Using Saturation instead of Compressor (vid)

[RandomSkratch]

I came across this video of someone using a saturation device in place of a compressor to get a bit more headroom in the mix. Just wondering how common this is (because you know everyone on the internet is an expert...) and whether or not it's possible to do with any built in Reason devices? I'm guessing the MClass Limiter with the limiting section turned off and soft clip on?

[Loque]

I am not the guru here, but what I understand is, that saturation is transforming amplitudes to other amplitudes and introducing harmonics by doing this. So it can work like a compressor or limiter. But using this too much, especially all over the place instead of a few busses or on master, all those introduced harmonics let your mix sound muddy, undefined and unclear, and is harder to master in the end. Using saturation with band passing in parallel can be interesting here.

That is kind of my experience.

[jimmyklane]

Saturation actually DOES compress the signal. Soft clipping will round off peaks just like a limiter does. The free Softube Saturation Knob sounds really nice and allows some great tricks to emulate tape like saturating the high end first (stereo imager with a saturation knob on each band, with neutral or save low on the low band and save high on the upper band). My drums and even entire mixes often have several forms of saturation applied....but subtle, where it’s not overdrive or distortion. Just gentle compression.

[selig]

Saturation actually DOES compress the signal. Soft clipping will round off peaks just like a limiter does. The free Softube Saturation Knob sounds really nice and allows some great tricks to emulate tape like saturating the high end first (stereo imager with a saturation knob on each band, with neutral or save low on the low band and save high on the upper band). My drums and even entire mixes often have several forms of saturation applied....but subtle, where it’s not overdrive or distortion. Just gentle compression.

I second what Jimmy says!

Saturation could be considered an extreme form of compression, on a spectrum where low-ratio/slow time constants compression techniques/devices are at one end, limiting is in the middle, and hard clipping (saturation/distortion) at the other.

What they all have in common is that they affect the dynamic range and to some degree, distort the waveform/introduce harmonics. The better compressors add the least harmonic content, the better saturation and distortion devices add the most (or specific) harmonic content.

All are considered to be non-linear with regards to level, which simply means they respond differently according to input level.

I swear by using saturation instead of, or along side of compression for getting tracks to sound louder in a mix without increasing peak level. This is nothing new. in the analog world you achieve this by driving devices or tape a little hotter, but still not enough to sound “distorted”.

In the digital domain I tend to use more parallel saturation for subtlety - ColoringEQ is based on this very concept!
(Shameless plug…)



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[normen]

Just listen to basically ALL old records from Howlin' Wolf to Marvin Gaye and notice how much they actually distort, most of the time on the mic input the way it sounds to me. It's always been used, I guess just intuitively in the beginning.

And yeah, the aural exciter, max bass and such stuff are all basically just variations of doing stuff with distortion to make a sound occupy more of the frequency space.

Technically distortion (i.e. overdrive - not distortion in general, that just means "change") IS compression with a high ratio and very short attack/release, most of the time simply what happens when an amp can't amplify the signal any louder

[RobC]

Come with me for a second, outside the box. Let's step outside of that. We're in space, and reached the boarders. Now let's step outside again.

Okay, so I believe that any type of saturation, compression really hurts all the good kind of knocks, clicks, etc. I would rather hard clip because it scatters what gets clipped, on the frequency spectrum. So it won't just get that weaker, but instead will be present elsewhere. Either a master or multi-band clipping sounds unique and has its benefits.

Then again, it will sound rather noisy, and in my experience,



that's no good!

So, soft clipping it is! Better multi-band.

Love,

Prof. Dr. Internet

[djadalaide]

I always use soft clipping at the end of my mastering chain, but i also like a bit of preamp and/or tape emulation before that in the chain.. both have the effect of saturation but in a more pleasing to the ear way. If anyone still has pod farm platinum kicking around from the days of Record, or whatever.. it has some really nice preamps in there.. and some nasty ones. I add a bit at each stage, i even will treat individual tracks with the same effects too, it adds up to the overall sound.

Also, since you are talking about clipping.. There is a slight difference in the high end when using oversampling, it just depends on the material. The amount of soft clip you use will lower the volume slightly as well, hard clipping doesn't sound as bad as you think it would. I tend to add a small amount of soft clip anyway.

Its something i've been looking into a lot, if you can afford nebula 4 its worth it for the tape emulator it slams the signal and makes it sound really good, though can be a bit touchy sometimes you have to get the levels set right.

If you are using ableton, the dynamic tube can be really nice as well, i've found myself using that and the saturator on all channels - takes a bit of tweaking to get it to sound nice.

[RandomSkratch]

Thanks for the replies everyone. As far as devices to use in Reason for doing this, the Softube Saturation Knob is a pretty good one without being too obvious (at low settings?) I'm still searching for a good meter to measure crest factor (I like a number) but I can always look at the big meter and eyeball it right?

[normen]

I don't like the sound of soft clipping on the master bus, to me it takes too much away when it's actually working and when it only works a little I like the sound of a limiter doing that better.

The Saturation Knob mixes in the distorted signal so you basically have control over the compression ratio and distortion amount as well which is nice.

[kuhliloach]

interesting. I've noticed when a compressor is really cranked to the point of distortion (such as Reason's SSL compressor) it kind of reminds me of some saturation effects.

[selig]

I don't like the sound of soft clipping on the master bus, to me it takes too much away when it's actually working and when it only works a little I like the sound of a limiter doing that better.

The Saturation Knob mixes in the distorted signal so you basically have control over the compression ratio and distortion amount as well which is nice.

I agree about soft clipping on the master, or any saturation on the master for that matter. I find I get much better (and cleaner) results doing the same thing on individual channels.

It’s like the difference between hitting the multi-track hard vs hitting the two-track hard (in the analog domain).



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[RobC]

I don't like the sound of soft clipping on the master bus, to me it takes too much away when it's actually working and when it only works a little I like the sound of a limiter doing that better.

The Saturation Knob mixes in the distorted signal so you basically have control over the compression ratio and distortion amount as well which is nice.

I agree about soft clipping on the master, or any saturation on the master for that matter. I find I get much better (and cleaner) results doing the same thing on individual channels.

It’s like the difference between hitting the multi-track hard vs hitting the two-track hard (in the analog domain).



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

This reminds me, even on a single track, I'd do multi-band saturation so that specific frequency band tones it down a bit without the whole spectrum getting affected, and then tops a master (by master I mean a "main" saturation) if there still are crazy peaks.

For an effect, I'd play with everything, individually like multi-band distortion (changing the curve between clipping and saturation), master distortion, and of course just add that on a parallel channel and maybe using an envelope follower of the original signal and applying those dynamics to taste.

[RobC]

Technically distortion (i.e. overdrive - not distortion in general, that just means "change") IS compression with a high ratio and very short attack/release, most of the time simply what happens when an amp can't amplify the signal any louder

Why isn't it just called deforming the sound...
Well, that's the same. xD
Oh, wait, there is the word 'shaper' used.
But easy to confuse.

Then we shall say 'digital clipping distortion', 'analog overdrive distortion', 'shaped distortion'? Insert shaping type (soft clipping / saturation etc).

[RobC]

I'd suggest GClip VST, which is free, or there is a RE version of it. Really good, visual, flexible little device.

https://www.gvst.co.uk/gclip.htm

Take a look at the description of the RE! Says useful info; just what we talk about here, too.

https://shop.propellerheads.se/rack-ext ... g-clipper/

[RandomSkratch]

I'd suggest GClip VST, which is free, or there is a RE version of it. Really good, visual, flexible little device.

https://www.gvst.co.uk/gclip.htm

Take a look at the description of the RE! Says useful info; just what we talk about here, too.

https://shop.propellerheads.se/rack-ext ... g-clipper/

Thanks for the links. I think I had GClip VST stashed away in some folder from a while ago but forgot about it. I think it's a good candidate for what I'm after.

It's unfortunate that I really like some of the built in effects that Live has to offer. I wonder if I can mimic the saturation device from Live using Thor's Shaper?

[jimmyklane]

I find I get much better (and cleaner) results doing the same thing on individual channels....It’s like the difference between hitting the multi-track hard vs hitting the two-track hard (in the analog domain)...

Exactly correct. This is my “secret” to getting all my mixed tracks quite loud and still leave the depth and punch (or that’s what people say about them to my face ) intact. By “hitting the multitrack hard” and having each individual track have its own compression/saturation profile, you ensure that you’re maximizing that tracks potential in this particular sense. I won’t speak to the clarity or dynamic range problems inherent in utilizing any saturation or saturating compressor/EQ, suffice to say you can definitely use too much here!

If you “hit the two track hard”, the saturation is going to mush everything. Try this: put a guitar amp simulator in the default NNXT piano. Record a chord to audio. Now record the same notes through the amp one at a time and combine the tracks to recreate the chord....You lose all the intermodulation and grunge from combining harmonics. If the chord you played had a little dissonance, say, a Sus2 chord then you’ll hear a huge difference in the two recordings!

[RobC]

Thanks for the links. I think I had GClip VST stashed away in some folder from a while ago but forgot about it. I think it's a good candidate for what I'm after.

It's unfortunate that I really like some of the built in effects that Live has to offer. I wonder if I can mimic the saturation device from Live using Thor's Shaper?

You're welcome. If you know how it works, you should be able to create similar in Reason.

[normen]

If the chord you played had a little dissonance, say, a Sus2 chord then you’ll hear a huge difference in the two recordings!

Yeah, people really gotta look more where they apply distortion these days. I hear super clean bass regions but high ends that are basically just a mush. If you remove the bass you sometimes get completely dissonant hissing o_O

Theres a reason rock guitar players only play a 5th, it's not JUST because they don't know music theory

[selig]

If the chord you played had a little dissonance, say, a Sus2 chord then you’ll hear a huge difference in the two recordings!

Yeah, people really gotta look more where they apply distortion these days. I hear super clean bass regions but high ends that are basically just a mush. If you remove the bass you sometimes get completely dissonant hissing o_O

Theres a reason rock guitar players only play a 5th, it's not JUST because they don't know music theory

Indeed. Not only where you apply saturation in the signal path (which is super important), but also where you apply saturation in the frequency spectrum.

I’ve found a love for the type of low frequency saturation that transformers and inductors tend to produce. This is part of the inspiration for my design of the ColoringEQ, where you can add saturation to a very narrow (or wide) range of low frequencies and get a similar (IMO) effect to vintage inductor based EQs. The benefits are more energy in the desired range through compression effects, and also the addition of higher harmonics making low frequency instruments easier to “hear” on smaller speaker systems lacking any real response on the bottom few octaves.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[RandomSkratch]

Yeah, people really gotta look more where they apply distortion these days. I hear super clean bass regions but high ends that are basically just a mush. If you remove the bass you sometimes get completely dissonant hissing o_O

Theres a reason rock guitar players only play a 5th, it's not JUST because they don't know music theory

Indeed. Not only where you apply saturation in the signal path (which is super important), but also where you apply saturation in the frequency spectrum.

I’ve found a love for the type of low frequency saturation that transformers and inductors tend to produce. This is part of the inspiration for my design of the ColoringEQ, where you can add saturation to a very narrow (or wide) range of low frequencies and get a similar (IMO) effect to vintage inductor based EQs. The benefits are more energy in the desired range through compression effects, and also the addition of higher harmonics making low frequency instruments easier to “hear” on smaller speaker systems lacking any real response on the bottom few octaves.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

I completely forgot about ColoringEQ! When you're using it to make low frequency instruments easier to hear on small speakers are you applying saturation to the fundamental of the instrument or are you boosting up higher on the spectrum?

[selig]

I completely forgot about ColoringEQ! When you're using it to make low frequency instruments easier to hear on small speakers are you applying saturation to the fundamental of the instrument or are you boosting up higher on the spectrum?

Mostly to the fundamental, as that creates the richest harmonic content. Remember, saturating a sine wave turns it (more or less) into a square. The idea is that harmonics are added ABOVE the original frequency. If you add harmonics starting higher, they are created even higher (assuming they exist in the first place).

That’s the same concept we’re applying here - saturating the fundamental creates the important first few harmonics above the fundamental. The higher you saturate, the more it sounds like “distortion” (sometimes sounding smaller than the original) and the less like a bigger version of the original. One reason it sounds “bigger” is the compression effect in addition to the additional harmonics.

The goal with this approach is to add harmonics that may or may not have existed in the first place. Meaning, if there are not already higher harmonics you cannot boost what’s not there - you have to add them first!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[RandomSkratch]

The higher you saturate, the more it sounds like “distortion” (sometimes sounding smaller than the original) and the less like a bigger version of the original. One reason it sounds “bigger” is the compression effect in addition to the additional harmonics.

This is a common issue for me. I think I apply too much because I usually lose the oomf it originally had. Would there be a downside to parallel saturation? Or should I just back off on the amount?

[jimmyklane]

I’ve found a love for the type of low frequency saturation that transformers and inductors tend to produce. This is part of the inspiration for my design of the ColoringEQ, where you can add saturation to a very narrow (or wide) range of low frequencies and get a similar (IMO) effect to vintage inductor based EQs. The benefits are more energy in the desired range through compression effects, and also the addition of higher harmonics making low frequency instruments easier to “hear” on smaller speaker systems lacking any real response on the bottom few octaves.

It’s interesting that you mention transformer saturation. As you know, some transformers are more colored than others (based upon core materials and turn ratios etc). I’ve got two passive boxes that I’ve built. One using the old octal Altec transformers from their preamps and compressors (I had multiples, so I put them to use instead of keeping them as spares) and the other a pair of old unknown transformers rescued from some Urei EQs....both of these boxes can be driven into the 20+dBu range and will give a very interesting compression and what I like to call “bloom” in the lower-mids. The high end rolls off slowly and naturally, but they also (to my ears) act as a form of “treble compressor”....the Empirical Labs FATSOjr does something similar in emulating tape/tranny sound.

In any case, I thought I’d mention it. I keep meaning to demo the Coloring EQ, but haven’t yet found the time between projects to really run it through its paces.

[selig]

The higher you saturate, the more it sounds like “distortion” (sometimes sounding smaller than the original) and the less like a bigger version of the original. One reason it sounds “bigger” is the compression effect in addition to the additional harmonics.

This is a common issue for me. I think I apply too much because I usually lose the oomf it originally had. Would there be a downside to parallel saturation? Or should I just back off on the amount?

On something like a kick, I find subtle parallel saturation to be key to keeping the original “oomf” in that you only add what is missing (rather than distort the entire signal). By saturating only a narrow band of frequencies (as you can with ColoringEQ) you control exactly what is saturated and exactly by how much and control how much of that saturation is blended back with the original signal (with or without EQ).

Did that answer your question, or did I misunderstand something?



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[RobC]

Theres a reason rock guitar players only play a 5th, it's not JUST because they don't know music theory

Distorting chords can have really cool results. Gladly, technology allows us to change the scale afterwards.

I only play keys... and forgot music theory... xD