|
|
|
03-20-2019, 12:29 PM
|
#41
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll
The funny thing to me is that the 1st mixing console I learned to work on was an SSL 4000E. The thing back then was the 4000E was never really known for it's sound quality. If anything it was always highly criticized for it's harsh sound since it was well, "Solid State" transistor op-amp based. Where the SSL 4000E shined for it's time was in it's routing capabilities and the fact that it had parametric EQ as well as having a full dynamics section with side chaining capabilities on every channel strip. The Mic pres were nothing to write home about. The main attractiveness of an SSL was that you could really dial things in and route any channel to another channel. It made it simple to route a kick drum to a side chain gate of a bass line track to tighten up the low end groove on a mix. The gates on every channel were mostly used to help cut down the noise floor coming from the 2in Analog tape. You had to close the gate on a track when that track wasn't playing any music. You have 48 tracks of tape hiss going into a console like we did, that noise adds up and becomes rather loud in the mix.
In another room in the same studio there was an API console. Now that didn't have the routing flexibility or dynamics on every channel like the SSL but it definitely had a much smoother sound where the sound of that mixer was highly regarded. The API eventually had to be retired due to needing constant repair but the owner of the studio had me build API lunch boxes out of the mic pre-amp and EQ sections. Those things sold like hot-cakes on the order of $3K-$5K a piece. SSL channel strips that were going on the fritz? We couldn't give those away.
|
Wasn't it the case that people generally liked tracking on API, Neve, Trident etc., but SSL consoles were very versatile and handy for mixing?
I know I've heard a few accounts from engineers starting with "the studio had an SSL, so I brought in my own preamps".
|
|
|
03-21-2019, 08:06 AM
|
#43
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
Posts: 58
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by poetnprophet
|
Cool for sure, but if it's tone/character/"analogue magic" that people are after versus hands-on control then they might be a little disappointed.
This video was quite eye-opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0SKwEI_7Wc
|
|
|
03-21-2019, 09:41 AM
|
#44
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,651
|
when I saw that video a while back, my take away was that the neve sounded better, fuller, more "analogue".
|
|
|
03-21-2019, 09:46 AM
|
#45
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by poetnprophet
when I saw that video a while back, my take away was that the neve sounded better, fuller, more "analogue".
|
My thought was "what do you expect when you put audio through a clean, high headroom analogue device at moderate levels, without using any of the channels' analogue processing?".
It's supposed to come out the other side nice and clean!
|
|
|
03-21-2019, 01:07 PM
|
#46
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,993
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders
Wasn't it the case that people generally liked tracking on API, Neve, Trident etc., but SSL consoles were very versatile and handy for mixing?
I know I've heard a few accounts from engineers starting with "the studio had an SSL, so I brought in my own preamps".
|
Very much true. We tracked on the SSL because that's where our drum and isolation rooms were at to set up a band to record. However, with some lower volume instruments that you had to turn the gain of the pre-amp up...yeah, those pres were actually pretty noisy. Another problem with the SSL were that it used VCAs on the main channel faders which were state of the art for recalling mixes for it's time, but the downside of the VCA was that they were also noisy...not as noisy as the pres though. Each channel had two faders, one for the input section and the other for the monitor section. The SSL had a monitor flip button which essentially flipped the input VCA faders with the monitor faders. The monitor faders weren't as noisy because they weren't VCAs, so when we tracked we made sure to go through the non VCA faders to record to tape.
|
|
|
03-21-2019, 01:15 PM
|
#47
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,993
|
So what's the difference between the plugin being discussed and the Waves SSL G Channel plugin? The only thing I'm noticing is no mic/line pre level adjusts...which from my experience may be a good thing not to have if they sound anything like the original.
|
|
|
03-21-2019, 01:15 PM
|
#48
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll
Very much true. We tracked on the SSL because that's where our drum and isolation rooms were at to set up a band to record. However, with some lower volume instruments that you had to turn the gain of the pre-amp up...yeah, those pres were actually pretty noisy. Another problem with the SSL were that it used VCAs on the main channel faders which were state of the art for recalling mixes for it's time, but the downside of the VCA was that they were also noisy...not as noisy as the pres though. Each channel had two faders, one for the input section and the other for the monitor section. The SSL had a monitor flip button which essentially flipped the input VCA faders with the monitor faders. The monitor faders weren't as noisy because they weren't VCAs, so when we tracked we made sure to go through the non VCA faders to record to tape.
|
Interesting. Thanks for the knowledge bomb!
|
|
|
03-22-2019, 10:32 AM
|
#49
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 808
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll
So what's the difference between the plugin being discussed and the Waves SSL G Channel plugin? The only thing I'm noticing is no mic/line pre level adjusts...which from my experience may be a good thing not to have if they sound anything like the original.
|
Aaah ... I still love "the old" Waves SSL 4000.
I don't believe that the CLA MH is entirely modeled after "the" hardware. It's obviously post-tweaked to live up to CLA's specs (demands). But there still is very much SSL (old plugin) in it. CLA MH is said to be modeled after the E channel, but it sounds/feels a lot like the G channel.
And as I've said before, I don't have any real life experience of the SSL hardware, so I wouldn't know much about the real pre amp. But the one in CLA MH sounds very, very nice. Before CLA MH I had to combo NLS + SSL to get something similar.
|
|
|
03-22-2019, 10:44 AM
|
#50
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,651
|
can anyone who is using this comment on the CPU usage, compared to the SSL g channel and NLS channel combined?
|
|
|
03-22-2019, 02:54 PM
|
#51
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 808
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by poetnprophet
can anyone who is using this comment on the CPU usage, compared to the SSL g channel and NLS channel combined?
|
One instance of CLA MH with all modules activated (compressor -> "Bluey") takes about 2x(+) the CPU of what a chain of NLS+SSL(G)+CLA76 does.
The "Lite" CLA MH version takes a little less CPU, but I think its EQ behaves strange compared to the full version, especially at "high" values.
It's the CLA MH EQ module that goes heavy on the CPU. One "workaround" is to inactivate the EQ module and insert an "old" G/E channel in the Insert Slot. The CPU usage will go down a little (even more than the "Lite" version). But in that case, you'd do better with the NLS+SSL(G)+CLA76 chain.
|
|
|
03-27-2019, 02:56 PM
|
#52
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 182
|
I actually kind of miss this now. Wish i hadn't sold it. It does actually sound pretty good. I just didn't find the workflow particularly useful. In hindsight, i think i would like it if used as a normal plug (i.e without the buckets) and assigning the controls to reaper's mixer
|
|
|
03-27-2019, 04:23 PM
|
#53
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,651
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valle
One instance of CLA MH with all modules activated (compressor -> "Bluey") takes about 2x(+) the CPU of what a chain of NLS+SSL(G)+CLA76 does.
The "Lite" CLA MH version takes a little less CPU, but I think its EQ behaves strange compared to the full version, especially at "high" values.
It's the CLA MH EQ module that goes heavy on the CPU. One "workaround" is to inactivate the EQ module and insert an "old" G/E channel in the Insert Slot. The CPU usage will go down a little (even more than the "Lite" version). But in that case, you'd do better with the NLS+SSL(G)+CLA76 chain.
|
thank you for the info! That is kinda of what I was afraid of considering one would assume to use on every channel.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:10 PM.
|