This new SSL channel strip from IK Multimedia looks great

[whyterabbyt]

edit : delete double post

[whyterabbyt]

The layout is too close to the Duende to be a coincidence:

In terms of layout(*), it actually looks much closer to, erm, those two modules in that picture of a rack of yours. A couple of minor adjustments of layout and colour confirms...



(*) physical layout, not individual graphical designs. in terms of graphical design, its quite distinctly different from both the plugin and the rack units.

[zedd]

Chicken knobs! Chicken knobs! Chicken knobs!!!

Then it won't look like anything!

[Brian @ IK Multimedia]

Here in the SSL C200 brochure it says:

"4-band Equaliser section - featuring a choice of EQ profiles
including SSL's 4000 'G' and 'E' Series"

So I don't stand corrected as of yet, but only half-right.
The EQ part of the C200 console, that has been ported to the Duende plugins, is based on 4000 series.

Don't know about the dynamics section though, can't find that info.
Maybe it's a 4000-base that's been "expanded" for practical reasons, maybe it's a pure 9000.

Yes, it does have 4 different EQ "profiles" - including a 242-E and 292-G series profile. But the main "Standard" EQ profile I believe is voiced similar to the 9000. And the architecture is based on the 9000. The "profiles" are just sort of like presets.

Also, keep in mind that the profiles are merely response curves, they are not modeling the signal path of any analog desk, 9000 or otherwise, the way a full blown emulation would.

[Compyfox]

So wait, we do have a 9k console here? But that's definitely not(!) 80ies but 90ies sound.

I really thought due to the Black/BRown mode it's a 4k.


BTW:
I love the idea by certain posters in here to either "color code" the ring, or just the tip of the poti. Still looks cartoony, but definitely more easy on the eyes.

[zedd]

Okay you fellows...

If you insist on debating about models and makes, EQ profiles and version numbers, then I kindly request that you put some of this in terms that I can better appreciate.

What famous albums were recorded on the board that this plugin's channel is modelled after? Is there a well-known studio that adopted this board during the era when the hardware first came out?

Are there any definitive recordings that have a special quality to them that is commonly attributed to the use of this board?

Seriously... I'd be really interested in knowing and checking it out.

[Brian @ IK Multimedia]

What famous albums were recorded on the board that this plugin's channel is modelled after? Is there a well-known studio that adopted this board during the era when the hardware first came out?

Are there any definitive recordings that have a special quality to them that is commonly attributed to the use of this board?

Seriously... I'd be really interested in knowing and checking it out.

The '80s.

[Brian @ IK Multimedia]

So wait, we do have a 9k console here? But that's definitely not(!) 80ies but 90ies sound.

I really thought due to the Black/BRown mode it's a 4k.

Compy, the discussion about the SSL 9000/C200/Duende is a discussion abut what the British Channel ISN'T based on.

Did you follow that?

[Compyfox]

Are you serious, zedd?

You asked the same nonsense Q over at the REDD thread. Can't you just use your ears?


We're talking about different kinds of models, since not each SSL console is the same from E series to G, from 4k to S, from old 4k to 9k to Duende. The frequency bands are slightly different, the internal circuit is as well.

Much like the REDD console with the CLASSIC and POP modules.



Does it matter from which console this one was ported? The SSLs and the NEVEs are the most used recording and mixing consoles to date. So you heard that sound over and over and over. The nuances lie within the model numbers.

[zedd]

Are you serious, zedd?

You asked the same nonsense Q over at the REDD thread. Can't you just use your ears?

I was serious in this thread, yes. But I was obviously joking by my "nonsense" question in the REDD thread.

Keep up.

Does it matter from which console this one was ported? The SSLs and the NEVEs are the most used recording and mixing consoles to date. So you heard that sound over and over and over. The nuances lie within the model numbers.

I don't know if it matters or not, which is why I asked. There's supposedly something special about this hardware, so I'm genuinely curious to know if there are any classic recordings marked by the flavour of this particular model.

Certainly some of the people who choose to buy the REDD desk plugin are doing so because they believe that it can help get them closer to the tonal structure of mid-60s Abbey Road recordings. I imagine that this British Channel plugin is aiming for something similar (different era, particular studio). Or maybe it is much more general than that. I don't know the answer.

I can (and will) use my ears to audition this plugin. However, I'd still like to know what it is about the reputation of the original hardware model that made it a popular enough to want to emulate it.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Funny, I'm out on a limb, how so? I wasn't talking about DSP, only the layout. You don't understand the lineage of the Solid State Logic channel strip. Its architecture has been realized multiple times by SSL and others. SSL itself "modeled" the Duende/C200 port on the 9K, which is a superanalogue descendant of the 4K/6K/8K. The SSL CS functionality is bigger than any particular realization. Also realize that SSL still make 4K analog in X-Rack and now API 500 series.

Anyway, I know you're a master at forum manipulation for sales, so I'll leave it at that. People, don't believe everything these guys say. They're just the salesmen. I have no doubt though, regardless of taste, that the people who do the actual copying and translating of other people's ideas know what they are are doing, and I'm sure it's a fine product. In fact, it might even pass muster for official licensing like the Waves and UAD did. Although, that would require paying the piper.

fateamenabletochange:





I've also got an SSL X-Desk for this new portable rig and crapload of not-so-portable modern and vintage recording gear, synths, etc. Oh, that's one of my assistants, Buttons, in the second picture. She has hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, but does pretty good on her medication.

[Mod edit: Too far, sorry.]

I also have an actual life which I am going to get back to now

[audiosabre]

Just wanted to drop by and share the fact I had a very positive experience with IK support.

Didn't own the deluxe license, but had all the stuff in it, inc. metering and the shell. Bought a serial for the 'deluxe to grand upgrade' and the serial didn't work.

Contacted IK support & now have all the new plugins setup and running. Simply "restored my gear".

Finally, someone reporting something positive about IK @ KVR

[Hope the IK guys don't mind me posting this]

Top stuff.

[Compyfox]

IKM is a great company, but it's not always great what they do.

Did you follow that?

In all the nonsense and ranting? I guess not.

I don't know if it matters or not, which is why I asked. There's supposedly something special about this hardware, so I'm genuinely curious to know if there are any classic recordings marked by the flavour of this particular model.

...

I can (and will) use my ears to audition this plugin. However, I'd still like to know what it is about the reputation of the original hardware model that made it a popular enough to want to emulate it.

I had this debate over and over before with the ton of available PULTEC clones. "Which is better?!" "who owned it?" "what makes it so special?!"

The thing is, and this is one of the main points in "analog" history - each unit sounds different. You can have like three hammond organs side by side, they will sound different. Not so with modern gear (which use digital chips and the likes), or repaired/modified gear.

So... if there are like 10 different Pultecs around in software form (obviously more by now), does it matter where it came from? From who it was modeled? Each sounds different anyway, some are even modified on purpose (less noise, different filters, etc). The developers use different means to measure and to port them. Is one superior over the other?

I say no. This SSL clone is just one among many available. Does it really matter if this particular 4k sounds only slightly different than the 4k from Waves, or the one from UAD?


Heck for what we pay these days, we can build our own custom consoles!
Like... grab that TLAudio Preamp from Analog in the Box for Nebula, combine it with a NEVE Portio EQ (for example from DDMF), use the SSL4k EQ on subgroups (e.g. IKM British), slam it through an SSL9k summing buss or through the summing comp (cytomic The Glue) and then print it on an APEX tape machine (Waves) if you want. And this for just a fraction of the cost of the actual outboard gear.

How cool is that?

Nobody cares anymore from what console this was ported. Unless it's some random hobo that found a 20USD radioshack mixer on the street and is like "I've got a spoon in mah ear, thisch a russsshian Solid Sssstade Conshole! Ima call it EssEssElll 4 grand and make sum blingbling muzak with it".

[blueman]

I think it should look like this:

It pretty much does

[Compyfox]

Thanks for reminding me of the nineties...

*shudders*