Yeah, when using the FG-X there is a new way of thinking.. throw out all the old rules.. such as trying to diminish the dynamics before hitting the processor. Let the FG-X handle the transients, thats what it likes!
Slate Digital FG-X Mastering Processor
- Thread starter Josh Burgess
- Start date
Yeah, when using the FG-X there is a new way of thinking.. throw out all the old rules.. such as trying to diminish the dynamics before hitting the processor. Let the FG-X handle the transients, thats what it likes!
arv_foh
Brian K
I wasn't calling you a liar or anything Slate, I was hoping you would set me straight and you did... I was referring more to the "unaffordable" gear that you mentioned. It's just the way you talk, you make it seem as if they're only using FG-X to master, but at the same time they could be running it through some insane chain of 50k+ gear in addition to FG-X to get the results that they're getting.
Max Morton
Member
With great pleasure (Slate drums in there, btw
)!http://www.maxmorton.com/Clip4Slate.rar
Speaking of muddiness - I'm not blaming the plugin, I'm saying that i can't find the approach to it, at least while tweaking the demo. And it is not a matter of transient knobs - especially the bass knob - I always leave it at zero, but well.. Your proposition is the most useful argument, thanks
Lasse Lammert
HCAF Blitzkrieg
I'll be honest, all this "this is the best thing on the planet, it stomps on all the other tried and tested mastering tools and then takes a dump on them" is driving me further away from even trying the demo.
I like detailed descriptions of what it's doing and how, the current marketing strategy reminds me too much of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuFTP5qBTUk
not how I'm buying my stuff, "this is the best in the world" is always setting the expectations up to be let down by the actual thing...just like trigger did when it came out (it was marketed as revolutionary, game changing...and actually we were just beta testers trying to get a plugin to work that was flawed to begin with (might be 1.5 is working like it should, haven't tried it yet)....anyways, I'm feeling like I'm being taken for a ride by these over-the-topn marketing strategies...might be different in the US, but over here a more humble and realistic approach would sell more.
I like detailed descriptions of what it's doing and how, the current marketing strategy reminds me too much of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuFTP5qBTUk
not how I'm buying my stuff, "this is the best in the world" is always setting the expectations up to be let down by the actual thing...just like trigger did when it came out (it was marketed as revolutionary, game changing...and actually we were just beta testers trying to get a plugin to work that was flawed to begin with (might be 1.5 is working like it should, haven't tried it yet)....anyways, I'm feeling like I'm being taken for a ride by these over-the-topn marketing strategies...might be different in the US, but over here a more humble and realistic approach would sell more.
gabriel g.
Member
Lasse you might be right, but for me (and my setup) the two plugins fullfilled every promise Steven made.
I had zero problems with the first trigger version, it was and is triggering like it ment to be.
FG-X pisses IMO on every software limiter. I was never a friend of Ozone (so I didnt tried the latest version)
but for me FG-X is somehow THE holy grail.
I dont own a finalizer so I can compare it but isnt the finalizer more then just a clipper and comp?
So to compare the two it would only make sense if the comps and leveler, not the multi-band section.
Dont know if my words count in anyway but for me FG-X and Trigger are game-changers.
And to be honest, it is interesting to read what anybody else is using (like Sturgis and Andy) but I have to find tools that work for me and my workflow.
yeah it is written in stone that sturgis and ANDY makes killah records with their tools, but that doesnt mean I could do the same with their tools.
Steven, please build the "subs/lows forgiveness" as a seperate feature, this plugin actually helps build more balanced mixes.
Thanks,
akarawd
Thanks,
akarawd
Lasse Lammert
HCAF Blitzkrieg
I HATE Ozone with a passion (and every other software limiter)
yes it is more....but FG-X is also marketed as being more than just a clipper/limiter, it's marketed as a mastering tool...(well, actually as the one and only, better than anything else be all end all mastering tool...if that doesn't sound like a set up for dissappointment )..
so FG-X vs. Finalizer is Mastering Tool vs. Mastering Tool...indeed a fair comparison in my book, especially after this marketing hype.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Slate or his product, Slate has always been kickass and I haven't even tried the FG-X yet, so I'm definitely not saying anything about it (cause I can't), all I'm saying is that this kamikaze-marketing is driving me away from even trying it, cause I'm easily aggitated by stuff like that and if it turns out to not be the solution of all problems it's being advertised as, I'll sit in front of my project being angy...and I have too much work to do atm to spend time being angry
with a more humble and realistic mareting I'd probably have tried it already and if I'd liked it probably even bought.
....reminds me too much of how religious groups and cults recruit their people....give me FACTS about the plugin and tell me how it WORKS instead of telling me how awesome it is and that it's better than anything else on the planet
gabriel g.
Member
Fair call Lasse. But I tell you this Plugin is awsome.I HATE Ozone with a passion (and every other software limiter)
yes it is more....but FG-X is also marketed as being more than just a clipper/limiter, it's marketed as a mastering tool...(well, actually as the one and only, better than anything else be all end all mastering tool...if that doesn't sound like a set up for dissappointment )..
so FG-X vs. Finalizer is Mastering Tool vs. Mastering Tool...indeed a fair comparison in my book, especially after this marketing hype.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Slate or his product, Slate has always been kickass and I haven't even tried the FG-X yet, so I'm definitely not saying anything about it (cause I can't), all I'm saying is that this kamikaze-marketing is driving me away from even trying it, cause I'm easily aggitated by stuff like that and if it turns out to not be the solution of all problems it's being advertised as, I'll sit in front of my project being angy...and I have too much work to do atm to spend time being angry
with a more humble and realistic mareting I'd probably have tried it already and if I'd liked it probably even bought.
....reminds me too much of how religious groups and cults recruit their people....give me FACTS about the plugin and tell me how it WORKS instead of telling me how awesome it is and that it's better than anything else on the planet
When you find the Time, just try it
abt
BT
I HATE Ozone with a passion (and every other software limiter)
yes it is more....but FG-X is also marketed as being more than just a clipper/limiter, it's marketed as a mastering tool...(well, actually as the one and only, better than anything else be all end all mastering tool...if that doesn't sound like a set up for dissappointment )..
so FG-X vs. Finalizer is Mastering Tool vs. Mastering Tool...indeed a fair comparison in my book, especially after this marketing hype.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Slate or his product, Slate has always been kickass and I haven't even tried the FG-X yet, so I'm definitely not saying anything about it (cause I can't), all I'm saying is that this kamikaze-marketing is driving me away from even trying it, cause I'm easily aggitated by stuff like that and if it turns out to not be the solution of all problems it's being advertised as, I'll sit in front of my project being angy...and I have too much work to do atm to spend time being angry
with a more humble and realistic mareting I'd probably have tried it already and if I'd liked it probably even bought.
....reminds me too much of how religious groups and cults recruit their people....give me FACTS about the plugin and tell me how it WORKS instead of telling me how awesome it is and that it's better than anything else on the planet
Well I'm guessing you're not an Apple user!
Mastering is part tools but also part engineer. I bet Dave McNair could do a pretty damn good master using a decent plugin eq, compressor, and loudness enhancer.. as long as he's in his room. A lot of mastering is the monitoring system.. there's a reason most of the top guys have some of the best, and most expensive systems.
Lasse, all I can say is what I've been saying. The current method that most DSP companies have gone with loudness is lookahead peak attenuation. This static process isn't really efficient for making things loud imo. So rather then try to recreate another peak attenuator, we made something that handled peaks differently. I think its amazing, but really its for you to decide. I'm sorry if you think the FG-X had a lot of marketing hype. If you were part of the team that created it, I bet you'd be pretty excited about it as well. As someone who has made a career centered around punchy transients, its been really tough hearing my drums get crushedddd during mastering. So this new technology has me really pumped.
I hope you get to try it. I hope everyone can try it.
We've been sent quite a few emails requesting the same thing. We'll have to make a button that will redirect the ITP characteristics to an even more forgiving set of global curves..
But like you already probably know, a good mix can easily be processed with the FG-X without problems, and the processor can really give you a good idea of how good your mix balance is doing.
Max Morton
Member
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
Even better, a clipper can reveal mis-appropriated mids in a heartbeat, because as soon as your solos/leads come in it will be distortion-central. When I was mixing the Untruth EP I realized my RMS was around -7dB without distortion... it was at that point I realized that it would be a fairly special result after Plec was done with it.
I've yet to try mixing into FG-X (hopefully the CPU usage allows it) but I'm hoping it's as revealing and helpful as everyone says. Maybe it will keep those of us used to mixing into clippers retaining more balanced transient content in our mixes. If anything, to push through standard mastering chains you find yourself really pushing the kick and snare levels.
Williamn
Member
Love the plugin, but damn it killed my mix that was using ozone before (distortion). Im a bit behind in the current project so dont have time to tweak it alot to fit with the FG-X.
But im very much looking forward to using it in my next project.
One thing im kinda confused about is the RMS values, it seems like the build in meter is not displaying the correct value (atleast not the same as when I insert a meter after the FG-X).
any reason for this ?
But im very much looking forward to using it in my next project.
One thing im kinda confused about is the RMS values, it seems like the build in meter is not displaying the correct value (atleast not the same as when I insert a meter after the FG-X).
any reason for this ?
Max Morton
Member
Williamn: there are different metering standards, you can chose them in some programs, say, voxengo elephant. So if it's around -10 in one program, it's -7 in another. FX-G shows the "louder" value in this case.
Ermz: oh yes. lead/solo parts demand even more attentive mixing and automation with clipper on the masterbus.
Ermz: oh yes. lead/solo parts demand even more attentive mixing and automation with clipper on the masterbus.
FG-X shows realtime RMS so it'll be different if your other metering device can't do realtime.. if more explanation is needed, lemme know!
gabriel g.
Member
Steven RMS is root mean square.
This means average dB over a timeline.
How do you guys handle that "realtime" thing?
Isnt the best way to measure the RMS of a song, to playback the full song and then read out the dB?
This would also be a great feaute for the fg-x.
1.activate rms-reading on the fg-x
2.play the song
3.stop the song
4.fg-x gives you the real RMS level.
cheers
This means average dB over a timeline.
How do you guys handle that "realtime" thing?
Isnt the best way to measure the RMS of a song, to playback the full song and then read out the dB?
This would also be a great feaute for the fg-x.
1.activate rms-reading on the fg-x
2.play the song
3.stop the song
4.fg-x gives you the real RMS level.
cheers
Max Morton
Member
well, rms over a song won't give anything - it depends on the song structure. it's much more correct to measure the "short loud piece" then a long piece with lots of pauses in it.
but a preference selection of a timeline length might be cool (if there is no such selection right now).
but a preference selection of a timeline length might be cool (if there is no such selection right now).
jangoux
Member
- May 9, 2006
- 1,808
- 0
- 36
Steven, One question for ya: You say FG-X handles 'balanced' mixes well, with well 'balanced' low end. But how it deals, for example, with reggae? I've got a couple reference reggae records that have really LOUD sub bass and bass frequencies and are far from balanced, might i say. Even the compressors we use, hardware GSSL and Cytonic The Glue have some trouble with this amount of bass frequencies and need to be used in a more subtle way.
Btw, i have yet to test it on my stuff..Ozone is leaving this 'plastic' feeling on everything i use it on (kinda like that Alesis crap CD recorder with a built in limiter), so if FG-X can give me the same loudness, without these artifacts, it will be gold for me.
Btw, i have yet to test it on my stuff..Ozone is leaving this 'plastic' feeling on everything i use it on (kinda like that Alesis crap CD recorder with a built in limiter), so if FG-X can give me the same loudness, without these artifacts, it will be gold for me.
Similar threads
