SSL vs what else? SSL

[noiseflaw]

Originally Posted by chrisj

Revisiting this thread because I've used it to help develop my own plugin- Logical- which is an SSL _caricature_ :D

I am happy to say I have clobbered Dynamic Convolution with my own thing (which is NOT a trademark of Sintefex) like so:

Here's Liquid Mix SSL.
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/attac...sl-08_norm.wav

Here is a REAL SSL, not a plugin at all. (this was popular in listening tests)
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/attac...sl-05_norm.wav

Here's my own, Airwindows "Logical", which is ready for release now.
AirwindowsLogical.wav - Gearslutz,, SSL,, Logical

Thanks, you gearslutz- there's no substitute for being able to hear the real unit work out on a test file. I'm more grateful than I can even express

Lol!

You crack me up Chris, you are in the ring fighting with the big boys now.

From just a quick listen yours sounds great - although their is some level difference apparent with your file, it is louder and sounds brighter...but will check in the studio later.

I will be investing in some of your plugs very soon - as I think they will be a really useful addition to my plug set, especially at the price, I think you could have some little gems there.

Keep up the good work.

[chrisj]

The link's dead because I'm putting up a whole new set of demos- thanks again for use of the Gearslutz thread examples

Interestingly, while my Logical sounds louder, the hardware unit is actually peaking quite a bit hotter. Weird

10/13/07: when I revised Logical for Apple's Logic 8 release, I changed the sound, and I've returned to show a new example.

Logical.wav

[Daniel Antix]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

01.wav is Digidesign Impact TDM

thats my choice besides the uncompressed one.

[lawrence_o]

Originally Posted by Sammy

Well, you could always do worse (like buying a C200 for that sound)

A friend of mine compared duende to his Axiom MT. He started laughing with the line from SSL on the duende bow saying "not just an emulation but the real deal". The Axiom does sound a LOT fatter. I find the duende EQs the best on the DAW market today but unfortunately, it's far from the real deal. Try a good analogue EQ next to it. Try for example a TubeTech CL2B versus any plug-in compressor.

[DrDeltaM]

Originally Posted by lawrence_o

The Axiom does sound a LOT fatter.

I think that might have to do with the convertors in the Axiom, rather then with the algorithm itself.

[lawrence_o]

Originally Posted by DrDeltaM

I think that might have to do with the convertors in the Axiom, rather then with the algorithm itself.

I use Prism ADA-8 at 96kHz. I don't think you'll find (m)any better. Compared an SSL6000 and Axiom against Duende... I don't get that people from SSL themselves dare saying they compared C200 and duende with the ear and with measuring equipment until they were the same... If that would be true, really, I'd feel sorry for C200 owners.

The truth unfortunately is that high-end people would never even think about having a duende as the only solution and low-end people will never have the money for a C200 or even an Axiom but they'll be convinced they have the sound of it by that line on the Duende box... Really, it isn't.

[DrDeltaM]

Originally Posted by lawrence_o

I use Prism ADA-8 at 96kHz. I don't think you'll find (m)any better. Compared an SSL6000 and Axiom against Duende... I don't get that people from SSL themselves dare saying they compared C200 and duende with the ear and with measuring equipment until they were the same... If that would be true, really, I'd feel sorry for C200 owners.

A C200 and a Duende are very different products with different uses for different people.
But the channel strip algorithm and the buscompressor algorithm is the same. Really, it is.

They didn't measure nor listened to it to make Duende the same, they took the actual C200 algorithm code thumbsup

[theother]

Originally Posted by NoWo

No briefcase,

unfortunately VST and RTAS are my platforms.

And as VST and RTAS sound quite similar and as RTAS was used during this test I expanded my disappointment to VST although it wasn´t used for this test. When I am speaking of VST I mean the native ones, not the plugs for the UAD card or the high priced ones for the Powercore, which I also own.

I am using native VST plugs for years, and I am half way ready to give up with them. I never lost the feeling that the same plugs would sound better as TDM plugs, and this test was aiming into this direction again.
Every time a native VST plug starts to sound good it eats up nearly the whole cpu power, it seems to me that a good plug needs some calculation depth and that our machines are still not fast enough to deliver this power.

NoWo

I did extensive testing with VST vs PT (RTAS and TDM) and don't agree at all.

VST definitely didn't sound worse or different to me than RTAS.

I did tests with the Sony Oxford range and Waves.

TDM and RTAS, I can imagine there is a difference, but RTAS and VST?

I don't think so....

I'm getting a bit tired of this constant VST bashing here, like it is something second rate, where in reality I found it way ahead of RTAS and other native formats.

[theother]

Originally Posted by DrDeltaM

A C200 and a Duende are very different products with different uses for different people.
But the channel strip algorithm and the buscompressor algorithm is the same. Really, it is.

They didn't measure nor listened to it to make Duende the same, they took the actual C200 algorithm code thumbsup

Yeah, but how do you know they really put the same code in? You are damn sure about something you really can't prove.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Only they know, or people who can actually do a side by side comparison of a C200, Axiom & Duende.

I don't like Duende very much, which I own. I have the Waves SSL too (plus a real SSL G+). Duende sounds very boring to me, the Waves at least captures a bit of the real analog vibe. The Quad comp they [Waves] did is very good but the channel compressor fails IMO.

Lexicon also tried to make me believe the 960L is equal or better than the 480L. What a bad joke. I sold the 960 after 2 weeks with a big loss and got he 480L back. And it's not just the converters! I have AES/EBU on my 480L too, and it still smokes the 960L.

[Slogun]

I had the chance to A/B test my Duende against the SSL X-Rack EQ yesterday. I have to say, not THAT much difference actually (of course it would only be fair to compare Duende to the C200 in this case), at least considering what you pay for it. Wouldn't describe it as 'far from the real deal' though. Two winners and keepers by my standards, Duende and a loaded X-Rack

[theother]

Originally Posted by Slogun

I had the chance to A/B test my Duende against the SSL X-Rack EQ yesterday. I have to say, not THAT much difference actually (of course it would only be fair to compare Duende to the C200 in this case), at least considering what you pay for it. Wouldn't describe it as 'far from the real deal' though. Two winners and keepers by my standards, Duende and a loaded X-Rack

Single instruments or isolated tests don't mean anything to me anymore.

Do a whole mix through an analog SSL desk and then run it through Duende. The results make you cry!

The same with an outboard SSL G Quad compressor. It really comes into its own when used at the end of a real console.

Doing isolated tests always fooled me into believing I could do everything ITB now and then when doing a whole project it miserably failed, whereas my OTB SSL mixes just deliver in any aspect. Punch, 3D, solid bass, dynamics. I get there without any big effort whereas ITB with Duende, Waves SSL, etc. everything starts getting smaller and lifeless very quickly if you are not careful.

[Slogun]

Originally Posted by theother

Single instruments or isolated tests don't mean anything to me anymore.

Do a whole mix through an analog SSL desk and then run it through Duende. The results make you cry!

The same with an outboard SSL G Quad compressor. It really comes into its own when used at the end of a real console.

Doing isolated tests always fooled me into believing I could do everything ITB now and then when doing a whole project it miserably failed, whereas my OTB SSL mixes just deliver in any aspect. Punch, 3D, solid bass, dynamics. I get there without any big effort whereas ITB with Duende, Waves SSL, etc. everything starts getting smaller and lifeless very quickly if you are not careful.

Probably no doubt about that. But there are few, including me, that will ever get the chance to do that unfortunatelly. Meanwhile I'm happy with my Duende and looking forward to fill up the X-Rack, strip by strip

[AMIEL]

I am was working o a session this weekend.
We had 2 Rigs my HD3 Accell and my friends laptop with Nuendo and a M Audio Card.
We were writing parts with the artist...and we recorded her Vocals(References) with a Universal Audio 610 with a BlueBerry( Actually I liked it the 610).
So later on I started tweaking the Rough Mix in his rig...Nuendo.

I used few Plug Ins in her Vocals and some were Nuendo Plug ins...sounded Really good!Later I transfered the files to my Protools HD3 and I thought I could make the vocal sound as good o better than in Nuendo....MMMm was not easy as I thought...and still missing that something special!

Nuendo sounds great and always surprise me!

[lawrence_o]

Originally Posted by theother

I did extensive testing with VST vs PT (RTAS and TDM) and don't agree at all.

VST definitely didn't sound worse or different to me than RTAS.

I did tests with the Sony Oxford range and Waves.

TDM and RTAS, I can imagine there is a difference, but RTAS and VST?

I don't think so....

I'm getting a bit tired of this constant VST bashing here, like it is something second rate, where in reality I found it way ahead of RTAS and other native formats.

Dudes,

When it comes to making plug-ins there are a few thing you should know:
1) there's the framework that comes with it and that handles how audio is to be read, processed and written back to a buffer so the audio App can read the processed data.

2) The part where the processing is done, is the exact same for a given VST, RTAS or TDM plug-in!! THe only differences can be found in delay-compensation reporting and automation handling. If that's done inefficient, processing might be interrupted causing clicks or heavy CPU-loads. however, I've never seen or experience this in my plug-ins.

I really don't understand how a given manufacturer's plugins are experienced to sound differently depending on their VST-RTAS-AU-TDM format. In fact, most of them use frameworks that only do the DSP processing meaning the sound processing and leave the rest up to compile time packaging depending on the versions (meaning library choices etc.)

If it sounds differently, it ain't due to the algorythms...

Kind regards
Lawrence

[lawrence_o]

Originally Posted by AMIEL

I am was working o a session this weekend.
We had 2 Rigs my HD3 Accell and my friends laptop with Nuendo and a M Audio Card.
We were writing parts with the artist...and we recorded her Vocals(References) with a Universal Audio 610 with a BlueBerry( Actually I liked it the 610).
So later on I started tweaking the Rough Mix in his rig...Nuendo.

I used few Plug Ins in her Vocals and some were Nuendo Plug ins...sounded Really good!Later I transfered the files to my Protools HD3 and I thought I could make the vocal sound as good o better than in Nuendo....MMMm was not easy as I thought...and still missing that something special!

Nuendo sounds great and always surprise me!

Hi,

I don't understand this. Nuendo is a tool. Tools don't make sound. Mics do, Mic Pres do and converters do too (although some disagree, for those, compare a digi882 against a prism or apogee and discuss again). Plug-ins do too. Nuendo can't possibly sound any better or worse than PT if you use the same plug-ins unless they screw up their mixer or something. But you say it sounds better? I find this weird.

Anyhow, respect bro.
Regards

[lawrence_o]

Originally Posted by DrDeltaM

A C200 and a Duende are very different products with different uses for different people.
But the channel strip algorithm and the buscompressor algorithm is the same. Really, it is.

They didn't measure nor listened to it to make Duende the same, they took the actual C200 algorithm code thumbsup

I read somewhere that a dude named chris@ssl wrote that they measured and compared them both! So either he's lying or they told you a different story. Anyway, I know too that people tell so many things...

The duende is perfect for the money you pay it. And it is very good for a DAW. But as you say, the DAW and algorythms aren't the only thing. You need good Mic Pres, good converters end good capabilities of your own too of course. Nevertheless, one day, I'll buy a duality console. I just feel the digital domain isn't ready yet to take over the analogue domain, sonically. Digital has the automation advantage, unfortunately, analogue does not.

Regards
Lawrence

[lawrence_o]

Originally Posted by theother

Single instruments or isolated tests don't mean anything to me anymore.

Do a whole mix through an analog SSL desk and then run it through Duende. The results make you cry!

The same with an outboard SSL G Quad compressor. It really comes into its own when used at the end of a real console.

Doing isolated tests always fooled me into believing I could do everything ITB now and then when doing a whole project it miserably failed, whereas my OTB SSL mixes just deliver in any aspect. Punch, 3D, solid bass, dynamics. I get there without any big effort whereas ITB with Duende, Waves SSL, etc. everything starts getting smaller and lifeless very quickly if you are not careful.

My thought exactly! I have the exact same feeling about ITB vs. OTB. As SSL says, magic happens, outside the box.

[DrDeltaM]

Originally Posted by lawrence_o

I read somewhere that a dude named chris@ssl wrote that they measured and compared them both! So either he's lying or they told you a different story. Anyway, I know too that people tell so many things...

The duende is perfect for the money you pay it. And it is very good for a DAW. But as you say, the DAW and algorythms aren't the only thing. You need good Mic Pres, good converters end good capabilities of your own too of course. Nevertheless, one day, I'll buy a duality console. I just feel the digital domain isn't ready yet to take over the analogue domain, sonically. Digital has the automation advantage, unfortunately, analogue does not.

Regards
Lawrence

I'm sure chris@ssl knows better, maybe I was mistaking. Are you sure tho he didn't mean they measured and compared XL9000 circuits to model the C200?

I agree on the analogue. There's a reason why SSL still makes analogue desks, high end analogue desks simply are better for music production

Digital consoles OTOH are perfect for broadcast for example.

[theother]

Originally Posted by lawrence_o

Dudes,

When it comes to making plug-ins there are a few thing you should know:
1) there's the framework that comes with it and that handles how audio is to be read, processed and written back to a buffer so the audio App can read the processed data.

2) The part where the processing is done, is the exact same for a given VST, RTAS or TDM plug-in!! THe only differences can be found in delay-compensation reporting and automation handling. If that's done inefficient, processing might be interrupted causing clicks or heavy CPU-loads. however, I've never seen or experience this in my plug-ins.

I really don't understand how a given manufacturer's plugins are experienced to sound differently depending on their VST-RTAS-AU-TDM format. In fact, most of them use frameworks that only do the DSP processing meaning the sound processing and leave the rest up to compile time packaging depending on the versions (meaning library choices etc.)

If it sounds differently, it ain't due to the algorythms...

Kind regards
Lawrence

When I said I can imagine a difference between RTAS and TDM I wasn't referring to the plugin processing, I was referring the way TDM handles audio opposed to native.

I don't know what the difference is but I could sometimes hear one, even if it's a small one. And don't think that TDM sounds better because it's more expensive!

Now to say VST sound second rate to RTAS and AU and whatever or the other way round is BS.

[lawrence_o]

Originally Posted by theother

When I said I can imagine a difference between RTAS and TDM I wasn't referring to the plugin processing, I was referring the way TDM handles audio opposed to native.

I don't know what the difference is but I could sometimes hear one, even if it's a small one. And don't think that TDM sounds better because it's more expensive!

Now to say VST sound second rate to RTAS and AU and whatever or the other way round is BS.

I didn't mean at all that VST was going to be worse than TDM. I think that in theory (and that's alreay an important statement) there should be NO difference at all provided that the host is powerfull enough to execute the audio processing without extreme latency. And exactly THAT is the reason why TDM 'could' be better than anything else ; it has less latency due to dedicated DSPs that:
1) are built for the sole purpose of audio processing as compared to a PC or Mac's processor that was built for generic purposes. (although they are when comparing the flops, more powerfull than certain low budget DSPs)
2) only need to perform audio processing whereas the computer's CPU also needs to perform OS functions, disk IO interrupts, memory and stack operations, video board operations etc etc.

Of course, today's multiprocessors are so powerful that they really do the trick. On top of that there is delay compensation which if reported correctly by the plug-ins, take away any of the pro dedicated DSP arguments.

But it still is cheap cheap cheap software. Both RTAS, TDM, VST, AU etc etc and as long as software in planes, guided missiles and sub-marines fails now and then, rest assured that plug-ins which obviously are less life-threathening (could be mistaken though...) will also be far from perfect.

But the software on expensive digital desks is also software, right? Take the most expensive Yamaha O series. I'd be so happy if I could get a plug-in that already does what the Yam does! Compare e.g. the focusrite plug-in EQ against the real hardware EQ. Notice any difference? Even a deaph can feel it! I think today's software vendors have sales in mind, then quality. If the expensive digital boards can sound big and fat, why can't the plug-ins? The truth is, they can be great too, when someone takes the time to write one. But then again, they claim Duende ARE the C200 algos. Is this true?? If so, I'm afraid there's something secret in the C200 digital console tha plug-ins and DSPs alone will never rival. I mean, I got the duende and Prism converters. Not bad, but not really an SSL desk.

Now I am not an analog freak. In fact, I cannot be more anxious for the day that ITB mixing rivals OTB. Imagine, that SSL sound right there in your computer, portable, cheap, exchangeable! Wouldn't that be great?

Unfortunately, I can only conclude there is no plug-in that comes even close to e.g. a tube-tech CL1-B. There's still no plug-in EQ that does what my SSL board EQ does. (and the damn thing will shortly live its 20th anniversary!!). There is no plug-in that comes even close to my old Lexicon 300L and that beast is also about 15 years old! Why is this? I don't get it! Today's hardware is so much more powerfull and yet, plug-ins keep on sucking! Really I don't get that.

I was thinking one day of writing DSP algorythms that each re-model every different transistor, every IC, every pot-meter, every op-amp every diode or triode in an analog circuit and when finished (in about 10 years or so) I would check out how they were connected on a real SSL's circuit board and wire them the same, only digitally.

Now what would that sound like? But most important, how many instances would you be running on today's HD3 Accell? Maybe 1 per card?

Something to think about.

Kind regards and respect.
Lawrence

[lawrence_o]

Originally Posted by DrDeltaM

I'm sure chris@ssl knows better, maybe I was mistaking. Are you sure tho he didn't mean they measured and compared XL9000 circuits to model the C200?

I agree on the analogue. There's a reason why SSL still makes analogue desks, high end analogue desks simply are better for music production

Digital consoles OTOH are perfect for broadcast for example.

Chriss really wrote they compared it till it sounded the same. Now probably the used their own converters and we've bothe seen them from the inside I guess: not normal! An SSL converter makes a 192IO look like a matchbox!

I see on your site you own the URS bundle. How would you compare their EQ and compressors to the Duende? Which one are your favorites?

Cheers
Lawrence

[DrDeltaM]

Originally Posted by lawrence_o

But then again, they claim Duende ARE the C200 algos. Is this true?? If so, I'm afraid there's something secret in the C200 digital console tha plug-ins and DSPs alone will never rival. I mean, I got the duende and Prism converters. Not bad, but not really an SSL desk.

I guess this is because Duende is obviously only a portion of a C200. It's 'only' the channel comp/gate/EQ & buscomp, while a C200 is a full digital console with I/O, routing & summing.

[DrDeltaM]

Originally Posted by lawrence_o

Chriss really wrote they compared it till it sounded the same. Now probably the used their own converters and we've bothe seen them from the inside I guess: not normal! An SSL converter makes a 192IO look like a matchbox!

I know the Duende has not the same DSPs as a C200, so the algorithms were ported to this new architecture (kinda like porting plugins from TDM to native or from PPC to Intel). Possible they tweaked the algorithms a bit for optimal result.

Originally Posted by lawrence_o

I see on your site you own the URS bundle. How would you compare their EQ and compressors to the Duende? Which one are your favorites?

Cheers
Lawrence

The SSL Duende plugins are my main plugins these days. I still use some URS, but mainly the URS A, URS N and URS 1970. I don't use the URS SSL-style plugins anymore. I feel the Duende plugins are the best plugins I ever used. I think the URS was more modelled on the SSL4000, but seems I like the SSL9000 type of sound of the Duende more

I'm actually toying with the idea of adding a 2nd Duende (supported in the latest software version) to get up to 64 channels of SSL processing.

[theother]

Originally Posted by lawrence_o

There's still no plug-in EQ that does what my SSL board EQ does. (and the damn thing will shortly live its 20th anniversary!!). There is no plug-in that comes even close to my old Lexicon 300L and that beast is also about 15 years old!

20th anniversary??

SSL built the 4000 B-series (I think six were built), which was the first production desk after the A series, 1977.

A friend of mine has serial number 2 so I know it quite well. The EQ is basically the same that you will find in your desk. The same cards. The compressor was different. The desk had the quad compressor from the centre section in every channel!

So actually you should say 30th anniversary. Most of the switches, faders and pots are still original on the B series my friend has. These desks were built to last forever. Like a tank.

check it out here:
VINYLCARVERS - inspiring and affordable SSL studio

Lexicon 300L old?

Maybe I'm getting old! But for me the best reverbs are the Lexicon 224X (I never heard the 224), the AMS-RMX16, EMT 140 & 240 plates, Eventide 2016. 300L? Compared to them it's a greenhorn!

[lawrence_o]

Well mine is a 1989 E. So in 2009 that'll be 20 years. In perfect condition.

About the verb, tastes differ. I'd have the 300L above anything.

Cheers

[osci]

Originally Posted by The Beatsmith

I can't stress enough, that the auto release on the duende is really badly broken. It will be fixed soon. It's not a fair comparison.

If it is broken it is totaly fair.

[J-Man]

First of all, I'm a hobbyist with "home studio" for mastering, but here are the results of my blind test:

1) Ones that made me feel good: URS TDM, Impact and Liquid mix

2) Ones that had the best feel between bass, drums and the vocals: Impact, URS TDM, Waves RTAS

3) Ones that gave the vocals certain "star factor": URS RTAS, Waves RTAS, Duende.

4) As an all round performer: Digi Impact.

As I own none of my top three choises (and Impact is only available in TDM) I think I'll just have to save enough money for URS or Waves

Most of all, thanks for having the time to do the recordings!

[cerebrocortez]

The Liquid Mix and Waves SSL sound similar to the sound at my studio using Wavearts plug ins. The duende has a silky 'glue' in there that I like. Can anyone hear it?

[newrigel]

Originally Posted by theother

Single instruments or isolated tests don't mean anything to me anymore.

Do a whole mix through an analog SSL desk and then run it through Duende. The results make you cry!

The same with an outboard SSL G Quad compressor. It really comes into its own when used at the end of a real console.

Doing isolated tests always fooled me into believing I could do everything ITB now and then when doing a whole project it miserably failed, whereas my OTB SSL mixes just deliver in any aspect. Punch, 3D, solid bass, dynamics. I get there without any big effort whereas ITB with Duende, Waves SSL, etc. everything starts getting smaller and lifeless very quickly if you are not careful.

"If you are NOT careful" seems to be the magic word here.
I know in my home, I can just kick back and focus on a great inpirational performance and in most big studios with high line desks etc. the "clock on the wall" gets in the way. I believe in performance and the tools are at a sonic level now that it really boils down to just doing great music!
The Duende kicks ass!

[gs-dk]

I found this thread looking for info on the Waves SSl 4000 Plug-in.
I tried both blind tests and both time I picked a winner and both time it was the SSL - so here I go to the store to buy.
Thanks for helping out.