The Focusrite resolves better, less harsh, clear--but softer. The SSL is punchier, but a touch less clear across all the spectrums. Both valid in different applications. If you want a more "pop" or hi-fi sound: the FF. If you want something a bit "tougher" sounding: SSL. While a lot of attention is being paid to the top/bottom end of the mix--listen to the midrange--the FF is more natural and thicker in the mids. The SSL sounds "scooped" and slightly off-phase in comparison. I think the midrange handling is where the Focusrite really grabs me. Nice.
Bought th FC plugin a week ago and still learning the ropes. Your video makes me help to understand what I am hearing and intuitiv lean to. Love the plugin. Thank you sir.
I preferred the SSL. I find the Focusrite tend to put the drums in the back and make the cymbals sound harsh. I like the way you presented the demo. Clear concise and informative. Thanks!
Totally agree about the drums. The Focusrite compressor seemed to suck the life out of them no matter what settings I used. SSL excels on drums. The cymbal harshness is probably from the upper mid boost that the Focusrite eq has.
What a wonderful comparison - the first I've seen directly comparing these two sounds to illustrate the differences/strengths of each. Very educational and well done! Thank you
Nice A/B comparison. A matter of taste I think, and also what musical material you work with but IMHO it’s day and night and the Focusrite sounds so much more lively and deep! Best next thing to owning the (scarce) real thing! Thanks!
@@gonebymidnight2881 personally not a huge fan so far. It could be that I just know the SSL sound and am comfortable with it. I can’t get my head wrapped around the Focusrite, but I’m still learning it. I had done a full mix just using that, just to try it out, test the TMT channels to see what that did, and after a very frustrating hour or so, I just stopped and listened to it, and it sounded pretty good! Haha, but overall not my favorite, but also still learning it after years of mainly using SSL stuff
@@gonebymidnight2881 I like it for transparent processing. If you're doing a lot of acoustic music, or anything that needs more natural processing, it's great. I don't use it nearly as much as the SSL.
@@claytonmurrayguitar thanks for your honest input man. Yea I don’t know, I mainly record rock and heavier stuff so not sure this is for me. I like the sound on acoustic guitars though.
This was so helpful! I’ve always thought that my mixes sound a little scooped and now it makes sense... all I use is SSL. Getting the Focusrite right away!
I've A/B'd them on a vocal and found the Focusrite to be cleaner and clearer in the midrange. The SSL sounded more "pushed". For that particular track, I preferred the Focusrite because the vocal was already kind of saturated and fat and didn't need the additional midrange push. Both very useful tools. Got the Focusrite for free with my Red interface :)
while I was initially blown away by the Focusrite sound..clear and hi, I l continue to use the ssle in my productions due to the aggressiveness of the eq ..I really love the brainworxx ssle and it is my go to on all my productions...although the new Lindell 80 console is amazing too.
Great video, well done. I do agree on your conclusion. Usually the SSL E is my go-to plugin on every track as I mix mostly rock and Indie rock. And I just know how it sounds and behaves on tracks. There are some instruments or tracks on which the SSL doesn‘t work that well (vocals) for me and other where they work amazingly well (drums).
I like em both :) .. but i think the focusrite is better suited for me as i tend to do a lot of prosessing on the tracks beforehand so i dont need the extra smack and midrange boost and so on from the SSL.. but as someone said.. when you use them without the same settings you will use your ear and add more and less mid range and highend and so on to end up in the same ballpark i would guess. But thanks for the video :)
Guys.. correct me if I am wrong. On the SAME eq/db/q + comp settings (as on the video) you will get different sound of course. But if you are mixing by your ear, so you will try to reach some sound, you will never have the same knobs settings on both consoles. Finally the sound will be very close between these two consoles. The only audible difference will be THD and saturation then. There is a paradox, you will probably get a more airy sound on SSL (instead of Focusrite as many think), because of that (non slope down) top-end eq curve above 10k which speaks for SSL. So there is only difference - how you feel to move the knobs. How you live with them. I preffer Focusrite because of lower distortion, which I can add later on and for a very intiuitive feel on the UI. I find the Focusrute a bit faster in getting "my" sound.
The funny thing is that I mixed on the Focusrite and copied the settings to the SSL, yet people still seem to prefer the SSL. I think it would be difficult to achieve the same sound between the consoles. You might be able to get close by matching the EQ curves by ear, but the dynamics sections have such different characteristics that it would be hard to match the compression sound. Also, the THD/saturation of the consoles are a characteristic feature of their sound and shouldn't be discounted. Of course, they both really work well and the Focusrite is a great tool. Many great mixes have been made on both consoles.
@@GreenLightSound Then it would be fun to try the opposite too... mix on the SSL and copy the settings on the Focusrite ! ;-) I wonder if you would get same pleasant results
Man, if the random application of copying with ssl vs your mix to taste on the focusrite...I don't mean to be a dck but the initial mix may be in question
the ssl is my main go to strip on all my sessions for a long time now...but I love the Focusrite and the way it shines so I will def use it on say, a singer/songwriter session or clean country...both are excellent; but I prefer the ssl
Totally agree. SSL for attitude, Focusrite for clean/hifi sound. We've heard more records with the SSL sound, which I suspect is why many (including me) prefer it.
Have all the bx strips..each has its place but overall the focusrite works best for me. The bottom end isn't as smeared and the top is rather smooth...really works wonders on acoustic guitar and I love the comp/desser. One more thing..channel selection is very important with these consoles
The Focusrite is indeed smooth and excels on acoustic guitar, or any acoustic instrument really. It's signature transparency is great when you need it.
I love them both (and the Lindell Neve too). I find the Focusrite is handy when I'm cleaning up a client's tracks and I need a "hi fi" sound, and the SSL works really well on my own stuff when I need some punch and grit. Those SSL bell curves really make a difference in how the mids push, which is awesome for my rockier stuff but when I need to just generally "open everything up" on a mix I reach for the Focusrite. They just announced a Lindell API, which should be really interesting.
That's why I prefer the 9000 J. I feel like the 4K is a little too gritty and 9K is a bit smoother. I also have the Focusrite and I haven't quite found the right song for it. Too many options!
The biggest advantage I hear in the SSL mix here is the more powerful, deeper low end; particularly manifesting in the far superior toms. However, the Focusrite has far more tools available that are not utilized in this comparison. For example, the unused EQ, De-Esser/Exciter, and the lower left bonus section. And the far more accurate filters. For the 4th EQ (low mids), cutting much in the 400-550 range can help reduce the current boxyness. The Focusrite curves are broader than the SSL, so they can be pushed harder. To get the Toms, Kick, and Bass to match the SSL, simply push the low end more substantially. De-ess the cymbals and percussion and add Exciter to the drums and watch the excitement rise. I wonder if there is an SSL approach that doesn't optimize the feature-rich Focusrite; but after more time spent with familiarizing with the Focusrite can yield superior results.
Thank you very much for this comparsion. I am happy for your conclusion: A producer should have them both (focusrite, because it is much clearer and ssl for more punch on drums, e-guitars,...).
I like the sound of the symbols,guitar and vocals on the focusrite - its super clear and it portrays a nice image however low end is not being well represented though.
I just put this plugin on every channel in a project i used to compare plugins when mixing. and this focusrite channel instantly made the sound muddy and dull just by putting it on there. disabeling the gate restored the transients but the tail remains a bit supressed even if i disable everything in it. time to start mixing with it to see how it turns out.
Interesting! Would be cool to see the Focusrite against the SSL G as I understand they're closer in both sound and the year they were made. Myself I compared the Focusrite against the Lindell 80 for this years sale and the Lindell won for it's clear top end and openness. But I have one more voucher now and contemplate the Focusrite vs the SSL:s :)
I have both. The Focusrite SC is incredabe with acoustics instruments. Both shine when pushed, and alow for it, and are not shown here doing that. The comparison because it's very straightforward. I think the Focusrite ISA110 just has to live up to its top, and BX Console modeling got it right. It's also a tinge more CPU hungry.
Thanks for this. To my ears, the Focusrite is a bit “less interesting”. A bit more the nice son in law, while the ssl, immediately recognizable is the older brother that elbows itself thru his life and taking place in every room. The ssl is really phenomenal.
The SSL sounds more spongey and gooey, and the focusrite sounds more smooth and natural. Dare i say the SSL sounded more exciting, although it might've been a bit louder and tricking my brain
@@hr2186 No, but I do like the bx SSL and use it more often than the Waves. The TMT is a great feature, and the THD saturation is nice. Some people prefer the Waves compressor. They're both great tools.
Nice comparison. Thanks for that. I’ve been going between the focusrite sc and the bx_console_n (Neve). I’m loving the Neve. It’d be interesting to put that into a comparison with these two.
@@GreenLightSound I know right. I'm wondering whether it's because the focusrite is renowned as being the most transparent (least coloured) console, yet most of us are working in DAWs and dealing with clean digital tracks and so we need that extra colouring that we seek form console emulations. Be great to see the EQ comparison with the Neve vs Focusrite on the EQ plotter, like you did in the video.
Hola amigo como vas? pregunta : Si tenemos varios buses finales (MixBus, AllFX, PreMaster, Master), en cual de ellos prefieres o es más conveniente utilizar el modelado analógico o digital de los channel strip utilizados? (Solo tengo el Bx_Console Focusrite). Gracias
I can hear ever so slight differences, but if you did blind tests I bet nobody would pick which is what. These also sound like differences you could easily get by doing a very slight tweak on a stock EQ plugin. There is no chance the general public would listen to the final mix on Spotify and go oh yup, that's an SSL right there.
THANK GOD, SOMEONE WHO DO ACTUALLY USE A DE-ESSER ON THE VOICE OVER WHILE TALKING ABOUT AUDIO !! All my sins has been forgiven. Almost every one that do comparison of plugins, tips for audio engineering , etc goes SS SSS SSS FFF poking your ear!! No point on doing or showing pro tips if the voice over is poor! I am on SSL 4000 E team, but have been trying the FSC, I didn't expect that curve at all. I got the FSC for free so, I'm learning about it, I don't know if this is the best for dist guitars, but hey, if you want something original then do a different thing right? There is something I don't understand about those console, I have not use one in real life, so I'm clueless about the dist or saturation everyone desire of this plugins. My question is, should I drive the input of this (or put a trim with high vol in front of this) or its fine with just turning up the THD knob? I don't know how they did it back in the days of the hardware, or by how much, did they overload it? that plugin has an overload led, so... can someone please give ma answers?
I think you got it right … the SSL is the dirtier , punchier of the 2 … but I can think of many good uses for the Focusrite as well depending on the music you do and the instrument you process … e.g. high strings , non aggressive woodwinds, gentle acoustic guitars would be good examples
Really great Video. To me the SSL seemed a bit overly gated. I would turn down the range on all of the tracks, and almost turn it off on the master bus. Cheers!
Most of the tracks don't have the gate engaged, and the master buss definitely doesn't. When you're looking at the strips in action in the video, you're just seeing the kick track, which is definitely gated. Thanks for watching!
I think that's what you're hearing - the SSL definitely has a snappy compressor, where the Focusrite is transparent. It's one of the things people like about the SSL dynamics section.
Wonder if you would consider doing a particular shoot-out? I know you've reviewed the Waves EMI TG12345 previously, but would love to hear it compared directly to the SSL E series (pref Waves version if you have it). Thanks!
Going and enjoying all the knowledgeable comments and everybody praise the FC for it is perfect for acoustic sounds I wonder am I the only one using it only on synth tracks. Synths like zebra, diva hive from u-he and a lot of arturias collection like cs80, oberheim etc. Any thoughts? Please share. Love Td, Klaus Schulze, vangelis classical arranments with electronical instruments. Thank gou
It seems the SSL mix is a bit louder, perhaps only on the low-end... I'm hearing more tom's? I do feel the high button on the focusrite can spank say a mix or an acoustic guitar many db's more then the SSL... It never gets harsh...... it's like an exciter, but friendly. A mix with cymbles etc.... Ideas?
The SSL benefits from more harmonic distortion, which tends to make things fuller and louder. The Focusrite is much more transparent and excels in situations you describe, especially on delicate acoustic instruments.
@@GreenLightSound Yeah it smacks a bit less, less harmonics in the punchy low mids... But if you recorded drums with driving api's for instance this might be GOOD thing...
I'm sry to say that, as it looks like you really put a lot of respectable effort into this test, but the test has a few flaws that reduces its validity. first of all you just matched parameter values, but most analog emulations lie about those, including these, which results in different curves. so if you had started to mix on the ssl one you wouldn't have come up with those exact settings anyway. 2ndly workflow differs. if one of these plugins has a feature the other one lacks, like the ssl's ability to run the lowcut into the sidechain input of the compressor maybe, then you can't match all settings, unless you deliberately keep it simple, but that would be a limitation that doesn't exist in a real mixing session.
The test really isn’t fair to the SSL, and yet it still sounds better imo. C’mon Plugin Alliance, lets have another of those $69 sales so I can grab both, and the Neve.😀
Green Light Sound Yeah. I don’t like subscriptions, and I couldn’t wait. I Got the deal where I got the SSL & Neve for 60% off. Now, being a UAD user since they started making plugins, this is the first time I can say that another companies version completely obliterates the UAD version imo. Love em...Gotta snatch that Focusrite later.
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zxfEiMksZQs/mqdefault.jpg)
The Focusrite resolves better, less harsh, clear--but softer. The SSL is punchier, but a touch less clear across all the spectrums. Both valid in different applications. If you want a more "pop" or hi-fi sound: the FF. If you want something a bit "tougher" sounding: SSL. While a lot of attention is being paid to the top/bottom end of the mix--listen to the midrange--the FF is more natural and thicker in the mids. The SSL sounds "scooped" and slightly off-phase in comparison. I think the midrange handling is where the Focusrite really grabs me. Nice.
i like your ears
Yeah the mid eq section in the Focusrite is so smooth. So musical.
I like your nose.
I have been mixing everything with the focusrite bx lately and I just love it!
Bought th FC plugin a week ago and still learning the ropes. Your video makes me help to understand what I am hearing and intuitiv lean to. Love the plugin. Thank you sir.
I preferred the SSL. I find the Focusrite tend to put the drums in the back and make the cymbals sound harsh. I like the way you presented the demo. Clear concise and informative. Thanks!
Totally agree about the drums. The Focusrite compressor seemed to suck the life out of them no matter what settings I used. SSL excels on drums. The cymbal harshness is probably from the upper mid boost that the Focusrite eq has.
The focus was Rite
What a wonderful comparison - the first I've seen directly comparing these two sounds to illustrate the differences/strengths of each. Very educational and well done! Thank you
Thanks for watching!
The focusrite feels better to me, less harsh and more interesting option like hfp sc, de-esser or the mix knob of the compressor.
Nice A/B comparison. A matter of taste I think, and also what musical material you work with but IMHO it’s day and night and the Focusrite sounds so much more lively and deep! Best next thing to owning the (scarce) real thing! Thanks!
I always use the SSL, but I picked up the Focusrite last night just to try and learn something new. It’s insane how different it is.
Totally agree. Completely different.
how do you like it? I also have the SSL E and I'm considering buying it
@@gonebymidnight2881 personally not a huge fan so far. It could be that I just know the SSL sound and am comfortable with it. I can’t get my head wrapped around the Focusrite, but I’m still learning it.
I had done a full mix just using that, just to try it out, test the TMT channels to see what that did, and after a very frustrating hour or so, I just stopped and listened to it, and it sounded pretty good! Haha, but overall not my favorite, but also still learning it after years of mainly using SSL stuff
@@gonebymidnight2881 I like it for transparent processing. If you're doing a lot of acoustic music, or anything that needs more natural processing, it's great. I don't use it nearly as much as the SSL.
@@claytonmurrayguitar thanks for your honest input man. Yea I don’t know, I mainly record rock and heavier stuff so not sure this is for me. I like the sound on acoustic guitars though.
Focuslite 01:34
SSL 02:10
I think Focuslite SC goes well with this song Thank you for the video
It might be fun to compare the entire family of Neve consoles Brainworx has to offer: Lindell 80, Focusrite, bx_console N, and now the Amek 9099.
This was so helpful! I’ve always thought that my mixes sound a little scooped and now it makes sense... all I use is SSL. Getting the Focusrite right away!
Glad to help!
Always wanted to hear a comparison between these two outstanding plugs, Thank you!
I've A/B'd them on a vocal and found the Focusrite to be cleaner and clearer in the midrange. The SSL sounded more "pushed". For that particular track, I preferred the Focusrite because the vocal was already kind of saturated and fat and didn't need the additional midrange push. Both very useful tools. Got the Focusrite for free with my Red interface :)
The Focusrite is definitely more transparent, and works great in situations when you need transparency. Nice that you got it for free!
I got the plugin too for free. For others reading this, get a Focusrite USB interface, which is cheaper than the plugin itself.
Just a pure and perfect comparison. Exactly what I needed. Thank you. Subscribed!
Thanks, glad to help!
Nifty comparison.. good job on the mix, and thanks for taking the time and putting this content up! 🤘
while I was initially blown away by the Focusrite sound..clear and hi, I l continue to use the ssle in my productions due to the aggressiveness of the eq ..I really love the brainworxx ssle and it is my go to on all my productions...although the new Lindell 80 console is amazing too.
I lean toward the SSL too. It's just a sound I like, maybe because we've heard it on so many records. The Focusrite is great if you need trasparency.
I like your style..... straight to the point no shit.
I like them both. A lot. The SSL does have the punch. Certain songs will require that.
Great video, well done. I do agree on your conclusion. Usually the SSL E is my go-to plugin on every track as I mix mostly rock and Indie rock. And I just know how it sounds and behaves on tracks. There are some instruments or tracks on which the SSL doesn‘t work that well (vocals) for me and other where they work amazingly well (drums).
I like em both :) .. but i think the focusrite is better suited for me as i tend to do a lot of prosessing on the tracks beforehand so i dont need the extra smack and midrange boost and so on from the SSL.. but as someone said.. when you use them without the same settings you will use your ear and add more and less mid range and highend and so on to end up in the same ballpark i would guess. But thanks for the video :)
Guys.. correct me if I am wrong. On the SAME eq/db/q + comp settings (as on the video) you will get different sound of course. But if you are mixing by your ear, so you will try to reach some sound, you will never have the same knobs settings on both consoles. Finally the sound will be very close between these two consoles. The only audible difference will be THD and saturation then. There is a paradox, you will probably get a more airy sound on SSL (instead of Focusrite as many think), because of that (non slope down) top-end eq curve above 10k which speaks for SSL. So there is only difference - how you feel to move the knobs. How you live with them. I preffer Focusrite because of lower distortion, which I can add later on and for a very intiuitive feel on the UI. I find the Focusrute a bit faster in getting "my" sound.
The funny thing is that I mixed on the Focusrite and copied the settings to the SSL, yet people still seem to prefer the SSL. I think it would be difficult to achieve the same sound between the consoles. You might be able to get close by matching the EQ curves by ear, but the dynamics sections have such different characteristics that it would be hard to match the compression sound. Also, the THD/saturation of the consoles are a characteristic feature of their sound and shouldn't be discounted. Of course, they both really work well and the Focusrite is a great tool. Many great mixes have been made on both consoles.
@@GreenLightSound Then it would be fun to try the opposite too... mix on the SSL and copy the settings on the Focusrite ! ;-) I wonder if you would get same pleasant results
Man, if the random application of copying with ssl vs your mix to taste on the focusrite...I don't mean to be a dck but the initial mix may be in question
the ssl is my main go to strip on all my sessions for a long time now...but I love the Focusrite and the way it shines so I will def use it on say, a singer/songwriter session or clean country...both are excellent; but I prefer the ssl
Totally agree. SSL for attitude, Focusrite for clean/hifi sound. We've heard more records with the SSL sound, which I suspect is why many (including me) prefer it.
Have all the bx strips..each has its place but overall the focusrite works best for me. The bottom end isn't as smeared and the top is rather smooth...really works wonders on acoustic guitar and I love the comp/desser. One more thing..channel selection is very important with these consoles
The Focusrite is indeed smooth and excels on acoustic guitar, or any acoustic instrument really. It's signature transparency is great when you need it.
@@GreenLightSound the comp on the focusrite in this test doesn't seem level matched to the ssl. Great vids.
Maybe not. The SSL is definitely more aggressive and "grabby" even with the same settings.
I love them both (and the Lindell Neve too). I find the Focusrite is handy when I'm cleaning up a client's tracks and I need a "hi fi" sound, and the SSL works really well on my own stuff when I need some punch and grit. Those SSL bell curves really make a difference in how the mids push, which is awesome for my rockier stuff but when I need to just generally "open everything up" on a mix I reach for the Focusrite.
They just announced a Lindell API, which should be really interesting.
Nice observations - I totally agree. The Focusrite for clean, the SSL for attitude. I'm really looking forward to the Lindell API.
That's why I prefer the 9000 J. I feel like the 4K is a little too gritty and 9K is a bit smoother. I also have the Focusrite and I haven't quite found the right song for it. Too many options!
The biggest advantage I hear in the SSL mix here is the more powerful, deeper low end; particularly manifesting in the far superior toms. However, the Focusrite has far more tools available that are not utilized in this comparison. For example, the unused EQ, De-Esser/Exciter, and the lower left bonus section. And the far more accurate filters. For the 4th EQ (low mids), cutting much in the 400-550 range can help reduce the current boxyness. The Focusrite curves are broader than the SSL, so they can be pushed harder. To get the Toms, Kick, and Bass to match the SSL, simply push the low end more substantially. De-ess the cymbals and percussion and add Exciter to the drums and watch the excitement rise. I wonder if there is an SSL approach that doesn't optimize the feature-rich Focusrite; but after more time spent with familiarizing with the Focusrite can yield superior results.
Thank you very much for this comparsion. I am happy for your conclusion: A producer should have them both (focusrite, because it is much clearer and ssl for more punch on drums, e-guitars,...).
Nice work with eq plotter, I'm leaning to the SSL.I Like the mid-range boost.
My opinion you need both … but the focusrite is amazing and I’ve heard it sounds petty close to the analog console
I like the sound of the symbols,guitar and vocals on the focusrite - its super clear and it portrays a nice image however low end is not being well represented though.
SSl execls for Metal Drums, and Heavy Guitar eq, For this song i would have used the Lindell 80
I just put this plugin on every channel in a project i used to compare plugins when mixing. and this focusrite channel instantly made the sound muddy and dull just by putting it on there. disabeling the gate restored the transients but the tail remains a bit supressed even if i disable everything in it. time to start mixing with it to see how it turns out.
Interesting! Would be cool to see the Focusrite against the SSL G as I understand they're closer in both sound and the year they were made. Myself I compared the Focusrite against the Lindell 80 for this years sale and the Lindell won for it's clear top end and openness. But I have one more voucher now and contemplate the Focusrite vs the SSL:s :)
Great comparison
Great comparison - always enjoy your reviews - thank you!
Excellent video mate, both seem great but I love the SSL just a little bit more.
The SSL just seems to suit this track better. The Focusrite is great if you need transparency.
great sounding channel strip i have them both, focusrite on vox & ssl On Drums
I have both. The Focusrite SC is incredabe with acoustics instruments. Both shine when pushed, and alow for it, and are not shown here doing that. The comparison because it's very straightforward. I think the Focusrite ISA110 just has to live up to its top, and BX Console modeling got it right. It's also a tinge more CPU hungry.
Cool video. Both sound great!
The SSL did it for me. Great test!
Defo the same opinion through K702's, pretty clear differences.
I think Focusrite better for me right now
1:33 focusrite
2:10 ssl
Thanks for this. To my ears, the Focusrite is a bit “less interesting”. A bit more the nice son in law, while the ssl, immediately recognizable is the older brother that elbows itself thru his life and taking place in every room. The ssl is really phenomenal.
this is really helpful, thanks a lot!
I feel the SSL sounds more open and more mid-range forward.
That's what i noticed more detail in the bottom end and in the back ground
Focusrite sounds George Martin and the SSL sounds more traditional rock. I love both.
The Focusrite is crisper and the SSL is crunchier!!!
That's actually a great description!
The SSL sounds more spongey and gooey, and the focusrite sounds more smooth and natural. Dare i say the SSL sounded more exciting, although it might've been a bit louder and tricking my brain
i think you should have matched the thd to give both the same amount of saturation.
Obviously the Focusrite sounds cleaner...i feel the gain can be turned up to match the SSL...I have the waves SSL and that is also very aggressive..
I have the Waves SSL too, and you're right about its aggressiveness.
@@GreenLightSound do you feel bx ssl is miles apart from waves?
@@hr2186 No, but I do like the bx SSL and use it more often than the Waves. The TMT is a great feature, and the THD saturation is nice. Some people prefer the Waves compressor. They're both great tools.
@@GreenLightSound same thoughts...waves nailed the comp if nothing else. No idea why they don't update that plug...
Thanks for that great video
Thanks for watching!
I definitly like the focusright better.
Nice comparison. Thanks for that.
I’ve been going between the focusrite sc and the bx_console_n (Neve). I’m loving the Neve. It’d be interesting to put that into a comparison with these two.
I really like the Neve and would choose it over the Focusrite.
@@GreenLightSound I know right. I'm wondering whether it's because the focusrite is renowned as being the most transparent (least coloured) console, yet most of us are working in DAWs and dealing with clean digital tracks and so we need that extra colouring that we seek form console emulations.
Be great to see the EQ comparison with the Neve vs Focusrite on the EQ plotter, like you did in the video.
@@GreenLightSound NEVE is warm, more vintage 70's sound and less aggressive than the SSL. i prefer the Neve for jazz and folk.
Hola amigo como vas? pregunta : Si tenemos varios buses finales (MixBus, AllFX, PreMaster, Master), en cual de ellos prefieres o es más conveniente utilizar el modelado analógico o digital de los channel strip utilizados? (Solo tengo el Bx_Console Focusrite). Gracias
2:11 1:33
I can hear ever so slight differences, but if you did blind tests I bet nobody would pick which is what. These also sound like differences you could easily get by doing a very slight tweak on a stock EQ plugin. There is no chance the general public would listen to the final mix on Spotify and go oh yup, that's an SSL right there.
THANK GOD, SOMEONE WHO DO ACTUALLY USE A DE-ESSER ON THE VOICE OVER WHILE TALKING ABOUT AUDIO !! All my sins has been forgiven. Almost every one that do comparison of plugins, tips for audio engineering , etc goes SS SSS SSS FFF poking your ear!! No point on doing or showing pro tips if the voice over is poor!
I am on SSL 4000 E team, but have been trying the FSC, I didn't expect that curve at all. I got the FSC for free so, I'm learning about it, I don't know if this is the best for dist guitars, but hey, if you want something original then do a different thing right?
There is something I don't understand about those console, I have not use one in real life, so I'm clueless about the dist or saturation everyone desire of this plugins. My question is, should I drive the input of this (or put a trim with high vol in front of this) or its fine with just turning up the THD knob? I don't know how they did it back in the days of the hardware, or by how much, did they overload it? that plugin has an overload led, so... can someone please give ma answers?
I think you got it right … the SSL is the dirtier , punchier of the 2 … but I can think of many good uses for the Focusrite as well depending on the music you do and the instrument you process … e.g. high strings , non aggressive woodwinds, gentle acoustic guitars would be good examples
Those are exactly the type of instruments I would use the Focusrite on.
Really great Video. To me the SSL seemed a bit overly gated. I would turn down the range on all of the tracks, and almost turn it off on the master bus. Cheers!
Most of the tracks don't have the gate engaged, and the master buss definitely doesn't. When you're looking at the strips in action in the video, you're just seeing the kick track, which is definitely gated. Thanks for watching!
@@GreenLightSound Oh, ok! Maybe it was just the compressor's thwacky character I was hearing! Thanks for the response. Cheers
I think that's what you're hearing - the SSL definitely has a snappy compressor, where the Focusrite is transparent. It's one of the things people like about the SSL dynamics section.
great video thanks
Wonder if you would consider doing a particular shoot-out? I know you've reviewed the Waves EMI TG12345 previously, but would love to hear it compared directly to the SSL E series (pref Waves version if you have it). Thanks!
The harmonica completely disappears with the SSL 4000E.
muito bom, parabens !!!!
Why is compressor and gate unlinked in E, but linked in Focusrite? This is reason why E sounded wider.
Going and enjoying all the knowledgeable comments and everybody praise the FC for it is perfect for acoustic sounds I wonder am I the only one using it only on synth tracks. Synths like zebra, diva hive from u-he and a lot of arturias collection like cs80, oberheim etc. Any thoughts? Please share. Love Td, Klaus Schulze, vangelis classical arranments with electronical instruments. Thank gou
I prefer the sound of The SSL 4000 E
same here....SSL, however LINDELL is far better then both!
1:28 1:33
2:06 2:10
Joe...excellent presentation, could you please let me know what preamp (s) were used for the track. Thanks in advance. Peace
Not 100% sure since I didn't track it, but I'm fairly certain some of the tracks are SSL console pres.
Great video! Very helpful, thank you. What plugin did you use to compare the EQ curves of both plugins?
Plugindoctor from DDMF.
@@GreenLightSound thanks! Keep up the good work
Do you generally use these on every channel strip of a mix or just certain selected individual channels or even only on the master channel?
Depends on the song. Sometimes I'll use it on every channel, sometimes I'll take a hybrid approach and use different tools with different instruments.
Very interesting presentation keep up your good work.. Trev
What Interface do you use? Quantum?
UA Apollo x6
It seems the SSL mix is a bit louder, perhaps only on the low-end... I'm hearing more tom's?
I do feel the high button on the focusrite can spank say a mix or an acoustic guitar many db's more then the SSL... It never gets harsh...... it's like an exciter, but friendly. A mix with cymbles etc....
Ideas?
The SSL benefits from more harmonic distortion, which tends to make things fuller and louder. The Focusrite is much more transparent and excels in situations you describe, especially on delicate acoustic instruments.
@@GreenLightSound Can't you achieve similar zing with a combo of the the THD and Exciter features on the Focusrite?
Maybe, but the Focusrite's modeled THD is different than that of the SSL, so it won't be exactly the same.
@@GreenLightSound Yeah it smacks a bit less, less harmonics in the punchy low mids... But if you recorded drums with driving api's for instance this might be GOOD thing...
Absolutely. The Focusrite is perfect for when you don't want to add color in the mixing stage.
Focusrite, amek 9099 or Omni .... Which one is good ?
I personally would use the amek over the Focusrite, but I use Omni channel the most. Much more flexible.
@@GreenLightSound okay thank you very much sir ..... And I love to follow your channel very helpfull.... Thank you ❤️
Sir i have a request please make a video abou mid side eq and side Channing..... I know but a littel bit confident also 😊
Interesting. It's the SSL to me, too.
I was curious and bought the Focusrite. I was disappointed. No comparison to the SSL 4000 E or Lindell 80.
I'm sry to say that, as it looks like you really put a lot of respectable effort into this test, but the test has a few flaws that reduces its validity.
first of all you just matched parameter values, but most analog emulations lie about those, including these, which results in different curves. so if you had started to mix on the ssl one you wouldn't have come up with those exact settings anyway.
2ndly workflow differs. if one of these plugins has a feature the other one lacks, like the ssl's ability to run the lowcut into the sidechain input of the compressor maybe, then you can't match all settings, unless you deliberately keep it simple, but that would be a limitation that doesn't exist in a real mixing session.
Love the ssl...so much more personality
it´s like comparing a mercedes with a bmw...
from 1989
The SSL is more aggro and bites more.
Kick on the SSL is smackier than Hunter Biden on a binge
SSL sounds more full, focusrite not bad but sounds more thin
Mute your mic
SSl all the way, the FF sounds really empty in the middle of the stereo field
I agree in this case. The SSL just suits this song better.
SSL !!!
The test really isn’t fair to the SSL, and yet it still sounds better imo. C’mon Plugin Alliance, lets have another of those $69 sales so I can grab both, and the Neve.😀
I hope not, but I think those sales might be a thing of the past now that subscription is here.
Green Light Sound Yeah. I don’t like subscriptions, and I couldn’t wait. I Got the deal where I got the SSL & Neve for 60% off. Now, being a UAD user since they started making plugins, this is the first time I can say that another companies version completely obliterates the UAD version imo. Love em...Gotta snatch that Focusrite later.
Just got it for 29 bucks from plugin alliance,,a steal
Subbef
SSL much better
showing the pointlessness of plug ins.. may as well use DAW plugs.. no one else can hear the difference