why don't we make a SSL channel compressor clone?

hi guys!
i thought about this a lot:
if we have schematics, and all the ics are available at low cost (except ad536) and the overall project is not more expensive than a gssl,
why do not we design one?
it would be soooooo coooooooool!!!!!!!!!

we made the LMC, then why not the SSL channel comp?

Whats stopping you?

Or do you want someone else to to the "dirty work" for you?

That's been discussed here before.  there was some limitation but I can't remember what it is now.  Search for it.

One limitation is a pot in the expander it is dual with different values for each iirc

strangeandbouncy said:

One limitation is a pot in the expander it is dual with different values for each iirc

Click to expand...

Just happen to have a dual omeg pot in front of me, it looks like you could easily substitute the track and wiper on the bottom pot(or top for that matter) with one from a single model of the same general type. Just bend back the 4 tabs and voila, the track and wiper just come out. Insert new value track and wiper, re-crimp and Bobs your uncle (or something like that), dual value dual pot! May not be 'pure' but then again it is DIY after all!

I don't know enough about SSL channel compressors to be obviously helpfull with the real nitty-gritty of such a project, but thought this may help.

Just a thought, don't shoot me  ;D

Chris

have you ever listened to one of those?
hear what that does to a lead vocal?
the only reason people without ears THINK they sound good
is the stupid freakin' auto make-up gain makes shit LOUDER
when it's switched in. 
makes it hard to compare wether the compressor is really helping or not.
but the SOUND is what makes me not wanna use 'em.
eww  worse than the eq

I can't believe i just wrote that
no date to the prom for me i guess

Don't hate on me... I DO like the buss compressor.

hmm, i better sign a fake name.


Some other dude other than Me






and i like the 9k console pretty well, it sounds good.
real good. 


maybe i should just take this to the brewery
sorry

HI Queefbag,

    just goes to show you can't please 'em all! I used them so often and for so long, I actually miss the little buggers myself, now that I am not sitting behind an E-series. As to what they do to a lead vocal, well ,they have been used on THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of hit lead vocals over the years . . . .

  I rarely used them exclusively on anything, generally in conjunction with all the usual suspects.


    Like I say, Horses for courses, I guess!


    Vive la DIfferance!



      ANdyP

QUEEF BAG said:

have you ever listened to one of those?
hear what that does to a lead vocal?
the only reason people without ears THINK they sound good
is the stupid freakin' auto make-up gain makes shit LOUDER
when it's switched in. 
makes it hard to compare wether the compressor is really helping or not.
but the SOUND is what makes me not wanna use 'em.
eww   worse than the eq

Click to expand...

First thing I thought when I saw someone wanting the SSL channel compressor is that once again someone has confused it with the BUS compressor.

Kids these days, they see the word SSL and just go nuts.

andy-

yeah good point, but lotsa rock singers are like electric guitars,
ya can't go direct and leave it flat. ya gotta smash and distort.
but a good singer with a nice voice...especially other genre... different story

i'm just still having issues with how many records were done on
mackies and ADATs.  that really brought on depression

when the mastering guy wants the files on MP3, the medical problems start.

mp3?


  we once mastered a remix from minidisc when the(only!) DAT copy got chewed up at the mastering suite!

SSSHhhhh!


            MAckies and ADAT's . . . . . . . Shudder . . . . . . . BAck-ups of back-ups of back-ups . . . . . and I recall feeling EMPOWERED at the time! to be fair, it kinda started the whole cut-it-at-home scenario, and that can't be all bad!


      ANdyP

QUEEF BAG said:

have you ever listened to one of those?
hear what that does to a lead vocal?
the only reason people without ears THINK they sound good
is the stupid freakin' auto make-up gain makes shit LOUDER
when it's switched in. 
makes it hard to compare wether the compressor is really helping or not.
but the SOUND is what makes me not wanna use 'em.
eww   worse than the eq

I can't believe i just wrote that
no date to the prom for me i guess

Don't hate on me... I DO like the buss compressor.

hmm, i better sign a fake name.


Some other dude other than Me






and i like the 9k console pretty well, it sounds good.
real good. 


maybe i should just take this to the brewery
sorry

Click to expand...

I agree with QUEEF BAG, in my personal experience the SSL 4/6k channel comp is one of the less desired pieces of gear. That's personal taste, for sure. Even the Duende channel strip comp to me feels alike, there seems to be something in that concept which just doesn't grab me.

SSL channel eqs or 9k channel comps would be a different topic  :

Michael

I think it is imporatant to point out that there are at least 2 different vca's in E/G series channels comps. And as far as I am aware, the only difference between G and J series is the newer 2181 vca's . . . .

yeah, it's true, i can't do it all by myself, i'm not so good in electronics yet..

BTW, I think SSL channel compressor is a very cool thing.
i like the sound of this thing for snare, kick, bass, other things..
it's very aggressive and has an "in-face" sound.
i use my ssl buss comp for guitar buss, my 1176 for vocals. i think i'll build a LA2A and a Pultec someday.

i still think that ssl eq & channel comps are good

I agree.  Poo on those who bashed the SSL channel comp!  

I can't say I have much experience with the 4000 versions.  I mainly used, what I think to be the 9000 version, in the Duality.  The dynamics section is something that I could use on every channel of a live mixer, and it would be a great utility tool to have around for mixing and/or tracking.  The eq that had 2 versions at the push of a button were great too.  I LIKE the sound of them.  Yeah I wouldn't choose it as my top choice comp, but if I had 48 of em in a console, I'd be using at least 8 of em at any given time, probably more.  Especially if I didn't have miles of outboard gear at my fingertips (alas, i don't.)  Lets just say that if someone put a gun to my head and told me to mix a record without using any outboard gear, but I got to use an SSL console, I wouldn't even break a nervous sweat!  I might get shot for laughing at him though!

So it seems like the only piece of the puzzle missing is the RMS detector?  Is there any way to make a "discrete" version of it?  Like put it on a smaller board with easier to find parts, sorta like how you can use dbx VCAs, separate boxes that plug in.  Let me just mention, I have no idea how RMS detectors work at this point to even understand how useful/lame that idea might be.  That's why I'm sayin it!  So I get told.  One way or the other.

EDIT: Oh wait, I'd rather just buy them from digikey and pay ~$12 for em instead of going through all that.  Has anybody actually proto'd a clone of this recently with any success?  After looking at the schematic, I didn't see any other impossible to find parts.  Maybe I'm not looking hard enough?

A diy pcb was proposed, drawn and discussed about 1-2years ago in this forum. Dont remember if it ended up working or not.

Jakob E.

Cool. Thanks for the info.  Good to hear it was attempted at least.  I'd like to see it more seriously pursued. I'll help if I can.  Research, PCB designing,  whatever.

I guess it would help to settle on a specific version. Like I said earlier,  the latest version would be my choice.  Most functional and still sounds great.

Fwiw, I contacted the source that some of us grabbed mat02s recently and they have the ad536jh available for $9 w a min order of 10.  So iirc they'd end up around $12 a piece shipped. 

Why not use the THAT 2252 as the RMS detector? I imagine it's a lot easier to get hold of worldwide, and if farnell prices are anything to go by, a lot cheaper.

When the SSM2110 in the 9k channels went obsolete, it was replaced with a 2252 on a small board that slotted into the 2110 socket.

i'm slowly trying to make a schematic in eagle, but i'm a noob..
not sure of what i'm doing..

i think if we change the rms detector, the com will react not the same way.
that's not cool..
yeah, it will be cheaper, but that's not a heavy cash project..

I know I saw Jakob post either here or elsewhere that the ad536 had a lot to do with it.  The source I found will ship worldwide for the same price, you just have to buy 10 (group buy?)  I'm willing to pay $12 for them (and that includes shipping).  If you build 2 channels, it will only boost your overall cost by about $12 at most.  Its not like the that's chips are way cheaper or anything.  I don't understand why people freak out about that.  Unless you're making 1000 or something, only a couple will only add a few bucks.  And it will still be way cheaper than the commercial alternative.

Just my opinion though!  ;D

After reading further on the topic of the ssl dynamics section, I have come up with a couple questions for the group to sort of get more info, and establish a preference.

From what I've read, of the 4000 versions, it seems like the E series was the more coveted.  Is this correct?  And it seems like the 4000E version used 2 different VCAs over its production span (1537 and then 2151?).  Is THIS correct?  I've heard mixed reviews of the 1537, and its i think almost impossible to find enough to make it worthwhile anyway, so maybe the 218x or a "can type" VCA would be best.  Did the dynamics section EVER use a discrete VCA such as a 202C gold can?  I know they were used in fader VCA's but not sure about dynamics modules. 

Moving on, when it comes to the "best" 4000 version, would that be preferred over the newer 9000 version?  Is the only difference added peak sensing circuitry and the updated VCA?  The only reason I prefer the 9000 version is b/c I've never heard a 4000 version (horrible reason, lame, i know.  aka willing to be swayed)  and because of the added functionality of peak sensing vs rms.  I used that function as much as the other. 

I think if we nail down some of these questions, we will be able to provide a better, more versatile version of the circuit to make most people happy.  So we will need schems for both.  Is the 82E10 the 4000E version?  And I think I saw a 9000J or K version in the gmail account.

Maybe we could borrow Jakobs idea of providing a 218x circuit for the VCA, with the optional space for using a "can type" vca (if he'll allow it!  ;D).  And we can then combine the best features of functionality with the best sounding version.  It doesn't seem like adding the peak detection to the 4000 version would be too difficult. 

And it seems like we'll have to add balancing/debalancing stuff for the I/O and it looks like some circuitry can be omited that involves the more console related stuff as opposed to stand alone operation.  I need to study the schems way more b/c I have questions, I just have to figure out how to ask them, and get them all together at once.

Lets keep/get it rolling though!

Here's the 4000 version.

http://www.tenmilecreek.net/images/SSL/ssl_82E10.pdf

Contains an error.

Wayne, you might be interested to know that the SSL 82e10 channel dynamics schematic on your site is incorrect... (one of many out there I'm told).

R22 is listed as 1MΩ and in actuality the value is 10kΩ. If someone were to follow this schematic, they would have a 22 second release time on the compressor...

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/415506/0/

Datasheet for the AD536

http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/analogdevices/AD536AKH+.pdf

"J" is a .5% Max Error version

I think the best way to proceed is to actually compare the schematic to the real thing and verify the values.

Mark