Slate Digital FG-X 1.1

[MarsBot]

Originally Posted by Radiorockstar

Any word on the update of the FGX?

I can run about 30 different plugs from the Waves Mercury bundle simultaneously at 44.1 at about 11% of my CPU usage........add 1 instance of FGX and the system usage go to nearly 60%.
Do all this at 88.2 (which most of my session seem to be) and all of a sudden I'm left to worrying about playback issues. THIS SUCKS!

Love the plug...but needs an update so not to hog the CPU!!!!


?????

What DAW are you using? I have the same problem in Studio One. This improved to some extent in Studio One 1.6.1 and 1.6.2. In version 1.5 it was the wipeout you describe here.

[Radiorockstar]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

What DAW are you using? I have the same problem in Studio One. This improved to some extent in Studio One 1.6.1 and 1.6.2. In version 1.5 it was the wipeout you describe here.

Pro Tools RTAS, 8 Core Nehalem, 16GB Ram

[Trailmix]

I use FG-x with PTHD 8.04 mac with no problems, no heavy CPU hit. I've run 32 tracks of VCC and a more than enough other native plugs no problem. Can't just be luck


Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

[DaveE]

Originally Posted by Trailmix

I use FG-x with PTHD 8.04 mac with no problems, no heavy CPU hit. I've run 32 tracks of VCC and a more than enough other native plugs no problem. Can't just be luck

Can you tell us what your CPU meter says and where your playback buffer is set? I can get it to work, but I can keep the latency way lower using Sonar (VST) than I can with PT9 (RTAS). Same exact system.

Here is some extra info about what I'm experiencing:
Slate Digital/RTAS performance in PT9

[DaveE]

Here's a copy of the test results I sent to Slate support:

Using PT9
_

CPU usage limit is 99%, Host processors 7,

I created a session with only a snare drum track being routed to a master bus with FG-X:

HW Buffer size: 64, CPU meter is 43%, session does not play back
HW Buffer size: 128, CPU meter is 41%, session stops after 5 seconds
HW Buffer size: 256, CPU meter is 40%, session stops occasionally
HW Buffer size: 512, CPU meter is 40% session plays back
HW Buffer size: 1024, CPU meter is 35% session plays back
_

End of email.

In Sonar I can set the buffer to 32 and use FGX during tracking. That aint happening in PT9.

[therealbigd]

In Logic 9 on MacBook Pro 2.4 i5 4GB RAM, I can run Waves emulations on anything I want (CLA76/APIs/SSLs) and I've never really had to cut down. Waves Emulations are the heaviest CPU among Waves I think.

FG-X, I can get 2 instances along with my mastering EQ and filters and then the CPU gives up.

That's pretty heavy.

[Mikey MTC]

Originally Posted by bryan k

you shouldn't be running this plugin on your mix project, export your mix and open a fresh new session with FG-X on your master bus.

You really shouldn't be using this plugin on your mix projects with all the other crap-load of mixing plugins your using

But the compressor is so good, many of us run the plugin over full mixes using just the comp. Then at the end of the session I'll throw the limiter on and mess with the ITP and Dynamic Perception knobs 'til it sounds great and spit out a "mastered" reference to take home overnight.

[vtone]

Originally Posted by Mikey MTC

But the compressor is so good, many of us run the plugin over full mixes using just the comp. Then at the end of the session I'll throw the limiter on and mess with the ITP and Dynamic Perception knobs 'til it sounds great and spit out a "mastered" reference to take home overnight.

Yup, this is exactly what I do. I mix with the FGX compressor on the whole time, barely touching only the loudest transients at 2:1, sometimes 4:1-- adjusting speed and threshold as the mix develops. I might throw on the limiter just to get an idea how the finished mix will sound but I never really use it until the mix is finished and I'm wearing the mastering hat.

[nicogrubert]

Originally Posted by Radiorockstar

Love the plug...but needs an update so not to hog the CPU!!!!


?????

+1

Another CPU hog here.
Ableton Live 8.2.1, 44.1 kHz, i7-920, 3 GB RAM
1 instance eats 20-25% of the CPU.

[Radiorockstar]

Maybe the slate team will reveal an update at NAMM?

[Steven Slate]

We will be updating the FG-X soon after we get out of NAMM and also fix some bugs.

Speaking of FG-X.. we're proud to announce that it has won its third award..

SOS Magazine has given the FG-X their most prestigious award.. the EDITOR'S CHOICE AWARD for 2011!! A big thanks to all the users and supporters, and let it be known that we plan to further increase what the FG-X can do for your music!

[jamwerks]

Congrats ! thumbsup

[AshleySmith06]

Huge congrat's on yet another award well deserved

[marchhare]

thumbsup
Totally award deserving.

[vtone]

Awesome! The SOS Award is big achievement and rightly deserved. Congrats Slate Digital!

[edva]

Cool trophy, well earned. Congrats to you, Fabrice, and Slate Digital. Superb compressor, amazing limiter.

[Football]

Originally downloaded on June 29, 2010. Thought I had read something a while back saying that FG-X has changed and that there might be a new demo period for people that originally downloaded it when it first was announced.

If that is correct, how would I go about doing that?

Thank you

[marchhare]

Any news on the new version?

[BA Stone]

I'm no pro. I write and record just for fun, so please excuse my ignorance.

I currently use Ozone for my homemade version of mastering. I've read that FG-X is intended to be a stand-alone mastering plugin. But could someone tell me if the following would be reasonable? Let's say I've finished a mix in Logic, bounce it down and create a new project with just the new stereo track. Could I use the modules in Ozone which do not relate to dynamics (EQ, mastering reverb, harmonic exciter) and then follow that with the FG-X?

Thanks,

Jim

[RTR]

Originally Posted by BA Stone

I'm no pro. I write and record just for fun, so please excuse my ignorance.

I currently use Ozone for my homemade version of mastering. I've read that FG-X is intended to be a stand-alone mastering plugin. But could someone tell me if the following would be reasonable? Let's say I've finished a mix in Logic, bounce it down and create a new project with just the new stereo track. Could I use the modules in Ozone which do not relate to dynamics (EQ, mastering reverb, harmonic exciter) and then follow that with the FG-X?

Thanks,

Jim

ya why not!

[autohorse]

Any news about the update? Love FG-X, but the CPU hit in logic is hard (Mac au). About 25-30 % of my mpb i7 gets eaten.

[AcoosticZoo]

Originally Posted by BA Stone

I'm no pro. I write and record just for fun, so please excuse my ignorance.

I currently use Ozone for my homemade version of mastering. I've read that FG-X is intended to be a stand-alone mastering plugin. But could someone tell me if the following would be reasonable? Let's say I've finished a mix in Logic, bounce it down and create a new project with just the new stereo track. Could I use the modules in Ozone which do not relate to dynamics (EQ, mastering reverb, harmonic exciter) and then follow that with the FG-X?

Thanks,

Jim

I'd use FX-G before ozone to preserve the transients, and then into ozone. when in ozone, use some eq and just a little ozone's limiter protecting any peaks from the eq at -0.3 to -0.8 db.

In regards to adding ambience using ozone's reverb - I'd say it's not ideal since it's better to just go back into the mix and fix any ambience/reverb issues at the mixing stage.

Good luck with it. FX-G is truly an amazing tool when it works, it's really good.

Regards
Josef Horhay
Mixing Engineer
www.acoosticzoo.com

[thedigitalgod]

Originally Posted by AcoosticZoo

I'd use FX-G before ozone to preserve the transients, and then into ozone. when in ozone, use some eq and just a little ozone's limiter protecting any peaks from the eq at -0.3 to -0.8 db.

what? i cant say that makes much sense.

[monad]

Originally Posted by thedigitalgod

what? i cant say that makes much sense.

I agree. The guy's also obviously clueless when it comes to the meaning and purpose of the mastering reverb.

[AcoosticZoo]

Originally Posted by monad

I agree. The guy's also obviously clueless when it comes to the meaning and purpose of the mastering reverb.

What's the point of mastering reverb then?

Imho, when a mixed track sounds stark and too dry then mastering engineer has the option of unsticking the track/glueing it together with a touch of Mastering reverb.

A mastering engineer never needs to use any mastering reverb when the mixing engineer and the recording engineer has done a good job. Slapping a reverb onto a stereo mix is a total compromise, but still is an acceptable technique in mastering, I'm just sharing my personal work flow/opinion. You don't have to say I'm clueless, and I didn't see you offering any clues either.

So either tell us what mastering reverbs are for and stop stirring. Obviously, you don't know me, and judging me as CLUELESS is offensive to me. PERIOD.

[AcoosticZoo]

Originally Posted by thedigitalgod

what? i cant say that makes much sense.

I'm just saying to preserve the quality of work done from FX-G's limiter, you should try to restrict the amount of further limiting to a minimum in OZONE. When you eq the track, obviously the peaks will increase (sometimes even if you're cutting with a bell) - therefore, my figures are just a guide from a purist point of preserving the integrity of the peaks/transients. Obviously you can further limit as much as you like. So, there's no process by "magic" one setting fits all scenarios.

Regards
Josef Horhay
Mixing Engineer
www.acoosticzoo.com

[thedigitalgod]

Originally Posted by AcoosticZoo

I'm just saying to preserve the quality of work done from FX-G's limiter, you should try to restrict the amount of further limiting to a minimum in OZONE. When you eq the track, obviously the peaks will increase (sometimes even if you're cutting with a bell) - therefore, my figures are just a guide from a purist point of preserving the integrity of the peaks/transients. Obviously you can further limit as much as you like. So, there's no process by "magic" one setting fits all scenarios.

Regards
Josef Horhay
Mixing Engineer
www.acoosticzoo.com

further limiting should not be done. the FG-X limiter should be the last thing in the chain in just about any scenario i can conceive. limit, then eq, then add reverb, then limit again just doesnt make much sense in most cases.

eq, reverb (in the few instances where that is appropriate), then limit. compression could be done before and/or after the eq, and two stages of eq could be useful (one before and one after compression), but in almost any case, the limiter should be the last thing in the mastering chain. thats my understanding and usage, of course there are a million scenarios, and im always open to being educated.

[Johnkenn]

The only thing I've used after FG-X has been the Ozone stereo width tool...Spreads it out juuust a little bit...

[PlugSlut]

I use the MD3 limiter after the FG-X to shave off the intersample peaks. Both FG-X and MD3 limiter set to -0.3dB. Works good for me!

PlugSlut

[b0ssa]

Originally Posted by PlugSlut

I use the MD3 limiter after the FG-X to shave off the intersample peaks. Both FG-X and MD3 limiter set to -0.3dB. Works good for me!

PlugSlut

Surely you mean the Powercore Brickwall Limiter right?

You don't need anything after either the FG-X or BWL if the limiter is set to -0.3. MD3's built in limiter is too 'limited' (couldn't resist) so I hope you aren't referring to that.