I Decided To Master A Track With My Usual Plugins vs My Harrison/SSL Plugins. You Be The Judge.

[László]

I'm late to the party on the Harrison/SSL plugin lines (SSL bought Harrison a while back and now makes both brands of console in the UK, where they also developed their eponymously named plugins). Turns out I love them.

I had a Logic file with an orchestral instrumental piece I wrote and recorded with wide dynamic range. I used the UA SSL 9000 J channel strip, a Plugin Alliance Bettermaker EQ, a Bettermaker Bus compressor, and a Bettermaker Mastering Compressor to master the track. This was a stereo track, no limiting. The Bettermaker Bus compressor was set up with its version of the SSL Bus Compressor.

I decided to open the file, and simply replace the UA and PA plugins with an SSL-brand 9000 channel strip, a Harrison mastering EQ, a Harrison bus compressor, and an SSL-brand mix bus compressor, and compare them. I tried to set them up the same way, but it can't really be done by eyeball. It can only be done by ear.

Even though I reduced the output level on the stereo outputs on the Harrison/SSL track, it's still a little louder than the original track; it seems to have preserved more dynamic range, but there are other differences that you'll probably hear.

This isn't a test, I'll simply identify them, and you can decide for yourself which works for you. There are no wrong answers - this is, after all, a matter of taste, not a science experiment. This will not be on the final exam. They're actually both good sounding (to me).

Listen with either good headphones or good speakers for obvious reasons. You may want to lower the volume of one to match the other, but I think the differences in sound will be audible whether or not you do. Again, not an A/B science test. Just a taste thing. As in, which soup do you prefer?

Original Master:

The Abbey

The Abbey by Leslie Schefman

leslieschefman.com

Harrison/SSL Master:

Abbey Road Tango SSL Remaster

Abbey Road Tango SSL Remaster by Leslie Schefman

leslieschefman.com

 

[FuzzyAce]

Listen with either good headphones or good speakers for obvious reasons. You may want to lower the volume of one to match the other, but I think the differences in sound will be audible whether or not you do. Again, not an A/B science test. Just a taste thing. As in, which soup do you prefer?

Nice piece!
I like the first master better. It feels clearer/cleaner and less compressed. The highs in the 2nd version are a bit more saturated and sibilant to my ears.

 

[László]

Nice piece!
I like the first master better. It feels clearer/cleaner and less compressed. The highs in the 2nd version are a bit more saturated and sibilant to my ears.

Thanks re: the piece!

Interesting take, and I appreciate the comments! The first master is very good, and I have no real complaints, but it doesn't quite give me the dynamics or 'big sound' I had hoped for - I didn't think it felt compressed enough, though both tracks only got 1.5:1 compression at the console emulation and the mix bus, both only enough to 'kiss' the tracks.

However, it's entirely possible I overdid the highs and saturation on the SSL/Harrison track. Your comment has made me want to go back and take another listen. Maybe I'll revisit what I did with EQ and the amount of compression.

Then, too, sometimes it can be about differences in listening equipment, personal taste, the room, etc. In any even, thanks for spurring me to listen again!

 

[FuzzyAce]

Thanks re: the piece!

Interesting take, and I appreciate the comments! The first master is very good, and I have no real complaints, but it doesn't quite give me the dynamics or 'big sound' I had hoped for - I didn't think it felt compressed enough, though both tracks only got 1.5:1 compression at the console emulation and the mix bus, both only enough to 'kiss' the tracks.

However, it's entirely possible I overdid the highs and saturation on the SSL/Harrison track. Your comment has made me want to go back and take another listen. Maybe I'll revisit what I did with EQ and the amount of compression.

Then, too, sometimes it can be about differences in listening equipment, personal taste, the room, etc. In any even, thanks for spurring me to listen again!

Just my impression! My ears could deceive me as well.
I could really hear the differences in the cymbal and low percussion elements. On the 2nd, there is more sizzle. That could work better in a different musical context, but just felt the first master was cleaner and easier on the ears.

edit: but i'm just a guy who does occasional tracks and rushes 'masters' to get them done. Take my opinion for what it is!

 

[newholland]

im in post christmas!

 

[newholland]

im with fuzzy- i think a) the orchestration is awesome, fun, and interesting!, b) the harrison version sounds dirtier and more compressed in the bottom end percussion- and you can hear the top end gritting up. i did notice that the original also has a threshold where with the big bass drum hits it loses dynamic range- but to a lesser extent than the harrison version. the sorta spankier presentation of #2 could probably keep a little of the top end- but i might let the big bottom hits loose so that the whole dynamic envelope doesnt collapse as much and theyd have more of a BIG impact. it kinda reminds me of what happens with an 1176 cranked up- and in the right context- that crunch is totally what the doctor ordered- but in this context it might be a just little too heavy!

all that said- super cool. listened on the big system- and part of it may be that i sent it in via aac bluetooth!

 

[László]

Just my impression! My ears could deceive me as well.
I could really hear the differences in the cymbal and low percussion elements. On the 2nd, there is more sizzle. That could work better in a different musical context, but just felt the first master was cleaner and easier on the ears.

edit: but i'm just a guy who does occasional tracks and rushes 'masters' to get them done. Take my opinion for what it is!

The way I feel is that it's great to get feedback, and to be inspired to take another listen. And for better or worse, it's good that you heard differences. I hope you noticed that the soundstage is wider with greater depth of field with the new plugins. I didn't do anything to make it sound that way.

But I hear what you're talking about, and I'll probably go back to the mix and make the adjustments properly using the new plugins. Maybe I'd have mixed it a little differently had I started with the SSL & Harrison stuff.

There's a bit of a learning curve to all this stuff, and I'm just getting started with it.

I like these plugs because they have a vibe. I wanted plugins with color, and these have it.

im with fuzzy- i think a) the orchestration is awesome, fun, and interesting!, b) the harrison version sounds dirtier and more compressed in the bottom end percussion- and you can hear the top end gritting up. i did notice that the original also has a threshold where with the big bass drum hits it loses dynamic range- but to a lesser extent than the harrison version. the sorta spankier presentation of #2 could probably keep a little of the top end- but i might let the big bottom hits loose so that the whole dynamic envelope doesnt collapse as much and theyd have more of a BIG impact. it kinda reminds me of what happens with an 1176 cranked up- and in the right context- that crunch is totally what the doctor ordered- but in this context it might be a just little too heavy!

all that said- super cool. listened on the big system- and part of it may be that i sent it in via aac bluetooth!

As I said to Fuzzy, this feedback is super-useful!

What I like about the SSL and Harrison versions of their own hardware is that it does engender a big sound.

I didn't side-chain the percussion and easily could have, which would have obviated the bottom compression, but I wanted to stay pretty basic and see what these tools do. I'm still very happy with them, it's a matter of a learning curve, which is why the feedback here is important.

I am, however, excited about the sound of these things. Honestly, the stuff I was using wasn't giving me the color I was looking for, this stuff is. BUT -- like anything else, working with a tool and learning how to best use it is key.

Interesting that you mention the 1176; it's a very grabby compressor, and I've always felt the SSL compressor is a bit grabby compared to some other types, for example my old hardware Focusrite Red (designed when Rupert Neve ran Focusrite), that was wonderfully subtle. That's why I only kissed the track with it at 1.5:1, but even then there's an art to it I have to work on.

Once again, gentlemen, I thank you for your input. I'm also glad you both dug the piece!

One thing I've concluded is that these plugins warrant the investment of time, just like a piece of hardware.

 

[László]

I improvised this little solo piano track to work with the SSL 4000 E and the bus plugins. The reverb is the new version of the Ocean Way studio from UA. I wasn't going for an orchestral feel here.

This is the sound I was after. It's warm and has weight/size. There's no A/B here, just wanted to demonstrate the kind of thing I got the plugins to do.

SSL Piano and Bus

SSL Piano and Bus by Leslie Schefman

leslieschefman.com

 

[FuzzyAce]

I improvised this little solo piano track to work with the SSL 4000 E and the bus plugins. The reverb is the new version of the Ocean Way studio from UA. I wasn't going for an orchestral feel here.

This is the sound I was after. It's warm and has weight/size. There's no A/B here, just wanted to demonstrate the kind of thing I got the plugins to do.

SSL Piano and Bus

SSL Piano and Bus by Leslie Schefman

leslieschefman.com

Very nice. It's warm and intimate -- I like it!