Current PC CPU with SSE2 Windows XP/Vista/7/8 1GB RAM, more recommended 20MB free disc space display 1200x800px and up VST2 or VST3 compatible host software supports 32-bit and 64-bit in all formats AAX support for Pro Tools 10 & 11
Current Intel-Mac CPU with SSE2 Mac OS X 10.5 or newer 1GB RAM, more recommended 20MB free disc space display 1200x800px and up VST2, VST3 or AU compatible host software supports 32-bit and 64-bit in all formats AAX support for Pro Tools 10 & 11
Satin, for me, is what some people call a 'game changer'.
I've been trying to achieve a satisfying approximation of an analogue/hardware sound with an entirely software setup for a while, without much success.
There was a lot of pre-hype/buzz around Satin, and I (sceptic that I am) wasn't holding my breath. But I heard what the demo did to my sounds and had to have it
I find it can comfortably replace many other individual plugins that I've been chaining together in an attempt to get the sound I want; Eq, compressors, limiters, clippers, saturators etc. Using Satin massively reduces the amount of fiddling about I need to get those thick, juicy, present tones I've been craving.
For me, this is 'it'; This is VST software that has cracked it; enough that I don't crave expensive hardware anymore.
It's not a budget plugin. In fact it's the most expensive effect plugin I've purchased so far, even at the intro price. However, I think it's worth it in spades.
It depends. If you want the 'tape' texture or signature to be printed into the audio (of course, just in subtle amounts on the master), then Satin could be the last stage.
But typically, a tape device would be before a (multi-band) compressor. This can come very handy, since tape can easily tame transients and occasional overly harsh peak sections. This way, a succeeding dynamics device doesn't have to 'work' that hard, meaning its incoming signal is already 'prepared' in some way, more even and predictable.