R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down

Author Topic: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???  (Read 26552 times)

steve p

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 129
  • Real Full Name: Steve Perkins
SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« on: November 24, 2005, 03:39:32 am »

I need some help on what to look for in the SSL 4000 G EQs
Is there model numbers that go with the colors or a way to tell which EQ it is by looking at it?

Black, Brown, orange??

Can i tell by looking at the knob color?

Thanks
steve
Logged
Steve Perkins


Creation Recording Studios

.



JOHN 3:16

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2005, 07:13:52 am »

Yes, there are differences.  But Keith (ssltech) can answer with great specificity.

Paging Keith, paging Keith...
Logged

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2005, 07:23:14 am »

Or Paul Frindle...
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2005, 09:21:04 am »

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 24 November 2005 07:23

Or Paul Frindle...


Of course!  After all, he did actually design them!
Logged

Paul Frindle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 380
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2005, 07:32:50 pm »

compasspnt wrote on Thu, 24 November 2005 14:21

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 24 November 2005 07:23

Or Paul Frindle...


Of course!  After all, he did actually design them!


No, that's not strictly true and I'm sorry if people have somehow assumed this from my past posts? I did not design any version of the SSL console EQ before the G series version. However I did specifically develop the G Series EQ variant as part of (and along with) the rest of the G Series channel electronics.

But sadly after all this time I can't tell you the exact colours, except to say it is the version with the rather more pastel coloured controls and (more obviously) the one with the Bell/Shelf switches re-purposed as X3 freq scale selectors.

It is significantly different from the previous versions and the loss of the Bell/shelf function was a reluctant compromise that had to be made so that the EQ could retrofit the existing E Series console channel module.

The G series upgraded Input stages, EQ, Dynamics and modified Logic cards were originally conceived as retrofit and/or customer optional modules destined for the E Series consoles. It was only later that the G Series console was launched with the new colours and livery, to underscore the initiative - and allow further modification to the centre section electronics etc.

I hope this helps Smile
Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2005, 12:23:05 pm »

huh...? -Is it time to wake up? -I was napping hardcore! Very Happy  -okay, here's the sequence:

Original SSL EQ had a brown-knob on the LF. It's a pretty straightforward constant-bandwidth design with
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

stevieeastend

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1297
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2005, 01:53:36 pm »

Keith,

do you know something about the brand "Westec"? Does this name say anything to you?

cheers
steveeastend

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2005, 02:22:35 pm »

Thanks Keith and Paul!

With you two guys around, there are no unanswerable SSL questions!

Fortunately mine has all three versions of EQ.  I did that intentionally for the multiplicity of choice.  I like all three versions for different reasons.  Which one is it that Bob C. likes most again?  And wasn't one somewhere supposed to mimic a Pultec?

And those G preamps definitely were a big improvement!

By the way, somewhere someone was asking about potential upgrades to the stereo buss...any ideas there?

Best regards!
Logged

Paul Frindle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 380
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2005, 08:47:31 pm »

ssltech wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 17:23

huh...? -Is it time to wake up? -I was napping hardcore! Very Happy  -okay, here's the sequence:


Paul mentions that it wasn't quite constant-Q, but they certainly dropped the old constant-bandwidth behaviour, and the bandwidth basically used to widen rather a lot depending on how much you boosted or cut, and narrowed as you boosted (or cut) less.

Keith


You remember more about it than I do Smile However the gain/Q dependancy was actually the other way round to the way you describe it. In fact the effective Q lessened with lower boosts and cuts and therefore effectively widened the bandwidth for smaller amounts of EQ. The reason for this was to make delicate approaches to EQ more audible and thus encourage the user to employ somewhat less dramatic and more subtle EQ styles.
This was done to address the increasingly popular sonic styles of the time and counter some of the criticisms of the console sounding 'harsh' - due to the narrow bandwidth mid range boosts that had typified earlier production styles. The increase of max boost/cut from 15dB to 18dB was allowable due to reduced noise levels in the G series design.

The LF and HF shelves were also considerably re-worked with extra response poles to create an increased warmth (response overshoot bump) in the LF region and sharper freq definition (MF suck-out) in the HF regions - again to address the emerging styles of the times. BTW this also meant that the shelving sections were slightly unsymmetrical in boost and cut.

Although the G series was certainly a more 'musical' general purpose EQ that responded more naturally than the previous versions, the loss of high Q low gain cuts was a disadvantage when trying to tame resonances (especially percussion) etc.. Therefore some people found it disappointing under some conditions.

Later therefore when I did the Oxford EQ (released from panel constraints) I included 3 different selectable styles of EQ to address these problems. Specifically type 2 has unsymmetrical cut and boost curves to allow low gain very high Q resonance control in cut and overall character correction in boost - IMHO the best of both worlds when doing corrective EQ on percussion and other resonant instruments. The high effective Qs in cut are particularly useful as in a digital system the freq can be very finely and accurately set - and of course the stability of a digital system means it will stay put always Smile

I also recall that I made mods to the mix bus arrangement in the G Series too (sorry to be so vague - it was all a long time ago). The original SSL mix busses were unbalanced and prone to magnetic pick up. We fell over this problem in Germany SWF in Baden baden where the mix busses picked up massive amounts of noise from the massive magnetic fields in the control room. At that time myself and a team flown out from SSL actually modified the whole console in situ to re-use the mix bus ground returns as a balanced references to buck out the magnetic pick up. My memory tells me that this method was installed in the G series console modules.

I also recall intending to change the fundamental mix amp and routing arrangement. The original one switched resistors to ground for the unrouted signals, effectively maintaining high mix amp gains permanently and making the mix buss noise unnecessarily constant regardless of how many channels were routed. This was done originally to maintain mix amp stability. I developed a mix amp that had enhanced stability that would tolerate wide gain ranges, therefore making the unrouted source resistors unnecessary so providing much lower buss noise under normal partial routing situations. But I can't remember if this made it's way into the console before I was taken off the case. Keith may be able to confirm this?
Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2005, 10:21:49 pm »

Paul, It depends how you specify 'bandwidth', I suppose.

I did take a serious look at the 'G' EQ when it came out (we bought a few and installed them, but eventually removed them and I ended up designing my own, the "AAD"...) Using my default definition of the 'bandwidth' as being the distance between the two points at which the response deviates from flat (as opposed to distance between -3dB or any other arbitrary point) then I recall that the G did indeed get wide with taller boosts and deeper cut, not narrower as you might suggest. That was why it didn't do 'deep narrow notch' at all well: the bandwidth got so wide with progressively deepening cut that it started sucking lots of energy from the area around the center frequency, and pulled a lot of the character out along with any (f'rexample) untamable tom-tom ring, an area where the previous versions were more surgically useful, when drum tuning and mic selection/placement (you know, the REAL way to solve the problem!) failed.

So unless I'm remembering very wrongly, I reckon I got it the right way round. Wink

The Oxford EQ is a work of elegance. I also built an analog EQ several years ago (fifteen or more... perhaps the similar vintage to the 'G' design) that -like the Oxford digital EQs that I've played with- offered the use of the (usually redundant) 'Q' -or Bandwidth- control in shelf mode. (In a shelf, by definition the bandwidth should theoretically be infinite, but the slope of the flter -which in bell mode is proportional to the 'Q'- can still be altered, significantly improving the tonal range of options in the way the unit can be set)

Compasspnt, yes there was an EQ-P version. The uptake was miniscule. The curves were said to be "based on the Pultec" -Note that they don't claim they were really anything like the same! -That was a fourth option, but it was heavily based on teh topology of the brown 82E02 and had differing ranges for most of the controls in each band.

Other aftermarket versions that were produced were the AAD (Amazon Audio Developments) EQE-1 and the Maselec (designed and built by Leif Mases as a further development from the AAD after he worked on a couple of albums on mine and decided that he would also like to try and sell a few of his design. We both sold a few, but neither of us got rich doing it! Very Happy

-A little aside: that was quite some gathering of minds at the console for the first album back in 1989... Leif Mases producing, myself engineering and the house tech who was red-hot on SSL consoles also. -If anything dared to go wrong during the 6 months or so that it took to record and mix, it was a race to see who could call the component number on the board first!!!

I think I might have a few of the unstuffed AAD boards in case anyone ever wants to try a fourth flavour! Wink

The "balanced" buses: -the problem really only started to manifest itself after consoles started to be purchased in ever longer frame-sizes. The unbalanced summing had worked fine for a long time and with small buss lengths, but over 56 channels (unheard of in 1979 when the first E-series went into Ridge Farm in Dorking) was where it really became a problem. the high buss gains and the long antenna-like buses started to become an issue. My standard test to check the bus noise rejection before and after the quasi-balanced buss implementations (which included replacing ALL of the lower buss cards) was to place a Weller soldering iron transformer directly under the bus cards. It was a good way to dial out the noise, though I did find that there was rather little range on the trim pots after the mod was done...

Hell all in all, it was a stellar system: to think that it was designed and built in the 1970s and many of them today still soldier on... Not the cleanest sound -specially the earlier ones- but one of the most easily serviceable -especially so when you consider the incredible power of their automation and that they pioneered recall- consoles. Rock-solid mechanical construction.

The Console at Parr Street Studios www.parrstreetstudios.com still has forty of the AAD EQ cards in the first forty channels, and it's where the last three Coldplay albums have been done, so it can't be all that bad, even though it's a simple design really! Wink

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2005, 10:26:50 pm »

Quote:

If anything dared to go wrong during the 6 months or so that it took to record and mix, it was a race to see who could call the component number on the board first!!!




Very Happy  Twisted Evil
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2005, 11:35:18 pm »

Oops.

Correction to the url:

http://www.parrstreet.co.uk/
Quote:

Can i tell by looking at the knob color?

Well, the colour is only the cap colour, which can be changed. It's a guide, but the best way is to pull the module and look at the board number.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Tim Halligan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1302
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2005, 11:39:54 pm »

steveeastend wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 02:53



do you know something about the brand "Westec"? Does this name say anything to you?




IIRC, there were two consoles that appeared on the market at around the same time - or were at least advertised - that appeared outwardly to be knock-offs of SSL desks.

E or G - can't remember. Rolling Eyes

One was the Westec - the other was the Saje ULN 2.

My (possibly faulty) memory of the Westec blurb was that they were offering automation on the small faders as well as the large.

Cheers,
Tim


Logged
"Don't forget, we are all engaged in a battle to the death against mediocrity." - J. Whynot

"You can tune a room only with a bulldozer." - Andy Peters

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2005, 11:47:02 pm »

The Westec was in the era of the 'E'. They never sold very many, and the computer and it's software was so integral to the superiority of the SSL in the marketplace that it was silly to try.

SAJE was a French company that insisted on being rather innovative. I don't recall an SSL knockoff, though the SAJE Memory rings a bell as possibly being (from sketchy memory) a TR console at a time when Neve were still years away from having a competing product. If that classifies it as a knockoff then so be it, though it was no 'Clone', niether was the WESTEC, though it looked very reminiscent of an SSL. I remember the routing as having something very odd about it,and perhaps the display for the audio path sequence...

Here's a ULN-2:
http://store1.yimg.com/I/primalgear_1871_5204011

Looks as much like a V-series as an SSL in many ways: no big, illuminated Group/Tape/record buttons etc. \

That's the problem in some ways though: the 4000 series was so staggeringly logically and well laid out that you had to make something VERY similar to have a chance of competing. Colin Sanders had made a console with a very capable dynamics section in EVERY module. Unheard of. Try and sell a console without it from then on however, and you're simply not in the same market segment. SSL dominated so thoroughly in the mid-1980s that you HAD to build something laid out like an SSL or you were kissing that segment of the market goodbye! -Witness the Neve V-series similarity to the SSL 4000 in so many ways.


Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Paul Frindle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 380
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2005, 10:14:51 am »

Dear Keith.

I think we may be getting mixed up with our Qs and B/Ws? It is in fact confusing because the effective Q of an EQ is difficult to define from the overall response as the 'flat' through path signal is always present. So we had to define the Q as being that of the resonant section that was being added into the overall response. This Q therefore was the defined by the -3dB points (relative to resonant peak) of the resonant section on it's own - and not the actual overall response of the EQ. The following link from the Oxford EQ detail illustrates my point.

   http://www.sonyoxford.co.uk/pub/plugins-sony/products/eq-ban d.htm

The type 1 curve is most like the original clinical EQs in that the Q of the resonant section (which pokes above the flat line) is pretty constant. This is the most obvious technical interpretation of a parametric EQ that many adopted in the 70's and 80's. This allows quite tight Hi Q (narrow B/W) boosts and dips even at low gains.

The type 3 curve is most like the G series that I designed whilst at SSL (unless I am mistaken and I've truly lost the plot - which is always possible I grant you). In this type the effective Q of the resonant section is varied with cut and boost gain, at low gains it starts at a lower Q (wider B/W) and ends up at higher Qs (relatively narrower peak bandwidth) for higher gains. This behaviour is less 'clinically accurate' and in some ways partially mimicks earlier pre SSL EQ designs where the Q of the resonant sections were not fully decoupled from the gain feedback paths (or indeed the gain itself was actually primarily derived from the Q of the resonant section - i.e. passive LCR circuits etc).
Type 4 is an extreme example of this kind of dependancy which I included in the Oxford because of it's ability to put very low Q and extremely subtle 'sheens' and characters to programme at low EQ gain settings.

That's what I mean Smile

The type 2 with the assymetrical response is my prefered best case curve where resonances need to be tamed but overall response corrections are still required (i.e. especially percussion etc).

Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2005, 07:46:52 pm »

Cool. -Yes we seem to be in agreement. The reason that I use 'Bandwidth' with specific reference to the distance between deviation points from flat, is that in the comparison between constant-Q designs (where the slope of the sides remains constant at all levels of boost, therefore increasing the distance between the 'from-flat' deviation points) and constant-bandwidth designs (where the from-flat deviation points remain the same distance apart, and the slopes of the summed curve steepen, thus altering the effective 'Q' of the derived response curve).

Yes terminology is the enemy here, and another issue is that most operators don't usually really know what 'Q' is, but most do understand the concept of the bandwidth of the derived curve.

So yes, I'm referring to the eventual response (the 'derived' response after the filter section and the direct path have been summed), and yes this certainly confuses things! Smile

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Paul Frindle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 380
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2005, 09:44:06 pm »

 
Quote:



So yes, I'm referring to the eventual response (the 'derived' response after the filter section and the direct path have been summed), and yes this certainly confuses things! Smile

Keith


Yes it has also confused the hell out of some early discussions I had about this stuff with colleages over the years. Truth is that Q is an innaccurate way to describe it for a parametric EQ, but nothing else is much better either.
Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2005, 10:42:34 pm »

Agreed.

...And it's uterly perverse that in order for the derived (summed) response to maintain a constant Q, the Q of the sidechain filter has to be variable, whereas a constant-Q sidechain filter will produce a varying Q when summed. That's why one has to be cautious and specific if at all possible. Smile

One of the jobs I have to do over Christmas is to go and decommission an Oxford. It's sad that it's working perfectly (as I understand it) but the clients just want something else. -Pehaps I can get a few last moments with it before I yank the cables...

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Paul Frindle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 380
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2005, 08:11:35 am »

ssltech wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 03:42

Agreed.

...And it's uterly perverse that in order for the derived (summed) response to maintain a constant Q, the Q of the sidechain filter has to be variable, whereas a constant-Q sidechain filter will produce a varying Q when summed. That's why one has to be cautious and specific if at all possible. Smile

One of the jobs I have to do over Christmas is to go and decommission an Oxford. It's sad that it's working perfectly (as I understand it) but the clients just want something else. -Pehaps I can get a few last moments with it before I yank the cables...

Keith


Dear Keith. One thing worth remembering is that the effective Q of the filter added to the through path does still describe the time domain response despite the freq response issues you mention. I.e. the ringing caused by a Q of 5 in the resonant section will still correspond correctly.

It is so sad for us the see Oxford's decomissioned after so much work designing it and making them. But I (probably more than most people) recognised the pending demise of such systems even before they were released for sale. There were obvious products that should have naturally followed and extended the R3 which we were sadly not allowed to pursue.

The only thing I would say in all sincerity is that I hope the people 'wanting something else' won't be disappointed with whatever replaces it? How many years will it take for the current market leaders to end up trying to design something similar - as an integral part of their ubiquitous HD editing system?! Sadly my feeling is that for the moment it's a case of 'when it's gone - it's gone'. We must all move on and look to the future rather than dwell in the past, however let's not throw away and lose entirely the deep experience gained over the decades Smile We should remember that we still live in potentially very exciting times - with or without the R3 Smile
Logged

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2005, 08:44:05 am »

Paul Frindle wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 08:11



We must all move on and look to the future rather than dwell in the past, however let's not throw away and lose entirely the deep experience gained over the decades.




Everyone read that again.
Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2005, 12:21:04 pm »

oh yes, I quite recognise that the time domain response of the 'side' filter section is in no way mollified by the reduction of 'effective severity' (If I may use that phrase rather than either bandwidth or 'Q') of reduced cut or boost. Also that transient smudging and other effects are governed by the filter itself: only their amplitude is affected by cut & boost, whereas in a truly variable -Q- filter section, the time domain response is also altered. By this means, what I refer to as 'constant bandwidth' really has a constant-Q filter, and what I refer to as 'Constant-Q' really has a varying-Q filter. It is the summed result to which I refer and -once again- I'm stumped to come up with a "more consistenly betterer" terminology which can satisfy both the users and the electronics designers/engineers! -Since I deal with a lot more users than circuit designers, I've adopted the habit of using the descriptive terms which address their way of looking at it.

Again, the time-domain issue might be missed by a lot of folks, and I probably didn't even fully appreciate the implications when I first started welding resistors, bits of silicon and capacitors together... If you only look at the overall response graph it's understandably easily overlooked.

In the case of the variable shelf entry slope, the 'Q' control also affects the time domain.

I almost pulled a Capricorn out in 2001 and replaced it with an Oxford. -It should probably have been a very quick swap, since both systems tended to have the same cables run to the same places and the existing MADI runs would have been hard to pull out & replace. Also the full analog & digital patchbays in the control room also had the cabling running to the right locations... -very convenient!

I certainly recognised right away that the Oxford was a significant improvement over the Capricorn, though I -along with several others- was also struck by the nagging feeling that the world wasn't really 'converging' along this operating methodology, and that the place in music recording of the fixed-architecture 'Console-as-hub' scenario really didn't seem to be panning out universally. -Sad, because -as you imply- the excellence which had been developed was also being 'lost'. -Not by necessity but usually the case, none the less.

In the end we didn't buy one. This was right at the end of the official support period from Sony, though the unit itself appeared to be a good deal more stable than the Capricorn which it was being considered to replace.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Paul Frindle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 380
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2005, 02:41:15 pm »

ssltech wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 17:21


I almost pulled a Capricorn out in 2001 and replaced it with an Oxford. -It should probably have been a very quick swap, since both systems tended to have the same cables run to the same places and the existing MADI runs would have been hard to pull out & replace. Also the full analog & digital patchbays in the control room also had the cabling running to the right locations... -very convenient!

I certainly recognised right away that the Oxford was a significant improvement over the Capricorn, though I -along with several others- was also struck by the nagging feeling that the world wasn't really 'converging' along this operating methodology, and that the place in music recording of the fixed-architecture 'Console-as-hub' scenario really didn't seem to be panning out universally. -Sad, because -as you imply- the excellence which had been developed was also being 'lost'. -Not by necessity but usually the case, none the less.

In the end we didn't buy one. This was right at the end of the official support period from Sony, though the unit itself appeared to be a good deal more stable than the Capricorn which it was being considered to replace.

Keith


Yes indeed the world was moving away from fixed architecture consoles and we knew it all too well even back in 1987, that was what prompted us to break away from our 'safe haven' and take the risk of forming another company. And the vexing thing is that the R3 was of course not actually fixed architecture at all, for these very reasons! In fact the processing was entirely distributed in a purpose built DSP and alpha workstation, the application was wholly defined in software only and the front panel was nothing more than a remotely connected 'hardware GUI'.
The whole console could be (and often was during test) run from a virtual GUI - on a screen - remotely from another workstation.
This is still the system I use for designing the Oxford plug-ins and all except the restoration tools have initially existed as applications developed and run on the R3 processor, entirely from screen based interaction. I use this because the level of interaction I can get from this system isn't even slightly matched by any other system - it allows me to 'invent', interact and experiment in real time and on the fly whilst actually listening to the sound my experiments are producing Smile
The whole R3 project including the design tools was meant to be the basis of a whole range of audio applications. However this grand vision was lost in successive regime changes and the console that got sold looked about as fixed as anything else around that was effectively 'hard wired', sadly belying it's provenance.
The original R3 console was initially little more than a proof of concept prototype to prove the system could work on the scale and at the quality we in Oxford had claimed. This prototype console application was taken and developed into a product under the direction of people who were much less forward thinking and had much less latitude of freedom than those who had inspired the original aim.
Truly and honestly the people who are now trashing their obsolete R3's could never have guessed the true power and potential of what they had in their possession for all those years (with the possible exception of George himself who witnessed it first hand). And please believe me - this is NOT a statement bourne from pathetic emotion or any kind of hawking after past glory - I'm all for moving ever onwards Smile
Logged

steve p

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 129
  • Real Full Name: Steve Perkins
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2005, 01:45:24 am »

Thanks guys for all the great information !  Smile  

You mentioned that the Pres. along with several other upgrades were done in the G series.

What is the easiest way to tell if the console has the newer parts ?

Also Is the G computer ok or should i be looking for a G G+ ?

The board im looking at has a 3" drive. Does that make it a G+?

I think from all my research i have found an answer to the EQ thing.....

242 has black with red top and still retained the bell shelf.
292 has black with pink top and has the 3% with no bell shelf.
202 brown with constant shelf and no EQ OFF button


Quote:

  ssltech I think I might have a few of the unstuffed AAD boards in case anyone ever wants to try a fourth flavour!

Great ! We have more to choose from! Very Happy  I would love to !

Thanks again for all your answers and help,

steve





Logged
Steve Perkins


Creation Recording Studios

.



JOHN 3:16

djui5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1511
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2005, 04:08:52 am »

Make sure you actually check the cards inside the board too. Sometimes people switch cards (the EQ card inside), and don't change the knob colors.
Logged
Morale of the day? Stop looking at what you're hearing.
yngve hoeyland 07'

Randy Wright
Mix Engineer
Mesa, Arizona

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2005, 02:57:09 pm »

"G+" was a marketing thing only.

The E series used 8-inch floppy drives and had a tiny computer capacity. The G-series used the same big frame, with a new processor card and more memory. That's basically it. It also came with the option to use 3½" drives if you preferred, and you could also use the Bernoulli 20-meg drives also.

The difference between G and G+ is like the difference between a Honda Civic and one with a pin stripe, a spoiler and nicer wheel covers. The G"+" meant that you got a few more options bolted on to the console itself; specifically (from memory) a DK audio phase scope in the meter bridge, a Brainstorm remote talkback, oxygen-free cabling throughout the console wiring loom, and perhaps a couple of other things. The term "G+" was picked up by most people, but there is NO difference to the computer. You can add a brainstorm remote, a DK audio phasescope,. and re-wire the entire console with OFC cable if it makes you feel better. I don't remember if there were any other things but those three were the big things. It was basically throwing in a few bolt-on freebies to try and maintain the sales at the time when SSL were starting to make the 9000 J-series. Going back to the car analogy, it's like putting free CD players in the remaining 2005 models as free incentives to get people to buy them, when the lot is starting to fill up with 2006's.

How to check? -Pull the modules and look inside. The card numebrs tell all. G-series input amplifier cards can be spotted without pulling the module; if the mic gain control is a switch, you've got G-series. if it's a pot, you've got E-series. G-series consoles also had pull-switches on the group trim controls, to activate the solo isolate.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

steve p

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 129
  • Real Full Name: Steve Perkins
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2005, 06:09:28 pm »

Thank you,

Great help!! Smile

steve
Logged
Steve Perkins


Creation Recording Studios

.



JOHN 3:16

briankraz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #26 on: November 29, 2005, 07:42:32 pm »

By the way, somewhere someone was asking about potential upgrades to the stereo buss...any ideas there?

Bob C has info on his website about a stereo buss make up gain "mod" upgrade. Changes the make-up gain (Quad Compressor) range from -10dB to +10dB instead of 0dB to +15dB.

Please check out David's page section for more info. Disclaimer involved.
www.mixthis.com

from his site>davids page for more info. Maybe this could be of some help
Logged
"Say it with feeling... or don't say it at all"

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2005, 10:18:57 pm »

No actual change with that mod to the buss or anything, -Just the DC voltage offset combined to the VCAs. Also, I thought that the big deal with the compressor is that a lot of people like to alter the threshold range sensitivity instead of the makeup... As it comes from the factory, the threshold is a little too "eager"...

Kieth
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

raal

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #28 on: December 01, 2005, 07:20:42 pm »

ssltech wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 13:57

"G+" was a marketing thing only.

...<snip> The term "G+" was picked up by most people, but there is NO difference to the computer. You can add a brainstorm remote, a DK audio phasescope,. and re-wire the entire console with OFC cable if it makes you feel better. I don't remember if there were any other things but those three were the big things.
Keith

hi keith,

SSL newbie here. isn't OFC wire kind of a big deal? i was under the impression it makes a marked difference in the overall sound of the board. if it does, rewiring a whole console seems like a costly operation, no? is there a ballpark figure you could give for having this done, and do you think it's worth it?

thank you.
Logged

Paul Frindle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 380
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2005, 09:00:02 pm »

raal wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 00:20

ssltech wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 13:57

"G+" was a marketing thing only.

...<snip> The term "G+" was picked up by most people, but there is NO difference to the computer. You can add a brainstorm remote, a DK audio phasescope,. and re-wire the entire console with OFC cable if it makes you feel better. I don't remember if there were any other things but those three were the big things.
Keith

hi keith,

SSL newbie here. isn't OFC wire kind of a big deal? i was under the impression it makes a marked difference in the overall sound of the board. if it does, rewiring a whole console seems like a costly operation, no? is there a ballpark figure you could give for having this done, and do you think it's worth it?

thank you.



No - don't bother - honestly.
Logged

Ronny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2739
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2005, 12:12:27 am »

raal wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 19:20

ssltech wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 13:57

"G+" was a marketing thing only.

...<snip> The term "G+" was picked up by most people, but there is NO difference to the computer. You can add a brainstorm remote, a DK audio phasescope,. and re-wire the entire console with OFC cable if it makes you feel better. I don't remember if there were any other things but those three were the big things.
Keith

hi keith,

SSL newbie here. isn't OFC wire kind of a big deal? i was under the impression it makes a marked difference in the overall sound of the board. if it does, rewiring a whole console seems like a costly operation, no? is there a ballpark figure you could give for having this done, and do you think it's worth it?

thank you.




OFC works great in space.
Logged
------Ronny Morris - Digitak Mastering------
---------http://digitakmastering.com---------
----------Powered By Experience-------------
-------------Driven To Perfection---------------

raal

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2005, 02:44:31 am »

Paul Frindle wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 20:00

raal wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 00:20

ssltech wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 13:57

"G+" was a marketing thing only.

...<snip> The term "G+" was picked up by most people, but there is NO difference to the computer. You can add a brainstorm remote, a DK audio phasescope,. and re-wire the entire console with OFC cable if it makes you feel better. I don't remember if there were any other things but those three were the big things.
Keith

hi keith,

SSL newbie here. isn't OFC wire kind of a big deal? i was under the impression it makes a marked difference in the overall sound of the board. if it does, rewiring a whole console seems like a costly operation, no? is there a ballpark figure you could give for having this done, and do you think it's worth it?

thank you.



No - don't bother - honestly.


thank you.
Logged

Wayne Kirkwood

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #32 on: August 09, 2006, 10:00:47 am »

FYI I think Trevor S. designed the '242.

Haven't visited PSW in awhile. There's a reference to this link over in Prodigy and I wanted to update this post.

I've updated the SSL ref index:

http://www.tenmilecreek.net/images/SSL/ssl_drawings_index.ht m
Logged

dobster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2006, 10:31:31 am »

waves.com










kidding
Logged

Sarusan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 245
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2006, 06:14:56 pm »

I've been looking to do just this mod.  Does anyone have the documentation?
Thanks,
Steven

ssltech wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 19:18

 I thought that the big deal with the compressor is that a lot of people like to alter the threshold range sensitivity instead of the makeup...

Logged

crumar1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #35 on: August 19, 2008, 09:03:52 am »

I've seen the schematics of the brown and black EQs ! Not much difference. HF and LF sections of the EQ are slightly changed and the shelving filters are switchable plus a steeper LF shelving section
Logged

drknob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 123
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #36 on: August 19, 2008, 09:45:22 am »

OFC....
As my friend Bruce says, oxygen-free copper should only be used in an oxygen-free room.  Razz
Logged
Harold Kilianski
CIRMMT, McGill University

zmix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2828
Re: SSL EQ Black, brown, orange???
« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2009, 02:16:47 pm »

Wayne Kirkwood wrote on Wed, 09 August 2006 10:00

FYI I think Trevor S. designed the '242.

Haven't visited PSW in awhile. There's a reference to this link over in Prodigy and I wanted to update this post.

I've updated the SSL ref index:

 http://www.tenmilecreek.net/images/SSL/ssl_drawings_index.ht m


Wayne,  you might be interested to know that the SSL 82e10 channel dynamics schematic on your site is incorrect...  (one of many out there I'm told).

R22 is listed as 1MΩ and in actuality the value is 10kΩ.  If someone were to follow this schematic, they would have a 22 second release time on the compressor...
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up