gabriel g.
Member
As a non-whiner owner of Slate Drums Platinum+Trigger+FX-G, can I have VC for free?
me too?
Slate Digital FG-X Mastering Processor
- Thread starter Josh Burgess
- Start date
me too?
gabriel g.
Member
I bet he did it already
Ha, yeah... I'm sure he's probably had a chance to play with it, but will he use it and consider it a must-have improvement? though I'm sure he wouldn't have to pay for it... heh
And even more importantly, does it mean all the albums of his the finalizer was used on aren't clear and punchy? I think not...
gabriel g.
Member
It's quite obvious that he isn't saying that. You're taking meaning from the words that just aren't there.
Well what is your point then?
That one can get punchy and clear mixes without it?
All I'm saying is that the point doesn't need to be made. It is understood by all people here, even Steven.
The point is things like the Finalizer (Sneap) and Ozone (Sturgis) can produce professional, amazing sounding albums among the best of the best for the genre if you know how to use them even though Slate Digital/Yellowmatter and various snobs on Gearslutz would like you to believe otherwise. Stating the FG-X is "better" and pumping up the product with phrases like "it's revolutionary" and "it's a game changer" just isn't realistic. People should use their brains and be objective instead of falling for the hype.
Anyone finding that using a limiter before the FG-X helps tame errant/occasional peaks and sounds less aggressive and better?
I don't need the fgx yet, but hope there is a discount for ssd plat for the vcc, can't wait for this
Hi Joshua. People have been using workarounds to make the limiting process better for years. A lot of guys have to use eq, and lots of little tricks like stacked compressors before the limiters. If you do enough, results can be passible.
With FG-X, you do not need to do this. It preserves the transients extremely well, and leaves the audio spectrum virtually unaffected.. ie no low end mud buildup etc..
To prove this, I posted demos showing it off, and even compared it to the Ozone, pound for pound on various settings. Are you saying that you thought the Ozone demo that I posted was as true to the mix as the FG-X example? Let me know. Perhaps you can't hear a difference? You tell me.
To my ears, the Ozone vs FG-X needs no debating. But its not a fair comparison because the FG-X uses a whole new process for loud, Ozone uses either limiting or clipping.
I'm really eager to see what guys like Joey and Andy can do now with the power of a tool like the FG-X.
BTW, here is the FG-X using Transient enhancement vs no Enhancement so you guys can hear the difference.. in both cases the transients are preserved very well.. the one with the transient enhancement has a bit more "smack"
with transient enhancement:
www.slatedigital.com/fgdemo/Rock2FGX.wav
transient knobs at 0:
www.slatedigital.com/fgdemo/Rock2FGX2.wav
I'm not saying that good engineers have not found ways to make loud acceptable.. they have. But now with FG-X, they can take it to the next level.. Its now the preferred method amongst more then a few engineers at Sterling Sound, the to mastering facility on the planet.
With FG-X, you do not need to do this. It preserves the transients extremely well, and leaves the audio spectrum virtually unaffected.. ie no low end mud buildup etc..
To prove this, I posted demos showing it off, and even compared it to the Ozone, pound for pound on various settings. Are you saying that you thought the Ozone demo that I posted was as true to the mix as the FG-X example? Let me know. Perhaps you can't hear a difference? You tell me.
To my ears, the Ozone vs FG-X needs no debating. But its not a fair comparison because the FG-X uses a whole new process for loud, Ozone uses either limiting or clipping.
I'm really eager to see what guys like Joey and Andy can do now with the power of a tool like the FG-X.
BTW, here is the FG-X using Transient enhancement vs no Enhancement so you guys can hear the difference.. in both cases the transients are preserved very well.. the one with the transient enhancement has a bit more "smack"
with transient enhancement:
www.slatedigital.com/fgdemo/Rock2FGX.wav
transient knobs at 0:
www.slatedigital.com/fgdemo/Rock2FGX2.wav
I'm not saying that good engineers have not found ways to make loud acceptable.. they have. But now with FG-X, they can take it to the next level.. Its now the preferred method amongst more then a few engineers at Sterling Sound, the to mastering facility on the planet.
arv_foh
Brian K
I find it hard to believe that some of the most popular mastering engineers on the planet are mastering songs at the rates they are charging with a $300 plugin that anyone can buy. Just sayin'...
Thats ridiculous. Do you think they have some magic hardware or software that only pro mastering engineers are allowed to have?
No no. They use the same digital stuff everyone does. In fact, a ton of them use the Waves L2, TC MD3, and a little more hard to find but in use is the Cube Tec Loudness Maximizer which is my favorite limiter if I have to use one (it appears to have an internal clipper so its not really all limiting). I know a very famous mastering engineer who loves the Waves De-esser and uses it all the time. Sure they have some nice outboard that you're not gonna be able to afford unless you're making serious coin, like a Sontec 432 Mastering EQ, but for the plugins, they can only use what is available.
A lot of them now are switching to FG-X. Hell, Dave McNair of Sterling has been using it for months and gave us some very kind words to use in our press release. We've got a lot of the top guys in LA mastering facilities raving about it as well, you'll see more of them speak up about it soon.
No no. They use the same digital stuff everyone does. In fact, a ton of them use the Waves L2, TC MD3, and a little more hard to find but in use is the Cube Tec Loudness Maximizer which is my favorite limiter if I have to use one (it appears to have an internal clipper so its not really all limiting). I know a very famous mastering engineer who loves the Waves De-esser and uses it all the time. Sure they have some nice outboard that you're not gonna be able to afford unless you're making serious coin, like a Sontec 432 Mastering EQ, but for the plugins, they can only use what is available.
A lot of them now are switching to FG-X. Hell, Dave McNair of Sterling has been using it for months and gave us some very kind words to use in our press release. We've got a lot of the top guys in LA mastering facilities raving about it as well, you'll see more of them speak up about it soon.
Sacha
Throbbing Member
Been demoing this for the last couple of days and definitely impressed. FG-X is more clear and open and retains more of the punch and frequency response of the original mix then my previous mastering chain (Ozone + Elephant and some other things).
However I'm having a bit of trouble with crackling here and there still and would like to mitigate that more. This is on a mix I didn't do and I'm still new to using the tool of course but still. Levels are -9.7 RMS so not too nutty.
Ozone has distortion too at the same level but seems to distribute it more as a fuzz or haze in certain areas while the FG-X is more of an obvious clip.
Anyway i'm certainly no mastering wizard but FG-X is a powerful tool so far.
However I'm having a bit of trouble with crackling here and there still and would like to mitigate that more. This is on a mix I didn't do and I'm still new to using the tool of course but still. Levels are -9.7 RMS so not too nutty.
Ozone has distortion too at the same level but seems to distribute it more as a fuzz or haze in certain areas while the FG-X is more of an obvious clip.
Anyway i'm certainly no mastering wizard but FG-X is a powerful tool so far.
Hi enditol, thanks for the review. Regarding the crackling, drop the ITP a bit, if that doesn't work, examine the lows on the mix.
I have an update coming that will make it more forgiving on mixes with big bursts of sub bass which could cause issues.. we're working it out now within the algo. To be clear, with a balanced mix the FG-X can get very loud with a high ITP.. but problematic mixes can be harder.
Remember also that you can automate the ITP down for certain sections.
I have an update coming that will make it more forgiving on mixes with big bursts of sub bass which could cause issues.. we're working it out now within the algo. To be clear, with a balanced mix the FG-X can get very loud with a high ITP.. but problematic mixes can be harder.
Remember also that you can automate the ITP down for certain sections.
Max Morton
Member
So eager to hear that update. in fact, i'm still trying FX-G on every mix I'm working on just to get into the plugin's behavior. I'm among the ones who did not really like the first demo, I've even heard rumors that the things are way cooler with the full version of the plugin.
Currently, with the faster stuff, the demo does get things quite muddy, where other plugins do not. With slower and punchier stuff it rocks, and i love using it with a bit lower ITP and a bit of clipping before FX-G.
Currently, with the faster stuff, the demo does get things quite muddy, where other plugins do not. With slower and punchier stuff it rocks, and i love using it with a bit lower ITP and a bit of clipping before FX-G.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
Definitely, though to my discredit I was over-using the limiter, so my first test masters with FG-X sounded too choked as a result. There is a great middle-ground to be had there, I'm sure of it.
The FG-X doesn't get muddy unless you're cranking the transient knobs too much on the wrong mix.. can you post a snippet of your mix? I'm really eager to show you proper settings and hear the mix..
Similar threads
