Help me understand saturation and its uses please

[jens]

So why use saturation? Because it is a natural physical phenomenon and thus desirable in almost all context, to a certain degree. Virtually every single acoustic instrument, heck even your voice, can be considered being "distorted". The harmonics produced via varying methods is what makes up part of the tonality and character of a sound.

This! I remember a similar thread where we discussed this and someone Plexus iIrc) denied that this was the case. I think I ended up posting a example of a DI-ed totally dry guitar recording where I (purposely) distorted some of the notes with my fingers. (And of course violinists, cellists, etc. do that with their bows all the time too.)

This thread is in its nature typical of a generation of musicians who only (or at least mostly) understand music as a digital phenomenon, I think.

[Mind Riot]

My goodness, I had no idea this was such a contentious subject.

Though, if I had thought about it from that perspective I would have realized that everything in pro audio and recording is a contentious subject because everybody has a dead-set opinion on absolutely everything that they'll fight to the death over.

[jens]

My goodness, I had no idea this was such a contentious subject.

It isn't.

Though, if I had thought about it from that perspective I would have realized that everything in pro audio and recording is a contentious subject because everybody has a dead-set opinion on absolutely everything that they'll fight to the death over.

That's to some extent true and more of a problem, if you ask me.

However you're not exactly innocent yourself in regards to this, right?

If I need to make a sound source louder without the peaks overloading I'll just use a clipper. Clean, transparent, simple, done. Like it was never even there. Like ninja.

[Mind Riot]

My goodness, I had no idea this was such a contentious subject.

It isn't.

Though, if I had thought about it from that perspective I would have realized that everything in pro audio and recording is a contentious subject because everybody has a dead-set opinion on absolutely everything that they'll fight to the death over.

That's to some extent true and more of a problem, if you ask me.

However you're not exactly innocent yourself in regards to this, right?

If I need to make a sound source louder without the peaks overloading I'll just use a clipper. Clean, transparent, simple, done. Like it was never even there. Like ninja.

I don't see how that's contentious but sure, if that puts me in that boat, I'll accept it. I said earlier I don't mind being wrong (and admitting it) if I'm learning.

[zerocrossing]

The point you’re missing is that you’re doing something like describing a phenomenon like “rain” and saying, “drizzling isn’t rain.” It’s going to be confusing to someone who’s trying to learn about it. The best thing anyone can do is to try a bunch of different types and try them on different types of signals and listen to the results.

Yes, there are many words for different types of rain. A light drizzle is not the same as rain, even if it's all rain.

Saturation is not the same as distortion, even if it's all distortion.

And just as there are many descriptions for rain, there are many descriptions for distortion and saturation.

Is English your first language?

[kPere]

The point you’re missing is that you’re doing something like describing a phenomenon like “rain” and saying, “drizzling isn’t rain.” It’s going to be confusing to someone who’s trying to learn about it. The best thing anyone can do is to try a bunch of different types and try them on different types of signals and listen to the results.

Yes, there are many words for different types of rain. A light drizzle is not the same as rain, even if it's all rain.

Saturation is not the same as distortion, even if it's all distortion.

And just as there are many descriptions for rain, there are many descriptions for distortion and saturation.

Is English your first language?

Probably, but it got too philosophical, surely morw than it needs to

[jens]

I don't see how that's contentious

You mean you didn't purposely mean to stirr the pot? Sure looks like it to me...

here's something to consider either way:

Different people have different tastes. For that reason, what might work for them might not work for you and vice versa. But people (you included it seemed to me, but apologies if I got it wrong) seem to think that this was the case or at least argue as if it was.

But then again: how lame & dull would this world be if we all wanted and liked the same things?

And yet you can read amazing wisdom such as the following here in this thread:

Saturation have become the buzzword because how music nowadays is also different than music of the old days.

Everything is distorted and loud now. And you need to use saturation to get that kind of sound.

Drums distorted, basses distorted, synths, and most of all Vocals are all distorted now. It is what it is. What was once considered noise, is now the norm.

You asked for it - and doesn't that sum it all up nicely?

[elxsound]

So why use saturation? Because it is a natural physical phenomenon and thus desirable in almost all context, to a certain degree. Virtually every single acoustic instrument, heck even your voice, can be considered being "distorted". The harmonics produced via varying methods is what makes up part of the tonality and character of a sound.

This! I remember a similar thread where we discussed this and someone Plexus iIrc) denied that this was the case. I think I ended up posting a example of a DI-ed totally dry guitar recording where I (purposely) distorted some of the notes with my fingers. (And of course violinists, cellists, etc. do that with their bows all the time too.)

This thread is in its nature typical of a generation of musicians who only (or at least mostly) understand music as a digital phenomenon, I think.

100% with you and bmanic.

I think the subject comes up this way because its somewhat easy to dismiss it as a buzz word in marketing only because they hear about it so frequently.

I think the reason it’s coming up is because of advances in development and improvements in CPU processing.

[jens]

I think the reason it’s coming up is because of advances in development and improvements in CPU processing.

Yes, exactly - very good point!

[Mind Riot]

You mean you didn't purposely mean to stirr the pot? Sure looks like it to me...

here's something to consider either way:

Different people have different tastes. For that reason, what might work for them might not work for you and vice versa. But people (you included it seemed to me, but apologies if I got it wrong) seem to think that this was the case or at least argue as if it was.

But then again: how lame & dull would this world be if we all wanted and liked the same things?

And yet you can read amazing wisdom such as the following here in this thread:

You asked for it - and doesn't that sum it all up nicely?

I did not mean to stir the pot, not in the slightest, but I can certainly see how it would look that way. I honestly thought that using clippers in the ways I described was commonplace and unremarkable. I started the thread about saturation, which I don't know much about, I didn't expect it to veer off into clipping.

It's ironic. I started the thread about saturation, which is common and widely understood but which I myself am not doing, and it veered off into clipping, which I myself am doing but which is not as widely understood nor as common as I thought it was.

But this is good. I was kind of expecting everybody to tell me how great saturation is and that I simply must use it on this source or that one, blah blah blah. Now I know I can just go to work and not use it at all and I won't be missing anything, unless a particular situation calls for it.

[jens]

I guess l lot of people use clippers the way you do - or at least I often read people talking about them. Thing is: they're distortion and they're not fundamentally different from analog modelled saturation plugins. In a way you could say that basically they all do the same thing and they all can be used lightly or more extremely and it all depends on your taste (and mood) and what you use them on.

Maybe have a look a Blue Cat's Destructor as that one is a distortion chameleon which does it all and is perfect to understand all the basics and fundamental techniques.

[jamcat]

Clipping is a type of saturation. All saturation effects impose an artificial ceiling. How the effect reacts around the threshold determines a lot of its character. Clippers impose an artificial ceiling, and their particular character comes from the blunt cutoff at the threshold.

As zerocrossing pointed out, this is similar to transistor saturation.

[jamcat]

I won't be missing anything, unless a particular situation calls for it.

Isn’t that how everything works?
Music is art, and as such, what is called for in any particular situation is completely subjective.

[bmanic]

But this is good. I was kind of expecting everybody to tell me how great saturation is and that I simply must use it on this source or that one, blah blah blah. Now I know I can just go to work and not use it at all and I won't be missing anything, unless a particular situation calls for it.

You'll be missing a lot. At the very least try to do the example I mentioned in my lengthy post at the end. Add some subtle harmonic distortion to all of your tracks, then start the mix from there. Now compare it to a version where you didn't add that distortion.

Please note that I really do mean only saturation that you can't easily hear at first.. just enough so that you hear things are slightly changing but not actually being clearly saturated.

This is a great ear training exercise as well.

Here is a great free plugin for all your subtle saturation needs:

https://www.tbproaudio.de/products/gsatplus

Basically this has been the norm of mixing before digital came along.. and saturation _is_ a big part of the sound of everything that was done before digital, because it was pretty much impossible to avoid it.

[Mind Riot]

But this is good. I was kind of expecting everybody to tell me how great saturation is and that I simply must use it on this source or that one, blah blah blah. Now I know I can just go to work and not use it at all and I won't be missing anything, unless a particular situation calls for it.

You'll be missing a lot. At the very least try to do the example I mentioned in my lengthy post at the end. Add some subtle harmonic distortion to all of your tracks, then start the mix from there. Now compare it to a version where you didn't add that distortion.

Please note that I really do mean only saturation that you can't easily hear at first.. just enough so that you hear things are slightly changing but not actually being clearly saturated.

This is a great ear training exercise as well.

Here is a great free plugin for all your subtle saturation needs:

https://www.tbproaudio.de/products/gsatplus

Basically this has been the norm of mixing before digital came along.. and saturation _is_ a big part of the sound of everything that was done before digital, because it was pretty much impossible to avoid it.

Cool plug, I'll definitely pick it up and give it a try. Any pointers? Use more even than odd harmonics? How many gain stages to use?

That makes me very curious, I want to go see what it's like.