Just another thought, what about a compressor and EQ a la 4000E channel strip? 'black' 242 EQ, the one everyone loves, and that very simple compressor circuit. Forget about the mic pre, unless we threw a 9k on there. Could steal the i/o line stages from the Gyraf SSL clone. Hardest part would be the right VCAs for the EQ since to my knowledge that was the big reason everyone likes this EQ more than others. any thoughts? I'd go for a rack of 'em.
SSL 4k channel strip?
- Thread starter JPrisus
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
SSLtech
Well-known member
[quote author="JPrisus"]...Hardest part would be the right VCAs for the EQ since to my knowledge that was the big reason everyone likes this EQ more than others...[/quote]
well... there were no VCAs in the EQ...
And the only difference in the black and brown EQ sections were the slope of the high pass filters (18dB/8ve in the '242 and 12dB/8ve in the '02) and the fact that the filter pots had endstop bypass switches, to solve the "never-out-of-circuit" problem that some people complained about in the 02's. If you take an 02 and add filter-bypass switches, you have the same EQ that is used in the 242.
well... there were no VCAs in the EQ...
And the only difference in the black and brown EQ sections were the slope of the high pass filters (18dB/8ve in the '242 and 12dB/8ve in the '02) and the fact that the filter pots had endstop bypass switches, to solve the "never-out-of-circuit" problem that some people complained about in the 02's. If you take an 02 and add filter-bypass switches, you have the same EQ that is used in the 242.
Thanks SSLtech! I thought they were referred to as 'black' or 'brown' by the color of the VCA 'can' or something like that... but some of these stories have been told and re-told so many times they've become legends in and of themselves by now.
strangeandbouncy
Well-known member
Seredipity or what?
I have been thinking of doing an 8 way ssl eq/compressor box myself to carry around to other studios. It would be vv useful at home too, since our E serios is rather small! only 32 channel. Gotta love those no make-up gain compressors.Us ssl bunnies Love 'em! Set the ratio, crank the threshold, et Voila! I was thinking about maybe doing the maselec eq instead of ssl eq. Maselec rules!!! I have 2 on our E series at work. Maselec uses 22078/9 chips, and uses the bell/shelf switch from the HF/LF sections to act as a 3x/3divide for the mid bands. sweet top end, tight bottom end, and smooth mids Mmmmmmm! Orange SSL eq sucks big time moose in my opinion, SO damn resonant!!!
I have schematic for compressor here, but no scanner . . . . .
Compressor is very simple, 2150 and AD somethingorother . . . PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can we? PLEASE?
Yummy yummy,
Andy P
I have been thinking of doing an 8 way ssl eq/compressor box myself to carry around to other studios. It would be vv useful at home too, since our E serios is rather small! only 32 channel. Gotta love those no make-up gain compressors.Us ssl bunnies Love 'em! Set the ratio, crank the threshold, et Voila! I was thinking about maybe doing the maselec eq instead of ssl eq. Maselec rules!!! I have 2 on our E series at work. Maselec uses 22078/9 chips, and uses the bell/shelf switch from the HF/LF sections to act as a 3x/3divide for the mid bands. sweet top end, tight bottom end, and smooth mids Mmmmmmm! Orange SSL eq sucks big time moose in my opinion, SO damn resonant!!!
I have schematic for compressor here, but no scanner . . . . .
Compressor is very simple, 2150 and AD somethingorother . . . PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can we? PLEASE?
Yummy yummy,
Andy P
peterc
Well-known member
I've put the dynamics cct up on my site for a few days.
Peter
http://1176neve.tripod.com/id24.html
Peter
http://1176neve.tripod.com/id24.html
Infernal_Death
Well-known member
I just looked through my schematics archive and found something labeled SSL 4000 EQ. Don't know if that's the one you guys are searching for but here it is:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/InfernalDeath/SSL_4000_EQ.gif
I guess a SSL 4000 EQ rack would be nice :green:
Flo
http://mitglied.lycos.de/InfernalDeath/SSL_4000_EQ.gif
I guess a SSL 4000 EQ rack would be nice :green:
Flo
I don't find the SSL eq's particulary interesting, one version or the other. There's much better eq's out there, e.g. the Calrec, that are not limited to a particular set of control potentiometers like the ssl.
But the channel compressor is very good indeed. It's gate/expander function is one of the best to work with.
Jakob E.
But the channel compressor is very good indeed. It's gate/expander function is one of the best to work with.
Jakob E.
StephenGiles
Well-known member
Hi Jakob - is there a Calrec compressor in your collection perhaps, I don't recall ever seeing a schematic for one.
Stephen
Stephen
[quote author="gyraf"]I don't find the SSL eq's particulary interesting, one version or the other. There's much better eq's out there, e.g. the Calrec, that are not limited to a particular set of control potentiometers like the ssl.
[/quote]
there is something really cool about the older 242 EQs for aggressive and punchy things like rock drums, hip hop loops/samples, surgical sculpting without losing any emphasis etc. The other SSL EQs i've tried never really did it for me though.
as for the comp, i thought about getting an old DBX 900 rack and loading it up with 903 modules since they're damn near the same thing minus the gate/expander. But it would be nice to have a rack of everything, maybe with a summing bus also... a little SSL sidecar maybe? :wink:
[/quote]
there is something really cool about the older 242 EQs for aggressive and punchy things like rock drums, hip hop loops/samples, surgical sculpting without losing any emphasis etc. The other SSL EQs i've tried never really did it for me though.
as for the comp, i thought about getting an old DBX 900 rack and loading it up with 903 modules since they're damn near the same thing minus the gate/expander. But it would be nice to have a rack of everything, maybe with a summing bus also... a little SSL sidecar maybe? :wink:
why do you want to go for a ssl-preamp, eq or even a sidecar. its true, ssl-desks are a great tool, but there is much better sounding gear around us or worth to make it to a diy-project. what about the great sounding neve-stuff (hey, lets make ourselfs a bcm-desk :wink: ), trident (series 80B) or amek's angela1 or whatever (just name it)?
i think that the different sections (pre-amp, filters, eq, comp/expander/gate, ...) are of a good quality. compared to a neve (like vr) this desk is very easy to use. it has great features and is easy to use. its a really great working horse, but you'll get better sounding modules beside the "ssl4kstuff" (well, i can't say much about ssl's 9k consoles or outboard - never heard it myself).
i just dream of a console with trident s80b preamps, pultec eq's (touched by manley :grin: with a neve/chandler limited comp. automation by massenburg and with a usersurface designed by ssl...
ok... i was just dreaming...
best regards
i think that the different sections (pre-amp, filters, eq, comp/expander/gate, ...) are of a good quality. compared to a neve (like vr) this desk is very easy to use. it has great features and is easy to use. its a really great working horse, but you'll get better sounding modules beside the "ssl4kstuff" (well, i can't say much about ssl's 9k consoles or outboard - never heard it myself).
i just dream of a console with trident s80b preamps, pultec eq's (touched by manley :grin: with a neve/chandler limited comp. automation by massenburg and with a usersurface designed by ssl...
ok... i was just dreaming...
best regards
Lo, i know what you mean, but for super-surgical EQing, there's not a whole lot that beats the SSL 242 (or the amek 9098 EQ as well). You just can't do that kinda stuff with Neve or Pultec EQs, it's a different tool for a different job. I think most SSL preamps, especially in the 4000E desks, are shit, so that's not an issue. The 9000J was a huge improvement in that area. The compressors are simple and effective, much like a dbx 160xt or 903 module as i stated before. No, it's not a Neve compressor, but a Neve isn't an SSL either. I wouldn't want all Neves OR all SSLs, i'd want a few of each ultimately! :thumb:
SSLtech
Well-known member
The posted schematic is the SSL 242. The '242 is not the older version, rather its the newer. The '02 was the original, and after a while people -notable Hugh Padgam) complained about the fact that when you switched in the EQ -even set flat- the sound changed.
The problem was that when you switched in the EQ, the High and low-pass filters also went into the circuit, (with one very specific exception when you were EQ'ing the monitor path there was an option called "split" that seperated the filters and put them into the head of the channel path, but if you had the EQ in the channel path, it was impossible to bypass the filters also in the channel path... and the High Pass filter's lowest setting was 30Hz, so very low stuff sounded much weaker as soon as you switched the EQ into the channel... not very good by anyone's reckoning!
SSL had realised that there was a problem when the opriginal circuit was designed, and so the half-ass compromise had been to limit the filter slope to 12dB/8ve. (2nd order butterworth). When it became clear that even this was not what people wanted, they commissioned a set of custom pots from clarostat that bypassed the filter when set to the lowest frequency. -They then did what they originally wanted to do and stepped the filter slope up to 18dB/8ve. The low-pass was left untouched, except for the courtesy of having a bypass switch added to the pot (another expensive custom clarostat affair).
Everyone liked the improvement. even then, lots of people still hated the SSL EQ. In 1989 I produced a retrofit Equaliser which replaced either the 82E02 or the 82E242, with a state-variable design, as used in the Calrec, the Neve VR, and the Langley-designed Amek consoles. Such was the distaste for the SSL Equalisers that abother company -Maselec- also made retrofit Equalisers.
Anyhow... if you're making a rackmount version, simply put bypass switches on a '02 and you have a 242, with the only difference being the severity of the slope of the HPF... for as long as that's not engaged, (i.e. most of the time) the rest of the settings will be absolutely identical.
The problem with the 242 is the custom pots... the console uses a 3-gang reverse log with another 100k linear gang, and two switch sections (one a normally closed, one a normally open, wired together in parrallel to make an SPDT changeover) and the switch is in a detent at the counterclockwise end of its travel. That design is a custom from Clarostat, with a minimum order quantity of 10,000 I think, and a likely price tag of about $50 each, -even at that quantity... -That's fine if you're making consoles for a living and the world is buying them as eagerly as they were in the mid-1980's (like SSL for example!) but impossible for a DIY-er to afford.
You can use an '02 design and add seperate toggle or pushbutton switches to bypass the filters, then you have something that still EQ's just the same as a 242.
incidentally, the later 'J' series consoles still use precisely the same circuit when switched to 'E' mode (constant bandwidth, as in the 242 and the 02) as opposed to the 'G' mode (constant Q as in the 'G' series console EQ)
With the exception of the brief dalliance with the 'G' series' original EQ design (the one with the "x3" and divide by 3" midrange switches) the EQ design itself has remained unchanged since the '02. The 242 just added bypass switches and another filter pole (18db instead of 12dB per 8ve). The current EQ still in production is the same, plus the ability to switch all bands between constatnt 'Q' and constant bandwidth... Nobody seems to like the constant bandwidth, so they tend to leave things in the "02/242" 'E' position.
Keith
The problem was that when you switched in the EQ, the High and low-pass filters also went into the circuit, (with one very specific exception when you were EQ'ing the monitor path there was an option called "split" that seperated the filters and put them into the head of the channel path, but if you had the EQ in the channel path, it was impossible to bypass the filters also in the channel path... and the High Pass filter's lowest setting was 30Hz, so very low stuff sounded much weaker as soon as you switched the EQ into the channel... not very good by anyone's reckoning!
SSL had realised that there was a problem when the opriginal circuit was designed, and so the half-ass compromise had been to limit the filter slope to 12dB/8ve. (2nd order butterworth). When it became clear that even this was not what people wanted, they commissioned a set of custom pots from clarostat that bypassed the filter when set to the lowest frequency. -They then did what they originally wanted to do and stepped the filter slope up to 18dB/8ve. The low-pass was left untouched, except for the courtesy of having a bypass switch added to the pot (another expensive custom clarostat affair).
Everyone liked the improvement. even then, lots of people still hated the SSL EQ. In 1989 I produced a retrofit Equaliser which replaced either the 82E02 or the 82E242, with a state-variable design, as used in the Calrec, the Neve VR, and the Langley-designed Amek consoles. Such was the distaste for the SSL Equalisers that abother company -Maselec- also made retrofit Equalisers.
Anyhow... if you're making a rackmount version, simply put bypass switches on a '02 and you have a 242, with the only difference being the severity of the slope of the HPF... for as long as that's not engaged, (i.e. most of the time) the rest of the settings will be absolutely identical.
The problem with the 242 is the custom pots... the console uses a 3-gang reverse log with another 100k linear gang, and two switch sections (one a normally closed, one a normally open, wired together in parrallel to make an SPDT changeover) and the switch is in a detent at the counterclockwise end of its travel. That design is a custom from Clarostat, with a minimum order quantity of 10,000 I think, and a likely price tag of about $50 each, -even at that quantity... -That's fine if you're making consoles for a living and the world is buying them as eagerly as they were in the mid-1980's (like SSL for example!) but impossible for a DIY-er to afford.
You can use an '02 design and add seperate toggle or pushbutton switches to bypass the filters, then you have something that still EQ's just the same as a 242.
incidentally, the later 'J' series consoles still use precisely the same circuit when switched to 'E' mode (constant bandwidth, as in the 242 and the 02) as opposed to the 'G' mode (constant Q as in the 'G' series console EQ)
With the exception of the brief dalliance with the 'G' series' original EQ design (the one with the "x3" and divide by 3" midrange switches) the EQ design itself has remained unchanged since the '02. The 242 just added bypass switches and another filter pole (18db instead of 12dB per 8ve). The current EQ still in production is the same, plus the ability to switch all bands between constatnt 'Q' and constant bandwidth... Nobody seems to like the constant bandwidth, so they tend to leave things in the "02/242" 'E' position.
Keith
SSLtech
Well-known member
...and I have to agree with Jakob, back int he 1980's when these EQs were the latest thing, everyone hated them. People couldn't give them away. "Outboard SSL EQ's? what the #$@& for???"
Nowadays people want them? -amazing! -Runour has it that the original design was developed because it met BBC specifications for phase shift and noise performance, not because it sounded any good!
-I might even have a couple of SSL EQ cards lying around that I could rack up if I felt so inclined... the problem is, the pots alone for a stereo pair would probably cost a few hundred dollars!
Keith
Nowadays people want them? -amazing! -Runour has it that the original design was developed because it met BBC specifications for phase shift and noise performance, not because it sounded any good!
-I might even have a couple of SSL EQ cards lying around that I could rack up if I felt so inclined... the problem is, the pots alone for a stereo pair would probably cost a few hundred dollars!
Keith
Thanks for the great info Keith! Much appreciated!
Maybe the dislike of the SSL was based more on engineering style initially... considering it was the first desk EQ with such options IIRC, and cats were used to the more musical EQ sounds of the 60s/70s. Who knows, but over the past decade or so, plenty of great albums have been mixed with almost entirely E-series EQ. The phase spec might be part of the reason you can mangle and sculpt sounds without artifact. Sure, the circuit isn't as musical as a Pultec, Neve, Trident etc., but those EQs are also much more limited.
Aside from the E-series, what would be other good candidates for this type of project? There was mention of some Amek designs, i've always liked some of those EQs esp. Mozart RN modules and of course 9098. I'm not at all familiar with Calrec but am willing to learn/listen!
Maybe the dislike of the SSL was based more on engineering style initially... considering it was the first desk EQ with such options IIRC, and cats were used to the more musical EQ sounds of the 60s/70s. Who knows, but over the past decade or so, plenty of great albums have been mixed with almost entirely E-series EQ. The phase spec might be part of the reason you can mangle and sculpt sounds without artifact. Sure, the circuit isn't as musical as a Pultec, Neve, Trident etc., but those EQs are also much more limited.
Aside from the E-series, what would be other good candidates for this type of project? There was mention of some Amek designs, i've always liked some of those EQs esp. Mozart RN modules and of course 9098. I'm not at all familiar with Calrec but am willing to learn/listen!
Keith,
maybe you´re right. But I think this depends on your personal experiences or on those some engeneers have. I am in for modern dance versions and I have a lot of the other stuff here but I cannot buy a SSL Desk. So the cheapest way could be to build my own , maybe a modified one?
Anyway I would give em a try. That´s worth it I think.
Cheers
maybe you´re right. But I think this depends on your personal experiences or on those some engeneers have. I am in for modern dance versions and I have a lot of the other stuff here but I cannot buy a SSL Desk. So the cheapest way could be to build my own , maybe a modified one?
Anyway I would give em a try. That´s worth it I think.
Cheers
[quote author="StephenGiles"].. is there a Calrec compressor in your collection perhaps, I don't recall ever seeing a schematic for one[/quote]
The problem with Calrec dynamics is that they are based around a potted pcb called "blue secret". This makes it hard to diy (impossible at this point, as reverse-engineering this module is slow).
Also, the Calrec compressor is very subtle (I think it was designed by Leif Mases of Maselec) and though it is good for mastering and such, it won't give you that "compressed sound" no matter how you abuse it. It holds level, that's about it. The ssl channel comp is much better as an effect comp.
Jakob E.
The problem with Calrec dynamics is that they are based around a potted pcb called "blue secret". This makes it hard to diy (impossible at this point, as reverse-engineering this module is slow).
Also, the Calrec compressor is very subtle (I think it was designed by Leif Mases of Maselec) and though it is good for mastering and such, it won't give you that "compressed sound" no matter how you abuse it. It holds level, that's about it. The ssl channel comp is much better as an effect comp.
Jakob E.
SSLtech
Well-known member
The EQ per se uses dual gang reverse log pots for the sweep, Center-tapped, center-detented pots for the ±, and dual log for the bandwidth.
The filter section (on the same card) uses dual linear and dual reverse log for the filters on the 02, and 1 dual linear with endstop SPDT switch, and 1 triple reverse log with SPDT endstop, for the two filters on the 242.
If it's going in a console, add one linear gang of 100k to every single pot for the TR track... you can see how re-potting an EQ on an SSL costs hundreds of dollars per channel!
And Yes, I believe that Jakob is correct, Leif Mases either designed or strongly steered the design for the dynamics on the Calrec console. -He was the main techie-guy at Polar studios for a while, and is a hell of an engineer! (he engineered 'In through the out door' amongst other things, and designs even better than he engineers!!!)
Keith
The filter section (on the same card) uses dual linear and dual reverse log for the filters on the 02, and 1 dual linear with endstop SPDT switch, and 1 triple reverse log with SPDT endstop, for the two filters on the 242.
If it's going in a console, add one linear gang of 100k to every single pot for the TR track... you can see how re-potting an EQ on an SSL costs hundreds of dollars per channel!
And Yes, I believe that Jakob is correct, Leif Mases either designed or strongly steered the design for the dynamics on the Calrec console. -He was the main techie-guy at Polar studios for a while, and is a hell of an engineer! (he engineered 'In through the out door' amongst other things, and designs even better than he engineers!!!)
Keith
Similar threads
