[linux-audio-user] jamin: lookahead_limiter_const_1906.so ?

R Parker rtp405 at yahoo.com
Sat May 29 03:35:02 EDT 2004


--- Steve Harris <S.W.Harris at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 01:12:41 -0700, R Parker
> wrote:
> > Do you, or anyone else, have an informed opinion
> for
> > whether lookahead or hard is the most appropriate
> and
> > why? In all honesty, I don't know. JAMin is headed
> for
> > a 1.0 release and I think it would be interesting
> to
> > debate whether we're using the best limiter for
> the
> > job. Steve and I have briefly touched on this
> topic a
> > couple times. It could be that we're using the
> > appropriate limiter.
> 
> I did a bit of reasearch at the time and it looked
> like all the
> respectable mastering packages use lookahead. Wether
> the implementation is
> the best for the job is another question.
> 
> I suspect it should have a peak allowance mode,
> which ignores very short
> peaks at over 0dB and clips them.

That does seem like an interesting feature. The job
I'm working on now has transient spikes that are
probably +6.0dbfs above the average. I used the TAP
Scaling Limiter post fader to deal with them. This
does a good job.

Do you imagine that spikes of this extreme are beyound
the scope of the peak allowance mode?

I assume they are. Otherwise, we're probably dealing
with something that's aggresive enough to become
audible if the user isn't able to adjust it. I don't
really know and am simply speculating.

ron

> - Steve



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 



More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list