Hubbry Logo
LimiterLimiterMain
Open search
Limiter
Community hub
Limiter
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Limiter
Limiter
Limiter
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Comparison of soft and hard clipping.
Comparison of soft and hard clipping.

In electronics, a limiter is a circuit that allows signals below a specified input power or level to pass unaffected while attenuating (lowering) the peaks of stronger signals that exceed this threshold. Limiting is a type of dynamic range compression. Clipping is an extreme version of limiting.

Limiting is any process by which the amplitude of a signal is prevented from exceeding a predetermined value.

Limiters are common as a safety device in broadcast applications to prevent overmodulation and in audio mastering to avoid digital clipping, lossy coding errors, or the gramaphone needle from jumping out of the groove. Limiters are also used as protective features in some components of sound reinforcement systems (e.g., powered mixing boards and power amplifiers) and in some bass amplifiers, to prevent unwanted distortion or loudspeaker damage.

Types

[edit]

Limiting can refer to a range of treatments designed to limit the maximum level of a signal. Treatments in order of decreasing severity range from clipping, in which a signal is passed through normally but sheared off when it would normally exceed a certain threshold; soft clipping which squashes peaks instead of shearing them; a hard limiter, a type of variable-gain audio level compression, in which the gain of an amplifier is changed very quickly to prevent the signal from going over a certain amplitude or a soft limiter which reduces maximum output through gain compression.[1]

Usage

[edit]

In aerospace and military

[edit]

For military two-way radio sets and aircraft VHF voice telecommunications, the voice limiter is known as a vogad. It is designed to work with high levels of background noise near the microphone. One form operates by up-converting the audio signal to an ultrasonic frequency, hard limiting that signal, and then down converting the result. The frequency conversion uses image-cancelling heterodyning. The advantage of clipping the supersonic signal is that the odd harmonics produced will still be out-of-band when down converted. This is in contrast to standard hard limiting, as in an electric guitar fuzz box, where the harmonics are highly audible. This device ultimately gives a distinctive character to the voice communication, which, despite being highly distorted, ensures spoken words remain clear.

In audio production

[edit]

Bass instrument amplifiers and power amplifiers are more commonly equipped with limiter circuitry to prevent overloading the power amplifier and to protect speakers. Electric guitar amps do not usually have limiters.

PIN diodes can be used in limiter circuits to reflect the energy back to the source or clip the signal.[2]

Mastering engineers often use limiting combined with make-up gain to increase the perceived loudness of an audio recording during the audio mastering process.[3]

FM radio

[edit]

An FM radio receiver usually has at least one stage of amplification that performs a limiting function. This stage provides a constant level of signal to the FM demodulator stage, reducing the effect of input signal level changes to the output.[4] If two or more signals are received at the same time, a high-performance limiter stage can greatly reduce the effect of the weaker signals on the output. This is commonly referred to as the FM capture effect.

Generally, FM demodulators are not affected by amplitude variations, since the baseband is contained in the frequency deviations. Some detectors, including the ratio detector, inherently limit gain by the nature of the circuit design. In AM radio, the information is located in the amplitude variations, and distortion can occur due to spurious signals that could cause the baseband to be misrepresented.

In utilities

[edit]

In Canada, while the cold weather rule is in effect, limiters are used to lower the capacity of houses of non-paying customers. The limiters allow enough power to run a furnace and a few lights. Tampering with the limiter is illegal.[5]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Limiter

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A limiter is an audio dynamics processor that employs high-ratio compression, typically with a of 10:1 or greater up to :1, to attenuate signal peaks exceeding a predefined threshold, thereby preventing clipping and while allowing signals below the threshold to pass unaffected.
Distinguished from standard compressors by its aggressive, "brick-wall" action that enforces a hard on output level, limiters are essential in audio production for maximizing perceived without exceeding digital or analog limits, often applied during mastering to achieve commercial volume standards.
Originating in broadcast industry to safeguard radio transmitters from over-modulation, early examples like the 110A amplifier of 1937 laid the foundation for modern implementations, evolving from analog hardware to digital plugins that incorporate features such as look-ahead processing for transparent peak control.
While enabling efficient dynamic control, excessive limiting has contributed to the "loudness wars" in recorded music, where aggressive application reduces transient detail and introduces , prompting debates on audio quality preservation.

Definition and Principles

Fundamental Operation

A limiter functions as a processor that enforces a maximum ceiling on an by applying gain reduction when the signal exceeds a user-defined threshold level, typically measured in decibels relative to (dBFS). This threshold acts as the upper limit beyond which the output cannot rise, distinguishing the device from standard compressors by employing an extremely high —often 10:1 or greater, approaching in "brickwall" designs—to ensure negligible overshoot. The core mechanism involves continuous monitoring of the input signal's , usually via peak or RMS detection circuits in analog implementations or digital algorithms in software versions. Upon detecting exceedance of the threshold, the limiter activates through a voltage-controlled (VCA), optical element, or digital multiplier, reducing gain proportionally to the overshoot amount based on the setting. Attack time, often set to 0.1–5 milliseconds for peak capture, determines the speed of this initial reduction to minimize transient clipping, while release time (typically 50–300 milliseconds or adaptive) governs recovery, allowing the signal to return to unity gain post-peak without audible pumping artifacts. This operation preserves signal integrity by avoiding hard clipping distortion, which occurs when amplifiers or converters saturate at 0 , introducing harmonics and products. Unlike passive clipping, limiting maintains waveform shape more faithfully through smooth , enabling higher average levels for perceived in mastering without exceeding broadcast or playback standards like -0.1 to -0.3 dBTP true peak limits. Empirical tests show limiters can increase RMS levels by 3–10 dB on program material before audible degradation, contingent on material dynamics and settings.

Key Components and Mechanisms

An audio limiter operates by detecting when the input signal exceeds a predefined threshold level and applying gain reduction to prevent the output from surpassing a set , typically implementing a high (often 10:1 or greater) to enforce this constraint with minimal . The core mechanism involves a sidechain detection path that extracts the signal's —usually via rectification and smoothing with RC networks or active filters—to derive a control voltage representing peak or RMS levels, which is then compared against the threshold. If the envelope exceeds the threshold, an error signal proportional to the overrun drives the gain reduction element, attenuating the main audio path instantaneously or near-instantaneously to avoid clipping. Key components include the gain control element, such as a voltage-controlled amplifier (VCA), (FET), or optocoupler in analog designs, which modulates the signal based on the control voltage; modern integrated circuits like the THAT 4305 integrate VCA, RMS detector, and control logic for precise operation. Attack and release timing circuits—often implemented with capacitors and resistors or programmable in digital systems—determine response speed: attack times are typically 0.1–5 ms to catch transients without dulling them, while release times (50–500 ms) ensure smooth recovery to prevent pumping artifacts. Input and output buffering stages isolate the signal path, and makeup gain compensates for overall level reduction post-limiting, allowing perceived increase without peak excursion. In brickwall limiters, or look-ahead processing anticipates peaks to apply reduction preemptively, reducing inter-sample clipping risks in digital implementations. A limiter differs from a primarily in its and intended application; while both reduce signal amplitude above a threshold, a limiter employs a high —typically 10:1 or greater, often approaching —to enforce a strict ceiling on peak levels, preventing overload without substantially altering the below the threshold. Compressors, by contrast, use lower ratios (often 2:1 to 8:1) for broader control, allowing some peaks to exceed the threshold proportionally, which suits creative shaping rather than peak protection. Unlike a , which abruptly truncates signal peaks beyond the threshold—introducing harmonic distortion through hard or soft clipping—a limiter compresses the signal to preserve integrity and transparency, avoiding the audible artifacts of clipping even under heavy gain reduction. Clipping is often employed for intentional saturation effects or aggressive maximization, whereas limiting prioritizes protection of downstream equipment, such as amplifiers or speakers, from damage due to excessive transients. Limiters operate inversely to expanders and gates, which attenuate signals below a threshold to enhance dynamic contrast or suppress noise; limiters exclusively target excursions above the threshold to cap maximum amplitude, with no effect on quieter portions of the signal. This unidirectional focus distinguishes limiters in broadcast and mastering chains, where peak control is paramount over noise reduction.

Historical Development

Early Electronic Limiters

The development of early electronic limiters emerged in the 1930s, primarily driven by the needs of and to prevent signal and maintain consistent transmission levels amid varying audio dynamics. These devices employed technology to automatically attenuate peaks, using level-detection circuits that generated a control voltage to modulate tube gain, thereby reducing the without introducing excessive . Variable-mu or remote-cutoff tubes were central to this operation, as their gain characteristics varied nonlinearly with grid , enabling smooth compression ratios that approached limiting at higher thresholds. A foundational example was the 110A, initially developed in 1931 for telephone line applications to control volume fluctuations via a variable resistor driven by an electromechanical device that measured signal levels and applied loss to louder passages. By 1937, an adapted version, the 110A Program Amplifier, became the first commercial broadcast compressor-limiter, incorporating vacuum tubes and an indicator lamp for monitoring; it provided approximately 3 dB of signal gain, operated across 30–10,000 Hz with less than 1% , and effectively doubled broadcast coverage by preventing transmitter overload. In 1935, engineer Al Towne at radio station in devised the PROGAR (Program Guardian), an early audio processor combining compression with peak limiting to safeguard broadcast signals against transients; this custom unit predated widespread commercialization but demonstrated practical integration of detection, compression, and hard limiting in a single chain. Following closely, the RCA 96-A Compressor Limiter, introduced in 1938, refined the variable-mu tube approach for broadcast use, explicitly termed a "compressor" for the first time, and offered improved sleeker design while maintaining peak control to ensure modulation stayed below 100%. These limiters laid the groundwork for dynamic processing by prioritizing causal signal flow—detection preceding —to achieve empirical stability in transmissions, though they exhibited limitations such as slower attack times (often 10–20 ms) compared to later designs, leading to occasional breakthrough of fast peaks. Their deployment in AM radio contexts emphasized protection over artistic compression, with real-world testing in stations confirming reduced distortion and enhanced intelligibility over long-haul lines.

Post-WWII Advancements

Following , audio limiters evolved from primarily broadcast-oriented peak protectors to more versatile dynamics processors suitable for recording and transmission, incorporating innovations like lookahead circuitry and refined tube designs to minimize while maximizing modulation levels. The General Electric BA-5, introduced in 1947, marked a pivotal advancement with its delay-line architecture enabling feed-forward peak limiting, which anticipated transients before they reached the output, allowing cleaner audio processing without the overshoot common in earlier feedback-based systems. This design improved broadcast signal consistency, raising average modulation from around 30-35% to higher levels while protecting transmitters from . In the early , tube-based limiters gained greater control flexibility, exemplified by the RCA BA-6A in 1951, which employed a variable-mu circuit for rapid attack times and gradual release, enhancing smoothness in radio and early tape recording applications. The Gates Sta-Level, released around 1956, further advanced this by introducing user-adjustable attack and release times via a dual-position recovery switch, making it a staple in AM radio stations for balancing and . These developments reflected a broader emphasis on , reducing reliance on manual operators and accommodating the rise of and vinyl mastering needs. By the late 1950s, specialized limiters emerged for studio environments, such as the Fairchild 660 and 670 compressor-limiters in 1959, which utilized variable-mu tubes across up to 20 stages for precise leveling tailored to disc cutting, minimizing groove overload while preserving harmonic richness in recordings like those at Abbey Road Studios. Optical detection methods also gained traction, with the Teletronix LA-2A in 1965 employing a T4 electro-optical cell for program-dependent compression that emulated natural decay, offering low distortion (under 0.3% THD) and broad appeal in music production. These analog innovations prioritized empirical audio fidelity over aggressive loudness, though they laid groundwork for later solid-state shifts by demonstrating the value of non-linear response curves in controlling dynamic range without audible pumping. The decade closed with early solid-state experiments, notably the 1176 in 1967, a FET-based limiter that achieved attack times as fast as 20 microseconds—far quicker than tube predecessors—enabling punchier transient control for drums and vocals in rock recordings, while its feedback topology reduced phase distortion compared to pure forward designs. Overall, post-WWII limiters emphasized verifiable improvements in speed, predictability, and integration with emerging tape and console technologies, driven by broadcast demands for 100% modulation without clipping and studio needs for artifact-free dynamics management.

Digital Era Transitions

The transition from analog to digital limiters in audio processing accelerated in the late 1980s, driven by advancements in (DSP) and the rise of production, which demanded precise peak control to avoid clipping in 16-bit PCM formats. Analog limiters, reliant on variable-mu tubes or VCA circuits, often introduced harmonic distortion and recovery inconsistencies during heavy gain reduction; digital implementations addressed these by performing limiting in the with fixed-point or , enabling transparent operation at sample rates like 44.1 kHz. The DAL-1000, released in 1988, marked a pivotal hardware milestone as the first dedicated digital brickwall limiter, operating at 44.056 kHz and designed for mastering by preemptively attenuating transients to enforce absolute peak limits without overshoot. Software limiters followed, integrating into emerging workstations (DAWs) and exploiting look-ahead processing—delaying the signal slightly to detect and attenuate impending peaks before they occur. Waves Audio's L1 Ultramaximizer, launched in 1994, became the first mass-produced plug-in with this feature, compatible with systems like Digidesign's , and allowed engineers to push average levels higher (up to 6-10 dB of gain reduction) while minimizing inter-sample clipping through . This capability fueled the "loudness wars" in commercial recordings, as digital limiters eliminated the analog tradeoff between and headroom, though early versions risked from non-bandlimited gain reduction, later mitigated by multi-stage filtering. By the mid-1990s, DSP-based broadcast processors like Orban's Optimod 8200 incorporated digital limiting alongside compression, replacing analog chains in transmission for consistent modulation control and reduced noise. In studios, native DAW limiters and third-party plugins offered advantages such as infinite lookahead windows, adaptive release curves, and true peak metering per BS.1770 standards (introduced later but rooted in these transitions), enabling hybrid workflows where analog warmth preceded digital precision. Empirical tests from the era showed digital limiters achieving lower (THD <0.1% at 10 dB GR) compared to analog equivalents under identical conditions, though subjective critiques noted a perceived "sterility" due to absent tube saturation.

Types of Limiters

Analog Limiters

Analog limiters restrict the amplitude of continuous analog signals by employing nonlinear circuit elements that activate upon exceeding a predefined threshold, thereby preventing overexcursion and associated damage or distortion in downstream components. These devices operate through mechanisms such as clamping or shunting excess voltage via diodes or transistors, which conduct sharply or gradually depending on the design, introducing harmonic distortion as a byproduct of their nonlinear response. The simplest analog limiters utilize diodes configured as clippers, where a single diode clips one polarity of the waveform by forward conduction at approximately 0.7 V for silicon types, effectively removing peaks beyond this drop while passing sub-threshold signals unattenuated. Parallel or series combinations, often with biasing resistors, enable positive, negative, or bidirectional clipping; for instance, two antiparallel diodes limit both halves symmetrically around zero volts. Zener diodes extend this to higher thresholds via reverse breakdown, clamping at voltages from 3.3 V upward, suitable for protecting moderate-amplitude signals. Active analog limiters incorporate operational amplifiers (op-amps) with diode networks in the feedback loop to enforce precise amplitude bounds on amplified outputs, maintaining linear gain below threshold while saturating diodes clamp excursions, typically limiting swings to ±Vcc/2 minus diode drops. Transistor-based variants, such as emitter-follower configurations with base-emitter junctions or added resistors, provide soft limiting through gradual saturation, producing even-order harmonics preferable in audio contexts over the odd harmonics of hard diode clipping. In power electronics, two-level limiters using comparators and switches enforce upper and lower bounds, akin to slicers for pulse shaping. In RF systems, analog limiters employ PIN diodes or ferrite-based absorptive designs to safeguard low-noise amplifiers from transient high-power inputs, attenuating signals above 10-20 dBm while exhibiting low insertion loss under normal conditions, with response times in nanoseconds. Vacuum tube limiters, historically used in early audio gear, offer soft compression via grid current saturation, yielding a 1:10 input-output ratio at thresholds around 10-20 Vpp, though superseded by solid-state equivalents for reliability. These analog implementations inherently lack the lookahead capabilities of digital counterparts but provide zero-latency operation critical for real-time protection.

Digital and Software Limiters

Digital limiters process signals in the numerical domain after analog-to-digital conversion or within fully digital systems, applying algorithmic gain reduction to cap peak amplitudes at a predefined threshold, thereby preventing distortion from exceeding digital full scale (0 dBFS). These devices utilize discrete-time algorithms to detect signal levels surpassing the threshold and attenuate them instantaneously or over short attack times, often with ratios approaching infinity:1 for "brickwall" behavior that enforces absolute peak limits. A key distinction from analog limiters lies in digital implementations' capacity for look-ahead buffering, where the processor previews future signal samples—typically 1-10 milliseconds ahead—to preemptively reduce gain before peaks arrive, minimizing overshoot and enabling transparent limiting without phase distortion inherent in analog circuits' reactive response. This feature, absent in hardware analog designs due to causality constraints, allows digital limiters to achieve precise control over inter-sample peaks, though it introduces latency unsuitable for live monitoring without compensation. Empirical tests show digital look-ahead limiters reducing total harmonic distortion below 0.1% at high compression ratios, compared to analog variants' typical 0.5-1% under similar loads, attributable to floating-point precision avoiding analog noise floors. Software limiters, executed via digital signal processing (DSP) code in applications like MATLAB or DAW plugins, offer programmable parameters including threshold (e.g., -6 to 0 dBFS), ceiling (output maximum), attack (0.1-10 ms), release (50-500 ms), and optional oversampling (2x-8x rates) to suppress aliasing artifacts from non-linear processing. For instance, iZotope's Ozone limiter employs multi-band architectures to selectively limit frequency ranges, preserving transient punch in low bands while aggressively capping highs, with user reports confirming up to 6-10 dB of gain increase before audible pumping at 44.1 kHz sample rates. In embedded systems, such as DSP amplifiers, digital limiters combine RMS averaging for sustained level control with peak detectors for transient protection, enforcing thermal limits via feedback loops that adjust output in 1-10 ms cycles. While digital and software limiters excel in repeatability and low-cost scalability—enabling identical processing across consumer plugins since the 1990s DSP proliferation—they can introduce quantization errors or digital "clipping" harshness if undersampled, necessitating dithering or true-peak metering compliant with ITU-R BS.1770 standards for broadcast. In contrast to analog's inherent saturation warmth, digital designs prioritize neutrality, though oversampling mitigates intermodulation; measurements indicate software limiters achieving signal-to-noise ratios exceeding 120 dB, surpassing many analog units' 90-100 dB limits due to the absence of thermal noise. Applications span audio mastering, where tools like those in prevent metadata-driven normalization penalties on platforms like Spotify, to control systems in power electronics via FPGA-implemented limiters capping currents to 1% overshoot in real-time.

Specialized Variants

Diode limiters represent a fundamental specialized variant, employing semiconductor diodes to clip signal amplitudes beyond a threshold determined by diode forward voltage drop, typically around 0.7 V for silicon diodes. Series diode configurations limit by placing diodes in the signal path to block excursions in one polarity, while parallel configurations shunt excess voltage to ground, enabling positive, negative, or dual-polarity limiting. These passive circuits offer instantaneous response but introduce harmonic distortion during clipping, making them suitable for waveform shaping in basic electronics rather than high-fidelity applications. In radio frequency (RF) systems, PIN diode limiters serve as a specialized active variant, utilizing the fast-switching 's low capacitance and high breakdown voltage to protect sensitive receivers like low-noise amplifiers from overloads exceeding 10-50 dBm. Shunt PIN configurations reflect high-power incident waves as heat dissipation in the diode, achieving isolation levels up to 20-30 dB with recovery times under 1 microsecond, while series-shunt hybrids enhance broadband performance from 10 MHz to 40 GHz. These differ from conventional diode limiters by incorporating bias networks for controlled activation, prioritizing minimal insertion loss (under 0.5 dB) in low-signal conditions. High-power RF limiters constitute another variant, designed for multi-kilowatt handling in radar and broadcasting, often using ferrite or avalanche diode arrays to manage peak powers up to 10 kW without failure. Feedback limiters integrate detection and attenuation loops for dynamic adjustment, contrasting passive types by reducing distortion through proportional response, though at the cost of added complexity and potential phase shifts. Empirical tests show these variants maintain flat leakage power below 10 dBm across octaves, critical for military and aerospace where unintended high inputs could damage front-end components. Current limiters in power electronics form a specialized class for supply protection, with constant current variants maintaining fixed output during overloads via sense resistors and transistor feedback, preventing component burnout in DC-DC converters rated up to 100 A. Foldback current limiting, by contrast, reduces current proportionally to fault severity—dropping to 10-20% of nominal after initial peak—enhancing stability in battery chargers and motor drives by minimizing thermal stress, as validated in circuits handling 12-48 V rails. These differ from voltage limiters by focusing on I²R dissipation control rather than amplitude capping. Soft limiters, applicable in both analog audio and instrumentation, approximate ideal clipping with gradual transitions using zener diodes or operational amplifiers, yielding lower total harmonic distortion (under 1% at threshold) compared to hard diode clipping's abrupt 5-10% levels. Bipolar soft variants symmetrically constrain positive and negative swings, often in feedback loops for threshold tunability from 1-10 V, supporting precision applications like sensor signal conditioning where waveform integrity outweighs speed.

Technical Analysis

Performance Metrics

Performance metrics for limiters quantify their ability to constrain signal peaks while preserving audio fidelity, primarily through parameters governing dynamic response and artifact introduction. Attack time measures the interval between signal exceedance of the threshold and full gain reduction application, typically ranging from 0.1 to 5 milliseconds in audio limiters to effectively capture transients and prevent clipping. Shorter attack times enhance peak control but risk altering waveform shape if not paired with look-ahead processing, which anticipates peaks via delayed signal analysis. Release time, the duration for gain restoration post-exceedance, commonly spans 10 to 200 milliseconds, tuned to avoid audible pumping or breathing effects dependent on program material. Distortion metrics assess transparency, with total harmonic distortion plus noise (THD+N) evaluated by injecting a sine wave at the threshold and measuring harmonic content relative to the fundamental, often using specialized analyzers like Audio Precision systems. High-performance limiters maintain THD+N below 0.01% (-100 dB) under moderate gain reduction, though aggressive limiting elevates figures due to nonlinear processing. Intermodulation distortion (IMD), tested via dual-tone inputs per SMPTE standards (e.g., 60 Hz and 7 kHz), quantifies sum and difference products, critical for multitone signals where limiters may exacerbate inharmonics. Brickwall limiters, employing infinite ratios, are benchmarked for true peak limiting efficacy, incorporating oversampling to mitigate inter-sample peaks, with effective reduction of 6-12 dB achievable without exceeding 0 dBFS true peak. Additional metrics include dynamic range compression ratio post-processing, measured as the ratio of uncompressed to limited peak-to-RMS levels, and latency introduced by look-ahead, often 1-10 ms in digital implementations. Empirical validation involves A/B testing against unprocessed signals for perceived loudness gain per ITU-R BS.1770 standards, balancing increased integrated loudness (e.g., -14 LUFS for streaming) against transient smearing.
MetricDescriptionTypical ValuesMeasurement Method
Attack TimeResponse speed to peaks0.1-5 msTime-domain analysis of gain reduction envelope
Release TimeRecovery speed post-peak10-200 msObservation of recovery from sustained exceedance
THD+NHarmonic and noise distortion<0.01% at nominal GRSine wave input, FFT spectrum analysis
IMDIntermodulation products< -80 dBDual-tone test per SMPTE RP120
Peak ReductionMaximum level attenuation6-12 dBComparison of pre/post peak levels

Design Considerations

Limiter design prioritizes preventing signal peaks from exceeding safe levels while preserving audio fidelity, requiring careful selection of threshold, attack time, and release time to minimize distortion and pumping artifacts. Threshold determines the activation point, typically set near the maximum allowable output to avoid unnecessary gain reduction on lower peaks. Attack times are engineered short, often 0.1 ms to 5 ms, to rapidly attenuate transients without introducing overshoot, while release times around 0.5 s enable smooth recovery without audible modulation. In analog designs, circuit topology influences distortion profile; diode-based limiters provide hard clipping at forward bias voltages (e.g., 0.7 V for silicon diodes), suitable for precise peak control but prone to harsh odd-order harmonics unless softened with resistors. FET implementations, using devices like the 2N5464 as variable attenuators, incorporate op-amp feedback to linearize square-law response, limiting drain-source voltage to |V_P|/10 (e.g., 0.3 V) for transparency and low noise via components like TL074 op-amps. Op-amp configurations with back-to-back diodes in feedback loops adjust thresholds via resistor dividers (e.g., R4/R5 ratios for ±5 V limits), transitioning from amplification to unity gain upon conduction at ~0.6 V diode drop, balancing gain (e.g., 10x non-limiting) against clipping smoothness. Digital limiter algorithms emphasize predictive processing, employing look-ahead delays (e.g., 30 ms) to preempt peaks by computing a smoothed gain envelope via moving minimum filters or cascaded box filters, ensuring output stays within bounds like ±0.25 while addressing inter-sample peaks through upsampling. Release mechanisms, such as exponential (40 ms) or constant-time holds, prevent gain fluttering, with multi-band variants applying independent controls per frequency range to reduce broadband artifacts. Trade-offs include distortion from abrupt gain changes versus over-compression reducing dynamics; analog circuits demand thermal stability and component matching for consistency, while digital designs trade computational load for artifact-free limiting, often requiring oversampling to capture true peak levels.

Empirical Testing and Validation

Empirical testing of limiters typically employs standardized signal injection and measurement techniques to quantify distortion, dynamic response, and limiting efficacy. Total harmonic distortion (THD) is assessed by driving the limiter with a single-frequency sine wave input at levels below and above the threshold, followed by spectral analysis of the output using a fast Fourier transform (FFT) analyzer to isolate harmonic components; THD is then computed as the root-mean-square (RMS) value of these harmonics divided by the fundamental amplitude, with values often below 0.1% indicating high-fidelity performance in audio circuits. Intermodulation distortion (IMD) validation extends this by applying dual-tone inputs (e.g., 60 Hz and 7 kHz at varying amplitudes), measuring spurious products at sum and difference frequencies, which reveal nonlinear inter-tone interactions more representative of complex signals like speech or music. Attack and release times are empirically validated through transient response tests, where step-function or impulse signals exceeding the threshold are input, and the time from threshold crossing to full limiting (attack, typically 0.1-10 ms for audio) or recovery (release, 50-500 ms) is captured via oscilloscope; these metrics ensure minimal transient distortion, with deviations signaling inadequate slew rate or feedback loop stability. In power and fault current limiters, validation involves hybrid fault insertion tests simulating short-circuit conditions, measuring insertion impedance rise (e.g., from <1 Ω to >10 Ω within 1-2 cycles at 60 Hz) and let-through current reduction ratios exceeding 50%, often using high-power labs with calibrated current injectors. For specialized variants like RF or aerospace limiters, electromagnetic fast transient (EFT) immunity tests couple pulse bursts (5/50 ns rise/fall, 5 kHz repetition) to ports, evaluating damage thresholds via post-exposure parameter checks such as input leakage current (<1 μA) and continuity; failure rates under repeated exposure (e.g., >1000 pulses) quantify robustness against surges. Overload destruction characteristics are probed nondestructively by correlating voltage excursions across the device during fixed-duration pulses with extrapolated blow times, enabling predictive reliability modeling without full failure. These tests collectively validate causal performance under real-world stressors, with peer-reviewed benchmarks emphasizing IMD over THD for multi-signal fidelity due to its sensitivity to amplifier topologies. Discrepancies between simulated and measured distortion (e.g., 3rd-order IMD peaks in Class D limiters) highlight the necessity of empirical over purely theoretical validation.

Applications

Audio Signal Processing

Limiters in audio signal processing function as dynamic range controllers that prevent signal peaks from exceeding a predefined threshold, thereby averting clipping distortion in amplifiers, speakers, and recording media. They achieve this through rapid gain reduction, typically employing compression ratios greater than 10:1 or effectively infinite for brickwall behavior, which caps output at the threshold level regardless of input amplitude. This mechanism is essential in both analog and digital chains to protect equipment from overload damage and maintain signal integrity, as excessive peaks can introduce nonlinear distortion products measurable via total harmonic distortion plus noise (THD+N) metrics exceeding 0.1% in unprotected systems. Key parameters governing limiter performance include threshold (e.g., -6 to 0 in digital contexts), attack time (often 0.1-5 ms to capture transients), and release time (50-500 ms to minimize audible pumping). Fast attack ensures peaks are attenuated before they propagate, while release settings balance natural decay with sustained limiting; overly slow release can cause phase smear, quantifiable by increased group delay variation in tests. In digital limiters, lookahead processing introduces a 1-10 ms delay to preview incoming signals, enabling proactive gain adjustment and reducing inter-sample peaks that could otherwise clip at digital-to-analog conversion, with empirical reductions in overshoot by up to 90% observed in plugin implementations. Within mastering workflows, brickwall limiters maximize RMS loudness by allowing 3-10 dB of gain reduction on peaks, a technique central to the loudness wars trend from the mid-1990s, where competitive CD mastering reduced dynamic ranges to 5-8 dB in genres like pop and metal, as measured by tools such as the Pleasurize Music Foundation's DR meter. This approach trades transient punch for perceived volume on consumer playback systems, but overuse generates odd-order harmonics and compression artifacts, leading to ; double-blind tests indicate preference for higher dynamic range material at equalized loudness levels, with reduced crest factor correlating to diminished clarity in orchestral passages. In live sound reinforcement and , limiters safeguard transmission lines and loudspeakers by enforcing headroom limits, such as maintaining peaks below 24 dBu in professional analog gear to prevent driver excursion damage. Empirical validation through traces and spectrum analysis confirms that soft-knee limiters (gradual onset above threshold) preserve more fidelity than hard clipping equivalents, with THD remaining below 0.05% for reductions under 6 dB, whereas aggressive settings above 12 dB introduce audible fizz and reduced due to altered high-frequency content. Standards like BS.1770 integrate limiter-like normalization to cap integrated loudness at -14 , ensuring consistent playback without device-specific clipping.

Power and Current Management

In electrical power systems, limiters, particularly fault current limiters (FCLs), are employed to mitigate the damaging effects of short-circuit currents by rapidly restricting fault levels, thereby protecting equipment such as transformers and from thermal and mechanical stress. These devices activate within milliseconds of detecting a fault, reducing prospective short-circuit currents by factors of 50% or more, which enhances system stability and allows for the use of less robust, cost-effective components elsewhere in the grid. For instance, ABB's IS-limiter, a resettable FCL, operates in medium-voltage networks up to 40.5 kV and can handle continuous currents of 630–2500 A while limiting peak faults to under 20 kA. Current limiters in power supplies function as protective circuits that impose a maximum current threshold, typically through foldback or constant-current mechanisms, to safeguard against overloads or short circuits without fully disconnecting the load. In DC power electronics, such limiters prevent component failure by dynamically adjusting output— for example, reducing voltage when current exceeds set limits like 1–10 A in bench supplies—thus extending operational life in applications ranging from battery chargers to industrial controls. This is critical in scenarios involving inrush currents, where initial surges can reach 10–20 times steady-state values; limiters employing NTC thermistors or active MOSFET-based circuits cap these to safe levels, such as under 5 A, minimizing stress on capacitors and semiconductors. In broader power management, limiters integrate into smart systems for and load balancing, such as automatic changeover switches that enforce current caps to avoid exceeding utility-rated limits, thereby preventing penalties or disconnections in residential or commercial setups. Empirical data from utility implementations show that deploying FCLs reduces arc-flash hazards and fault interruption times, with devices like commutating limiters protecting systems rated 15.5–38 kV by diverting excess current via parallel paths. However, their effectiveness depends on precise coordination with upstream , as improper settings can lead to nuisance tripping under nominal overloads.

Aerospace and Military Systems

In aerospace and military systems, RF limiters primarily serve as protective components in , communication, and electronic warfare setups, safeguarding sensitive receiver elements such as low-noise amplifiers (LNAs) from high-power incident signals, including transmit leakage, jamming, or interference. These devices, often employing PIN or Schottky diodes, allow low-level signals to pass with minimal —typically under 0.5 dB—while attenuating peaks exceeding safe thresholds, thereby preventing damage and maintaining system integrity during high-stress operations. For instance, in (AESA) radars common to like the F-35, limiters handle peak powers up to several kilowatts across frequencies from 10 MHz to 40 GHz, ensuring receiver chains withstand coupled transmit signals or adversarial electronic attacks. Space-qualified variants extend this protection to transceivers and deep-space probes, where limiters must endure , thermal extremes, and conditions while limiting to levels tolerable by downstream mixers or amplifiers, often with flat leakage below 20 dBm and recovery times under 1 microsecond. In , particularly L-band integrated systems for navigation and identification friend-or-foe (IFF), diode-based limiters isolate parasitic RF inputs during unpowered states, complying with standards like for electrical resilience. Military electronic warfare platforms, such as radar warning receivers on drones or ships, integrate high-power limiters to counter directed-energy threats, with designs prioritizing low VSWR (under 1.3:1) and minimal phase distortion to preserve signal fidelity in contested electromagnetic environments. Beyond RF signal protection, current limiter fuses in primary power distribution systems limit fault currents to prevent cascading failures, rated for voltages up to 270 VDC and currents exceeding 100 A under conditions, enhancing reliability in and flight control circuits. Torque limiters in electromechanical actuators for aerospace applications, such as or flight surfaces, cap mechanical overloads to below 150% of nominal torque, reducing wear and improving in high-vibration environments. These implementations underscore limiters' role in causal reliability chains, where empirical testing validates performance against real-world stressors like electromagnetic pulses or mechanical shocks, though trade-offs in bandwidth versus power handling persist.

Communications and Broadcasting

In communications and broadcasting, limiters are employed to constrain signal amplitudes, mitigating risks of , equipment damage, and regulatory non-compliance. Audio limiters in broadcast transmission chains, particularly for FM radio, operate at the final processing stage to cap peak levels, ensuring modulation indices do not exceed limits such as 99% for FM signals under FCC guidelines, thereby preventing splatter and . These devices dynamically attenuate transients while preserving average , often integrating with compressors to achieve consistent output levels across varying program material, as seen in multi-stage designs where initial slow-attack stages handle sustained peaks before final instantaneous limiting. RF limiters, distinct from audio variants, protect receiver front-ends in radio communication systems by clamping high-power inputs, such as those from nearby transmitters, to safeguard low-noise amplifiers from overload; for instance, PIN diode-based limiters can absorb excess energy while passing nominal signals with minimal , typically under 0.5 dB. In FM receivers, amplitude limiters convert input signals to constant by suppressing noise-induced variations, enabling clean frequency discrimination; this function is critical for rejecting amplitude-modulated interference, with limiter stages often achieving 20-40 dB of AM rejection before the discriminator. Broadcast standards further dictate limiter thresholds; ITU recommendations for audio levels emphasize peak programme meters (PPM) not exceeding +9 dB relative to a 0 dB reference, with limiters enforcing this to balance normalization under or ATSC A/85 while avoiding clipping artifacts. Empirical tests in FM exciters demonstrate that oversampled digital limiters reduce intermodulation distortion by factors of 10-20 dB compared to analog counterparts, though they introduce latency of 1-5 ms, necessitating lookahead algorithms for real-time applications. In television audio chains, limiters maintain intelligibility amid dynamic content, targeting integrated loudness of -24 LKFS with true-peak limits at -2 dBTP to comply with transmission norms.

Criticisms and Limitations

Drawbacks in Audio Dynamics

Excessive use of limiters in audio dynamics processing significantly reduces the of signals, resulting in a flattened sonic profile that diminishes perceived punch and emotional impact. By applying high-ratio compression to peaks, limiters prevent clipping but can eliminate natural transients essential for musical expressiveness, leading to a "squashed" or lifeless quality in the output. This effect is exacerbated in brickwall limiting, where aggressive gain reduction—often exceeding 6-8 dB—blunts the attack of instruments and vocals, altering their timbral characteristics. Listener fatigue emerges as a prominent issue from over-limiting, as sustained high average levels without dynamic variation strain auditory perception over time. Empirical assessments indicate that hyper-compressed tracks, common in modern mastering, induce ear fatigue by maintaining constant , depriving listeners of relief from quieter passages and contributing to long-term hearing stress. A study published in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America found that while limiting boosts perceived via increased RMS levels, excessive application degrades overall quality ratings, with participants favoring moderate dynamic preservation over maximal compression. Distortion artifacts also arise, particularly in digital implementations where brickwall limiters may introduce or inter-sample peak overshoots if is inadequate. Pumping and breathing effects can occur with suboptimal release times, creating unnatural that disrupts rhythmic flow. Research on hyper-compression preferences reveals that while some listeners tolerate heavy limiting for short bursts, prolonged exposure to reduced yields lower satisfaction compared to dynamically richer alternatives, underscoring the perceptual costs of prioritizing .

Engineering Trade-offs

Limiters balance protection against signal overload with preservation of audio fidelity, as aggressive peak reduction prevents hard clipping but compresses , often resulting in reduced transient impact and perceived flatness. This trade-off manifests in mastering, where limiters enable higher integrated loudness levels—typically targeting -14 for streaming—without inter-sample peaks exceeding 0 dBTP, yet excessive gain reduction beyond 3-6 dB can introduce audible pumping or artifacts, degrading subjective quality scores in listening tests. Empirical evaluations indicate that while soft limiting emulates analog saturation for smoother response, it still sacrifices rhythmic drive compared to uncompressed signals, with optimal thresholds set around -0.3 dBTP to minimize true peak overs while retaining punch. In digital designs, lookahead buffers enhance attack precision by delaying the signal 1-10 ms to preempt peaks, improving transparency over architectures, but this latency compromises real-time applications like live mixing, where sub-millisecond delays are critical to avoid phase misalignment in multi-channel setups. Parameter tuning exacerbates trade-offs: fast attack times (under 1 ms) capture impulsive transients effectively but smear high-frequency content, whereas slower releases (50-200 ms) prevent breathing artifacts at the expense of breakthrough during sustained loud passages. Analog limiters, employing VCA or opto circuits, offer lower noise floors in high-end units but introduce nonlinear phase shifts, contrasting digital techniques that reduce yet increase computational load by factors of 4-16x. Beyond audio, in , current limiters safeguard amplifiers and drivers from by capping output at rated levels—e.g., 1.414 times RMS for sine waves—but curtail peak power delivery, potentially halving efficiency in class-AB stages under dynamic loads. systems employ limiters in servo controls to avert saturation, trading responsiveness for stability, as evidenced by simulations showing 20-30% increases with prevention. These compromises underscore causal trade-offs in causal realism: instantaneous protection demands predictive or reactive damping that inherently attenuates desired signal variance, verifiable through Bode analysis revealing gain-bandwidth product limits around 100 kHz for typical op-amp based implementations.

Empirical Evidence of Issues

Empirical evaluations of nonlinear distortions from clipping, which aggressive limiting approximates through soft clipping mechanisms, demonstrate quantifiable declines in quality. In tests using the TIMIT , clipping at 10% reduced Perceptual Evaluation of Speech Quality (PESQ) scores to levels indicating noticeable impairment, with human mean opinion scores (MOS) dropping from 4.6 for clean signals to 3.0 at 15% clipping. Similarly, objective metrics like NIST STNR fell from 49.6 to 40.8, and BSS Eval signal-to-artifact ratios decreased from 17.9 to 8.3 under 10% clipping conditions. Subjective listening tests further reveal that distortion profiles resembling zero-crossing artifacts in limiters elicit lower preferences and heightened perceptions of roughness. In a 2020 study, participants rated zero-crossing (THD 4-10%) as least preferred (mean score 23) and roughest (mean 66), compared to tube distortion (THD 5-8%, mean preference 53, warmth 57). Statistical confirmed significant differences (F=42.174, p<0.001 for preference; F=21.465, p<0.001 for roughness), with vocals showing greater sensitivity to distortion levels than guitar signals. Voishvillo's 2006 comparison underscored that hard clipping exceeding 20% THD can yield superior perceived quality to zero-crossing at 3% THD due to auditory masking, yet this highlights limiters' potential to introduce perceptually inferior artifacts if not optimized. In the context of the , measurements of commercial recordings indicate heavy limiting correlates with to 6-8 dB averages by the mid-2000s, from 12-14 dB in the 1990s, resulting in flattened transients and elevated distortion, particularly in bass-heavy content. This hypercompression fails to enhance sales, as empirical sales data question the efficacy of louder masters in driving consumer preference, while contributing to long-term from sustained high average levels without proportional gains under normalization. Beyond audio, empirical simulations in testing show drive signal limiting alters response spectra, potentially amplifying high-cycle in structural components by introducing unintended content, though subjective audio impacts dominate limiter critiques due to perceptual sensitivity.

References

  1. https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/an-introduction-to-limiters-and-how-to-use-them
  2. https://www.masteringbox.com/learn/audio-limiter
  3. https://www.sageaudio.com/articles/limiter-use-one
  4. https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/compressor-vs-limiter
  5. https://mastering.com/limiter-vs-compressor/
  6. https://crumplepop.com/limiter-vs-compressor-whats-the-difference/
  7. https://www.vintagedigital.com.au/blog/history-of-compressor-limiters/
  8. https://www.thebdr.net/a-history-of-audio-processing-part-2-automatic-processing-starts/
  9. https://vintageking.com/blog/the-history-of-compressors-in-the-studio/
  10. https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/audio-dynamics-101-compressors-limiters-expanders-and-gates
  11. https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/compression-limiting
  12. https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-what-release-settings-should-use-limiter
  13. https://leachlegacy.ece.gatech.edu/papers/limiter.pdf
  14. https://thatcorp.com/datashts/DB203%2520Basic%2520Comp-Limiter%2520Design%2520THAT4305.pdf
  15. https://www.edmprod.com/how-to-use-a-limiter/
  16. https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-dynamics-processors-whats-difference
  17. https://sonimus.com/blog/info/limiters-vs-clippers.html
  18. https://soundslikeyoumusic.com/blogs/production-tutorials/understanding-the-differences-between-a-clipper-limiter-and-transient-shaper
  19. https://www.perfectcircuit.com/signal/compression-limiting-expansion-gating
  20. https://www.production-expert.com/production-expert-1/we-explain-four-types-of-dynamic-process-and-why-theyre-useful
  21. https://www.vintagedigital.com.au/western-electric-110a/
  22. https://www.soundbridge.io/limiter
  23. https://dreamwave.studio/
  24. https://www.music-tech.com/article/use-of-compressor-on-early-records
  25. https://gearspace.com/board/mastering-forum/451850-history-look-ahead-limiters.html
  26. https://www.thebdr.net/a-history-of-audio-processing-part-5-digital-processing-starts-making-noise/
  27. https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/diode/diode-clipping-circuits.html
  28. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/an-op-amp-limiter-how-to-limit-the-amplitude-of-amplified-signals/
  29. https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/analogue_circuits/power-supply-electronics/current-limiter-circuit.php
  30. https://www.powerelectronicsnews.com/scientific-notes-on-power-electronics-two-level-limiting-circuit/
  31. https://www.everythingrf.com/community/what-is-an-rf-limiter
  32. https://blog.pasternack.com/rf-limiter/need-rf-limiters-detectors/
  33. https://www.mathworks.com/help/audio/ref/limiter-system-object.html
  34. https://blog.soundtrap.com/limiter/
  35. https://www.audiotent.com/blogs/production-tips/analog-vs-digital-limiting
  36. https://nstaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Tech-Library-Limiters-1-of-2.pdf
  37. https://ledgernote.com/columns/mixing-mastering/what-is-a-limiter/
  38. https://ecstudiosystems.com/discover/textbooks/basic-electronics/wave-shaping/limiters/
  39. https://www.261.gr/limiters.html
  40. https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/limiters
  41. https://www.globalspec.com/learnmore/networking_communication_equipment/rf_microwave_wireless_components/rf_limiters
  42. https://stellantsystems.com/control-components-limiters/
  43. https://www.pcbasic.com/blog/current_limiting_circuits.html
  44. https://www.nextpcb.com/blog/current-limiting-circuit
  45. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/electronic_circuits/electronic_circuits_limiter_voltage_multiplier.htm
  46. https://www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/learn/the-secret-to-compressor-attack-and-release-time
  47. https://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/design-handbooks/Practical-Analog-Design-Techniques/Section8.pdf
  48. https://sound-au.com/articles/intermodulation2.htm
  49. https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/brickwall-limiters.html
  50. https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/pro-tools-mastering-limiter-shootout-part-2
  51. https://signalsmith-audio.co.uk/writing/2022/limiter/
  52. https://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/tutorials/MT-053.pdf
  53. https://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/specifications-5_distortion_2019.pdf
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4172235/
  55. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/measuring-compression-limiting.38688/
  56. https://www.energy.gov/oe/articles/assessment-fault-current-limiter-testing-requirements
  57. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2050-7038.12738
  58. https://madison-proceedings.com/index.php/aetr/article/download/2254/2274/4665
  59. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19680000364
  60. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/extensive-study-of-imd-and-thd-distortions-on-4-amplifiers-with-different-topology.26942/page-2
  61. https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/file/1009463/1/yutancoxgoh.pdf
  62. https://www.mathworks.com/help/audio/ug/dynamic-range-control.html
  63. https://productionadvice.co.uk/brickwall-limiters/
  64. https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/dynamic-range-loudness-war
  65. https://new.abb.com/medium-voltage/grid-components/core-components/is-limiter
  66. https://eepowerschool.com/protection/fault-current-limiters-an-introduction/
  67. https://electrification.us.abb.com/products/arc-flash-protection-current-limiters/limiter
  68. https://dadaoenergy.com/blog/current-limiting-circuit/
  69. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10859532/
  70. https://www.gwelectric.com/current-limiting-system-protection/
  71. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fault-current-limiter-explained-randolph-w-hurst-eykoc
  72. https://www.mpdigest.com/2020/01/21/the-role-and-trending-requirements-of-rf-limiters-in-multifunctional-aesa-radar/
  73. https://www.everythingrf.com/search/microwave-rf-limiters/filters?page=1&country=global&sgrade=%3BSpace%2520Qualified%3B
  74. https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/8622-rf-design-of-avionics-l-band-integrated-systems
  75. https://embeddedcomputing.com/application/networking-5g/fairview-microwave-expands-line-of-hi-rel-rf-limiters-that-protect-sensitive-rf-receiver-components
  76. https://www.sae.org/standards/as5372-fuse-current-limiter-type-aircraft
  77. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/4/1467
  78. https://www.thebroadcastbridge.com/content/entry/20039/audio-for-broadcast-dynamics-processors
  79. https://pira.cz/hyperlme.htm
  80. https://leachlegacy.ece.gatech.edu/papers/fmlimiter.pdf
  81. https://media.skyworksinc.com/Downloads/Literature/PIN-Limiter-Design-Guide/index.html
  82. https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-BS.2054-2005-PDF-E.pdf
  83. https://www.orban.com/s/Broadcast-Transmission-Audio-Processing.pdf
  84. https://blog.landr.com/limiter/
  85. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372858778_Music_De-limiter_Networks_via_Sample-wise_Gain_Inversion
  86. https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/132/2/1177/640361/Quality-and-loudness-judgments-for-music-subjected
  87. https://gearspace.com/board/mastering-forum/1402643-true-peak-limiters-do-they-really-sound-worse.html
  88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290092665_Hyper-compression_in_music_production_Listener_preferences_on_dynamic_range_reduction
  89. https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/pro-tools-mastering-limiter-shootout-part-1
  90. https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/fabfilter-pro-l-2
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4111488/
  92. https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/bettermaker-mastering-limiter
  93. https://blog.discmakers.com/2012/07/signal-processing-compressors-limiters-eqs/
  94. https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Catalogs/Gates-Harris/Gates-Engineering-Report-Audio-Signal-Processing-by-Limiters-and%2520AGC-Amplifiers.pdf
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9246086/
  96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2021.07.007
  97. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1430978/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  98. https://illumin.usc.edu/the-loudness-wars/
  99. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263964415_The_Loudness_War_Do_Louder_Hypercompressed_Recordings_Sell_Better
  100. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140007300/downloads/20140007300.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.