In the same way, I don't think that "SSL" is a magic bullet. If you're working on a budget and can't afford backlighting, wash lights, accent spots, custom background painting, etc, you may get better results with the technically "less perfect" lens. Compare with a soft-focus lens, or one that exaggerates warm skin tones: you'll get more pleasing results with the "imperfect" lens many times. But if you have a great lighting setup, awesome makeup folks, and a very good model, you'll get great results. "SSL" became a sort of buzzword, since the guys working on SSLs made great-sounding stuff, but I'd argue that the sound was because of other gear and technique, not the SSL itself.įor example, imagine a perfect camera lens: it captures everything, flaws and all. So, you're not necessarily adding "awesome analog coloration" by emulating an SSL, in the same way that a clean punchy solid-state guitar amp isn't blurring the transients and reacting in the same way to dynamics as a tube amp would. (Let it be said that I much prefer the sound of a Trident, as well as the different EQs on the fader and monitor side. The thing bout the SSL is that it was a very clean alternative, in an environment that had -by nature- lots of coloration otherwise (multitrack tape machines, mixing to tape, analog outboard gear etc.) so it offered the ability to have a bunch of stuff going on without excessive coloration, as compared to -say- Trident.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |