You are here

Two SSL SiX's ganged?

All about the tools and techniques involved in capturing sound, in the studio or on location.

Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby bluedot » Tue Dec 24, 2019 8:12 pm

We're super happy with our SSL SiX - but I need more of the mono super-analogue (1/2) tracks with the EQ and compressors and inserts for recording.

I was wondering if it was ridiculous to use two of these, and run the sub SiX into the EXT of the summing SiX.

I wish we could afford a bigger mixer from SSL, but not until my proverbial ship comes in.

Thanks for your input!
User avatar
bluedot
New here
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:50 pm
Location: Oregon Coast

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:12 pm

Yes, that would work.

Or, if you can live without channel EQ and compressors you could invest in an SSL VHD preamp for four more mic inputs, and hook those into spare line channels and/or Ext in.
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 25848
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby zenguitar » Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:46 am

Two ganged!! I haven’t won the first one in the SOS competition yet!

Andy :beamup:
User avatar
zenguitar
Moderator
Posts: 9404
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Devon
When you see a fork in the road, take it.
Yogi Berra

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby bluedot » Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:03 pm

Thanks for your input gentlemen. It seemed so simple yet I've not heard anybody do it. Yet.

For a great workflow, and value - I can't beat (3) SSL compressors, (2) EQ's and the ability to insert some more studio gear for less than the price of a couple outboard compressors. They're showing up used on Reverb now for $1100.

Instead of another outboard rack - they will be easily accessible on each side of my Nucleus! :bouncy:
User avatar
bluedot
New here
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:50 pm
Location: Oregon Coast

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby Arpangel » Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:53 am

bluedot wrote:Thanks for your input gentlemen. It seemed so simple yet I've not heard anybody do it. Yet.

For a great workflow, and value - I can't beat (3) SSL compressors, (2) EQ's and the ability to insert some more studio gear for less than the price of a couple outboard compressors. They're showing up used on Reverb now for $1100.

Instead of another outboard rack - they will be easily accessible on each side of my Nucleus! :bouncy:

I’ve not got any experience of the SSL sound, just wondering what you find so good about it? I’m not being funny, I really want to know, just in case I’m missing out on something.

:thumbup:
User avatar
Arpangel
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 12:00 am

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby bluedot » Thu Dec 26, 2019 5:49 pm

After decades working with prosumer gear - one can expect at the most - transparency. But there's more to it than that.

Years ago, when a collaborator chose a ridiculously high end piece of gear over my budget stuff, I would shake my head and call them pretentious.

But after a few decades of using just about every inexpensive piece of gear out there - I've come to the point where I would rather pay for something that lasts, is repairable and has "The sound".

What is the SSL sound? It's difficult to put in writing, but know most amazing albums are mixed on these boards. The compressors add a warmth and roundness. You can push the gain without harsh distortion, and its colorful. The EQ's are surgical, yet not so touchy. The ability to sum with compression on the master bus is so palpable - my mix engineer asked me what the heck had changed in our studio, it made such a difference.

Then there's the routing logic that makes them a swiss army knife in the studio.

So just like photography, one shouldn't start out with a Hasselblad and Zeiss lenses that cost the price of a car. But in the end, thats what you end up with as eventually you can see and feel the difference, and everything else pales. Especially in a professional environment, where your bread is buttered by your craft.

I would recommend playing with everything you can get your hands on, and when it all pales - thats when the SSL, Neve, etc stuff is appropriate.
User avatar
bluedot
New here
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:50 pm
Location: Oregon Coast

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby Arpangel » Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:22 am

I can remember back in the 80's when SSL consoles started to appear in major studios, I heard a lot of comments about the sound, harsh, hard, in your face, aggressive, in comparison to the Neve sound, as an example, which was often referred to as smoother, creamy, in comparison. I guess also, that with the advent of early digital recording at the time this didn’t help matters much.
The bottom line is that if you can afford the more expensive gear then why not have it?
And sonics aside, if you are a professional then reliability is an important factor.
User avatar
Arpangel
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 12:00 am

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Fri Dec 27, 2019 11:39 am

Arpangel wrote:I can remember back in the 80's when SSL consoles started to appear in major studios, I heard a lot of comments about the sound, harsh, hard, in your face, aggressive, in comparison to the Neve sound, as an example, which was often referred to as smoother, creamy, in comparison. I guess also, that with the advent of early digital recording at the time this didn’t help matters much.

I think you're right about the early digital recordings and mastering playing a key role in some of those sound character associations -- but just because the SSL console was the most fashionable choice at the time.

But we have to be very careful about labelling an entire company's product portfolio developed over many decades with one overarching sound character. SSL's consoles in the mid-90s (the 9000J and onwards) employed a completely different design approach and technology (the 'SuperAnalogue' DC-coupled circuitry, for example) from those early 4000 consoles... And even the 4000 series desks changed quite dramatically over its many years of production from the late 70s through to the early 2000s -- and not just the brown and black EQs!

The same is equally true of Neve's different console designs over the years, too, of course.

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 25848
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby Arpangel » Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:11 am

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
Arpangel wrote:I can remember back in the 80's when SSL consoles started to appear in major studios, I heard a lot of comments about the sound, harsh, hard, in your face, aggressive, in comparison to the Neve sound, as an example, which was often referred to as smoother, creamy, in comparison. I guess also, that with the advent of early digital recording at the time this didn’t help matters much.

I think you're right about the early digital recordings and mastering playing a key role in some of those sound character associations -- but just because the SSL console was the most fashionable choice at the time.

But we have to be very careful about labelling an entire company's product portfolio developed over many decades with one overarching sound character. SSL's consoles in the mid-90s (the 9000J and onwards) employed a completely different design approach and technology (the 'SuperAnalogue' DC-coupled circuitry, for example) from those early 4000 consoles... And even the 4000 series desks changed quite dramatically over its many years of production from the late 70s through to the early 2000s -- and not just the brown and black EQs!

The same is equally true of Neve's different console designs over the years, too, of course.

H

The reason I’m questioning all this is that I’m still thinking of getting a Six as a high quality small mixer, but I’m still not sure, I think I’m going to have to arrange a loan or something.
Also, this area of the market isn’t exactly saturated with alternatives at this quality/size level. It has to be a major leap in quality from what I’m using, and I don’t just mean build quality or features, it has to be obviously sonically superior.
It would just be good to own a mixer that you know isn’t a bottleneck to your sound, I don’t think this is the case at the moment, but how do I know if I haven’t heard a better alternative?
User avatar
Arpangel
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 12:00 am

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby TheChorltonWheelie » Sat Dec 28, 2019 11:32 am

bluedot wrote:After decades working with prosumer gear - one can expect at the most - transparency. But there's more to it than that.

Years ago, when a collaborator chose a ridiculously high end piece of gear over my budget stuff, I would shake my head and call them pretentious.

I still believe that there's an element of the emperor's new clothes with high-end kit; I bought an Apollo X8, to replace my RME UFX, but with blind listening tests I, and the other people I often work with, all said that the RME was more transparent and spatially more accurate than the brand new £2400 Apollo.

The Apollo went back.

Perhaps I'm more used to a particular sound, it's more familiar, but the other ears hadn't really heard either unit that much. I always hark back to the famous line "There's a new band in town but you can't set the sound from a story in a magazine!"; I always, always listen to kit myself now, no matter how good the review sounds I'm finally able to be subjective after 30 years of doing it! :lol:
TheChorltonWheelie
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1092
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:00 am

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Sat Dec 28, 2019 11:57 am

We're all able to be subjective... being objective is the challenge... :lol: :think:
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 25848
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby TheChorltonWheelie » Sun Dec 29, 2019 9:15 am

Hugh Robjohns wrote:We're all able to be subjective... being objective is the challenge... :lol: :think:

I deliberately said "subjective" on the basis that a lot of brands, and their entire product range therein, are considered to be of high quality and as such as rarely challenged on an objective basis.... :D
TheChorltonWheelie
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1092
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:00 am

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby Arpangel » Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:32 am

My Behringer 16 channel mixer cost me £200, the SSL has 6 channels and it costs the best part of £1,200, I’m not for one second going to say that the build quality and sound of the Behringer is as good as the SSL, but, is the SSL £1,000 better?
I’m always looking for a high quality small mixer, but haven’t done anything about it yet, the SSL looks confusing to use, then there’s the D Sub connectors, extra money, and just plain inconvenient.
I also have a small Mackie, both mixers are used for keyboards, I never use the mic inputs, I’m just wondering if it’s worth looking any further, for this type of application.
User avatar
Arpangel
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 12:00 am

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:44 pm

Arpangel wrote:I’m just wondering if it’s worth looking any further, for this type of application.

For you, No.

It doesn't have sufficient inputs, you don't need most of the facilities it provides, and you won't like its transparent sound, anyway.

So no need to add it to your endless list of imminent equipment purchases... ;)
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 25848
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby bluedot » Sun Dec 29, 2019 7:47 pm

Arpangel wrote:My Behringer 16 channel mixer cost me £200, the SSL has 6 channels and it costs the best part of £1,200, I’m not for one second going to say that the build quality and sound of the Behringer is as good as the SSL, but, is the SSL £1,000 better?
I’m always looking for a high quality small mixer, but haven’t done anything about it yet, the SSL looks confusing to use, then there’s the D Sub connectors, extra money, and just plain inconvenient.
I also have a small Mackie, both mixers are used for keyboards, I never use the mic inputs, I’m just wondering if it’s worth looking any further, for this type of application.

I purchased it for mixing, vocals, acoustic instruments, and analog summing. The cost of 3 SSL compressors and (2) SSL EQ's is much more than $1k if you buy the outboard gear.
User avatar
bluedot
New here
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:50 pm
Location: Oregon Coast

Re: Two SSL SiX's ganged?

Postby Arpangel » Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:13 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
Arpangel wrote:I’m just wondering if it’s worth looking any further, for this type of application.

For you, No.

It doesn't have sufficient inputs, you don't need most of the facilities it provides, and you won't like its transparent sound, anyway.

So no need to add it to your endless list of imminent equipment purchases... ;)

Cheers Hugh, I add to the list all the time, in the belief that some things would refreshingly change my studio or my music, or at least make it somehow easier to work in, compose, but they don't, so I end up never buying anything, lately.
I know that electronic based music is by its very nature an equipment heavy pursuit, it’s always moving forward, and requires constant investment, I think that's why I’m always talking about going into studios on this forum, and not engineering myself, and going back to acoustic piano, and slimming down. I’m still interested in electronics and recording, simply not as much as I used to be.
I try and look at things in the light of what "I" need, are they value for money in the context of how I’m going to use them? and I’m not saying that the SSL or anything else for that matter is inherently bad for some reason, as you say, it may just not be right for me.
User avatar
Arpangel
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 12:00 am