# What's your Go To Master Limiter for Orchestral Music ?



## muziksculp (Jul 6, 2020)

Hi,

What's your Go To *Master Limiter Plug-In* for exporting your Orchestral music tracks, and that you would recommend ? 

Mainly the limiter you use frequently on your Master Mix Buss, that gives your Orchestral track Presence, Loudness, and has a nice GUI, meters, ..etc. 

Thanks,
Muziksculp


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 6, 2020)

There is an Ozone preset for Classical that I find helpful. Logic also has a Classical FX mastering preset I use on occasion.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 6, 2020)

Gotta be honest. I don't hear mastering limiting. Or at least I never cared to hear something that appears so subtle that I have a hard time getting interested in it. I'm way more particular about compression on tracks and busses, but as for limiting, I use whatever I have lying around just to prevent clipping and maybe get a few dB more out of the track.

There's one in my Vienna Suite plugin pack, so I'll use that. There's also one in that Ozone thingy they've been giving away for next to nothing, sometimes it's that.


----------



## Petrucci (Jul 6, 2020)

I use Fabfilter Pro L (like the Modern setting mostly), it sounds pretty clean to me, especially with 0,5-1,5db gain reduction, but I also would like to see what others use. Been also looking at Sonnox Oxford Limiter a lot, maybe someone could chime in about it in classical context.


----------



## charlieclouser (Jul 6, 2020)

I've always preferred multi-band, look-ahead limiters ever since I first discovered things like TC MasterX5. Finally I could eliminate any pumping artifacts when I had something like a big sub boom in the middle of a passage with strong low celli for instance. For me, five bands is WAY better than three, so you get bands for subs / bass notes / honk / clank / fizz, and one of the fastest to use and most invisible is Waves L3-LL MultiMaximizer. I've done so many comparisons and shootouts and I keep coming back to that one. I use it as a per-stem limiter to cap each stem at a level that will prevent clipping when they are all summed into a composite mix that has no further processing.

I definitely use Ozone, FabFilter, and many others from time to time, but by far the fastest to use and most invisible is L3-LL. Most of the others get used when I'm mastering a stereo mix as opposed to on a per-stem basis.


----------



## maestro2be (Jul 6, 2020)

I just use the one from Vienna Suite Pro and the default setting called Overload Protection.


----------



## dgburns (Jul 6, 2020)

charlieclouser said:


> I've always preferred multi-band, look-ahead limiters ever since I first discovered things like TC MasterX5. Finally I could eliminate any pumping artifacts when I had something like a big sub boom in the middle of a passage with strong low celli for instance. For me, five bands is WAY better than three, so you get bands for subs / bass notes / honk / clank / fizz, and one of the fastest to use and most invisible is Waves L3-LL MultiMaximizer. I've done so many comparisons and shootouts and I keep coming back to that one. I use it as a per-stem limiter to cap each stem at a level that will prevent clipping when they are all summed into a composite mix that has no further processing.
> 
> I definitely use Ozone, FabFilter, and many others from time to time, but by far the fastest to use and most invisible is L3-LL. Most of the others get used when I'm mastering a stereo mix as opposed to on a per-stem basis.



I bought this recently, part of an upgrade. Still trying to understand, there is the linear version and the multi version and the non multi version ???

When you slam the multi version, like for example a big low hit, all the bottom end gets sucked out? In my feable initial attempts at getting my head around this L3, I’ve come to the conclusion that you can’t go super nuts with it or your balance will get whacked.

Have not had the ability to get more volume out of this thing then the Slate Fgx or the Kazrog limiter. I trust your ears and time in, so this must be a good tool, just not sure about how to use it successfully. This isn’t like the Finalizer, that thing is way more forgiving. Is the L3 even multi-band ?


----------



## method1 (Jul 6, 2020)

Limitless


THE MASTER LIMITER



www.dmgaudio.com


----------



## JEPA (Jul 6, 2020)

For me the most transparent is the "TDR Limiter 6 GE". I have Ozone Maximizer but for limiting I have observe that the Limiter 6 does a better job. Ozone lets pass peaks that I have to catch with the Limiter 6. It has also the possibility to build your own limiting chain inside the limiter:
compressor>Peak limiter>HF limiter>clipper>output ceiling/drive + a very useful meter. You can rearrange the order of the chain. For me it is super transparent and unbeatable! No color, nothing, you set your limit threshold and done.


----------



## charlieclouser (Jul 6, 2020)

dgburns said:


> I bought this recently, part of an upgrade. Still trying to understand, there is the linear version and the multi version and the non multi version ???
> 
> When you slam the multi version, like for example a big low hit, all the bottom end gets sucked out? In my feable initial attempts at getting my head around this L3, I’ve come to the conclusion that you can’t go super nuts with it or your balance will get whacked.
> 
> Have not had the ability to get more volume out of this thing then the Slate Fgx or the Kazrog limiter. I trust your ears and time in, so this must be a good tool, just not sure about how to use it successfully. This isn’t like the Finalizer, that thing is way more forgiving. Is the L3 even multi-band ?



Well, one thing about how I use it is that it's ALWAYS on my stem sub-masters. I don't apply it to an existing mix, it's always in place and active. While I'm doing sound design, selecting sounds, building a template, composing, mixing... the whole time. So definitely "mixing INTO the limiters" - actually an even more extreme version of that process. So when I balance sounds and apply individual eq and compression it's always "in context" with what's going to happen to those sounds downstream. That way there's no surprises when I un-bypass the thing later on and go, "Whoa nelly, what just happened?"

That way of working isn't for everyone, but it works for me. I started doing this when working on tv scores where I just had to compose-compose-compose-PRINT!

Also my program material is by no means a realistic orchestral sound - it's always got some orchestral textures in it, alongside war drums and electronic drums, and hybrid drones and textures, etc. So if my processing reduces the realism and natural balance of the sound I'd never know it. I'm just using these things to alleviate the "dang it why is everything so freaking quiet?!?!" problem - and as a way to avoid using any volume automation. "Make the quiet parts louder and clamp down hard on the loud parts please, and don't make me adjust a thousand parameters to get there."

I generally HATE to use compression that I can actually "hear" - unless I'm doing a PortisHead drum sound, I don't want to hear the release time at all, and I always use zero attack time and look-ahead so there's no "pip" on the attack of anything that needs to be adjusted. For me, that's veering into "transient designer" territory and is a different argument that I tackle on a per-track basis. I just want massive amounts of gain reduction, auto-make-up gain, and basically a one-knob "make sound bigger" mode. L3-LL MultiMaximizer is the most invisible to my ears, and I can get 12-18 db of gain reduction without hearing pumping from single-band operation or too-long release times, chattering or intermodulation distortion from too-short release times, etc. But it may not be ideal for other types of program material.

I confess to using this stuff in "knucklehead mode" and being generally jaded, bored, and "over it" and I definitely don't want to choose and adjust a different plugin for each cue as I go, but every few months or so I do have a shootout and comparison day where I put up a bunch of different types of cues and try out whatever new plugins I've bought since the last time. I'm usually expecting L3-LL to get knocked out of the box, but it's held its own over the years. Ozone is a monster, but I realized it's the Maximizer module that I like more than the multi-band dynamics, which I found too fiddly and tricky to adjust quickly in the fog of war. But Ozone's Maximizer can be very tricky as well - it requires trying out the various auto-release modes and finding the one that won't cause chattering, and the ones I like generally seem to have way too much latency to use while composing and programming. So I generally only use Ozone when mastering finished stereo mixes for release, not as a per-stem limiter.

But that effect of "a big low slam sucking out the bottom end" might mean you need to tailor the crossover frequencies to better suit the program. Obviously, if a big low slam hits the limiter in one band, everything else in that band will get attenuated with it - but ONLY the other stuff IN THAT BAND. In a single-band limiter like normal "L" series, FabFilter Pro-L, whatever, that low slam will cause attenuation across the ENTIRE frequency range, so even the hi-hats will get pumped as a result. 

What I like about five-band limiters like L3-LL MultiMaximizer is that I can adjust the frequency ranges so that a big sub boom can hit the limiter for that band, but the "note" portion of the low strings can be in the next higher band, and will not get pumped by that sub hit - as long as the crossover points are adjusted correctly. Takes a minute of watching the frequency graph on the plugin as the mix plays through it. With a three-band limiter this is much harder to do, since usually you'd just have "low-mid-high" instead of "subs-bass-honk-clank-fizz" bands.

And, just to check, there are a few plugins included in the various Waves packages, both single and multi band versions, in LL (low latency) and normal versions, but this is the one I'm talking about, called "L3-LL MultiMaximizer":






You can fiddle with the crossover points between the bands, adjust threshold / attack / release / gain per-band, etc. but I usually don't go too deep. For me it's all about the crossover points and that big threshold slider on the left. I also usually use auto release (the pop-up on the lower left that says ARC).

The linear version has linear-phase filters at the crossover points instead of "normal" filters, but I don't think there's an "LL" version of the linear-phase version (which makes sense as linear-phase filters take more cpu and cause more latency). The LL versions have extremely low latency (and negligible CPU load) so I can leave them on all the time, and do rapid-fire MIDI sequencing without weird delays. That's a big deal for me.

I still prefer the old TC MasterX5 that ran on PowerCore, but it's a 32-bit plugin and the PowerCore platform is dead on modern MacOS versions. That plugin had a fixed 10msec lookahead delay when playing live through it, but I could live with that. In general it was less of a hard limiter and more of a "floating make-up gain finalizer" and the resulting waveforms were never totally squared-off, as they are with L3-LL (and just about every other plug we're talking about).

I did just get the new TC MasterX plugin, but I haven't tried it yet as I am working on other stuff at the moment. I do have high hopes for it - and high hopes that they will do a five-band "pro" version someday, since I think the current one is only three bands. If it can come anywhere near the gooey, imprecise but natural-sounding effect of the old Mx5, then I'll be happy.


----------



## rhizomusicosmos (Jul 6, 2020)

charlieclouser said:


> The linear version has linear-phase filters at the crossover points instead of "normal" filters, but I don't think there's an "LL" version of the linear-phase version (which makes sense as linear-phase filters take more cpu and cause more latency). The LL versions have extremely low latency (and negligible CPU load) so I can leave them on all the time, and do rapid-fire MIDI sequencing without weird delays. That's a big deal for me.


Yes, from my understanding, the L3-LL specifically uses minimum phase filtering while the standard L3 is linear phase. I'm not sure if the "Separation" control functions slightly differently between the two versions but it seems quite powerful in that you can tailor the amount of overlap or independence of the bands. From the L3-LL user guide:

_The L3-LL phase-compensated crossover allows control over the amount of Separation between its 5 bands. Separation is similar to a filter cutoff slope (or Q) between the bands’ sidechain being fed to the PLMixer™. At low Separation settings, crossover slopes between bands are moderate, creating more overlap between the bands. At higher Separation settings, the crossover slopes are steeper, resulting in less overlap between the bands._

Oh, and to clear up any confusion, _all _the Waves L3 variants are multiband. The Ultramaximiser just presents a simplified GUI with Profiles for the multiband engine:


----------



## GNP (Jul 6, 2020)

The Oxford Limiter is great for orchestral stuff. The 'squashing' function is very subtle, but strong enough. There's even a "Safe Mode" that when enabled, does it even more subtly. I usually have it around 40%, and it sounds very transparent.


----------



## gtrwll (Jul 7, 2020)

I usually use Ozone for my stuff, some of which tries to be more orchestral than the rest. At some point it didn't really work for me on the composing-stage, can't recall what the issue was, but as a result I usually use Waves L1 just to bring the levels up when composing but switch it to Ozone when mixing/mastering.


----------



## Virtuoso (Jul 7, 2020)

Weiss MM-1 is my first choice. Very easy to use and a great transparent sound. Works wonders in 'wide mode' too! On sale for $109 at the moment:-









Weiss MM-1 Mastering Maximizer


VST mastering maximiser, based on the legendary hardware, fully licensed and endorsed by Daniel Weiss.




www.softube.com





If I need more control, I go for Fabfilter Pro-L2:-






FabFilter Pro-L 2 - Limiter Plug-In


FabFilter Pro-L 2 is a transparent, high quality true peak limiter plug-in. Available in VST, VST3, AU, AAX and AudioSuite formats for Windows and macOS




www.fabfilter.com


----------



## jcrosby (Jul 7, 2020)

dcoscina said:


> There is an Ozone preset for Classical that I find helpful. Logic also has a Classical FX mastering preset I use on occasion.


IRC 1 is the algorithm best tailored toward classical and acoustic music. (traditional classical as opposed to "hybrid"... Big difference in the choices I make between the two styles....) It's the least aggressive.. (Also IRC IV has a _classic _setting that is pretty similar, just more transparent..) It's definitely worth reading about the algorithms if not familiar...

Ozone 9 IRC Modes

And don't forget about the vintage limiter. You could totally use that on its own for a traditional classical piece. This used to be called "tube" in Ozone 6. Sometimes I like running vintage limiter before the maximizer depending on the project. You can let vintage limiter do most of the work if you like the character, and set the maximizer to basically just handle true peaks and apply dither..


----------



## Living Fossil (Jul 7, 2020)

JEPA said:


> Ozone lets pass peaks that I have to catch with the Limiter 6.



I'm not sure if you're really referring to the full version of Ozone, however, Ozone's limiter has plenty of controls and 4 different algorithms. 
If set up correctly, it not only doesn't let any peaks pass but it also prevents you of having intersample peaks. (For the later you have to turn true peak on).
It's absolutely reliable In preventing you from having any peaks passing, so you should check your settings.


----------



## JEPA (Jul 7, 2020)

Living Fossil said:


> I'm not sure if you're really referring to the full version of Ozone, however, Ozone's limiter has plenty of controls and 4 different algorithms.
> If set up correctly, it not only doesn't let any peaks pass but it also prevents you of having intersample peaks. (For the later you have to turn true peak on).
> It's absolutely reliable In preventing you from having any peaks passing, so you should check your settings.


Yes, I have the full version of Ozone Maximizer (didn't know there was a light version). It's very useful because of the different algorithms, I love it, but I have found while checking my settings and checking with Youlean full version Loudness Meter that the Ozone Maximizer isn't as reliable as I have thought for the ceiling. I use my full version of the TDR Limiter 6 GE to do that. I have also the full version of the Sonnox Limiter, but I am very used to the Limiter 6 and get fast and transparent results with it, so I stick with it. So, at the end I have in my Master Bus almost always in the chain:

- Full version Tonebooster Enhancer
- Full version Ozone EQ
- Full version Ozone Imager
- Full version AA Erin EQ ST
- Full version PA Shadow Hills Class A compressor
- Full version AA Erin Compressor
- Full Version Ozone Maximizer
- Full Version TDR Limiter 6 GE
- Full version Ozone Tone Balance
- Full version Youlean Loudness Meter
- Other full and free versions plugins occasionally: full Klanghelm MJUC, full Sonnox Inflator, full Eventide Bundle, full Plugin Alliance Meter, MAAT free correlation meter, free 2cAudio Vector, free TB ISOL8, so far I remember...


----------



## Living Fossil (Jul 7, 2020)

JEPA said:


> but I have found while checking my settings and checking with Youlean full version Loudness Meter that the Ozone Maximizer isn't as reliable as I have thought for the ceiling.



Be assured, it's perfectly reliable. (of course i don't know what you are doing potentially wrong, since there are some possible traps...)


----------



## JEPA (Jul 7, 2020)

Living Fossil said:


> Be assured, it's perfectly reliable. (of course i don't know what you are doing potentially wrong, since there are some possible traps...)


I have investigated it and there is a test made for almost all limiters in the market where Ozone shows not perfectly catched true peaks. I don't remember now this link, but later I can look for it.


----------



## Living Fossil (Jul 7, 2020)

JEPA said:


> I have investigated it and there is a test made for almost all limiters in the market where Ozone shows not perfectly catched true peaks. I don't remember now this link, but later I can look for it.



Just set the threshold to -0.5 and everything is fine.
As written, there are different possible traps, and with analysers there's typically a possible 0.1 dB difference. (In the 16 years of using Ozone i never had a slipped peak...)


----------



## jcrosby (Jul 7, 2020)

JEPA said:


> I have investigated it and there is a test made for almost all limiters in the market where Ozone shows not perfectly catched true peaks. I don't remember now this link, but later I can look for it.


ISPs/True Peaks happen on conversion, not in the limiter itself. While some may be better than others, ultimately they're guessing because the format you export to can have a huge impact. Any track mastered too loud, and too close to 0 dbFS can produce ISPs even with True Peak on. As living fossil mentioned you actually need to leave additional headroom..

And since ISPs happen on conversion, converting to a compressed audio format will create even greater ISPs than the uncompressed master, the lower the bitrate the higher the ISP.. This is where Ozone's _Codec Preview _becomes useful.._. _As you lower the bitrate of a preview codec you should see higher ISPs. You ultimately want to preview through this if you're uploading to any place that uses compressed formats.

So for streaming services like youtube many mastering engineers recommend between -.7 and -1 dB headroom, some even suggest as much as 1.5 dB. (-1 should be fine if you're mastering to a reasonable level.) 









Audio levels for mastering and inter-sample speaks - Digital Mastering







ar-onlinemastering.com


----------



## JEPA (Jul 7, 2020)

My set is -1.0 always. But Ozone lets pass some peaks, I have monitored it. That’s where I use Limiter6.


----------



## jcrosby (Jul 7, 2020)

JEPA said:


> My set is -1.0 always. But Ozone lets pass some peaks, I have monitored it. That’s where I use Limiter6.


How are you seeing these slip through? On upload, using a meter?
You should at least read this short article about the accuracy/inaccuracy of true peak meters.









True Peak Detection


Russell McClellan In the last few years, a number of different countries have passed laws regulating the loudness of audio in television and other broadcast mediums. Surprisingly, loudness is a dif…




techblog.izotope.com


----------



## GtrString (Jul 7, 2020)

I use the IK Stealth Limiter. Very transparent no matter how hard you push it.


----------



## JEPA (Jul 7, 2020)

jcrosby said:


> using a meter?


That’s it! Using Youlean. It gives me the alerts when peak is passing through.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 7, 2020)

UAD Precision Limiter.


----------



## darcvision (Jul 7, 2020)

JEPA said:


> For me the most transparent is the "TDR Limiter 6 GE". I have Ozone Maximizer but for limiting I have observe that the Limiter 6 does a better job. Ozone lets pass peaks that I have to catch with the Limiter 6. It has also the possibility to build your own limiting chain inside the limiter:
> compressor>Peak limiter>HF limiter>clipper>output ceiling/drive + a very useful meter. You can rearrange the order of the chain. For me it is super transparent and unbeatable! No color, nothing, you set your limit threshold and done.


this is my go to limiter. affordable price, versatile, more feature, LUFS meter, DELTA feature and dan worrall video. basically you can do anything with this limiter, transparent or aggresive. also great for drum bus too.


----------



## NoOneKnowsAnything (Jul 7, 2020)

Still primarily use Waves L3 MM only because it is what I am most used to using, but I have Weiss MM-1, Sonnox Limiter, Ozone 9, UAD Precision, FabFilter L. Need to do A B comparisons to see who is ruler of them all. I usually stick a Manley or Shadow Hills or SPL Iron right before final brick wall limiter or several of them all doing just a small bit of very gentle limiting & compression. I’m demoing TC Electronic Finalizer which I really like but it’s only a stand-alone and not an insert plug-in for DAW. So the Finalizer is ideal for finished stereo songs not delivering stems for projects.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 7, 2020)

JEPA said:


> That’s it! Using Youlean. It gives me the alerts when peak is passing through.



Hmmmmm....when I use Youlean (alongside Ozone 9 Advanced), it sees the peaks, but they are still getting caught by the Ozone Maximizer with True Peaks turned on. I find Maximizer extremely accurate. There's really no need to have a second limiter, wouldn't that be defeating the purpose?


----------



## blackzeroaudio (Jul 7, 2020)

I use a few, usually test each on the song and pick which one I like best.

Fab Filter Limiter, Ozone, Invisible Limiter, or UAD Precision


----------



## JEPA (Jul 7, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Hmmmmm....when I use Youlean (alongside Ozone 9 Advanced), it sees the peaks, but they are still getting caught by the Ozone Maximizer with True Peaks turned on. I find Maximizer extremely accurate. There's really no need to have a second limiter, wouldn't that be defeating the purpose?


Yes, you are Right. It is annoying that peaks pass through; I end using Limiter 6, when Ozone fails.


----------



## Living Fossil (Jul 7, 2020)

JEPA said:


> Yes, you are Right. It is annoying that peaks pass through; I end using Limiter 6, when Ozone fails.



Would be useful if you could post an audiofile where Ozone couldn't manage the peaks, so other users can check if their copy of Ozone behaves in the same way. Personally, i think there is an error in your chain somewhere.


----------



## JEPA (Jul 7, 2020)

Living Fossil said:


> Would be useful if you could post an audiofile where Ozone couldn't manage the peaks, so other users can check if their copy of Ozone behaves in the same way. Personally, i think there is an error in your chain somewhere.


I will do when that happens again, now I don’t remember which track was it, but like said before I had to use the other limiter as I saw the alert.


----------



## MisteR (Jul 7, 2020)

This thread is reminding me that I picked up the McDSP ML 8000 on sale a few months ago but have yet to check it out. Might give the mixing into the limiter method a try.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 7, 2020)

JEPA said:


> I will do when that happens again, now I don’t remember which track was it, but like said before I had to use the other limiter as I saw the alert.



In Youlean, are you seeing the threshold simply turning red? That just means your limiter is doing its job. Not sure how you are seeing anything above that in Youlean. Maximizer should be simply "squashing" anything above your setting of -1.0.


----------



## JEPA (Jul 7, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> In Youlean, are you seeing the threshold simply turning red? That just means your limiter is doing its job. Not sure how you are seeing anything above that in Youlean. Maximizer should be simply "squashing" anything above your setting of -1.0.


Yes. But the mysterious thing is that I replaced it by TDR Limiter 6 GE and it didn't go over ceiling. I will try to reproduce it and report here.


----------



## sostenuto (Jul 7, 2020)

charlieclouser said:


> Well, one thing about how I use it is that it's ALWAYS on my stem sub-masters. I don't apply it to an existing mix, it's always in place and active. While I'm doing sound design, selecting sounds, building a template, composing, mixing... the whole time. So definitely "mixing INTO the limiters" - actually an even more extreme version of that process. So when I balance sounds and apply individual eq and compression it's always "in context" with what's going to happen to those sounds downstream. That way there's no surprises when I un-bypass the thing later on and go, "Whoa nelly, what just happened?"
> 
> That way of working isn't for everyone, but it works for me. I started doing this when working on tv scores where I just had to compose-compose-compose-PRINT!
> 
> ...



Learning lots from all here, as usual. L3-LL UltraMaximizer sounds great, but only available in Bundle. Will sort Waves' others and try to get close ..... 
Plugin Alliance - bx_Limiter & bx_XL V2 have been 'go to' so far.

Regards


----------



## charlieclouser (Jul 7, 2020)

sostenuto said:


> Learning lots from all here, as usual. L3-LL UltraMaximizer sounds great, but only available in Bundle. Will sort Waves' others and try to get close .....
> Plugin Alliance - bx_Limiter & bx_XL V2 have been 'go to' so far.
> 
> Regards



Keep an eye on Waves because they do ridiculous sales. Even though I originally got L3 as part of the Plutonium Bundle or whatever they call it, at one point it was on sale for $29 (!!!) so I got a second license.

And don't forget, I'm talking about L3-LL *Multi*Maximizer, not just the plain old single-band *Ultra*Maximizer.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 7, 2020)

sostenuto said:


> Learning lots from all here, as usual. L3-LL UltraMaximizer sounds great, but only available in Bundle. Will sort Waves' others and try to get close .....
> Plugin Alliance - bx_Limiter & bx_XL V2 have been 'go to' so far.
> 
> Regards



The Dave Aude Toolbox is currently on sale at Waves for $59, and includes the L3-LL Ulrtra/MultiMaximzers along with a few other plugins. Plus, you get a free plugin because it's over $50.

https://www.waves.com/bundles/dave-...//www.waves.com/bundles/dave-aude-emp-toolbox[/URL]


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 7, 2020)

charlieclouser said:


> I've always preferred multi-band, look-ahead limiters ever since I first discovered things like TC MasterX5. Finally I could eliminate any pumping artifacts when I had something like a big sub boom in the middle of a passage with strong low celli for instance. For me, five bands is WAY better than three, so you get bands for subs / bass notes / honk / clank / fizz, and one of the fastest to use and most invisible is Waves L3-LL MultiMaximizer. I've done so many comparisons and shootouts and I keep coming back to that one. I use it as a per-stem limiter to cap each stem at a level that will prevent clipping when they are all summed into a composite mix that has no further processing.
> 
> I definitely use Ozone, FabFilter, and many others from time to time, but by far the fastest to use and most invisible is L3-LL. Most of the others get used when I'm mastering a stereo mix as opposed to on a per-stem basis.



Does anyone know how much of what the multi maximizer does could be replicated in Reaper with ReaXcomp? I'm a little unsure of the differences between all these various dynamics plugin types, still learning.


----------



## JEPA (Jul 7, 2020)

After Charlie Clouser recommendations I landed on this offer, very tempting now *$47.99*, it includes:


L3-L16 Multimaximizer
L3 Multimaximizer
L3 Ultramaximizer
L3-LL Multimaximizer
L3-LL Ultramaximizer









L3-16 Multimaximizer Multiband Mastering Plugin | Waves


The ultimate all-in-one mastering plugin, the L3-16 multiband peak limiter plugin maximizes your sound with 16 bands of pinpoint precision and breathtaking detail.




www.waves.com


----------



## storyteller (Jul 7, 2020)

L316 is fantastic for broadcast stuff and dialogue tracks. L1 is still my Ol’ Faithful regardless of every other limiter I’ve tried.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 7, 2020)

JEPA said:


> After Charlie Clouser recommendations I landed on this offer, very tempting now *$47.99*, it includes:
> 
> 
> L3-L16 Multimaximizer
> ...



Where are you seeing that bundle? The cheapest bundle I could see with the L3-LL plugins was $59.









Dave Aude EMP Toolbox | Bundles | Waves


Six cutting-edge plugins for electronic music production, hand-picked by Grammy®-winning producer, DJ and remixer Dave Audé. Includes the Element 2.0 synth.




www.waves.com


----------



## JEPA (Jul 7, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Where are you seeing that bundle? The cheapest bundle I could see with the L3-LL plugins was $59.
> 
> 
> 
> ...











L3-16 Multimaximizer Multiband Mastering Plugin | Waves


The ultimate all-in-one mastering plugin, the L3-16 multiband peak limiter plugin maximizes your sound with 16 bands of pinpoint precision and breathtaking detail.




www.waves.com





16-band peak limiter / level maximizer plugin
Built-in linear phase equalizer
ARC™ Automatic Release Control
IDR™ Increased Digital Resolution with double precision bit re-quantization and dither with 9th-order noise shaping filter
Linear phase filtering for maximum output, free of phase distortion
Includes the L3 Multimaximizer, L3 Ultramaximizer, L3-LL Multimaximizer and L3-LL Ultramaximizer


----------



## JEPA (Jul 7, 2020)

slip bytes towards TDR Limiter 6 GE brick wall ceiling: see 1:52


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 7, 2020)

JEPA said:


> L3-16 Multimaximizer Multiband Mastering Plugin | Waves
> 
> 
> The ultimate all-in-one mastering plugin, the L3-16 multiband peak limiter plugin maximizes your sound with 16 bands of pinpoint precision and breathtaking detail.
> ...



Nice! Thanks for that.


----------



## rhizomusicosmos (Jul 7, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> Does anyone know how much of what the multi maximizer does could be replicated in Reaper with ReaXcomp? I'm a little unsure of the differences between all these various dynamics plugin types, still learning.


I think ReaXcomp would probably have a lot of the same functionality as the Waves L3-LL plus you can set up any number of bands. The documentation doesn't mention it, but it appears to be using minimum phase filters like the L3-LL. The standard Waves L3 and L316 are using linear phase filters and this seems to be one of the differentiators between some of these plug-ins.

Worth trying it out since it's free! 

EDIT: oops, perhaps there isn't a native MacOS version of the plugin? Anyone using Reaper or ReaPlugs on the Mac can comment on that?


----------



## muziksculp (Jul 7, 2020)

Wow.. This is a big wealth of feedback from everyone. I need to study this thread  

Thanks to all your suggestions, info. feedback, comments, ..etc. 

It's an interesting topic, and I'm not an expert at it, so keep the posts coming.


----------



## JEPA (Jul 7, 2020)

rhizomusicosmos said:


> I think ReaXcomp would probably have a lot of the same functionality as the Waves L3-LL plus you can set up any number of bands. The documentation doesn't mention it, but it appears to be using minimum phase filters like the L3-LL. The standard Waves L3 and L316 are using linear phase filters and this seems to be one of the differentiators between some of these plug-ins.
> 
> Worth trying it out since it's free!
> 
> EDIT: oops, perhaps there isn't a native MacOS version of the plugin? Anyone using Reaper or ReaPlugs on the Mac can comment on that?



great video!

Edit: I have to add these plugins are free to use as stated by @rhizomusicosmos only for Windows, follow link:


REAPER | ReaPlugs


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 7, 2020)

rhizomusicosmos said:


> I think ReaXcomp would probably have a lot of the same functionality as the Waves L3-LL plus you can set up any number of bands. The documentation doesn't mention it, but it appears to be using minimum phase filters like the L3-LL. The standard Waves L3 and L316 are using linear phase filters and this seems to be one of the differentiators between some of these plug-ins.
> 
> Worth trying it out since it's free!
> 
> EDIT: oops, perhaps there isn't a native MacOS version of the plugin? Anyone using Reaper or ReaPlugs on the Mac can comment on that?




Thanks a lot! That was very helpful, I'll try it out the next time I open up Reaper. I'm on windows, so I'm not sure about the Mac versions.


----------



## JEPA (Jul 7, 2020)

dgburns said:


> In my feable initial attempts at getting my head around this L3, I’ve come to the conclusion that you can’t go super nuts with it or your balance will get whacked.


This explains what you are experiencing with your balance. The whole video is interesting but at 8:31 he goes straight to the point...

Contra arguments for multi-band Limiting



I do multi-band compression, but till yet never did multi-band limiting. Not saying that it couldn't be useful for some situations, but I have not tried it yet. That video shows some aspects to take in count regarding tonal balance. Interesting...

Edit: Waves deal still tempting!


----------



## charlieclouser (Jul 7, 2020)

JEPA said:


> This explains what you are experiencing with your balance. The whole video is interesting but at 8:31 he goes straight to the point...
> 
> Contra arguments for multi-band Limiting
> 
> ...




The effect he describes in that video is something that I *do* want, but it's also why multi-band limiters are "less dangerous" if you use them on individual stems as opposed to across an entire mix, and also have them always in place when designing sounds, building templates, composing, and mixing. That way you can balance and mix elements while hearing what those "wiggly" eq changes are going to do, instead of applying that processing on a mix that's already "finished".

I usually print my scores to seven stems with individual multi-band limiters on each stem, and then no further processing at all on the composite mix, because those stems will be re-balanced on the dub stage and the composite mix is not used except as a reference. So there's no danger of the drums pushing the strings levels or eq around because they're going through separate stem limiters. 

But within each stem, I actually do want the kind of multi-band activity that he describes in the video, even though it might mean that the eq is wiggling around, because to me that gives more of a glue effect when the elements within a stem are pushing each other around. It sounds less static, less like a bunch of un-automated MIDI tracks just playing straight through, and adds subtle movement within each stem. Mainly though, it lets me get things "louder" without sounding bricked, crushed, or clipped.

When I prepare stereo mixes for a soundtrack album release or whatever, I re-mix those seven stems into a stereo mix, and then I do apply a final limiter on that composite mix - usually Ozone Maximizer or some other non-multi-band limiter (along with a bunch of other crap as well). But I am using the stems that have already been stepped on by the multi-band earlier in the process, so there's that.


----------



## JEPA (Jul 7, 2020)

charlieclouser said:


> The effect he describes in that video is something that I *do* want, but it's also why multi-band limiters are "less dangerous" if you use them on individual stems as opposed to across an entire mix, and also have them always in place when designing sounds, building templates, composing, and mixing. That way you can balance and mix elements while hearing what those "wiggly" eq changes are going to do, instead of applying that processing on a mix that's already "finished".
> 
> I usually print my scores to seven stems with individual multi-band limiters on each stem, and then no further processing at all on the composite mix, because those stems will be re-balanced on the dub stage and the composite mix is not used except as a reference. So there's no danger of the drums pushing the strings levels or eq around because they're going through separate stem limiters.
> 
> ...



Thank you for describing your approach and process! And also for clarifying the use of multi-band limiter on your stems but not on the final mix or composite mix. The only way to use a multi-band limiter on the final mix I can think after watching that video and understanding the tonal balance issue is to use it with the smiley preset you described in the TC-MD5 MasterX5 thread. This way the subs and basses wouldn't lose punch and every band would be ready leveled...


----------



## LamaRose (Jul 7, 2020)

Ketel One... the more you use, the better everything sounds.


----------



## Henk (Jul 7, 2020)

In my opinion, a slight limiter has little effect on the quality, but it is only used when arranging. If it is used too much, the music part will be confused. I usually use WAVES L1。


----------



## dgburns (Jul 8, 2020)

charlieclouser said:


> The effect he describes in that video is something that I *do* want, but it's also why multi-band limiters are "less dangerous" if you use them on individual stems as opposed to across an entire mix, and also have them always in place when designing sounds, building templates, composing, and mixing. That way you can balance and mix elements while hearing what those "wiggly" eq changes are going to do, instead of applying that processing on a mix that's already "finished".
> 
> I usually print my scores to seven stems with individual multi-band limiters on each stem, and then no further processing at all on the composite mix, because those stems will be re-balanced on the dub stage and the composite mix is not used except as a reference. So there's no danger of the drums pushing the strings levels or eq around because they're going through separate stem limiters.
> 
> ...



Ya, I get the whole stem thing, I write into stems too. Ok, so I pissed around with the L3 multi LL and it’s better imho then the L2 or L1 for sure. My take away is to just not over do it. 
One thing I found useful for more apparent volume is the waves MV plug. Yes I know it’s maybe not the sexiest thing around, but it does both upward expansion and comp. A little on individual tracks is pretty good. Have not had any love for the max volume though, it’s just a bit weird for me.

I’ll say it again, that stock LPX bit crusher plugin is one of the best clippers out there. They envisioned it as a rate reducer, but set to full 24 bit with some modest ceiling output, and it sometimes wins over the limiters. I’ve found it useful on Brass of all things.
I think L3 might find a home on some things here...


----------



## fakemaxwell (Jul 8, 2020)

JEPA said:


> This explains what you are experiencing with your balance. The whole video is interesting but at 8:31 he goes straight to the point...
> 
> Contra arguments for multi-band Limiting




This is a weird prescriptive. Of course, it's something to be aware of when using single vs multiband limiting, but "never use" is ridiculous. If it sounds better, it is better. There's a bit of youtube buzzword advertising to get people to listen, but he's still doubling down on it in the description and comments. Describing the working mechanism of a plugin and then saying "that's why you can't use it" doesn't actually explain anything.

Charlie, when you have all these L3's strapped to your stem busses does your session not slow down due to the extra latency? I usually wait until the end to do any limiting, just use low-PDC compressors until then, but curious if you have a workaround or you just live with it.


----------



## jcrosby (Jul 8, 2020)

rapscallione said:


> This is a weird prescriptive. Of course, it's something to be aware of when using single vs multiband limiting, but "never use" is ridiculous. If it sounds better, it is better. There's a bit of youtube buzzword advertising to get people to listen, but he's still doubling down on it in the description and comments. Describing the working mechanism of a plugin and then saying "that's why you can't use it" doesn't actually explain anything.


Definitely agree... Ozone's and Elevate's limiters are 26 bands each IIRC. They're virtually invisible unless you start to push into them pretty aggressively. It all depends on the algorithm... And that L3 algorithm is OLD. (Not that that's bad, just that lookahead limiting technology's changed pretty drastically since the L3 came out and newer limiters can do a lot more work with a lot less audible damage.)

Another great trick is to use a soft clipper... You can even use these in tandem with a limiter, just hit each a bit. The clipper will retain the impression of attack, the limiter will add a little glue, movement, etc. I keep both of these disabled on various busses, then see which works better before export..


----------



## charlieclouser (Jul 8, 2020)

rapscallione said:


> Charlie, when you have all these L3's strapped to your stem busses does your session not slow down due to the extra latency? I usually wait until the end to do any limiting, just use low-PDC compressors until then, but curious if you have a workaround or you just live with it.



Well, don't forget that I'm using the "LL" aka "low-latency" versions of L3-LL MultiMaximizer, which has noticeably less play-through latency than any of the others in the L3 series. Not sure exactly how much it is, but it sure feels like less. And it's way less than Ozone's Maximizer for sure, especially if you're using the fancy IRC modes it has.

I'm not too fussy about latency. I spent so many years with MasterX5 strapped across the stems and high buffer sizes on G5 computers that whatever today's figures are feels fine to me. Mx5 has at least 10msec of look-ahead delay, plus whatever else is involved in the round trip to the card and back, and if I remember correctly, back in the G5 days I'd have buffers of 512 usually. These days I usually leave buffer at 256 for an lighter hit on the CPU.

I can have fourteen instances of L3-LL Multi in my template (front+back pair for each of seven stems), and the CPU load is negligible. Of course, with Logic's dual/hybrid buffer architecture only one or two of those are ever running on the "live" buffer, with the rest on the "process" buffer, and the plugs themselves are quite old and were optimized for much weaker CPUs, so it's not surprising that they hit the CPU so lightly.

For strings and other mushy sounds I don't even notice their latency, and for drums and stuff I just bang it in and then start tweaking the MIDI, so it's no big deal.

Also, I'm only ever going through one L3 at a time - I put identical instances on each stem, but then the stems all combine into a composite mix that feeds my speakers and there's no fancy stacked busses, summing stacks, or anything other than just Instrument>SubMaster>Output. If I put Ozone on the stem sub masters, then for sure I can't play anything in real time without losing my mind!


----------



## JEPA (Jul 9, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Nice! Thanks for that.


Did you buy it? Could you give some feedback? I would like to buy some Waves plugins and when it is worth and interesting I would include this in my cart?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 9, 2020)

JEPA said:


> Did you buy it? Could you give some feedback? I would like to buy some Waves plugins and when it is worth and interesting I would include this in my cart?



Actually, I downloaded the demo to try it first. It's really good for using as Charlie describes. However, I've decided to use Fabfilter L2 on my bus mixes instead.


----------



## DovesGoWest (Jul 17, 2020)

I tend to use the waves l316 followed by the l3ll ultra or L2. I do a little bit in each one so that neither are getting over worked


----------



## Mucusman (Apr 20, 2021)

For anyone who has been looking at Waves' L3 Multimaximizer package (which includes the low latency versions Charlie uses), it's available a little while longer for $26.64 USD, here. Everywhere else it's around 30% more... I finally pulled the trigger after demoing it. (Note, BestService's page doesn't explicitly state that the low latency versions come with this, but they do.)


----------

