Slate Digital FG-X Mastering Processor
- Thread starter Josh Burgess
- Start date
~BURNY~
Member
- Apr 20, 2005
- 5,091
- 67
- 48
I haven't regretted my purchase for a split second. I don't know what sort of miracle some of guys expect.
I don't want my mixes to be even louder but I love the control it gives over transients and the increased clarity sensation you get as a result.
I got similar results in the past combining limiting, saturation and transient designers but this is much more convenient.
I don't want my mixes to be even louder but I love the control it gives over transients and the increased clarity sensation you get as a result.
I got similar results in the past combining limiting, saturation and transient designers but this is much more convenient.
BLUElightCory
Member
After trying the FG-X out on a couple of mixes, I'm pretty floored by the transparency of this plug. Using the auto-gain feature and A/B-ing the plug (gained up to -10 vs. bypassing it) there's almost no difference in sound. The extra transient/dynamics controls and the compressor are icing on the cake.
Goddammit.
Goddammit.
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
I don't think it is a replacement for Ozone at all. A limiter/clipper/compressor is only the final bit on the chain, admittedly one with a lot of sonic power and impact and loudness. But you still need a balanced mix and a balanced frequency spectrum.
Ozone has the rest of the tools you need. A great EQ, multiband comp, exciter, scopes, meters, dithering, etc. The only part FG-X would "replace" or compliment would be the Loudness Maximizer/Limiter.
Same goes with say the T-RackS bundle. Only replaces the Brickwall Limiter. Well and I guess the broadband compressor, which many tracks may not even need.
And no doubt, people have been doing killer work and masters with those up till now.
To me FG-X makes it a lot easier. Drums still have punch and the clarity and extra width without being harsh or fatiguing, it sill has breath... and I only had to turn a few knobs !! instead of a careful balance of multiple parameters and multiple plugs. Going to -10 or -11dbRMS comparing with Elephant, Ozone, and T-RackS Brickwall Limiter with a Clipper, or Gclip, and my DBX Quantum... FG-X definitely has something special going on.
Jaymz
Stymphalian Productions
Weird, I tried Ozone and wasn't really impressed by the "ub3r l33t maximizing" section.....I still dig Elephant
Melodeath
Moonbow
I've never had a buried snare with Elephant, tbh. Actually, I've never had a buried snare except when I was using L2 for a brief time
Matt-Steele
Member
Harmonic exciter's color your sound. Many dislike this type of effect, so not everyone may agree with you.
Lasse Lammert
HCAF Blitzkrieg
If this beats my usual Smart C2+Finalizer+apogee combination I'm sold!
I doubt that, but that's just me being sceptic, haven't even tried it yet....looking forward to doing so very soon!
I think Slate and his developers have some great ideas, if this results in a plugin that's actually working like it's supposed to it'll be awesome....so I'm expecting a lot from this plug, hope it's gonna live up to the expectations.
EDIT:
I've just read the description on Slate's site...
(I know, I'm being a drunk smartass atm, sorry )
I doubt that, but that's just me being sceptic, haven't even tried it yet....looking forward to doing so very soon!
I think Slate and his developers have some great ideas, if this results in a plugin that's actually working like it's supposed to it'll be awesome....so I'm expecting a lot from this plug, hope it's gonna live up to the expectations.
EDIT:
I've just read the description on Slate's site...
c'mon lads!!slatedigital said:
(I know, I'm being a drunk smartass atm, sorry
)
Ben Johnson
SSSSSSSSSSSSSS
I actually prefer my hardware comp (GSSL clone). It's not as transparent as the FGX comp, but it seems to have more vibe. But the loudness maximizer can't be beat, IMHO.
late to the game since I couldn't get the site to load all day today at work, but for those with Cubase only the offline render is disabled. All I did to get my renders was a real time export, not difficult at all.
I like the plugin, but I don't think it's that revolutionary. I know I made comments about the compressor being really transparent, and IMO that part of the plugin is great - if that is what you need. I know Josh has been saying that section is useless for him since he uses the Waves SSL bus comp, but I wouldn't say it's nearly as transparent as the FGX comp. So in what instances you'd use either I'd think would depend on the material. If you use the SSL for your mix bus comp, I still don't think grabbing a dB or 2 off the FGX comp is a bad thing, and may allow the other parts of the FGX plug to work more efficiently and transparently.
I still need to do some loud monitoring to really get a feel for the plugin, though. 300 seems kinda steep still, so I don't know if I wanna jump yet.
To reference some of Kazrog's comments, I agree that it can get rid of some of the harshness of ITB work, but I find it less pleasing to the ear to have the ITP slider to high up compared to having it set lower. The manual says that for hard rock and metal, moving it up can help the transients, but I think it does almost too much. Sliding it down to my ears gives it a bit more gloss and glue without killing the transients too much. But I've so far liked it best in the middle. Sometimes I think the effort to preserve transients with ITB is what can make things harsh, not just the limiting and maximizing tools commonly used.
I like the plugin, but I don't think it's that revolutionary. I know I made comments about the compressor being really transparent, and IMO that part of the plugin is great - if that is what you need. I know Josh has been saying that section is useless for him since he uses the Waves SSL bus comp, but I wouldn't say it's nearly as transparent as the FGX comp. So in what instances you'd use either I'd think would depend on the material. If you use the SSL for your mix bus comp, I still don't think grabbing a dB or 2 off the FGX comp is a bad thing, and may allow the other parts of the FGX plug to work more efficiently and transparently.
I still need to do some loud monitoring to really get a feel for the plugin, though. 300 seems kinda steep still, so I don't know if I wanna jump yet.
To reference some of Kazrog's comments, I agree that it can get rid of some of the harshness of ITB work, but I find it less pleasing to the ear to have the ITP slider to high up compared to having it set lower. The manual says that for hard rock and metal, moving it up can help the transients, but I think it does almost too much. Sliding it down to my ears gives it a bit more gloss and glue without killing the transients too much. But I've so far liked it best in the middle. Sometimes I think the effort to preserve transients with ITB is what can make things harsh, not just the limiting and maximizing tools commonly used.
I didn't say it was useless. It's a nice transparent comp. I just don't think I'd use it too much. I like the sound of the waves ssl master bus comp.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
I understand your enthusiasm, Shane, but statements like that ring out with hyperbole.
The cure to the digital mixing thing, as most of us would hopefully know, lies much closer to the source. Putting a 'loudenator', no matter how sophisticated, on your master is not going to be a replacement for knowing what you're doing in the mix, using console saturation and outboard gear.
I have a fairly open view at the moment and am going to give FG-X a shot next to Ozone in the next few hours on a master I did a few days ago. Since everything has already been EQ'd, saturated, compressed and gain staged, it should be an easy process for both plug-ins.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
Taken from my post on Gearslutz:
FG-X vs Ozone 4 Loudness Maximizer - Ultimate Loudness Stress Test
Background: The idea behind this shoot-out is to show each 'maximizer' when pushed to the brink. It's not necessarily a real world representation of the final level to which many of us would master a product, though it is representative of levels that certain dance records have been mastered to already. To add to the test I've exported the tracks as mp3 (albeit 320kbps) to be somewhat representative of the further degradation that tracks are likely to take in this day and age. So you can think of this is a pseudo-realistic stress test.
The files you will hear:
Mix no Processing: This is the mix file that I was sent by the artist, completely untouched except for the bounce to mp3.
Mix with Processing: This is the mix file with my mastering chain on it. Everything except the Ozone 4 Loudness Maximizer and FG-X Level.
Ozone 4 Loudness Maximizer: This is the 'Mix with Processing', with the Loudness Maximizer portion of Ozone 4 enabled.
FG-X Level: This is the 'Mix with Processing', with the FG Level enabled, matching the level of the 'reference' Ozone 4 master.
The files themselves:
Mix no Processing
Mix with Processing
Ozone 4 Loudness Maximizer
FG-X Level
The judgments are for you to make. I did the best I could with FG-X in the 15 minutes that I spent with it. The goal was to match or exceed the punch of the Ozone 4 master at a similarly perceived level.
Cheers.
FG-X vs Ozone 4 Loudness Maximizer - Ultimate Loudness Stress Test
Background: The idea behind this shoot-out is to show each 'maximizer' when pushed to the brink. It's not necessarily a real world representation of the final level to which many of us would master a product, though it is representative of levels that certain dance records have been mastered to already. To add to the test I've exported the tracks as mp3 (albeit 320kbps) to be somewhat representative of the further degradation that tracks are likely to take in this day and age. So you can think of this is a pseudo-realistic stress test.
The files you will hear:
Mix no Processing: This is the mix file that I was sent by the artist, completely untouched except for the bounce to mp3.
Mix with Processing: This is the mix file with my mastering chain on it. Everything except the Ozone 4 Loudness Maximizer and FG-X Level.
Ozone 4 Loudness Maximizer: This is the 'Mix with Processing', with the Loudness Maximizer portion of Ozone 4 enabled.
FG-X Level: This is the 'Mix with Processing', with the FG Level enabled, matching the level of the 'reference' Ozone 4 master.
The files themselves:
Mix no Processing
Mix with Processing
Ozone 4 Loudness Maximizer
FG-X Level
The judgments are for you to make. I did the best I could with FG-X in the 15 minutes that I spent with it. The goal was to match or exceed the punch of the Ozone 4 master at a similarly perceived level.
Cheers.
lolzgreg
Cereal Shipping Sneapster
If I had to make a quick judgment, I'd say that FG-X had a less cloudy midrange when it was slamming the mix.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
Here is another comparison, on rock material this time:
FG-X vs Ozone 4 Loudness Maximizer Part 2 - Rock Mastering
Background: This was a track uploaded by Splat88 for the public to master several months back. What I've included is his original master, my own original master (several months old), done with Ozone 4, and my recent master, done with FG-X and an entirely new mastering chain. As such it's not a scientific A/B comparison, but rather a more real-world test showing how FG-X may lend itself to a different mastering approach from the ground up. I've actually used Ozone 4 in conjunction with FG-X here, but only its stereo width and multiband dynamics sections.
Original Artist Master
Original Ozone 4 Master (several months old)
New FG-X Master
FG-X vs Ozone 4 Loudness Maximizer Part 2 - Rock Mastering
Background: This was a track uploaded by Splat88 for the public to master several months back. What I've included is his original master, my own original master (several months old), done with Ozone 4, and my recent master, done with FG-X and an entirely new mastering chain. As such it's not a scientific A/B comparison, but rather a more real-world test showing how FG-X may lend itself to a different mastering approach from the ground up. I've actually used Ozone 4 in conjunction with FG-X here, but only its stereo width and multiband dynamics sections.
Original Artist Master
Original Ozone 4 Master (several months old)
New FG-X Master
::XeS::
Member
In my opinion FG-X is the better in this last comparison...fuller and less squashed than the Ozone only...I'm listening with little hearphones.
Ermz, how much stereo widening do you usually use?
Ermz, how much stereo widening do you usually use?
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
I only started using widening last week. Up till then I had never used fake stereo widening in my life (apart from widening mono vocal tracks etc. but never on a full mix). If I do, it's usually fairly subtle. The Izotope Wideners anywhere from 1 to 3 are usually plenty for me. What's really cool is that I don't hear anything weird happening with them when I sum back to mono, so I think they're passable. At least to me here they make the mix sound a bit more exciting, especially when the air frequencies are dispersed a bit.
Don't hold me to that though, I'm not a real mastering engineer!
Don't hold me to that though, I'm not a real mastering engineer!
Harry Hughes
âââ¬â¬
- Apr 25, 2009
- 4,353
- 0
- 36
For the Rock master you just posted, FG-X just wins.
More punchy, a little more clarity and a little bigger sounding overall.
The differences for the Cold Divide masters seemed more subtle to me though. Might be partly because it's not a style of music I listen to and know what to really listen for
More punchy, a little more clarity and a little bigger sounding overall.
The differences for the Cold Divide masters seemed more subtle to me though. Might be partly because it's not a style of music I listen to and know what to really listen for
Kazrog
Kazrog, Inc.
Ermz - I'm totally with you on the sober, skeptic front. That's why I was surprised to no end at how much I ended up liking this plugin. Your mixes sound great regardless, but I am finding myself preferring the FG-X versions, as others seem to be.
I never expected any master buss plugin to bring this level of "finish" to the table, least of all yet another loudness plugin. Obviously, the ideal scenario in any production is that everything is done reasonably properly end-to-end, with good techniques and proper equipment. You and I both know that these days, that's often a pipe dream. I'm finding this plugin to be amazingly beneficial on some very sub-par source material I was handed to essentially polish. And of course, it shines even more on tracks that were done properly to begin with.
I never expected any master buss plugin to bring this level of "finish" to the table, least of all yet another loudness plugin. Obviously, the ideal scenario in any production is that everything is done reasonably properly end-to-end, with good techniques and proper equipment. You and I both know that these days, that's often a pipe dream. I'm finding this plugin to be amazingly beneficial on some very sub-par source material I was handed to essentially polish. And of course, it shines even more on tracks that were done properly to begin with.
Similar threads
