Waves L2 Ultramaximizer
Believe it or not. But it's still bloody popular!! LMAO There's many out there that swear by its sound, I don't mind the Waves MV2 either.
Certain new digital products have become 'must-haves' for the modern digital studio. A good candidate for this list is the L2 Ultramaximizer, a digital look-ahead. Introduction to the L1 and L2 Ultramaximizers 192,066. Waves 25th Anniversary edition. L1 Limiter and L1+ Ultramaximizer.
Waves L2 Ultramaximizer
It'll limit, but it will also allow you to lift the quieter signals too and a simple no fuss way, but it's not a brickwall, not that I can tell. IK's T-Racks has a Brickwall Limiter, that offers with a choice between several limiting characteristics.
They have just release a new Stealth Limiter that proposes to be ultra transparent, I don't have that one yet. Or there is the BXLimiter which has a nice saturation option and the BXXL V2, which is like a multiband mid-side version of the same thing. The latter is quite popular, but I like the former for its simplicity. That, and I have been developing my own multiband mastering technique, so I don't really need a multiband limiter for that.
Waves also has an L3 and an L3-16, but I don't really hear people talk about it much, not sure why. Possibly too complex?!?
I've been using the Waves L2 Ultramaximizer since my blue and white G3 Mac I find it great sounding with a few db of saturation. Now in 2015 what's the go to limiter for the master buss?The go to limiter on my master bus is still the L2. It does the job, why would I change? I don't need all those 2015 bells and whistles. Now for mastering or more complexe bus limitation, I'd go with its big brother, the L3 or L3-16, but they are far less 'plug and play' and you'll need to invest more time to learn how to use it well. That's why for basic bus limitation I'd stay with the L2.
Waves L2 Ultramaximizer Vst Review
I waited and waited,and waited till L2 was on a crazy sale,the result was like why is this thing considered so much better than L3 or the'low latency' L3LL? I just use what ever Iv'e got Xenon,Ozone 5 Ozone 6,Pro Audio DSM. The whole 'L2 is soooo much better' never,hit,but I hate a certain monitor so much that when I was a total noob,and did a review on them,and wish to the gods I could delete 'THAT REVIEW'but can't,for some stupid reason? So why was the L2 held in such high esteem,Oh discriminating ones? Well, believe it or nah, L2 is the cleanest of them all. When you put L1 on, it changes the sound as well as L3.
L2 does not change it and is still good. I love it for 1 to 3db of compression as it's very transparent. Once you get pass let's say 6db of compression is when it doesn't sound as good. I use to use FG-X on my Master all the time but, it's a cpu hog and I need all the power I can after the IK Master EQ another cpu hog. But put L2 with the KClip and you have a master piece that doesn't take up any cpu and sounds great and you can get nice loudness with out compromise. Limiting more than a couple of dB is often a bad idea anyway, generally speaking.Yes.
What has happened over the past 15 years with software limiters is a lot of marketing to inexperienced users. Apologies for sounding like a broken record, but the L-2 is often still one of the best for transparency and a couple dB's. The problem as I see it, is developers have created new limiters that can be pushed further.
Often times they aren't as transparent, and having a limiter create a 'flavor' isn't always a bad thing. The bad thing is bad artifacts created by limiting that can't be detected without being in a sonicly engineered environment with higher end speakers. Get the dB's before the limiter. Your limiter will thank you by putting out just a bit more.and you will be happy. As a matter of fact.get the dB's before mastering. Know composition and what sounds work together. Experienced mix engineers know this stuff.
Everyone boasts of their 'mastering chain' which is sort of a joke, then slapping on a limiter.or even multiple limiters in series near the end. Compression in series is understandable in situations, but now I hear of limiting in series.
Unfortunately I have heard way too many 'mastered' tracks ruined by pushing a limiter too far, multi band compression and limiting, and users with 'mastering chains' using way too much stuff. There are so many good limiters, it's best to pick one or two and LEARN them.
Just don't expect the L-2 to get you to -8dbRMS without lots of preparation mostly in the mixing stage. For a couple dB's RMS it's hard to go wrong with an L2. As a 2nd option I would also suggest the free Limiter No. 6.GUI in red. There are a bunch of better options out since L2 came out. Kclip, Ozone, FFProL are a few that I like better on the Master.What do you mean by 'better?'
Do you mean you can push it further without as much distortion? If so, I think most anyone would agree. But remember most ME's get a lot of volume prior to the signal even hitting a limiter. Anyone can slap on a limiter at the end of the chain, and get gain, but how will it sound in a controlled environment with higher end speakers? The few times I have used a limiter for majority gain was when the mix already arrived hot, and very little was done at mastering. One pop project was from Bruce Swedien and it was a fairly simple session! This is why IMO there is no need for so much focus on limiters unless you are using it for effect or color.
Used properly, a good limiter should be transparent, and the L-2 plus many others is that if not pushed. Much more important is to LEARN your limiter. Know how far you can set each parameter. Know how it will work with a drum & bass project vs. A smooth acoustic project with less transients.
Marketing will always present something 'better.' You want the flavor of the month, keep reading shoot-outs in forums. But ask yourself why ME's use tools that has been around a long time. That includes software that is proven to work over time. If 'better' means something else other than distortion, imaging or color, then please explain.
If 'better' means something else other than distortion, imaging or color, then please explain.Flexibility - L2 has like 2 controls and if the ARC doesn't work with your material, you may as well be using an L1. The thing I like about L3 is that in the wideband profile you get similar ARC limiting to L2 but you can scale the ARC timing.
Most of the other more modern limiters have much more control over how they deal with transients and how the release shape works. Depending on the program material you can then shape the limiting behaviour to be sharper and punchier (to use cliche buzz words) or softer and smoother. With an L2 it either works or it doesn't, you have no flexibility.
Most of the other more modern limiters have much more control over how they deal with transients and how the release shape works. Depending on the program material you can then shape the limiting behaviour to be sharper and punchier (to use cliche buzz words) or softer and smoother. With an L2 it either works or it doesn't, you have no flexibility.I think you are proving my point. How much gain is your limiter achieving? Honestly, I don't need to worry much about the release because it's not even engaging to cause shaping or anything else very often. The L-2 kicks in perhaps 10 instances for a 4:00 pop track. Maybe achieving a -1.5 dbRMS gain.
So the release for 10 instances is noticeable for you? I can focus on numerous other issues before even thinking about the release on the limiter that rarely kicks in. The end result is a pre-master that arrived at around -12dbrms to -10dbRMS and now is at -10dbRMS to -8dbRMS. (I'm trying to keep things in general here because so much depends on the material.) The majority dB's at mastering are achieved BEFORE the limiter. I think you are proving my point. How much gain is your limiter achieving?
Honestly, I don't need to worry much about the release because it's not even engaging to cause shaping or anything else very often. The L-2 kicks in perhaps 10 instances for a 4:00 pop track. Maybe achieving a -1.5 dbRMS gain. So the release for 10 instances is noticeable for you? I can focus on numerous other issues before even thinking about the release on the limiter that rarely kicks in. The end result is a pre-master that arrived at around -12dbrms to -10dbRMS and now is at -10dbRMS to -8dbRMS. (I'm trying to keep things in general here because so much depends on the material.) The majority dB's at mastering are achieved BEFORE the limiter.If your limiter is reacting only 10 times in a 4min record you may as well clip those peaks.
An infinitesimally short distortion would probably come out cleaner than a duck-and-pump from a lookahead limiter. I love the L2. Use it a fair amount. It does seem to have more of an aggressive sound than some other limiter, but sometimes that's perfect.
In my opinion it is one you need to be more mindful of how you are setting it. To be dead honest, I'm not sure why that is. To me it is in a very pleasant way, on material it works on, but can be terrible on other sources when used the same way (generally backing off it some will clear that up). Just like any tool, knowing what it suits, and when to use it. Regarding the mentions of L3-16 I think one of the biggest reasons a lot of people dislike it is not being comfortable with how to use it. Or not knowing how to properly use it. Once you understand it, it can be amazing.
The priority setting can make or break ya, and I think a lot of people miss that. It is a pretty surgical tool when you know it. I've got all the waves limiters, and I often just use the standard L3. I find it works well for me, and with the levels I send into it, it gives me what I'm looking for in a 'transparent' way.
I don't feel loss of energy with it. If your limiter is reacting only 10 times in a 4min record you may as well clip those peaks. An infinitesimally short distortion would probably come out cleaner than a duck-and-pump from a lookahead limiter.A typical instance isn't necessarily a couple samples.or infinitesimally short ie soft clipping as you implied.
An instance could be a hard snare hit with many samples clipped.ie now distortion. And that is not always heard without a good room and speakers. If I followed your advice I would never have had any clients! If I followed your advice I would never have had any clients!Well my advice was under the pretence you'd already said 10 instances, you clearly aren't bothered about the attack and release shape, so those instance must be insignificant at best. Hence my conclusion soft clipping may be just as effective.
However, if the limiter is reacting to a hard snare hit then I would want control over the attack and release character of the limiter - even if that snare hit only occurred once and the gain reduction was. What do you mean by 'better?'
Do you mean you can push it further without as much distortion? If so, I think most anyone would agree. But remember most ME's get a lot of volume prior to the signal even hitting a limiter. Anyone can slap on a limiter at the end of the chain, and get gain, but how will it sound in a controlled environment with higher end speakers? The few times I have used a limiter for majority gain was when the mix already arrived hot, and very little was done at mastering.
One pop project was from Bruce Swedien and it was a fairly simple session! This is why IMO there is no need for so much focus on limiters unless you are using it for effect or color. Used properly, a good limiter should be transparent, and the L-2 plus many others is that if not pushed. Much more important is to LEARN your limiter. Know how far you can set each parameter.
Know how it will work with a drum & bass project vs. A smooth acoustic project with less transients. Marketing will always present something 'better.'
You want the flavor of the month, keep reading shoot-outs in forums. But ask yourself why ME's use tools that has been around a long time. That includes software that is proven to work over time. If 'better' means something else other than distortion, imaging or color, then please explain.
Now im not a mastering engineer but 'better' to me means it can handle a full mix (specially with more low end) without distorting while keeping the imaging. As far as how far I push a limiter im usually around 3dB's of reduction. I never go past 5dB's, that seems to be where you really start hearing the distortion and imaging narrow. Im not sure why you're jumping to the assumption ppl are over focusing on limiters or don't know their tools just because they disagree with your pov.
Personally I don't think any of the responses so far have been over the top. I recently watched a video where Chris Athens used the FF Pro-L. End of the day If my ears are hearing what his ears are then im good lol. IMO the L2 isn't even Waves best limiter. The L316 would be my first choice if I were to pick a L-series limiter on the master. I do use the L1 & L2 for individual tracks and or sub groups when needed.
Waves L2 Ultramaximizer
If you are a mastering engineer then I definitely respect your opinion but so far my ears prefer the limiters I mentioned. Well my advice was under the pretence you'd already said 10 instances, you clearly aren't bothered about the attack and release shape, so those instance must be insignificant at best. Hence my conclusion soft clipping may be just as effective. However, if the limiter is reacting to a hard snare hit then I would want control over the attack and release character of the limiter - even if that snare hit only occurred once and the gain reduction was. You clearly aren't bothered about the attack and release shape, so those instance must be insignificant at best.Generally speaking, correct. Again it's very dependent on the content.
If the L2 had only 9 instances, and I'm not referring soft clipping instances, I would be more focused on distortion, and imaging. The times I have thought of attack causing issues when using the L2 is incredibly rare. The times I have thought of the L2 release causing an issue is rare.
I usually don't touch it. Again, keep in mind the dbRMS for the L2 might be -2dbRMS maximum for the track! I don't get much additional volume with L2, and I find that obtaining the volume before the limiter, then feeding it for just a little bit more works wonders. But the problem is when you start to push whatever limiter, relying on it for your gain, the chances of distortion is increased, and it's not always detectable unless you check a sonicaly engineered environment with good speakers. I'll be the first to say almost any other limiter other than the L2 can be pushed further.
Especially the Elephant. But I have heard enough distortion caused by what I believe is limiter abuse where the person thought everything was perfect, only to hear new issues in a mastering room. It's too soft for my tastes, altho I would emphasize this is a stylistic consideration and not an absolute right-or-wrong thing. Hence my preference for other limiters.IMO there is no absolute right or wrong if the sonic goal is for color or flavor. However keeping perspective, I think it's something many users overly obsesses about.considering all the other more important common issues. But if the sonic goal is maximum transparency ie no limiter color, and the limiter is accountable for just perhaps -2dbRMS just how detectable will the color be?
Now im not a mastering engineer but 'better' to me means it can handle a full mix (specially with more low end) without distorting while keeping the imaging. As far as how far I push a limiter im usually around 3dB's of reduction. I never go past 5dB's, that seems to be where you really start hearing the distortion and imaging narrow.With the L2, 3dB's is about the limit for me. I'm speaking in broad generalizations because so much of this is content dependent.
As long as you have listened in a good mastering room and there are no detectable issues, then your golden. My apologies for sounding snobbish. No one sounded 'over the top.'
My reply was for you to explain 'better' other than just list software brands. You are employing a limiter to achieve more gain than I would, and you most likely need something other than an L2 to achieve that without distortion. My opinion is that some users believe 'better' is how far they can push it without noticeable distortion.and without referencing in a good room. Personally, I have heard too many mixes ruined by limiter abuse, especially L2 since it's been around so long.
In the GS Mastering section, I have read threads such as 'What's in your mastering chain' where the user has a set chain and runs every track through 7 of the newest software 'mastering' tools, and is still trying to achieve volume. This makes me because IMO usually it's not the tool, it's the procedure. IMO the L2 isn't even Waves best limiter. The L316 would be my first choice if I were to pick a L-series limiter on the master. I do use the L1 & L2 for individual tracks and or sub groups when needed. If you are a mastering engineer then I definitely respect your opinion but so far my ears prefer the limiters I mentioned.I embraced the L3 with open arms, fully understanding it's uses and advantages.
But after a few weeks, I simply couldn't adjust comfortably. It could easily be myself and not the tool. I have used the L2 for a long time. Ultimately I didn't see much use of L3 based on the typical processing I usually send to the limiter. Again, I believe all this comes down to how you achieve volume keeping everything else consistent with as little compromise as possible. I don't rely on the L2 or any other limiter for much gain and can still achieve a competitively loud track if that's the goal.
When the L2 has to attenuate the loud parts of the signal it sounds - well, it changes the sound of the signal and not in a good way. Detail is lost and there is some distortion (or something!) introduced. The L3 does not have this artifact and has a much more transparent signal. Even my clients could tell the difference between the L2 and L3. Now, if you spank the L3 (as in go more than 4-6DB of attentuation) you can start to hear elements of distortion on the loud parts. I'm no expert on the L2 or L3. So someone chime in if they have had more experience.
Obviously everybody has their own subjective experience. I have to disagree that the L3 sounds better than the L2. You're substituting one kind of problem with another if you listen carefully. You will quickly grow tired of the L3 artifacts. The artifacts you're hearing from the L2 when pressing it hard is a type of distortion, which often happens when the lows kick in.
This means you're pressing the L2 far too hard, or you should use another type of limiter (and not necessarily the L3). Since the L2 is a broadband limiter, any part of the frequency range exceeding the threshold will result in gain reduction. Remember that getting a loud signal is a sum of many parts - not only the limiter. I would never or very rarely use more than 2-3 dB of GR in the L2 or any other type of limiter in a mastering situation. It's simply a weak method of getting a loud signal. A lot of people expect the limiter to be the magic bullet that provides all the loudness and don't understand why 'it can't take more than 4 dB before it sounds ugly'.
As the L3 is multiband it splits up the bands but you will also get distortion - more often audible in the high frequency bands. This is a nasty kind of digital distortion that can sound quite harsh. On top of this distortion the L3 has a huge problem with the crossovers between the bands which skew the frequency perception and causes another type of distortion which messes with the coherency of the mix. I believe there's a test website that visually shows this problem in the L3 in comparison to a couple of other limiters.
Add the two types of distortion from the L3 and you will get a quite fatiguing sound that might sound slightly louder than the L2 at first but certainly not better. On top of this distortion the L3 has a huge problem with the crossovers between the bands which skew the frequency perception and causes another type of distortion which messes with the coherency of the mix. I believe there's a test website that visually shows this problem in the L3 in comparison to a couple of other limiters. This is surprising because the L3's cross-overs are totally phase compensated - hence its very high latency.
This is why they've just released an L3LL which is a low latency version of the same plugin but with 'minimum phase' crossovers - like the ones in the C4 you would presume. I'm speculating that the reason the OP was enjoying the L3 more than the L2 on his piano recording was the main reason multiband tools like this can be cool - you can affect portions of the signal while leaving other sections totally untouched. With a phase conpensated tool like this, the benefits should be even more transparent. Having said that, why do you need to limit a piano performance with 4-6 dB of gain reduction anyway?
I'm not being criticial, but actually wondering what application you're doing this for. This is surprising because the L3's cross-overs are totally phase compensated - hence its very high latency. This is why they've just released an L3LL which is a low latency version of the same plugin but with 'minimum phase' crossovers - like the ones in the C4 you would presume.Well, L3LL might sound better, because Waves' idea of 'phase compensated' is atrocious, across the line. I often prefer C4 to LinMB! I'm with Lagerfeldt: the crossovers in L3 are the problem.
That's not saying the problem is phase distortion however. Bad sounding LP is often worse than plain ole minimum phase. I'm saying that crossovers and multiband limiting as a final stage go-louder step is the problem.
Since the early 90s, when Bob Ludwig appeared in a Finalizer ad, noobs have assumed that multiband compression, and later multiband limiting, are standard issue mastering processors. The go-too tool to git 'r loud. This just isn't the case historically. In fact, 'big name' ME's use MBL even less than MBC, both usually to fix frequency-related problems in a mix. Achieving loudness with a MBL is like commuting in the space shuttle: sure it get you from point A to B in a hurry, with lots of fuss, drama and expense. The dazzling light/sound display may be fun, but at the end of the day it may not be the best way to get to work. Professionally speaking, if you're seriously tweaking frequency bands in an MBL in the last step, there's a good chance the job was botched at an earlier stage, so may wish to revisit other processing before addressing it in the limiter.
I'm amazed that no one has mentioned that there are 'two' types of L3. Full-band / 2. Everyone seems to be comparing the L2 Mono band (only type) to the L3 multi-band. These are two completely different 'mastering' tools.
The L3 - mono-band, also has a number of different / tone/ curves. 'Extreme analog', etc. Have any of you tried these various Profiles? They each do sound quite different!
The L2 had none of these profiles. Personally I'm very happy with the L3-Ultramaximer. It's at the end of the line in my mastering chain. Ahead of this is the LimMB or the new IK-S3 Multi-band. I use this to just tame some of those spots in a song, where some frequency bands build to create a tonal mis-balance in the mix.
Using a constant EQ notch would do more harm than good. Thank-you Ron for pointing that out. IMHO, the L3 is only fully realized when used in MultiMaximizer mode. Because it is, by design, a multibanded limiter, I believe that you need the flexibility to assign the x-over points and the thresholds and limits per band.
Otherwise, the L3 either works really well, kind of sort of OK, or not at all. With the Multimaximizer, I can almost always dial it into the material and get something pretty close to what I'm after. While I think their presets ('Cozy', 'Loud and Proud', etc.) are attempts to set the bands, etc.
I just have never gotten them to really work well. That's why I nearly always reach for the multi. If it doesn't work. Then I go to the Massey L2007 or the McDSP ML4000 (which can be super aggressive if need be). I'm amazed that no one has mentioned that there are 'two' types of L3.
Full-band / 2. Everyone seems to be comparing the L2 Mono band (only type) to the L3 multi-band.
These are two completely different 'mastering' tools. The L3 - mono-band, also has a number of different / tone/ curves. 'Extreme analog', etc. Have any of you tried these various Profiles?
They each do sound quite different! The L2 had none of these profiles.I think the above is wrong. The L3 'ultra' version is not actually a single band processor. It's the same multi-band engine as the 'multi' version but without all the controls. They did this to provide the same interface that L1 and L2 users are used to but it's the same algorithm as the multi version.
Well sorry all. I do stand to be corrected.
If I had read the PDF manual, I would have seen on page 4 of the manual, that the simple L3 window with 'profiles', is just the folded down multi-band with 'pre-sets'. I had been using the Extreme Analog preset, for my noisy rok mixes.
It just seemed to balance best with the modern, bs to the wall, CD's. I've been around long enough, NOT TO LIKE DOING this. But what are you to do until the big ME & mastering houses, stop the madness! Listened to 'Misty Mountain Hop' (Zep) on the radio yesterday, right after that was 'Know your Enemy'. Other than 'Know. Was a bit sparklier, it sounded quieter, round and lumpy compared to Misty. A wall of guitars just really doesn't make things sound louder.
Mastered with L3 - It seems to match the modern world?