Boiling it down for simplicity:

Q: this is another ITB/OTB question...

A: Which ever you think sounds better...provided of course the source materials don't need much/any editing to sound good either way.

Midlandmorgan is right - whichever sounds better for you...
But it's not a bad aidea to keep in mind a few technical details...

- If you'd like to toss tracks to 2" remember that track 24 is usually
for the time-code, some engineers don't use track 23 for avoiding
screwing up the mentioned time-code. So, you have 22 tracks left.
If you need more - or go ProTools, or you can sync two tapes (but
that's a pain in you know what).
- SSLs sound great. One thing is to remember though while mixing
with it - recalling is hassle and such a waist of time. May cost you
if you are not careful.

Well, I think that the phrase SSLs sound great is kind of misleading.

Straight out of the factory, some SSL's were great, some were not. Then you have to realize which SSL it is and if it has been properly maintained. So a blanket statement is dangerous.

Many big eared, highly paid engineers say that they cannot hear a difference in ITB or OTB mixes once mastered and manufactured. It is all in the engineer. In many cases, when engineers base the records sonic success on technology or topology, then they should hang it up. Too many excellent records were made on tape and then ADATs.

If you are going to use the automation in Cubase, then it really doesn't matter anyway. Anything that you think you're gaining by another D/A and then A/D stage by the SSL (and then all of the other A/D and D/A processes in the outboard DSP) will be moot and eclipsed by the decimation in Cubase.

thanks

If I use SSL I am not planning to damp the track onto 2". I will purely use the SSL for its sound, I will automate in whichever program they used to record, but do no processing otherwise in the computer.

I know I have asked one of those questions only I can answer

Thanks anyway

Ciao

Tim