1.) No one is claiming the software isn't math all DSP is math. The distinction is between theoretical math and empirical math: Standard algorithmic clippers usually rely on textbook formulas (like simple hard-clipping algorithms or basic waveshaping curves etc... They represent how a perfect, theoretical circuit should behave. Empirical modeling, however, relies on data derived from physical measurements of real hardware. Real hardware has microscopic flaws, component drift, thermal reactions, and phase shifts. SIMA uses iterative nulling to map out exactly what the hardware actually does,,, translating those physical imperfections into complex math, rather than just using a clean, theoretical equation. for your second question about breaking down,, - by breaking down i mean other clipper plugins break apart faster versus sima. 2.) "Pressure" refers to extreme gain staging and transient load. In a mastering context,.. it means driving a massive complex transient-heavy signal (like a dense mix with heavy 808s and sharp snares) into the clippers ceiling to achieve maximum LUFS. When you slam a standard algorithmic clipper with that much "pressure" (high amplitude and heavy saturation),,, the resulting harmonic generation gets chaotic. A hardware converter (and empirical models like SIMA) absorbs that extreme electrical pressure gracefully, folding the transients into rich, odd order harmonics rather than choking on the math.. Im not disputing there are mastering engineers on this forum, but so far it seems most of you guys replying are extremely biased, not listening to my replies, and quite literally coming to conclusions without even trying the damn plugin. Do a quick search on youtube you can find examples. Also go on "Mastering Engineers Wordwide" facebook group and make your claims, youll be debunked at every step. Ignorance is bliss.

 

I've worked with a Lavry Gold/Quintessence combo for multiple months. The guy running the studio insisted that the signal path had to be hardware only, so with "only" the Gold, a Weiss DS1 mk3 and a Bettermaker Limiter at my disposal for limiting, I have my bit of experience with the unit.

Obviously the Weiss and Bettermaker were much better limiters than the Gold, as they were actually designed for this (it's even the Bettermaker's sole purpose). But I'd also say that the best plugins out there perform even better, at least to my ears.

 

man, you are actually proving my point for me without realizing it.

you are 100% right that the famous Lavry saturation happens in the analog domain before quantization.. but your missing the whole point, this is exactly why top tier AD converters can be pushed significantly harder than standard digital clippers. an analog front end absorbs massive transient energy with natural harmonic saturation and physical component compression. A purely digital algorithmic clipper just rigidly chops the top of the waveform off, which creates harsh aliasing and nasty imd when you really slam it.

as for your StandardClip point, this highlights exactly what i was saying about theoretical vs empirical math. yes, StandardClip perfectly models the theoretical mathematical curve of that compression ratio (12 into 6, etc). but a real Lavry AD converter is a physical circuit.. it doesn't just react with a static perfect polynomial curve. it has frequency dependent saturation, complex transient recovery, and physical component nuances. StandardClip gives you the textbook math of the curve; SIMA gives you the actual physical behavior of the hardware under load because it was derived via iterative nulling.

i will actually agree with you on one thing: a purely rounded, heavy soft-knee transfer function can be too soft for heavy pop or dance music where you want that aggressive, squared-off digital transient. if you are purely looking for a rigid hard-clip, soft saturation isn't the move...

but that is exactly why your critique of SIMA falls flat here ,,, you are assuming SIMA is just a 1:1 static clone of the soft knee. its not. SIMA has continuously morphable transfer curves. you can dial the transfer knob entirely to "Hard" for that exact aggressive pop/dance transient at the converter ceiling at 0db. the difference is, because of the Dynamic Bias engine, it actually protects your low end kick and sub from getting smeared by IMD while doing it.

Lavry clipping is clearly an absolute beast of a unit, its a flex because top mastering engineers have used it for decades to achieve record breaking LUFS without digital harshness. SIMA just took that physical behavior, fixed the limitations (like adding the dynamic low-end bias)), and put it in the box. Are you more correct than bob katz or other top tier Mastering engineers? i dont think so.

 

dood, now you are introducing even more made-up nonsense words?

empirical math?

do you think it makes you look interesting to talk about things nobody ese beside you knows?

which is why you dont use them for mastering because that is unwanted there.

ok. "breaking down" means "breaking apart".

but that raises a new question: what does "breaking apart" mean?

why would anyone in the world do this to music.

why would anyone do this in a mastering context.

a dense signal but with sharp transients?

why would anyone do that?

do you have ANY idea what mastering means and how it is done?

no, it doesnt.

electronic components get chaotic. waveshaping the instantenous amplitude signal always causes the same, completely predictable distortion.

which is *drumroll* basically... no distortion. like it should be.

you probably also think that people who believe in climate change or deny that the world is a flat are also "extremely biased."

oh yes right, but the patent troll mr. katz says it is good! how could i overlook that.
sure, mr. katz once was his teacher, why wouldt he do him that favor? he has been doing it for about 150 other plug-ins before.

 

So, you're an anonymous supporter that's not the dev but acts like a brat crying over a plugin to try and justify the "otherwordly" quality the thing has. Yeah, this sounds like some "fake it till you make it" bs, my boy.

Let's get one thing straight, if no one notices the "quality" and "differences" that your plugin makes, it can be an engineering marvel, but still doesn't do what others do, plain and simple. This is exactly why you can buy a $2.500USD Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and buy an Oppo Find N6 and have functionally the same phone, regardless of the "impressive" manufacturing quality that Samsung has, for less money and a less reputable brand.

What works is what shows. A good example can be KCip by Kazrog. StandardCLIP, Gold Clip, Uni-L, Master Plan, etc. And it's one of the best clippers out there, free, totally. So, this "SIMA" clearly has some point to be presented that other tools in the market, even if not popular, can still outperform paid tools by top tier manufacturers. The thing is that no one is using that argument.

You're essentially crying over a product review, which is completely subjective, biased and cannot be reproduced, it's not like you can sit 100 producers in the same studio, with their own setups and workflows and create the perfect analysis for them to say the most neutral thing ever. Hell, is it even a problem if the plugin is just mediocre? A second version can be created, updates can upgrade it, feedback comes a long way. Why act so petty?

I seriously doubt that you're not implicated with this project, and i don't even care if you are. But by the way that you're framing everyone to get them to "Outperform" your facts and technical knowledge on the product with some rule-em-all statement is petty and honestly ridiculous. It's just an opinion, mate, earth will keep spinning

 

I'm really not aware of anyone at Sterling using anything else but common market plugins over the last decade. As for Tom Coyne, although he was using outboard EQ, he was hard clipping innthe box, post final limiter, with a super old Waves plugin (there are not many that hard clip at 0, feel free to take a look).

Much of my favourite music was mastered at Sterling, some solid tracks by Tom Coyne, but I can't say any fave mastered by Katz I only looked at his masters on discogs and I recognized just one name: Olivia Newton John. Guy seems more like a book author than a mastering engineer for AAA artists

 

I doubt that he is involved in the project in any way. His knowledge of DSP is clearly superficial (so he's not a dev) and he makes this otherwise fine-but-nothing-special product sound like absolute snake oil (so not a salesman, or the worst one).

 

its like arguing with 5 year olds jeezus. i didnt know all of you know more than bob katz, bob macc, or all of the other top engineers who now use this plugin in their mastering chain.

 

your telling me bobs knowledge of DSP is superficial. lmao, im done..

 

Oh I didn't know I was talking to you Bob. You were talking about yourself in third-person, and spouting nonsense... Please understand my confusion

 

Who cares what Katz has to say. Dudes a dinosaur, and someone mastering acoustic music may not have the right ear for a pushed clipper. All these guys are shills anyways. Highly doubt he's actually using this plugin. Even if he is, good for him. It doesn't change the fact that this is just another clipper.

Your argument that I haven't trialed enough..... I have. I listen on PMC's, Focal's, in a masterfully treated room. Its just another clipper. It has extra features with important sounding names, but thats about it. Two of the main selling points are literally just a dynamic low band, and a push / pull EQ. Features that most people have already been using for a long time.

 

Just trolling rage-bait.

 

why has this idiotic thread been allow to continue?

 

Yes, BUT: may I throw in the relevancy question? Yes those signals ARE different. And the amount of difference is -90db. That is a value so low that is barely printable in 16bit because it would drown in quantisation noise. That difference is so low, that no golden ears on planet earth will stand a blind test.

 

I have to give it to OP, he comes to the discussion saying that everyone is wrong about something that no one is talking about, then keeps arguing while saying he has no stake on the product and keeps name-dropping Bob Katz ad nauseam. This is some crazy effort.

That said, this is probably 2026's (unintentionally?) funniest thread and most of the claims in the OP would give nightmares to the unpaid editors at Wikipedia, for the lack of citations.

 

"wow i can really hear the character at -90dB from the clipper that the mastering engineer used, it's definitely the thing that made this music sound good and all other music sounds like trash to me now" - totally every music listener in the world from this moment on

 

Clippers should be used for fingernails only. Anything claiming to be 'driven harder than any clipper on the market, without exception' while backed by anonymous mastering engineers and a homemade definition of 'null' belongs in the bathroom drawer next to the nail file, not your master bus. -90dB residual isn't a hidden well of proprietary musicality, it's just... quiet. That's what quiet sounds like. You've discovered noise floor and marketed it as a personality trait.

 

Last edited: Jul 26, 2026 at 9:42 AM

It is pretty expensive for a clipper but then I remembered that Ash2 (being also a clipper) normal price is 199 euros, so in that sense I guess they're in the same ballpark. Though I don't know how the feature sets compare...

 

"At first you will be underwhelmed, but" is exactly what your new age healer says when he wants you to spend your life savings on him trying to heal your cancer.

 

Clipper Plugin SIMA is not a clipper is a combo unit and it sucks.