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

[househoppin09]

Hi all! First post, glad to have found that the original PUF community lives on (sort of), and glad to see that so many of my favorite users have migrated over here. I got a lot of world-class help on the old forums and I'm sure this place will be no different. So, right off the bat, thanks!


I need some technical information on Reason's mixers and I think that this is the only place I'll likely be able to get it. Specifically, I'm using Reason 7.1.1 (though this is probably all the same on more recent versions) and I need to know if there are any subtle differences in audio "coloration" between the SSL and the 14:2 mixer, when all FX, EQ, Compression, Gating, etc. are turned off. In other words, if you take a bunch of different sound sources and route them into the SSL with all controls at their default settings and all deactivate-able features deactivated, versus doing the same thing with the 14:2 mixer (and ensuring that the 14:2 outputs bypass the SSL Master Section completely), do you end up with ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL audio out?


My attempts at testing this seem to show that the answer is "yes", that the resulting audio is indeed completely identical either way and there is absolutely no coloration at all that differs between the SSL mixer's channels or its Master Section, versus the 14:2 mixer going straight to the Hardware Interface, as long as the EQ/compression/etc. on the mixers are not used. However, 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. As an old-school audio engineer, I will feel a bit uneasy until I understand what's going on. I know that there are people on here (Selig especially) who specialize in figuring these kinds of things out, so I'm very optimistic that I'll get some excellent replies, and a huge thank you in advance for that!

[Raveshaper]

If you export audio using both methods and take steps to make sure the levels are the same, you can import both audio clips and invert phase on one of them to see if the waveforms cancel out to zero.

[8cros]

It's really weird. Why do we have a great new mixer if it is identical to the old mixer?

[Raveshaper]

It's really weird. Why do we have a great new mixer if it is identical to the old mixer?

One has 14 channels, 4 sends, and can be inserted into the other. The other has 64 channels, 8 sends, and can have things inserted into it.
We could start discussing how there are at least 3 different methods of doing any given thing in Reason, but that would get pretty involved rather fast.

[normen]

The SSL mixer (and all other mixers in Reason) DO NOT color the sound. When they say its an "SSL emulation" what they mean is that it emulates the "ideal" characteristics of the compression and EQ circuits of an SSL console. I.e. the bell shapes of the EQ, the attack and release characteristics of the compressor etc. as they were designed by the SSL engineers. All other nonlinear (and linear) "byproducts" from the analog circuitry are NOT emulated (e.g. saturation, noise, low level distortion etc.).

[selig]

It's really weird. Why do we have a great new mixer if it is identical to the old mixer?

Do you really feel the SSL mixer is identical to the 14:2 mixer? Not sure where to begin if so…

[selig]

Hi all! First post, glad to have found that the original PUF community lives on (sort of), and glad to see that so many of my favorite users have migrated over here. I got a lot of world-class help on the old forums and I'm sure this place will be no different. So, right off the bat, thanks!

Speaking of the old PUF, many many years ago I created an "Audio Mythbusters" thread and this subject was the very first busted myth!
Do we need to make this a sticky (it seems to keep coming up again and again)?

[househoppin09]

Thanks for the responses everyone--good to know that my ears and eyes have not been deceiving me. Just to be perfectly clear, since no one has exactly said this explicitly: as I suspected, and as seems to be the result of my tests, when all mixer EQ/compression/etc. features are disabled the audio output from the SSL mixer should null perfectly with the equivalent audio output from the 14:2 mixer as routed directly to the hardware interface (bypassing the SSL Master Section)... correct?

Speaking of the old PUF, many many years ago I created an "Audio Mythbusters" thread and this subject was the very first busted myth!

Selig, I remember many of your fine posts from the PUF but not that one for some reason. It sounds excellent, is there any way to read it now or has it been irrevocably lost since the old forum closed?

[selig]

Thanks for the responses everyone--good to know that my ears and eyes have not been deceiving me. Just to be perfectly clear, since no one has exactly said this explicitly: as I suspected, and as seems to be the result of my tests, when all mixer EQ/compression/etc. features are disabled the audio output from the SSL mixer should null perfectly with the equivalent audio output from the 14:2 mixer as routed directly to the hardware interface (bypassing the SSL Master Section)... correct?

Speaking of the old PUF, many many years ago I created an "Audio Mythbusters" thread and this subject was the very first busted myth!

Selig, I remember many of your fine posts from the PUF but not that one for some reason. It sounds excellent, is there any way to read it now or has it been irrevocably lost since the old forum closed?

it's gone, but basically it said "no".

There's really not much more to say about it once you say that, right? I mean, if it DID color the sound we could have endless conversations about the how and the what and the why…but otherwise, not so much.

[househoppin09]

Right--so am I correct in thinking that in the absence of any such coloration, the signals from the mixers should null perfectly? I've heard things about the possibility of different summing algorithms causing different varieties of subtle artifacting and such in the summed output, that kind of thing. Sounds extremely dubious to me. The lack of any coloration means that the outputs of the two mixers should null perfectly, right?

[selig]

Right--so am I correct in thinking that in the absence of any such coloration, the signals from the mixers should null perfectly? I've heard things about the possibility of different summing algorithms causing different varieties of subtle artifacting and such in the summed output, that kind of thing. Sounds extremely dubious to me. The lack of any coloration means that the outputs of the two mixers should null perfectly, right?

it's probably easier to check for yourself than wait for an answer, but yes the output of the two mixers should null perfectly - but this would only confirm that both mixers are the same, it wouldn't at all say they are not coloring the sound. For that you need different tests, and it just so happens these tests have been done by a few folks and all have confirmed that what goes in does indeed come out un-colored!

[househoppin09]

Thanks very much for clarifying that, truly appreciated! Nice to finally have this whole thing settled, I had asked about this on other forums but no one anywhere else can hold a candle to the level of knowledge that exists here. I also might as well take this opportunity to thank you for your three indispensable Rack Extensions, all of which I own and use constantly. The Leveler especially is pure magic!


BTW--one other quick question about that 14:2 mixer. To your knowledge, was it intended to emulate any particular make/model? I've heard it's supposed to be a Mackie something-or-other but have never found a model that really seems to match it.

[Marco Raaphorst]

Hi all! First post, glad to have found that the original PUF community lives on (sort of), and glad to see that so many of my favorite users have migrated over here. I got a lot of world-class help on the old forums and I'm sure this place will be no different. So, right off the bat, thanks!

Speaking of the old PUF, many many years ago I created an "Audio Mythbusters" thread and this subject was the very first busted myth!
Do we need to make this a sticky (it seems to keep coming up again and again)?

We should do a thread like that. I love killing myths and learning about new ones!

[Marco Raaphorst]

speaking off the 14:2. that old EQ (compatibility switch on the back) is funky

[normen]

different summing algorithms

Different summing algorithms... I wouldn't exactly call a plus sign an algorithm

These myths and terms like "audio engine" come up time and again.. Some people don't seem to realize that "summing" in a digital system is literally sampleChannelA + sampleChannelB + sampleChannelC = sampleOutput. There really is ZERO space for any "magic" happening there or any differences from DAW A to DAW B. Sure theres at least one DAW that claims to do some "magic" in the summing but thats a different thing.

The "analog summing" craze started with a bug in the old ProTools TDM hardware which indeed mixed up the last bit of the channels in some cases when adding the samples. Somebody heard the difference when comparing to an analog mix and because he didn't know what he heard this myth started. But that was a bug in hardware, in software its pretty much impossible that this would happen. Any bug in CPUs or operating systems that involves wrong results when *adding* would be recognized instantly - and if it wasn't it would happen in all DAWs that are run on that system.

[selig]

different summing algorithms

Different summing algorithms... I wouldn't exactly call a plus sign an algorithm

These myths and terms like "audio engine" come up time and again.. Some people don't seem to realize that "summing" in a digital system is literally sampleChannelA + sampleChannelB + sampleChannelC = sampleOutput. There really is ZERO space for any "magic" happening there or any differences from DAW A to DAW B. Sure theres at least one DAW that claims to do some "magic" in the summing but thats a different thing.

The "analog summing" craze started with a bug in the old ProTools TDM hardware which indeed mixed up the last bit of the channels in some cases when adding the samples. Somebody heard the difference when comparing to an analog mix and because he didn't know what he heard this myth started. But that was a bug in hardware, in software its pretty much impossible that this would happen. Any bug in CPUs or operating systems that involves wrong results when *adding* would be recognized instantly - and if it wasn't it would happen in all DAWs that are run on that system.

To put it even more simply, if computers couldn't accurately add numbers together, our entire financial system would cease to function.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[8cros]

It's really weird. Why do we have a great new mixer if it is identical to the old mixer?

Do you really feel the SSL mixer is identical to the 14:2 mixer? Not sure where to begin if so…

We had a mixer 14: 2 and MClass set of effects.
We did not have the expander, HP filter, improved faders...
But instead of the necessary things, there are many overlapping functions.

I was not comfortable to use SSL dynamics and EQ because they are not in the rack.
This was not a functional upgrade. I can not use it for combining. It has no CV.
I like the design, and I would like to use it, but I find it easier to mix in a rack because mixers are identical.
I use Spectrum Analyzer Lectric Panda LLC in the rack, instead of the original SSL. I think this is the actual problem - we still do not have MClass the gate in 2016.

[SA Studio]

It's really weird. Why do we have a great new mixer if it is identical to the old mixer?

Do you really feel the SSL mixer is identical to the 14:2 mixer? Not sure where to begin if so…

We had a mixer 14: 2 and MClass set of effects.
We did not have the expander, HP filter, improved faders...
But instead of the necessary things, there are many overlapping functions.

I was not comfortable to use SSL dynamics and EQ because they are not in the rack.
This was not a functional upgrade. I can not use it for combining. It has no CV.
I like the design, and I would like to use it, but I find it easier to mix in a rack because mixers are identical.
I use Spectrum Analyzer Lectric Panda LLC in the rack, instead of the original SSL. I think this is the actual problem - we still do not have MClass the gate in 2016.

As the point sails over like a 747.....

When it comes to mixing a song with drums, bass, guitar parts, synth parts, other keys, vocals...ETC, ETC...The worth of the SSL inspired board in Reason because immediately evident. When you have all those tracks, and need to carve a place for each in the mix, the new(er) mixer in Reason is absolutely brilliant. In another DAW, I'd use Waves SSL Channel Strip, time and time and time again. Because it's a wonderful plug. It gives you a fully fleshed out channel strip all in one plug - great EQ, solid dynamics section, HP/LP filters for quick clean up, plus plenty of Sends. No need to reach for a Channel Strip plug when using Reason as everything you need, chan strip duty wise, is immediately given to you. It's priceless in that regard and a huge time saver, and quite honestly, that immediacy gets you from point A to B really quickly - I really like it for that.

I'm pretty sure Reason and Harrison Mixbus are still the only two DAWs that give you a full channel strip with EQ and dynamics, a' la an SSL board, without having to reach for/use a plug in right now.

And that functionality is actually amazing. Once you have a whole songs worth of tracks, say 40, when you dunk all those in Reason, someone who is proficient with mixing can immediately get to work and carve out a wonderful mix in no time. The new(er) mixer is amazing.

[househoppin09]

It really is. I continue to be amazed by just how much better Reason has gotten over the last few versions. The SSL mixer is an absolute masterstroke. I'm getting better mixes than I've ever gotten ITB, and I'm getting them FAST. It's amazing.


The old 14:2 mixer is still not without its charm, however, as it brings back so many memories of project studio mixing. Would anyone happen to know if it was modeled after any particular board?

[8cros]

It's really weird. Why do we have a great new mixer if it is identical to the old mixer?

Do you really feel the SSL mixer is identical to the 14:2 mixer? Not sure where to begin if so…

We had a mixer 14: 2 and MClass set of effects.
We did not have the expander, HP filter, improved faders...
But instead of the necessary things, there are many overlapping functions.

I was not comfortable to use SSL dynamics and EQ because they are not in the rack.
This was not a functional upgrade. I can not use it for combining. It has no CV.
I like the design, and I would like to use it, but I find it easier to mix in a rack because mixers are identical.
I use Spectrum Analyzer Lectric Panda LLC in the rack, instead of the original SSL. I think this is the actual problem - we still do not have MClass the gate in 2016.

As the point sails over like a 747.....

When it comes to mixing a song with drums, bass, guitar parts, synth parts, other keys, vocals...ETC, ETC...The worth of the SSL inspired board in Reason because immediately evident. When you have all those tracks, and need to carve a place for each in the mix, the new(er) mixer in Reason is absolutely brilliant. In another DAW, I'd use Waves SSL Channel Strip, time and time and time again. Because it's a wonderful plug. It gives you a fully fleshed out channel strip all in one plug - great EQ, solid dynamics section, HP/LP filters for quick clean up, plus plenty of Sends. No need to reach for a Channel Strip plug when using Reason as everything you need, chan strip duty wise, is immediately given to you. It's priceless in that regard and a huge time saver, and quite honestly, that immediacy gets you from point A to B really quickly - I really like it for that.

I'm pretty sure Reason and Harrison Mixbus are still the only two DAWs that give you a full channel strip with EQ and dynamics, a' la an SSL board, without having to reach for/use a plug in right now.

And that functionality is actually amazing. Once you have a whole songs worth of tracks, say 40, when you dunk all those in Reason, someone who is proficient with mixing can immediately get to work and carve out a wonderful mix in no time. The new(er) mixer is amazing.

I also love the mixer SSL. But what will now be MClass? Indeed MClass better.
Now it is not updated, and even the bugs are still there. And we will never see the new MClass units.

[WongoTheSane]

Hi all! First post, glad to have found that the original PUF community lives on (sort of), and glad to see that so many of my favorite users have migrated over here. I got a lot of world-class help on the old forums and I'm sure this place will be no different. So, right off the bat, thanks!

Speaking of the old PUF, many many years ago I created an "Audio Mythbusters" thread and this subject was the very first busted myth!
Do we need to make this a sticky (it seems to keep coming up again and again)?

We should do a thread like that. I love killing myths and learning about new ones!

I just found two of them:

DOES RECORD'S DEFAULT MIXER ALTER THE SIGNAL?
http://www.galxygirl.com/studio/reason/ ... sound.html

DOES RECORD SOUND DIFFERENT THAN REASON?
http://www.galxygirl.com/studio/reason/ ... sound.html

tl;dr: no and no.

Were there more on the PUF?

[selig]

Hi all! First post, glad to have found that the original PUF community lives on (sort of), and glad to see that so many of my favorite users have migrated over here. I got a lot of world-class help on the old forums and I'm sure this place will be no different. So, right off the bat, thanks!

Speaking of the old PUF, many many years ago I created an "Audio Mythbusters" thread and this subject was the very first busted myth!
Do we need to make this a sticky (it seems to keep coming up again and again)?

We should do a thread like that. I love killing myths and learning about new ones!

I just found two of them:

DOES RECORD'S DEFAULT MIXER ALTER THE SIGNAL?
http://www.galxygirl.com/studio/reason/ ... sound.html

DOES RECORD SOUND DIFFERENT THAN REASON?
http://www.galxygirl.com/studio/reason/ ... sound.html

tl;dr: no and no.

Were there more on the PUF?

Not that I'm aware of - THANKS WENDY for saving these!

[Marco Raaphorst]

that 14:2 and the old EQ is funny: if you turn the treble and bass all the way to the right you get 24 db increase of gain but no coleration. so both curves are like perfect adding the right amount of high end +midrange / low end + midrange. not sure what is going on but the old EQ feels like a high and bass roll off, but with a compensated gain.

[Stranger.]

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.

[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.