Solid State Logic .. SSL Big SiX

The Lounge Other Gear
#776

I have two hardware delays now (plus one reverb), which I’d like to use with my Big Six. Since the sends are stereo and delays don’t need a stereo input signal I’m thinking of feeding Big Six Send 2L to one delay and Send 2R to the other one. This way I could just use the Pan knob of Send 2 in each channel to decide if a signal goes to one delay or the other.

Feeding the stereo outs of both delays to one stereo return of the Big Sx would require some kind of submixing. Is there any tiny solution to mix two stereo signals without compromising audio quality? As far as I know passively mixing output signals is never a good idea, so it should be active.

#777

There’s a bunch of small mixers around–maybe one like the Shure SCM262 would work for you.

1 Like
#778

Thanks, I know, but I’m thinking of something even smaller with fixed levels. I just want to feed two stereo signals to one stereo input without degrading audio quality. Apart from that I don’t need any mixer features for this purpose.

#780

Bought one last week. Still has the same problem

#781

Has anoyone compared the Big SiX with the TX-6 from Teenage Engineering?

(ﾉ^_^)ﾉ

#782

I would not agree that passively mixing is always worse, in fact, for affordable solutions I would say the opposite: you can’t really go wrong with passive mixing, as there is no noise, no distortion, no power supply, no opamp: all components that are expensive if you want good quality. The only issue you could have with passive is if the potentiometers are bad quality (but same for active). The only potential problem with passive is if the impedance does not match the input/output optimal impedance of whatever you connect it to. You do need to increase the gain slightly after it, but that’s normal and expected. Before I got the Big Six, I used just a normal Six with a passive ART SplitMix4, with no issues at all.

1 Like
#783

Is anybody here using the Big Six in an Aggregat Device configuration in OS X? I’d like to include a DC coupled interface to send CVs and triggers to my modular.

Last time I tried Aggregat Devices it added a lot of latency, but that was a few years ago – and today I have a blazingly fast M1 Max MacBook Pro, so this might not be an issue anymore. Any experiences with that?

3 Likes
#784

interested in this as well - following

2 Likes
#785

Interested as well…wondering if aggregating with an Axe-FX III would work

#786

I’m using the Big Six as an aggregate device with my MBP M1 Pro audio interface because of the ridiculous inflexible Ch1/2 output assignments in Logic Pro X, and it’s working fine. No Mac scholar here, but my understanding is that class compliant interfaces can work as aggregate devices without introducing latency issues.

2 Likes
#787

Interesting. Do you have any source for that?

#788

A couple forum posts somewhere in my browser history? Sorry, nothing authoritative—-I was searching for a solution to the Logic Pro X issue.

1 Like
#789

Anyone using a long usb c-c cable with their BiG SiX? I could do with a 2-3m cable but not sure if it’ll cause any issues?

Thanks

#790

FYI:

image
image828×967 181 KB

2 Likes
#791

Thanks mate! Looks like 3-4m will be fine :slight_smile:

1 Like
#792

I am always struggling with USB cable length. Can’t wait for USB 5 max length 6".

4 Likes
#793

Nice idea, considering buying one of these but wondered if there any audible clicks when switching outputs? Thinking it could be used in a performative way.

#794

As some of you may know, I was on the SiX and the Fusion for some time, and then sold both. I don’t regret that, but I do miss the sounds I got from the SSL kits.

So I’m looking at options now, and what I really miss the most, is the eq and compression. This one has both, and EQ on all channels as it seems, so I’m wondering if maybe this would be enough for me to create mastered recordings. If there’s one thing I would want back from the Fusion, it’s the Stereo Enhancer, but I have a feeling that can be done better than the Fusion did anyway.

I don’t know, does this make sense? I mean, a little eq and compression can go a long way to get a recording into final shape, the way I see it.

#795

I bought one a few months back, and I’m generally a fussy bstd… I think it’s brilliant, the whole package… the architecture for USB routing, it’s flexibility, the sound, the buss comp… I love mine now.

I have a couple of Neve 1073 channels too, and, even though the pres on the Big Six are different, they stand up really well against the Neve… and paired with that one knob compressor set up, it’s brilliant. I’ve got my Neve’s on the inserts of the first 2 mono (Superanalog) channels now so I can use the Big Six’s EQ and comp on them… it’s so fast.

And then the flexibility for mixing from your DAW too, being able to use the SSL buss comp in parallel on your stems/groups… all great.

I literally have zero complaints with mine.

If they adapt the regular SSL Six to have the same USB config, I’d grab one of them for my home studio in a second.

3 Likes
#796

Thanks for the input :slight_smile: what I experienced with the SiX was that the output I ran through it just sounded great, but it did miss that little extra something, which I felt the Fusion brought to the table. However, I’m thinking that extra something partly had to do with the fact that I only had SSL EQ on two tracks or the master, and the Big Six offers full EQ on all tracks, and a slightly enhanced compressor.

I tend to not use much else anyway for mastering, except then perhaps a little space enhancer, which I could get as a separate thing if that remained an issue.

With the Fusion, I didn’t much use the Drive, the onboard secret compressor, the HPF compressor or the low end boost. There was a difference between their on and off states, but not one that mattered when compared to the HUGE difference the EQ and stereo enhancer provided. And the SiX compressor was superior to the Fusion’s for my purpose.

In general, I felt the Fusion probably came more into its own for non-electronic music, where I can imagine dynamics are more all over the place with guitars, vocals, drums and stuff just fighting for space. In a modern, tight electronic music context, you can get pretty far creating at tight mix just within whatever box you’re working with, before you’ve even applied that final touch of magic to it.

I felt the SSL kits brought just that final touch, but that my rig was overkill. So I’m looking to return to it, but more streamlined this time.

I’ve also considered getting the Bus+ instead, and just work on the stereo signal directly and not even bother with separate mixing outside my boxes.

1 Like