SSL vs what else? SSL - Page 2

Faderjockey · 18th July 2006

Tough test... Because without mixing into these the original mix will always win. I don't like adding a comp to a already good mix. Tough to sell a comp. But then mixing into each one of these may have made you pull your hair out.

joho · 18th July 2006

I definitely like #1

The leat wimpiest to my ears, especially when listening in low level volume

T_R_S · 18th July 2006

01.wav is Digidesign Impact TDM

robi · 18th July 2006

1. NoCompthumbsup
2. #2 (what is it?)

Ruudman · 18th July 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_R_S

01.wav is Digidesign Impact TDM

Well, I thought it was the URS, so I was wrong...

ruudman

krid · 18th July 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_R_S

01.wav is Digidesign Impact TDM

What is #6 please ?

Duende, Waves SSL ?

Dutchmuzik · 18th July 2006

I like 1 and 6, they sound the most crisp without grating on the high end to me.

audiomichael · 18th July 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_R_S

01.wav is Digidesign Impact TDM

more answers please!

Come on now, the man said please after all right?

LOL

Improv · 19th July 2006

Wow, very close. I hear the most striking differences in the first bass notes and the first band downbeat. They all seems to "suck" a bit too much except for #1... much more open to me. #4 too, but definitely I like #1 the best. Perhaps it's grabbing a bit too gently though? It works for this kind of track but I might want a bit more meat for heavier material.

And yeah, the "uncompressed" one sounds best as is. Was it compressed originally? I definitely hear pump on those bass notes in the original (most likely the comp on the bass track in the mix), but it's interesting how certain bus compressors seemed to gloss over that in a good way and others brought it out in a bad way.

So how many posts do you need before we get the results? Or can you PM only to those who respond to the thread?

Oscar · 19th July 2006

Three for me. I'd say which one I like least, but it's probably the TDM or RTAS version of #3. If I had golden ears I'd have melted them down and pawned them for more gear money by now.

coder · 19th July 2006

the answers please!

six_wax · 19th July 2006

somebody needs to jump in here and process the NoComp with a real G384 with the same settings (through some nice converters, of course)...

texdc · 19th July 2006

The No Comp wins hands down, but after that, I prefered #6 over the rest.

Thanks for putting this up, TRS! If there is a genenral consensus of the top 3 from this run, how about comparing the channel EQ and comp on individual tracks, like Kick, Snare, and Keys?

T_R_S · 19th July 2006

01.wav = Digidesign Impact TDM
02.wav = Waves SSL TDM
03.wav = Waves SSL RTAS
04.wav = SSL Duende
05.wav = Focusrite Liquid Mix with SSL compressor sample
06.wav = URS 1980 TDM
07.wav = URS 1980 RTAS

I put up the no compression version hoping someone would find the time to run it through an SSL hardware comp with the same setttings in the screen shot.
There was very light comp 4:1 with a peak of -4 db of gain reduction, the goal was not to see how they compared to each other. They were all pretty close IMO My favs were Liquid mix and the Waves.
Have fun and happy compressing those mixes!

not_so_new · 19th July 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_R_S

01.wav = Digidesign Impact TDM
02.wav = Waves SSL TDM
03.wav = Waves SSL RTAS
04.wav = SSL Duende
05.wav = Focusrite Liquid Mix with SSL compressor sample
06.wav = URS 1980 TDM
07.wav = URS 1980 RTAS

I put up the no compression version hoping someone would find the time to run it through an SSL hardware comp with the same setttings in the screen shot.
There was very light comp 4:1 with a peak of -4 db of gain reduction, the goal was not to see how they compared to each other. They were all pretty close IMO My favs were Liquid mix and the Waves.
Have fun and happy compressing those mixes!

Interesting... I liked the Duende... I had to pick the most expensive one of course.

LOL

Thanks for the test, very interesting and yes I would love to have someone run the mix through an hardware unti then post all the samples blind again for testing.

ewegogetemtiger · 19th July 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by upscaps

i may in the minority but i like the no comp version the best.

I agree. no comp is, in my opinion, way better than any of the other files.

ewegogetemtiger · 19th July 2006

Thank you for recording these files. I appreciate it -- helps me to save money.

noiseflaw · 19th July 2006

Dunno what we can learn from this one really.

Thanks TRS for takin' the time.

If you have more time,

- can we have the same again with all the comps on 'SPANK', 'SMACK' mode - we could probably get to hear more differences between the 'Grab' factor on all the models then ?.............

If not, thanks anyway.

coder · 19th July 2006

wow...hmmm, why is there a difference between TDM and RTAS versions- is that normal?

Sammy · 19th July 2006

Was wondering the same thing... are they marketed as sounding the same?

FossilTooth · 19th July 2006

1, 6 and myabe 7 are superior sounding to my ears. I'm not surprised, I've picked out the URS stuff as favorites in listening tests before.

It was interesting that the RTAS version of the Waves SSL comp sounded better than the TDM version. That was a surprise.

The uncompressed sounded better to me on my more expensive monitors (asp-8s), but most of the compressed versions sounded better over my "grot-boxes" (auratones and boombox).

-Justin

nbless · 19th July 2006

hey T_R_S, thank you for your work, that's great thumbsup

elambo · 19th July 2006

Hasn't it been stated by plugin makers that RTAS and TDM versions are sonically identical?

T_R_S · 19th July 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by elambo

Hasn't it been stated by plugin makers that RTAS and TDM versions are sonically identical?

They don't reverse phase completely but its close enough for me ...I would give it a 99.9%
I would account for more differences in the 16bit powr dither.
I had to dither due to file size limit here plus I did what to post mp3's
I just posted them for the people that would probably asked for them.
I wanted to know want the difference was so that's why I did it.

Dutchmuzik · 19th July 2006

Wow, interesting, did not expect these results, after going back and looking at the picks by most it seems that Impact and URS beat out the Duendo ? In the beginning of the post when most people thought Duendo was the first Wav file they picked it only to find out it was Impact

Old Dog · 19th July 2006

Very interesting. My fav, as previously stated, was #6 - the URS 1980 TDM. Had I stated a second, it would have been #7 - the URS 1980 RTAS which is REALLY close, but not quite as open. That is REALLY interesting to me and a topic for a whole 'nother thread.

I went back and listened again once I saw the results and thought the Liquid Mix was quite comparable to the Duende and I liked it even better, though the Duende was decent. I didn't care for the Impact and I really didn't like either of the Waves versions which seemed to suck the life out the mix.

Now I'm intrigued to see which one sounds the most like a real SSL because I may be inclined not to like the real deal either. I tend not to like compression that sounds "squashed." Most of these samples did with the URS sounding most open which is the most pleasant to my ears though maybe not as "true" to the original.

Faderjockey · 19th July 2006

Well my thoughts are I don't think the 1980 sounds like an SSL. So maybe that's why you liked it.

I think it's neat... But different.

Not glad to hear about the Duende bugs... But I can't afford it right now so... Good. But I was sort of hoping it would sound really cool. Oh well maybe V2.5 will be cooler.

18th July 2006	#31
Faderjockey Lives for gear Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Baltimore Posts: 1,889	Tough test... Because without mixing into these the original mix will always win. I don't like adding a comp to a already good mix. Tough to sell a comp. But then mixing into each one of these may have made you pull your hair out. __________________ http://www.myspace.com/bigbangstudios www.barberelectronics.com

18th July 2006	#39
noiseflaw Lives for gear Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: London Posts: 1,921	I just prefer the original in this case. I cannot be bothered to volume match so that the louder uncompressed version does not have an unfair advantage. The original sounds crisper, fresher and more in your face than all of the compressed versions. Anyways.................I gotta commit so Here: 4 & 7 are the fattest to me. __________________ . "There's no correlation between creativity and equipment ownership. None. Zilch. Nada." Hugh MacLeod ~ peace ~

19th July 2006	#40
qubi Gear maniac Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 240	ok, I like the original non-compressed the most, but out of the others: I like #6 the best, and #7 isn't bad but a little muddy in the low end.. Overall, the differences are subtle at best (hardly measurable to the $ difference in the systems used). #1 is a little too obviousely compressed for me, and lacking too much low end.. #4not bad, but still, #6 wins. On a sidenote, should't the duende offer the same sound as the c200?? it's all software after all, and the average G5 or pc has more power than a board in a mixer (i have a DMX100, and the eq's aren't fairing too well with newer plug-ins). Anyway, I'd love to know what each file is.. Cause i've been thinking about getting the Dunede __________________ Qubi SoundTrax productions, KWT qubi1@hotmail.com

19th July 2006	#46
texdc Gear nut Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 98	The No Comp wins hands down, but after that, I prefered #6 over the rest. Thanks for putting this up, TRS! If there is a genenral consensus of the top 3 from this run, how about comparing the channel EQ and comp on individual tracks, like Kick, Snare, and Keys? __________________ "Rockstars. Is there anything they don't know?" -Homer

19th July 2006	#47
T_R_S Lives for gear Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Canuk Posts: 5,163 Thread Starter	01.wav = Digidesign Impact TDM 02.wav = Waves SSL TDM 03.wav = Waves SSL RTAS 04.wav = SSL Duende 05.wav = Focusrite Liquid Mix with SSL compressor sample 06.wav = URS 1980 TDM 07.wav = URS 1980 RTAS I put up the no compression version hoping someone would find the time to run it through an SSL hardware comp with the same setttings in the screen shot. There was very light comp 4:1 with a peak of -4 db of gain reduction, the goal was not to see how they compared to each other. They were all pretty close IMO My favs were Liquid mix and the Waves. Have fun and happy compressing those mixes! __________________ ========== Surplus Sale

18th July 2006	#32
joho Gear maniac Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Tallinn, Estonia Posts: 208	I definitely like #1 The leat wimpiest to my ears, especially when listening in low level volume

18th July 2006	#34
robi Gear Head Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 73	1. NoCompthumbsup 2. #2 (what is it?)

18th July 2006	#37
Dutchmuzik Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 580	I like 1 and 6, they sound the most crisp without grating on the high end to me.

19th July 2006	#42
Improv Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 1,365	Wow, very close. I hear the most striking differences in the first bass notes and the first band downbeat. They all seems to "suck" a bit too much except for #1... much more open to me. #4 too, but definitely I like #1 the best. Perhaps it's grabbing a bit too gently though? It works for this kind of track but I might want a bit more meat for heavier material. And yeah, the "uncompressed" one sounds best as is. Was it compressed originally? I definitely hear pump on those bass notes in the original (most likely the comp on the bass track in the mix), but it's interesting how certain bus compressors seemed to gloss over that in a good way and others brought it out in a bad way. So how many posts do you need before we get the results? Or can you PM only to those who respond to the thread?

19th July 2006	#43
Oscar Gear nut Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 79	Three for me. I'd say which one I like least, but it's probably the TDM or RTAS version of #3. If I had golden ears I'd have melted them down and pawned them for more gear money by now.

19th July 2006	#44
coder Gear maniac Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 165	the answers please!

19th July 2006	#45
six_wax Lives for gear Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,102	somebody needs to jump in here and process the NoComp with a real G384 with the same settings (through some nice converters, of course)...

19th July 2006	#50
ewegogetemtiger Gear addict Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 391	Thank you for recording these files. I appreciate it -- helps me to save money.

19th July 2006	#53
Sammy Gear maniac Join Date: May 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 186	Was wondering the same thing... are they marketed as sounding the same?

19th July 2006	#54
FossilTooth Lives for gear Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 918	1, 6 and myabe 7 are superior sounding to my ears. I'm not surprised, I've picked out the URS stuff as favorites in listening tests before. It was interesting that the RTAS version of the Waves SSL comp sounded better than the TDM version. That was a surprise. The uncompressed sounded better to me on my more expensive monitors (asp-8s), but most of the compressed versions sounded better over my "grot-boxes" (auratones and boombox). -Justin

19th July 2006	#55
nbless Gear interested Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Switzerland Posts: 8	hey T_R_S, thank you for your work, that's great thumbsup

19th July 2006	#56
elambo Lives for gear Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Up here Posts: 6,037	Hasn't it been stated by plugin makers that RTAS and TDM versions are sonically identical?

19th July 2006	#59
Old Dog Gear Head Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 54	Very interesting. My fav, as previously stated, was #6 - the URS 1980 TDM. Had I stated a second, it would have been #7 - the URS 1980 RTAS which is REALLY close, but not quite as open. That is REALLY interesting to me and a topic for a whole 'nother thread. I went back and listened again once I saw the results and thought the Liquid Mix was quite comparable to the Duende and I liked it even better, though the Duende was decent. I didn't care for the Impact and I really didn't like either of the Waves versions which seemed to suck the life out the mix. Now I'm intrigued to see which one sounds the most like a real SSL because I may be inclined not to like the real deal either. I tend not to like compression that sounds "squashed." Most of these samples did with the URS sounding most open which is the most pleasant to my ears though maybe not as "true" to the original. __________________ Peace, Old Dog

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Waves SSL and Duende SSL: both from the same company?!	Farshad	So much gear, so little time!	40	26th December 2011 02:29 AM
CHRIS LORD-ALGE’S SSL SETTINGS NOW AVAILABLE AS PART OF WAVES’ SSL BUNDLE	The Press Desk at Gearslutz.com	Product Alerts older than 2 months	25	13th April 2008 01:32 PM
If SSL consoles are the Holy Grail, why aren't SSL channel strips	AlanTide	So much gear, so little time!	39	9th April 2008 10:08 PM
Waves SSL vs SSL FX G384 vs URS 1980 - The advanced Test	theother	High end	237	5th December 2006 09:59 AM