Quantcast
So what's an SSL? The end is near... - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
So what's an SSL? The end is near...
Old 29th January 2003
  #1
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
So what's an SSL? The end is near...

http://duc.digidesign.com/cgi-bin/ub...;f=16;t=017229

what's truly alalogue these days???

Oh man.... I decline to comment.
Old 29th January 2003
  #2
Lives for gear
 
e-cue's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Jay...

I have printed that out and forced my assist to fax it to every audio school he could find... HIGH-larious.....
Old 29th January 2003
  #3
Lives for gear
 
C.Lambrechts's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Re: So what's an SSL? The end is near...

........... sigh ............ I sometimes feel embaressed to even mention I'm a ProTools kinda guy.
Old 29th January 2003
  #4
Lives for gear
 
tunesmith's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
A few months ago I was talking to a friend of mine who is an "old school" guy. He was telling me that in the early 80s he was working in the next suite over from Steely Dan. He told me with a mix of envy and amusement that they spent 2 weeks mixing 8 bars of music.

"How did they work on just 8 bars?" the young innocent digital neophyte asked.

"Well... that was back when we did what we liked to call 'splicing'" he said.

It was then that two things hit me. One, mouse jockeys like me have a huge advantage (in some ways) over the old schoolers. Two, I knew dick about the recording proces and the history of the recording process and that is wrong.

It was that conversation (and also doing some hard listening) that inspired me to get on a course of learning about old and new techniques and not necessarily buynig into one school of thought or another.

But that 1st post is a freaking joke.
Old 29th January 2003
  #5
Gear Addict
 
Curious G's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Looks like he's just a kid with a digi 001 and a lot to learn. Probably not the decline and fall of western civilization... but I've been wrong before!
Old 29th January 2003
  #6
Lives for gear
 
drundall's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
When I first saw that post I thought it WAS a joke...

I feel sorry for the kid, cause later when he gets things figured out he'll probably be horrified that he wrote that post without doing a little research.

solid-state-logic.com
Old 30th January 2003
  #7
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I think what's really sad is that the original poster isn't familar with the concept of an analog mixer. I mean, let's face it. Strip away a lot of the extras and at the most basic level a $50 Behringer isn't that much different in concept then a $500K SSL. I mean, an aux send is still a send right?

Sigh...
Old 30th January 2003
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
posted by tunesmith:
A few months ago I was talking to a friend of mine who is an "old school" guy. He was telling me that in the early 80s he was working in the next suite over from Steely Dan. He told me with a mix of envy and amusement that they spent 2 weeks mixing 8 bars of music.

"How did they work on just 8 bars?" the young innocent digital neophyte asked.

"Well... that was back when we did what we liked to call 'splicing'" he said.
We still work that way, and it can still take that long (if that's how long you spend doing it), we just do it differently now.

I had a singer in the studio tonight tracking a song she didn't write, but she improvised her vocal melodies. She sang the song 8 times all the way through. She sang each passage brilliantly, but not on every take: The 3rd line in the second verse sounded OK on take one, truly inspired on the next take, good but off-key on the third, kinda uninspired on the fourth, absolutely brilliant on the 5th take...etc etc etc.

I'm going to spend the next 2 days/weeks/however long it takes, sorting through each line, finding the most brilliant rendition of each phrase, and summing them into one take.

I'll burn a CD of that, and give it to the singer to practice with. Then, she'll come back into the studio, and we'll repeat that process.

So instead of worrying about slicing my finger with a razor blade, I'll be worrying about the retinal damage done by staring at my 20" monitor while I'm going through 256 lines of vocal tracks. Twice.

That's for one song.

BTW: I clicked on the link, and the DUC is down, so I didn't see the post in question. What was it in that post that's got everyone so riled up? Just curious.
Old 30th January 2003
  #9
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by tunesmith
A few months ago I was talking to a friend of mine who is an "old school" guy. He was telling me that in the early 80s he was working in the next suite over from Steely Dan. He told me with a mix of envy and amusement that they spent 2 weeks mixing 8 bars of music.
Before Pro Tools there was the Fairlight.
In the late 80's I worked with an engineer who'd just spent a week with Tears For Fears quantising a hi-hat part.
Although obviously people like Becker and Fagen took recording to extremes, the analog school could cut out a lot of the crap that goes on today.
Old 30th January 2003
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Renie's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Personally I don't believe it is sad or ridiculous that someone is misinformed and asking a question. That's how we human's evolved. I think it's sad that people are taught to be so critical and cruel on the process of understanding which is essentially fraught with mistakes for all of us.
Old 30th January 2003
  #11
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
That was right on Renie

I feel like I'm walking on eggshells around here cause I'm a young cat and I use PTLE. Just because I'm not going bald and I don't have an analog console doesn't necessarily mean I'm rubbish. Musically I've played with the best of the best... Now recording is my passion and I'm getting better every day. But what's with all of the ultra cynical ultra critical B.S.? I mean I'm used to it, I am a guitarist, but these AE's are even worse than that crowd.

Listen, it takes a smart person to make someone feel stupid but it takes a genius to make someone feel intelligent? You can tell who's the real deal on a board like this real quick. The people who can impart knowledge without condescending are the ones who are confident enough in their own skills and don't feel threatened by the next generation of AE's and Producers. The ones who always talk down to people and don't ever give straight answers, well... You do the math.

I'm not advocating homes who apparently doesn't know what an SSL is (Haven't read the thread because the DUC is DOA) or pointing my finger at the people in this thread in particular-It may very well be an uproarious display of stupidity- I'm just venting.


FWIW, I just disasotiated myself with a project which was done partially in my house and partially in a huge SSL studio and all I can say is that the final product was CRAPOLOGY. The mixer took my beautiful sounds and mangled them on his SSL. Gear isn't everything. Ears and taste are everything... Gear is tools. Peace (to those who keep it.)
Old 30th January 2003
  #12
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by 1nation
Just because I'm not going bald and I don't have an analog console doesn't necessarily mean I'm rubbish
Some of the best mixers I've seen working on analog consoles are in the 20-30 age group.

Talent, experience, people skills, and luck seem to be more important than age.
Old 30th January 2003
  #13
Gear Maniac
 
RaGe's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Link is down ...
Old 30th January 2003
  #14
Gear Addict
 
Curious G's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
So this guy proved (in 1 paragraph or less) beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has no concept of the signal path in an analog board. He'll have to learn a virtual one if he's working in PT so chances are he'll eventually grasp the concepts.

I can still remember the day I was thrust into my first real session. I was a dubbing/entry level gopher and the engineer for the session was sick. I made about every mistake that could be made, even had the client showing me how to do things. Needless to say I was demoralized, but the people around me were supportive and I picked it up little by little.
Old 30th January 2003
  #15
Gear Addict
 
mixer's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by 1nation
That was right on Renie

I feel like I'm walking on eggshells around here cause I'm a young cat and I use PTLE. Just because I'm not going bald and I don't have an analog console doesn't necessarily mean I'm rubbish. ... Gear is tools. Peace (to those who keep it.)
absolutly right...i am an older producer who has done tons of splicing 1/4 and 2 inch tape....i have had little one inch pieces of tape on the walls of studios with little notes of what section it was from....took hours to do some editing...today its amazing i work with a ssl and with protools...and i love them both..and they are only tools...we are all slaves to the music....you can make a great recording on a 001 if you are careful ...one of my biggest hits was a song by peter brown called do you wanna get funky (disco stuff_) was done mostly on a tascam 1/2 inch 4track home system...made lots of money.....its not the size of the wand its the magic in it.
Old 30th January 2003
  #16
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Yeah, I know the link is down now. Probably been canned by the Duck. In a nutshell it was something like this...

I've heard about people mixing from PT on an SSL but I can't seem to find any information on the Digi site about it. What's an SSL? How does it play back audio? What kind of hard drive does it use and what's the sampling rate? If it's just a control surface for PT why can't I get SSL drivers for my setup?

E-cue, still got that print out? Did I miss anything or screw it up too much?

BTW, I won't let a person do 5 takes of a song and comp them all together. Usually it's between 2 and 4 and I'll make notes as we go through as to what was good and what was ca-ca. Then we'll comp verse by verse and if a line is off we'll go digging for alternates. Much quicker then going line by line. I don't have the patience for that.
Old 30th January 2003
  #17
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Jay Kahrs

BTW, I won't let a person do 5 takes of a song and comp them all together. Usually it's between 2 and 4 and I'll make notes as we go through as to what was good and what was ca-ca. Then we'll comp verse by verse and if a line is off we'll go digging for alternates. Much quicker then going line by line. I don't have the patience for that.
You probably don't record a lot R&B/pop, huh Jay?heh
Old 30th January 2003
  #18
Lives for gear
 
David R.'s Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
No linkey. grudge

Do you think there will be an SSL plug in soon? rollz


Old 31st January 2003
  #19
Lives for gear
 
hollywood_steve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
We still work that way, and it can still take that long (if that's how long you spend doing it), we just do it differently now.

I had a singer in the studio tonight tracking a song she didn't write, but she improvised her vocal melodies. She sang the song 8 times all the way through. She sang each passage brilliantly, but not on every take: The 3rd line in the second verse sounded OK on take one, truly inspired on the next take, good but off-key on the third, kinda uninspired on the fourth, absolutely brilliant on the 5th take...etc etc etc.

I'm going to spend the next 2 days/weeks/however long it takes, sorting through each line, finding the most brilliant rendition of each phrase, and summing them into one take.

I'll burn a CD of that, and give it to the singer to practice with. Then, she'll come back into the studio, and we'll repeat that process.

So instead of worrying about slicing my finger with a razor blade, I'll be worrying about the retinal damage done by staring at my 20" monitor while I'm going through 256 lines of vocal tracks. Twice.

That's for one song.
*********************************

Personally, I think that this is worse than the kid who didn't know what a console is. Why would any artist/producer/engineer ever work this way? Is it a money thing? As in "the singer can't sing, but we're all being paid so shut up and start editing?"

This may get me banned from all audio forums, but I'd rather deal drugs or panhandle than work one session like that.......

I'm so glad that I've decided to focus on "live to 2" recording. I'm not trying to be a wiseass or put anybody down, but that was the scariest thing I've ever read about audio or music.

steve
[email protected]
Old 31st January 2003
  #20
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by thethrillfactor
You probably don't record a lot R&B/pop, huh Jay?heh
Me? Nah. I assisted on a bunch of Wu-Tang side projects in '98 and '99. That was quite enough for me. I'll stick to indie rock and other forms of live music thankyouverymuch. Personally I'm glad to work with Steve Remote when I can. If I had to sit through vocal sessions like that all the time I think I'd slice my wrists or maybe break the emergency glass and fill out the McDonalds application. I mean, after all most AE's are only qualified to flip burgers so what else could I do?
Old 31st January 2003
  #21
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
its not the size of the wand its the magic in it.
Amen.



Quote:
I work with a ssl and with protools...and i love them both
That's hot...What kind of hard drives are you using with your SSL?heh
Old 31st January 2003
  #22
Lives for gear
 
e-cue's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Jay Kahrs
Yeah, E-cue, still got that print out? Did I miss anything or screw it up too much?
As luck would have it:

Quote:
Originally posted by Daniel Isiah
Author Topic: Solid State Logic (SSL)
Daniel_Isaiah
Member
Member # 27964

posted January 27, 2003 04:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are any of you out there using these consoles?

I'm having trouble understanding how these massive studio boards work. You see them in all the big Studios around the world. Everbody thats somebody in this biz says mixing on an SSL board sounds better. Now, I realize that the board is analogue in such that the signal is being EQ'd, filtered, compressed all on the board before anything digital can even touch it....but...what does the board playback from? Do these boards have hard disks in them for audio playback and if so, what is the sample rate? ..I heard that you can bind them to pro-tools somehow....but I don't see anything on the digidesign site that has some sort of SSL driver. (I never heard of an SSL board being a control surface!!!) so what gives?? what's truly alalogue these days???
I don't think people are "newbie bashing" as much as they are disappointed that people are trying to make records with pro tools jr systems and have less knowledge than an A&R rep about AE. Personally, I feel most of these people are the greatest jon security any person could wish for in their field of work.

Oh, and if any of the DUC mods read this : Teabag my Bozack. I pirated your post and your plug in's.
Old 31st January 2003
  #23
Lives for gear
 
e-cue's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by David R.
No linkey. grudge

Do you think there will be an SSL plug in soon? rollz


Yeah, one of the plug in's I pirated, and then bought after I found out it was actually good. (But I still used the cracks on rental rigs... My I lok is a pain in the ass)
http://mcdsp.com/products/analogchannel.html
Old 3rd February 2003
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
We still work that way, and it can still take that long (if that's how long you spend doing it), we just do it differently now.

I had a singer in the studio tonight tracking a song she didn't write, but she improvised her vocal melodies. She sang the song 8 times all the way through. She sang each passage brilliantly, but not on every take: The 3rd line in the second verse sounded OK on take one, truly inspired on the next take, good but off-key on the third, kinda uninspired on the fourth, absolutely brilliant on the 5th take...etc etc etc.

I'm going to spend the next 2 days/weeks/however long it takes, sorting through each line, finding the most brilliant rendition of each phrase, and summing them into one take.

I'll burn a CD of that, and give it to the singer to practice with. Then, she'll come back into the studio, and we'll repeat that process.

So instead of worrying about slicing my finger with a razor blade, I'll be worrying about the retinal damage done by staring at my 20" monitor while I'm going through 256 lines of vocal tracks. Twice.

That's for one song.
*********************************

Personally, I think that this is worse than the kid who didn't know what a console is. Why would any artist/producer/engineer ever work this way? Is it a money thing? As in "the singer can't sing, but we're all being paid so shut up and start editing?"

steve
Steve,

I finished summing those vocals the day after I posted that. It was a labor of love, I can assure you. This woman is classically trained, and she can SING. If there was anything torturous about the process, it was deciding which passages to LEAVE OUT, not finding ones to keep.

I think you misunderstanded my post, and my approach to producing. I approach it like a cinematographer approaches filmmaking. I "film" the singer "acting" the song. I let the singer "act out" the song many times, as many times as she has the endurence and inspiration for. I then go through all of that "film," find the passages that best reflect the essense of the story being told, and then edit those takes into a final "motion picture." And I love it, I love that process. It's fascinating and inspiring, and there's an element of exploration to it. Often, the song takes a direction that you didn't anticipate, but you go with the flow, and let the song become what the song wants to be.

I understand that this approach is not always economically viable for every commercial recording studio operator. But that doesn't mean that it's "wrong," as you've implied. On the contrary. From a purely artistic standpoint, this approach produces de-luvely results. Email me with a land address, and I'll be happy to send you a CD of some of this work, and you can judge for yourself.

And it's not as difficult as I may have let on. On that latest session that I described, I discovered some handy ProTools techniques that made the process speedy and fun. With some coaxing, I could be enticed to share those techniques with the class.
Old 3rd February 2003
  #25
Gear Addict
 
mixer's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant
Steve,

I let the singer "act out" the song many times, as many times as she has the endurence and inspiration for. I then go through all of that "film," find the passages that best reflect the essense of the story being told, and then edit those takes into a final "motion picture." And I love it, I love that process.

lots of folks work that way i do..we regularly used fill up many 2inch 24 track tapes with vocals synced to the master 24 track..then a final would be assembled on a master 2inch with all the instruments to be mixed....thank god for smpte....capturing the right performance is the whole trick.....its much easier now with protools and multiple voices.
Old 3rd February 2003
  #26
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant
I think you misunderstanded my post, and my approach to producing. I approach it like a cinematographer approaches filmmaking. I "film" the singer "acting" the song. I let the singer "act out" the song many times, as many times as she has the endurence and inspiration for. I then go through all of that "film," find the passages that best reflect the essense of the story being told, and then edit those takes into a final "motion picture." And I love it, I love that process. It's fascinating and inspiring, and there's an element of exploration to it. Often, the song takes a direction that you didn't anticipate, but you go with the flow, and let the song become what the song wants to be.
A lot of times the problem with doing things like that is that it doesn't flow that well. Rather then being one continuous performance you end up with bits of pieces of stuff and it doesn't sound like a whole pass. Certain lines might jump out because the performer was in a different mood and used a different tone of voice.
Old 4th February 2003
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
posted by Jay Kahrs:
A lot of times the problem with doing things like that is that it doesn't flow that well. Rather then being one continuous performance you end up with bits of pieces of stuff and it doesn't sound like a whole pass. Certain lines might jump out because the performer was in a different mood and used a different tone of voice.
True.

One of the interesting aspects of this exercise, is to choose carefully which passages to edit together.

The current passage will guide you to the next. Those decisions will lead you to the "arc" of the arrangement. You choose passages that have the essense of the story behind the song, and that's your guide. That's the consistency you seek.

"Certain lines might jump out," and sometimes that's good. When it works, let things jump out "because the performer was in a different mood and used a different tone of voice." This happens in live performances. Singers have mood swings just like everyone else. Make it like that: Like life itself, the minute-by-minute changes in dynamics of human existence. Events are not consistent, so why should recordings of them be?

Seek patterns of inconsistency. Juxtapose. Create waves of conflict and resolution.

It's an exploration. What does the song want to be? You don't know until you've explored the song through the singer's performance. Find the bliss in that performance, then caress the mix around that bliss.

That is the art of audio engineering.
Old 4th February 2003
  #28
Moderator emeritus
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant


It's an exploration. What does the song want to be? You don't know until you've explored the song through the singer's performance. Find the bliss in that performance, then caress the mix around that bliss.

That is the art of audio engineering.
Most likely it's because I believe that engineering is a craft rather than an art, but I believe that this approach, while all warm and touchy feely, is, respectully, hogwash.

What you described is NOT a performance; it's a complilation of multiple performances which cannot (and should not) be foisted off on the record buying public as a singer singing. A recent Mariah Carey single was assembled your way, and it sounds awful. There is no performance to 'find the bliss' in, just the sound of an engineer who comped a bunch of unrelated takes together. If your craft is advanced enough, perhaps you can make those comps sound seamless, but you still haven't created anything that would be as good as a great performance by the singer. Of course, comping together a pass that the producer feels has all the right performance tricks, and giving that comped track to the singer to take home and practice with is another thing, If that happens, you'll have the chance to bring them back in and actually GET a performance.

I would rather punch my way to success with a singer than comp 3 or 4 passes together into a faux performance. At least if you punch your way to siccesss, the singer will have a frame of reference as he goes. I've done it both ways, and by far the best emotional impact came from singing the song all the way through and fixing what needed to be fixed than by comping.

Your mileage, obviously, varies.
Old 4th February 2003
  #29
Gear Addict
 
mixer's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Martin
Most likely it's because I believe that engineering is a craft rather than an art, but I believe that this approach, while all warm and touchy feely, is, respectully, hogwash.

What you described is NOT a performance; it's a complilation of multiple performances which cannot (and should not) be foisted off on the record buying public as a singer singing.
you may not like it but its been done for years , gee and they never airbrush photos in magazines either...its not sold as a performance its sold as a recording....to me it's no more of a cheat than punching in every other phraze....
Old 5th February 2003
  #30
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant
It's an exploration. What does the song want to be? You don't know until you've explored the song through the singer's performance. Find the bliss in that performance, then caress the mix around that bliss.

That is the art of audio engineering.
That's not engineering. That's production. There's a huge difference between them.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 295 views: 72654
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 15929 views: 1529363
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 179035
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump