Need help from SSL mix engineers

[Bernd G]

Dear Gearslutz - please help me out:

We are about to finish off our new studios and install the SL 4000 G/G+. My questions concern two important aspects of this particular equipment: its ergonomics and how they relate to the "history" of pop/rock music mixing/recording. Please forgive my long-windedness and multi-level questions.

(1) Seeing the long succession of SSL consoles since the B series, what do you find is the most significant change in functionality from B series throughout the numbers G - J - Ks? What can you do on one series, but not on the other? What would you do on one vs the other? I am aware of changes in the electronics/eq/bus compressors and the consequences on the sound, but I am curious to address those who have spent many hours working on this style of console.

(2) The sound of the consoles are often described as "crunchy" (G,E), "extended bottom, smooth top" (J). Given any other console/ mix situation, could you actually pick out the sound of a console in a recording? How would YOU describe the sound?

(3) Given specific mix situations, which are the creative possibilities and what are the Mixing CLICHES that are UNIQUE to SSL consoles and cannot easily be duplicated by other mixing consoles? Have you ever found yourself longing for a specific console's routing system/computer automation functionality/ espresso machine outlet?

Thank you so much - your help is invaluable.

[djui5]

There isn't really one major thing that's changed throughout the years in the SSL camp. It's been a culmination of things...some for the better, some for the worse (or you could just say different).

The big differences between say a 4000 and a J series are the automation and the sound of the summing/eq's/dynamics and overall sound of the board. The J also has more options like more auxes and 48 busses versus the 24 on the 4K. It also has a lot more mixing flexibility and a different sound....

Thrill should be more apt to answer this question properly....

Just thought I'd throw in a few words...

[juniorhifikit]

I don't have much J time, but the G 4056 I work on most has Ultimation, which seemed to open up the sound of the console a bit. SSL's little fader/big fader thing is very useful, and the quad compressor is legendary. Too bad they can't retrofit with something other than those Bernoulli things.

[e-cue]

1. One major improvement for me when I jumped to the 9K was the mute and fader automation being seperate like it is. This is a HUGE deal in urban music because quite often, the drops (mutes) are doing toward the end of the mix after fader automation has already been perfected. Saves me hours on a mix since I don't have to mess with "play cuts only" and all that mess. It baffled me to read CLA saying you needed a manual to run the automation. The four channel pans are also great as well as the "capture clips" fuction to manually write in mute automation that follows a gate. Also, another huge deal was the eq choice. They obiviously listened to their clients when they started seeing the E channel strips in G series desks.

The main negative thing I can say about the 9000 is the bullshit LED meters. On a 100 channel console, it's impossible to see what's going on on channel 88 (usually where people stick their effect returns) when you are sitting in the sweet spot.

2. I find more fidelity and cleaness. First thing I did when I saw a 9000 was push all the faders all the way up and crank the mains. It's very quiet. The faders are the best out there. Glassy smooth. I just get the feeling I have more control over the sound on the 9000 that some of the other desk's out there. My low end sounds a tinge more open on the 9000K vs the 9000J, even moreso if I'm slamming the 2 mix hard.

3. Without a doubt, the Match And Play mute automation. I feel helpless when I'm on consoles that have the fader and mute automation linked. If the 9K's could offer plasma meters, I'd be in heaven.

[thethrillfactor]

For me the biggest learning curve on the J wasn't as much the automation, but just how to get the best sound out of it.

You can't approach it in the same way as the older SSL's.

Its a different sound, an acquired taste.

I learned by approaching it the same way you do in mixing in PT(pain staking gain staging).

One basic thing getting used to at first was just selecting the insert button when you wanted to insert an out board unit in the track.

I can't tell you how many times i bitched at first about wiring problems at the sound motels, when it was just that i didn't hit the insert button.

Like E-cue, the first striking thing to me soundwise was how much headroom you had before you heard the console.

Also i love how its really clean and solid up the middle.

Softgroups are a life saver when you work with producers who want to do their own"drops on the fly" for remixes.

I love the "E" emulation on the EQ.

Also one of the drawbacks of the older SSL's were that the busses,auxes and inserts all tended to sound different, so a lot of your mixing was spent compensating for those differences.

This would involve lots of EQ, which would cause phase shifts all over the place. Its part of the reason lots of people complained that the "SSL sound" was small.

On the "J" there is more consistency in the bussing(even though i swear that i hear differences sometimes).

The knocks on the "J" are:

1) When you need balls and a signature the J can be lacking.

2) They love some D/A converters better than others

3) To me its too easy to overload the mix buss

4) The Quad compressor stinks

5) The standard EQ on it is kinda boring

6) It gets really hot, which tends to unseat some channels(try doing a mix and than having a track drop out that you swear was there).

7) I still will return a vocal from my processing on an insert instead of a tape or line return. To me after mixing on SSL's after all these years it still sounds way better(to much in fact).

Even with all of these drawbacks mixing with automation on a J and mixing with automation in PT are still my favorite automation mediums.

[Mr. Truth]

Corrections and thoughts:

djui5: The E and G series had 32 busses, not 24.

juniorhifi: E's and G's can be retrofitted with zip drives in place of Bernoulli's.

e-cue: The E/G automation has the mode "Redo Cuts" or whatever it's called. Works pretty fine. Your thoughts about throwing up the faders and cranking the mains has as much to do with the grounding in the room as it does the inherent sound of the desk.

Yeah, the J was a mixed bag. Lots of headroom, but for some engineers that's not necessarily a good thing. Same with the automation. Some took to it, some preferred the old. In my experience, I have found that about 60-70% of engineers seem to prefer the J/K and about 30-40% seem to prefer the E/G. Just the people I know.

Hope that helps,

Mr. Truth

[e-cue]

Originally posted by Mr. Truth
e-cue: The E/G automation has the mode "Redo Cuts" or whatever it's called. Works pretty fine.

I just find the 'match and play' to be much more efficient that toggling the modes to trim, esspecially when fixing mutes (extending, shortening, etc). YRMV.

[Bernd G]

Fantastic comments - thank you gentlemen. I hope you don't mind me rambling on just a bit more, expressing a couple of thoughts and more questions that I have had:

Thanks ECUE, THRILL, RANDY, JUNIOR and MR TRUTH.

Now HOW does this functionality of the mixing console (either SSL G or J/K) affect your creative decisions in the music ? Operating under the assumption that if it takes too long to do something one would sometimes not consider this option.

Ultimately, I would like to come to formulate somewhat of a ZEN OF MUSICAL MIXING (for the lack of a better word) or specific mindset that "routing" through analog consoles require. How does having to think analytically (specify routing, muting schemes, specific settings) WHILE making creative decisions tax you? How is it different from working on computer workstations and how in the end does it influence the final musical product?


(1) ECUE (ie. separate mute/fader automation)- do you think that SSL's K has tried to incorporate some of the advantages of non-linear workstations?


(2) THRILL

"I still will return a vocal from my processing on an insert
instead of a tape or line return. To me after mixing on SSL's
after all these years it still sounds way better(to much in
fact)."

The fact that you are bypassing all of those line-amps? I tend to mix mostly through the inserts these days!

It has been an ear-opening experience finding that can in fact hear substantial differences in the sonics of different Op-amps even only in the channel buffer amps. I imagine that the often described qualities of SSL consoles comes to no small extent from all of those 5534s in the signal path - it gives the sound of the 4000 an edgy, forward quality (crossover distortions, low slewrate of Opamps?). I wonder whether the 9000s use different opamps, although it is understood that the circuit topology is also crucial here. In this respect, however, all 5534 based consoles would probably fall into a sonic class on their own (as opposed consoles favoring a discrete topology, for instance).

(3) THRILL, you mention that different busses seem to sound differently on 4000s, have you also observed this phenomenon for different channels that are located further away from the centre section? The Neve VRs apparently have different sonics in buckets far away because of the questionable grounding scheme (one of the things that can be improved by modifications). If this were true, then tracks on the far off channels away from the center would exhibit different sonics as those in the middle.

(4) Obvious sonic differences are in the various EQ configurations: E type = minimal gain/bandwidth dependence - G-type = maximum gain/bandwidth independence. These are TLO- Opamp based circuits, with distinct sonic footprints, but what is more interesting is that in principle then the latter G-style EQ should be considered more "musical" and the former E-style EQ more "harsh and sterile". The aesthetics of the music that has become popular over the last decades such as RAP and HIPHOP has turned these tools into opposites. Chicken or Egg?

(5) How much does the fact that only a limited amount of tracks can be located on the channels in the "sweet spot" influence your mix decisions in regards to placement and panning ? THRILL, I read your post about mixing "in mono" because of the placement of speakers and/or equipment racks with great interest.

(6) Influence of automated mixing and decisions based on whether will track noise (tape hiss) stemming from sudden unmuting of multiple tracks will be masked by the music or not. Would you say that this will force decisions about where to apply automation "effects" and, ultimately, about how the musical product will be shaped?

(7) Ultimately, do you think sonics of a mixing console are an integral part of how the consumer experiences the music product? Even if the untrained ear cannot depict or "analyse" the sonic differences, does it elicit a different emotional response? I am thinking about the differences in emotional response that I have experienced while listening to the same mix in 24/96 versus 16/44.1. Thrill, do you think the "smallness" of the SSL 4K sound has any impact on how consumers experience the product, does its sound then tie the listener to a specific musical aesthetic (ie. rock) as opposed to the fidelity of the 9J/K being associated with Hiphop and R/B? Or is this simply a function of the preferences of the music industry? (I know, there are no easy answers here).

AAYT (As always yours truly)

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Bernd G
Fantastic comments - thank you gentlemen. I hope you don't mind me rambling on just a bit more, expressing a couple of thoughts and more questions that I have had:

Thanks ECUE, THRILL, RANDY, JUNIOR and MR TRUTH.

Now HOW does this functionality of the mixing console (either SSL G or J/K) affect your creative decisions in the music ? Operating under the assumption that if it takes too long to do something one would sometimes not consider this option.

Ultimately, I would like to come to formulate somewhat of a ZEN OF MUSICAL MIXING (for the lack of a better word) or specific mindset that "routing" through analog consoles require. How does having to think analytically (specify routing, muting schemes, specific settings) WHILE making creative decisions tax you? How is it different from working on computer workstations and how in the end does it influence the final musical product?


(1) ECUE (ie. separate mute/fader automation)- do you think that SSL's K has tried to incorporate some of the advantages of non-linear workstations?


(2) THRILL

"I still will return a vocal from my processing on an insert
instead of a tape or line return. To me after mixing on SSL's
after all these years it still sounds way better(to much in
fact)."

The fact that you are bypassing all of those line-amps? I tend to mix mostly through the inserts these days!

It has been an ear-opening experience finding that can in fact hear substantial differences in the sonics of different Op-amps even only in the channel buffer amps. I imagine that the often described qualities of SSL consoles comes to no small extent from all of those 5534s in the signal path - it gives the sound of the 4000 an edgy, forward quality (crossover distortions, low slewrate of Opamps?). I wonder whether the 9000s use different opamps, although it is understood that the circuit topology is also crucial here. In this respect, however, all 5534 based consoles would probably fall into a sonic class on their own (as opposed consoles favoring a discrete topology, for instance).

(3) THRILL, you mention that different busses seem to sound differently on 4000s, have you also observed this phenomenon for different channels that are located further away from the centre section? The Neve VRs apparently have different sonics in buckets far away because of the questionable grounding scheme (one of the things that can be improved by modifications). If this were true, then tracks on the far off channels away from the center would exhibit different sonics as those in the middle.

(4) Obvious sonic differences are in the various EQ configurations: E type = minimal gain/bandwidth dependence - G-type = maximum gain/bandwidth independence. These are TLO- Opamp based circuits, with distinct sonic footprints, but what is more interesting is that in principle then the latter G-style EQ should be considered more "musical" and the former E-style EQ more "harsh and sterile". The aesthetics of the music that has become popular over the last decades such as RAP and HIPHOP has turned these tools into opposites. Chicken or Egg?

(5) How much does the fact that only a limited amount of tracks can be located on the channels in the "sweet spot" influence your mix decisions in regards to placement and panning ? THRILL, I read your post about mixing "in mono" because of the placement of speakers and/or equipment racks with great interest.

(6) Influence of automated mixing and decisions based on whether will track noise (tape hiss) stemming from sudden unmuting of multiple tracks will be masked by the music or not. Would you say that this will force decisions about where to apply automation "effects" and, ultimately, about how the musical product will be shaped?

(7) Ultimately, do you think sonics of a mixing console are an integral part of how the consumer experiences the music product? Even if the untrained ear cannot depict or "analyse" the sonic differences, does it elicit a different emotional response? I am thinking about the differences in emotional response that I have experienced while listening to the same mix in 24/96 versus 16/44.1. Thrill, do you think the "smallness" of the SSL 4K sound has any impact on how consumers experience the product, does its sound then tie the listener to a specific musical aesthetic (ie. rock) as opposed to the fidelity of the 9J/K being associated with Hiphop and R/B? Or is this simply a function of the preferences of the music industry? (I know, there are no easy answers here).

AAYT (As always yours truly)

Wow so many questions!!!

I'll try to knock them out one by one-

1) The returning the vocals(most crucial fidelity wise) on an inserts i've done for years even when not on an SSL. I started mixing vocals directly off the converters(3348) years ago. I just saw where i could load the outboard gear differently than coming off an insert on a channel. It helps mixing from console to DAW for me more consistently since i can predict the outcome pretty much.

Different SSL's have different op amps.

The one's that are used to mix a lot of the records you are talking about have been heavily modified, so you can't really compare it to a standard SSL.

2) On the channels further away thing, yes i've noticed this on the 9000J for sure.

3) The EQ question is a little of a stretch though. I love the black E EQ way better than the G. The rap sound is more in the use of the channel EQ/dynamics for everything and that they don't go as nuts on the outboard as the rock and pop guys do. The grunge factor is actually helpful.

4) My setup on SSL's is pretty consistent-Channels 9-16 for drums and bass(with sub compression),17-22 for guitars,23-24 drum buss with compression,25-32 for vocals,1-8 for synths and percs, effects and tricks anywhere that's open.

Also i am one of those guys who moves the nearfields up and down to move the sweet spot or use a speaker in mono.

5) The automation issue is not an issue really. Its been a while since i've done a strictly analog mix.

If noise on open tracks were an issue i would probably clean it up or use an expander on said track.

The way i mix anyway, i would dump to some kinda digital medium that i could play over and over without wearing it out.

6) On the console sonics question...in my opinion yes and or maybe.

It does it to me, the artist, the producer and the mastering guy.

That influences your decisions down the line. I think the decisions are felt by the consumer on some level.

But a lot of times nowadays that doesn't matter as much to the record mooks.

Its more a bottomn line thing with them.grudge

On the 4000 versus 9000 with consumer thing...nah.

I've heard mixes and have done mixes on 9000's that sound smaller than my pinky nail.

That's also because i was still learning to mix on it.

It comes down to the engineer.

Andy Wallace,TLA,Bob CLearmountain, Brendan Obrien, the list goes on and on of guys that still mix on 4000's and generate more and more exciting rock mixes all the time.

Its talent i tell you!!! Some people don't want to hear that, but you are either born with it or you ar not!!

[echorec]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
Its talent i tell you!!! Some people don't want to hear that, but you are either born with it or you ar not!!

Word!

[e-cue]

Originally posted by Bernd G
(1) ECUE (ie. separate mute/fader automation)- do you think that SSL's K has tried to incorporate some of the advantages of non-linear workstations?

Yes, they did. They actually tried a hard disk recording system, but it was shitpoor, and all the SSL rep's were honest and quick to admit it's shortcommings.

For example, the "capture clips" function can be used to look at gate infromation, and then you can draw mute automation to mimick the gate. The 'capture clips' wasn't really put in place to do that, but that's what everyone uses it for.

[Bernd G]

Thank you again for your time and help.

Originally posted by thethrillfactor

Its talent i tell you!!! Some people don't want to hear that, but you are either born with it or you ar not!!

Agreed. And it is exactly the nature of this kind of talent that I believe we all would like to investigate. But in order to do so we should first be aware of who and what defines talent in this occupation. Surely its definition changes with time, musical genre and education, would you not say? Any thoughts?

Cheers

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Bernd G
Thank you again for your time and help.



Agreed. And it is exactly the nature of this kind of talent that I believe we all would like to investigate. But in order to do so we should first be aware of who and what defines talent in this occupation. Surely its definition changes with time, musical genre and education, would you not say? Any thoughts?

Cheers

I wouldn't agree with that.

I believe Bob C, Andy Wallace and TLA no matter what the genre would excel as mixers(and all have).

Bob C did everything from Kool and the Gang,Chic,Sister Sledge,Engelbert Humperdinck,Duke Ellington, (70's), to Roxy Music, Bruce Springsteen,the Stones,Journey,Billy Cobham,the Cure,David Bowie,Joe Cocker,Waylon Jennings,Adam Cohen,Tears for Fears and every other hit record under the sun.

Andy Wallace did Afrika Bambataa,TKA,,Nu Shooz,Public Enemy to Jeff Buckley,Sheryl Crow,Sepultura,Rage Against The Machine to every other hit rock record that's out there today.

TLA did everything from (80's dance)TKA,the System,OMD,Steve Winwood to Dave Matthews, the
Wall Flowers,the Stones,M.Manson ,Hanson,Sarah Mclachlan,Avril Levigne,Liz Phair,Fountains of Wayne and tons of others.

One thing all these guys have in common is that they are not just great mixers, but all are excellent producers. So when they mix they can take a great recording and take it to an even higher level with their own input.

[Wiggy Neve Slut]

Thrill... you are 100% right but they still didn't have a hand in any SEAL production...

Wiggy

[Bernd G]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
I wouldn't agree with that.

I believe Bob C, Andy Wallace and TLA no matter what the genre would excel as mixers(and all have).
.
.
.

One thing all these guys have in common is that they are not just great mixers, but all are excellent producers. So when they mix they can take a great recording and take it to an even higher level with their own input.

Bear with me on this one: I am trying to look at the underlying MECHANISM which makes these mixers "GREAT" and what defines "GREATNESS" in your eyes and others.
Their achievements and qualities are certainly not at dispute and they have all of our full admiration.

My questions concern the following:

the concept of "talent" and how it ties in with the "equipment" -
whether and/or if at all it is dependent on: 1) specificity; 2) genre; 3) equipment; 4) who has the power to say so 5) consensus of other "specialists"? Amount of Record Sales? 6) Path of Success? (ie. internship - apprenticeships - mentorship). 7) Inherent requirements of the music? (this would presuppose that there IS a standard to which ALL recorded music is held.
Some thoughts:

Is talent defined by how well the sonics of the recorded product agree with, or correspond to existing standards - that is OTHER people's records?
This would bring up the issue that in our value judgement we are dependent on what other's have done before us. Indicative of this mechanism is the way engineers list credential, as a list of records which have SOLD many albums (discography)!

Considering all of this and to me at least, the concept of what is "good" or "great" is not as straightforward at all as it appears. It poses quite of a problem in contemporary classical music and art, unlike in Finance, where "Greatness" is measurable by how many $$$ you made last year.

We often use the concept of "Talent" to describe what is so difficult to define and I am interested in these issues because they are rarely raised in the community.
Thanks again for the stimulating discussion.

Cheers

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Bernd G
Bear with me on this one: I am trying to look at the underlying MECHANISM which makes these mixers "GREAT" and what defines "GREATNESS" in your eyes and others.
Their achievements and qualities are certainly not at dispute and they have all of our full admiration.

My questions concern the following:

the concept of "talent" and how it ties in with the "equipment" -
whether and/or if at all it is dependent on: 1) specificity; 2) genre; 3) equipment; 4) who has the power to say so 5) consensus of other "specialists"? Amount of Record Sales? 6) Path of Success? (ie. internship - apprenticeships - mentorship). 7) Inherent requirements of the music? (this would presuppose that there IS a standard to which ALL recorded music is held.
Some thoughts:

Is talent defined by how well the sonics of the recorded product agree with, or correspond to existing standards - that is OTHER people's records?
This would bring up the issue that in our value judgement we are dependent on what other's have done before us. Indicative of this mechanism is the way engineers list credential, as a list of records which have SOLD many albums (discography)!

Considering all of this and to me at least, the concept of what is "good" or "great" is not as straightforward at all as it appears. It poses quite of a problem in contemporary classical music and art, unlike in Finance, where "Greatness" is measurable by how many $$$ you made last year.

We often use the concept of "Talent" to describe what is so difficult to define and I am interested in these issues because they are rarely raised in the community.
Thanks again for the stimulating discussion.

Cheers

To define "talent" and "Greatness" when it comes to mixing is pretty subjective.

I can only speak from my own perspective as a person who does this for a living, but what i feel makes these guys talented and great is that no matter what the genre, the time in history or challenge that's put before them, they seem to not only to be up to it, but they take the songs to a different level.

Its hard to describe, but when you this almost everyday you start to appreciate the people who do it better, faster and with a certain something that is hard to quantify.

That extra perspective that only a gifted artist can add.

I have heard people say that its because these guys work with the best songs,artist,equipment,studios, blah, blah,blah.grudge

But my answer is so does everybody else.

Talented people only look for the most talented and best people to work with.

And this goes for every profession.

You know right away when someone is not just good, but exceptional.

The argument i hear also is that the same(you pick the number)guys mix everything and what about the guy who is good but will never get a chance?

Again this is a crock!!!

One thing i've learned in this business, is "talent recognizes talent", if you are out there and you have talent you will be found!!

Especially if you save someone's ass over and over.

Bob C kinda established the profession and set bar where i feel everyone is judged.

I've read one of TLA's goal's early on was to establish his career as a mixer kinda the way Bob did.

I've heard this from a lot of guys also and have wanted this myself.

Bob can not only pick the projects he wants to mix, he can also produce if he likes or just take the time off and kick back and enjoy his life.

Man what a luxury!!!

Now for me will i ever be as good as Bob?

Who knows?

But hey i tell you the truth, i am going to go after it like i think i will.

[logicG5]

i dont think any one is waiting in line to use the Computer on the E and G Series. The J Series computer is much better and way more modern.

Most people love the SSL for 3 things. The comressors, The EQs and the mix buss Compressor. You ll get a better price on the E and G Series but will hate dealing withthe computer. J Series runs really warm so you better havea good AC system aswell.

Hope that helps

[MichaelAngelo]

Originally Posted by Bernd G

Dear Gearslutz - please help me out:

We are about to finish off our new studios and install the SL 4000 G/G+. My questions concern two important aspects of this particular equipment: its ergonomics and how they relate to the "history" of pop/rock music mixing/recording. Please forgive my long-windedness and multi-level questions.

(1) Seeing the long succession of SSL consoles since the B series, what do you find is the most significant change in functionality from B series throughout the numbers G - J - Ks? What can you do on one series, but not on the other? What would you do on one vs the other? I am aware of changes in the electronics/eq/bus compressors and the consequences on the sound, but I am curious to address those who have spent many hours working on this style of console.

(2) The sound of the consoles are often described as "crunchy" (G,E), "extended bottom, smooth top" (J). Given any other console/ mix situation, could you actually pick out the sound of a console in a recording? How would YOU describe the sound?

(3) Given specific mix situations, which are the creative possibilities and what are the Mixing CLICHES that are UNIQUE to SSL consoles and cannot easily be duplicated by other mixing consoles? Have you ever found yourself longing for a specific console's routing system/computer automation functionality/ espresso machine outlet?

Thank you so much - your help is invaluable.

There is only 2 great consoles made SSL e and g series.....I guess you can tell I am a fan

[Achim L]

Bernd G and Thrill,

thanks!

Your conversation was the best thing I read here in the last year.


Achim

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by ali48343

Bernd G and Thrill,

thanks!

Your conversation was the best thing I read here in the last year.


Achim

Your welcome even though this convo happened almost 3 years ago.