I just ordered the EHX platform hoping it’ll work nicely as insert for the SSL fusion.
Legit question…
What could the SSL Fusion possibly want for, in terms of compression, from an EHX pedal?
No slight on EHX whatsoever, but seriously… Fusion is a heavy piece of kit.
Cheers!
The Fusion doesn’t have a compressor so compression.
Also the limiter and drive are a nice bonus.
I’ve liked what I’ve heard watching demo vids of the Platform.
It’s cheap but I like it’s character.
If it doesn’t work well in that chain I’m sure it’ll make a nice pair with the MnM, Waldorf M or Matriarch.
My bad.
I had my SSL racks confused for a second there.
Pay no attention to me today—too little sleep, not enough coffee.
Move along, folks, nothing to see here.
As you were, my good man…
Cheers!
1 Like
Hehehe no problem. 
edit: the Fusion has a HF compressor which is more like a de-harshener and the talk-back-style compressor which is a nice bonus but not really versatile in any sense.
1 Like
Fusion has a ‘hidden’ compressor, but sure, it’s not going to be as flexible as many other options and I’d certainly use something else myself.
SSL broke the secret of Fusion’s hidden Listen Mic Compressor! - gearnews.com
1 Like
Yep. Initially forgot to mention that. It’s good for certain things but tbh I haven’t used it all that much.
Yeah, I haven’t used a Fusion, but an LMC compressor is going to be pretty aggressive. Certainly cool for some cases, but not what I’d reach for in a mastering context.
Yeah, it completely flattens everything so easily. More of an effect than a tool.
So, you’re saying that I’m only half asleep still.
I’m brewing a fresh pot anyway.
Cheers!
2 Likes
You’re 100% awake on the upper register. 
2 Likes
2 Likes
I just received the Platform and for that price it’s an amazing device IMO.
It’s in the insert loop of the SSL Fusion and adds so many nice possibilities to it.
Sounds so damn nice and cost around 180€.
2 Likes
In this video I can only find comparisons where there is a massive increase in volume, like the one at this position. Louder always sounds better, and due to the fact that there is no way to actually see the meters when the unit is bypassed, you can’t adjust the output volume and actually hear the “real” difference without using an external meter. Here’s a more detailed explanation of this problem.
I would be very interested in this, especially if an external meter for reference is visible in the video.
@DaveMech did you already have the chance to test the polydactyl versio?
1 Like
this is precisely why I do my rough gainstage of all of my music through the same parallel + mixbus compressors as my live set up.
the compression immediately highlights clashing frequencies and elements that are too loud that are difficult to perceive on the raw stereo output of the models boxes, such as when the kick and bass aren’t interacting well or if the lead is too forward.
the compression feels like it can’t breathe correctly when the mix is “too full” going into the comps, and I’ve found success with getting consistent mixes for live shows this way!
I’m at the point that I’ve got multiple pieces of gear that I could use for the purpose of dawless mastering/loudening/compressing/saturating, and that I’m considering using for that purpose when playing live. So for myself I thought I’d make some proper level-matched recordings to help me hear the differences. And now I thought it might help others to share here.
I haven’t looked into LUFS or anything, just level-matched everything so that the PEAKS of WET recordings didn’t hit higher then the DRY recordings. The wet part of every recording is a literal copy-paste of the dry recording that I’ve then applied the compression/saturation on. This base recording is also the exact some loop that I’ve used between the three pieces of gear, to make things as comparable of possible.
Maybe some people would think it’s fun to guess first or at least listen without preconceptions? So I’ll post the audio loops first without saying which is which. For each of the three I’ve recorded two or three different presets/patches.
First 4 bars dry, then 4 bars wet; then 4 bars with cymbals added dry and then 4 bars wet.
Gear #1 (added: Source Audio Atlas, tweaked versions of @dtr preset)
a)
b)
Gear #2 (Heat Mk1, three different patches, all Clean Boost or Saturation circuit)
a)
b)
c)
Gear #3 (BOUM! First recording is full wet; second is a bit more distortion but only blended in partially)
a)
b)
Curious which people prefer, and which you think these are! I think I know which I like most.
Convenience of each piece of gear is another factor, but that’s for later
4 Likes
Playdifferently Model1 is born for this purpose!
1 Like
After no responses I’ve just added the names of pieces of gear of the recordings
2 Likes
Didn’t have the time to check it yet
One point though is that I can really recommend using LUFS readings rather than peak level. Peak level doesn’t help with getting different settings at the same perceived loudness as different attack settings on a compressor alone can already have a big effect on peak levels without really making something sound louder per se. So if you really want a good comparison best to use LUFS to make sure you’re not just liking the settings that have a higher perceived loudness not necessarily the better sound.
Hope that makes sense
5 Likes