Slate Digital FG-X 1.1

[Fabrice Gabriel]

I'm glad that people seems to love this update!


So to be more specific about what has already been said, here are the FG-X 1.1 improvements :

• Now the ITP slider has a wider response range. In the lower settings, it allows completely removing any artifacts that some people experienced in some particular cases. Keep it in the middle for most mixes, and set it in the upper range for even more punch.
• The Dynamic Perception parameter allows now adding even more dynamics to the master. Don't overuse it!
• The Metering Section RMS display is now reacting the same way than most of other RMS meters. The Peak meter is also now more responsive.

Also I would like to thank everybody on Gearslutz for comments and feedback. It has been very useful and thanks to that, we come up now with an improved version of the FG-X which is more versatile and which should give excellent results in every mastering situation.



Fabrice

[Mark D.]

Suggestion for the Slate Team: Put up that 'Closer To You' test song.
1) Original mix. 2) The best of the Version 1 FG-X masters, from before.
3) A 'best settings' new master with Version 1.1, revealing the settings.

I also encourage anyone with a "crackling" mix from Version 1, that they
are allowed to share, to put it up, with a Version 2 master here, as well.
Identical gain, or at least try to match the levels as close as is possible.

This would be the best way to compare the differences, improvements &
such. Even some creatively different settings, but again...level matched,
as best possible, might give an interesting view of how this has changed.

[BLUElightCory]

Does this update include PPC support as was promised? I've installed it, it shows up in the "Plug Ins" folder, but does not appear in Pro Tools.

Running PT 7.4 on PPC, OSX 10.4.11.

If someone from Slate could chime in that'd be great - I'd hate to have wasted my demo (though I'm sure the Slate guys will sort me out if that's the case).

Thanks!

[Fabrice Gabriel]

Please be sure to delete all the old plugin files you installed before.
It supports PPC now, and if it does not show, be also sure to delete your ProtTools plugin preferences to force plugin re-scan.

Also please verify once the plugin is launched that the version is 1.1 when displaying the about panel by clicking on the Slate Digital logo.


Fabrice

[Loopy C]

Download links working here now (thanks webmaster Steve ;-))

[BLUElightCory]

Originally Posted by fabricegabriel

Please be sure to delete all the old plugin files you installed before.
It supports PPC now, and if it does not show, be also sure to delete your ProtTools plugin preferences to force plugin re-scan.

Also please verify once the plugin is launched that the version is 1.1 when displaying the about panel by clicking on the Slate Digital logo.


Fabrice

Thanks very much for the prompt reply! I'll try it tomorrow and PM if I have any troubles.

[bryan k]

Fabrice, about the new 1.1 update -

1) still issues with Samplitude. I submitted a ticket to Slate digital help desk, so i wont go into details here.

2) this version is VERY CPU hungry. One instance of this plugin (just the limiter, no compressor) ran about 70-78% CPU on my PC (dual core processor with 4GB RAM)

ill keep playing with it and submit more tickets if needed.

PS- .....the pops-n-clicks issue with 1.0 version ion Samplitude is A-OK now. But theres still a few bugs on it

[MarsBot]

Dear Slate people,

Is this new version 1.1 going to sound the same if I load a file where I had version 1.0? If you use the same exact settings in 1.0 and 1.1, is it supposed to sound the same?

Of course, I'm going to 1.1. I'm just wondering if I should be looking to readjust some parameters if I have to revisit a mix done with 1.0 to make modifications.

[Fabrice Gabriel]

Originally Posted by bryan k

Fabrice, about the new 1.1 update -

1) still issues with Samplitude. I submitted a ticket to Slate digital help desk, so i wont go into details here.

2) this version is VERY CPU hungry. One instance of this plugin (just the limiter, no compressor) ran about 70-78% CPU on my PC (dual core processor with 4GB RAM)

ill keep playing with it and submit more tickets if needed.

PS- .....the pops-n-clicks issue with 1.0 version ion Samplitude is A-OK now. But theres still a few bugs on it

We does not have any specific issue on our test systems with Samplitude.. But still some troubles remains ! There is some hosts like that which gives hard times to developers.

Please send detail bug report and we'll try to fix that as quickly as possible.

Originally Posted by MarsBot

Dear Slate people,

Is this new version 1.1 going to sound the same if I load a file where I had version 1.0? If you use the same exact settings in 1.0 and 1.1, is it supposed to sound the same?

Of course, I'm going to 1.1. I'm just wondering if I should be looking to readjust some parameters if I have to revisit a mix done with 1.0 to make modifications.

You should not have any major difference with the FG-X 1.1. The only parameter you may need to re adjust are the Dynamic Perception and the ITP.



Fabrice

[MarsBot]

Originally Posted by fabricegabriel

We does not have any specific issue on our test systems with Samplitude.. But still some troubles remains ! There is some hosts like that which gives hard times to developers.

Please send detail bug report and we'll try to fix that as quickly as possible.



You should not have any major difference with the FG-X 1.1. The only parameter you may need to re adjust are the Dynamic Perception and the ITP.



Fabrice

Thanks Fabrice. I've been leaving Dynamic Perception off and ITP at zero for the mixes I've done so far, so I won't have to worry about this much. I just compared 1.0 and 1.1. To me 1.1 is an improvement for sure. The CPU load is definitely heavier as someone already mentioned. I had a file that would play fine before although the meter was in the 90% range. Now it glitches occasionally with 1.1.

I've only listened to it a couple of times on two different tracks that I had mixed with 1.0, but it seems smoother somehow. That's just a first impression. I'm looking forward to working some more with this new update. Thanks for all the work on this.

[Fuzzhead]

What is the typical cpu load for one instance on a quadcore? Just curious if you can mix into it.

[Mark D.]

That is where having a selectable, and auto-mode (off at work, and
highest rate, when rendering) oversampling will be handy. So a user
an turn it off or use auto to save CPU. Oversampling is CPU hunrgy.

[smashbrand]

Purchased tonight. After getting Trigger there was no need to demo it, I knew it was going to be fantastic and it really is. It absolutely kills any brick wall stuff I was previously using. Nice job!!

[Inhuman Tom]

So if I used the 1.0 demo what I should do to have that 1.1 version ?
Delete the 1.0 demo, install 1.1 and redeem the ilok code ?
In the first post it says that I should just redeem the code w/o reinstalling ?

[Chris Lago]

I'm testing out Slate FX Right now, Sounds pretty good, it's actually a lot more dynamic than your typical compressor/limiter plugin. I might have to buy it! By the way did anyone make it work in Sequoia yet? Also I'd like to know, can there be an option with no limiting at -0.1db? I like to let things clip a bit if they can't be heard.

What I like the most is probably the compressor section. It's a breath of fresh air for vsts.

[MarsBot]

Originally Posted by Fuzzhead

What is the typical cpu load for one instance on a quadcore? Just curious if you can mix into it.

I'm on an 8 core pre Nehalem Mac. I'm mixing into it on files at 44.1 and 48 kHz. For the 44.1 file in Studio One, one instance of FG-X 1.1 on a stereo track with comp and leveler enabled takes the CPU meter from 37% to 47%. I don't know if you can really extrapolate to a quadcore, but if it's just a straight 2:1 ratio then it would take about 20% of your CPU. Logic 8 doesn't display percentages, but FG-X appears to take about half of one core on the meter which is similar.

The frustrating thing with Studio One is that it has a bug that makes plug-ins require approximately 2x more CPU power if they're inserted on a bus instead of a track. So FG-X is actually taking 25% when I put it on the master bus. I'm hoping Presonus will fix this sooner rather than later. Trying to mix my 88.2 files into FG-X in Studio One is becoming problematic.

[TGP]

I am on an eight core nehalem PC with hyperthreading enabled (16 logical cores) and Reaper shows 2.0 to 2.4 % for one FG-X instance. 1.0 showed around 1.4 %.

[Fuzzhead]

Originally Posted by TGP

I am on an eight core nehalem PC with hyperthreading enabled (16 logical cores) and Reaper shows 2.0 to 2.4 % for one FG-X instance. 1.0 showed around 1.4 %.

Thanks to you both for that info. Btw TGP I remember Justin saying hyperthreading was really bad for audio quite a while ago, I dont know if thats still true with 8 cores, just thought I would pass that on though.

Originally Posted by Justin

Generally speaking HT has negative effects on low latency performance, because it is more difficult for the Windows (or Linux etc) task scheduler to prioritize threads... For example if you have a thread with idle priority that uses a lot of CPU, you will find that realtime audio threads get interrupted more and get less CPU than they would without HT.
-Justin

Originally Posted by Justin

It may work out OK in terms of being able to get the most processing done per second, but personally I'd disable it if you're doing any sort of audio...

[alasdair]

CPU load does seem a little higher on my nehalem quad core too (PC)

[Johnkenn]

I haven't tried 1.1 yet, but I'm pretty convinced that this product sounds better than Ozone. It really feels like it's rasing volume without any artifacts.

Now - if it just had a stereo width control...

[bryan k]

Originally Posted by fabricegabriel

We does not have any specific issue on our test systems with Samplitude.. But still some troubles remains ! There is some hosts like that which gives hard times to developers.

Please send detail bug report and we'll try to fix that as quickly as possible.

Fabrice

Ticket sent to Slate Digital Helpdesk

ticket ref # 9141-WOHV-9357

If you need more details, reply to ticket or email/PM me

[ampwax]

1.1 is a major improvement. No more artifacts, smoother, and more options. The meters are way better. Despite all the craziness sometimes, gearslutz can bear some positive fruit. Thanks for listening to us and making this product better. Now you can move on to the VCC's. hahaha

[Dave Polich]

Tried just now to download the demo - went to SSD site, clicked on "FG-X" clicked on "click here to get the demo" - I just get a blank page. Anyone else having this problem right now?

Really frustrating.

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by Johnkenn

I haven't tried 1.1 yet, but I'm pretty convinced that this product sounds better than Ozone. It really feels like it's rasing volume without any artifacts.

Now - if it just had a stereo width control...

I actually combine the Slate FX Compressor with the Ozone Limiter and it sounds great together thumbsup

[MarsBot]

Originally Posted by Johnkenn

I haven't tried 1.1 yet, but I'm pretty convinced that this product sounds better than Ozone. It really feels like it's rasing volume without any artifacts.

Now - if it just had a stereo width control...

Yes. This is in a whole different league than Ozone. And 1.1 sounds even better.

[Dave Polich]

Okay, I was able to download the new 1.1 demo successfully - the i-Lok
code sent with it was my old I-lok code, which had expired, so I entered
the "new" one posted here - that worked. Installed FG-X, same problems -
Peak reports it "cannot access this plug-in". The AU shows up in my components folder, but FG-X does not appear in my AU plug-ins list in Peak
or Digital Performer. Yes, I deleted my Audio Unit info cache, DP re-scanned
my plugs - no joy.

This is sad - I'm basically at the point of giving up on all Slate products.
I'll make do with Ozone just fine, I guess.

[Steven Slate]

Hi Dave. Sorry about your situation. I appears something about your system isn't agreeing with the plugin. Just to make sure, you have the absolute latest ilok drivers?

The best thing to do is work with our programmer Vince by sending a support ticket with as much detail as you can write. We'll figure it out.

For those who have gotten success, I'm glad that the 1.1 version is really kickin ass. We've had some wonderful emails and everyone here at Slate is very excited about the release.

[Dunc]

Okay, I was able to download the new 1.1 demo successfully - the i-Lok
code sent with it was my old I-lok code, which had expired, so I entered
the "new" one posted here - that worked. Installed FG-X, same problems -
Peak reports it "cannot access this plug-in". The AU shows up in my components folder, but FG-X does not appear in my AU plug-ins list in Peak
or Digital Performer. Yes, I deleted my Audio Unit info cache, DP re-scanned
my plugs - no joy.

Exact same problem here. I would say this is still an intel only installer not PPC. When I do a "get info" on the fg-x component it reads intel. The version however is reading 1.0 not 1.1.
I trashed the previous Au's and VST's of FG-X and installed from the 1.1 installer. Why would it be still be the intel version??????

Dunc

[Dave Polich]

Originally Posted by Dunc

Exact same problem here. I would say this is still an intel only installer not PPC. When I do a "get info" on the fg-x component it reads intel. The version however is reading 1.0 not 1.1.
I trashed the previous Au's and VST's of FG-X and installed from the 1.1 installer. Why would it be still be the intel version??????

Dunc

Confirmed here - "Get Info" for the component itself shows version 1.0, not 1.1.

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by Slate Press

Hi Dave. Sorry about your situation. I appears something about your system isn't agreeing with the plugin. Just to make sure, you have the absolute latest ilok drivers?

The best thing to do is work with our programmer Vince by sending a support ticket with as much detail as you can write. We'll figure it out.

For those who have gotten success, I'm glad that the 1.1 version is really kickin ass. We've had some wonderful emails and everyone here at Slate is very excited about the release.

Slate FX works perfectly in Adobe Audition, but unfortunately Sequoia doesn't even show it in the plugin section. Is there any way to remedy this? I'd like to buy it but if it can't load in my mastering daw, it would be a shame.

Update: Slate FX works perfectly in FL 9 as well.