macrae11 wrote:Yeah the look ahead has about 1000 samples of delay in maxim. Almost every brickwall limiter does. Is there a reason you need a limiter on a cue bus? What I do is if my gain staging gets out of whack I'll just adjust the master fader of the bus down until it doesn't clip. Honestly you should be outputting from you're converters at roughly nominal level, so -16 on the PT meters which should give you lots of room before clipping. Once in a while if someones getting picky, I'll put a compressor or an EQ on the cue send, but you just have to be careful to choose one without latency.
Mathieu Benoit wrote:It's not a "need" per se but some people want ridiclulous volume in their mix. So I was thinking of trying a limiter as an experiment. I just didn't factor in the look ahead.
Mathieu Benoit wrote:That being said... Now I'm curious: What would happen if there were multiple instance of a limiter with look ahead in Pro Tools? Would the delays start to compound?
macrae11 wrote:Mathieu Benoit wrote:It's not a "need" per se but some people want ridiclulous volume in their mix. So I was thinking of trying a limiter as an experiment. I just didn't factor in the look ahead.
I figured as much. This however is not the way to get that. Proper gain staging with getting the most volume from your headphone amp is the way to do this. Same reason you don't crank up your preamp on a live sound console and leave all the faders at unity when you want more volume. If conventional methods don't work you may have to resort to power amplifiers and duct tape ala Cotton! Seriously though giving the player lower impedance headphones may help a lot.
macrae11 wrote:Mathieu Benoit wrote:That being said... Now I'm curious: What would happen if there were multiple instance of a limiter with look ahead in Pro Tools? Would the delays start to compound?
Yes. Remember that first Jake mix I did that was super complicated, and having all kinds of delay troubles with outboard gear? This is why.
macrae11 wrote:No
2.8ms = 125 samples @ 44.1
macrae11 wrote:Not sure what there is to break down. Just divide your sample rate by the number of samples. 125/44,100.
macrae11 wrote:Whatcha workin' on?
macrae11 wrote:Consider my breath bated.
macrae11 wrote:Consider my breath bated.
macrae11 wrote:What project?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests