It’s amazing to me how SSL weren’t open to work with you on this, your videos are the main resource for this desk on UA-cam. It’s not like they’re selling like hot cakes, and the few they sell probably took advantage of this research anyway…
Great test. The difference is noticeable. Even with my old cheap Yamaha MR1642 console I can hear a difference. The sound is wider with each instrument at its place. Looking forward your next series of test with the plugins versus the hardware effects.
Hey Dave. Thanks for another great video. I truly enjoy your content, including the training course(s), and live hangs. I immediately heard a clear difference just as you described. I suppose SSL named the preamps appropriately; Superanalogue 🙂!! I look forward to hearing the upcoming comparisons, especially the differences between SSL's channel strip emulations and the console.
The SSL Native Channel strip does not emulate the preamp so there is no saturation. It's just a standard digital EQ that will null with any other digital EQ if you match the curves. There is some saturation with the compressor but that's about it.
Enjoyable video. I was told by SSL that there is a way to alter the character of the Pure Drive on each channel strip's PCB. I can't remember exactly if it's between second order and third order harmonics or not. It's set at what was considered the best sounding after demonstrating to some engineers. Keep up the good work. 👍
I heard the difference right away. A comparison I think may be interesting would be using the MixFX Brit Console emulation in Studio One and your Origin. Looking forward to the next video!
@@MixingMusicAnalog Im curious about the Softube Tape plugin as well. I use it on my Mix FX and it seems to add a lot of character. Probably not nearly as drastic as the SSL. The tracks run through the board sound way better!
@Mixing Music Analog That's a shame! MixFX is one of StudioOne's main bonus features and it's entire point is to re-introduce the non-linearity back that you just did with a Console. In other words, you'd be the only one testing it's claim of being a substitute for an Actual Analog desk, in the box. And all you'd have to do is run the "brown" tracks through the various MixFX and print those right besides your Clean and your Origin prints. One of the MixFX is supposed to be an SSL btw.
Another great video! It would be cool to see as a follow up: those 32 printed tracks summed digitally (like it the video) vs. 32 tracks summed to the Origin’s two bus (analog)
@@MixingMusicAnalog you think? I guess it’s ITB vs. Analog summing that this test would isolate - might be an easy enough extension of this video and the one you just released :)
Thank you Uncle Dave for this Video. Please Uncle Dave, would it be possible to see you do this type of comparison with a song with more programmed instruments?
The SSL definitely sounded better. The space added was very noticeable. Having stated that, I mix ITB due to cost and ease, and it’s amazing we can create a high quality end product on a near zero budget (not including the skills, which, when lacking, no console or computer can fix).
Great video! Something I've been waiting for for a long while! Do you think the preamps in something like the big six resemble the Origins preamps? OK, so I paused the video at 7:04 to write what I heard. It's a bit hard to describe, but it's like you remove a blanket from a speaker when you play it through the SSL. And it's not like "Well, a high shelf boost could do the same", because it's more than that. I "feel" the difference more than I can hear it, if that makes sense? Especially kick and snare. The SSL gives it a bite or like a tiger scratch to the sound. Some sharpness that I really love. It also feels a bit wider. Like you're sitting 4 people in a tight little Mini Cooper, vs sitting 4 people in a big Range Rover. The instruments have space to move. It's kinda what I WANT to hear when I try stuff like a slight 400hz cut on the master. So my top things are shine, razor edge, and space. Also, one thing you could/should have done is to phase-flip one of the buses. That way, we could hear the exact difference between the two versions. EDIT: Just when I unpaused I heard what you thought of the tracks, and you seem to agree. Space and clarity. But as I said, I also get that "bite" or "tiger claws" to the kick and snare. Also, have you seen the new SSL UF1? Seems like something to replace your Faderport with ^^
I'm on airpods rn, not in the studio (i'll check on my focals later after work), but even here the subtle transformer compression and coloration is definitely shining here. Everything sits better. I focused on the drums and its crazy how they went from flat to 3d. Gotta love some good ol SSL saturation, it does wonders
Even when I sum 8 channels on my SSL six, it has the same effect. I don't think you'll be able to get anything like this with a channel strip plugin because most of the plugins don't emulate the preamp. The extra width was the first thing I noticed when I started mixing hybrid on the SSL six. Great video!
@@MixingMusicAnalog That will be interesting for sure. I think the Brainworx 9000J will be the closest to the Origin Superanalogue preamp. The SSL Native channel strip 2 does not model the preamp circuit and has none of the saturation characteristics.
It becomes more up close and personal ran through the SSL. It's funny, there are mix engineers that are Grammy winners that do not use the console for the eq or compression and just use the SSl for summing so they can recall the session easily
"There's no nothin'!" That's actually means that there IS something! 😉 Seriously though. Speaking of SSL Pre-amps. Do you have any plans to compare the pre-amps in their new Pure Dive rack units with the pre-amps in your Origin console. According to SSL they are the same. It would be interesing to hear your view on this. I plan to buy a Pure Drive Quad, as soon as I can lay my grubby little fingers on one.
No, I dont have access to that gear so I cant do that review. They say its the same exact preamp that come out of my Origin so I have no reason to doubt that
Also, to those who hate on SSL preamps, I don't understand. Technically this also showcases if you were to record through the origin, and holy crap! not a Neve or API but something beautiful on its own.
People hated on the Old SSL Preamps from the 4000/9000 Era and when compared with APIs and NEVEs and everything else available at the time. SSL entire philosophy has always been Clean, which is the opposite of Character, hense the old saying "Track on a Neve, mix on an SSL!". SSL later tweaked thier preamps to be less sterile (yet cleaner) and introduced the VHD circuit which basically allowed you to Add as much or as little of two different flavors to their otherwise flavorless Preamps as you desire. That's what's in the flagship Duality. Now these New new SSL Preamps in the Origin(s) and I believe are identical in the SiX/BigSiX, I haven't yet heard compared against anything. That would be a good video for this channel though.
@@MixingMusicAnalog Comparing the Origin series against the SiX series would be great......if you're going to be clear about what you're actually comparing. If not, don't bother. UA-cam doesn't need any more click bait mis-information. The point is to add clarity to the conversation. That said, the obvious questions are: What does someone get from ITB mixes, --> then with SSL Plugins, --> then with SSL SiX, --> then with SSL Origin. Each of those steps has a Cost that can be easily quantified, what about quantifying and qualifying the benefits of each stage. - If the SiX Preamps and the Origin's are indeed identical, then what do you get from running through 2/4 rather than 16/32. - In this video you didn't compare any Summing differences at all. Also known as Mixing, presumably the primary use of a mixer. What you did was create 32 Analog Plugins (Hardware Inserts), which btw I find fantastic. Honestly IMHO, the 32 Analog Hardware Inserts are going to add MORE than the actual Analog Summing, and not enough people in UA-cam land understand the difference. That width and depth is likely due to the tolerances between channels, as much as any functional circuit design. -That said, comparing the Summing ITB vs Analog in the SiX vs Origin, is also in order. With say the Big SiX, you have 16-channels of D/A conversion built in, whereas the Origin also needs a 32-channel Interface. If you compare 16-->2 on both systems, clean, how do they compare? -Then if you engage the Bus Compression on each system, how does the Full Featured Bus Comp beat the Stripped Down version on the SiX? If you have the same settings, do you get the same Glue? -After that comes the Channel Strips themselves: Origin has "Black Knob" EQ all the way across, but now channel dynamics. SiX has Stripped Down NEW EQs and One-Knob Compression. What happens when you try to mix with the Onboard Processing on each? -Maybe give yourself the luxury of using each system's Inserts to the same set of Outboard processing, and FX to not handicap the mix too much. Use them both for what they can do. -Lastly, when you've hit the limit of where the Big SiX can take you in an apples for apples, Then untie the Origin's other hand and let it do what it can do. I think your channel's are adding a ton of value to the community, but that you're often moving so fast to keep up with the algorithm that every video needs to be taken with a big grain of salt. I'd say "Slow don't and you'll move faster!", but it feels like you can't slow down and get any more thorough than you currently are, and it's hard to complain about something you're getting for free. So keep up the good work and let the buyer beware? I will say though, that I also have Quantum 4848s feeding a 32-Channel Inline Console. But had the Big SiX been an option in the beginning, I highly doubt that I would have invested so much capital. Combine a Big SiX with a High End 2x4 Interface (Apollo, Lynx/RME, SSL12?), then add Softube Console 1 (and actually learn how to use it, which takes time), and/or SSL 360 with their Channel Strips and Bus Compressor, that's a Hybrid setup that was unimaginable 10-years ago and you'd be hard pressed to say that vehicle couldn't get just about anyone anywhere they're trying to go. Just my opinion.
Thanks for all your input on the videos. You seem to have a lot of knowledge when it comes to gear and such. why not share that info and start your own channel? We dont have enough people who are trying to pass along helpful info without trying to sell you something. Just a thought
My questions with these comparisons are always, are there any differences that can't be simply recreated with basic digital EQ, compression and saturation? And if its too much work to do this manually every time, is this difference really worth the cost? I usually land on the "not really" side, but i understand why people like the tactile and immediate nature of analog.
@@MixingMusicAnalog But how is that quantified? I guess I'm just highly skeptical of these sorts of claims when I see this stuff constantly be debunked by blind tests and tonal/balance analysis. Are you saying that analog can provide depth/width that is impossible to replicate with width/depth processing in the box? I'm glad you found a workflow that works for you, I just wonder if people fetishize "analog" more because they don't fully understand the science of what's happening and therefore don't know what parameters to tweak in the box to replicate the sounds they like in the analog domain.
You must be new to the channel. go back and spend some time watching my hardware to plugin videos. I think you will better understand my opinions on this topic. I am not claiming anything or trying to sell you anything, like most other channels. I am one of the few people that work both ITB and Analog every week as I have 2 separate rigs in my studio. I am one of the few that can actually A/B them side by side in the same room. I have said on this channel 20,000 times by now :)....one is not "better" it's "different" and all I am doing is trying to convey the differences. People dont have to believe it, care about it etc. If the info helps people then that's great! If people think I am completely full of it,,, then that great as well. LOL. Unless you have actually stood in the room and worked on analog gear, especially a console, you cant appreciate it. Again, most people on UA-cam that say analog is a waste, plugins sound just as good etc.. I'll bet most have never even stood in a room with a console let alone actually work on one..LOL If you watch my journey on this channel you'll see that I was one who expected the ITB and Analog would sound almost identical and that is was the hands on workflow that mattered. after about a year of working on both platforms, I realized that is not the case. I appreciate you checking out the video and have a great day!
@@MixingMusicAnalog Fair enough, you clearly have more experience than I do with hardware. I don't appreciate the condescension of assuming that I've never worked with a console. I've been in some pretty hefty Chicago studios to record with my band and worked on an old Neve a couple of times, but I will freely admit that you've spent more time on this than I have. I can hear a difference in the room in some respects, but that was comparing straight digital to straight analog, not trying to do an honest like-for-like test. It's kind of like comparing a restaurant steak to a raw steak at home before cooking it with specific methods in an attempt to replicate that restaurant steak. I have simply heard too many people in the audio world talk about these things in vague adjectives rather than taking the time learn the technical explanations for the differences. How many times have you heard a guitar player talk about the "warmth" of sound from their tube amp vs. a "cold and harsh" modeler? In reality, they're specifically saying they like the saturation the tubes provide a long with the low pass filter that the speaker provides, and when adjusting for this in a modeler, you'd be able to fool that player in a blind test 10/10 times. I guess I'm just skeptical about claims saying that there exists some magic in analog gear that produces "width" (a pretty vague term on it's own, tbh) that can't be replicated in the digital world.
@@jorgemartinez42069 Hey Brotha. Just read your thread and wanted to add two cents before you seem genuinely interested in understanding whether or not this is just Audiophile Placebo Effect or if there's something real happening. Both you and Dave are 'close' to what's happening but IMHO slightly missing what's been studied over the past couple of decades. Is the difference just EQ, Compression, and Saturation? No...but those are all at play. Is there such thing as Analog Magic? No...Magic is what people call it when they don't know the science. Is this whole debate settled? Not quite, but a lot more so than UA-cam would have you believe. So, Dave bought a 32-channel board. What "most" people buying consoles in the 21st century, for Mixing as opposed to Recording, try to claim is that "Analog Summing" is inherently superior. That's mostly been debunked...for many years. To his credit, in This video, he did no Analog Summing. He routed out D/A --> 32 Individual Channel Strips--A/D back in, then did the Summing Digitally. He then compared that with the same tracks, summed the same way, but without taking that Analog journey. Did you hear the difference? I did. What was that difference? That's the core of your question. Can that difference be achieved In The Box, without Analog conversion? Would that difference have been different if run through 3 different Analog Consoles? What if He just ran 4 DB-25 from the Outs directly to the Ins of his Interface? In other words, was it the Console at all, or just the conversion? Well....this isn't the first time these questions have been asked, given that the entire recording industry just went from doing things on Consoles to doing things in Computers, and EVERYONE could hear the difference. The easy part first: Summing Numbers in a Computer vs Summing Electrons is Analog. Many many people chased that rabbit down the hole and in the end, the two can be made to Null down to minus two hundred dB or so. So the Summing itself, as far as I'm concerned is definitively irrelevant. However that's not a dismissal of Analog Summing, but rather an endorsement of how useful it still is and knowledge that it isn't Inferior to Digital Summing either. If you still use Analog gear it's about what you do to signals before and after the sum that matters. And essentially After a sum is just a bus, so you're Bus Processing multiple signals together, the most obvious effect being "Glue". However, while all the major players were chasing down Analog Summing, Waves discovered something that resulted in thier NLS. Ironically perfect for today's discussion, they realized that it wasn't the Summing of 32-channels, it was the fact that those 32-channel strips in an Analog Console were not identical. They can't be. Electronics are physical and there are tolerances within each component on a circuit board that accumulate into some amount of difference between Channels even in the highest quality consoles. Those minor differences between just two channels have Always been understood in Audio especially by Mastering Engineers who work in half-dB increments and think not only in terms of Left-Right but also Mid-Side. As you probably know another name for MS is Sum & Difference. That difference is anything different in the signals between the left and right channels, and when listening in stereo it's perceived as Width. Well take 32-channels and add tiny differences all over the place and you get miniscule Width differences all over the mix. Everything is moving away from everything else. Which is perceived as Width and Depth and Three-Dimensionality. Not Magic. Just physics nobody bothered to measure at first, because until Digital, there was no alternative and nothing to measure against. Now, you gave the Amp Modeling example and mentioned the low-pass filter perceived as "warmth". Well let's call that a Frequency Response characteristic and say that Every peice of Analog gear has a Frequency Response curve that's kinda like its fingerprint. When gear is tested to be "flat" or not, it's usually tested to it +/- 3dB point. So Flat from 20-20kHz doesn't really tell you much. If you make +/-3dB EQ moves are you going to notice? Again Mastering Engineers often work in 1/2dB steps. And DAWs often adjust in 0.1dB steps. So if 32-channels in a Console each have a Frequency Response fingerprint that even with everything turned off have tolerances that can swing by half decibels up or down, without measurement or documentation or metering, do those differences not exist? Now this is the part where professional Audio Engineers start to worry about sounding like the crackpot Audiophiles that buy thousand dollar power cables and Unobtainium XLRs. Basically, there were things going on at tolerance levels below what anyone in the Analog Era was measuring for. And it wasn't until digital made that tolerance Zero that people freaked out about something missing that they couldn't explain. Then there's Non-linearity. Essentially, run a signal through a straight wire and you'll get out pretty much what you put in. Build a circuit and that becomes the challenge. How do you Effect the signal while maintaining linearity? Circuits are made of components and many components are inherently non-linear. Tubes, Tape, Transformers, capacitors... Again Ironically, SSL in general and thier SuperAnalogue in particular is famous precisely for its Linearity. They diligently designed circuits with No Transformers or Capacitors or even VCA in the Audio path in order to produce the most high-bandwith consoles ever. Now in this digital Era, we want our Non-linearity back. So can all of this be done in code rather than circuits? I have a lot of money wrapped up in a folder that promises that it can. But I also still own four Analog Consoles. Are we 100% there yet? I don't really know anymore. But that's primarilly because, I don't really Care anymore! There's no more either or, it's All good now and these distinctions make so little difference Now that you can reach for whatever is calling you.
Being older , i cant call you uncle dave..lol. but Analog signals are much higher density, and can present more refined information. Analog signals use less bandwidth than digital signals. Analog signals provide a more accurate representation of changes in physical phenomena, such as sound, light, temperature, position, or pressure!!!
Listening to both through digital summing... And also two stages of digital conversion..imo listening through the console master fader is where you'll hear a very big difference and where this console's power is...i know this illistration is for the preamps to me there's not that much difference... After the ssl tracks are a little brighter thinner...i personally like the way these preamps sound with the pure drive off... Much richer transient detail
Maybe you should do some quick panning before analysis. All engineers know panning can massively improve separation. I think that separation would be a positive for better more efficient comparison analysis. Even if just the stereo pairs, overheads, BVs, guitars etc Just a thought. Good work Dave. The difference is literally Pro Sound vs consumer sound. Punch and clarity from the SSL vs lifeless digital ITB recordings being smeared by plugins to give the illusion of warmth at the expense of punch and clarity is never going to work Mixing Analogue gives you punch, warmth, 3d effect, realness, depth, width, attitude, nostalgia effect….I could go on😂 My 2c
This is what i heard on a Mac laptop (have not yet heard your comments to avoid being influenced): through the console, the stereo image was wider, the sound was warmer (deeper) and brighter in a very nice way. Everything basically just sounded better. Incredible what this console does. Reminds me of what happened when one just ran signal through a Trident A Range. This laptop has no low end, so i can only imagine what'll happen through some decent monitors. OK i've now heard your comments. I promise i hadn't heard them before writing the 1st part of this. Will play the video in the studio when i'm there but i'm certain the impression will be the same, only more pronounced. Great video, thank you!
@@MixingMusicAnalog I was surprised too, frankly - the sparkly high end and stereo width difference weren't exactly subtle, even on the laptop. BTW i ordered an Origin a few days ago, was starting to get some buyers remorse but this video quickly squelched that, so thanks again! :)
This is a great demo. It also makes me happy that I ordered the SSL Octo Preamp along with the new SSL controllers.
NICE! Congrats!
It’s amazing to me how SSL weren’t open to work with you on this, your videos are the main resource for this desk on UA-cam. It’s not like they’re selling like hot cakes, and the few they sell probably took advantage of this research anyway…
That's ok. There are plenty of companies out there willing to work with me.
Sounds awesome as expected!
Thanks!
Great video, thank you Uncle Dave. I need to hear that.
You're welcome
Thank you for making this.
You're welcome
Damn, difference is huge, thanks for sharing your experience !
You are very welcome
Great video, the SSL pres adds a lot of flavour, high end open-ness. Listening to the hi-hats and vocals did it for me, even on a laptop
Thanks Andy!
Yes! Can't wait to see what running tracks through a single ssl strip would do! I don't have analog gear, so this is super interesting
Coming soon!
Excellent topic. Many thanks for this comparison :)
Thank you.
Great test. The difference is noticeable. Even with my old cheap Yamaha MR1642 console I can hear a difference. The sound is wider with each instrument at its place. Looking forward your next series of test with the plugins versus the hardware effects.
Cool.
Huge difference. Its magic. I want one!
Thanks for watching!
Hey Dave. Thanks for another great video. I truly enjoy your content, including the training course(s), and live hangs. I immediately heard a clear difference just as you described. I suppose SSL named the preamps appropriately; Superanalogue 🙂!! I look forward to hearing the upcoming comparisons, especially the differences between SSL's channel strip emulations and the console.
Thanks very much!
The SSL Native Channel strip does not emulate the preamp so there is no saturation. It's just a standard digital EQ that will null with any other digital EQ if you match the curves. There is some saturation with the compressor but that's about it.
Enjoyable video. I was told by SSL that there is a way to alter the character of the Pure Drive on each channel strip's PCB. I can't remember exactly if it's between second order and third order harmonics or not. It's set at what was considered the best sounding after demonstrating to some engineers. Keep up the good work. 👍
Interesting!
Listening on MacBook Pro speakers since am traveling at the moment. That was a quite a huge difference. Wow.
Cool. Thanks for checking out the video
It’s crazy hoe much they add. Need to get this console!
Sweetwater sells them :)
@@MixingMusicAnalog i know. I do not understand why the cut out the comp sections of the channel strip. I love them. Do you miss them?
Fun!
Thanks!!
Depth change heard and after I tried the XLogic XR621 pre-amp - Man! I’m with SSL all the way well the XLogic stuff!
Thanks for watching!
I heard the difference right away. A comparison I think may be interesting would be using the MixFX Brit Console emulation in Studio One and your Origin. Looking forward to the next video!
Not happening with the Presonus stuff but there will be a channel strip
@@MixingMusicAnalog Im curious about the Softube Tape plugin as well. I use it on my Mix FX and it seems to add a lot of character. Probably not nearly as drastic as the SSL. The tracks run through the board sound way better!
@@gweeds334 The Softube Tape has really great integration with Studio One.
@Mixing Music Analog That's a shame!
MixFX is one of StudioOne's main bonus features and it's entire point is to re-introduce the non-linearity back that you just did with a Console.
In other words, you'd be the only one testing it's claim of being a substitute for an Actual Analog desk, in the box.
And all you'd have to do is run the "brown" tracks through the various MixFX and print those right besides your Clean and your Origin prints.
One of the MixFX is supposed to be an SSL btw.
Uncle Dave does the best vids.
ThankShaun
Another great video! It would be cool to see as a follow up: those 32 printed tracks summed digitally (like it the video) vs. 32 tracks summed to the Origin’s two bus (analog)
maybe at one point but the results would be the same
@@MixingMusicAnalog you think? I guess it’s ITB vs. Analog summing that this test would isolate - might be an easy enough extension of this video and the one you just released :)
Thank you Uncle Dave for this Video. Please Uncle Dave, would it be possible to see you do this type of comparison with a song with more programmed instruments?
I dont have sessions with programed instruments as I typically dont work with material like that, sorry
The SSL definitely sounded better. The space added was very noticeable. Having stated that, I mix ITB due to cost and ease, and it’s amazing we can create a high quality end product on a near zero budget (not including the skills, which, when lacking, no console or computer can fix).
Thanks for sharing!
❤️👍
Thanks for watching!
Great video! Something I've been waiting for for a long while! Do you think the preamps in something like the big six resemble the Origins preamps?
OK, so I paused the video at 7:04 to write what I heard. It's a bit hard to describe, but it's like you remove a blanket from a speaker when you play it through the SSL. And it's not like "Well, a high shelf boost could do the same", because it's more than that. I "feel" the difference more than I can hear it, if that makes sense? Especially kick and snare. The SSL gives it a bite or like a tiger scratch to the sound. Some sharpness that I really love. It also feels a bit wider. Like you're sitting 4 people in a tight little Mini Cooper, vs sitting 4 people in a big Range Rover. The instruments have space to move. It's kinda what I WANT to hear when I try stuff like a slight 400hz cut on the master. So my top things are shine, razor edge, and space.
Also, one thing you could/should have done is to phase-flip one of the buses. That way, we could hear the exact difference between the two versions.
EDIT: Just when I unpaused I heard what you thought of the tracks, and you seem to agree. Space and clarity. But as I said, I also get that "bite" or "tiger claws" to the kick and snare.
Also, have you seen the new SSL UF1? Seems like something to replace your Faderport with ^^
Well put. Thanks for watching!
The preamps in the Six/big six are the same as in the origin
More Channel separation on the SSL board!!
Thanks for watching!
Would be interesting to see you put a Console 1 SSL 4000 or 9000 across all the tracks with the drive set to 6ish and hear the difference.
I dont have a console 1, sorry
@@MixingMusicAnalog all good, I was sure you had one in the past, probably a long time ago.
I'm on airpods rn, not in the studio (i'll check on my focals later after work), but even here the subtle transformer compression and coloration is definitely shining here. Everything sits better. I focused on the drums and its crazy how they went from flat to 3d. Gotta love some good ol SSL saturation, it does wonders
Thanks!
But isn't this a transformer less preamp ?
Any thoughts on the SSL PureDrive Quad Preamps + Converters unit, as a alternative to the SSL console for home studios.
They claim to be the same that are in my console so I am sure its a great piece
Yes, I'm thinking this maybe a good intermediate step for me toward the SSL console. Thanks! @@MixingMusicAnalog
Even when I sum 8 channels on my SSL six, it has the same effect. I don't think you'll be able to get anything like this with a channel strip plugin because most of the plugins don't emulate the preamp. The extra width was the first thing I noticed when I started mixing hybrid on the SSL six. Great video!
We will see when I do the channel strip plugin comparison
@@MixingMusicAnalog That will be interesting for sure. I think the Brainworx 9000J will be the closest to the Origin Superanalogue preamp. The SSL Native channel strip 2 does not model the preamp circuit and has none of the saturation characteristics.
It becomes more up close and personal ran through the SSL.
It's funny, there are mix engineers that are Grammy winners that do not use the console for the eq or compression and just use the SSl for summing so they can recall the session easily
Tom Lord Alge is one person I'm pretty sure that does this
I am sure, but there as many engineers that do use EQ and compression on the console. Everyone has a different workflow
I know Tom's intern personally and he does not do this. Stop believing what you read on the internet.
Can you do a comparison video of 32 channel ssl summing with a tegler audio tube summing box along with digital summing?
I dont own the Tegeler, sorry
Quite a difference even using inexpensive but okay wired earbuds.
What gain used and what level in ?
I don't understand your question
@@MixingMusicAnalog Asking what level signal going into the preamp and what gain is used on it.
"There's no nothin'!" That's actually means that there IS something! 😉
Seriously though. Speaking of SSL Pre-amps. Do you have any plans to compare the pre-amps in their new Pure Dive rack units with the pre-amps in your Origin console. According to SSL they are the same. It would be interesing to hear your view on this.
I plan to buy a Pure Drive Quad, as soon as I can lay my grubby little fingers on one.
No, I dont have access to that gear so I cant do that review. They say its the same exact preamp that come out of my Origin so I have no reason to doubt that
Also, to those who hate on SSL preamps, I don't understand. Technically this also showcases if you were to record through the origin, and holy crap! not a Neve or API but something beautiful on its own.
Thanks for watching!
People hated on the Old SSL Preamps from the 4000/9000 Era and when compared with APIs and NEVEs and everything else available at the time.
SSL entire philosophy has always been Clean, which is the opposite of Character, hense the old saying "Track on a Neve, mix on an SSL!".
SSL later tweaked thier preamps to be less sterile (yet cleaner) and introduced the VHD circuit which basically allowed you to Add as much or as little of two different flavors to their otherwise flavorless Preamps as you desire. That's what's in the flagship Duality.
Now these New new SSL Preamps in the Origin(s) and I believe are identical in the SiX/BigSiX, I haven't yet heard compared against anything.
That would be a good video for this channel though.
Thanks for your input. If SSL wants to send me a BIG 6, I would be glad to do some compassions.
@@MixingMusicAnalog Comparing the Origin series against the SiX series would be great......if you're going to be clear about what you're actually comparing.
If not, don't bother. UA-cam doesn't need any more click bait mis-information.
The point is to add clarity to the conversation.
That said, the obvious questions are: What does someone get from ITB mixes, --> then with SSL Plugins, --> then with SSL SiX, --> then with SSL Origin.
Each of those steps has a Cost that can be easily quantified, what about quantifying and qualifying the benefits of each stage.
- If the SiX Preamps and the Origin's are indeed identical, then what do you get from running through 2/4 rather than 16/32.
- In this video you didn't compare any Summing differences at all. Also known as Mixing, presumably the primary use of a mixer. What you did was create 32 Analog Plugins (Hardware Inserts), which btw I find fantastic.
Honestly IMHO, the 32 Analog Hardware Inserts are going to add MORE than the actual Analog Summing, and not enough people in UA-cam land understand the difference. That width and depth is likely due to the tolerances between channels, as much as any functional circuit design.
-That said, comparing the Summing ITB vs Analog in the SiX vs Origin, is also in order. With say the Big SiX, you have 16-channels of D/A conversion built in, whereas the Origin also needs a 32-channel Interface. If you compare 16-->2 on both systems, clean, how do they compare?
-Then if you engage the Bus Compression on each system, how does the Full Featured Bus Comp beat the Stripped Down version on the SiX? If you have the same settings, do you get the same Glue?
-After that comes the Channel Strips themselves: Origin has "Black Knob" EQ all the way across, but now channel dynamics. SiX has Stripped Down NEW EQs and One-Knob Compression. What happens when you try to mix with the Onboard Processing on each?
-Maybe give yourself the luxury of using each system's Inserts to the same set of Outboard processing, and FX to not handicap the mix too much. Use them both for what they can do.
-Lastly, when you've hit the limit of where the Big SiX can take you in an apples for apples, Then untie the Origin's other hand and let it do what it can do.
I think your channel's are adding a ton of value to the community, but that you're often moving so fast to keep up with the algorithm that every video needs to be taken with a big grain of salt.
I'd say "Slow don't and you'll move faster!", but it feels like you can't slow down and get any more thorough than you currently are, and it's hard to complain about something you're getting for free.
So keep up the good work and let the buyer beware?
I will say though, that I also have Quantum 4848s feeding a 32-Channel Inline Console.
But had the Big SiX been an option in the beginning, I highly doubt that I would have invested so much capital.
Combine a Big SiX with a High End 2x4 Interface (Apollo, Lynx/RME, SSL12?),
then add Softube Console 1 (and actually learn how to use it, which takes time),
and/or SSL 360 with their Channel Strips and Bus Compressor,
that's a Hybrid setup that was unimaginable 10-years ago and you'd be hard pressed to say that vehicle couldn't get just about anyone anywhere they're trying to go.
Just my opinion.
Thanks for all your input on the videos. You seem to have a lot of knowledge when it comes to gear and such. why not share that info and start your own channel? We dont have enough people who are trying to pass along helpful info without trying to sell you something. Just a thought
To me the SSL track is smoother on top and bottom and just more pleasant to listen to.
Great. Thanks for checking out the video
To my ears it sounds like the SSL added weight and fullness to the mix. Everything seems to glue together.
It sure does!
My questions with these comparisons are always, are there any differences that can't be simply recreated with basic digital EQ, compression and saturation? And if its too much work to do this manually every time, is this difference really worth the cost?
I usually land on the "not really" side, but i understand why people like the tactile and immediate nature of analog.
It's not just about the EQ. Its a width and depth that can not be duplicated with plugins, in my opinion :)
@@MixingMusicAnalog But how is that quantified? I guess I'm just highly skeptical of these sorts of claims when I see this stuff constantly be debunked by blind tests and tonal/balance analysis. Are you saying that analog can provide depth/width that is impossible to replicate with width/depth processing in the box?
I'm glad you found a workflow that works for you, I just wonder if people fetishize "analog" more because they don't fully understand the science of what's happening and therefore don't know what parameters to tweak in the box to replicate the sounds they like in the analog domain.
You must be new to the channel. go back and spend some time watching my hardware to plugin videos. I think you will better understand my opinions on this topic. I am not claiming anything or trying to sell you anything, like most other channels. I am one of the few people that work both ITB and Analog every week as I have 2 separate rigs in my studio.
I am one of the few that can actually A/B them side by side in the same room. I have said on this channel 20,000 times by now :)....one is not "better" it's "different" and all I am doing is trying to convey the differences. People dont have to believe it, care about it etc. If the info helps people then that's great! If people think I am completely full of it,,, then that great as well. LOL.
Unless you have actually stood in the room and worked on analog gear, especially a console, you cant appreciate it. Again, most people on UA-cam that say analog is a waste, plugins sound just as good etc.. I'll bet most have never even stood in a room with a console let alone actually work on one..LOL
If you watch my journey on this channel you'll see that I was one who expected the ITB and Analog would sound almost identical and that is was the hands on workflow that mattered. after about a year of working on both platforms, I realized that is not the case.
I appreciate you checking out the video and have a great day!
@@MixingMusicAnalog Fair enough, you clearly have more experience than I do with hardware. I don't appreciate the condescension of assuming that I've never worked with a console. I've been in some pretty hefty Chicago studios to record with my band and worked on an old Neve a couple of times, but I will freely admit that you've spent more time on this than I have.
I can hear a difference in the room in some respects, but that was comparing straight digital to straight analog, not trying to do an honest like-for-like test. It's kind of like comparing a restaurant steak to a raw steak at home before cooking it with specific methods in an attempt to replicate that restaurant steak.
I have simply heard too many people in the audio world talk about these things in vague adjectives rather than taking the time learn the technical explanations for the differences. How many times have you heard a guitar player talk about the "warmth" of sound from their tube amp vs. a "cold and harsh" modeler? In reality, they're specifically saying they like the saturation the tubes provide a long with the low pass filter that the speaker provides, and when adjusting for this in a modeler, you'd be able to fool that player in a blind test 10/10 times.
I guess I'm just skeptical about claims saying that there exists some magic in analog gear that produces "width" (a pretty vague term on it's own, tbh) that can't be replicated in the digital world.
@@jorgemartinez42069 Hey Brotha. Just read your thread and wanted to add two cents before you seem genuinely interested in understanding whether or not this is just Audiophile Placebo Effect or if there's something real happening.
Both you and Dave are 'close' to what's happening but IMHO slightly missing what's been studied over the past couple of decades.
Is the difference just EQ, Compression, and Saturation?
No...but those are all at play.
Is there such thing as Analog Magic?
No...Magic is what people call it when they don't know the science.
Is this whole debate settled?
Not quite, but a lot more so than UA-cam would have you believe.
So, Dave bought a 32-channel board.
What "most" people buying consoles in the 21st century, for Mixing as opposed to Recording, try to claim is that "Analog Summing" is inherently superior.
That's mostly been debunked...for many years.
To his credit, in This video, he did no Analog Summing. He routed out D/A --> 32 Individual Channel Strips--A/D back in, then did the Summing Digitally.
He then compared that with the same tracks, summed the same way, but without taking that Analog journey.
Did you hear the difference? I did.
What was that difference? That's the core of your question.
Can that difference be achieved In The Box, without Analog conversion?
Would that difference have been different if run through 3 different Analog Consoles?
What if He just ran 4 DB-25 from the Outs directly to the Ins of his Interface? In other words, was it the Console at all, or just the conversion?
Well....this isn't the first time these questions have been asked, given that the entire recording industry just went from doing things on Consoles to doing things in Computers, and EVERYONE could hear the difference.
The easy part first:
Summing Numbers in a Computer vs Summing Electrons is Analog.
Many many people chased that rabbit down the hole and in the end, the two can be made to Null down to minus two hundred dB or so. So the Summing itself, as far as I'm concerned is definitively irrelevant.
However that's not a dismissal of Analog Summing, but rather an endorsement of how useful it still is and knowledge that it isn't Inferior to Digital Summing either.
If you still use Analog gear it's about what you do to signals before and after the sum that matters. And essentially After a sum is just a bus, so you're Bus Processing multiple signals together, the most obvious effect being "Glue".
However, while all the major players were chasing down Analog Summing, Waves discovered something that resulted in thier NLS.
Ironically perfect for today's discussion, they realized that it wasn't the Summing of 32-channels, it was the fact that those 32-channel strips in an Analog Console were not identical.
They can't be. Electronics are physical and there are tolerances within each component on a circuit board that accumulate into some amount of difference between Channels even in the highest quality consoles.
Those minor differences between just two channels have Always been understood in Audio especially by Mastering Engineers who work in half-dB increments and think not only in terms of Left-Right but also Mid-Side.
As you probably know another name for MS is Sum & Difference.
That difference is anything different in the signals between the left and right channels, and when listening in stereo it's perceived as Width.
Well take 32-channels and add tiny differences all over the place and you get miniscule Width differences all over the mix. Everything is moving away from everything else.
Which is perceived as Width and Depth and Three-Dimensionality.
Not Magic.
Just physics nobody bothered to measure at first, because until Digital, there was no alternative and nothing to measure against.
Now, you gave the Amp Modeling example and mentioned the low-pass filter perceived as "warmth".
Well let's call that a Frequency Response characteristic and say that Every peice of Analog gear has a Frequency Response curve that's kinda like its fingerprint.
When gear is tested to be "flat" or not, it's usually tested to it +/- 3dB point. So Flat from 20-20kHz doesn't really tell you much.
If you make +/-3dB EQ moves are you going to notice?
Again Mastering Engineers often work in 1/2dB steps. And DAWs often adjust in 0.1dB steps.
So if 32-channels in a Console each have a Frequency Response fingerprint that even with everything turned off have tolerances that can swing by half decibels up or down, without measurement or documentation or metering, do those differences not exist?
Now this is the part where professional Audio Engineers start to worry about sounding like the crackpot Audiophiles that buy thousand dollar power cables and Unobtainium XLRs.
Basically, there were things going on at tolerance levels below what anyone in the Analog Era was measuring for. And it wasn't until digital made that tolerance Zero that people freaked out about something missing that they couldn't explain.
Then there's Non-linearity.
Essentially, run a signal through a straight wire and you'll get out pretty much what you put in.
Build a circuit and that becomes the challenge. How do you Effect the signal while maintaining linearity?
Circuits are made of components and many components are inherently non-linear.
Tubes, Tape, Transformers, capacitors...
Again Ironically, SSL in general and thier SuperAnalogue in particular is famous precisely for its Linearity. They diligently designed circuits with No Transformers or Capacitors or even VCA in the Audio path in order to produce the most high-bandwith consoles ever.
Now in this digital Era, we want our Non-linearity back.
So can all of this be done in code rather than circuits?
I have a lot of money wrapped up in a folder that promises that it can.
But I also still own four Analog Consoles.
Are we 100% there yet?
I don't really know anymore.
But that's primarilly because,
I don't really Care anymore!
There's no more either or, it's All good now and these distinctions make so little difference Now that you can reach for whatever is calling you.
more clarity more presence more low & low end more pushing body to move.
Thanks for watching!
Being older , i cant call you uncle dave..lol. but Analog signals are much higher density, and can present more refined information. Analog signals use less bandwidth than digital signals. Analog signals provide a more accurate representation of changes in physical phenomena, such as sound, light, temperature, position, or pressure!!!
Thank you for watching!
Listening to both through digital summing... And also two stages of digital conversion..imo listening through the console master fader is where you'll hear a very big difference and where this console's power is...i know this illistration is for the preamps to me there's not that much difference... After the ssl tracks are a little brighter thinner...i personally like the way these preamps sound with the pure drive off... Much richer transient detail
Thanks for watching!
Oh and thanks Dave! I just can't not watch you're vids when they pop up.
Thank you
As I always say, "when you run music through a mile of copper wire wrapped around an iron core it just sounds better"...
Absolutely True!
Thanks Michael!
The SSL is dense.
Thanks for watching!
Maybe you should do some quick panning before analysis. All engineers know panning can massively improve separation. I think that separation would be a positive for better more efficient comparison analysis. Even if just the stereo pairs, overheads, BVs, guitars etc
Just a thought. Good work Dave.
The difference is literally Pro Sound vs consumer sound. Punch and clarity from the SSL vs lifeless digital ITB recordings
being smeared by plugins to give the illusion of warmth at the expense of punch and clarity is never going to work
Mixing Analogue gives you punch, warmth, 3d effect, realness, depth, width, attitude, nostalgia effect….I could go on😂
My 2c
What makes you think there was no panning? Yes, there was.
This is what i heard on a Mac laptop (have not yet heard your comments to avoid being influenced): through the console, the stereo image was wider, the sound was warmer (deeper) and brighter in a very nice way. Everything basically just sounded better. Incredible what this console does. Reminds me of what happened when one just ran signal through a Trident A Range. This laptop has no low end, so i can only imagine what'll happen through some decent monitors. OK i've now heard your comments. I promise i hadn't heard them before writing the 1st part of this. Will play the video in the studio when i'm there but i'm certain the impression will be the same, only more pronounced. Great video, thank you!
Thanks for watching! I am surprised that you heard that much of a difference on a laptop
@@MixingMusicAnalog I was surprised too, frankly - the sparkly high end and stereo width difference weren't exactly subtle, even on the laptop. BTW i ordered an Origin a few days ago, was starting to get some buyers remorse but this video quickly squelched that, so thanks again! :)