SSL 5000
matt-music
being in the process of setting up a studio I came aross an offer on
ebay for a SSL 5056 with 16 MIC channels, 40 Dual Lince channels, full
G+ computer (total recall, even pots, as I was told).
The price (without the computer) should be $20.000 - yes, the one that
was on ebay lately.
I tried to find out about the SSL 5000 series but didn't get very far.
Basically I found a lot of warnings and a lot of negative infomation
reached me from different persons.
What can I do wrong when buying a SL 5000 (or especially his one) ?
What are the disadvantages of this console, is there an advantage at
all (compared to the 4000 series) ?
It would be a console that I could probably afford and it woud be a
'SSL' in my studio,
But I was also told, that my customers will be dissapointed to see
it's not 'THE SSL' they were expecting.
So I hope to find some answers here in the world of audio
professionals (which I am not yet).
Thanks a lot in advance for any helful information on this issue
Matt
Scott Dorsey
>being in the process of setting up a studio I came aross an offer on
>ebay for a SSL 5056 with 16 MIC channels, 40 Dual Lince channels, full
>G+ computer (total recall, even pots, as I was told).
>
>The price (without the computer) should be $20.000 - yes, the one that
>was on ebay lately.
>
>I tried to find out about the SSL 5000 series but didn't get very far.
>Basically I found a lot of warnings and a lot of negative infomation
>reached me from different persons.
>What can I do wrong when buying a SL 5000 (or especially his one) ?
It's a broadcast console. It's designed to make multiple live mixes
from multiple live feeds. It's not designed as a recording console.
It is neither inline nor side-by-side, really.
>What are the disadvantages of this console, is there an advantage at
>all (compared to the 4000 series) ?
It's hard to imagine anything more horrible than the 4000 series consoles,
but the 5000 has totally different routing because it is designed for a
totally different job.
>It would be a console that I could probably afford and it woud be a
>'SSL' in my studio,
>But I was also told, that my customers will be dissapointed to see
>it's not 'THE SSL' they were expecting.
Get a copy of the operator's manual and read through it. It's a console
that is designed to do something closer to traditional live-to-two-track
recording than multitrack work. It sounds cleaner than the 4000 series
because it has a lot less crap in the signal path... but the thing is,
the reason people go with an SSL is because of all that crap in the signal
path.
People get an SSL console in their studio because they like the convenience
and the routing, not because it sounds good. The 5000 is a better-sounding
console but without that convenience and routing.
>So I hope to find some answers here in the world of audio
>professionals (which I am not yet).
If you have a room that is used just for mixdown and not tracking, the
5000 might be a fine choice because it does have the automation system,
and the automation system is familiar to a lot of people. Normally you
don't see broadcast consoles with automation too often.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mike Rivers
> What can I do wrong when buying a SL 5000 (or especially his one) ?
Without the computer? It probably hasn't been checked out and there
could be a lot wrong with it. I don't know what SSL's policy is on support
for someone who isn't the original owner - you may need to pay a good
chunk of cash to get the support that's built in to a new console. Someone
at SSL said that about $50K of the price of every new console sold
goes to setup and support.
> What are the disadvantages of this console, is there an advantage at
> all (compared to the 4000 series) ?
There are all sorts of SSLs and they sound different. You really need
to do your homework on this. There's the E, the J, and the G series, and
while you can find someone who will tell you that any particular one is
a loser, when spending that much money on a console and making the
rather large investment in wiring, time, and interfacing in order to install
it, you really should be visiting some studios who have similar consoles
and get feedback directly from the users.
> It would be a console that I could probably afford and it woud be a
> 'SSL' in my studio,
> But I was also told, that my customers will be dissapointed to see
> it's not 'THE SSL' they were expecting.
If you have customers who expect an SSL, you have better marketing
than I do. <g> SSL clients choose the studio, and the console is just
one part of it. In the 80s, they used to be more fickle, but now that there
really aren't many studios operating that have large consoles, they
pretty much work with a pretty stable client base that they've built
up over many years.
One of the things that SSL clients expect, in addition to a familiar
console, is that it works all the time. Can you offer that to your
clients? They're pretty reliable, but when something goes wrong
you aren't going to hop on to rec.audio.pro and find someone who
will tell you which wire to jiggle (because you may need to troubleshoot
the computer, or a power supply, or an internal cable or connector).
> So I hope to find some answers here in the world of audio
> professionals (which I am not yet).
My advice is that $20,000 is too much to spend on a console for a
non-professional studio, and a bad console for a wannabe to learn
about studio maintenance and studio management on.
--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
(mriv...@d-and-d.com)
matt-music
thanks for your fast response.
On 8 Jun., 21:50, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >What can I do wrong when buying a SL 5000 (or especially his one) ?
>
> It's a broadcast console. It's designed to make multiple live mixes
> from multiple live feeds. It's not designed as a recording console.
> It is neither inline nor side-by-side, really.
>
That's what I've heard and also that the SSL 5000 can be bought in
different configurations :
- broadcast
- film
- audio (post-production)
I was told that this one is the 'audio' type since it has 32 busses
I always thought, that the fact of being side-by-side (split ?) is a
matter or routing capabilities. Am I wrong here ?
>
> Get a copy of the operator's manual and read through it. It's a console
> that is designed to do something closer to traditional live-to-two-track
> recording than multitrack work. It sounds cleaner than the 4000 series
> because it has a lot less crap in the signal path... but the thing is,
> the reason people go with an SSL is because of all that crap in the signal
> path.
ok - that's for the dirty sound ..... <g>
> People get an SSL console in their studio because they like the convenience
> and the routing, not because it sounds good. The 5000 is a better-sounding
> console but without that convenience and routing.
Can you cut it down into a short statement where the differences are
or at what point the 5000 is less conveniant ?
Matt
matt-music
> matt-music wrote:
> Without the computer? It probably hasn't been checked out and there
> could be a lot wrong with it. ........
Ok, wrong information from my side : the computer comes with it but
then it's a little more expensive.
I also was invited to check it out completely.
Can G+ computers (latest release) be sold separately ?
Aren't they also used for other SSL-consoles
> There are all sorts of SSLs and they sound different. You really need
> to do your homework on this. There's the E, the J, and the G series, and
> while you can find someone who will tell you that any particular one is
> a loser, when spending that much money on a console and making the
> rather large investment in wiring, time, and interfacing in order to install
> it, you really should be visiting some studios who have similar consoles
> and get feedback directly from the users.
Good advice - thanks.
> If you have customers who expect an SSL, you have better marketing
> than I do. <g>
Probably not, but they might have a closer look. But maybe this
addresses only guys who were already around in the 80s
> SSL clients choose the studio, and the console is just
> one part of it. In the 80s, they used to be more fickle, but now that there
> really aren't many studios operating that have large consoles, they
> pretty much work with a pretty stable client base that they've built
> up over many years.
Good info for my marketing - thanks
> One of the things that SSL clients expect, in addition to a familiar
> console, is that it works all the time. Can you offer that to your
> clients? They're pretty reliable, but when something goes wrong
> you aren't going to hop on to rec.audio.pro and find someone who
> will tell you which wire to jiggle (because you may need to troubleshoot
> the computer, or a power supply, or an internal cable or connector).
That's a point. I looked at the modules and they all seem to be built
up fairly straightforward like socketed ICs for example.
Also the schematics come with the console and I hope that a good
trained person (regarding electronics) will find his way through the
boards, pwr-sply and computer as well.
> My advice is that $20,000 is too much to spend on a console for a
> non-professional studio, and a bad console for a wannabe to learn
> about studio maintenance and studio management on.
So which way would you go ?
Why is it a bad console to learn studio maintenance and management
on ?
Which consoles would be your suggestions to go with ?
Actually. I am lookig for a good analog console with as much
convenience as possible like automation and (total) recall.
To my knowlegde there are not much systems to offer this.
Since I do not want to start the analog/digital discussion again, I
already made my decision where I want to be analog and where I want to
be digital.
Thanks
Matt
Predrag Trpkov
news:53de7c04-9bfa-43f4...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
I considered this console at one point, as have many with ambitions larger
than budget. I gave up after gathering the info below (from my archive, ca.
2002.).
Predrag
thethri...@netscape.net (TheThrillFactor) wrote in message
news:<fdec4c2d.02010...@posting.google.com>...
> I was searching through Ebay and saw a SSL5000 series for sale and was
> wondering, does anyone know the history of this particular model? I've
> worked on 4000,6000,8000,9000 but never have come across a 5000. The
> auction said there were only 11 made, so I was wondering had anyone
> encountered one and how does it differ from the 4000 and 6000? I know
> the main differences between the 4000 and 6000, but the 5000 is a bit
> of a curiosity. Graham Duncan?
You probably wouldn't have seen this one. There are a handful of guys
that know this desk....most of whom dont post and dont get invloved in
our world here. The guys I learned from were Jerry Steckling at
Skywalker Sound and Bruce Millett at Desk Doctors. They know
everything about those desks. The ones that were available a year ago
came from Skywalker Sound out of their main mix rooms. Pics of it are
available at www.recordingconsoles.net.
These were expensive desks costing well over $600k each at the time.
Skywalker had at least three of those buggers and a small 8 channel
sidecar used for ADR I believe. They purchased one of the orignal
5000's and had SSL mod it along the way. The results of their mods led
them to purchase few more just like it. They were really impressive
desks to look at and at the time ('86-'87) had the finest components
that SSL had to offer. All of the 5k's very heavilly customized for
film and post production mixing and are virtually worthless to a music
studio since there is no stereo (or quad) buss. It's almost impossible
to find two that are alike.
I dont know which desk is on ebay but the ones I sold came retrofitted
with Flying Faders (a non SSL option). Jerry told me they didn't like
the SSL auto because it was a bit "clunky". This was a major expense
for Skywalker as SSL didn't design their fader troughs to accept this
system and didn't support the idea of a competitors system in their
desk. None of the desks came fitted with patchbays either since they
all used external 1/4" bays wired up separately onsite. All of the
ones we sold had Plasma meters as well and were very delicate and
expense to replace.
Another really cool thing about this series was that all of the
pertinient modules were in cartridges, very much like an API or a
Neve. These were discrete cards that could me moved around the board
(or between rooms). You could actualy hot-plug (so I was told) a
dynamics or EQ module in the middle of a mix and not bother the
console. This way if the Voice mixer needed an EQ on a channel that
didnt have one he could just grab one from an unused channel and
insert it into the signal path he desired. If one went bad you didnt
need to stop the session either you just remove the bad one and drop
in a spare in less than the time it took to get the tech crew to show
up with an iron.
As these boards start hitting the streets I expect the modules to get
sold off to guys who dig the SSL sound (some people do anyways). The
EQ's and comps are based on "G" ideas but implemented better
technology/components and are even better sounding than their 4000G
music counterparts. I didn't get to hear it so I can't say one way or
the other. The EQ was a four band semi parametric and the comp had
some neat little features too....I almost got enough to fill out a
small rack for myself but things didnt work out as expected. The cost
of racking them would be pretty costly for the return in the value
anyways, I think.
The desks left their mark on countless films. A few of the ones I
recall were major blokbusters like Return of the Jedi, Indiana Jones,
Titanic, etc. Now they have retrofitted their rooms with AMS/Neve
DFC's (WAY impressive looking desks) and AMS/Neve Capricorns.
dusk
--------------------------------------------------------
Dusk,
Having mixed on one at a Post Facility in L.A., I will give you my input.
They sound OK, nothing special, aren't worth anything. The one that went up
for sale from Skywalker last year had a pricetag of aprox. $50,000.
Another sold for $100,000 nearly 3 years ago when analog console prices were
higher. I wouldn't want one because spare parts are a pain in the ass to
find because of the limited amount that were produced. A Re-Recording
console maybe, a music console no way.
One would be much better off with a SSL 6000.
Here is a link to a picture of a SSL 5000. They haven't updated the picture
with the new DFC they installed.
http://disney.go.com/studiooperations/post/dubbing_c.html
Marti D. Humphrey C.A.S.
aka dr.sound
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the input on this. Having never actually mixed on one I
can't say how they sounded but the guys who did mix on it seemed to
tout how it had a different design than their other stuff. Anyways I
am sure it sounded good but I cant see it being the be all end of of
mixing desks. The DFC looks like a great board and has plenty of great
features but the odds of me ever getting to use one to find out are
slim to none. BTW the one that went to Argentina went for roughly $69k
and it included the FF system as well as a spare 32 channel sidecar
for parts that was used predominately for transfer work. Skywalker had
a few cards left over and I was hoping I could add a few to my room
but the tech staff became less amiable once I got the monstrosity out
of their life...
dusk
--------------------------------------------------------
The 5000 series was a major disaster and embarrassment for SSL. It has very
little in common with the other consoles and was developed by a different
team, most of whom had no console or product design experience and it
shows. The first one literally melted at an AES show in New York, the ones
around are the *third* complete redesign, but I still wouldn't touch one
with a bargepole.
The main problem with them is the modules and they are all modules. They
are crammed full of components, most of which are custom hybrids which
makes them expensive and a nightmare to maintain. Nothing was done the easy
sensible way if an over complicated method using difficult to source parts
could not be found first.
The nicest thing I ever heard anybody say about the 5k was by a BBC guy who
described it as being like a car that had just scraped through its MOT test
the second time after failing it - technically it could described as
working, but you wouldn't want your friends to know about it.
Fortunately most of the people responsible for it have been disgraced and
hounded out of the industry, but SSL still continues the tradition of
building products that run too hot.
For my sins, I designed the custom surround sound joysticks in the
Lucasfilm ones and the automated panpots in the BBC ones, but I
categorically had nothing whatsoever to do with the consoles. They asked me
to work on fixing the design faults, but I said not until all the people
responsible had been castrated in public and they thought I was joking...
Graham Hinton
Mike Rivers
> So which way would you go ?
> Why is it a bad console to learn studio maintenance and management
> on ?
> Which consoles would be your suggestions to go with ?
>
> Actually. I am lookig for a good analog console with as much
> convenience as possible like automation and (total) recall.
> To my knowlegde there are not much systems to offer this.
It's true, there are few analog consoles with automation. There never
really were many, and now that the world has pretty much gone over
to DAWs, SSL is about the only one left - and most SSL consoles
are actually used in conjunction with ProTools or some other software
for recording, editing, and, to a certain extent, automation.
Mostly what people like about working on an SSL console is not so
much automation for mixing these days, but rather, recall when moving
a tracking project from studio to studio. The project can come up with
the same headphone mixes no matter where the tracking is done.
There are those who like the sound of the equalizers and bus compressor,
but those are available as outboards or DAW plug-ins now.
Today's higher end DAWs offer plenty of automated/recallable buses
for monitor mixes. The only problem is that there's monitor latency, which
is a function of the computer, the setup, and to some extent, the software.
An analog console doesn't have that problem. It's amazing, however, how
few people consider it to be a problem. The primary issues are when
tracking vocals without the headphones at ear-splitting volume, and when
playing virtual instruments live.
So, the question is - what, exactly, do you want to do in your studio,
and what clients can you realistically expect to have? Just having an SSL
won't bring in those who are able to help you to pay for it, they want to
have a great room and a great engineer as well.
> Since I do not want to start the analog/digital discussion again, I
> already made my decision where I want to be analog and where I want to
> be digital.
Except for the lack of recall (you'd be surprised at how well a few minutes
with a layout sheet and a pencil works), if you're going to be using a
computer as your recorder (are you?) I'd suggest that you look into the new
Allen & Heath ZED R-16. It sounds really good, and offers 16 channels of
Firewire I/O (18, actually, if you count the stereo mix). You can use it in
exactly the same manner as a console connected to a multitrack recorder,
and you have all the routing options available that you can imagine using.
For example, for "dry" tracking, you can send the mic preamps straight to
the computer, while using the channel EQ and outboard processors in
your monitor mix. Then when you play the track back, it will go through the
channel strip, so you'll hear playback with all of your channel tweaks. Or,
at the press of a button, you can record the "wet" channel signal, and bring
it back right to the fader (bypassing the channel processing), or run it
through the channel again if it needs further tweaking in the mix. Another
button converts the faders to MIDI controllers so you can automate the
volume of your DAW tracks, and still have unity-gain analog summing
through the mixer.
You'll still have to do your headphone mixes using the Aux Send knobs,
and you'll need to reset the EQ, send levels, faders, pans, etc. if you
clear off the console and then come back to a project. But to be honest,
that only takes a few minutes, and it's not so critical if you're a dB
off here
or there. Nobody hears exactly the same way from one day to the next,
so even with total recall, you'll still probably have to tweak a few
things.
It's new, it has a warranty, it's not a "budget" brand, and it only
costs $3,000.
You can read my (slightly condensed) review of it in Pro Audio Review:
http://www.proaudioreview.com/article/20292
Scott Dorsey
>On 8 Jun., 21:50, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> >What can I do wrong when buying a SL 5000 (or especially his one) ?
>>
>> from multiple live feeds. =A0It's not designed as a recording console.
>> It is neither inline nor side-by-side, really.
>>
>
>That's what I've heard and also that the SSL 5000 can be bought in
>different configurations :
>- broadcast
>- film
>- audio (post-production)
All of these consoles are built from modules, and you can mix and match
the modules and create any kind of routing and layout that you want when
you order the thing new. When you get a used one, you get the configuration
that the original guy ordered to fit HIS application, unless you get one
and cut it down, or get two and mix and match parts.
>I was told that this one is the 'audio' type since it has 32 busses
>I always thought, that the fact of being side-by-side (split ?) is a
>matter or routing capabilities. Am I wrong here ?
Does it actually have 32 busses? You can configure one like that,
although I have never seen a 5000 set up that way.
>> Get a copy of the operator's manual and read through it. =A0It's a consol=
>e
>> that is designed to do something closer to traditional live-to-two-track
>> recording than multitrack work. =A0It sounds cleaner than the 4000 series
>> because it has a lot less crap in the signal path... but the thing is,
>> the reason people go with an SSL is because of all that crap in the signa=
>l
>> path.
>
>ok - that's for the dirty sound ..... <g>
It's more of a "harsh" sound than anything else to my ears.
>> People get an SSL console in their studio because they like the convenien=
>ce
>> and the routing, not because it sounds good. =A0The 5000 is a better-soun=
>ding
>> console but without that convenience and routing.
>
>Can you cut it down into a short statement where the differences are
>or at what point the 5000 is less conveniant ?
It would be easier to list what they have in common, which is a name
plate and some basic circuit topology inside. The EQ design is different,
the compressor design is different. Most don't have routing that is anything
like what recording guys expect. Most don't have compressors on every
channel and on the 2-buss. If they do have channel compression, it's rather
different compression that feels more like AGC than a hard squash rock
compressor.
Scott Dorsey
>On 9 Jun., 01:12, Mike Rivers <mriv...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>> matt-music wrote:
>
>> Without the computer? It probably hasn't been checked out and there
>> could be a lot wrong with it. ........
>
>Ok, wrong information from my side : the computer comes with it but
>then it's a little more expensive.
>I also was invited to check it out completely.
The computer is why people use SSL consoles. Without the computer, it is
not worth anything.
>Can G+ computers (latest release) be sold separately ?
>Aren't they also used for other SSL-consoles
Yes. But you can't _buy_ one separately because demand exceeds supply.
>So which way would you go ?
>Why is it a bad console to learn studio maintenance and management
>on ?
>Which consoles would be your suggestions to go with ?
Well, the thing is there are a LOT of things in each one of those strips.
If you haven't worked on a console before, I would be more apt to suggest
something like a DDA or an MCI with big modules and wide PC board traces
that are easy to rework.
>Actually. I am lookig for a good analog console with as much
>convenience as possible like automation and (total) recall.
>To my knowlegde there are not much systems to offer this.
And that, in short, is why SSL has such a big market share.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Since I do not want to start the analog/digital discussion again, I
>already made my decision where I want to be analog and where I want to
>be digital.
I _will_ say that there is much less of a need for automation in the
hybrid DAW+console world than there is in the tape+console world. You
can make stems and you can use editing where you would have used fader
moves, in part because of the sheer number of available tracks.
I remember when I was an intern watching four people mixing at the
console at the same time, all staring at the same score with the fader
moves and EQ changes written out.... it soured me on the whole multitrack
production thing for years...
matt-music
thanks a lot for your input on this.
I now feel safer about SSL consoles than before and I also found out
that even big resellers of used consoles sometimes know nothing about
a specific model if it's not in the standard line of products.
To answer your question about using a computer, Mike, at the moment I
am using a RADAR II (also a suggestion from this group and a very good
one) and I like to use it as an ADDA when switching to a computer.
I am open to use a DAW but am not yet sure what I should go for. To be
compatible, ProTools might be the system of choice but, as far as I
know, I am bound to their hardware and it's another pricy piece.
Logic and Cubase are also in the research as is the free ARDOUR from
SAE since I am using a MAC.
The ZED R-16 seems to be a pretty good product but I know myself and
know that I love it big and heavy - at least if it comes to computer/
audio equipment.
I am still considering the SSL and woudn't wonder if I take it. I
talked to the guy who was working on it the first 8 years of it's life
and he was so positive about the reliabilty and easieness of this
desk.
Still, I would want some different modules (it has no dynamic
modules).
As I said, thanks a lot for taking your time to answer - it is always
very appreciated and reading through this group I more and more get
the feeling that you both are the 'real' guys when it comes to audio
equipment.
Matt
Scott Dorsey
>
>thanks a lot for your input on this.
>I now feel safer about SSL consoles than before and I also found out
>that even big resellers of used consoles sometimes know nothing about
>a specific model if it's not in the standard line of products.
Yes, this is not surprising, because they are mostly people who were
selling cars laxt week, are selling consoles this week, and will be selling
furniture next week.
Your worry is about your customers not knowing anything about it.
>To answer your question about using a computer, Mike, at the moment I
>am using a RADAR II (also a suggestion from this group and a very good
>one) and I like to use it as an ADDA when switching to a computer.
>I am open to use a DAW but am not yet sure what I should go for. To be
>compatible, ProTools might be the system of choice but, as far as I
>know, I am bound to their hardware and it's another pricy piece.
>Logic and Cubase are also in the research as is the free ARDOUR from
>SAE since I am using a MAC.
If you like RADAR, use RADAR. It allows you to do most of the production
cutting and pasting that you would want to do with a DAW. Pro Tools will
bring you more business... having both Pro Tools and Radar and a patchbay
to connect them both up gives you the best of both worlds at more than
twice the cost.
>I am still considering the SSL and woudn't wonder if I take it. I
>talked to the guy who was working on it the first 8 years of it's life
>and he was so positive about the reliabilty and easieness of this
>desk.
>Still, I would want some different modules (it has no dynamic
>modules).
And this is the problem, because you're going to be paying a lot of money
for those modules, because the ones you are looking for are the ones
that everyone else is looking for too.
>As I said, thanks a lot for taking your time to answer - it is always
>very appreciated and reading through this group I more and more get
>the feeling that you both are the 'real' guys when it comes to audio
>equipment.
I don't trust audio equipment. It never sounds like live music to me.
Peter Larsen
| Dear Mike, dear Scott,
| thanks a lot for your input on this.
| I now feel safer about SSL consoles than before and I also found out
| that even big resellers of used consoles sometimes know nothing about
| a specific model if it's not in the standard line of products.
This is amazing, you have been warned against getting whatever specific
console this is about in the strongest and clearest wording I have seen. You
don't get such a critter as a toy, you get it as an implement to make money
with. You need to make the point that it is better at making money than any
alternative solution.
On the pcdaw list there is a Neve owner who may want to sell some or all.
| Matt
Kind regards
Peter Larsen