Opinions on Slate Digital FG-X?
- Thread starter ForefrontStudio
- Start date
Josh Burgess
Member
The best things about Ozone 5 are the intelligent algorithms II and III & the ability to completely unlink the left and right sides of the stereo field. I really like the way the snare comes through when you use the limiter with stereo unlinked. It sounds transparent, it's used by Sneap, Sturgis, and many others, and it gets the job done. Haven't looked back and don't intend to.
Matt-Steele
Member
The key with FG-X is to know how to adjust the ITP according to how loud your mix is, and how much transient to resonant response is in your mix. I've personally not been able to make my mixes as transparently loud with any processor.. but then again, I now instinctually know how to set it. Ted Jensen and Howie Weinberg use the FG-X all the time, and are also two greats in the mastering field.
As always, if you have problems, want to compare it with your settings on an Ozone or Fab Filter, send it over to slate@stevenslate.com and I'll get to it asap.
Cheers.
Steven
As always, if you have problems, want to compare it with your settings on an Ozone or Fab Filter, send it over to slate@stevenslate.com and I'll get to it asap.
Cheers.
Steven
Rhorschack
Member
Anybody tried the Pro-L by Fabfilter ?
Personnally I found it to be the easiest and most efficient tool when you need to get as loud as possible without altering your mix too much.
After trying Fg-x and Ozone, that's been my new goto limiter for the past few years.
Personnally I found it to be the easiest and most efficient tool when you need to get as loud as possible without altering your mix too much.
After trying Fg-x and Ozone, that's been my new goto limiter for the past few years.
I like FGX for what it's worth, for so little on the screen it does take a while to get used to.. Now I don't use the compressor, it seems to get in the way and strangle slighty. It works best IMO with VTM or Ampex, which does slight compression and polishes things off.. For some reason as well, I noticed the detail knob can make things boxy and the lo-punch can wreck a car stereo.. It does take some getting used to..
Hey Steven, stupid question but are we mistaking this for a master limiter and it actually is best used on multiple tracks/busses? Is there a video of someone setting this up properly?
The compressor can actually add some tightness to the bottom which is really perfect for sending to the level module. As for the transient knobs, it seems like you might be pushing them too hard. Use them subtly for a more effective master. I rarely push them past 10 o'clock.
Always on the master exclusively for me.
Cheers,
Steven
Matt-Steele
Member
I'll bite...
Here are a few samples I did a while ago testing out Ozone vs FG-X. Mind you, this was the mix I was working on the night I bought Ozone, so there was literally no experience with the plug in. The FG-X I've been using since it came out so I have a lot more experience with it.
See what you guys think...
FG-X - https://www.dropbox.com/s/kgis8dce86xtx0m/Matt Steele Instrumental Koloss.mp3
Ozone - https://www.dropbox.com/s/vt8r3bmjd2xa2qg/Matt Steele Instrumental Ozone2.mp3
Ozone pushed much louder than FG-X would allow - https://www.dropbox.com/s/mw6p7dze01js9zk/Matt Steele Instrumental Ozone.mp3
That was a great song btw; and I liked the "vs" but at low volume, the FG-X one makes the guitar sound louder and dynamic. Anyone else notice that? Ozone pushed other things up while compressing the lead guitar more (made for a nice level mix though). Even some of the rhythm guitars on the FG-X one cut through better...way more dynamic.
The last one was awesome and everything, I was going by the first two. A little confused now, but yeah that one is beating both in loudness...I want those dynamics of FG-X with the loudness of the last one!
I'd pay for the last mix if I had to choose, and I was a band wanting the mastering done (that aren't a bunch of gear heads like us...and likely chose that one personally), but cool to have a sound that is clearly the exact mix sound I'm used to hearing before I insert "Mastering plugin X."
What does Steven hear & think?
The last one was awesome and everything, I was going by the first two. A little confused now, but yeah that one is beating both in loudness...I want those dynamics of FG-X with the loudness of the last one!
I'd pay for the last mix if I had to choose, and I was a band wanting the mastering done (that aren't a bunch of gear heads like us...and likely chose that one personally), but cool to have a sound that is clearly the exact mix sound I'm used to hearing before I insert "Mastering plugin X."
What does Steven hear & think?
Matt-Steele
Member
Thanks for the feedback TLTD! For the record, I don't have the advanced version of Ozone yet so I don't have the transient recovery option, so the mixes would probably be more punchy with the advanced option. I thought why not give a few examples of both since we're all discussing the software though.
In my opinion, I felt the third test was too crushed and very loud. But it's refreshing to know I can get my mixes that loud if need be. With FG-X, if I remember correctly, that mix was pushed just about as loud as it would let me. I couldn't get louder. I thought the first two were quite comparable in volume so I thought those were the two to better judge the algorithms.
With FG-X, I get little pops and clicks and it always feels as if the low frequencies are distorting on me. With Ozone, I feel I get a cleaner/less muddy final master with no fuss. Like I said, these samples were made the first day I bought Ozone. I was happier with the Ozone masters. If Im still doing something wrong with FG-X, Im happy to try any suggestions.
Thanks for checking them out.
I agree with you. I loved how fgx sounded but I could make ozone cleaner. I'll probably pick up fgx this year
Matt can you send me the original mix? I have a feeling with the right setting I can get the FG-X version louder and punchier with no artifacts.
Cheers,
Steven
Cheers,
Steven
Matt-Steele
Member
Steven, I know you're super busy. So if you can't get to this, no biggie. I'd rather have VBC.
Here's the link to the mix file without any limiter what so ever... This one is a .wav file so it's bigger than the other samples.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ztvqyodu6zozj2l/Matt Steele Instrumental.wav
Here's a screenshot of the FG-X settings I used...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t844u2911jbptqo/fg_x_settings.jpg
Steven, your insight is much appreciated. Thank you!
I was using it on a metal track, the compressor strangled the guitars for some reason? Although the best thing I noticed about FGX as a limiter is it doesn't strangle the drums, so they can remain fat adn dynamic. That's why it became my go to Limiter.
Normally I try to get the mix as 100% as possible so it was a case of playing around with knobs and observing what works.. The dynamic perception knob is excellent. Like TL says it makes the guitars louder and more dynamic, it really fits in to give the whole track a bit of punch.
Contra Studio
Member
Hey Steve, I dig your FGx and all, but it seems the issue with some folks, my self included don't full understand hot to use it. I'm one of those guys that when I see how something is explained then my brain grabs around it way better. Maybe show us a tutorial of how to apply FGx on our METAL mix. Get one of those interns you just hired to make one. Again I live your products but I do find FGx a bit hard to work with, I to feel my mix lack the db lvl that other other products offer, again it might be cause I'm stupid and need mommy to hold my hand through it. Thanks
Well not sure if this helps, but I use either Ampex or VTM to place a bit of compression on the master and also use VCC for some harmonic saturation. On FGX I add some dynamic perception up to around 10 / 11 o' clock then finally crank the limiter to around -10 / -9 RMS and it seems as loud as any other production (Also don't use the compressor, due to ampex or VCC). Slate might have a better way, but it seems to work for me.
Obviously there is the rest of the chain, EQ / MB compressor if you need it.
Hi Matt, I'm gonna get to this now and I dig the idea of making a video tutorial as well. As for the compressor, the most common mistake I see is people trying to over do it.. with the FG-Comp, I hear a lot of effect with the needle juuuuust barely moving. I've watched Howie Weinberg do so much mastering at my place and he almost never even uses a compressor. It's handy when needed for a bit of glue, but most of the time just using the FG-Level can do the trick.
I'll be back with some files.
Cheers,
Steven
I'll be back with some files.
Cheers,
Steven
Matt-Steele
Member
Steven, sweet! I'm actually excited to hear what you can do and hopefully show me how I'm using FG-X incorrectly. If you could take a screenshot or something with the settings you use or a description of what had to be done, that would be very helpful.
As for a video tutorial for FG-X... You've already made one.
Is this not sufficient?
Last edited by a moderator:
So, I'm quite surprised after hearing the original mix. If the Ozone attempt was to make a louder version of the original mix, it was way off to my ears. The stereo image was completely collapsed, the definition and separation of the stereo guitars is gone, there is an overall mirkiness and boominess to the sound as if there as cloth over it, and the hi hat is harsher, brighter, and sounds nothing like its original version which audibly 'rings' like a hi hat should. I'm not bashing the Ozone, I'm just telling you what I hear as compared to the original mix.
Matt thanks for posting the FG-X settings. When listening to your song, the first thing I noticed was that there was a lot of low end. Therefore, I chose to be very conservative with compression, lo punch, and didn't use any Dynamic perception on the FG-X. I pulled down the ITP a bit to avoid very audible crackling, although one more notch down would have really cleaned it up at the expense of a little bit of snap. Overall, I would have like to have peaked this out at -9.5RMS, but for the sake of this thread, I went louder... although I think anyone who goes to -7.5RMS is doing their music a GREAT disservice and I plead you to not do it.
Here are my FG-X settings:
www.stevenslate.com/limiter/settings.png
Here is my mix.. I did put a hi pass filter before the FG-X at around 40Hz to improve the headroom going into the processor.
www.stevenslate.com/limiter/FGXSlateEQ2.wav
Overall, I think the clarity, dynamics, imaging, depth, bottom tightness, and top end are far superior. Again, at -9.5RMS this would be extremely punchy and likely not far off at all from the original mix.. At -7.5 RMS there is a bit of compromise but if I had to go this loud, I'd certainly choose this one by a long shot. If you level match with the mix, it's no contest as to which preserves the original's frequency response and dynamics better.
I'll do another pass later where I'll filter the bottom a bit cleaner which will allow the FG-X to perform a bit better. Overall, what this is showing me is that we need to improve the ease of use and automatic detection for the next FG-X version.. We have some ideas to help this along.
Cheers,
Steven
Matt thanks for posting the FG-X settings. When listening to your song, the first thing I noticed was that there was a lot of low end. Therefore, I chose to be very conservative with compression, lo punch, and didn't use any Dynamic perception on the FG-X. I pulled down the ITP a bit to avoid very audible crackling, although one more notch down would have really cleaned it up at the expense of a little bit of snap. Overall, I would have like to have peaked this out at -9.5RMS, but for the sake of this thread, I went louder... although I think anyone who goes to -7.5RMS is doing their music a GREAT disservice and I plead you to not do it.
Here are my FG-X settings:
www.stevenslate.com/limiter/settings.png
Here is my mix.. I did put a hi pass filter before the FG-X at around 40Hz to improve the headroom going into the processor.
www.stevenslate.com/limiter/FGXSlateEQ2.wav
Overall, I think the clarity, dynamics, imaging, depth, bottom tightness, and top end are far superior. Again, at -9.5RMS this would be extremely punchy and likely not far off at all from the original mix.. At -7.5 RMS there is a bit of compromise but if I had to go this loud, I'd certainly choose this one by a long shot. If you level match with the mix, it's no contest as to which preserves the original's frequency response and dynamics better.
I'll do another pass later where I'll filter the bottom a bit cleaner which will allow the FG-X to perform a bit better. Overall, what this is showing me is that we need to improve the ease of use and automatic detection for the next FG-X version.. We have some ideas to help this along.
Cheers,
Steven
