Solid State Logic six compact mixer

The Lounge Other Gear
#202

I don’t own one. but I do see the value of it. basically the way I see it is: if I wanted to actually mix and sum a track through this, I would. I would never do that through a Mackie 1202, for example. nor would I use its mic pre’s to track through. it’s difficult to get a decent quality mixer that’s less than 16 channels. most of us here don’t need a ton of channels or a rack full of compressors and such. but we’d like to try our hand at mixing and summing out of the box. this gives us what we need for that, with quality sound, at a pretty reasonable price for what you’re getting. and I absolutely wouldn’t mind tracking through it.

maybe that’s delusional to you, and that’s fine. nothing wrong with recording direct through your sound card and mixing in the box (what I do now). some feel this adds more.

1 Like
#203

did you EQ the one through the SiX or use the compressor?

1 Like
#204

If you are only recording yourself, and dont record vocals or acoustic instruments, there really isnt much point in having a studio.

1 Like
#205

Well, I made it slightly difficult for myself. Here’s what’s going on:
The Prophet 12 can layer two timbres at once. Many Prophet 12 patches are designed that way, or just split up to be used as two entirely separate six voice patches. This one is like that, so I’m routing the first layer of this patch through the SiX channel 1 and 2. That part has some subtle compression and EQ to open it up a bit, and add some weight. The second part goes through SiX 3 and 4, which only has trimming, but that’s enough to drive it harder through the bus compressor, which both parts pass through.

I also pan both parts to widen the stereo field, but the Prophet’s pretty good already in that area, so I’m not sure that added all that much.

All in all, I feel that while this could be done better than what I just did, the tools are there to really widen a patch and make it richer, if you’re clever about the routing.

1 Like
#206

Do you even know why ssl mixers became so famous? And for what? And when for what? For what in the ‘80, for what in the ‘90 and for what in 2000s? And why? What competition had to offer?
First sort that out in you mind pls?

#207

I get what youre saying! But it still doesnt make much sense comparing it with a cheap mackie mixer.
The delusional part is in giving it much more credit than it has for imprinting magic over your tracks. I mean, the net is full of shish! Ive been reading greaslutz for 13-14 yrs before getting my brain melted! I guess i became kind of oversensitive now. Sorry!

#208

If some other reason exists than how well they mix sound, im interested. I dont think sonic ranch, abbey road or electric lady (among countless others) would choose them cause they hold up against spilt beer.

#209

no worries. not all gear makes sense to everyone.

and I’m not dissing Mackie 1202. much better music than mine has been made with those (e.g. Daft Punk) or even worse mixers. in fact, I own and use one. I’m just saying I wouldn’t track or mix through it, but I would the SSL.

#210

Hey i wouldnt mind having a 24channel ssl duality mixer in my studio either! :star_struck:

1 Like
#211

It also has 2 stereo alternative/aux inputs on the front panel & another stereo input on the rear accessible via the d-sub connector which has its own volume control on the front panel on the super analogue channels. So 12 inputs for summing. They really got the most out of this little box…it’s genius.

2 Likes
#212

Depends how much gear you have :joy:
To take your point further I would say we don’t need so much gear, but most of us do not stick to this

#213

The P12 sounds fatter through the SSL 6 that is a fact. The patch without is also not bad, the P12 is really nice instrument. I think there is also a practical value of having faders in your studio, it makes a lot of things more accessible.

If you read the mixing secrets book from mike senior - he says, that one should do a fader only mix, meaning, that one should close his eyes, and grab those faders, to find the perfect balance, that is not possible with a mouse. (Ok maybe some midi faders achieve the same :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#214

I’m gonna try a new Prophet patch, where the low tuned oscillators go through compression and eq and the high-tuned pass just the stereo mix. That should make for a more evident and likely interesting comparison. Watch this space :sunglasses:

2 Likes
#215

I’m really trying hard to love it and that I don’t is also because I don’t quite understand all the routing.
does this mixer have multiple (routable) outputs at all? (headhone doesn’t count)… i always record 4 simultaneously . would this work ?

#216

As far as I have read, it does. I believe there are at least three different output pairs, that can be used in all kinds of ways

1 Like
#217

i need to wrap my head round the schematics more - I’m a bit of a mixer numpty tbh and some of the terminology is beyond me. to this day I don’t know how to operate the solo function on my mackie 1202 =)

#218

Yeah - and SSL uses funky terms like foldback. What worked for me was looking for terms that I did understand and try to picture how I would use that feature.

#219

Again, if you only make music mainly for yourself, you dont need a lot of gear :nyan:

3 Likes
#220

Placebos also often work.

#221

Well, the SPL Mixdream XP came thru mind when I first saw the SSL, same with the SSL Fusion - a modern version of the SPL Vitalizer.
I guess SSL has to go this path. Who is buying big desks today or some other stuff from them at this pricepoint? They have heavy competition from every side, also technology wise and not only in their domain, but from the bedroom-producers who give a s#it on expensive gear and make very good music only with a daw and an interface. This generations are the possible customers in the future for them.
I fully understand that move.
Anyway, it seems to be a versatile mixer with a certain sound, a good sound.

1 Like