|
|
Post by joey808 on Jan 23, 2017 21:17:57 GMT -6
Can you tell a differnece?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jan 23, 2017 21:28:11 GMT -6
I guess some people just have too much life time or money - or both of it??
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 23, 2017 23:21:42 GMT -6
The difference is pretty clear to me, but I don't know what it is that I'm hearing of the SSL. Are we just comparing preamps? Both using the Apollo's AD?
It's most striking on the acoustic guitar. Apollo sounds flatter.
But I'd like to know what exactly we're comparing.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 24, 2017 5:25:55 GMT -6
Gee I thought the amp Sim sounded real good  |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 24, 2017 12:18:46 GMT -6
So what exactly are we comparing here?
Are we comparing using an unknown SSL preamp through a whole unknown console to an unknown converter with going into the Apollo?
Seems that it's actually telling me the opposite of what they want me to glean from it, that going through a cascade of about a dozen opamps and gain stages in the SSL is damn near identical to the Apollo's short signal chain.. Doesn't that mean that if the setup was just SSL preamp and converter, that it would be better than the Apollo, since it wouldn't have to go through so many stages..?
I feel this is just another marketing "You can get large format console sound for 1/100th the cost!" statement. It means nothing because it's comparing apples and oranges, but those kids who are looking for excuses to buy into shortcuts will get the insinuation..
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 24, 2017 12:25:42 GMT -6
ya, I think too, the real story is not one pass but what happens cumulatively ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 24, 2017 14:44:05 GMT -6
So what exactly are we comparing here? Are we comparing using an unknown SSL preamp through a whole unknown console to an unknown converter with going into the Apollo? Seems that it's actually telling me the opposite of what they want me to glean from it, that going through a cascade of about a dozen opamps and gain stages in the SSL is damn near identical to the Apollo's short signal chain.. Doesn't that mean that if the setup was just SSL preamp and converter, that it would be better than the Apollo, since it wouldn't have to go through so many stages..? I feel this is just another marketing "You can get large format console sound for 1/100th the cost!" statement. It means nothing because it's comparing apples and oranges, but those kids who are looking for excuses to buy into shortcuts will get the insinuation.. Not sure I get the take on your statement...I haven't listened, but I would think the Apollo sounded identical to an SSL channel going through dozens of transformers and an opamps would be a GOOD thing. Now, maybe stacking all of the intricacies and nuances of a console (phase, crosstalk, etc.) are what adds to its sound...but if a single channel sounds the same on each, then isn't that apples to apples? |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 24, 2017 14:55:50 GMT -6
I think the SSL sounds better in every example, but I have no idea what exactly we're comparing.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jan 24, 2017 15:15:05 GMT -6
Number 2 sounded better to me in the WAVs. Across the board. I'd hope it's the Apollo, as why in the FUCK would anyone want an SSL preamp from the 80s? The SSs in the female vocal are night and day cleaner, thus less distorted on whichever "2" is-be that through higher impedance to the mic or simply a better power supply juicing the preamp....it wasn't unknown--you just have to look in the description--it's an old SSL preamp into an Avid HD converter at 24/48...vs the mic plugged into their $1k box (rounded price of box plus plug emulation plug). That said....this has nothing to do with the sound of the mixer. Implied? Of course--implied to people who have no idea what they're doing, ie--UA's primary market.  SSL preamps are the reason outboard preamps EXIST!! They were so...."not liked" that Millenia and Hardy and even UA started making discrete mic preamp boxes. So,. forgive me if I chuckle at this being their test--not the Neve or API Unison preamp models....but SS fucking L. Next, I hear they're working on a Mackie VLZ for the 90s retro wave. Even ADAT ADC emulation for the same crowd. I think that honestly, this is more than a valid demonstration of the tech....again--I've not looked, I might've picked the old SSL....it doesn't matter--if you heard either of those as "the great one" and "the lousy one"....this tech, if it actually DOES work as advertised, saves home studios a lot of money short term....long term, you're buying more disposable digital stuff....but, I mean if someone recording themselves buys this--lets say they package it with the handful of Unison console channels (which are preamp/DI/EQ)....and maybe a reverb of your choice---then for $799+$200 LPX, you have a better sounding set up than anything near that price point previously, right? I think sometimes people view tech differently....this is an overdub studio interface....so, for a home demo/writing studio. It's not like "oh well, I don't have to hire out Blackbird's SSL room now that I have an Apollo!" It's simply got to be better than the competition for the market. If there's any business threatened by the Unison tech, it's for analog front end--mostly mic preamps of vintage design. Again-it doesn't even have to be as good. If someone can pull up a Neve preamp into Fairchild and Pultec plug to cut their vocal....they weren't debating whether they should spend $30k on that input chain....they're just looking for better than a Focusrite chip preamp. If you ARE curious--you need to listen to the 24/48 WAVs. To me--listening on the same monitors in the studio, it's a very different experience than the YouTube where they sounded closer, for better or worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 24, 2017 17:05:56 GMT -6
Number 2 sounded better to me in the WAVs. Across the board. I'd hope it's the Apollo, as why in the FUCK would anyone want an SSL preamp from the 80s? Lol. I was thinking the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by kevinnyc on Jan 25, 2017 8:39:39 GMT -6
If someone wants to give me their shitty old SSL from the 80's I'll find a way to pay the electricity bills and will somehow suffer through the preamps...
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 25, 2017 9:20:26 GMT -6
So what exactly are we comparing here? Are we comparing using an unknown SSL preamp through a whole unknown console to an unknown converter with going into the Apollo? Seems that it's actually telling me the opposite of what they want me to glean from it, that going through a cascade of about a dozen opamps and gain stages in the SSL is damn near identical to the Apollo's short signal chain.. Doesn't that mean that if the setup was just SSL preamp and converter, that it would be better than the Apollo, since it wouldn't have to go through so many stages..? I feel this is just another marketing "You can get large format console sound for 1/100th the cost!" statement. It means nothing because it's comparing apples and oranges, but those kids who are looking for excuses to buy into shortcuts will get the insinuation.. Not sure I get the take on your statement...I haven't listened, but I would think the Apollo sounded identical to an SSL channel going through dozens of transformers and an opamps would be a GOOD thing. Now, maybe stacking all of the intricacies and nuances of a console (phase, crosstalk, etc.) are what adds to its sound...but if a single channel sounds the same on each, then isn't that apples to apples? I was just saying that if they were comparing the signal at the end of the whole channel signal path on an SSL console with the very short signal path of the Apollo, then it's apples and oranges. Running through a whole SSL path runs you through no less than a dozen opamps and a handful of FETs, relays and feet of signal traces. Running into the Apollo is likely just an IC preamp and an inch of trace to the A/D. Vastly different signal paths. So if the fidelity of the SSL matches the Apollo with all the differences in hardware, then a (hypothetical) shortened path in the SSL (going through fewer opamps, relays, FETs and shorter traces) would likely result in better fidelity from the SSL. However, some folks are saying that it's just the SSL preamp, but I have yet to find where it actually says that in the description or the comments. And those hating on SSL preamps, they were meant to be neutral. Comparing them to "lively" preamps is also trying to compare apples to oranges, or simply just trying to jump on the "hating is cool" train with SSL. Think of them like the little saw on a Swiss Army knife. You're not cutting down any trees with it and there are better options to use, but if you need to trim some branches to make a fire, you can do it. I use some 9K preamps, have used 4K transformer preamps, and use tons of API/Neve color preamps. Each has their strong points and none have let me down. Also, comparing them to Mackie preamps is ludicrous. |
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Jan 25, 2017 10:32:27 GMT -6
Just as an aside, I don't find anything wrong with the 9K preamps. And I think the preamps on the Duality sounds pretty darn good.
If you have one sitting in front of you and you cant make a great record with 48 of them, then YOU are the one with the problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 25, 2017 10:40:14 GMT -6
I've sat in front of an SSL or two listening to a full band tracking mostly through the board pres and, uh, it did not sound bad in any way. Actually it sounded glorious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 25, 2017 10:57:05 GMT -6
Of course it doesn't sound bad. Bad is relative. If and when I have my druthers, though, I will track on Neve, Trident, API before an ssl.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 25, 2017 10:57:28 GMT -6
Now mixing is a different story.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 25, 2017 11:00:41 GMT -6
ya, I think too, the real story is not one pass but what happens cumulatively ? Bingo!!! PS - not sure why anyone would hold SSL up as the sonic standard anyway. Sounds like a test conceived by someone who was told by someone who knew someone who used and SSL and said it was amazing.... |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 25, 2017 11:03:43 GMT -6
SSL preamps are the reason outboard preamps EXIST!! They were so...."not liked" that Millenia and Hardy and even UA started making discrete mic preamp boxes. Yes! You could make a pretty good argument for that. LOL Well....I guess you did.  |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 25, 2017 11:07:35 GMT -6
9k preamps and early 4k preamps are definitely in a different camp.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jan 25, 2017 11:09:12 GMT -6
When I had my 6000E the only thing I used the preamps for in that board where overheads and rooms. I never liked the sound of them on anything with rich or warmth content. But, for fast transient they're pretty damn good. On a vocal.... nah, going to be thin. I know someone that spent a ton of money on the rack channel strip and he loads it up with lowend from the eq and it stays static like that. I will say though that he does get some really good vocal takes with it like that, but just preamp alone it'll be thin and tinny.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 26, 2017 14:31:02 GMT -6
I'm not sure really what's going on here but "SSL" sounded better to me. If it is a console, maybe it is all that gain staging.
|
|
