To saturate or not to saturate

[zerocrossing]

...saturation brings us three different benefits ...All at the expense of distortion.

Saturation is distortion.

Depending on the vibe you're trying to create, it can be nice if used in your mastering chain, but to be honest, I almost always take it off. It's just not for me. Now, on individual tracks, that's another story. I often like to play with various ways to introduce saturation, or downright full on fuzz, on individual instruments. Not everything though, then you start having issues with built up harmonics that can be too much, but a bit on featured instruments can really bring them forward in a nice way.

[sin night]

Ditto.

Dito would be the correct Latin word.

My Latin-Italian vocabulary (from the old school days) said that “dito” means “arricchirsi”, which can be translated to English as “to get rich”/“to enrich (himself)”. I hope the English translation is correct because it’s out of the context of a sentence…

In Italian, “dito” means “finger” btw…

[CrystalWizard]

...saturation brings us three different benefits ...All at the expense of distortion.

Saturation is distortion.

Depending on the vibe you're trying to create, it can be nice if used in your mastering chain, but to be honest, I almost always take it off. It's just not for me. Now, on individual tracks, that's another story. I often like to play with various ways to introduce saturation, or downright full on fuzz, on individual instruments. Not everything though, then you start having issues with built up harmonics that can be too much, but a bit on featured instruments can really bring them forward in a nice way.

i like it on strings. not much on synthesizers ( can't see the point of distortion or compression on synthesizers as one has so much fine control of harmonics and dynamics already). a very tiny bit on mix bus (tape saturation) but a little goes a long way. too much make everything sound like mush. these are just my considerations and i've heard others do it and make it sound good.

[sin night]

So, now that I'm home relaxing at home after a day at the office, I'll write what I think about the subject.


I do make use of saturation/distortion, I mostly use those tool to get the tone I want, to enhance the sound; but they can also be useful to tame dynamics / work on transients (with a grain or two of salt, because it means more, possibly unwanted, distortion... there's no free lunch!).

I distinguish between saturation/distortion as a "tone making technique" vs a "(corrective) mixing technique": as long as you're making a tone, anything goes (but listen for unwanted side effects, of course!); but when I'm using them as for "mixing", I prefer to keep things transparent / subtle / clean / "natural". That's not to say I avoid using saturation / distortion for those purposes (quite the opposite), but I have a different mindset compared to when I'm making sounds.

For example, I may use a clipper or some distortion to reduce the transient of a clap sound, but if I'm already happy with the sound, I try not to alter it too much while I'm just trying to reduce the peak. It's a competition between compressors and distortion to find the most transparent solution for that specific track (or a mix of the two, really).


I think personal taste is important. I know it's cliché but... trust your ears!


My rule of thumb is that once something (like saturation) can be distinguished in a mix, it's better if the listener can call it a bold artistic choice rather than a mediocre attempt of getting certain results. But that's just my opinion, of course.

[aMUSEd]

I really liked the Audiodamage distortion Grind but it is discontinued - is Kombinat essentially the same algos but multi band?

[kritikon]

Ditto.

Dito would be the correct Latin word.

I doubt that.

The pedant in me wants to inform you that ditto was borrowed from Italian (17th century apparently) from detto "said". Direct Latin derivation being dictus. Dito means enriched in Italian, though I had to look that one up. Pretty sure it has nothing to do with the meaning of ditto, although possibly I am enriched in knowing which word to not use when I mean "the same as wot he said". If we were to use a direct Latin word for that, then some long-winded phrase involving dictus and past tenses would be appropriate, such as "idem quod dixit". However, ditto being an acceptable bastardised anglicised word for at least 400 years...has bugger all to do with Italian enrichment.

So, no...ditto was exactly the right word.

[sin night]

It’s off topic, anyway…

In italian we usually borrow from latin and use the word “idem” on a daily basis.

The english “ditto” being derived from “detto” (past participle of “dire”, which is the web “to say” in italian) makes sense to me (after you wrote it… I didn’t notice the connection and I’m native italian) but - at least in current italian - I never hear someone using just the word “detto”, we say “idem” most of the time, then maybe “the same thing”/“what he/she said”/“I agree” (but we use the whole sentence, not just the verb “detto”).

“Dito” as “enrich” doesn’t exist in italian, it’s strictly latin and afaik it’s never borrowed in italian; I had to look in the latin dictionary… if you used “detto” in a conversation instead of “idem” I would not understand, unless you mispronunce the word (the mispronunciation of the “e” in italian is a quite common mistake for english speaking people), then I would think you’re talking in english (if I know you’re not italian).

[martinjuenke]

To clear this conversation up:
Dito is correct in German language,
Ditto in English language.
Was new to me...

[npdc]

Like everything else in mixing, less is more. Too much saturation will ruin a mix.

[Monsieur_FyP]

Dito is correct in German language

In French as well

[pluginnow]

I would recommend not saturate at all.
If used intentionally creative, it's ok.
However, I have listened to some gigantic sales and renowned artists, with lots of saturation...

[jamcat]

Here's how I use saturation:

Electric instruments. These will get some amount of distortion (tube saturation), because that's the nature of amps. Synths should go through an amp (sim) as well. Listen to any classic recording, and you'll discover that synths and organs were played through amps and miked in the studio. This is true for everything from Deep Purple and Rainbow to Depeche Mode and Gary Numan. If you're not doing this, that's why your synths are flat and boring.

Mic preamps. This saturation should be dynamic. Just enough so they get a touch of distortion if the signal gets really loud. This helps retain that tangible sense of loudness when things start getting compressed later. It will give weight and presence to instruments, bringing them more forward. And since it's occurring on a track-by-track basis, it provides dynamic separation between instruments. It will also make instruments feel like they're together in the same space if you send them all through the preamp as a group. Do this for strings and backup singers.

Multi-track tape. Follow your preamps with tape machines. Put "printed effects" between them. Tape should be dynamic in the same way as the preamp, and react to it, subtly splattering sharp transients from snares and guitars. It also provides a very organic type of compression that doesn't sound compressed, but will mean a lot less compression is needed. Slamming drums to tape is the sound of rock n' roll.

Master-buss tape. Put another tape machine on the master buss. This is where most of your "glue" actually comes from.

The result of this is subtle layers of distortion, creating equal parts complexity, separation, and cohesion. And it's what makes a record sound like a record.

[whassup]

Here's how I use saturation:

Electric instruments. These will get some amount of distortion (tube saturation), because that's the nature of amps. Synths should go through an amp (sim) as well. Listen to any classic recording, and you'll discover that synths and organs were played through amps and miked in the studio. This is true for everything from Deep Purple and Rainbow to Depeche Mode and Gary Numan. If you're not doing this, that's why your synths are flat and boring.

Mic preamps. This saturation should be dynamic. Just enough so they get a touch of distortion if the signal gets really loud. This helps retain that tangible sense of loudness when things start getting compressed later. It will give weight and presence to instruments, bringing them more forward. And since it's occurring on a track-by-track basis, it provides dynamic separation between instruments. It will also make instruments feel like they're together in the same space if you send them all through the preamp as a group. Do this for strings and backup singers.

Multi-track tape. Follow your preamps with tape machines. Put "printed effects" between them. Tape should be dynamic in the same way as the preamp, and react to it, subtly splattering sharp transients from snares and guitars. It also provides a very organic type of compression that doesn't sound compressed, but will mean a lot less compression is needed. Slamming drums to tape is the sound of rock n' roll.

Master-buss tape. Put another tape machine on the master buss. This is where most of your "glue" actually comes from.

The result of this is subtle layers of distortion, creating equal parts complexity, separation, and cohesion. And it's what makes a record sound like a record.

No! Don't listen to him! You would make your stuff sound good. You don't want that. You know better.
Don't even try this. It could make your stuff sound... like a record.

Just in case this whateveritiscalled is lost in the written word and such: +1, I Completely agree. There is so much truth and experience in those sentences it almost hurts. You could sticky this.

[kritikon]

That's a whole shitload of distortion upon distortion upon distortion. And it includes quite a lot of BS too. Synths have to go through an amp, ORLY

[jamcat]

Amp → mic → preamp → tape is "a whole shitload of distortion..."?
That statement makes you look pretty foolish, since that's literally standard for the entire history of recording up until flat ITB recordings in the digital era (which is the problem we're trying to solve.)

And it's funny (though not surprising) that you don't know that synths were regularly recorded through miked speakers throughout most of the studio era. It's well documented that's how it was commonly done, certainly into the mid '80s (MTC didn't even exist until 1986). It's not like you're not old enough to know that.