# SSL E and G channel strip plugin emulations.



## Morning Coffee (Jul 25, 2018)

I'm thinking of buying the new updated version of the Brainworx/Plugin-Alliance SSL, E and G channel strip emulations, which are at a discounted price currently, and are also now officially approved by Solid State Logic. They are supposed to be modelled on 72 channel SSL mixing desks.

Can anyone compare these plugins to the actual Solid State Logic version, as well as the Waves or UAD versions of the same plugins? I don't have my studio set up at the moment, so I can't try any demos versions right now.

Also, with the Brainworx version, it has tolerance modeling technology, which to my understanding, is like each of the 72 channels is slightly different in sound, much like a real mixing console might be from channel to channel, compared to other plugin manufactures who might just model one individual channel only. Do you think this is a gimmick or an interesting advancement to produce slightly more realism in plugin emulations of analog gear? I think it is an interesting idea.


----------



## Loïc D (Jul 25, 2018)

I second your request : there are now many SSL approved plugins, and I'd like to have a feedback since the price is quite different...

Then, for the tolerance modeling, it seems more like a gimmick to me but I didn't investigate so far, so my opinion is just based on what you described.

What is the point / benefit in applying this to tracks nowadays ? 
The slight difference of each channel used to be a constraint (fact) in the past, but I don't see the point copying this now.
When we use a vintage emulation, it's to apply the spirit of this gear, not an absolute accurate modulation of each component and its potential variation.
And if so, it would require to emulate hundreds of SSL. And to emulate the aging, and the effect of temperature over long sessions. And the power supply accuracy (depending on each country electrical network ?).

Again, I'm very open on the question, but it seems to me like a pricey useless feature.


----------



## Divico (Jul 25, 2018)

Morning Coffee said:


> Do you think this is a gimmick or an interesting advancement to produce slightly more realism in plugin emulations of analog gear? I think it is an interesting idea.


Imo rather an interesting gimmick. Ive heard of mixers using certain channels for certain tracks because of the specific way they behaved. Keep in mind tolerance doesnt have to be good and can make a channel sound not the way you want it to
An interesting topic would be how this could help in avoiding buildups and phase issuews while equing. Maybe individual coloration may alter track seperation aswell


----------



## ChristianM (Jul 25, 2018)

I have the wave versions.
I think it's reasonable to have a tiny budget for this kind of thing; we make music, no ?


----------



## Morning Coffee (Jul 25, 2018)

ChristianM said:


> I have the wave versions.
> I think it's reasonable to have a tiny budget for this kind of thing; we make music, no ?



Yes, to create music is the main aim, true. I also enjoy the production side of things so want the best possible tools, or the next best thing!


----------



## Morning Coffee (Jul 25, 2018)

I think the slight differences, if I can call them that, between the channel strips, and the idea behind tolerance modelling is just another extra flavour we could add to our palette, and I presume it is a closer step to mimicking a real mixing console's behavior, it is slightly imperfect within a technically acceptable range or tolerance. 

Using a couple of instances of a plugin like this might not make a big difference in your mix when compared to other brands, but if you, for example, use 40 individual instances of it on every channel of a 40 track mix, when compared to having the exact same plugin each of the 40 tracks, I suspect it might make a difference. How much of a difference and whether it is worth it, well, I guess that is up to the user.


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Jul 25, 2018)

Morning Coffee said:


> I'm thinking of buying the new updated version of the Brainworx/Plugin-Alliance SSL, E and G channel strip emulations, which are at a discounted price currently, and are also now officially approved by Solid State Logic. They are supposed to be modelled on 72 channel SSL mixing desks.
> 
> Can anyone compare these plugins to the actual Solid State Logic version, as well as the Waves or UAD versions of the same plugins? I don't have my studio set up at the moment, so I can't try any demos versions right now.
> 
> Also, with the Brainworx version, it has tolerance modeling technology, which to my understanding, is like each of the 72 channels is slightly different in sound, much like a real mixing console might be from channel to channel, compared to other plugin manufactures who might just model one individual channel only. Do you think this is a gimmick or an interesting advancement to produce slightly more realism in plugin emulations of analog gear? I think it is an interesting idea.


Those emulations look awesome

And I understand they are improvements on the Console plugins they released last year!

I was tempted by these too, even though I have the Waves versions. But the modelling of the different consoles intrigued me, not to mention I love all the PA plugins I have


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 25, 2018)

I tried the brainworx vs ssl vs uad. Someone in one of those facebook groups about music prodcution mentioned how crappy waves ssl is compared to branworx so with an open mind i decided to try it out since ive always used waves ssl just cuz i got it once it came out... like a decade ago. And im also fasicnated with pro audio marketing and consumer hype on this mystic topic. 

I really didnt find any noticeable difference among them. The only difference is that the branworx emulation has a small botton for harmonic enhancement which can be replicated on the waves ssl with placing any daw distortion on low settings afterwards. thats about it. but without this setting it was very difficult to say which one was better than the other one. 
The same dial settings where not the same btw, i had to adjust each other's settings to make them sound similar/same. 

I didnt try the ssl version of their own hardware but i doubt it would be a significant difference. 


Pro audio has been replicating hardware and software emulation for about 2 decades now so i think its getting harder and harder to notice differences among them as they are all pretty good. Neve preamp clones, SSl compressor emution etc etc. Around 2004 it was a huge debate about plugins vs hardware and it was very hard for engineers to admit plugins where as good or can get as good of results in a mix for profesional deliveries. Sound differences , yes... better.. was subjective. There was one video made by waves which has since been removed but it was around when waves came out with the ssl plugin, it was like $600 back then or so, It was a video showing a profesional engineer (famous but cant remeber the name) who mixed the same rock song with a real ssl g series and then mix it again completly ITB using the waves ssl and the final comparison was identical. I think that was the point i realized not only how powerful plugins had become but also the hype towards branding and the mysticism around brands and specially hardware brands that where famous around the 90s. For some reason people believe a neve preamps from the 70s thats $3000+ will sound way better than anything else and no way it can be replicated. With plugins mic preamps is still a new frontier but compressor and eq not so much. So i think the best recomendation is to just download the demos, listen without any sort of marketing hype, try to do blind tests and see for yourself what you like. Sometimes its just ease of use, compresor is a tool that will be used a lot so something that brings in faster workflow sometimes helps. I didnt like the channel strips from those software. I like the separated view where its easy to see how much ompression or a graphic eq and so on. But thats just me.


----------



## Morning Coffee (Jul 25, 2018)

gsilbers said:


> I really didnt find any noticeable difference among them. The only difference is that the branworx emulation has a small botton for harmonic enhancement which can be replicated on the waves ssl with placing any daw distortion on low settings afterwards. thats about it. but without this setting it was very difficult to say which one was better than the other one.




You've shattered my world ha ha! I believe Brainworx took out a patent on the tolerance modelling idea, which would make me think there was something in it, I was hoping for a difference. Still, what I like about the UAD version is that you can push the microphone input gain, whether that is another gimmick, I don't know, as the Brainworx version has Total Harmonic Distortion built in, as you mentioned.




gsilbers said:


> Around 2004 it was a huge debate about plugins vs hardware and it was very hard for engineers to admit plugins where as good or can get as good of results in a mix for profesional deliveries. Sound differences , yes... better.. was subjective.



Good point! The debate is still going ha ha, I think it always will to some extent, but I imagine that it would have been a hard pill for a lot of engineers to swallow at the time, especially after spending lots of cash on hardware and outboard.


----------



## Bender-offender (Jul 25, 2018)

Of course, this is personal preference: I own Console N and demoed the new SSL G/E and felt the N sounded better on orchestral tracks. Again, just my tastes, but others may feel differently. I also used to love DP’s e-verb, so what do I know.


----------



## sostenuto (Jul 25, 2018)

Just saw this on e-mail …. fwiw.


----------



## OLB (Jul 25, 2018)

I’ve been using the Neve and SSL G for a while now and it has been great for me. I find it very easy to dial in a sound I like and love the workflow of a channelstrip. Very important for me is its low CPU usage and zero latency. 

I demoed their Townhouse compressor the other day btw and it does something that I’ve searched for a long time. Tighter low end, put things more forward in a pleasing way and glues everything beautifully. I usually dislike compression but this Townhouse is compressing but not sounding compressed. Makes sense?! Also low cpu and no latency. 

Mostly used for orchestral tracks btw. Really like plugin alliance with giving monthly vouchers and their (on and offline) plugin protection.


----------



## sostenuto (Jul 25, 2018)

Bender-offender said:


> Of course, this is personal preference: I own Console N and demoed the new SSL G/E and felt the N sounded better on orchestral tracks. Again, just my tastes, but others may feel differently. I also used to love DP’s e-verb, so what do I know.



Going for Console G or E but can use some additional basis for choosing. Main purpose is 'orchestral' but who knows, longer term?
What key _differences_ would MOST SSL hardware /software wizards point to ? 
Console N is not offered at current promo price ....


----------



## Morning Coffee (Jul 25, 2018)

A new video by Warren at Produce like a Pro, trying the plugins. He also has an SSL desk for real! I like his videos.


----------



## dgburns (Jul 25, 2018)

I love anything SSL, it grew on me as I worked through many tv show scores. I can attest to the fact that the Brits got it right on the eq curves, the comp and expander/gate section. Never cruised on a real console however.

I’ve tried the uad and slate digital. I own the waves. Curious about the bx versions.

I found the older uad version to be grainier and had a vibe, but was not hi fi sounding. The newer uad is different however, have not tried it but heard it’s good. The slate digital eq was nice, it had the vibe and colouration of the uad, but without the saturation getting too noticeable. 

I use the waves all the time- my real go to. But I can see that it might not be so much a perfect emulation as a useful tool that gets real close and has the basic signal flow of the original channel strips. The G channel has really grown on me, especially the filter to the comp sidechain. That has become an indispensable tool. Also the nuance between the E and G has made me develop strategies for how best to deploy each one. I wish there was an emulation of the brown knob and the pultec ‘orange’ knob strips, as well as the stereo strips which had a stereo widener near the pan knob.

Waves modelled the ‘snap’ on the gates right, it’s perfect and useful, so happy for that. The expander section is also so useful, and a bit part of the ssl sound.

The ‘analog’ noise thing is kinda ‘meh’, but I leave it on. I turn off the ‘analog’ on the bus comp sometimes.

The Waves bus comp is used alot, but I think there are better options out there.

I find the idea of having different models per channel strips intriguing, possibly useful. But I need to try it first. I just don’t feel the need to buy the bx version yet- until someone rejects my mixes on the basis of sonics.


----------



## rrichard63 (Jul 25, 2018)

In my brief tests, the Brainworx "tolerance modeling" feature adds something I like, although I can't really put a label on what that something is. Maybe a kind of glue that makes the individual instruments cohere more into a mix. I don't think this is just a gimmick.

As far as I know, Brainworx is the first to put this in channel strip plugins. But similar effects have been available for a while from Waves (NLS Non-Linear Summer), Slate (VCC Virtual Console Collection) and Presonus (Studio One Mix Engine plugins).

The question I can't settle for myself is whether the world needs yet another emulation of these consoles (even one officially blessed by SLL). Can anyone really tell the difference between "bx_console SLL 400O E" and the "bx_console E" it replaces? Same question for the 4000 G emulations.


----------



## pderbidge (Jul 25, 2018)

Brainworx has great plugins. I certainly don't think it's snake oil. Good mixing is about subtleties so it can be hard to hear the difference a plugin is making as it's all about the sum of the parts in your mix adding up. If you clearly hear the plugin working then your likely pushing it too hard and need to dial it back, which is what I do- push it til I hear it and then dial it back, but I'm sure you know that. I only have the waves and NI emulations and have found that more and more I like working with eqs that have more flexible and detailed editing such as the Izotope eq and Melda's free Mequalizer. They both have analog emulations so the vibe is still there, just not exact recreations of hardware. But then again the jury is out as to whether any of these SSL strips sound exactly like their hardware counter parts. Still, I think they are worthy purchases for those that like working with channel strips and from a reputable company like brainworx, I don't think you have to worry too much about snake oil. I love my bxstereo maker.


----------



## Bender-offender (Jul 25, 2018)

sostenuto said:


> Going for Console G or E but can use some additional basis for choosing. Main purpose is 'orchestral' but who knows, longer term?
> What key _differences_ would MOST SSL hardware /software wizards point to ?
> Console N is not offered at current promo price ....


I’m sure the Console G and E are brilliant on orchestral tracks, but since I already own N I didn’t find a need to purchase G and/or E. Though, I’m sure in the future I’ll end up grabbing at least one of them. I really love Plugin Alliance stuff.


----------



## S.M Hassani (Jul 25, 2018)

Using a good channel strip can be your quick access pass to a solid mix, if you know what you're doing. It is important to dedicate a little time to learn about them.

I like the Brainworx Console series and especially the new SSL variants. I don't think anyone else came that close to the real thing.

TMT is not a gimmick IMHO, it can impart a discernible dimensionality when randomized inserts are used on multitrack projects. Think of it like a subtle detune/dimension expander from your favorite synth, only more complex.

The Townhouse Bus compressor is unique in that it emulates the older B series bus compressor. Most other emulations model the newer G Series, and for that I use the Glue from Cytomic.

dgburns Brainworx have actually modeled the Brown and Orange knob EQs on these channel strips. They can be toggled with the EQ Type buttons.

BTW If anyone is interested in buying these new bx_SSL tools at $99 PM me.


----------

