Studio Levelizer versus Existing Channel Dynamics

[mr_es335]

Hello,

Can someone explain to me "in somewhat simple terms" - if possible, what the difference thee is between the Levelizer and the existing SAC on-board Dynamics section?

Also, would it be a good investment?

Thank you to all who respond.

[Dave Labrecque]

Hello,

Can someone explain to me "in somewhat simple terms" - if possible, what the difference thee is between the Levelizer and the existing SAC on-board Dynamics section?

Also, would it be a good investment?

Thank you to all who respond.

My understanding is that they share the same algorithm(s). So, any differences are exactly what you see. They apparently react the same, sound the same. The channel compressor is a bit less "mobile," of course. But ubiquitous, omnipresent (and free). :D

[UpTilDawn]

My understanding is that they share the same algorithm(s). So, any differences are exactly what you see. They apparently react the same, sound the same. The channel compressor is a bit less "mobile," of course. But ubiquitous, omnipresent (and free). :D

That is, as it can be used within the no buffer changes limits of SAC, of course. In SAW, there's a lot more it can do.

Still, its 'mobility' is a great feature in SAC that sets it apart from the channel strip compressor, if you're looking for reasons to justify having it in SAC.

[Butch Bos]

Great for output limiting I use it for IEM outputs
I also use it for ducking when I need more than 1 ch to duck music playback (you can use it to send audio from multiple inputs to it's side chain
Well worth the $100 to me

Butch

[Cary B. Cornett]

To clarify a bit, you can't use Levelizer's limiting function in SAC because it requires buffer size changes. For the rest of it, it's pretty much the same code and features as the internal channel compressors.

[Pedrovent]

Hi,


http://www.sawstudiouser.com/forums/...till-brilliant (http://www.sawstudiouser.com/forums/showthread.php?17682-The-levelizer-is-still-brilliant)

:rolleyes:

[Dave Labrecque]

That is, as it can be used within the no buffer changes limits of SAC, of course. In SAW, there's a lot more it can do.

Still, its 'mobility' is a great feature in SAC that sets it apart from the channel strip compressor, if you're looking for reasons to justify having it in SAC.

Which reminds me... I'm not a SAC user, so I don't know the ins and outs, but my guess is that you don't want to use any of the "look-ahead" features of the Levelizer in SAC, because they cause latency and buffer size changes. I'm referring to the peak limit function, I guess. I suppose the normalize function doesn't need to add latency to do it's thing.

For all I know SAC's Levelizer has had the limiter removed for this reason. Just saying beware.

[UpTilDawn]

Which reminds me... I'm not a SAC user, so I don't know the ins and outs, but my guess is that you don't want to use any of the "look-ahead" features of the Levelizer in SAC, because they cause latency and buffer size changes. I'm referring to the peak limit function, I guess. I suppose the normalize function doesn't need to add latency to do it's thing.

For all I know SAC's Levelizer has had the limiter removed for this reason. Just saying beware.

SAC and SAW's Levelizer are one and the same, so no, the limiter has not been removed.
But you are certainly correct about not being able to use the Levelizer's look-ahead functions.
I haven't actually tried to use the normalize function in SAC, because I just assumed it would also require buffer changes and not be functional.... might have to read up on it, or give it a try just to confirm sometime.

[Dave Labrecque]

SAC and SAW's Levelizer are one and the same, so no, the limiter has not been removed.
But you are certainly correct about not being able to use the Levelizer's look-ahead functions.
I haven't actually tried to use the normalize function in SAC, because I just assumed it would also require buffer changes and not be functional.... might have to read up on it, or give it a try just to confirm sometime.

I'm no code guy, but it seems to me that the normalize function is simply takes the output from the limiter, cranks it to zero dee bee eff ess (taking the gain setting from the limiter threshold setting, then backs it off as per its user setting. (that is to say, no look-ahead, buffer-toying magic needed)

Or am I a simpleton, incapable of understanding the necessary subtleties of what's really going on?

[UpTilDawn]

I'm no code guy, but it seems to me that the normalize function is simply takes the output from the limiter, cranks it to zero dee bee eff ess (taking the gain setting from the limiter threshold setting, then backs it off as per its user setting. (that is to say, no look-ahead, buffer-toying magic needed)

Or am I a simpleton, incapable of understanding the necessary subtleties of what's really going on?

Checking the Levelizer manual, which states:
The famous SAWStudio Peak Limit / Normalize algorithm functions LIVE in the SAWStudio
environment, without the need for a data pre-scan. An incredible time saver for an incredibly
powerful mastering tool. Both settings can also be visibly displayed against any SoundFile in the
SAWStudio SoundFile View. These two functions cannot operate in SAC, because they alter buffer
sizes which is not allowed in a live streaming input data environment such as SAC.

So, no - can't use the normalize function in SAC.

[Dave Labrecque]

Checking the Levelizer manual, which states:
The famous SAWStudio Peak Limit / Normalize algorithm functions LIVE in the SAWStudio
environment, without the need for a data pre-scan. An incredible time saver for an incredibly
powerful mastering tool. Both settings can also be visibly displayed against any SoundFile in the
SAWStudio SoundFile View. These two functions cannot operate in SAC, because they alter buffer
sizes which is not allowed in a live streaming input data environment such as SAC.

So, no - can't use the normalize function in SAC.

Either that, or I know something Bob doesn't. Okay, okay. Nevermind. ;)

Truth is I thought I remembered reading that somewhere, but then reasoned my way into denial of my memory, it seems. :p :)