GSSL vs FX G 384 samples and questions

[Gertius]

Hi guys,
I own a nice build of a GSSL with turbo mod and dbx202c gold can VCAs which I calibrated following the various instructions on this board (for least VCA distortion and correct ratios). While I like the sound of the unit I was still having doubts when compared to an original SSL.

I do not have an original here to compare it to, but I found this ancient thread on Gearslutz:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/59093-waves-ssl-vs-ssl-fx-g384-vs-urs-1980-advanced-test.html

I created my own file for the drums only test using the GSSL, following the settings from the thread and trying out several threshold & makeup settings for the best cancellation of the files:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/11817578-post239.html
original files in post 2:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/592712-post2.html
Settings:
Ratio 4, Attack 3ms, release 0.3, gain reduction hitting 8db

When comparing my GSSL file with the FXG384 from the thread, I somehow find the 384 fatter, weightier, more "attitude", the GSSL being cleaner, a little thinner, a little more spikey.  Is that the sound difference you would expect from a GSSL?

I guess my question is, how can I get my GSSL even closer to the 384?

Could it be the ratio or VCA distortion adjustment? Are there any adjustments/mods I can do to get it more in the direction of the 384?

 

[Harpo]

I own a nice build of a GSSL with turbo mod and dbx202c gold can VCAs which I calibrated following the various instructions on this board (for least VCA distortion and correct ratios). While I like the sound of the unit I was still having doubts when compared to an original SSL.

Two different compressors with similarities.
Compared to the SSL G compressor from 2003, using dbx202x VCAs (8 paralleled VCAs per module) or to later revisions ?
Looking at the GSSL 'clone' schematic revision 4 from 2002, there are lots of differences. Using ancient dbx202c VCAs with different parts values at surrounding components is only one of these differences.
Up to now the SSL copy-protection schematics with their tiny on purpose errors seem to serve them well... nonetheless (or unfortunately from their pov) these may sound different but good. YMMV.

 

[Gertius]

Thanks for your reply!
the GS thread says about the 384 which was used:  "serial number below 200 = a good one".

When I got the GSSL it had the THAT 2181b´s, so I made the change to the dbx 202c VCAs, also doing the adaptation of the resistors etc. I did one channel first, so I could compare it to the single THAT 2181b that was in there before
(see attached image).
I must say I was a little disappointed in how little (to no) difference there was between the sound of the two VCAs.
I have recorded some mono drums through both channels if someone is interested.
That kind of made me rule out the VCAs as a source of difference. Would you say the 202x is that much more different?

I´m very interested in what you´re saying about the SSL schematics copy-protection. I haven´t heard about this before. Would you say what the SSL schematics show is not really what´s on the actual circuit board?

 

[drivebystudios]

I just laid cash out for a Stam Audio SA4000 which IS an exact clone of the SSL...its almost DIY prices!

 

[helterbelter]

I've studied and compared the manuals and schematics of SSL FX384, the SSL 520 buscompressor, and the Gyraf clone (with and without Turbo), and I came to the following conclusion :

The main difference is the audio signal path. Both the  SSL 384 and the SL 520 uses those hybrid chips for balancing and de-balancing, this makes a much greater difference in sound than the actual VCA used.  (The Xlogic buscompressor uses these as well by the way).

The Gyraf clone's sidechain has a few minor differences compared to the G384, but nothing to worry about (although the turbo board would be a necessity if you want to get it as close to the G384 as possible). The SL520 on the other hand has a sidechain structure that's really different to the FX384, and It's not easy to modify that one into a G384. Actually, it's impossible to do this onboard. But that's a bit off topic.


This project comes closer to the FX 384 than any other SSL clone whatsoever :
http://groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=43999.msg674538#msg674538

In the first post of the thread I've explained how to do it, and it is surprisingly simple to do. On the 552 you can omit the summingstage to convert it to a buscompressor. Or alternatively, you can use an SL524 module. I also used SL527 modules for this purpose, but this needs more work. a 557 in theory should also be possible, but for some reason I never managed to get good results out of these.

I also want to add the following :
-Currently I use an SSL SL520, and an SSL552 with the Gyraf sidechain added. I really prefer the modified 552 for mainbussduties, although the 520 is nice in it's own right. (as drumbusscompressor it's a cool compressor). I'd wish I had an original FX384, but on the other hand, if I had one, I'd probably sell it immediately considering the prices that these things fetch nowadays !
-I had various versions of Gyraf clones earlier on (basic one with 2180s, and a full option with 202's), but I was never really satisfied with these.
-I built a few GSSL modified SSL module based buscompressors for a couple of high profile mix engineers- Since then my works are heard on ALL their products. And I can add that they can afford it to buy an original SSL busscompressor.

This probably sounds like I'm great and all, but I'm not. My experience and knowledge in audio electronics is below average.  The real DIY magic is done by Jacob, so, yes. GSSL rocks. With just a tiny addition

 

[beatnik]

I just laid cash out for a Stam Audio SA4000 which IS an exact clone of the SSL...its almost DIY prices!

quite not true....

 

[helterbelter]

I just laid cash out for a Stam Audio SA4000 which IS an exact clone of the SSL...its almost DIY prices!

quite not true....

I agree.

http://stamaudio.com/page/sa4000-stereo-buss-compressor/

Looking at the picture of the board :  it's not an exact clone. But it has a dual sidechain which is a plus. It looks like a solid build. And the price is very reasonable. But it's definately not an exact clone of the FX384.

(edit - I also noticed they say the meter is a Sifam one, and I can say it's not, it looks like the Hairball one to me. Which is a nice meter, but they must not say it's a Sifam )

 

[Patrick from Davis]

It is odd, it says the knobs are Sifam on the list, not the meter, but in the text it does imply that the meter is as well.  It might be an English as a second language thing. However, a little editing would be appropriate.
Patrick