Possible "coloration" of SSL mixer vs. 14:2 mixer?

[househoppin09]

I keep seeing comments from people on various forums that seem to indicate that the SSL mixer itself DOES color the sound in various pleasing ways, and it seems like they're not just talking about its EQ/compression/etc. I can't seem to hear or find any evidence of any such coloration upon analysis. Therefore I would really appreciate it if someone here could offer a definitive answer on this.

Hey- househoppin09,
Is there any chance of finding these comments you have seen online,and was there any given data to support them comments?
I can only offer findings,and from what i find,yes,there is differences-meaning previous tests were either 'imcomplete' or mis-leading at best..ahem.. ok.
The differences i found are barely imperceptable,so i guess folks won't make a song and dance about it.
Too much technical detail/analasis= makes 0 music-- try to have fun while doing so,while not letting details smear your creations.. ! =)
Cheerz.

I suppose I could find them if I went digging through my history, but no, there wasn't much actual data given to support them. After all the commentary in this thread, my own tests in which signals from the two mixers nulled at least down to inaudible levels if not mathematically perfect silence, and the fantastically thorough tests Selig did that were linked in those great blog posts above, I'd say this issue has been resolved pretty conclusively. I'm not sure what "differences" you've been noticing, but it seems unlikely that they're genuine. Have you done anything to systematically verify that you really are perceiving these "differences"? If so, I'd love to hear about it. Otherwise, it seems safe to say you're being fooled by loudness differentials, psychoacoustic placebo effects, or some other such thing.

[Marco Raaphorst]

Regarding coloration, some producers run sounds through EQ at neutral settings *because* it colors the audio. But in this case, I don't think this happens.

Should be the same as using a little bit of eq right?

[Raveshaper]

I guess so, I've only seen Current Value using EQ's in Live in this manner. Those EQs do have very minimal settings, so I guess that's how he's accomplishing his coloration.

[Stranger.]

I suppose I could find them if I went digging through my history, but no, there wasn't much actual data given to support them. After all the commentary in this thread, my own tests in which signals from the two mixers nulled at least down to inaudible levels if not mathematically perfect silence, and the fantastically thorough tests Selig did that were linked in those great blog posts above, I'd say this issue has been resolved pretty conclusively. I'm not sure what "differences" you've been noticing, but it seems unlikely that they're genuine. Have you done anything to systematically verify that you really are perceiving these "differences"? If so, I'd love to hear about it. Otherwise, it seems safe to say you're being fooled by loudness differentials, psychoacoustic placebo effects, or some other such thing.

Lol-ok.
There are differences.
The thing with the internet is not all information is correct sometimes- including 'my own=mis-informations.. possibly.
In this case,2 simple,but effective 'tests' were performed - 1 via izotope meter taps/frequency responses + 1 analasis via soundforge.
Both show differences,but as i posted,"barely imperceptable".

The main mixer appears to have a slight smoothing function-- or maybe,i am not being "geniune",and softwares are mis-informing me......
Try running some tests to see for yourself perhaps this will ease any doubts.
Pretty pix always help so here you go.1snapshot.

RSNMixersmooth.jpg (33.91 KiB) Viewed 1703 times

[selig]

I suppose I could find them if I went digging through my history, but no, there wasn't much actual data given to support them. After all the commentary in this thread, my own tests in which signals from the two mixers nulled at least down to inaudible levels if not mathematically perfect silence, and the fantastically thorough tests Selig did that were linked in those great blog posts above, I'd say this issue has been resolved pretty conclusively. I'm not sure what "differences" you've been noticing, but it seems unlikely that they're genuine. Have you done anything to systematically verify that you really are perceiving these "differences"? If so, I'd love to hear about it. Otherwise, it seems safe to say you're being fooled by loudness differentials, psychoacoustic placebo effects, or some other such thing.

Lol-ok.
There are differences.
The thing with the internet is not all information is correct sometimes- including 'my own=mis-informations.. possibly.
In this case,2 simple,but effective 'tests' were performed - 1 via izotope meter taps/frequency responses + 1 analasis via soundforge.
Both show differences,but as i posted,"barely imperceptable".

The main mixer appears to have a slight smoothing function-- or maybe,i am not being "geniune",and softwares are mis-informing me......
Try running some tests to see for yourself perhaps this will ease any doubts.
Pretty pix always help so here you go.1snapshot.

RSNMixersmooth.jpg

You mentioned the tools used, but not the tests you ran nor why you made the conclusions you made (like why you suspect "the SSL appears to have a slight smoothing function").

At the levels shown in your graphics you could be seeing dither, which would of course skew the tests by being different every time. You've also not shown the original waveform so it's difficult to tell what exactly IS different (or which one is different).

I'm only asking for clarification (if you have a moment to do so) since you are the only one claiming to be able to measure these differences where there are a lot of others that have failed to do so to date. If possible I'd like to try to repeat your tests to see if I get similar results!

[Stranger.]

I'm only asking for clarification (if you have a moment to do so) since you are the only one claiming to be able to measure these differences where there are a lot of others that have failed to do so to date. If possible I'd like to try to repeat your tests to see if I get similar results!

The only 1?? O ok.lol.
To begin,i am not here to bash or defend reason as a product or toolset,or any user,but offer impartial advices.

I have tried to clarify the suggestion that the 14:2 mixer 'colours,or alters' in and outputs,and from what i find this appears to be so,what ever methods i use/used.
Any decent analictical tool will show,i'm sure,if test is performed logically.
I won't go into details here,but will invite others to try this file-->

This file will demonstrate 2 'things' inside reason.
A. The master bus compressor can be over-ridden while engaged. ** what you say?!?!*& *&%$! **
B. By summing the 2 channels we can even see a volume/level difference in reason,by 'overdriving' input volumes.

This file also acts as a very cool widening tool-imo.
I suggest starting with the width settings on 14:2 channel to begin,go 1 #/increment steps,on both fader level+width-- then go wild with each channel settings.
Enjoy. =)

Please try this file,and post results from personal analitical findings.
For me,it's case closed.Ty.

[8cros]

I'm only asking for clarification (if you have a moment to do so) since you are the only one claiming to be able to measure these differences where there are a lot of others that have failed to do so to date. If possible I'd like to try to repeat your tests to see if I get similar results!

The only 1?? O ok.lol.
To begin,i am not here to bash or defend reason as a product or toolset,or any user,but offer impartial advices.

I have tried to clarify the suggestion that the 14:2 mixer 'colours,or alters' in and outputs,and from what i find this appears to be so,what ever methods i use/used.
Any decent analictical tool will show,i'm sure,if test is performed logically.
I won't go into details here,but will invite others to try this file-->

This file will demonstrate 2 'things' inside reason.
A. The master bus compressor can be over-ridden while engaged. ** what you say?!?!*& *&%$! **
B. By summing the 2 channels we can even see a volume/level difference in reason,by 'overdriving' input volumes.

This file also acts as a very cool widening tool-imo.
I suggest starting with the width settings on 14:2 channel to begin,go 1 #/increment steps,on both fader level+width-- then go wild with each channel settings.
Enjoy. =)

Please try this file,and post results from personal analitical findings.
For me,it's case closed.Ty.

This mixer 14: 2 colors sound. I confirm. And 6: 2. And MClass compressor (ratio 1: 1).

[SA Studio]

Regarding coloration, some producers run sounds through EQ at neutral settings *because* it colors the audio. But in this case, I don't think this happens.

Should be the same as using a little bit of eq right?

No. There's quite a few classic bits of outboard gear that people run audio through at default/neutral settings because it adds harmonics and sonics to the source material that wasn't there before. Real Pultecs set at default are a prime example. It's the tubes, transitors etc that give it a certain "color".

Which is nothing you can get ITB, quite honestly. Real "color" to audio doesn't happen ITB, in my opinion. Same goes for ITB saturation. It's entirely "faux"/an emulation of saturation and not the real thing.

[Raveshaper]

Regarding coloration, some producers run sounds through EQ at neutral settings *because* it colors the audio. But in this case, I don't think this happens.

Should be the same as using a little bit of eq right?

No. There's quite a few classic bits of outboard gear that people run audio through at default/neutral settings because it adds harmonics and sonics to the source material that wasn't there before. Real Pultecs set at default are a prime example. It's the tubes, transitors etc that give it a certain "color".

Which is nothing you can get ITB, quite honestly. Real "color" to audio doesn't happen ITB, in my opinion. Same goes for ITB saturation. It's entirely "faux"/an emulation of saturation and not the real thing.

Exactly. I bought an old Tascam desk specifically because it would color my sound a bit.

I know people have disagreed and will continue to disagree, but I think the reason ITB doesn't satisfy as well as analog is because pseudo random isn't random enough to equal organic analog audio signals. The ear is the hardest sensory organ to fool. We can hear the difference.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Biolumin3sc3nt]

8cros
This mixer 14: 2 colors sound. I confirm. And 6: 2. And MClass compressor (ratio 1: 1)


What in the world guys? The 14:2 does NOT color the sound one bit at unity gain!!! With or without the improved eq - do a fricken Null test, and flip the phase. Not that wacked out RNS file that Stranger uploaded - No idea what you were trying to prove there!

[8cros]

8cros
This mixer 14: 2 colors sound. I confirm. And 6: 2. And MClass compressor (ratio 1: 1)


What in the world guys? The 14:2 does NOT color the sound one bit at unity gain!!! With or without the improved eq - do a fricken Null test, and flip the phase. Not that wacked out RNS file that Stranger uploaded - No idea what you were trying to prove there!

I said, "color" referring to unknown changes..
I do not know is, if there be anything else other than the gain. But the gain is not very good, mixers are often used as a non-staining (not affecting the sound) element inside the other effects.
(I have looked RNS.)

[Biolumin3sc3nt]

I'm sorry, I'm not experiencing unknown changes with the 14:2 vs the SSL at unity gain

[Marco Raaphorst]

Regarding coloration, some producers run sounds through EQ at neutral settings *because* it colors the audio. But in this case, I don't think this happens.

Should be the same as using a little bit of eq right?

No. There's quite a few classic bits of outboard gear that people run audio through at default/neutral settings because it adds harmonics and sonics to the source material that wasn't there before. Real Pultecs set at default are a prime example. It's the tubes, transitors etc that give it a certain "color".

Which is nothing you can get ITB, quite honestly. Real "color" to audio doesn't happen ITB, in my opinion. Same goes for ITB saturation. It's entirely "faux"/an emulation of saturation and not the real thing.

Wouldn't it be possible to simulate the effect by using a little saturation?

[SA Studio]

Regarding coloration, some producers run sounds through EQ at neutral settings *because* it colors the audio. But in this case, I don't think this happens.

Should be the same as using a little bit of eq right?

No. There's quite a few classic bits of outboard gear that people run audio through at default/neutral settings because it adds harmonics and sonics to the source material that wasn't there before. Real Pultecs set at default are a prime example. It's the tubes, transitors etc that give it a certain "color".

Which is nothing you can get ITB, quite honestly. Real "color" to audio doesn't happen ITB, in my opinion. Same goes for ITB saturation. It's entirely "faux"/an emulation of saturation and not the real thing.

Wouldn't it be possible to simulate the effect by using a little saturation?

It's an entirely different ball of wax. Real tubes and transistors add euphonics to the audio, again, that wasn't there before. You also cannot get the harmonics, either, from any ITB plug-in. In ITB, it's always, invariably, a simulation or emulation of saturation. Tubes themselves add certain harmonics that can't be simulated.

For this reason alone, it's funny how hung up people get with ITB plug ins. It's like getting juice from a beet. We all fuss and conjecture about how our mixes sound with our plug ins within various DAWs, but nothing beats real analog mixing consoles coupled with outboard gear. And very honestly, the reason it's superior is because of the rather "natural" things that happen, harmonically speaking, when using tubes and transistors and analog gear.

Getting hands on with real saturation units as opposed to ITB saturation, quickly lets you realize that any ITB saturation basically comes down to being a light distortion emulation.

[selig]

Regarding coloration, some producers run sounds through EQ at neutral settings *because* it colors the audio. But in this case, I don't think this happens.

Should be the same as using a little bit of eq right?

No. There's quite a few classic bits of outboard gear that people run audio through at default/neutral settings because it adds harmonics and sonics to the source material that wasn't there before. Real Pultecs set at default are a prime example. It's the tubes, transitors etc that give it a certain "color".

Which is nothing you can get ITB, quite honestly. Real "color" to audio doesn't happen ITB, in my opinion. Same goes for ITB saturation. It's entirely "faux"/an emulation of saturation and not the real thing.

All digital is an emulation of the "real thing", right? EQ: emulation. Reverb: emulation. Synthesizers: emulation. Recording: emulation. Saturation: emulation. Delay: emulation.

[Marco Raaphorst]

Regarding coloration, some producers run sounds through EQ at neutral settings *because* it colors the audio. But in this case, I don't think this happens.

Should be the same as using a little bit of eq right?

No. There's quite a few classic bits of outboard gear that people run audio through at default/neutral settings because it adds harmonics and sonics to the source material that wasn't there before. Real Pultecs set at default are a prime example. It's the tubes, transitors etc that give it a certain "color".

Which is nothing you can get ITB, quite honestly. Real "color" to audio doesn't happen ITB, in my opinion. Same goes for ITB saturation. It's entirely "faux"/an emulation of saturation and not the real thing.

Wouldn't it be possible to simulate the effect by using a little saturation?

It's an entirely different ball of wax. Real tubes and transistors add euphonics to the audio, again, that wasn't there before. You also cannot get the harmonics, either, from any ITB plug-in. In ITB, it's always, invariably, a simulation or emulation of saturation. Tubes themselves add certain harmonics that can't be simulated.

For this reason alone, it's funny how hung up people get with ITB plug ins. It's like getting juice from a beet. We all fuss and conjecture about how our mixes sound with our plug ins within various DAWs, but nothing beats real analog mixing consoles coupled with outboard gear. And very honestly, the reason it's superior is because of the rather "natural" things that happen, harmonically speaking, when using tubes and transistors and analog gear.

Getting hands on with real saturation units as opposed to ITB saturation, quickly lets you realize that any ITB saturation basically comes down to being a light distortion emulation.

Mmm I would love to do some testing. I guess in digital we can simulate anything. And the fun of digital is that is reproducible and controllable.

I am a guitar player. But I love the sound of digital. It can sound super warm and totally tube-like. Tubes are great but I wouldn't not say better. I like digital because it's great to be able to create my own effects and amp simulators.

[househoppin09]

"Saturation/analog coloration/etc. can't be fully mimicked ITB" is a pretty weird thing to say. A lot of people say it and I'm never sure whether they mean "can't be fully mimicked even in theory" or "could be fully mimicked in theory but it's too hard to do in practice". If the former, that's just pure magical thinking; digitized audio is digitized audio. They're the same ones and zeros regardless of how they were generated or where they came from. If people mean that flawless mimicry is possible in theory but too hard in practice... well, maybe. To be sure, analog gear has lots of subtle effects on audio that passes through it, some of which can be pretty hard to measure. But the harder an effect is to measure, the less audible of a difference it will make, generally speaking. Lots of blind testing shows that even trained listeners are flat-out incapable of telling apart the best software simulations of analog gear from the real thing, and you can't really argue with that.

[SA Studio]

"Saturation/analog coloration/etc. can't be fully mimicked ITB" is a pretty weird thing to say."

Sorry, but you cannot create the harmonics that happen with tubes and transistors in an ITB situation.

That is light years from a weird thing to say, my friend. Light years. It's very factual. That's the reason outboard studio gear, one of the reasons for certain, is because of the harmonic improvement that occurs.

You simply cannot get the same results digitally and there's a litany of reasons why it's still the preferred method of production whenever possible. Again, that's literally why outboard studio gear is expensive, highly sought after, and used by professionals. There's completely real, sonic reasons for that.

[Marco Raaphorst]

"Saturation/analog coloration/etc. can't be fully mimicked ITB" is a pretty weird thing to say. A lot of people say it and I'm never sure whether they mean "can't be fully mimicked even in theory" or "could be fully mimicked in theory but it's too hard to do in practice". If the former, that's just pure magical thinking; digitized audio is digitized audio. They're the same ones and zeros regardless of how they were generated or where they came from. If people mean that flawless mimicry is possible in theory but too hard in practice... well, maybe. To be sure, analog gear has lots of subtle effects on audio that passes through it, some of which can be pretty hard to measure. But the harder an effect is to measure, the less audible of a difference it will mike, generally speaking. Lots of blind testing shows that even trained listeners are flat-out incapable of telling apart the best software simulations of analog gear from the real thing, and you can't really argue with that.

Fully agree on this.

[househoppin09]

"Saturation/analog coloration/etc. can't be fully mimicked ITB" is a pretty weird thing to say."

Sorry, but you cannot create the harmonics that happen with tubes and transistors in an ITB situation.

That is light years from a weird thing to say, my friend. Light years. It's very factual. That's the reason outboard studio gear, one of the reasons for certain, is because of the harmonic improvement that occurs.

You simply cannot get the same results digitally and there's a litany of reasons why it's still the preferred method of production whenever possible. Again, that's literally why outboard studio gear is expensive, highly sought after, and used by professionals. There's completely real, sonic reasons for that.

I mean, no offense, but that's a lot of words to say "I'm right and you're wrong and I refuse to explain why or provide any evidence"...

I don't really want to get into a debate about it, but read the rest of my post and spend some time thinking about the difference between "impossible in theory" and "possible in theory but difficult to really nail in practice". Like I said, ones and zeros are ones and zeros. Any analog simulation that fails to generate ones and zeros that are perfectly identical to the digitized output from the real gear is failing because it's insufficiently sophisticated, not because analog gear sprinkles some kind of non-reproducible fairy dust on everything that passes through it. As far as how many analog-simulation plugins really are sophisticated enough to fool the trained ear, that's an open question, of course.

[SA Studio]

Regarding coloration, some producers run sounds through EQ at neutral settings *because* it colors the audio. But in this case, I don't think this happens.

Should be the same as using a little bit of eq right?

No. There's quite a few classic bits of outboard gear that people run audio through at default/neutral settings because it adds harmonics and sonics to the source material that wasn't there before. Real Pultecs set at default are a prime example. It's the tubes, transitors etc that give it a certain "color".

Which is nothing you can get ITB, quite honestly. Real "color" to audio doesn't happen ITB, in my opinion. Same goes for ITB saturation. It's entirely "faux"/an emulation of saturation and not the real thing.

Wouldn't it be possible to simulate the effect by using a little saturation?

It's an entirely different ball of wax. Real tubes and transistors add euphonics to the audio, again, that wasn't there before. You also cannot get the harmonics, either, from any ITB plug-in. In ITB, it's always, invariably, a simulation or emulation of saturation. Tubes themselves add certain harmonics that can't be simulated.

For this reason alone, it's funny how hung up people get with ITB plug ins. It's like getting juice from a beet. We all fuss and conjecture about how our mixes sound with our plug ins within various DAWs, but nothing beats real analog mixing consoles coupled with outboard gear. And very honestly, the reason it's superior is because of the rather "natural" things that happen, harmonically speaking, when using tubes and transistors and analog gear.

Getting hands on with real saturation units as opposed to ITB saturation, quickly lets you realize that any ITB saturation basically comes down to being a light distortion emulation.

Mmm I would love to do some testing. I guess in digital we can simulate anything. And the fun of digital is that is reproducible and controllable.

I am a guitar player. But I love the sound of digital. It can sound super warm and totally tube-like. Tubes are great but I wouldn't not say better. I like digital because it's great to be able to create my own effects and amp simulators.

Well, many guitar players are aware of the "odd harmonics" that occur with tubes...and only with tubes. This is WHY tube amps are so sought after = the inherent harmonic richness, as well as the fabled "tube sag" that happens when dynamically picking - the subtle yet amazing changes in sound that only tubes provide. There's no way to get those harmonics any other way. I currently play through a 4x10 Fender DeVille. It's really heavy, but worth it. Roland JC amps are wonderful products, but will never sound like a tube amp and vice versa - the tube amp will never be as clean as a solid state amp.

The subject of Odd-order and Even-order harmonics is a lengthy discussion and one I'd rather just put up a link for than have to explain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound = Check out the part about "Harmonic Content and Distortion".

[SA Studio]

"Saturation/analog coloration/etc. can't be fully mimicked ITB" is a pretty weird thing to say."

Sorry, but you cannot create the harmonics that happen with tubes and transistors in an ITB situation.

That is light years from a weird thing to say, my friend. Light years. It's very factual. That's the reason outboard studio gear, one of the reasons for certain, is because of the harmonic improvement that occurs.

You simply cannot get the same results digitally and there's a litany of reasons why it's still the preferred method of production whenever possible. Again, that's literally why outboard studio gear is expensive, highly sought after, and used by professionals. There's completely real, sonic reasons for that.

I mean, no offense, but that's a lot of words to say "I'm right and you're wrong and I refuse to explain why or provide any evidence"...

I don't really want to get into a debate about it, but read the rest of my post and spend some time thinking about the difference between "impossible in theory" and "possible in theory but difficult to really nail in practice". Like I said, ones and zeros are ones and zeros. Any analog simulation that fails to generate ones and zeros that are perfectly identical to the digitized output from the real gear is failing because it's insufficiently sophisticated, not because analog gear sprinkles some kind of non-reproducible fairy dust on everything that passes through it. As far as how many analog-simulation plugins really are sophisticated enough to fool the trained ear, that's an open question, of course.

Harmonic content is not 1's and 0's, my friend.

[SA Studio]

Regarding coloration, some producers run sounds through EQ at neutral settings *because* it colors the audio. But in this case, I don't think this happens.

Should be the same as using a little bit of eq right?

No. There's quite a few classic bits of outboard gear that people run audio through at default/neutral settings because it adds harmonics and sonics to the source material that wasn't there before. Real Pultecs set at default are a prime example. It's the tubes, transitors etc that give it a certain "color".

Which is nothing you can get ITB, quite honestly. Real "color" to audio doesn't happen ITB, in my opinion. Same goes for ITB saturation. It's entirely "faux"/an emulation of saturation and not the real thing.

All digital is an emulation of the "real thing", right? EQ: emulation. Reverb: emulation. Synthesizers: emulation. Recording: emulation. Saturation: emulation. Delay: emulation.

Absolutely. That's why the real thing is better, quite simply, and very factually. A real Neve console does indeed sound "better" to most listeners than say, Sonars console emulation.

This is kind of a silly thing to see be refuted, haha. You can't replicate the harmonic content that happens with analog outboard gear in an ITB situation = That is all. That factual statement isn't meant to make anyone "react", it's kinda Studio 101.

[SA Studio]

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/manufacturer/Pultec

See that page at Sweetwater, guys? Yeah.....I wish they were less expensive too.

There's specific reasons why they ARE in fact that expensive. If you're confident you can achieve the same sonic result using ITB plug-ins, you are completely entitled to feel that way.

It's an interesting study once you do look into the "why's" of why that gear is so expensive and sought after. Again, if you guys feel its all "simulatable" you're definitely entitled to have that opinion. There's a entire industry, however, that may argue that assumption with you. That's all.

[Marco Raaphorst]

Well, many guitar players are aware of the "odd harmonics" that occur with tubes...and only with tubes. This is WHY tube amps are so sought after = the inherent harmonic richness, as well as the fabled "tube sag" that happens when dynamically picking - the subtle yet amazing changes in sound that only tubes provide. There's no way to get those harmonics any other way. I currently play through a 4x10 Fender DeVille. It's really heavy, but worth it. Roland JC amps are wonderful products, but will never sound like a tube amp and vice versa - the tube amp will never be as clean as a solid state amp.

The subject of Odd-order and Even-order harmonics is a lengthy discussion and one I'd rather just put up a link for than have to explain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound = Check out the part about "Harmonic Content and Distortion".

Odd harmonics are very much possible in digital. Even harmonics as well.

I own a few tube amps (Marshall, Vox, Koch). If I create 10 files are you sure you will be able to pick the ones using a tube amp and the ones using digital simulation?

I am working on analog simulation for a long time. Some of the things I have done are sounding warmer than any analog device I have ever heard. Tubes can sound warm and pleasing. But you can go beyond that in digital. Way beyond that.