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.