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 26551 times)

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
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up