Waves SSL E and G Compared To Bx N

[wagtunes]

Miracles do happen. It took me a long time, but I've finally reached a point where I can hear what all these FX do to a track. Getting the precise sound I want, that's a different story and it many times trial and error. But I do hear the effects of these things.

My question, however, (currently own Brainworks Bx N and Schepes Omni Channel as well as TG12345) is what is the technical difference between the SSL series and the Bx N?

To my ears, which are still not great, the SSL E and G seem different somewhere in the mid range. The E seems a little brighter. Can't put my finger on it exactly. This is of course just listening to demos, not actually having my hands on either.

So just going by specs (if anybody has access to them) what are the technical differences? What are each usually used for as far as playing them to their strengths?

Are there big differences or are we splitting hairs here?

[mcbpete]

I was wondering exactly the same thing a few months back:

Anyone have a favourite as a 'general purpose' channel strip? I only have the E model and happily plonk it at the end of every *channel* but is that the wrong way to be using it ? Should 'E' (as is mentioned above) really only be used for drum-bus purposes, and I should be using G or N for general channel strip duties (or shouldn't I really be using it like that at all ?)

I didn't mean to imply that any of these were only for a specific task. Sorry if it came off that way. Any of them can be used well on every channel. I did a couple mixes with just the N and was very happy with it. On the latest project, I tried the E on the drums. It was just quicker for me to get a punchy drum sound from the E console as opposed to the N. I could still get something good from the N but they have different sounds.

N = very smooth, can make major boosts without ever becoming harsh. Great on instruments and vocals - good all around channel
E = punchy, this is my favorite on individual drum tracks. Nothing beats it on kick and toms. Could be used on edgier vocals and instruments in a dense mix
G = aggressive midrange, found it to be great at bringing clarity to guitars and bass. Due to the EQ Q style, smaller boosts or cuts are noticeable. have not spent enough time with this to see how it works on vocals.

If you are looking to hear what these sound like it's more effective to put them on all tracks and busses rather than trying to audion on just one track. these are very subtle because they model high-end consoles that are designed to sound transparent. It's the analogue artifacts that if properly modelled will create a nice analogue polish on the audio.

N has a nice "fat" wide sound-stage. the E is clean but edgy, the G is less edgy. it's all crazy-subjective. I am also only talking about the pass-through sound of the console emulations and not the sound of EQ and dynamics - those are easier to hear by just using them.

[Boone777]

https://www.waves.com/ssl-e-channel-or-g-channel

[Scrubbing Monkeys]

The E and G have different curves and a rifferent routing scheme between Eq an comp. the comps are the same.

As metioned above the manual does a great job at explaining this.

[MikeMcKew]

I'd actually be more curious about the difference between the Waves SSL models and the Brainworx SSL models - there is probably a different thread on that comparison though!

[waltercruz]

Plugin Alliance 24h flash sale - bx_console N for $99

https://www.plugin-alliance.com/en/prod ... ole_n.html

[cfanyc]

Miracles do happen. It took me a long time, but I've finally reached a point where I can hear what all these FX do to a track. Getting the precise sound I want, that's a different story and it many times trial and error. But I do hear the effects of these things.

My question, however, (currently own Brainworks Bx N and Schepes Omni Channel as well as TG12345) is what is the technical difference between the SSL series and the Bx N?

To my ears, which are still not great, the SSL E and G seem different somewhere in the mid range. The E seems a little brighter. Can't put my finger on it exactly. This is of course just listening to demos, not actually having my hands on either.

So just going by specs (if anybody has access to them) what are the technical differences? What are each usually used for as far as playing them to their strengths?

Are there big differences or are we splitting hairs here?

if differences are not readily apparent by listening, or you cannot exactly
put your finger on the nature of differences, then use plugindoctor DDMF which will give you
insights about frequency and phase response, compression behavior, and harmonic and
inharmonic distortion. I have been amazed by what this plugin can reveal.
Also the plugin functions the same independently of how good monitors, audio interface,
room treatment you have or how good are your ears that day.

[plexuss]

This is what I think: Based on my years of critical listening but at the same time being pragmatic and tending towards repeatable peer reviewed observable evidence - There are aspect of audio which play into the complexities of human hearing and audio perception. Specifically, there can be changes in, say, the harmonic content of an audio signal that can result in changes in perception. Note, the last phrase "changes in perception" is very vague. What is percieved by a listener is going to become unrepeatable with other listeners when you get into the subtler aspects. The subtle additions of distortion is an example of where perception may change but may not be the same for all listeners.

When it comes to these channel strips, I find the differences are often within this realm of subtlties. Afterall, the higher end consoles were designed to be as audio-perfect as possible. But there will always artifacts of the technology, like in analogue you have distoritons and noise. High end consoles also design the arifacts in to be as "musical" as possible. This applies to the over-all sound of a "flat" console.

Of course the response of the processors in a console are also going to make a difference but with these the difference in sound is in a more obvious realm.

So when I compare console emulations I first compare them flat but with whatever controls need to be on to generate the (supposed) distortions the analogue desk would. With bx_ the EQ has to be engaged but set flat to get these distortions. Then I listen for the over-all sense of space and soundstage because this, for me, is where I find the biggest differences.

When it comes to the EQ and dynamics processors, the differences are more obvious and can be measured with tools like DDMF Plugin Doctor or other tools.

With that, and excluding the sound of the processors, this is what * I * hear:

bx_console N is fatter and warmer sounding than E or G. I find E is more agressive sounding than G. G is more neutral. I also find N has a "fuller" soundstage (whatever that means) than E or G. I find E has a more "interesting" soundstage than G. G sounds more neutral over-all.

But, how I hear things is going to be different than how you hear things. so...

[antic604]

Not exactly what you're asiking for, but good read nonetheless:
https://sonicscoop.com/2018/04/03/new-g ... brainworx/

[maxwelldub]

they're al sh*t tbh

[wagtunes]

they're al sh*t tbh

And why do you say that? Just curious.

[ghettosynth]

So, FWIW, I don't use any of these because I don't like the workflow and the sound doesn't jump out at me enough to convince me to put up with it. I do often use the Waves vintage strips for their color and I like to combine NLS with Neutron to get a modern workflow with some vintage color from the console channel modeling sans EQ/compressors.

I wanted to like the PA variants, the videos convinced me that they had nice features. I've just become too attached to the Neutron workflow. I think that to bother with the console emulations proper you should want to use their EQ/compressors and like the workflow. That's just my very decidedly amateur opinion and it's worth every cent that you paid for it.

[tapiodmitriyevich]

fatter and warmer more agressive more neutral. "fuller" soundstage more "interesting" more neutral over-all.

In my world fatter is the new fuller and warmer is the agressive and neutral is interesting. Also fatter is the interesting part of full. Just my neutrally-warm reception of things.

Seriously, can't we have some more realistic terminology? Maybe instead of "flatter" you could say "less stereo image" (just an example, idk what you hear)?

[soulone82]

In my world fatter is the new fuller and warmer is the agressive and neutral is interesting. Also fatter is the interesting part of full.

[Local Man]

they're al sh*t tbh

And why do you say that? Just curious.

It's a riddle. And if you solve it, you can cross the bridge.