29 May
2004
29 May
'04
5:43 a.m.
--- Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 01:12:41 -0700, R Parker
wrote:
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
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. - Steve
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/