Members mark4man Posted February 26, 2006 Members Share Posted February 26, 2006 People... I've been preparing my mixes for red book finals; & have been using UAD-1's Precision Limiter to perform an easy brick wall at the end of the chain. PL is pretty transparent, but all digital limiters seem to flatten out the highs or just produce a lackluster stereo file in general. If I DID decide to go the hardware route; & wanted to grab a "not too expensive" analog limiting device (since I really can't afford an STC-8 right now) & say an Alesis Masterlink to recapture at the end of the chain... how about the dbx1066 ??? It's VCA based, has a contour switch for filtering out infrasound, does everything from smooth gain leveling to peak limiting, sports overeasy...& sounds like...well, a dbx. If not this unit...what's around in that price range ($500-$700) that will do a nice job for analog limiting? I'd like as much transparecy as I can get ('cause I'm satisfied with the sonic quality of my mixes); & I don't want to loose any clarity on drums & vocals. Thanks, mark4man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 26, 2006 Members Share Posted February 26, 2006 FMR makes an RNLA. I've never heard it or used it. I know that it's supposed to be "colored", but maybe it does "transparent" as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 No Ken, IMO, the RNLA is a colored device, and proudly so. I'd suggest a RNC in supernice mode with a high ratio but low GR for stereo mix use if you want to tame peaks in a limiting sort of way on a budget. I have not played with the new PeakStop Plus version enough to comment, but I've never liked the original PeakStop limiters on the other dBx comps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 26, 2006 Members Share Posted February 26, 2006 Ah, well, it was a good shot in the dark. I heard it was supposed to be purty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Originally posted by UstadKhanAli Ah, well, it was a good shot in the dark. I heard it was supposed to be purty good. It's VERY good. It's just not "transparent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Matt Hepworth Posted February 27, 2006 Members Share Posted February 27, 2006 The 1066 is a good compressor and limiter. Remember, dbx invented compression, and I feel they've done it great justice ever since. Added 3/1/2006: Note, the statement about dbx inventing compression is inaccurate. Recently I got this cheap, tiny, plastic box with unbalanced I/O that sounds good. It was called the FMR RNC mentioned above. Not a limiter as in the brick wall sense of the word, but in the Rane dictionary sense it qualifies. The 1066 gets my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members where02190 Posted February 27, 2006 Members Share Posted February 27, 2006 Unless you have exceptional converters, I would not recommend going out and back into the box again for the sake of a hardware compressor, and certainly not for a 1066. While a decent midline compressor, it's definitely not mastering worthy. The combined artifacts of additional DAAD conversion and the 1066 IMHO would do your tracks more harm than good for the sake of a few more db of level. Stick with ITB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkMcQ Posted February 27, 2006 Members Share Posted February 27, 2006 Originally posted by Matt Hepworth The 1066 is a good compressor and limiter. Remember, dbx invented compression... You're JOKING, right? If you're not joking: where/how do you guys get this kind of tripe? Amplitude compression of audio had been in daily use for DECADES before David Blackmer even thought about founding dbx... So, to correct the above comment: "Forget it, dbx did NOT invent compression...but Mr. Blackmer did a competent and commendable job bringing a product tailored to the burgeoning audio industry of the 1970s. By many accounts, Mr. Blackmer's primary goals were not to develop the studio compressors we've come to know and love--as it turns out, they were an obvious by-product of his efforts--but to reduce the effects of limited dynamic range media (e.g., analog recording tape). sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Folks, please welcome MarkMcQ. Mark's a bit shy about posting on boards sometimes, but he's not shy about expressing his opinions and knowledge - and knowledge is one thing he has in abundance. IMO, he's one of the smartest audio dudes on the planet, and when he speaks about technical engineering subjects, I listen. He also makes some pretty dang cool boxes that bang a lot harder than their pricetags would suggest. Check 'em out here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Matt Hepworth Posted February 28, 2006 Members Share Posted February 28, 2006 Originally posted by MarkMcQ You're JOKING, right? If you're not joking: where/how do you guys get this kind of tripe? I suppose I could simply be subject to propaganda, but log/linear VCA is a dbx patent (1971?) and seems like electro-optical was a workaround so other designs didn't have to use the dbx patents. To me, that would speak that the modern form of compressors were invented by dbx. Admittedly, dbx touts this fact abundantly and if you're looking for someone to blame, I suppose you could point your fingers at the source. I'm not going to profess to be an expert on compressors or anything related to the history of audio. I have one of your cheap tiny plastic boxes (RNC) and feel that it's a great performer, so I will happily listen to your knowledge of compression and accept it, more or less, as fact. The proof is in the pudding. Even if it is tiny, cheap, and plastic. I appreciate your post - even though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth for you and your company. Regards, Matt Hepworth Former would-be purchaser of all things FMR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 28, 2006 Members Share Posted February 28, 2006 I know the post might seem a little harsh, Matt, but I can assure you that Mark is a really great guy with really great ethics, great customer service, and amazing products. Any time he comes out with a product, you can bank on it having great sound and ridiculous bang-for-the-buck. And no, he hasn't posted much in recent years, although he used to post regularly on rec.audio.pro. As for compressors, didn't people like Bill Putnam precede Blackmer by several decades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkMcQ Posted February 28, 2006 Members Share Posted February 28, 2006 Originally posted by Matt Hepworth I suppose I could simply be subject to propaganda, ... Yes, apparently. In addition, you apparently also suppose that you can make PUBLIC, unchallenged propagandist claims--no matter how much they diverge from the facts--without challenge by other forum users or it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members where02190 Posted February 28, 2006 Members Share Posted February 28, 2006 I vote Mark as hero poster of the day!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Matt Hepworth Posted March 1, 2006 Members Share Posted March 1, 2006 Mark, you've misconstrued some of my words. I was not attacking your small, cheap, plastic box. In fact, I commented the opposite on two occasions posted above. I'm sure that in your infinite wisdom you've never heard something so many times that you believed it as the truth and then repeated what you heard. Right? I stand corrected and so supremely humbled in your presence. Oh, that you could scorn the rest of the audio community so and make everybody else feel as low as I do. What a great place that would be for you, amigo. It's all in the delivery. I came across as wrong, which I was. You came across as an asshole. I'd delete my posts, but I think you quoted every line in yours. Thank you for the public flogging. Originally posted by MarkMcQ ...you apparently also suppose that you can make PUBLIC, unchallenged propagandist claims--no matter how much they diverge from the facts--without challenge by other forum users or it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkMcQ Posted March 1, 2006 Members Share Posted March 1, 2006 Matt: PREFACEIt's fairly clear to me ("Duh! Do you think?!?!"), that **I** have failed to properly communicate to you my points and/or intent. FWIW, I can assure you that I failed *ONLY* after a good deal of sincere thought and time spent. But, it's also clear that whether it be the predominantly text-only mode of this forum or a huge difference in backgrounds, *I* am /incapable/ (i.e., not skilled enough...yet...but I'm working on it) of conveying--nor are you open to--either my points or my sincerity in clarifying those points. It seems to me that no matter what I write, you are predisposed to believe that I'm an "asshole" (in a bad sense). This was clear from the get-go. Had it been me (and it has been many times in analogous situations), my reaction would have been (ONLY after checking the facts for myself), "Thanks...I stand corrected!" and I probably would have moved on to a discussion of the history of compression. Instead...well, here we are. As another statement of the obvious: there are many possible interpretations to every utterance. If I say: "You're an asshole, Bill!" it can either be friendly or rude, depending upon circumstance, personal backgrounds, moods, relationships, values, etc. If I say: "you can do whatever you want", it can be either a sarcastically dismissive phrase or it could be an acknowledgment of respect for individual will. Even though I know that you don't (and won't) believe me, there was no sarcasm and insincerity in my responses to you (except as noted). Also, there was no intentional "ad hominem" component to anything in my response. If it's there, then I need to find a way of further clarifying... MAIN RESPONSE (PART A)To spare forum readers from an ever-elongating thread of little broad value, this will be my last public response in this thread. As before, I will address each point, in turn... Mark, you've misconstrued some of my words. I was not attacking your small, cheap, plastic box. In fact, I commented the opposite on two occasions posted above. Two points (there is no joking, sarcasm, or intended meanness in the following EXCEPT WHERE NOTED): ...to make sure that there was no confusion about which of my comments applied to which of yours. I think accuracy in rebuttal is important and didn't want to leave any doubt about which of my comments were elicited by yours. I'm sorry that there's any other interpretation to this other than a desire for accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkMcQ Posted March 1, 2006 Members Share Posted March 1, 2006 PART B Thank you for the public flogging. You made a small factual error. I corrected it with facts. You tried to both explain your position and deflect the responsibility for your misstatement. I commented on each on a point-by-point basis. If your interpretation is that this is a "public" flogging, then so be it. How should I have corrected your factual mistake? Is there anyway that you wouldn't have been defensive or felt "publicly flogged"? Should I only respond in ad hominem generalities and not try to engage you point-for-point? If I were to guess, I suspect that there's no way that I could correct your mistake WITHOUT pissing you off. I have no problem being corrected. I do have a problem with being INSULTED for unknowingly being wrong. There's a difference. I'm not sure where I "insulted" you. To recap:On the one hand, I'm sorry that you feel that way! You shouldn't, IMO, feel like an idiot for having one measly fact wrong. But I really shouldn't offer you advice, because you're not able to take what I say in any other light than I'm an "asshole". On the other, you CHOSE to respond and feel the way you did. As a stranger to you, I shouldn't have *that* kind of control... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkMcQ Posted March 1, 2006 Members Share Posted March 1, 2006 PART C That is why I reacted in that way to your your attacks. I don't believe that I "attacked" you. You, however, believe that I "attacked" you. Even though you've made your mind up about who I am and I'm basically powerless to change that, here's an after-the-fact reference to what I consider an "attack": comments, I appreciate your patience, audience and wish you every success... Kindest regards,Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted March 1, 2006 Members Share Posted March 1, 2006 below are some other equally erroneous (and, IMO, analogous) claims that would elicit the same response: * Mr. Gore invented the internet. So just to clarify, are you trying to say that this is not true??? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkMcQ Posted March 2, 2006 Members Share Posted March 2, 2006 Originally posted by UstadKhanAli below are some other equally erroneous (and, IMO, analogous) claims that would elicit the same response: * Mr. Gore invented the internet. So just to clarify, are you trying to say that this is not true??? :confused: If *THAT'S* a shocker, wait 'til my "nondisclosure" agreements with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Unicorn union run out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JM350 Posted March 2, 2006 Members Share Posted March 2, 2006 Originally posted by Matt Hepworth Remember, dbx invented compression, and I feel they've done it great justice ever since. Added 3/1/2006: Note, the statement about dbx inventing compression is inaccurate. DBX has only been around since 1971, compression/limiting has been around since the early days of electronic recording something like nearly half a century before that so I'm glad to see that you have come to your senses. Originally posted by Matt Hepworth The 1066 is a good compressor and limiter. Depends who you ask I guess. Except for the old 160VU and probably their newish 160SL (haven't used it but have heard some good things) I would hesitate to run even live audio through most of their stuff nevermind using it for recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bossa Posted March 2, 2006 Members Share Posted March 2, 2006 MarkMQ Now you're joking, right? Is this what you usually do in your spare time, when you're not assembling boxes? Due respect, I say go to the gym or something. Punch the bag, you know, instead of pontificating to your customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JM350 Posted March 2, 2006 Members Share Posted March 2, 2006 Originally posted by Bossa MarkMQ Now you're joking, right? Is this what you usually do in your spare time, when you're not assembling boxes? Due respect, I say go to the gym or something. Punch the bag, you know, instead of pontificating to your customers. I guess I managed to miss the pontificating. The dictionary definition of pontificate is: to express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way. Dogmatic for those not familiar with the word means: characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. MarkMQ wasn't the one asserting unproved or unprovable principles. If you look at his post count you are quite wrong to say that Mark spends any serious amount of time posting to forums nevermind your other implications that he gives people a hard time or whatever it is you are trying say. Do you know why Mark doesn't post much? Besides probably being a man with a lot to do he often seems to manage (when he does say something on the net which isn't all that often from what I have seen) to run into some kind of crap like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Matt Hepworth Posted March 2, 2006 Members Share Posted March 2, 2006 Originally posted by MarkMcQ It seems to me that no matter what I write, you are predisposed to believe that I'm an "asshole" (in a bad sense). This was clear from the get-go. I appreciate your taking the time to respond, Mark. I have been part of the old EQ forums for years, particularly the old Phil forum, with thousands of posts, and only one previous encounter like this. I am not one to normally assume, nor be particularly sensitive to certain comments and wording, and I'm sure there are MANY forum goers (and I'd suspect moderaters) that would vouch for me in that regard. I misconstrued your posts and intentions and apologize for my reactions. I read each and interpreted as follows:SMALL -- Yup. A lot smaller than 19" rack gear.CHEAP -- Yup. Many people feel it's a "bargain" (synonym for "cheap")...PLASTIC -- I don't get this one. I *NOW* know ('cause you clarified) that you meant "small, cheap & plastic" as a non-negative (positive?) comment. Small and plastic were intended as non-negative. Cheap was intended to state inexpensive and in a positive way. Plastic was used as the exoskeleton sure seems like plastic to me. Additionally, there are plastic nut and jack connections. These tie in with the "inexpensive" part of good sounding product. There's only so much readin' and writin' about a topic is gonna help you. Even DOING something "real" is only good practice *IF* it's done RIGHT...otherwise the repetition just reinforces BAD habits... Agreed and point taken. You made a small factual error. I corrected it with facts. You tried to both explain your position and deflect the responsibility for your misstatement. On a point-by-point basis, I commented on each. This is now much more than it had to be. Yes, I was backpedaling and trying to loosely validate my statement, as I was completely caught off guard by your wording of your post. I'm sincerely sorry that you've taken it that way (and I know that you don't/won't believe that)! If it's helpful to you to call me "an asshole", then I'm glad I've helped. However, for whatever the reason, I doubt that anyone could have corrected your factual error, at that particular point in time, without you taking offense. But, I'm purely speculating... Again, I would like you not to assume that I'm some whiny troll with less than 70 posts. I have established myself well over the years as being the opposite of that accusation. You repeatedly identify me as being completely close minded, which most will attest I am not, and we are equally guilty in this situation. ...to make sure that there was no confusion about which of my comments applied to which of yours. I think accuracy in rebuttal is important and didn't want to leave any doubt about which of my comments were elicited by yours. I'm sorry that there's any other interpretation to this other than a desire for accuracy. I was simply stating that even if I removed my posts to try to help "undo" the situation, they would still be viewable in your posts as you were responding to each of my comments/questions. Nothing beyond that was intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Matt Hepworth Posted March 2, 2006 Members Share Posted March 2, 2006 Originally posted by MarkMcQ If I were to GUESS, I'd say that you're insulted by the two questions and the "sheesh" at the end. The two questions and the "sheesh" were intentionally flippant and, in my mind, justified. Those were the points that started it, and you probably didn't feel they were entirely innocent as you made one the questions in bold and correctly "guessed" that they were the catalyst. Again, my apologies that I misinterpreted your response. Was it really developed in that time period? I was only recalling from memory and didn't recall an authoritative source. I JUST DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. Also, **IIRC**, Mr. Putnam DID NOT design the LA1/2/2A. I'd like to know (more definitively...of course) and would appreciate any help on this subject! Early sixties by Jim Lawrence (I had to look the name up, as I couldn't recall). That's the most embarrassing thing about it all is that I SHOULD have known better. The LA-2A is my all time favorite compressor, on the other hand, I hadn't connected the dots and for some reason believed the original wood radio looking dbx 160's were from the 50's. I just never really put it together. Regards, Matt Hepworth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted March 2, 2006 Members Share Posted March 2, 2006 Y'know, this is all great and stuff that people are gettin' along, but I'm still a little upset finding out that Al Gore didn't invent the internet. And what's this crap about the Easter Bunny now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.