Hi--just rummaging through the board looking at comments on the MixPre for no particular reason.
DATBRAD, I think actually that most experienced engineers would gang (link) the two channels of a limiter of this kind, because if you don't, then anything that actuated the limiter would also shift the stereo image. This wouldn't happen if both channels were being "ducked" by the same amount at the same time.
If that doesn't make sense to you as an explanation, I urge you to try it both ways--I think you'd be convinced fairly quickly that ganging the channels is preferable. And it's pretty much standard practice. For example the Nagra IV-S recorder had a built-in limiter (basically a 4 dB zone at the very top of its range) which was ganged between channels by default. To separate the channels you had to modify the circuit, and I really don't know of any people who recorded music with a Nagra who chose to do that.
A limiter isn't something to be used too heavily; either you're using it as a safety net and you're pleased if it never comes on, or maybe you're being a tad more aggressive and every now and then, the LED flickers and you say to yourself, "Ah, I just raised the average loudness of the recording by 2 or 3 dB." But limiters aren't the right tool for situations in which they'd be actively changing the gain for entire spans of seconds at a time--for that, you want a compressor.
--best regards
Hi Dsatz, I only mentioned it in passing, but I am using the Sound Devices MP-1 mono preamps for each channel, in which linking features is not possible. In concert applications, I have rarely seen a the limiters engage on just one channel for more than just a second, and both will typically engage in any genuine live hard transient situation. I like using them as a safety net, and as you stated I am pleased when they don't come on during a recording.
However, I have used limiters as live compressors to great sucess also. Earlier this year, I recorded a performance by a singer/songwriter that plays both acoustic guitar and piano in an old church, running through a small PA. The stage was basically where the altar used to sit, directly in front of the still installed pipe organ. We recorded far field, with our mics dropped down from the choir loft balcony rail.
The acoustics of the room were stellar, right to the back, and the audience was pin drop quiet during each song. But of course, at the end of each song, the applause was double in volume. My friend ran his preamp and recorder without any live analog limiting, so I decided to use a tried & true (for me anyway) technique with mine. I ran the gain on my preamps almost maxed, and with the limiters switched on. During the songs, the limiters very rarely blinked and the recording levels displayed normal dynamic action. But, when each song ended and the audience errupted, the limiters kicked on hard and held the gain of the applause to no louder than the loudest musical peak, perfect.
My friend took his recording in post and applied limiting there and achieved the same result as far as viewing the waveform, but to me the sound of the limiting is much more noticable, metallic, artificial, something. The analog limiting just seemed to sound better to me than the digital limiting in post. I remember a old taper buddy of mine in the early '90s used to make recordings like this on DAT where he was not in a position to limit/compress live. He would playback the DATs and pass the analog output through a rack mounted tube compressor and re-record the analog output on another DAT, and man they sounded great. Seems to me that if you nail a recording on site in terms of level setting, and use analog corrective measures whenever possible, it beats a recording where the levels and sound editing are fixed in post. Just my own personal viewpoint as an extreme amature.