Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Waves L3 Multimaximizer VS. Slate FG-X

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    7

    Waves L3 Multimaximizer VS. Slate FG-X

    Sign in to disable this ad
    I was going to purchase the FG-X to do some quick loudness maximizing on demo's. Then this week the L3 went on sale. What are some opinions on these 2 plugs. Thanks much.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    8,364
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 600 Times in 555 Posts
    Rep Power
    14820464
    I've used the FG-X on several hard rock masters and I like it. The Constant Gain feature is a great way to compare before and after without the difference in level.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to bouldersoundguy For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, United States
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    They are very different L3 isn't 100% about volume like Slate FG's...
    So if you are all about the volume, that's the way to go, if you are looking for a limiter only then L3
    Music Producer & Mix Engineer - Los Angeles
    http://www.razklinghoffer.com/

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Raz Klinghoffer For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    7
    Other reviews I've read say the FG-X may be better on heavy or hard material and the Multimaximizer (not Ultramaximizer) may be better on softer material (which is what I do). It is probably best to have both, but with the Waves on sale (the L3-16 bundle is at $199 OBO on fleabay right now) I will probably pick that up first. The FG-X has been staying around $99 for a while with sellers on ebay willing to sell even cheaper. Any other opinions would be great. Thanks.

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    satan's taint
    Age
    8
    Posts
    3,378
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
    Rep Power
    11594461
    I use Fabfilter Pro-L for the most part when I want to make something loud. Mostly I leave that step to someone else mastering for the finished product, but when I want to send snapshots to my customers I sometimes make them louder while being careful not to change things very much. I like to mix with tons of headroom, so I usually have to do something, but that can also just be raw gain on the master bus.

    If it's something less serious and I'm 'self-mastering' then it's usually Pro-L or sometimes Voxengo Elephant, which seems great, but I haven't learned it yet.

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,941
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 350 Times in 314 Posts
    Rep Power
    5771718
    I use ReaComp and a "soft clipper" that I wrote myself in Reaper's JS environment. Honestly, ReaComp will do the soft clipping, too, but my plug gives me a little more control, and a little bit of that "I made this!" DIY pride. World Wide Retail Price = $0

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    274
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 31 Times in 29 Posts
    Rep Power
    1011182
    Quote Originally Posted by antichef View Post
    I use Fabfilter Pro-L for the most part when I want to make something loud.
    One more vote for Pro-L from Fabfilter. Gets stuff loud and remains incredibly transparent, if you want, or use tone shaping options. One of the best plugins I ever purchased.

  10. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Narf City, USA
    Posts
    3,012
    Thanks
    498
    Thanked 153 Times in 142 Posts
    Rep Power
    3962597
    I've been using L3 for many years now, both for track level compression and mastering. It seems solid at both, you just need to rtfm and learn the controls if you want more than the out of the box quality. I find the Loud and Proud preset is fine for most everything I need compression, just use it sparingly/only as much as needed.
    The Boogeymen
    www.the-boogeymen.com

  11. #9
    RAMI Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinky View Post
    I've been using L3 for many years now, both for track level compression and mastering. It seems solid at both, you just need to rtfm and learn the controls if you want more than the out of the box quality. I find the Loud and Proud preset is fine for most everything I need compression, just use it sparingly/only as much as needed.
    I've been using the L3 forever, too. But not the "Multi-Mazimizer", just the "Ultra-Maximizer". I have no use for a multi-band compressor. I put it on "16 bit moderate limiting" and then just adjust the threshold, and Bob's your uncle.

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Narf City, USA
    Posts
    3,012
    Thanks
    498
    Thanked 153 Times in 142 Posts
    Rep Power
    3962597
    Quote Originally Posted by RAMI View Post
    I've been using the L3 forever, too. But not the "Multi-Mazimizer", just the "Ultra-Maximizer". I have no use for a multi-band compressor. I put it on "16 bit moderate limiting" and then just adjust the threshold, and Bob's your uncle.
    The multiband is pretty sweet though, depending on the need at the time. I've used it to bump the low end on a master without needing to EQ everything from scratch (or remix). It's especially clever since it's really just a priority and doesn't blindly raise the entire spectrum like a volume control. I've also used it to brighten up a mix, and does so without being harsh. It's just a way of adding flexibility to an already great tool. The bands are fully modifiable, so if you only want to maybe raise the snare's pop you can set a band to the common snare frequency range. It can be a time saver especially if mastering someone else's work. Alternatively, I've also put a parametric EQ in the chain and accomplished the same thing with even more granuality. It really does depend on how fine you need/want to be.

    I really can't stress how great the L3 is. I've tried MANY other compressors and this is the only one I can get sounding exactly how I want across many instrument tracks and song types when mastering. The only con is that because it is so good, and is doing a lot of work in real time, there's a small latency penalty which I get around by freezing my tracks once I get them close. At this point until I get a top of the line interface I'm in the habit of freezing everything as I go anyway.
    The Boogeymen
    www.the-boogeymen.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Slate Digital
    By Zydrus in forum Digital Recording & Computers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-20-2014, 06:29
  2. Steven Slate for $20!!!!!!
    By joeym in forum MIDI Mania
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 06-13-2010, 10:43
  3. Waves RVox vs Waves C1 for vocals?
    By MTY_MEX in forum Newbies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-16-2007, 10:20
  4. Slate/Talk Back
    By nay in forum Newbies
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-16-1999, 21:34

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •