. If it's transparent peak limiting you want then a soft clipper is the way to go but still the limiter worship goes on..

I do put some of the blame for lack of dynamics in modern music squarely on the shoulders of plugin manufacturers for the marketing of these kind of processors.


karbomusic

, AM

Surely the day is already here that you can choose to do that if you wish?


You can. :)


I like the sound of it in place of mix bus compression

I use both, but both together aren't very much compression. It should go without saying that having dbTP limiting, LUFS et al and the limiter in one plugin is quite helpful even with crest factors of dB.


karbomusic

, AM

I'm just a bit jaded with limiter worship lol.

That's how I feel about some MEs.


Sound asleep

, PM

I'm just a bit jaded with limiter worship lol. It's just a bloody compressor at very high ratio and super fast attack for gawds sake. If it's transparent peak limiting you want then a soft clipper is the way to go but still the limiter worship goes on..

I do put some of the blame for lack of dynamics in modern music squarely on the shoulders of plugin manufacturers for the marketing of these kind of processors.

It's more than that now though. I think when L2 first came out that was a breakthrough era because the digital technology allowed them to compress far more without creating heavy distortion, and allowed for louder tracks. Some others had various styles like that, but the new modern IRC IV version that I know iZotope 7+ uses, is actually pretty smart and advanced. it slices up the frequency spectrum in a number of bands and limits them differently. Here is a video about it. (storycall.us?v=Qe4-sFaNi0I) And then the transparency and stereo unlink, and transient emphasis are great also.

I mean, idk how much being a limiter nerd is warranted, but there have definitely been some advances in limiting that are genuinely significant improvements in the technology, imo. Far beyond just a compressor with an infinite ratio or whatever.

I believe that the "modern" setting in Fabfilter's Pro-L2, is likely very similar to IRC IV in iZotope 7/8.

I personally like the sound of limited music for certain styles. I like how everything sounds loud, and I'm happy with a bit of tradeoff for crisp attack to get that. But there comes a point where enough is enough, also.


bladerunner

, PM

That's how I feel about some MEs.

That's interesting because I've never really come across worship for particular ME's (except maybe Bob Katz..). It's kind of an odd concept because surely those that worship an ME (which I've never really come across personally) must realise that hearing the before and after would at least be required to make any kind of judgement on what they do? I can think of a few engineers who do bad, bad work (after hearing before and afters..).


karbomusic

, PM

That's interesting because I've never really come across worship for particular ME's (except maybe Bob Katz..). It's kind of an odd concept because surely those that worship an ME (which I've never really come across personally) must realise that hearing the before and after would at least be required to make any kind of judgement on what they do? I can think of a few engineers who do bad, bad work (after hearing before and afters..).

Worship of the ME process in general as in how some MEs sell it, but it's getting better than it used to be IMHO, it's a least more real world and less magic dusty that it used to be - I can appreciate the second set of ears in a secondary room, but don't care so much for all the other voodoo - This is going back ages so maybe it's all better now.

Now if a mixer can't make something good enough that doesn't require more than very small changes, I'd have to call their mixing into question unless they've just gotten used to allowing someone else to finish the job they could have done. As far as worshiping a single limiter like L2, I've never been one to crush stuff so I was never on that train.


bladerunner

, AM

Worship of the ME process in general as in how some MEs sell it, but it's getting better than it used to be IMHO, it's a least more real world and less magic dusty that it used to be - I can appreciate the second set of ears in a secondary room, but don't care so much for all the other voodoo - This is going back ages so maybe it's all better now.

Now if a mixer can't make something good enough that doesn't require more than very small changes, I'd have to call their mixing into question unless they've just gotten used to allowing someone else to finish the job they could have done. As far as worshiping a single limiter like L2, I've never been one to crush stuff so I was never on that train.

Ah okay I see what you mean.

I think worship of the mastering process has 2 main branches, if you like. Pre plugin era and post. Pre would have been the 'voodoo' myth making time because most could not afford (what they thought) they needed for the process. Then post would be plugin companies convincing everyone they can be an ME if they buy their product. I know they have to make a living out of this so it is catch 22 somewhat.


vBulletin® v, Copyright ©, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Источник: [storycall.us]

Category: Audio Plugins

Best Mastering Chain

Published in Audio Plugins

  Insert 1: FabFilter Pro Q 3 &#; Subtractive Equalization Insert 2: Soothe 2 &#; De-essing and High-end Compression Insert 3: FabFilter Saturn 2 &#; Saturation and Harmonic Distortion Insert 4: Softube Tape &#; Saturation, Stereo Widening, Gentle Equalization Insert 5: Oxford Inflator &#; Loudness Enhancement, Harmonic Distortion Insert 6: Weiss EQ1 &#; Additive Equalization […]

FabFilter Pro-Q 3: 10 Things You Need to Know

Published in Audio Plugins

  The Display is 4k and Can be Made Full-Screen You can Zoom In on Specific Frequencies Up to 24 Dynamic Bands can be Created EQ Matching Allows for an Inverse EQ Technique Bands can be Snapped to Notes Using a Piano Roll There are 9 Available Filter Types and a Gain-Q Setting 7 Different […]

Are Logic Pro X Stock Plugins Any Good?

Published in Audio Plugins

  Quick Answer Logic Pro X Stock plugins are surprisingly good for both mixing and mastering.  Although you may still want to download or purchase other 2nd and 3rd party plugins, Logic Pro X Stock plugins are good and easy enough to use, to create decent mixes and masters. Are Logic Pro X Stock Plugins […]

Top 6 Easy Mastering Plugins to Use

Published in Audio Plugins

  Exciter &#; Stock Logic Plugin L1 &#; Waves Audio Wider &#; Infected Mushroom Harmonics Analog Saturation Pro &#; Softube Tape &#; Softube MV2 &#; Waves Audio Mastering can be a complicated part of the audio production process &#; but the plugins used don’t need to be. Some plugins are simplistically designed, but still, sound […]

What is Wave’s Best Tape Plugin: J37 Tape vs. Kramer Tape?

Published in Audio Plugins

  When trying to find a great tape plugin, Waves audio has been a go-to for many engineers.  They offer 2 affordably priced and widely used plugins &#; the J37 tape emulation and the Kramer tape emulation. Both of these have unique characteristics, functions, and nuances that make them better for certain genres, individual instruments, […]

All of the Free Plugins from Klanghelm!

Published in Audio Plugins

  Klanghelm Offers These 3 Free Plugins: DC1A &#; Compressor IVG12 &#; Saturator MJUC jr. &#; Tube Compressor Free plugins are hit or miss &#; some are great, while others may not even load.  Fortunately, Klanghelm has developed some fantastic and versatile free plugins. Today, we’ll look at the 3 free plugins that they currently […]

10 Things You Need to Know About the FabFilter Pro-L2

Published in Audio Plugins

  The Plugin has a 4k Display and Can be Made Full Screen You can Decrease Distortion with the True Peak Limiting and Oversampling Options A DC Offset Filter is Available, but will Rarely Be Needed It’s Designed to Sound Great for Every Genre The Attack Does Not Behave Like a Compressor’s Attack It includes […]

What is this New Free Plugin by Tokyo Dawn Labs!?

Published in Audio Plugins

  Quick Answer The TDR Molotok was released in Oct. and is a vintage emulation of multiple soviet-era audio compressors.  The sound that this plugin creates is unique due to the alpha-beta-sigma variable weighting and the subtle distortion it imparts onto the signal when using a quicker attack. The Tokyo Dawn Labs Molotok in […]

The Oldest Plugin vs. The Best New Plugin

Published in Audio Plugins

  Quick Answer: The oldest commercially available audio plugin was the Waves’ Q1, a 10 band equalizer that’s incredibly simple by today’s standards.  Although the Q10 is still used by many engineers, comparing it to the FabFilter Pro Q 3 shows how far digital processing and audio plugins have come. The Oldest Plugin vs. The […]

The BEST Free Reverb Plugin?

Published in Audio Plugins

  What is the Best Free Reverb Plugin? Although there is no &#;Best&#; reverb plugin, the Valhalla Supermassive is by far one of if not the best FREE reverb plugins that we have used. The functionality is comprehensive and versatile, while the overall sound rivals that of some of the best paid reverb plugins. The […]

Источник: [storycall.us]

FabFilter Pro-L 2 experiences and tests


Hey guys

Just fooling around with the new FabFilter Pro-L 2.

Here are some of my findings and I'd love for other people to chime in with tests or answers (or questions) - especially if it's not just subjective.

Has the sound changed from Pro-L 1 to Pro-L 2?
Pro-L 2 will pass a null test with the old algorithms and settings, i.e. the Transparent, Punchy, Dynamic, and Allround styles, the Gain, Lookahead, Attack, Release, linking and Output ceiling parameters.

So no difference there, as in % identical.

The Oversampling parameter doesn't pass a null test, which is to be expected because according to the manual, oversampling was generally improved in the Pro-L 2, allowing it to catch more inter-sample peaks at the same rate.

The new styles and features will obviously sound different and provide new functionality not previously available in Pro-L.

True Peak Limiting
I'm not sure exactly how FabFilter are doing the TPL, but it's not just oversampling and it's not just an additional oversampled limiting stage - or at least it's not something that can easily be reproduced.

Activating manual oversampling in conjunction with TPL reduces the action of the TPL, that's confirmed.

Using TPL and setting an out ceiling in dBTP is more effective in respecting a True Peak value than activating any amount of manual oversampling (including 32x) and setting an out ceiling in dBFS, in my tests.

However, I need to make more tests to check exactly how well the TPL respects the TP value, but this is tricky to standardize since the only thing specified in ITU/EBU specs is to use a 4x oversampled meter.

Oversampling
Where as Pro-L 1 had 4x oversampling as the highest setting, Pro-L 2 now has 8x, 16x and 32x as well, and oversampling has been improved at all settings.

In my quick tests at kHz I did not see an improvement going above 8x, i.e. 8x seemed to catch just as much as 16x and 32x in real life examples. Theoretically, ISPs can go much higher and if the CPU power is available I don't see any problem in going with the highest possible rate.

All oversampling takes place in the internal side-chain at the detection level only so the audio itself is not oversampled, just like in Pro-L 1.

Latency
Latency changes between some of the new styles which means that changing styles on the fly could cause the track to get out of sync until you press stop/start in the DAW. Doesn't matter much when mastering.

DC filter
The DC filter appears to be a regular static filter just above 0 Hz. Exactly where I don't know, but it doesn't sound like a steep filter.

I wouldn't use the DC filter unless there was a really good reason for it as it can easily cause the peak value of the input signal to raise by several dB, mainly if the source signal contains square waveforms (synths) or an already limited/clipped signal.

This would then result in much more limiting/pumping/distortion than otherwise.

-
More, still in progress.


Last edited by Lagerfeldt; 15th December at AM..

Figured I would take a look at the waveform when switching styles. Pretty unscientific, but here you go.

Considering how some of the descriptions of the styles in FabFilter's Pro-C2 compressor are completely wrong or misleading, I think this could be another justified case of "use your ears" when selecting a style.

All tests below use the exact same settings, unless otherwise noted. If memory serves me, it's 6 dB of gain reduction with ms manual lookahead, 40 ms attack, 2 ms release, no linking of transient, full linking of release, no TPL, no oversampling.

Original test sine:



Transparent:



Punchy:



Allround with 0 attack (for comparison with Punchy above):



Dynamic:



Allround:



Aggressive - a word I would associate with near clipping rather than what both sounds like and looks like soft, lookahead limiting:



Modern:



Safe:



Bus:




Conclusion on the styles
Disclaimer: These oscilloscope shots don't capture any program-dependent limiting (if there's such a thing with the Pro-L 2), ISP handling, etc.

The new styles all appear to have additional lookahead, offsetting the manual lookahead parameter, which also explains the added latency. The new styles seemed to react very little to parameter changes compared to the old styles, which could indicate more "auto" going on behind the scenes or another factor that I'm not currently aware of. I'd like to know more about this.

Most of the styles probably work well for something. Personally I tend to opt for the Allround style and tweak that. Transparent seems to work well on some things, but in my experience it works best when the source isn't too compressed/limited/clipped already. Dynamic and Punchy seem to work well for more creative limiting.

The new Modern style sounds and measures very clean, but that's probably why it sounds best when it isn't pushed too much on transients since it'll quickly sound overcompressed, as a byproduct of keeping things so clean.


Last edited by Lagerfeldt; 15th December at AM..

Interesting that you say it passes a null test with Pro-L 1 on the old styles - it doesn't here, at least in Punchy mode. All perimeters are identical, oversampling off.

Maybe I made a mistake somewhere

EDIT: I just checked and there is definitely a difference, at least here, confirmed by a null test. I'd be interested in any others trying this for themselves to see if I'm correct, or if there is some kind of problem with my setup.

Settings on both Pro-L 1 and Pro-L 2:

Style: Punchy

Lookahead: ms

Attack: ms

Release: ms

Channel Link Transients: 60%

Channel Link Release: %

As a little side remark, all styles behave as expected when being fed a pre-clipped or square waveform, i.e. a square will still appear like a perfect square as long as TPL or oversampling aren't activated,

The Aggressive style will overcompress in a soft fashion, just like shown in the oscilloscope above, but it'll still be a perfect square.

However, as the only exception the Dynamic style does a weird little duck. It looks like an inverse Gibbs phenomenon , but not symmetrical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippocratic Mastering➡️

Interesting that you say it passes a null test with Pro-L 1 on the old styles - it doesn't here, at least in Punchy mode. All perimeters are identical, oversampling off.

Maybe I made a mistake somewhere

% null between Pro-L 1 and Pro-L 2 with all settings identical (no oversampling), including Punchy.

Just double checked now - 0 residue.

For good measure I tried extreme settings as well, but still there's a complete null between them.

FabFilter Pro-L 1 version (64 bit)
FabFilter Pro-L 2 version (64 bit)

AU version tested in Logic Pro X

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippocratic Mastering➡️


Style: Punchy

Lookahead: ms

Attack: ms

Release: ms

Channel Link Transients: 60%

Channel Link Release: %

% null here.

Either you have a problem in your setup (PDC or similar, but I doubt that), an older version, you've missed something in the settings - or there's a bug/difference in one of the VST or AAX versions which doesn't exist in the AU versions.

Hmmmm. I haven't updated my installation of Pro-L 1 for a while - maybe they changed something in an update?

Are you null testing with tones or complex musical signals?

Hmmmm, very curious. I'll have to update to the latest version of Pro-L 1 and see if I get the same results, although I'm loathe to as there's a very specific thing that Pro-L 1 is doing for me in Punchy mode, at around db of gain reduction, that Pro-L 2 isn't quite as good at.

I just tried null test, on Punchy they null to about dB, so basically completely. I'm on a Mac and use VST in Reaper. I like the modern setting and visual side of the Pro-L 2, but that got me thinking if it's worth the asking price.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyjanopan➡️

I like the modern setting and visual side of the Pro-L 2, but that got me thinking if it's worth the asking price.

For me it's definitely worth the price, my upgrade price is only €47 from Pro-L.

I get some new styles to play around with and they might come in handy. The improved oversampling and especially True Peak Limiting and dBTP ceiling is great.

I'm not using the visuals at all in the Pro-L 2 and I have other ways of dealing with loudness measurements, but I'm sure that's a big plus for some people. That feature alone can cost several hundreds.

While I would have liked some more innovative styles it's hard to complain about a company that's doing good refinements to an already great product.

Lives for gear

Interesting to read all of this as I have the inside scoop on exactly how everything works.

I can say a few things though:

As before with Pro-L1, all algorithmsare truly different from one another. Very different solutions, solving the same task (brickwall limiting).

All algorithms are highly program dependent (the new 'Modern' algorithm pushing this program dependency pretty much to the extreme in my opinion) so you won't be able to gather much from traditional methods of analyzing the output.

These are all still single-band limiting algorithms.

Oversampling is not there just for show or catching ISP. It makes a real difference in aliasing and in general behavior of the algorithm. You should be able to clearly hear the benefits if you compare non-oversampled to 32x oversampled signals that are pushing the limiter a bit. Listen to the mids and high-mids how they remain truer to the original at higher oversampling rates and don't get that added "fizz" that clogs up the depth imaging. This is where I think Pro L2 shines and is quite a step above the competition.

Then again I'm _extremely_ biased so keep that in mind. I'm also extremely sensitive and allergic to the mid/high-mid buildup that seems to happen quite easily with digital processors and thus has been trying to push the envelope in this area.

Some quick tips (and a sort of TL;DR):

- Compare non-oversampled to 32x oversampled critically. It's not there just to catch ISP.
- Experiment with "stupid" settings like % locked transient stereo linkage with 0% sustain linkage.
- The 'Modern' algorithms look-a-head is quite different to the rest of the algorithms. Don't be afraid of pushing it all the way up to max while instead opening up the attack a lot (don't look at the values.. think of it as a knob with full range of usefulness).
- Explore the presets, especially in the 'Basic' folder. They show common usage scenarios for the algorithms.

Cheers!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmanic➡️

Interesting to read all of this as I have the inside scoop on exactly how everything works.
Since you're here, maybe a dumb question. "Bypass" in Pro-L1 doesn't get rid of latency. Assuming that's not operator error, is this fixed in the new version?

Lives for gear

I'll definitely confirm a sonic difference/improvement with Oversampling from 4x, 8x, 16x, out to 32x.

Blatantly obvious. Worth the upgrade alone. Also, really liking the new Metering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmanic➡️

Interesting to read all of this as I have the inside scoop on exactly how everything works.

I can say a few things though:

As before with Pro-L1, all algorithmsare truly different from one another. Very different solutions, solving the same task (brickwall limiting).

All algorithms are highly program dependent (the new 'Modern' algorithm pushing this program dependency pretty much to the extreme in my opinion) so you won't be able to gather much from traditional methods of analyzing the output.

These are all still single-band limiting algorithms.

Oversampling is not there just for show or catching ISP. It makes a real difference in aliasing and in general behavior of the algorithm. You should be able to clearly hear the benefits if you compare non-oversampled to 32x oversampled signals that are pushing the limiter a bit. Listen to the mids and high-mids how they remain truer to the original at higher oversampling rates and don't get that added "fizz" that clogs up the depth imaging. This is where I think Pro L2 shines and is quite a step above the competition.

Then again I'm _extremely_ biased so keep that in mind. I'm also extremely sensitive and allergic to the mid/high-mid buildup that seems to happen quite easily with digital processors and thus has been trying to push the envelope in this area.

Some quick tips (and a sort of TL;DR):

- Compare non-oversampled to 32x oversampled critically. It's not there just to catch ISP.
- Experiment with "stupid" settings like % locked transient stereo linkage with 0% sustain linkage.
- The 'Modern' algorithms look-a-head is quite different to the rest of the algorithms. Don't be afraid of pushing it all the way up to max while instead opening up the attack a lot (don't look at the values.. think of it as a knob with full range of usefulness).
- Explore the presets, especially in the 'Basic' folder. They show common usage scenarios for the algorithms.

Cheers!
That! But I must confess that i'm also a bit biased.

Lives for gear

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn➡️

Since you're here, maybe a dumb question. "Bypass" in Pro-L1 doesn't get rid of latency. Assuming that's not operator error, is this fixed in the new version?

I'm sure that is on purpose. The reason being that if the built in bypass button in Pro-L would get rid of the latency then you would have a horrible "click" while the DAW reassigns the latency compensation. So having the plugin at the same latency when in internal bypass is actually a smart move.. then it can be safely automated.

Use the DAW built in bypass if you need to get rid of latency. Some DAWs don't allow dynamic latency compensation during playback though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmanic➡️

Interesting to read all of this as I have the inside scoop on exactly how everything works.
You tease, spill the beans on the TPL or GTFO ;-)

Quote:

[]the new 'Modern' algorithm pushing this program dependency pretty much to the extreme in my opinion) so you won't be able to gather much from traditional methods of analyzing the output.

I think that's very true. Definitely a case of "use your ears".

Quote:

Oversampling is not there just for show or catching ISP. It makes a real difference in aliasing and in general behavior of the algorithm. You should be able to clearly hear the benefits if you compare non-oversampled to 32x oversampled signals that are pushing the limiter a bit. Listen to the mids and high-mids how they remain truer to the original at higher oversampling rates and don't get that added "fizz" that clogs up the depth imaging. This is where I think Pro L2 shines and is quite a step above the competition.

That's also true, oversampling will reduce aliasing and distortion. However, oversampling comes with a downside as well, so it's a trade-off, but fortunately the loudness war is slowly coming to an end.

I think this focus on TPL and oversampling (and loudness metering) shows that FF knows what's right around the corner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmanic➡️

I'm sure that is on purpose. The reason being that if the built in bypass button in Pro-L would get rid of the latency then you would have a horrible "click" while the DAW reassigns the latency compensation.

Okay. But if the latency is always there and I'm in mid-mix and the client decides they want to change or add a part, I have to

1. Create a new, second master channel, minus Pro-L.
2. Assign the new master channel to control 2 unused buses.
3. Reassign the "real" master channel to control 2 other unused buses.
4. Reassign the new master channel to control the original mix buses.
5. Jack up the master fader so the monitor and cue levels are healthy.
6. Record the overdubs.
7. Undo 5, 4, 3 and 2 in that order.

Quote:

having the plugin at the same latency when in internal bypass is actually a smart move.. then it can be safely automated.

Who, in real life, is going to automate the bypass toggle? I suppose if you wanted to suddenly change Pro-L settings in mid-mix, you could run two instances on the same mix bus and use bypass to switch back and forth, but that would be equally difficult and crazy. Far better to write automation top to bottom with the initlal setting, and then do a second write with your alternate settings to your selected range(s) on the timeline. That's how I do it, anyway.

Pretty much the standard way of doing it, i.e. the internal bypass button (as opposed to the DAW GUI one) keeps the latency fixed. I prefer it like that.

Lives for gear

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn➡️

Okay. But if the latency is always there and I'm in mid-mix and the client decides they want to change or add a part, I have to

1. Create a new, second master channel, minus Pro-L.
2. Assign the new master channel to control 2 unused buses.
3. Reassign the "real" master channel to control 2 other unused buses.
4. Reassign the new master channel to control the original mix buses.
5. Jack up the master fader so the monitor and cue levels are healthy.
6. Record the overdubs.
7. Undo 5, 4, 3 and 2 in that order.



Who, in real life, is going to automate the bypass toggle? I suppose if you wanted to suddenly change Pro-L settings in mid-mix, you could run two instances on the same mix bus and use bypass to switch back and forth, but that would be equally difficult and crazy. Far better to write automation top to bottom with the initlal setting, and then do a second write with your alternate settings to your selected range(s) on the timeline. That's how I do it, anyway.

I still don't understand the problem.. you have two ways of doing it, you can bypass the plugin from your DAW, which would then of course cancel the latency.. or internally within Pro-L (and keep the latency). This way you have BOTH choices. If Pro-L cancelled the latency there'd be no choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmanic➡️

I still don't understand the problem.. you have two ways of doing it, you can bypass the plugin from your DAW, which would then of course cancel the latency.. or internally within Pro-L (and keep the latency). This way you have BOTH choices. If Pro-L cancelled the latency there'd be no choice.

I heard you the first time. I was waiting to respond until I had tried it on my system. I didn't know the two kinds of bypass worked differently.

Motown legend

 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years

They don't work differently in Pro Tools unless you disable the plug-in.

Lives for gear

Yeah it depends on the DAW. In some you can configure how it should act. Most reset the latency compensation upon stop/start of playback. Some are brutal and "glitch it" as soon as you turn off the plugin, even during playback.

Thanks for all the scientific work. I really like the way it sounds and the new interface is very well done. I think they have a winner on their hands.

Again thanks for the "scientific" approach to what it is doing to the sound. It confirms in a good way what I am hearing.

Comparison


Thank you to
Lagerfeldt for the diligent and thorough research

Any thoughts from those who have been using Pro-L2 on sonic and functional comparisons to other contenders (e.g. Limitless, Elevate, Xenon, ISL2, Ozone, etc.)? I've been using Xenon for years, but am looking into other possible mastering processors, especially those (like Pro-L2) that provide and informative graphical feedback, a "difference" listening mode, etc.

Источник: [storycall.us]
fabfilter l2 Archives

Notice: Undefined variable: z_bot in /sites/storycall.us/tools/fabfilter-l2-archives.php on line 99

Notice: Undefined variable: z_empty in /sites/storycall.us/tools/fabfilter-l2-archives.php on line 99

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *