|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 23, 2013 11:57:35 GMT -6
LOL, I've been waiting for almost a year for the FG-X to go 64 bits. I called Slate in February, and asked them specifically if the F-X would be made 64 bits soon. I was promised by "spring" during two phone conversations and one email, so I bought it based on that. I understood that these things can get tricky, so I was prepared to wait until summer if I had to. I'm commited to Logic X, will never go back to 9 just for one plug. Fast forward, Santa's gonna be dropping off gifts, but it doesn't look like the FG-X will be in his bag this year! I was told by Steven personally they're on it, but there are some unusual complications with that particular plug-in, so it's taking a long time. But man, there's a long time, and there's frickin' ridculous, and we've passed ridiculously long, quite a while back. I feel like I have a $200 toaster that doesn't work, and if I want toast...
The thing is, I don't feel that anyone buying a 32 bit plug-in that works is automatically entitled to a free 64 bit upgrade, but in my case, because I specified my needs and asked before buying, I feel a bit screwed. I really don't want to invest in any other mastering plugs, and shouldn't have to. I have a lot of Waves plugs, I guess I could try the One Knob "Louder" and see if it helps my faux master.
|
|
|
|
Post by henge on Nov 23, 2013 14:45:37 GMT -6
LOL, I've been waiting for almost a year for the FG-X to go 64 bits. I called Slate in February, and asked them specifically if the F-X would be made 64 bits soon. I was promised by "spring" during two phone conversations and one email, so I bought it based on that. I understood that these things can get tricky, so I was prepared to wait until summer if I had to. I'm commited to Logic X, will never go back to 9 just for one plug. Fast forward, Santa's gonna be dropping off gifts, but it doesn't look like the FG-X will be in his bag this year! I was told by Steven personally they're on it, but there are some unusual complications with that particular plug-in, so it's taking a long time. But man, there's a long time, and there's frickin' ridculous, and we've passed ridiculously long, quite a while back. I feel like I have a $200 toaster that doesn't work, and if I want toast... The thing is, I don't feel that anyone buying a 32 bit plug-in that works is automatically entitled to a free 64 bit upgrade, but in my case, because I specified my needs and asked before buying, I feel a bit screwed. I really don't want to invest in any other mastering plugs, and shouldn't have to. I have a lot of Waves plugs, I guess I could try the One Knob "Louder" and see if it helps my faux master. Check this puppy out. aom-factory.jp/en/products/invisible-limiter/I haven't tried FGX so I can't compare the two but this is a very clean limiter. Can't wait for this Slate virtual 500 thingy!! I love the job they did with VBC. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 23, 2013 19:12:55 GMT -6
FXG isn't a limiter. I mean, it does that, too...but, not nearly as transparently as the L2.
....what it does is combine a smooth compressor, into a limiter...and then adds back frequency dependent distortions for the transients it clips so your ear still "hears" the peak.
I think it's a great plug in for quick "faux mastering"....but, I've honestly stopped using it for clients because I got sent on a lot of wild goose chases because of the distortions it would add--I would get these "X tom fill is distorting"...and I listen, over and over....don't hear it--no it's not....then I realize they wanted it crushed for eval...pull up the FXG track--there it is.
Anyway, I've yet to use better than the L2 for straight up transparent look ahead limiting. But, FXG is more a full mastering dynamics unit. They should really go ahead and add a nice EQ algorithm when they do v2...so it can just be complete "bedroom mastering solution".
|
|
|
|
Post by henge on Nov 24, 2013 7:23:06 GMT -6
Thanks popmann. I thought FGX was just a limiter.I'm going to download the demo of L2 and compare it to Invisible Limiter out of curiosity.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 24, 2013 11:14:59 GMT -6
I mean using it to remove momentary peaks...FWIW. The actual intention of limiter plug ins...those Waves are called "optimizers" for a reason....it's not intended to crush things. It's intended to remove some occassional peaks in order to output (and then provide appropriate dither for) the high resolution possible. People see CLA's sessions with L1/2s on every track...because he mixes analog...his assistants use those plugs to optimize the DA converter resolution that feeds the desk. But, when I see Cubase implement a limiter on every channel, I've got to believe there's a huge misunderstanding about why they see what they see...
I say that to say that FXG appears "more transparent" for crushing a pop.rock mix for the very reason it's objectively NOT transparent--those distortions allow it to maintain "the same but louder" perception to louder than a straight lookahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 24, 2013 11:43:15 GMT -6
I noticed a distortion using FG-X I didn't have words for, or an understanding, thanks popmann, you've got me thinking.
All the promos, (Slate's great at that), highlighted how transparent the FG-X was. I've found that once you get past 9DB louder it gets edgy, so I like to stay around adding 6-7 DB if I can help it.
* that is if memory serves, it's been a long time since my FG-X was available..
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 24, 2013 11:59:07 GMT -6
Just checked my Waves list, and I have L1, L2, L3, L360. Are those the limiters you're referring to popmann? I'll have to try them, I haven't ever used it, or tried it so briefly, I paid little attention to it since.
If it was possible to return or exchange my FG-X, would I miss it if I have the L2 instead? I haven't bought the VBC yet, just demo'd it. I could ask for a special exception and see if they'd trade my FG-X license for the VBC, but I don't want to even go there if the FG-X is still needed. I just hate having a $200 plug I can't use because the company is having trouble porting to 64 bits.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 24, 2013 15:01:03 GMT -6
There's no similarity in the pseudo mastering processor of FXG and the L2. The L2 is functionally the same as the "adaptive" limiter in Logic. Clean, transparent look ahead peak removal. I've never used the L1 (it's predecessor)...but, the L3 is multiband--which would be aimed much more at mastering application. My limited use of Logic for audio says the adaptive limiter is just as transparent. It should be--the L2 is like 10+ years old now. It was a paradigm changer, but...in a non real time system like software, it's not hard to use look ahead tech to make limiting transparent.
The only part of "mastering" that should play into is that every mix will have a few DB of momentary peaks somewhere (a few in song) that can be transparently removed and thus upping the RMS by that same amount. Thus them being called "optimizers". Totally different things.
Why do you care about lookahead level clipping if you love vinyl so much? You can make that rhetorical, but it's the definition of insanity to be struggling to get modern RMS numbers while touting vinyl's superior musical sound and dynamics. Just something for you to look into. (typical) Dynamic ranges were DR15-11 for FORTY years across musical styles and arrangement densities--jazz ensemble to heavy metal band. Now they're typically DR7-5. HALF. It's not twice as loud. It's half as dynamic. And you wonder why vinyl gets you more "involved"...so will any well produced digital master.
I own FXG simply because when I have a client who wants something loud I can prove to them quickly that a well balanced mix can be squashed into oblivion in mastering if they make that choice--but, that is a different process and a different choice than the mix...ironically so they'll let me do the job well WITHOUT FXG. I guess, in the name of full disclosure, I should point out Slate gave it to me for some tech help I gave him some time back.
|
|
|
|
Post by henge on Nov 24, 2013 16:17:31 GMT -6
I own FXG simply because when I have a client who wants something loud I can prove to them quickly that a well balanced mix can be squashed into oblivion in mastering if they make that choice--but, that is a different process and a different choice than the mix...ironically so they'll let me do the job well WITHOUT FXG. Thanks popmann. Like you, I need a limiter for quick loudness checks . I always get an ME to do their thing. The second pair of ears is invaluable. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 24, 2013 17:22:51 GMT -6
My enjoyment of classic vinyl isn't directly related to my production of music at home. I just want to keep the music I produce as clean as I can, but bring tracks up to a reasonably close to average level. I don't want my tracks on i-tunes and other places to just sound way too low when played after another song.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchtower on Nov 25, 2013 8:32:50 GMT -6
If you use FG-X, it is important to listen back for subtle distortions. If they are there, you need to automate ITP down at those points. It happens especially during guitar-only parts when the drums cut out for a riff. The louder you go with FG-X, the more likely it is to happen. It doesn't seem to be related to how high the volume knob is, but how loud you're making the mix overall. I'm mastering an album right now, and even at 2 on the knob I get some distortions. It's annoying, but if you think FG-X sounds better than other limiters, it's worth it, obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 25, 2013 12:32:46 GMT -6
Henge, I just listened to the demo of the Invisible Limiter, and it does sound cleaner and stronger than the FG-X and the L2,L3. Since I have the Slate Fg-X, ( even though it isn't working at the moment), and the Waves L2, L3, I probably won't rush to but another limiter. But, if I were starting again, I wouldn't buy the Slate FG-X, I'd buy the Invisible, and keep the Slate VBC for tone and compression.
|
|
|
|
Post by henge on Nov 25, 2013 13:44:19 GMT -6
Yeah the guy did a very nice job on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolo on Feb 23, 2014 4:52:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 23, 2014 18:45:34 GMT -6
does it come with the touch screen?  Yes!! For another $2,500 usd  |
|
|
|
Post by lolo on Apr 24, 2014 20:24:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by lolo on May 8, 2014 22:41:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by keymod on May 9, 2014 3:47:26 GMT -6
I got an email from slate saying release is imminent, along with a sale price and other goodies.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolo on May 9, 2014 3:52:50 GMT -6
Slate were saying on the purple site VCC will also be updated to version 2. New algo's etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 9, 2014 7:43:13 GMT -6
EXCITED about VCC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 9, 2014 7:43:40 GMT -6
And $149 for that? I'll probably do it...
|
|
|
|
Post by henge on May 9, 2014 7:55:27 GMT -6
And $149 for that? I'll probably do it... Great value. At $149 for 5 plugs = $30 a plug. Great deal. Valhalla like! |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 9, 2014 7:59:23 GMT -6
And $149 for that? I'll probably do it... Great value. At $149 for 5 plugs = $30 a plug. Great deal. Valhalla like! Damn. I was hoping it would be like $600 so I wouldn't have to buy it. |
|
|
|
Post by wreck on May 9, 2014 8:04:40 GMT -6
If it's $149 as an intro, it will be $99 at some point. That's just how he seems to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolo on May 9, 2014 8:18:55 GMT -6
I have a feeling these will be great. Great price
|
|
