Truth behind Waves L2
- Thread starter ahjteam
- Start date
Can you guys include Ozone to the test, would be really awesome
if you buy me a license, sure
Or just use the following settings: treshold at -5.9 and ceiling at -0.0 and other settings how ever you prefer.Also on this... Even tho square wave isn't very musical, but what about if you are doing say 8bit chip music inspired electronic music, when suddenly your ex-square wave is now something not intended? the L2 didn't adjust the shape of the waveform, just the amplitude.
Brett - K A L I S I A
Dreaded Moderator
Now we're talking
Sorry for the off topic, but my only complain about FG-X is that it's taking about 30% of my computer resources (2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon MacPro) in Pro Tools 9 with a 48,000Hz mix.
Sorry for the off topic, but my only complain about FG-X is that it's taking about 30% of my computer resources (2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon MacPro) in Pro Tools 9 with a 48,000Hz mix.
Now we're talking
Sorry for the off topic, but my only complain about FG-X is that it's taking about 30% of my computer resources (2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon MacPro) in Pro Tools 9 with a 48,000Hz mix.
Same here (2.4ghz intel core 2 duo macbook pro) except it goes to around 50-60%, can't use it without minimum of 512 buffer size either.
Soundlurker
Member
- Nov 19, 2005
- 3,730
- 0
- 36
LOL @ L2 ... nice drums 
About as punchy as a sick mosquito flying into a window.
About as punchy as a sick mosquito flying into a window.
Dry 24-bit wav: (I actually think that the drums are Slate btw
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1338211/ahjteam/SLATE/ahjteam_water_v02_dry.wav
-20dB RMS with plenty of headroom
L2 + L3LL: (L2 threshold -12.2, out ceiling -0.5, dither off; L3LL treshold -3.0, out ceiling -0.3, "Loud and Proud" profile)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1338211/ahjteam/SLATE/ahjteam_water_v02_L2.wav
-9.2dB RMS
FG-X: (comp off, lo punch 1.0, detail 1.0, gain 12.1, dynamic perception 1.3, ITP -0.4, ceiling -0.5dBFS)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1338211/ahjteam/SLATE/ahjteam_water_v02_FGX.wav
-9.2dB RMS, and I hear audible distortion either on the kick or some other element with other ITP settings. Reason most likely _IS_ in non-optimal settings
Thanks ahjteam! I'm testing what I think is the... cough cough.. FINAL version of my new Virtual Console Collection plugin for the next two hours, and then I'll download and post my findings and resulting masters.
Kenny Lee
Member
Wow that was a pretty arrogant and smug thing to say... but I've got the gloves on and I'm willing to go 12 rounds, so lets do this
That's not arrogance Steve!!! That's pure CONFIDENCE!!!!!!
Oky doky.. and we're back.
So first off, the mix had to be somewhat heavily fixed with some equalization. Here is the unmastered mix with some filters to correct problems, mostly in the low mids and deep lows:
www.stevenslate.com/ahj/SlateMixFix.wav
It should be said that in this mix there are SEVERAL digital clicks which should be addressed.. you can hear them in the mix and they are obviously amplified in the master.
So here is the FG-X version with ITP at default, lo punch and dynamic perception at 9 o'clock. Again, the few digital clicks you hear are inherent to the mix, not FG-X.
www.stevenslate.com/ahj/SlateMixFixFGX.wav
Sounds pretty similar to the mix for adding about 9db of gain!
So first off, the mix had to be somewhat heavily fixed with some equalization. Here is the unmastered mix with some filters to correct problems, mostly in the low mids and deep lows:
www.stevenslate.com/ahj/SlateMixFix.wav
It should be said that in this mix there are SEVERAL digital clicks which should be addressed.. you can hear them in the mix and they are obviously amplified in the master.
So here is the FG-X version with ITP at default, lo punch and dynamic perception at 9 o'clock. Again, the few digital clicks you hear are inherent to the mix, not FG-X.
www.stevenslate.com/ahj/SlateMixFixFGX.wav
Sounds pretty similar to the mix for adding about 9db of gain!
Matt-Steele
Member
Slate was able to clean up the mix a bit, and still make the FG-X outperform the L2. The L2 sounded more muffled and distorted than the FG-X. Nice work Steven.
I don't think you can expect the FG-X to work wonders if your mix needs help from the get go. Maybe limiters are more forgiving with bad mixes than the FG-X?
I don't think you can expect the FG-X to work wonders if your mix needs help from the get go. Maybe limiters are more forgiving with bad mixes than the FG-X?
Lasse Lammert
HCAF Blitzkrieg
I ditched the FGX , didn't like it at all(not saying it's not a cool plugin, just not for me)... That said, I don't like the L2 either.
For me it still is a combination of finalizer, clipping the apogees and some elephant.
For me it still is a combination of finalizer, clipping the apogees and some elephant.
El_Gato
I love this gain
Thanks for the tests. Here's what I found out:
IMO, L2 eats transients up for breakfast but the overall sound is more like a record which can be a good or a bad thing depending on the source.
FG-X can go louder while keeping the drums intact and it's much clearer and polished in general. Maybe the mix ended up too polished and "digital" in this example with nothing else on the 2nd buss but this can also be a good thing.
I personally liked more the overall sound of the L2 in this example but I reckon I like limiters to be clean to preserve the tone and keep the drums transients so you can go louder what seems to me contradictory with the idea that L2 introduces no distorsion at all and the FG-X seems to do. Interesting.
IMO, L2 eats transients up for breakfast but the overall sound is more like a record which can be a good or a bad thing depending on the source.
FG-X can go louder while keeping the drums intact and it's much clearer and polished in general. Maybe the mix ended up too polished and "digital" in this example with nothing else on the 2nd buss but this can also be a good thing.
I personally liked more the overall sound of the L2 in this example but I reckon I like limiters to be clean to preserve the tone and keep the drums transients so you can go louder what seems to me contradictory with the idea that L2 introduces no distorsion at all and the FG-X seems to do. Interesting.
I can only assuem El_Gato that you are listening to the FG-X example that ahjteam did?
On my example, and to my ears.. the FG-X added no further audible distortion, and kept the master extremely close the original, especially given that I added 9db of gain.
But, the FG-X algos are less forgiving than typical limiters on mixes with unbalanced frequencies.
here is the link again:
www.stevenslate.com/ahj/SlateMixFixFGX.wav
Someone here can download the frequency balanced mix I posted and use the L2 on it.. I think the results will speak for themselves..
On my example, and to my ears.. the FG-X added no further audible distortion, and kept the master extremely close the original, especially given that I added 9db of gain.
But, the FG-X algos are less forgiving than typical limiters on mixes with unbalanced frequencies.
here is the link again:
www.stevenslate.com/ahj/SlateMixFixFGX.wav
Someone here can download the frequency balanced mix I posted and use the L2 on it.. I think the results will speak for themselves..
El_Gato
I love this gain
I can only assuem El_Gato that you are listening to the FG-X example that ahjteam did?
On my example, and to my ears.. the FG-X added no further audible distortion, and kept the master extremely close the original, especially given that I added 9db of gain.
Someone here can download the frequency balanced mix I posted and use the L2 on it.. I think the results will speak for themselves..
Yeah that's what I meant. Yours is much cleaner. So no distorsion IMO. edit, I see it now. I was saying what AJteam stated in his OP when I was saying yours "seems to do" in my last sentence before.
I think I'd go with yours as you may read between my lines but I'm waiting for someone to post the Ozone track which I already own
xFkx
gain induction
Well, many albums for year have been L2'd to death so if your accustomed to this sound you'll prolly dig it. Just like vocalists start to sing with auto-tunish vocal qualities because they've been fed this sound since they were kids. I guess the current trend is to have the dynamics from the early 90's while having the loudness of 00's which is a neck breaker, but FG-X delivers (although I use it interchangeably with ozone, depends of the sound i'm going for). Kind'a apples and oranges thing, but I must admit the OP's testing methodology and following conclusions seem kinda bogus
Yup, I also said about the pops in my post. Most likely caused by the M-Audio Profire when recording as the clicks were in the middle of the miced tracks without any crossfades.
But yeah, I like this kind of arrogance: when you can stand behind your product and prove it's superiority from the competitors in the right hands. The mastering you did sounds pretty fucking dope! It seems a bit more dynamic, but still decently loud.
When I compare your clip to mine, it's especially the snare that gets pretty much butchered with the L2. The FG-X settings I used seem to be pretty similar (I used lo punch and detail at 8:00 o clock and dynamic perception at 8:30), but I got the low end distortion because the low end on my mix was too hot for the plugin, so I guess that if I would make the input signal to the FG-X a bit less low end heavy it might sound way better without distorted end-result.
mind if I ask you what kind of eq settings did you use before the FG-X and did you use automation or is it just some static settings? I can hear that you dropped relatively quite a lot everything below ~300hz and the guitars became more focused so I think you did something to the 1-8khz region and it seems that you even might've boosted the high shelf just a bit, but the snare didn't seem to come out too much so I guess you might have even used some M/S processing?
BTW, will be checking out the VCC when it comes out, I already own most of your plugins anyway
i am not a pro but i think that FG-X just needs enough headroom to work correctly,
when putting it on very loud track it starts to distort very easy, on a good mixed
track with enough headroom FG-X sounds really nice and antural to me.
correct me if i'm wrong...
when putting it on very loud track it starts to distort very easy, on a good mixed
track with enough headroom FG-X sounds really nice and antural to me.
correct me if i'm wrong...
Threshold at -12dB and out ceiling at -0.5
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1338211/ahjteam/SLATE/ahjteam_water_v02_L2.wav
Soundlurker
Member
- Nov 19, 2005
- 3,730
- 0
- 36
I don't want to sound arrogant but if anyone prefers the L2 version in either of these comparisons, then they should either stop being a selfish guitar player or there's something wrong with their monitoring and/or hearing.
I'm not saying this as a Slate fan-boy (I don't even own FG-X). I'm just baffled by the existence of such a thread and it reaching a second page.
I'm not saying this as a Slate fan-boy (I don't even own FG-X). I'm just baffled by the existence of such a thread and it reaching a second page.
Only thing I prefer it for is resource usage as FG-X is a CPU hog, but after the Slate posted the clip I can say that it stuff sounds better on musical context. The L2 just maximizes the signal and it clearly gives the artificial punch to the transients so that it ducks the signal for the 64 before and after the transients like in the OP, but when you go to the extreme volumes like -9dB RMS, the FG-X saturates the transient sound in a musical way so for example the snare punches through more easily instead of ducking.
