|
Post by brenta on Jan 13, 2020 16:40:42 GMT -6
Terrible. How many times has SSL been bought and sold over the last couple decades? It's a home studio revolution so they are trying to make products that home studios can use, and, more importantly, afford. That and licensing plugins. If the income from these gives them the financial wherewithal to keep making and supporting consoles then it seems like a win for everyone. Who's going to buy a $175k console from the company that specializes in Sub $300 interfaces? Pretty much nobody these days, but I don’t think it has anything to do with whether or not they also make $300 interfaces. That would be a strange way to decide on that big of a purchase. It does seem like people are still buying the XL Desk, the Origin, the Matrix...etc. Maybe even the AWS series. SSL’s other issue is that there are already more of their old LFAC out on the used market than there are studios that can afford to maintain and power them. So they are kinda competing against themselves from 25 years ago. The very few studios that have $200k to spend on a console are also looking at old 4000 series and old Neves.
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Jan 13, 2020 16:50:38 GMT -6
There's at least 1 innovation here. The monitor input appears to be a blend knob, so you can use a single knob to blend between input and DAW output. (vid @ 1:50) Seems like a very smart feature for home users. Do any other companies do this? Fluid Audio SRI-2 does this
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Jan 13, 2020 16:51:55 GMT -6
Didn’t the original MBox have the monitor blend knob? It’s been about 17 years since I used one but I thought I remember that feature.
Edit: Yes, it did.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jan 13, 2020 17:10:23 GMT -6
There's at least 1 innovation here. The monitor input appears to be a blend knob, so you can use a single knob to blend between input and DAW output. (vid @ 1:50) Seems like a very smart feature for home users. Do any other companies do this? I first saw this announced just a few minutes ago on Feecesbook. It didn't have price. I thought, hmm how much? I didn't really know, but I didn't think it would be that cheap. Looks great! Then I watched this video, I actually just listened to the song and performance, I really liked it. They will sell a bundle... hey I don't need one and I want to get one.... 8) I couldnt help but think as I stare at rackfulls of gear............ Cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by BradM on Jan 13, 2020 18:31:05 GMT -6
There's at least 1 innovation here. The monitor input appears to be a blend knob, so you can use a single knob to blend between input and DAW output. (vid @ 1:50) Seems like a very smart feature for home users. Do any other companies do this? Yeah, I have an old ART USB preamp that has this feature. drbill I'm all for selling out. I aspire to sell out and buy a house one day. Maybe I'll make a brand one day that is focused on being the biggest sell-out brand out there. $300 SSL Bus Comp here I come! Brad
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jan 13, 2020 18:46:18 GMT -6
There's at least 1 innovation here. The monitor input appears to be a blend knob, so you can use a single knob to blend between input and DAW output. (vid @ 1:50) Seems like a very smart feature for home users. Do any other companies do this? Yes the 30 dollar behringer interfaces have this smart feature for ten years now. SSL missed that the market turned into prousumer when they released thier overpriced controler unit. Later Slate showed that you can have a close enough SSL sound in a computer. He even payed CLA to do two mixes of the same song. My thinking was all the time that SSL should collaborate with someone like Slate to do a smart hardware controler unit that follows the SSL topoligy. But no, they stick with thier stupud British tradition. Meanwhile Slate presents his Raven. Bills SilverBullet a great idea for hybrid studios. SSL tries to copy this now, but is too late to be an inventor. SSL still is listening to the needs of pro studios but thats no longer where the money is. Slate has the advantage not to invest into RD, has not to pay for production, shiping etc. Kids like his marketing strategies and the plug ins sound great. As much as I like SSL, but since a few years it sounds like old news to me. Not to forget to mention that imo most of their gear feels overpriced to me.
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Jan 13, 2020 18:51:26 GMT -6
Firmly competing with Behringer now. How long with that SSL legacy last?? (Think about Focusrite - from arguably the worlds greatest console to $300 POC interfaces.....) The "legacy" lasts in vintage reissues and honoring classic gear with boutique clones. Are there any gear companies that have maintained their glory years for more than a couple of decades? They're sorta like bands in that regard. And there's always the possibility that this SSL interface may be a winner in the bang for buck category.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,937
|
Post by ericn on Jan 13, 2020 19:29:46 GMT -6
Who's going to buy a $175k console from the company that specializes in Sub $300 interfaces? Who's buying 175K consoles these days anyway? Broadcast and large post houses
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 13, 2020 20:29:52 GMT -6
Thanks for pointing that out guys, I guess the monitoring blend is an old feature then. I wonder if it’s a good thing or just not really helpful? On the positive side, seems like a cool little unit for taking on road trips and using with the laptop. And possibly as a 2bus monitor/capture if conversion is good. The 4K button is a bad sign though. Like uh ..sure, whatever. I’m trying to imagine how that works.. does it swap in a vintage $2 IC? Or did that already break the bank and cost too much so they designed a cheaper way? It’s that kind of stuff where you go.. I’m worried for them
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,937
|
Post by ericn on Jan 13, 2020 23:02:46 GMT -6
I agree but turn it around, how many will buy a $300 interface from the company that sells $175k consoles? Plenty, and I’m betting $100K worth of $300 interfaces is more profitable than a single $175k console. Exactly. That will work REALLY good for right now. But after awhile, if a name is whored out long enough and hard enough - again, Focusrite comes to mind - the legacy of the name becomes essentially worthless. But, in typical corporate scenarios, get as much as you can as fast as you can and then sell out. The guys behind Focusbrite are laughing all the way to the bank, they Just bought Martin Audio a PA company that was bringing out impressive speakers till Mackie Loud bought them, then sold them to a private equity firm. Bill my friend the problem is you have blinders on you think old school when this would be diluting the brand. Now it’s cashing in on a grand old name and laughing all the way to the bank. Make it in China, keep a couple of old channel strips in production and the pictures of the big old consoles on the website. It’s not about us, it’s about banjo depot and eventually Walmart.
|
|
|
Post by reddirt on Jan 14, 2020 0:57:24 GMT -6
Don't really want to reopen this can of worms but it's relevant; if we're prepared to fete and buy " Klark Teknik " / "Midas" etc these days then we are going to have to accept companies like SSL doing this to survive, sadly. Cheers, Ross
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Jan 14, 2020 5:09:53 GMT -6
I'm trying to compare this to the new MOTU M2/M4 models, which are looking even better...if you only need a channel or two to record and mostly mix ITB.
This SSL, if I can figure it out correctly, only has 115 db dynamic range on the DAC, whereas many of the newer competitors are hitting much higher than that. I know that number isn't the whole story, but I can't listen to each one for comparison.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jan 14, 2020 5:34:12 GMT -6
Meh. Specs are unimpressive and get outta here with those RCA outputs. The specs are more realistic, less idealistic that others try to push. I keeps seeing in all these threads about "132dB dynamic range" and all that and I keep saying that it's impossible, but yet people keep eating it up. EIN is kind of a marketing thing. It's close to noise figure, but without any kind of reference impedance or level. 132db EIN is theoretically noiseless. -130.5 EIN is pretty damn good if it's really that low. Personally I don't care about RCA connectors. They must have decided to use them for some reason, perhaps because they're ubiquitous in a lot of line level gear. Fanboy. 😂😂😂 I don't fault them for coming out with cheaper products. I've heard great things about the Fusion and have been a defender of the Six, which I think could be a great product for a little overdub studio. This is next level though. Really reaching for the bottom rung. I know you say the specs are more realist or whatever, but on paper, this looks like junk. I wish they came out with a converter with competitive specs and included TRS outputs on the 2x4. They could have marketed it as a companion ad/da loop for the Fusion. Add some hardware to your 2-buss.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Jan 14, 2020 6:41:03 GMT -6
This honestly looks like a demo and writing setup. If I was more of an artist I’d probably get one to plug into the laptop and bring with me on trips along with a couple of cheap mics to put some ideas down.
I don’t think it’s much more than that.
Now, would it make more sense to get a UA arrow? I guess it depends on if you’re already into the ya family of products.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Jan 14, 2020 7:54:12 GMT -6
I'm a UAD fan, overall, but I think the Arrow is a complete waste of money. There's not a enough DSP in that box to make going the UAD route worth it (at it's price). And I know you can add a satellite, but then it's really pricey, and why not get a bigger Twin in the first place?
If someone was needing a recommendation for a small travel-worthy model, I'd suggest the MOTU M2, or the Audient stuff. If you were to spend up I'd look at the ULN-2 from Metric Halo or RME Babyface.
This SSL so far to me seems like an also ran, but I'll wait for some reviews from someone who has used it.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 14, 2020 8:24:30 GMT -6
I'm trying to compare this to the new MOTU M2/M4 models, which are looking even better...if you only need a channel or two to record and mostly mix ITB. This SSL, if I can figure it out correctly, only has 115 db dynamic range on the DAC, whereas many of the newer competitors are hitting much higher than that. I know that number isn't the whole story, but I can't listen to each one for comparison. 115db is actually pretty good for a real-world unweighted measurement and pretty close to the edge of the distortion-free dynamic range of the human ear. You wouldn't be able to hear the difference anyway as most of the difference would be down at the noise floor of the chip. As I've mentioned tons of times before, such specs like "132db dynamic range" are completely marketing fluff. Numbers like that are de-embedded mathematically from the measurements and are used to signify the theoretical performance of the chip, not the system. They know you can't hear the difference and you have no way to test the difference, so they feel bold to sport the theoretical specs of the chips.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 14, 2020 8:30:45 GMT -6
The specs are more realistic, less idealistic that others try to push. I keeps seeing in all these threads about "132dB dynamic range" and all that and I keep saying that it's impossible, but yet people keep eating it up. EIN is kind of a marketing thing. It's close to noise figure, but without any kind of reference impedance or level. 132db EIN is theoretically noiseless. -130.5 EIN is pretty damn good if it's really that low. Personally I don't care about RCA connectors. They must have decided to use them for some reason, perhaps because they're ubiquitous in a lot of line level gear. Fanboy. 😂😂😂 I don't fault them for coming out with cheaper products. I've heard great things about the Fusion and have been a defender of the Six, which I think could be a great product for a little overdub studio. This is next level though. Really reaching for the bottom rung. I know you say the specs are more realist or whatever, but on paper, this looks like junk. I wish they came out with a converter with competitive specs and included TRS outputs on the 2x4. They could have marketed it as a companion ad/da loop for the Fusion. Add some hardware to your 2-buss. Well, they could just lie about the specs like everyone else and be done with it. I do use SSL converters, and have for a long time now and don't currently have a need to switch to anything else, although I might go the presonus4848 or the motu stuff eventually if this SSL setup breaks in the future. I guess that makes me a fanboy, I dunno. They work and I don't notice them in the signal chain. I guess I just hate the constant trashing of things based on fake specs, and having a lot of experience with things such as DAC chips, it really peeves me to see so many folks misled. So many threads filled with banter over numbers that have ZERO relation to the real-world, and when someone comes out with a doodad that doesn't play the brainwashing game, people get pissy about it and trash it for literally no reason whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Jan 14, 2020 8:36:00 GMT -6
Wait, you don't use your own converters? That surprises me, unless I misunderstood the product you use to make.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 14, 2020 9:11:08 GMT -6
Wait, you don't use your own converters? That surprises me, unless I misunderstood the product you use to make. I made stereo master-bus converters. The SSL converters are the other 24 channels of converters I use for all my preamp inputs and outputs to my mixer. The SSL converters also work over optical MADI to a DSP card in my computer whereas my converters were SPDIF/AESid over coax. I toyed with the idea of doing high channel count converters but there was no easy way to get tons of channel streams into a computer without licensing expensive technologies or doing loads of software/driver work, both of which are expensive and time consuming unless you have a team of folks dedicated to doing this stuff.. And then it's just expensive but less time consuming!
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Jan 14, 2020 12:01:27 GMT -6
Looks like we've got some British on British crime. Audient just announced two new ultra-portable and ultra-affordable interfaces that look comparable to these SSL interfaces. The Audient EVO 4 is 2 in 2 out for $129. The Audient EVO 8 is 4 in 4 out for $199. These things look tiny. evo.audio/
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jan 14, 2020 12:14:12 GMT -6
Looks like we've got some British on British crime. Audient just announced two new ultra-portable and ultra-affordable interfaces that look comparable to these SSL interfaces. The Audient EVO 4 is 2 in 2 out for $129. The Audient EVO 8 is 4 in 4 out for $199. These things look tiny. evo.audio/Probably the same chip as the SSL.
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Jan 14, 2020 12:14:15 GMT -6
Looks like we've got some British on British crime. Audient just announced two new ultra-portable and ultra-affordable interfaces that look comparable to these SSL interfaces. The Audient EVO 4 is 2 in 2 out for $129. The Audient EVO 8 is 4 in 4 out for $199. These things look tiny. evo.audio/I see we are still in the age of "making gear musician friendly"
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Jan 14, 2020 12:15:54 GMT -6
Looks like we've got some British on British crime. Audient just announced two new ultra-portable and ultra-affordable interfaces that look comparable to these SSL interfaces. The Audient EVO 4 is 2 in 2 out for $129. The Audient EVO 8 is 4 in 4 out for $199. These things look tiny. evo.audio/Probably the same chip as the SSL. I think you're right. I think they both say they use AKM converter chips. From what I understand the clock and analog section are much more important to converter performance though, so they could still sound pretty different.
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Jan 14, 2020 12:22:23 GMT -6
Looks like we've got some British on British crime. Audient just announced two new ultra-portable and ultra-affordable interfaces that look comparable to these SSL interfaces. The Audient EVO 4 is 2 in 2 out for $129. The Audient EVO 8 is 4 in 4 out for $199. These things look tiny. evo.audio/I see we are still in the age of "making gear musician friendly" A car in every driveway and a recording studio in every bedroom.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 14, 2020 14:16:29 GMT -6
Probably the same chip as the SSL. I think you're right. I think they both say they use AKM converter chips. From what I understand the clock and analog section are much more important to converter performance though, so they could still sound pretty different. AKM has been making converter chips for decades and decades now. In the 80's to the 2000's they made some parts that were known by designers as the cadillac of converter chips before others started playing in the audio converter game. Since then though, you are absolutely right, most chips are functionally similar and perform very similar. There's only a few ways to skin those cats. They just try to one-up each other on specs but the reality is that the clocking, power and analog sections AND layout do make more difference overall and sadly enough that's where things get cheapened out during implementation. It's easy to claim ridiculous specs if the chip you're using has it printed in the datasheet, even if your clocking, power, layout and buffering are all conspiring to destroy those ideal numbers.
|
|