I read a very interesting thread recently where people were discussing using PSP MixSaturator on every channel to provide analog console-like saturation to take the digital edge off DAW-produced music (in a way suggested by Charles Dye in his Mix It Like a Record DVD). I've given this a try and it certainly seems to work nicely - it's only a subtle change per track, but the sum of the parts certainly seems to produce a much warmer, more analog-sounding result.
For those who've experimented with this, if they've any further tips I'd be very interested to hear how they're using this. The original suggestion (and the one I've tried) is to insert a PSP MixSaturator instance as the first plugin on every channel insert, and switch to "Valve 2" with 40-50% drive. This seems to do the trick nicely - although I've noticed that it does increase the gain slightly, so I've been compensating by decreasing the output gain on the plugin by about 2dB (although I suppose this could vary depending on the source material). Is this what others are finding? I'm kinda paranoid to ensure that the difference I'm hearing in the end result is purely due to the saturation effect, rather than an increase in level which then gets tamed by the plugins on my mastering chain. Also, are people using the bass and treble processing features of MixSaturator, or are these generally best left bypassed for this use?
Another question is around mix busses. For instance, if I've got separate channels for each drum and am mixing these into a sub-group for further processing, do people still apply MixSaturator on the individual tracks, rather than the group itself (or as well?).
Someone also suggested adding a final instance on the master bus (presumably just before any limiting, if applied) but with slightly less vigour... Valve 1 at 10-15% drive. Good advice? Anyone tried any other settings on tracks or the mix that they find works for them?
Finally, the last 2 inserts on a Cubase channel are post-fade, and I think someone suggested that one of these slots might be more appropriate, instead of the initial slot. Does this match what people are finding, or is slot 1 still the favourite.
Many thanks.
Mix saturation (Charles Dye style) using PSP MixSaturator
-
- KVRAF
- 8749 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
Sorry, but I have to say that it sounds like a dreadful idea to me. And on several levels.
Remember back to the days when your average studio was all h/w and analogue desks. I actually do remember it...(
). And one of the big things you constantly spent money on upgrading was the mixing desk. And the specific reason you bought bigger and better desks was mainly for increased signal/noise ratio and less noise in general. Certainly you bought multibuss desks because of the extra bussing and routing options, and then in-line for the monitoring and extra channels etc, and even for better Eq (that was probably my 2nd most important consideration. But the main consideration was noise. You bought better for less noise floor, less cross-channel interference, less componoent noise and better shielding etc etc etc. What you were constantly trying to do was get the sound cleaner and more precise.
I find it slightly amusing that a modern mantra is to re-introduce noise back into the recording process. It is most definitely NOT always a good thing to have analogue characteristics. I also think you're mixing up saturation with simple noise and distortion. Saturation is a tape effect. One potential benefit of tape is the saturation, and a trick was to run recordings hot, to get the saturation. But it was not done all of the time and it was NOT done on every channel and every track. I also remember the hooha that greeted things like CD and DAT and optical drives for those wonderful non-noise clean digital recordings.
I have no problem in recreating some analogue effects in certain instances. Analogue synths have their advantages in some areas. A good overdriven filter can be creamier than a clean digital filter. Tube distortion can be more pleasing to the ear than grating digital distortion. But to do it on everything is weird. A driven need in the past was to clean up some channels and reduce all the crap you got with tape and analogue and poorly shielded desks, and to avoid clipping the channels unless you wanted it as a specific desired effect on specific channels. But to want to clip every single channel on a desk? I never ever once did that and never ever wanted to. I very carefully adjusted levels so that I got the hottest signal (not to induce clipping or any other unnatural device) but to reduce the overall noise. Remember signal/noise ratio? The hotter the signal, the less noticeable the noise. You DID NOT raise signals to increase noise you daft sod
And if I could have a 24 or 32 channel desk with each and every channel running through tubes? I'd run screaming from the facility denouncing the crap equipment it housed. You might want to add a subtle tube amp sheen at the end, even over the master (and you definitely want it to be after the fact and optional), you might only want certain single channels overdrivewn for stand-out effect...you most definitely do not want to butcher the whole recording process by distorting every single channel with a tube so that you have no single clean un-buggered-up original recordings.
So...is it good advice?
Frankly...no, it's ridiculous advice, and I think you've succumbed to internet hype, myth and bunkum from newbies that don't actually know what alot of the old stuff was about at all. There is a place for analogue gear and their is a place for distorting channels with analogue-style effects. But if you're going to destroy every channel with tube emulations and distortion and harmonics...you're most likely going to end up with a mushy mix, and you may as well have recorded with a cassette 4-track and simply boost the top end with an Eq or a harmonic enhancer. Either way, all you get is a f**ked-up recording IMO.
Here's an analogy. D'ya think Rodin could have sculpted The Thinker with a pneumatic drill?
D'ya sit and listen to 60s Phil Spectre wall-of-sound recordings full of mush and every frequency in the hearable spectrum, and actually think it sounds like high quality? Compared to any quiet and thoughtfully recorded masterpiece from recent years?
Remember back to the days when your average studio was all h/w and analogue desks. I actually do remember it...(
). And one of the big things you constantly spent money on upgrading was the mixing desk. And the specific reason you bought bigger and better desks was mainly for increased signal/noise ratio and less noise in general. Certainly you bought multibuss desks because of the extra bussing and routing options, and then in-line for the monitoring and extra channels etc, and even for better Eq (that was probably my 2nd most important consideration. But the main consideration was noise. You bought better for less noise floor, less cross-channel interference, less componoent noise and better shielding etc etc etc. What you were constantly trying to do was get the sound cleaner and more precise.I find it slightly amusing that a modern mantra is to re-introduce noise back into the recording process. It is most definitely NOT always a good thing to have analogue characteristics. I also think you're mixing up saturation with simple noise and distortion. Saturation is a tape effect. One potential benefit of tape is the saturation, and a trick was to run recordings hot, to get the saturation. But it was not done all of the time and it was NOT done on every channel and every track. I also remember the hooha that greeted things like CD and DAT and optical drives for those wonderful non-noise clean digital recordings.
I have no problem in recreating some analogue effects in certain instances. Analogue synths have their advantages in some areas. A good overdriven filter can be creamier than a clean digital filter. Tube distortion can be more pleasing to the ear than grating digital distortion. But to do it on everything is weird. A driven need in the past was to clean up some channels and reduce all the crap you got with tape and analogue and poorly shielded desks, and to avoid clipping the channels unless you wanted it as a specific desired effect on specific channels. But to want to clip every single channel on a desk? I never ever once did that and never ever wanted to. I very carefully adjusted levels so that I got the hottest signal (not to induce clipping or any other unnatural device) but to reduce the overall noise. Remember signal/noise ratio? The hotter the signal, the less noticeable the noise. You DID NOT raise signals to increase noise you daft sod
And if I could have a 24 or 32 channel desk with each and every channel running through tubes? I'd run screaming from the facility denouncing the crap equipment it housed. You might want to add a subtle tube amp sheen at the end, even over the master (and you definitely want it to be after the fact and optional), you might only want certain single channels overdrivewn for stand-out effect...you most definitely do not want to butcher the whole recording process by distorting every single channel with a tube so that you have no single clean un-buggered-up original recordings.
So...is it good advice?
Frankly...no, it's ridiculous advice, and I think you've succumbed to internet hype, myth and bunkum from newbies that don't actually know what alot of the old stuff was about at all. There is a place for analogue gear and their is a place for distorting channels with analogue-style effects. But if you're going to destroy every channel with tube emulations and distortion and harmonics...you're most likely going to end up with a mushy mix, and you may as well have recorded with a cassette 4-track and simply boost the top end with an Eq or a harmonic enhancer. Either way, all you get is a f**ked-up recording IMO.
Here's an analogy. D'ya think Rodin could have sculpted The Thinker with a pneumatic drill?
D'ya sit and listen to 60s Phil Spectre wall-of-sound recordings full of mush and every frequency in the hearable spectrum, and actually think it sounds like high quality? Compared to any quiet and thoughtfully recorded masterpiece from recent years?
-
- KVRAF
- 8749 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
And...read up about valve emulation plugins. There was a good one once in SoS and it specifically went into detail about PSP Mixsat. You know what a valve does, right? It adds harmonics and limits.
So you seriously want every channel and every group limited?
And you want to add harmonics on every channel and group?
From what I remember, valve2 setting adds 1st and 2nd order harmonics (it might even have 3rd order ones...can't remember precisely).
I think what you call "analogue character" is probably just added frequencies in the mids and highs. You would probably do better looking with scrutiny at your mixes and recordings and figuring out what frequencies you are missing out in the process that adding harmonics to everything improves.
If anything, analogue devices usually reduce the available frequency upper limit. If you're talking saturation (which is a tape characteristic) your average tape reduced the frequency quite alot. Unless you had 2" tape running at high speed...that comes close to being able to record the same frequencies as digital media. So the recording process you're talking about with PSP valve sim is nothing like recording with saturation on an average old reel tape.
A valve sim is akin to a mild guitar pedal. Would you put a guitar pedal on every channel?
So you seriously want every channel and every group limited?
And you want to add harmonics on every channel and group?
From what I remember, valve2 setting adds 1st and 2nd order harmonics (it might even have 3rd order ones...can't remember precisely).
I think what you call "analogue character" is probably just added frequencies in the mids and highs. You would probably do better looking with scrutiny at your mixes and recordings and figuring out what frequencies you are missing out in the process that adding harmonics to everything improves.
If anything, analogue devices usually reduce the available frequency upper limit. If you're talking saturation (which is a tape characteristic) your average tape reduced the frequency quite alot. Unless you had 2" tape running at high speed...that comes close to being able to record the same frequencies as digital media. So the recording process you're talking about with PSP valve sim is nothing like recording with saturation on an average old reel tape.
A valve sim is akin to a mild guitar pedal. Would you put a guitar pedal on every channel?
-
- vvvvvvv
- 2595 posts since 24 Oct, 2000 from skelmersdale, west lancs, uk
kritkon 
I usually enjoy your views, kritikon, and this is no exception.
But I like the PSP MixSat sound in the way that Charles Dye and chrispy describe.
I'm not a pro audio studio owner, so it's different for me.
But continual great clarity is not the same as feeling good about a sound.
I heard a name band on telly not long ago, and every detail of the production was "visible", and I thought it was crap. Glossy transparent crap.
In nature we don't hear perfection.
We hear what we like.
kev
Why ... yesHere's an analogy. D'ya think Rodin could have sculpted The Thinker with a pneumatic drill?
I usually enjoy your views, kritikon, and this is no exception.
But I like the PSP MixSat sound in the way that Charles Dye and chrispy describe.
I'm not a pro audio studio owner, so it's different for me.
But continual great clarity is not the same as feeling good about a sound.
I heard a name band on telly not long ago, and every detail of the production was "visible", and I thought it was crap. Glossy transparent crap.
In nature we don't hear perfection.
We hear what we like.
kev
Member 12, Studio One Pro 7, VPS Avenger, Kontakt 8, Spitfire, Sonible, Baby Audio, CableGuys. Recent best buy - EZ Drummer 3 with Bandmate
-
- KVRist
- 256 posts since 23 May, 2006
Kritikon - I happen to really love most Phil Spector stuff. It's not exactly the cleanest sounding production, but it's certainly pleasant to my ears.
Also, having spent too much time wasted on YouTube, I came across the "Mix it like a record" trailer. He uses a similar plugin to PSP MixSat - MCDSP AC1... not on every channel, but on the master fader - before mixing anything.
Also, having spent too much time wasted on YouTube, I came across the "Mix it like a record" trailer. He uses a similar plugin to PSP MixSat - MCDSP AC1... not on every channel, but on the master fader - before mixing anything.
-
- KVRist
- 52 posts since 29 Apr, 2006 from Germany
I remember him using DUYs valve plugin on every(?) channel, mcdsp analog channel ssl dualmono on master and a tape emulation plugin right after that (eq inbetween).loveless wrote:Kritikon - I happen to really love most Phil Spector stuff. It's not exactly the cleanest sounding production, but it's certainly pleasant to my ears.
Also, having spent too much time wasted on YouTube, I came across the "Mix it like a record" trailer. He uses a similar plugin to PSP MixSat - MCDSP AC1... not on every channel, but on the master fader - before mixing anything.
-
- KVRAF
- 1894 posts since 19 Apr, 2006 from Montreal, Canada
I watched the whole "Mix it like a record" DVD at a friend place, all I remember is that he used so many plug-ins as to get confusing... and that the end result, to me, sounded like what it looked like: an overprocessed mess. Not my cup of tea at all, but hey, if it floats your boat...
No, that wasn't me.
-
- KVRist
- 256 posts since 23 May, 2006
I don't claim to know anything other than what I saw in the trailer - I think it's interesting to see how other people work, but I prefer to learn from experience. All that aside, I think if you're going to put the same plug on every track, with the same setting - you may as well just insert it on your input channels, and permanently track it (totally analog). Save yourself the CPU and bother of loading it for every channel. Seems like overkill otherwise.
-
- KVRist
- 110 posts since 15 Sep, 2005
MixSaturator isn't tape, it is not a tube, and it isn't analog. Its creators have tried to emulate some characteristics of some analog components, but it isn't the same. The point is, does it sound good when used in all channels. Has anyone tried that?
Using plugin X in all channels might be a very good idea indeed. Who cares what the creators of plugin X tried to achieve, if it sounds good?
Using plugin X in all channels might be a very good idea indeed. Who cares what the creators of plugin X tried to achieve, if it sounds good?
-
championrabbit championrabbit https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=53166
- KVRian
- 559 posts since 30 Dec, 2004
Charles Dye is king of the clipped signal. I can't see why one would wish to emulate that nonsense.
-
- KVRist
- 166 posts since 23 Feb, 2006
Cubase SX1 used to offer TrueTape, which was basically a hidden saturation plugin for tracking with. But I would rather track cleanly, then apply saturation if desired. It's interesting to experiment with sinewaves and saturation plugins. Use a spectrum analyser, like Span, and you can clearly see the new harmonics they add. I like MixSaturator - as an distortion effect, I think it sounds great. Magneto sounds like cheap fizz to me.
But i'm not convinced using it on every track is good. Don't be fooled by the level boost you get - we always think something sounds better if it's louder. Match the volume to that of Bypass, and only use it if it really (really) sounds better than bypass.
I sometimes think that Vintage Warmer is a nicer tape emulation, because of the compression. VW really blurs the lines between saturation, limiting and compression. But compared to simple saturation, I often end up prefering it. The Voxengo stuff is nice too - but tends to be far more subtle. But experimenting with sinewaves and spectrum analysis proves that they are actually adding harmonics, even when used very mildly. There is no doubt that the long analog paths of vintage desks and recording machines would have introduced harmonics at many different stages in the process. Harmonics added to harmonics ... hmmm ...
I think there is some merit in considering the Charles Dye method, even if you don't adopt it exactly the same.
But i'm not convinced using it on every track is good. Don't be fooled by the level boost you get - we always think something sounds better if it's louder. Match the volume to that of Bypass, and only use it if it really (really) sounds better than bypass.
I sometimes think that Vintage Warmer is a nicer tape emulation, because of the compression. VW really blurs the lines between saturation, limiting and compression. But compared to simple saturation, I often end up prefering it. The Voxengo stuff is nice too - but tends to be far more subtle. But experimenting with sinewaves and spectrum analysis proves that they are actually adding harmonics, even when used very mildly. There is no doubt that the long analog paths of vintage desks and recording machines would have introduced harmonics at many different stages in the process. Harmonics added to harmonics ... hmmm ...
I think there is some merit in considering the Charles Dye method, even if you don't adopt it exactly the same.
-
- KVRian
- 732 posts since 4 Jun, 2005
MixSat is a superb plugin, and I use it often on piano, bass, and drums especially. But only as a track insert. I wouldn't put it on a whole mix, myself.
Like a lot of "magic" effects, MixSat is perilously easy to overuse. I would keep it in small doses to bring instruments/tracks forward in the mix without making them louder.
Like a lot of "magic" effects, MixSat is perilously easy to overuse. I would keep it in small doses to bring instruments/tracks forward in the mix without making them louder.
-
- KVRist
- 262 posts since 8 Jun, 2005
It's also necessary to say, that use of saturation strongly depends of the musical style. If you do classics, or acoustic jazz, I wouldn't apply MixSat on every channel - but doing things like hard-fi or blur, MixSat can do magic things... by saying this, it might also be important to add that such styles don't care much about signal/noise ratios, cleanliness and so on.
I tried to put MixSat on every channel on several productions, the reslut is, it does a lot, but not always good things. Even with moderate settings (Valve1, 10-20% drive), the mix gets definitly more muddy. But this does sound nice, sometimes! So I decide the amount of MixSat instances individually for each production, dependant of what I want it to sound like... cheers to the infinite possibilities of the digital world!
I tried to put MixSat on every channel on several productions, the reslut is, it does a lot, but not always good things. Even with moderate settings (Valve1, 10-20% drive), the mix gets definitly more muddy. But this does sound nice, sometimes! So I decide the amount of MixSat instances individually for each production, dependant of what I want it to sound like... cheers to the infinite possibilities of the digital world!
-
- KVRist
- 110 posts since 15 Sep, 2005
Why not for acoustic jazz? I hate super-clean hi-fi jazz. Jazz recordings from the 1960s are more pleasant to listen to than today's ultra precise crystal-clear stuff. (well maybe apart from the hard panning)friteuse wrote:If you do classics, or acoustic jazz, I wouldn't apply MixSat on every channel
Warm it up, crank up the mids, tame the extreme highs, make it sound like music.
-
- KVRian
- 587 posts since 18 Jul, 2004
there use to be a studio called Kitchen Sink in Los Angeles! try this use a compressor with a fast attack an a release around 50 ms. take 2 db off the peaks. now insert that christortion and move that 2 harm slider up to taste. this is a ITB CHANNEL EMULATOR. you can take it a step farther by using a pre amp impulse before the compressor for color