--- Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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/
