Benn ?
When did you get so angry at nobodies ?

 

Okay, let's take his video about clippers as an example.
His argument:

Well, that is correct so far. Leaving aside polynoms...

He is certainly entitled to this opinion. I understand where this idea comes from. And as long as we are dealing with simple functions like tanh, atan, sin, etc., you can describe the algorithms by their functions. However, this is quickly taken ad absurdum when we leave the preschool level and introduce some complexity. Either we write a vague mathematical description for the parameter, which leads to ambiguities in 100% of cases, or we reveal our complete mathematical formula including parameter dependencies, which would overwhelm the GUI and the brains of most users. It is impractical and daunting.

Although I find terms like 'crunch' for specific distortion types strange – we're not talking about cereals, after all – I understand what's meant. However, as an audio engineer/developer, I have to communicate in a way the client/user understands me. It's about their understanding, not mine. That's not marketing bullshit or a scam, but user-friendly communication. Most people run away the moment math comes up. And musicians are typically just musicians, not techies.

Yes, clippers are simple clamp functions. Btw, I find the code variations he presented quite unelegant, but that's another topic.
Soft clippers are usually one of the following functions:

• At the output of a channel strip or similar, the soft clipper is usually a sigmoid function, as this is simple and comes closest to the behavior of a dedicated soft clipper.
• In a dedicated soft clipper, it is a clamp function with a soft transfer around the threshold – the so-called knee. The knee is achieved by implementing a quadratic function. So it is a clamp function modified by a quadratic or sin function. We could, of course, call it exactly that, however, this is ambiguous, because this description does not include how the knee function is implemented and what we can expect from it. "Soft clipper," on the other hand, is a very precise umbrella term for the expected behavior of this function. We get a soft transition into the clamp function.

This topic isn't even one of those notorious "scam" reveals, and yet he still manages to fill it with bullshit. It's not like he's uneducated. He knows what he's talking about and is just fooling everyone. The approach is always the same:

1. He presents an argument that nobody actually holds.
2. He attacks that argument by backing up his counter-argument with facts.
3. He omits facts that weaken his counter-argument.
4. He mixes facts with opinion.
5. Actual facts always have to give way to opinions disguised as facts.
6. Buy my stuff!

In the end, you're served a shit cocktail where the average person can barely distinguish between fact and opinion anymore. Attentive professionals are left wondering why he's countering bullshit with more bullshit, confusing newcomers in the process. Because fundamentally, he *does* actually convey some knowledge. It's just that a whole lot of shit sticks to this knowledge.

 

Last edited: Apr 12, 2025 at 12:12 AM

Usually following the money will reveal true motivation.

 

First they post – then you have to watch their nonsense and talk about it for hours.

So here's a video from Bob Katz:

Bob Katz- Mastering legend live PMFC interview with interactive Q & A

 

AP Mastering seems to insinuate (but doesn't explicitly say) that, If 2 compressors match on Delta Expose (his plugin that he's selling for 5 Euros (it's like TEMU PluginDoctor)), they're doing the same thing to the audio. Well, the two compressors are doing the same thing to the amplitude of the audio, but isn't there more to compression than that?

I'm not taking sides here (or saying who is right or wrong), but I do think AP Mastering is a gigantic D Bag who is way too sure of himself regarding many things, and is just trying to sell me something like everyone else.

I have no issues with people selling things as long as they're up front and accurately represent what the thing does. Also good to know what it can and cannot do (or what it does and does not test for in the case of Delta Expose).

Here's an interesting comment on the video:

Hey AP,

I’ve been working in audio for a couple of decades now—everything from mastering for vinyl to consulting on plugin development. I’ve built compressors from scratch, modeled analog units with insane levels of precision, and sat in far too many meetings arguing over envelope detection curves. So let’s just say I’m not new to this, and I’ve been following your videos out of curiosity.

Your compressor video? Interesting idea. But let’s take a step back, because there are a few things here that really need to be addressed—properly.

You’re treating your Delta Exposed plugin as if it’s the final word on what a compressor is doing. It isn’t. A sample’s amplitude tells you something, sure—but acting like that’s all there is to audio is like looking at two photographs and claiming they’re identical because they share the same average brightness.

Phase shifts, harmonic distortion, dynamic modulation, noise shaping, envelope behavior, program dependency—none of that is truly captured by a sample-to-sample comparison of gain values. What you’re doing is useful for one slice of the picture, but pretending it’s the whole pie is just misleading.

You even admit you’re using static test tones. Great for showing clean gain reduction, terrible for exposing how a compressor actually behaves under real-world signal flow. No transients, no spectral complexity, no dynamic variability. That’s not a meaningful test—it's a lab demo.

The fact that your Versatile Compressor can imitate the behavior of a €329 plugin under controlled conditions doesn’t mean the paid one is a scam. That’s not how this works.

By that logic, a 3D-printed wrench is “just as good” as a Snap-On one—until you torque it under stress and it snaps. Real-world audio is messy, nonlinear, and program-dependent. The real test isn’t whether two plugins null at 12kHz with a sine—it’s how they behave when you throw a transient-rich, harmonically complex signal through them at different thresholds, with and without oversampling.

Some of us test plugins with dual-tone intermodulation, clipped transients, mid/side arrays, and 96k oversampled sweeps—not just a sine tone and a plot.

I love that you released tools for free. Seriously—respect for that. But just because something is free and functional doesn’t automatically make it more trustworthy or better engineered.

I’ve worked with companies that spend months tweaking 0.1dB differences in envelope curves to avoid artifacts. Teams with mathematicians, psychoacoustic researchers, and musicians all collaborating to make a tool feel “right” when used in a real session—not just look right in a graph.

People don’t buy plugins just because of marketing. They buy them because they sound a certain way in real music contexts. That’s something your tests aren’t even attempting to simulate. That claim alone is what really gives me pause. Gain is a factor. It’s not the factor.

Do harmonics not matter? Does phase rotation not matter? Does attack curve shape over a 2ms window under dynamic conditions not matter?

If you think all compressors are doing “just gain reduction,” you either haven’t measured them properly, haven’t pushed them hard enough, or you’ve already decided on your conclusion before testing. And that's not science. That's marketing of a different kind.

You say plugin companies sell hype—and some do, no doubt. But now you’re selling a tool and hinting that it “exposes the truth” about €300 plugins. That’s the same appeal to emotion and disillusionment that marketers use.

You can’t criticize others for "selling the magic" while you're selling “the curtain pull.” It’s just flipping the coin, not changing the game.

This isn’t meant to bash what you’re doing. You're clearly smart, and your coding is solid. But if you want to make a real impact, focus less on drama and more on depth. Compression is a subtle and beautiful tool. Misrepresenting it to make a point sells short the very people you’re trying to educate.

If you want your audience to think critically, great. Just make sure you hold yourself to the same standard. Because right now? It feels more like a one-man crusade than an honest inquiry.

 

"Basically everything is a scam except my course - which will completely change your life"

I really can't stand people like this.

 

He says it's showing the delta in the scheme of a certain curve. So everything audible is included.
That's why it is called delta expose. Check minute 3:20. It does not do what plugin doctor does.
There are by the way dynamic compressors which do none of those mentioned things. So compression is not necessarily more than really just plain compression.

 

Last edited: Apr 13, 2025 at 10:22 AM

Sometimes, you're just paying for convenience, even if a plugin has an identical alternative people prefer to avoid specific authorization systems like iLok, for example. Maybe one preset in that plugin becomes very crucial in someone's project template and person doesn't feel like spending time to analyze what's actually going on and reconstruct it in some other plugin because music needs to be made.

Prices are obviously exaggerated on sites but I don't like his example of SSL Bus Comp 2 being 329 USD while it's been ~30 USD a couple of times in a past. I'm not defending such tactics, the price is ridiculous but producers are also consumers and such sales are typical between markets. What's also important is GUI because it goes hand in hand with the sound, makes you want to dive in, because maybe that one alternative provides a nicer visual feedback with meters, has higher DPI, smoother refresh rate. Even basic double-click to reset the value is crucial to some.

You don't need to own every single variant of LA-2A or Pultec but having options is for a greater good because you can decide on a developer and stay in just a single or a few ecosystems. Or just don't and fully rely on your DAW features. Don't like UAD's version because of authorization system? Waves subscription? IK Multimedia because it requires all of T-Racks being installed? Or just allergic to digital screws? Just reach for something else, you still have plenty of options.

 

I cannot stand this guy, to the extent I blocked his channel on YouTube. Whilst a lot of what he says is correct, his approach comes across as an elitist snob who thinks he knows better than everyone and that he knows secrets other people don’t. I also find him massively pretentious and condescending, talking to people like they’re all idiots who can’t understand or recognise any of this without him pointing it out. Some of his videos smack of fanboy bias too, like his DAW comparison whereas he (obviously) is a Reaper-or-nothing fanboy and the way he hypes up Apple Mac and puts Windows only DAWs in the lowest tier despite knowing nothing about them, purely because they are Windows only. He also makes elitist claims like it being impossible to mix and master in DAWs like Ableton, just because he doesn’t.

He also doesn’t look at things holistically. He is so wrapped up in the detail and the data, he forgets about other things and that everyone is an individual and has their own motivators and inspiration. For example, I am a very visual person, and if a synth has a nice UI in MY opinion, or a EQ plugin has a nice UI in my opinion, or a DAW has a nice visually appealing mixer in MY opinion, those visual cues will likely make me stick with that tool and produce a much better output as a result than if I focused on more dull looking UI (like Reaper plugins, in my case and opinion), even if those do the same or a better job and may be cheaper or free. The guy looks at everything as black and white and treats people as if the World is black/white, right/wrong, and so on, focusing on the polar extremes and completely ignoring the grey nuance, and often personal areas in the middle, which is where most normal humans reside.

The bigger thing that grinds my gears with this guy though is how he is ALWAYS so negative about EVERYTHING, smacking of elitism, and no doubt demotivates and misinforms newbies and beginners with his elitist BS, which may be enough to deter some from even pursuing being a music producer, audio engineer, mixer, mastering engineer etc before they’ve even started, and anyone who demotivates beginners from taking up a creative hobby and potential future career should be called out for that cos it's not cool....at all!

As you may be able to tell, I just can’t stand the guy nor that superiority/God complex of his!

 

Last edited: Apr 13, 2025 at 2:02 PM

Not to mention "What a beautiful accent"(*) he has.

(*)POTUS

 

Last edited: Apr 13, 2025 at 8:05 PM

While I agree with your general assessment, I still have to point out two things:
1) Major brands digital EQs and comps are scammy;
2) He does improve his software based on feedback.
Also his free compressor is quite fine. And he never criticized the actually good tool manufacturers like FabFilter, TDR etc.

 

Last edited: Apr 13, 2025 at 8:02 PM

Um. It is. All of it is. A digital audio signal is just a time series from -1 to +1 on the Y axis. There's literally nothing else to it other than sample values. If two signals perfectly match sample to sample, they would null and they are exactly the same.
If I get it right Delta Expose makes it easier to align two compressors so they null, and also makes any phase shift and/or harmonic distortion visible on the graph.

 

Never compare compressors with basic sine tones, better use complex dynamic music.

 

AP Mastering is like the exact opposite of Dan Worrall. Dan will use common misconceptions as jump-off points to explore facets of engineering in slightly greater depth, and often highlight a couple cool production tricks along the way. AP Mastering will take a broadly true sentiment, build a needlessly inflammatory framing around it, and then create a video that spends most of its runtime justifying its own engagement baiting rhetoric. The one thing I'll grant him is that he puts in the work collating data and building tools to highlight what are essentially industry truisms.

I agree: most plugins (especially mixing plugins) are luxury items, and quite a few of them are doing less under-the-hood than the marketing might lead one to believe. The best thing one can do to prevent newbies from falling prey to this is to remind them that kids are making hits in BandLab, and countless dentists have spent more than you will ever earn on gear they will never touch.

 

He found himself a niche on Youtube by calling people out while providing enough information the vast majority of his viewers can't refute because they don't really know the ins and outs of the things he's talking about, they just "feel" it. I don't particularly hate the guy (I'm subscribed), but I don't like him either. He comes to every video with his conclusion already set in stone before testing, and to get there he will do a lot of twists and turns to make things fit his conclusion. It's not that black and white, even though some of the points can be universally agreed on (like, you don't need 100 EQs and Comps, we can all agree that you should have a handful of tools you know well enough for the job).

Unfortunately, it seems that it's this kind of video that is bringing the views. The more positive stuff doesn't get a third of the views, and thus, no extra money in the bank. The negative side is that he is making it harder for newcomers to understand very basic concepts by diluting it with a lot of useless information or dodgy definitions at best. It reminds me of back when I started mixing, someone told me I only needed 3db tops of compression, so I would dial the comp in the SSL to only blink at the first light. Not good enough. Of course, the guy who shared that piece of wisdom forgot to tell me his tracks would come with a bunch of compression from outboard gear already. It took me a few long years before I understood that it was okay to compress. There is no "overcompression" at the same level as "not enough compression". The AP Mastering dude is doing that to newcomers, who knows if by malice or not.

On the other hand, Dan Worrall is the goat. The amount of things I've learned from him and Gregory Scott should have been worth the price of a tuition.

 

but Delta Expose is just using basic tones, if it's true match that SSL G-Bus comp with his compressor plugin on delta expose, then run real musical signal through both and see if they null, I'd be willing to bet they won't

 

Bless your heart

 

Whatever your "real music" might be.

Not relevant, because it technically doesn't matter since what applies for simple tones applies as well for played back music.
People still got problems with their definitions of tone and sound and the components of them.

 

To be fair not fully, as a simple rhythmical tone would not for example show any time-based program dependencies that say a compressor like Pro-C 2 might have. Likewise a 2-stage (peak-RMS) release of Weiss and TDR mastering compressors would be lost on it. It should have a chaotic combination of test tones on different frequencies at the very least.

 

Yes, one can argue that a multitone test signal is more accurate.