SSL Turbo Mod added - Blind test - Sound files - have fun :)

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Purusha

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
1,868
Location
Somewhere on the Planet
Hello, I though I should post some sound files since I just finished my first Turbo MOD.

I must say I expected more from this MOD. Everybody was so thrilled and all... well I hear only a small improvement if at all  ;)

On some songs I even prefer the straight Gyraf version.

May the SAMPLES speak for them self.

All songs have around 4-5db of GR. OK, maybe a bit too much, but it's more revealing.

I will reveal which file is which, after I hear some feedback from you which one you prefer. You can also try to guess which is which.  ;)
I added a uncompressed file as well. I just run it through the Apogee DA back through Lavry AD so that it's a fair comparisons regarding
the sound impact of the SSL in general.

Let us know which one you prefer and which one is Oxford, which Gyraf...

A = ?
B = ?

Have fun. ;D



 
Alright my ears are matsch now but I surmiiise...A is Turbo, B is Gyraf.

This is kind of a head thing too, at first my gut said B is Turbo because it sounds a little more "open" or whatnot, but listening again I kinda have the hang to say B is Gyraf because in all the B samples the stuff in the middle gets compressed more.

Or is it? Dang, my inner Swiss guy is taking over... :p

Just a hunch, but maybe you're not noticing that much of a difference because you applied it to mastered program material that's been through 11-teen compressors already. It might stick out more when you're running a mix that's got little compression to begin with.

 
I will not reveal yet the truth but I agree, I should put some less compressed material through the SSL  8)

C'mon guys, where's the fun if you don't participate  ;D
 
Well, listening to the linkin park files on my crappy computer speakers, I like version A more than B, (B seems to have a wider stereo image). I'm not sure if I'd like the a more than b when played back in the studio or on a decent audioset.

I think that A is the turbo, B is the Gyraf.....

 
ok  let me give it a go............I only  checked the seal files  and  can say that i like  A  the best
To my ears  everything in the middle of B  is more compressed  than the left and the right side

A = turbo ..........B = gssl........  .....
 
Listenig to the Seal files, I think tha A sound the best. Deeper and more spacious. My guess is A=turbo and B=gssl.
Dont tell me otherwise cause my SSL is turbo non-switchable ::)

Hubert
 
A=turbo b=gssl
Sample A seems to have a bit more punch to the lower end as well as a more open mid. 
 
I need the original material to have no compression.  I am listening to these files on a laptop with headphones and all I hear is the clipping of over compression on the drums.  Forgive me, I am old.  ???
 
I'm gonna have to agree with the consensus.  A=Turbo  B=GSSL

I'm just surprised to hear a Linkin Park song that isn't peak limited within inches of its life!

I appreciate that mastering engineer!

Gimme a month or so, and I can make this comparison with my own GSSL/Turbo comp!
 
Hi,

Please don't feel offended, but I've taken the liberty to adjust thread title
to the more common usage of uppercase & lowercase. Makes the overview
of the threads more relaxed to the eyes.

Best regards,

  Peter
 
Hmmm, listening through crappy computerspeakers with no bass, my ears tells me A = Turbo, B = GSSL.

I prefer both  :)

I've built two Gssl's.. one "original" with a high-pass filter that I use for the drumbuss constantly.
Then I built a turbo (with an Oxford/Aarhus switch) that I use on the masterbuss, actually...
 
You know, throughout the entire original development of the Turbo, I went to some trouble to make sure that I repeatedly and regularly suggested that some material will work better on one setting and some on the other. -Also, that in the presence of other steady-state material the required behaviour is rather different.

So I said over and over again that the GSSL sometimes may have a significant advantage over the 'turbo'.

Imagine -for example- a dynamic rhythm subgroup, with some room-mics, and perhaps with the bass included in there. Now alongside that there's going to be a set of constant-level keyboard 'pads'. You may want the rhythm to "submit", or you may want it to 'pop' a little... Also, the presence of off-center percussive events is VERY important to distinguishing behavioral differences between the two.

With this in mind, I advocated -as I still do to this day- making the mod switchable.

It continually surprises me that there seems to be an instinctive urge to try and discover "which is better".

The answer is:

"They BOTH are".

Keith
 
Oh, and I forgot to include for clarity, there's sometimes the FUNCTIONAL requirement that NEITHER channel exceeds a limit. The GSSL does not attempt to address this, which the Turbo version does, and that too must be considered. -For things like radio broadcast or 'hot cuts', the Turbo has significant advantages.

For purely sonic comparisons, there are still times when one will just "work" better than another, I don't believe there would ever be anything approaching unanimity when multiple program material types are considered.

Keith
 
Keith, it's all true what you said.

The only MOD I am missing now is how to match the levels when switching between them.
I really hate this jumps in volume/GR levels when switching. Has anyone thought of any way
to make it balanced/matched?


 

Latest posts

Back
Top