I'm trying to adjust the limiter threshold, I right click but after changing it goes back to it's original setting. I can't find limiter settings anywhere, I've looked in effects and can't see it.
It's something until today I only switched on and off. I would appreciate any help on this and any thoughts on setting the limiter for video especially.
Thanks (in advance).
Nick
I found it, right click on limiter, then click on a parameter and use the arrows on computer keyboard to change the values.
The reason for wanting to change the threshold for example is that I have reduced the volume of a preset piano for video work, this would mean the limiter would require new settings in order to limit correctly. Again any thoughts here would be great.
Nick
The Peak Limiter I find now within PIANOTEQ appears very basic. It is itself limited to four (4) variables: a Switch (on-off), Sharpness, Threshold (dB), and Gain (dB). Throughout its history however it’s been changed. Version five (5) allowed just one variable; it’s either on or off.
It seems fine when you’re wanting a basic recording only or need possibly to record a small part an accompaniment that otherwise without it leaves unwanted volume peaks. Which get in the way of another instrument or voice. Clearly it does as expected; it limits peaks. It might depend on the video however, if maybe it would become useful in it.
I turn often to another limiter whenever serious about my recording any solo piano. Always helpful to me is an artificial intelligence (AI) based limiter that comes within iZotope mastering software. So, I’ve been using machine learning as I can learn a lot indeed from it.
Now I feel my tastes have been refined enough for me to venture off on my own and experiment with the Sonnox Oxford Range plugins, particularly Oxford Inflator and Oxford Limiter. But on my latest I’m engineering, including works from Debussy, Schubert and Beethoven, I use the plugins in conjunction specifically with bx_masterdesk from Brainworx. Which is simple to me to operate and add some polish. And let me just say about that polish, a very little goes a long way.
All three of them (plugins) I use to control dynamics, peak dynamics especially. By them I get the exact peak heights I want at just the right crests factors or inclinations where they are very distinguishable from each other on various levels as performed entirely on an original acoustic.
Man, my dynamics engineering now is about as dynamic as I can get!
An example or two is forthcoming!
Thanks Amen Ptah Ra, yes I only require it to limit peaks. Interesting you say the Pianoteq Limiter has evolved since version 5, with the threshold added I should be able to use this without any other software.
I record straight to video camera so unfortunately I cannot use mastering software in post production, I am though impressed by the results you and other Pianoteq users are achieving with these software plugins.
Nick
The Sharpness control conceivably might culminate in amount and intensity applied in the process of any limiting. This though is nothing more than my educated guess —without it covered inside a manual.
Thanks, I think intensity sounds about right for Sharpness.
I did some tests, using the Bluthner concert recording preset, reduced volume to -9, Limiter threshold -12. Early days but I liked this setting. After recording to a Canon HF G26, I then used a Sony TV for my playback reference device, using the onboard speakers and then the same TV with AKG 702s. The audio is clean and appears to have the correct levels. I make a point not to alter the volume on the TV when playing back my videos and keep the same volume as when I watch (and listen) to TV.
Nick
Admittedly, before the release of v.5 likely I was bewildered or just plain confused about the limiter, really to the point of even intimidation. So, I was happily relieved at the release of v.5 with that limiter that possibly was either on or off only but also just maybe a tad over simplified without any extra control.
Anyhow a limiter once was a sort of thing seldom anyone but some professional mastering engineers could apply toward black eventful blobs of wax and pressers before a stylus and platter. Of course recently, I see it is possible to remove it from a multimillion-dollar structure and into my small kitchenette area with sink and dishwasher, so long as I’m wearing a Sony product, Sony headphones (MDR-7506), and got Waves NX, Abbey Road Studio 3 or Ocean Way Nashville from Waves.
My view today is any limiter usage is a concern whenever within your aim is consumer accessibility of modern media and speakers largely available publicly. Which is when also you take your performance to people (perhaps just to leave them with one long lasting impression). To me by far it is more about the limitations of current electronics than it is about the actual volume or decibel peaks reached by the acoustic played in a real room or the impression you get while physically seated within it. I am affirming through though the limitations of current electronics you have to impart still a sense of the real piano sometime situated inside a brick and mortar hall or room location. Thusly, needed is the limiter. It is in situ here the limiter can yield up its final purpose (that is) in lieu of the general limiting restrictions inherent within electronic circuitry, real world drawbacks seldom if ever encountered in the strictly live performance of acoustics wherein dynamics are free flowing and always accurately represented.
As I may select any environment a recording space of my choosing based upon the overall theme of the arrangement presented to me, I use the limiter now to let a dichotomy of musical instrument and surroundings become very fashionably apparent to my listener as this I believe can become paramount to the fulfillment or only his understanding of any important historic musical piece. One of the new limiters to me is as easy as my counting 1, 2, 3:
Thanks, I think intensity sounds about right for Sharpness.
I did some tests, using the Bluthner concert recording preset, reduced volume to -9, Limiter threshold -12. Early days but I liked this setting. After recording to a Canon HF G26, I then used a Sony TV for my playback reference device, using the onboard speakers and then the same TV with AKG 702s. The audio is clean and appears to have the correct levels. I make a point not to alter the volume on the TV when playing back my videos and keep the same volume as when I watch (and listen) to TV.
Nick
You adjust Sharpness any?
Just as you keep volume the same on your television whenever you change stations, a limiter might make completely unrelated songs sound similar and easily digestible. This is when you compile them and they share limiter settings in a playlist or even album. And, this is true of any sort of repertoire, as a limiter can make the separate performances sound very fine put together. Perhaps it imparts a sense of congruity that listeners appreciate while listening to whole albums.
Good point Amen Ptah Ra, maybe a common denominator tying everything together.
As I mentioned earlier, Sonnox Oxford Range plugins, particularly Oxford Inflator and Oxford Limiter are useful to me. The plugins —likely affiliated with Sony Corp.— are probably invaluable if the genre you record is classical or jazz music. These plugins let one precisely and easily control dynamic ranges and peaks. Which are very important to any appreciation of the two genres, in which a performer's virtuosity is what the engineer needs to convey via a medium such as a record or program broadcast. (Usually whether or not a jazz recording is successful, it will depend greatly on the engineer who is somehow able to convey the musical ideas presented by the soloists on record or other media. Possibly you're familiar with recordings engineered by one Rudy Van Gelder? The same is true as dynamics can make or break a classical recording; in which every musical expression has previously been notated.)
The more dynamic music is, probably greater an engineer's task should he replicate effectively dynamics in recordings.
Oxford Inflator allows any to broaden dynamic ranges whenever needed, while Oxford Limiter permits peaks perceived as loud without any clipping. Also enhanced peaks are even allowed by adjustments inside the limiter.
Maybe the limiter specifically was used to record hits from Michael Jackson!
https://youtu.be/z6UBc--teCE
https://youtu.be/m3bdwktnWsE
These plugins do look and sound interesting. I watched one of the videos, thanks for the links.
At the moment I am achieving some good results, if eventually I find something is lacking in my recordings then these plugins might be the answer.
Thanks again.
Nick
I recorded this today, not so much about the Limiter (set to -12 in this recording), but the audio levels. I used Audacity to normalise.
It seems my sound checks were causing an issue. For example, if I played some loud chords before a Bach Invention, normalised the audio before editing (trimming), then the Invention would be lower in volume because the loud chords would be taking headroom.
This piece is not too dynamic so I will have to expect some alterations to the settings when recording a piece that is more dynamic.
Bluthner preset with Long Plate reverb was used, definitely the closest to the 'sound' I've been after.
Nick
Hi MeDorian,
here are a couple of tools that I found very useful in getting control of my sound levels:
Blue Cat's Gain Suite (free): https://www.bluecataudio.com/Products/P...GainSuite/
YouLean Loudness Meter (basic version is free): https://youlean.co/youlean-loudness-meter/
I tend to set all my recording presets to -12dB with the limiter off, then bring up the level with Blue Cat on the master bus and check the result with YouLean. For a limiter (just to control very strong peaks), I've been using Signum Audio's Bute Limiter. It's good, but occasionally it's crashed on me when using the Reset control - my workaround is to just remove it and reinsert it if I want a reset!
Thanks dazric. Yes I also had Pianoteq presets around -12 but not on the above video. This was around -4 and sounded the best, I worked up from -12 to this -4. I have now changed my mind and think that Pianoteq levels, (0dB usually) after all are the optimum signal to noise ratio.
I think dynamic range in ones playing should also be kept in mind, I have in the past shown no regard for this and played way to dynamically. The Bach Invention extract in the above video, I made a point not to over do the dynamics, a bit like I would only have to correct them in post production. This sound I can now fine tune, increase the Pianoteq preset back to the original levels, and think more how I play.
P.s This by the way is my first 'left view' angle video. I have always filmed the right side but I prefer this.....maybe because I am left handed?
Nick
Hi again dazric. I just rendered the same performance as in the video (found in recently played), I used a non-edited preset with unaltered volume (0db). I then used 'normalise loudness' in Audacity (in effects). This improved further the audio in comparison to my -4 recording, although the same Audacity normalisation was used.
My conclusion is stick to the Pianoteq preset volumes.
Nick
Hmm, interesting that you got those results with Audacity - perhaps it's something to do with your camera's audio processing? Anyway, if you're finding the 'sweet spot', that's good!
.
My conclusion is stick to the Pianoteq preset volumes.
Nick
This is pretty much my own experience. Because it was argued by several on this forum, I have tried much lower levels in Pianoteq (-12dB and such) and I found it did not work for me. The sound seemed to lose character and dynamics. This is not based on measurements, just trusting my ears. I use levels from -3dB to 0 dB for most of my recordings.
Thanks aWc, I was seriously doubting my findings. Although dazric is right to question. Thank you both for your help today.
Nick
I'm quite intrigued by this discussion, so I think I'll do some testing to see what I think. I've been using -12dB to avoid distortion when post processing (I had been running into problems even at -9dB), but if I'm making a quick recording with no processing I do go for -3 or -4dB.
Hmm, interesting that you got those results with Audacity - perhaps it's something to do with your camera's audio processing? Anyway, if you're finding the 'sweet spot', that's good!
I agree. This discussion is very interesting. MeDorian, if you will be so kind as to upload both the MIDI and preset used in your Pianoteq 7 Audio Levels Test [Video] and link them at this thread of yours, others and myself likely will tell if any of your audio portions changed somehow following YouTube streaming.
Hi Amen Ptah Ra, right click on my video when in playback and look at stats for nerds. It has some information regarding audio normalisation.
Nick
Amen Ptah Ra, yes I've not sent presets before, I'll look into how that's done. It's not a bad preset, requires just the levels correcting. Also MIDI files are something I've not done yet, although the MIDI file for the above video is really not up to standard, I can do better than that.
Nick
I think Pianoteq depends on its limiter too much when using the standard presets. Some midis actually distort (clip) a tiny bit when played back due to the real volume being a bit to high.
I think Pianoteq depends on its limiter too much when using the standard presets. Some midis actually distort (clip) a tiny bit when played back due to the real volume being a bit to high.
Yes, that's something that I battled with for quite a while before I started to understand the output volume. With a very dynamic midi played at default volume, the limiter will often be pushing quite hard, so you sometimes get a 'squashed' sound and, yes, quite a bit of distortion too. Best to reduce the output volume by quite a few dB if this starts happening. You can see how hard the limiter is working by the length of the line next to the 'L'.
https://youtu.be/MnejxnqWL8M
Audio Levels in Pianoteq take 2.
This is better. Steinway Model B Recording 3 (volume reduced by 1dB), flat levels from PC to Canon HF G26, no normalisation, and both piano pieces have slight reduction in volume edited in Powedirector (my video editor), this is shown on screen.
The audio past all my tests, first, to play back on mobile phone with headphones and to sound good, then, playback on a standard TV (the hardest to get right), with enough level. My PC system is easy because I used this during filming and editing. YouTube processor also I am happy with the results.
The Limiter I will use as in the presets, it was levels after all that needed sorting in my recordings (and playing).
Nick
levinite wrote:I think Pianoteq depends on its limiter too much when using the standard presets. Some midis actually distort (clip) a tiny bit when played back due to the real volume being a bit to high.
Yes, that's something that I battled with for quite a while before I started to understand the output volume. With a very dynamic midi played at default volume, the limiter will often be pushing quite hard, so you sometimes get a 'squashed' sound and, yes, quite a bit of distortion too. Best to reduce the output volume by quite a few dB if this starts happening. You can see how hard the limiter is working by the length of the line next to the 'L'.
I agree its certainly an easy fix. I just don't understand why Pianoteq chose the volume level so high for their default presets since they can get plenty of dynamic range with a lower default volume setting. It seems -4 to -6 or so dB would be enough to completely avoid the issue.
Now let me simplify stuff. The PIANOTEQ Limiter as it’s on default presets just prevents any digital clipping specifically whenever you play at your MIDI keyboard controller. So, it is to stop the digital levels ever reaching over 0 dBFS. A level over 0 dBFS results in digital clipping (that is) a highly undesirable software sound. However, that’s entirely different from analog clipping.
Digital clipping always occurs inside the software whenever an audio level exceeds the 0 dBFS maximum allowed within it before distortion. And whenever distortion happens, you get of course a red light indicating it.
The Limiter is useful also when you export your keyboard performance as an audio file one such as a WAV. But, an alternative is just the file exported from the performance with a lowered volume set right before export out of the software and without the limiter even engaged.
You have basically two scenarios which can require a limiter. One is when you play. The other is when you distribute the performance as an audio file, that is, whether or not embedded within a video you intend to upload onto a streaming service.
Since a video streaming service such as YouTube necessitates video audio meet the service’s own volume limits of -14 LUFS that are different from level (dB) peak limits, you may just need to lower your PIANOTEQ Volume level and turn off its Limiter. This way you may use a separate plugin limiter to get the -14 LUFS or lower.
https://youtu.be/BS07ChRkY4M
If you do decide to go with something lower, you have always the option of your original peaks preserved on YouTube. It preserves lower LUFS in audio without it increasing any of that volume. (I’m saying it won’t ever raise a lower -16 LUFS to the -14 LUFS ceiling or anything above your original choice of -16 LUFS.)
It's something until today I only switched on and off. I would appreciate any help on this and any thoughts on setting the limiter for video especially.
The reason for wanting to change the threshold for example is that I have reduced the volume of a preset piano for video work, this would mean the limiter would require new settings in order to limit correctly. Again any thoughts here would be great.
As you reduce PIANOTEQ Volume you accordingly do reduce any chance that you may require even the PIANOTEQ Limiter. The opposite is also true here; as whenever you raise the PIANOTEQ Volume, the PIANOTEQ Limiter becomes increasingly necessary.
I then used 'normalise loudness' in Audacity (in effects). This improved further the audio in comparison to my -4 recording, although the same Audacity normalisation was used.
Well, I hardly call a normalized volume level —that is essentially just a louder file— an actual improvement to the file itself, thought it can improve your listening pleasure.
Normalization will up the volume level of any PIANOTEQ recording recorded at a Volume of -4 dB originally. If the audio has been intended for a video, however, you should forgo any normalization. YouTube requires a 1 dB (-1 dB) headroom as a minimum before its codec. Normalized audio will lose volume after the transfer into the codec. And, audio normalized while having a LUFS of -14 LUFS or louder results in distortion once uploaded to YouTube.
Anyway, you do realize PIANOTEQ can export normalized files whenever selected as an option?
I record straight to video camera so unfortunately I cannot use mastering software in post production, I am though impressed by the results you and other Pianoteq users are achieving with these software plugins.
Possibly, DaVinci Resolve permits VST plugin usage inside the video editor. It’s free!
I just don't understand why Pianoteq chose the volume level so high for their default presets since they can get plenty of dynamic range with a lower default volume setting. It seems -4 to -6 or so dB would be enough to completely avoid the issue.
PIANOTEQ defaults might allow any forte performance reach as close as possible 0 dBFS without any unpleasant distortion. They are an added convenience to me whenever I want to load a playlist folder and sometime later switch to iTunes.
I think Pianoteq depends on its limiter too much when using the standard presets. Some midis actually distort (clip) a tiny bit when played back due to the real volume being a bit to high.
I am suggesting the Limiter depends on the Volume setting in PIANOTEQ and often velocity from a keyboard. An added advantage is with a laptop and without separate monitors connected to it, default presets which make use of the Limiter might play your MIDI files as loud as possible, outside of likely damage to internal laptop speakers.
I draw the line between any playback and my performance. (As I perform I sometime will switch off the Limiter but then lower Volume since I can make very worthwhile volume adjustments at anytime on my audio interface instead.)
Ordinarily, PIANOTEQ defaults are acceptable at the playback of my piano MIDI files. An exception is files that are from performances of a Disklavier and in Yamaha MIDI XP readjust PIANOTEQ Volume level to -7 dB.
Generally, any velocity of 127 is preferable sometimes somewhere near 0 dBFS.
However when you do play at your keyboard, the Limiter might just depend on your playing accurately pianissimo, mezzo-forte and forte.
Thanks Amen Ptah Ra, you've been doing some homework there.
I would say most of those issues you mention have been solved with much trial and error over the past week or so, and my latest video on this thread, 'Audio Levels in Pianoteq take 2' (as I call it now) is to my ears very good. I am now also viewing my -2.5 dB alteration in levels in this video, not as a correction to the Pianoteq preset, but that I need to reduce my playing style by -2.5 dB to 'play' at the optimum level in my future piano study/practice, in other words I've been playing too loud over the years.
Nick
Right, then the Limiter is useful when you play as well as afterwards if you’re going to upload after changes to its settings?
Yes, but I will now try to avoid any editing to the presets volume levels. As you say, the Limiter is useful to protect equipment from going into digital clipping. Also, if ones playing is not too loud then the Limiter will not be as active, and is there ready to limit in case an excessively loud chord is played during practice.
Nick
When using headphones with Pianoteq I usually protect my hearing with the limiter (ON by default). Pleased by the sound of v8.0.4 I also tested it with Limiter OFF. Most of you will know, that the sound is clearer without Limiter. I explicitly don't say it sounds better or worse -- just differently. (of course, it's a compressor)
Because a limiter has "to look into the future" to prevent digital clipping, it interested me, how much delay/buffering this costs. To my pleasure I don't find a delay in my test scenario:
With Limiter OFF I played a key on my Korg B2 and recorded its internal sound and the external sound of Pianoteq 8.0.4 at the same time, one on channel R the other on channel L.
As expected Korgs internal sound arrives a little earlier, 8 ms before Pianoteq on my laptop with a USB Audiointerface (Scarlett 2i2 gen2). This had been with Limiter OFF.
Then I repeated it a few times with Limiter ON. Also just 8 ms difference:
Pianoteq Standard 8.0.4 (x86-64bit)
Steinway B Prelude
44100 Hz, 64 samples (1.5 ms), polyphony 256
That's good to know groovy. Excellent examination!
I think it's an excellent design and does its job without a hitch. Many 3rd party limiters would add latency and cost extra etc. but certainly some would have their fav limiters they may prefer.
I like altering the numbers, making it deeper and shallower, before deciding if I want it on/off. Often I prefer it on.
Overall, to me, it is not too deleterious to the piano signal (not like a brick-wall for example), and can assist in the case of wanting to further shape in a DAW. (like a set of tasteful pre-FX instead of a 'bare' un-dynamic recording). I keep feeling the need to add clarifying statements though and this applies often: everything depends on a particular goal - and use cases are many, incl. playing piano in a room and aiming for realism, playing live in a venue, and then recording, each may have infinite variant aesthetic systems and processes to account for.
IMHO there is no other piano software which satisfies so highly each of those kinds of user desires and demands.
The limiter is a type which some will prefer off (I'd think mostly inre solo classical purists).
If switched off, and if next lowering main output volume (by up to -15 or more so perhaps, to stave off the dreaded red bar, clipping), in a DAW you could "make up gain" either in the channel "input" volume, or with other plugins.
In digital signal flow, the 'character' some might feel they lose out on, would likely have less to do with the lower main volume, and more to do with what a 'normal' unprocessed audio signal can be like. Flat - a bit less dynamic, less exciting, less excited by the little things going on with limiters and compressors.
But definitely, if switching off Pianoteq's limiter, compressor, lowering main volume etc. in a recording, you may 'make up' anything you like in a DAW - raise volume, add your own fav compressor(s)/limiter(s), reverbs.
Most basic example might be, if you lower Pianoteq's main volume by -15 decibels, then raise the DAW piano channel/track's input volume by a similar amount, parity may be achieved and if anything is lacking in the signal, certainly it will be heard well enough to assess and decide "Hmm, do I really want Pianoteq's limiter off?" or "OK, now, should I add a compressor/limiter in the DAW".
What Pianoteq gives is an excellent starting point for anyone who may or may not have a desire to get fussy - but like groovy's test shows, at zero latency in case of the limiter is hard to achieve with good 3rd party limiters. (some I like add a substantial amount of latency which could negatively affect the 'feel' of the piano in performance.)
The limiter in Pianoteq, esp. when a gentle Pianoteq compressor is also engaged, gives, to me, a light but well established overall 'gain staging' effect. The goal often being to have not too low volume dips, not too high peaks and a lot of dynamic range positioned in comfortable listening range in terms of loudness. In a way, the elevation vs. limitation of certain aspects is all about aesthetic choice - there's no 'perfect correct' way - every person would pick different settings and say "There, this is the way I like it". Over time though, lots of people/companies collect guidelines for their known equipment/situations - and thankfully, Pianoteq does offer default settings which give a semblance of those good measures IMHO.
So, indeed switching off the limiter may give your signal a tiny bit more clarity but perhaps at the cost of some broad loss of a tiny sense of vavooom! of some kind (different per piano/preset etc.)
The compressor, if engaged with a desirable setting, raising up low volume characteristics and compressing high velocity ranges of course to an extent, and the limiter kind of warming things (kind of like the circus trick of keeping plates spinning on the end of small poles) has a nice range where extremely subtle saturation nears at maximum velocities - it's pretty cool that Pianoteq lays that kind of stuff out for any new users without them having to think about it until they become next-level about their sound.
People turn off a limiter (and also compressors or other FX in Pianoteq), esp. if the goal is to strip out all traces of artifice, as it may seem logical, though I think a good sound design will quite normally add a small amount of saturation to high velocity passages/notes - and modern digital age recordists are more and more appreciating the charms of what fine old analog recording systems brought to the table (completely clean digital recordings of anything can seem stark, lifeless and the lack of 'excitement' in the signal has often put me off in the digital space. But - great tools exist, incl. those in Pianoteq to make a recording sound more like.. a nice recording.
If a person's goal is playing their dpiano, then in a way, they may find some benefit from limiter being off.. but if the goal is recording, maybe turning off the limiter could help, but probably will require some other limiter/compression in a DAW to massage the signal - but then, some piano recordings ARE beautiful without great amounts of dynamics or 'analog' saturation/warmth etc. - again I guess, just down to personal aesthetics.
I feel in the end, the Pianoteq limiter is generally not adding too much saturation for most use cases, could generally help users' recordings sound better out-of-the-box, and importantly it helps new users from too easily clipping or experiencing too many surprisingly nasty transients, or even damaging speakers etc.
Thank you for that nice contribution, Qexl,
not much left to say.
Eventually one aspect about a not-mentioned sound quality sometimes spelled "dull". In my opinion most important parameters against:
Velocity curve first.
Then acoustic volume.
Then speaker quality.
Headphone impedance.
Limiter.
Hi groovy and Qexl. For broadcasting, YouTube etc, I normalize my recordings to -10 dB, this worked on all playback devices, but not my (Sony) television via USB media. I noticed recently in my television settings 'dynamics', this was set to 'compressed', I then changed this to 'normal' and now my volumes are uniform.
Although not Pianoteq related, it bothered me that my recordings did not match the broadcasting piano recordings on my TV, and so I was looking wrongly at Pianoteq settings. Again totally Pianoteq unrelated, I now believe DVD playback will be the same audio levels as TV broadcast, although I have yet to try this.
Nick
That's a good hierarchy groovy - def. velocity curve 1st for anyone seeking the absolute best from their dpiano and Pianoteq.
Also, very good observations, MeDorian. Output levels are a valuable part of finishing a recording or setup for playing for sure.
-10 normalization might be a good number to hover around.
If the limiter isn't going into the red, then chances are an output file (without a DAW etc.) can be as good as any busy personalized effects laden mix.. and -10dB seems intuitively a good number. (will try that!)
There's a lot of different 'LUFS' levels asked for by different online streaming platforms - and esp. solo classical piano is one of the non-pop genres which may not require to be too well aimed to, for example Apple Music's -16 LUFS or -14 for Spotify etc.
Each service probably uses similar but proprietary ways to level match for their listeners (I'm actually not sure about the nuts and bolts behind their differences).
Would be interesting to see how various -10 dB normalized piano files sound across platforms.. because, for Pianoteq users, you may have a quite magic number there Nick!
Thanks Qexl, I see many different views and thoughts on this subject, but -10dB seems good.
Nick