Does anyone here produces/mixes into a limitor on the master track?

[for]

the disadvantage i found is that sometimes introducing new tracks with sounds can make other tracks lower in volume at a certain point...but i think thats about it as disadvantage
do you use use this method?

thanks!

[martmix]

i only use a brickwall limiter to prevent peaking

JS: Soft Clipper/Limiter

edit,i set my limiter output brickwall to -0.3

[ramses]

I like to mix into a set limiter, but then I also make sure that the mix is at an average RMS/LUFS level that's related to the set peak level. The goal is usually to have the limiter do a minimal amount of work, just shaving off a few stray peaks here and there. If the limiter is making my mix pump I know I need to have a good look at my gainstaging.

[Lynx_TWO]

I only use a limiter on the drum tracks if needed. Other than that, I don't really subscribe to using a limiter on a mix. That should be reserved for the mastering stage and only if needed. Which, with a target of -14LUFS and True Peak of -1.5dB, you'll likely nearly always need a limiter for mastering, unfortunately.

EDIT: Unless mixing for movies (which I haven't done) then I could see the use of a limiter on the Monitor FX with a 10dB boost to prevent blowing your monitors when mixing with the dialog at -27LUFS and all the heavy explosions or other FX involved while mixing at an 85dB reference level. However, with it on the Monitor FX, it won't impact your final render.

[Philbo King]

I often use Limiter No.6 with 0.5 to 1.0 dB of gain reduction on the 2-bus when mastering but never when mixing.

[serr]

Originally Posted by for

the disadvantage i found is that sometimes introducing new tracks with sounds can make other tracks lower in volume at a certain point...but i think thats about it as disadvantage
do you use use this method?

thanks!

I often enough make rough mixes of multitracked live events. As in sometimes the show isn't going to get properly fussed over and that first mix might end up standing. I'll mix into a limiter just for a safety net for any unfinished mix elements that might go wild. Ideally the limiter will never be active.

Recording certain kind of clients where they need to hear things roughly dialed into place as they go. Bring on the compressors and limiters. Deal with it in long form in the mix.

But mixing into compression or limiting as a way to avoid actually mixing and just mash everything together with a "Hulk smash" approach?! Well, you'd have all this mayhem with louder elements pushing other mix elements back and all kinds of pumping and breathing artifacts when things go too wild.

There might be a workflow that takes advantage of consistently recorded tracks with the same band and... blammo! Mixed and mastered and ready to go all in one pass! Good way to miss stuff and get into a rut too. Maybe also a way to crank out a lot of work quickly. That's basically what I'm doing with the rough mix example. Avoiding finishing a mix properly and avoiding having to redo something because it actually distorted because that shit just doesn't fly.

[Lynx_TWO]

Originally Posted by serr

Recording certain kind of clients where they need to hear things roughly dialed into place as they go. Bring on the compressors and limiters. Deal with it in long form in the mix.

That’s what the Monitor FX bus is for. Playback through all the limiters and compression you want without effecting the recording. And if you do occasionally clip a track, that’s what RX Advanced DeClipper is for

Clients be damned; many of them, like many women (lol) have no clue as to what they actually want. All consumers care about is if the music sounds good and elicits an emotional response. Dynamics are what does that, not high levels of compression. Just look at Apashe: brilliant song writing, excellent execution, sh-tty limiting and compression make all his stuff sound flat and lifeless. -4 LUFS with 1.7 LU on a good majority of his stuff. It’s heartbreaking. The mastering engineer should be disowned.