Limiting opinion survey

[K-dub]

The question is simple: Which sounds better to you? The top one has more limiting on it. The 2nd has less - but mix adjustments needed to be made to bring certain parts up slightly to account for less limiting. But which appeals to folks ear more? I have an opinion ... but I'd like to see what others think.

Thanks in advance for chipping in your two cents!

 

[K-dub]

The differences are subtle - to be sure - but the settings between the two are quite less on the second.

As a secondary survey inquiry: Is the kick too prominent?

 

[dobro]

I like the first one better - it sounds fuller and more present.

The kick: It's very prominent, but you like prominent, so it fits your style. It fits the tune.

'Piano rock'. I like this tune.

 

[K-dub]

I like the first one better - it sounds fuller and more present.

The kick: It's very prominent, but you like prominent, so it fits your style. It fits the tune.

'Piano rock'. I like this tune.

I confess I keep vacillating. The clarity of the first one IS better because limiting brings out the details of the softer material better (which is why mix adjustments are required with less limiting). But that clarity comes at a cost of sonic "depth". The sound edges toward 2D versus 3D. It's the pressed glass sound.

It's VERY subtle. Some here won't hear the difference in the heavier limited piece versus the 2nd version - because you have to be able to hear the glossy sheen limiting adds to sound.

I tend to think the less limited version sounds more "natural" - even if the edges of sound blur and are less defined.

But that's why I'm interested in what others think about which sounds better. Listeners opinions supersede my own feelings about my preferences. If others think the first sounds better, then the first sounds better mindless of my opinion.

 

[K-dub]

I like the first one better - it sounds fuller and more present.

The kick: It's very prominent, but you like prominent, so it fits your style. It fits the tune.

'Piano rock'. I like this tune.

Listening again, Paul? I'm thinking the improved clarity (bigger sound) may be an acceptable trade off.

 

[Papanate]

I like the top one best - I think because the parts are more glued together - BTW does Billy Joel have an influence? Your mix is very similar to the general approach on his records.

 

[K-dub]

I like the top one best - I think because the parts are more glued together - BTW does Billy Joel have an influence? Your mix is very similar to the general approach on his records.

That's the magic of limiting. Everything gets pulled tighter together with improved clarity (bigger sound) being the result. I admit that I'm drawn to the tighter sound, while at the same time, I hear the glossy sheen and it sounds less natural (shallower depth) than the less limited versions. But that's MY ears listening to differences. I started the survey because I want to know what others think sounds better. I can note the sonic differences myself, but I really wanted to see which version people gravitate towards more.

 

[TripleM]

I like the first one better too. The tracks gel together and are more cohesive. In the second mix, when the vocal comes in, it seems more distant and disconnected to the rest of the tracks. That doesn't happen in the first mix - the singer and the band seem more connected to each other. I'm saying the same thing as @Papanate is saying when he says the tracks are "more glued together."

I didn't notice much difference in clarity between the two.

 

[BTStudio]

lol song title is relevant on this. Thanks for putting up 2 tracks and explaining what we are supposed to be able to hear. This is a great way for newbies like me to learn how to train my ears. First one sounds better to me also for same reasons as the others, the second one feels more open which is good except that makes it a little disconnected. Does any of that make sense?
Cheers

 

[K-dub]

I like the first one better too. The tracks gel together and are more cohesive. In the second mix, when the vocal comes in, it seems more distant and disconnected to the rest of the tracks. That doesn't happen in the first mix - the singer and the band seem more connected to each other. I'm saying the same thing as @Papanate is saying when he says the tracks are "more glued together."

I didn't notice much difference in clarity between the two.

I've overused limiting and so I'm uber cautious regarding over application. Still - as I weighed the differences - however subtle, my thoughts leaned towards what I'm hearing from folks: "Yes. Perhaps less limiting has a thicker depth of stage, and sound more "natural", but the clarity of limiting DOES glue the parts together more cohesively."

You can clearly hear the sync of the parts as it pulls the pieces tighter.

I guess I'm just a bit limiter shy from my earlier abuses of it.

 

[K-dub]

lol song title is relevant on this. Thanks for putting up 2 tracks and explaining what we are supposed to be able to hear. This is a great way for newbies like me to learn how to train my ears. First one sounds better to me also for same reasons as the others, the second one feels more open which is good except that makes it a little disconnected. Does any of that make sense?
Cheers

It is EXACTLY what the difference is - so it makes a TON of sense. I'm pleased you heard the difference. The 2nd one has more "air" around the parts - but because of that it is more diffused and less "sonically tight".

The caution is one CAN overdo the squash in the tightening. The trick of it is not to cross that sonic line.

 

[Bulls Hit]

I prefer the first one, and the kick level is fine too

 

[TalismanRich]

I'll be the contrarian here. I think the second mix sounds more cohesive, more balanced overall. The top one just seems to push a bit hard in spots and seems to have some distortion that is almost fatiguing after hearing it 3 or 4 times.

BTW, I like to song a lot, K!

 

[Slouching Raymond]

I thought the second was more natural, but then listened to the first again, and see it is subtle.

 

[DM60]

I like the first one better, but like how the highs are tamed on the second. I am guessing in the 3-5K range, I seem to have an issue with that range and I don't hear (harshness???) it as much on most of the popular music I listen too. First one is the overall better sounding to my ears.

 

[K-dub]

I prefer the first one, and the kick level is fine too

I think the click might have been a bit much so I cut back in the 2.7k range to pull back on the beater. Thanks for the check-in Keir!

 

[K-dub]

I'll be the contrarian here. I think the second mix sounds more cohesive, more balanced overall. The top one just seems to push a bit hard in spots and seems to have some distortion that is almost fatiguing after hearing it 3 or 4 times.

BTW, I like to song a lot, K!

Hence my vacillation, Rich. I think the second one sounds more "natural" - even if it is a less "polished" sound. But that's exactly why I asked what folks preferred - because though I recognized the difference in limiting, I wondered what other ears found more appealing. Thanks guy!

 

[K-dub]

I thought the second was more natural, but then listened to the first again, and see it is subtle.

Your ears did not deceive, Ray. I also think the 2nd is more natural. The 1st has more "polish" applied. But limiting is a "sound" to itself. It increases clarity, but at a cost of sonic dimension - space "around the sound" is lost. In extreme application, it can squash the life out of the sound - and everything "sounds like it is shouting to be heard".

I call that the "pressed glass" sheen effect and it signals over application of the tool. It's a fine line between clarity and air. Like folks mentioned, it can glue the parts together more cohesively, but you don't want to tip into the "I can clearly hear the limiting effect" territory.

 

[K-dub]

I like the first one better, but like how the highs are tamed on the second. I am guessing in the 3-5K range, I seem to have an issue with that range and I don't hear (harshness???) it as much on most of the popular music I listen too. First one is the overall better sounding to my ears.

Limiting has a natural "nasal effect" via human ear sensitivities. When compression occurs, it is not restricted to volume alone. Frequencies come forward too. If there's a softer, say cymbal, sound, that frequency range is going to heighten in the mix as well. Limiting brings ALL the softer sounds forward. Hence, all the frequencies they contain as well.

Because the ear is tuned to the 1`-3k range naturally (human conversation) the perception of thinner sound leans more midrange "nasal".

So when I rolled back the limiting in the second mix - to get it to "sound more natural" (there's still limiting be utilized), all those high frequencies recessed back into the "air" around the instruments - giving the sound a "softer" feel w/ less edges.

Thanks for checking in, Dave!

 

[Papanate]

So listening again to the second and comparing it to the first - the vocal on the second should be mixed higher - the difference between them on the vocal is not subtle to me - but it just that the vocal on the second is mixed downward (when comparing them both).