R
Saturation
- Thread starter jaynm26
- Start date
Chili
Site Moderator
I think saturation in this context is about tape saturation. And there you can have "degrees of saturation". How much saturation do you add with your plug-in?? I don't know, how often does an analog engineer go higher than 0db on the VU meter?
B
Beck
Guest
This is the number one myth in audio. How people can keep repeating it in this day and age is beyond me.
All technologies and devices have artifacts that cause the recorded sound to differ from the live sound. Some are even desirable, but all of it is technically distortion of the original audio. There is no perfect recording medium.
That would be my answer if you were serious, but of course I know you must be kidding. You know better.
Transistors and op-amps distort (clip) in degrees and valves (tubes) certainly are driven into saturation. Well, for one thing... without tube saturation there wouldn't be that Marshall amp sound, and that's just one thing.
This is the number one myth in audio. How people can keep repeating it in this day and age is beyond me.
All technologies and devices have artifacts that cause the recorded sound to differ from the live sound. Some are even desirable, but all of it is technically distortion of the original audio. There is no perfect recording medium.
That would be my answer if you were serious, but of course I know you must be kidding. You know better.
Transistors and op-amps distort (clip) in degrees and valves (tubes) certainly are driven into saturation. Well, for one thing... without tube saturation there wouldn't be that Marshall amp sound, and that's just one thing.
Nope. Yes, you can have degrees of DISTORTION but if a transistor (op amp op stage) has saturated it means the devices are turned hard on and no further signal output is possible.
" Clipping" can be gentle, just 10% flattening of peaks say, or a complete squarewave.
A saturated transformer is one in which all the magnetic domains are "used up", aligned and no further magnetic effect can be had. Equivalent to using up all the bits at 0dBFS.
A saturated valve is one where the cathode is at its limit and can supply no more electrons. This does not happen in ordinary circumstances and is very damaging to the valve. MUCH time and effort is expended making sure that valve stages overload gracefully in guitar amplifiers. You can certainly have too much of a "bad" thing!
Dave.
R
RAMI
Guest
Well, I stopped following your ridiculous argument with Ethan, so I'm certainly not going to start one here. So, you're saying that digital adds a "harshness" that's audible to the naked, average ear? To the point that you need "saturation" plug-ins to get rid of that harshness?
I stand by my statement 100%.
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
It's the hardware that adds anything if you record in digital. People here are trying to replicate what hardware does because they are recording in digital, which makes no sense considering they used hardware to record. So I stand by RAMI.
B
Beck
Guest
You'll never learn anything that way. If my arguments sound ridiculous it only shows the collective ignorance of the forum and forums in general really. I won't pick on any one forum... they're pretty much the same. 99% of the time people are kicking around wiki level myths. When people come along every now and then that can swim much deeper than that, of course few can follow and the one or two correct people seem incorrect or insane compared to the rest of the group. It's called group think for that reason and it will turn your brain to oatmeal. I'm not seeing good arguments and evidence presented, but rather a confident religious stance, like "This is the truth and I'll even yell louder to prove it." No in depth technical device-specific information whatsoever.
Ok, stand by it, but your statement is 100% marketing speak that you and many others have taken literally. When you, Ethan or anyone else can describe the processes at the component level then I will listen to it. Short of that you're just repeating something equivalent to political talking points passed down from the party leaders.
Don't follow people... it's unbecoming! No matter who someone is, thinks they are or you think they are, if they can't speak technically beyond ambiguous buzz words and vague references to dubious studies it just doesn't inspire me.
I still say your kidding though, cuz you don't seem that clueless. (That was a compliment... now don't squander my confidence in you!)
I notice the people that have actually been recording most of their lives rather than just talking about it frequently get on the bad side of the group in web forums. It should make you wonder about the collective paradigm of the group and if you are just another patsy for someone else's thoughts. One brain... one thought... many mouths speaking.
If you stop following conversations because a person seems to be at odds with the group or a person with some imagined status in a group you will stagnate and stay there in your error. Learning the truth of a matter is a painful process when the perceptions of a group are so skewed. It is more comfortable to stay safely wrong and accepted, but that's a weakness that only leads to more weakness and ultimately inability to think for yourself at all. Just a terrible fate to my way of thinking. I couldn't live like that. I shudder to think!
Oh, and I would never recommend plugs to fix a digital artifact issue. They don't work.
R
RAMI
Guest
You'll never learn anything that way. If my arguments sound ridiculous it only shows the collective ignorance of the forum and forums in general really. I won't pick on any one forum... they're pretty much the same. 99% of the time people are kicking around wiki level myths. When people come along every now and then that can swim much deeper than that, of course few can follow and the one or two correct people seem incorrect or insane compared to the rest of the group. It's called group think for that reason and it will turn your brain to oatmeal. I'm not seeing good arguments and evidence presented, but rather a confident religious stance, like "This is the truth and I'll even yell louder to prove it." No in depth technical device-specific information whatsoever.
Ok, stand by it, but your statement is 100% marketing speak that you and many others have taken literally. When you, Ethan or anyone else can describe the processes at the component level then I will listen to it. Short of that you're just repeating something equivalent to political talking points passed down from the party leaders.
Don't follow people... it's unbecoming! No matter who someone is, thinks they are or you think they are, if they can't speak technically beyond ambiguous buzz words and vague references to dubious studies it just doesn't inspire me.
I still say your kidding though, cuz you don't seem that clueless. (That was a compliment... now don't squander my confidence in you!)
I notice the people that have actually been recording most of their lives rather than just talking about it frequently get on the bad side of the group in web forums. It should make you wonder about the collective paradigm of the group and if you are just another patsy for someone else's thoughts. One brain... one thought... many mouths speaking.
If you stop following conversations because a person seems to be at odds with the group or a person with some imagined status in a group you will stagnate and stay there in your error. Learning the truth of a matter is a painful process when the perceptions of a group are so skewed. It is more comfortable to stay safely wrong and accepted, but that's a weakness that only leads to more weakness and ultimately inability to think for yourself at all. Just a terrible fate to my way of thinking. I couldn't live like that. I shudder to think!
Oh, and I would never recommend plugs to fix a digital artifact issue. They don't work.
Funny thing is, I agree with most of what you said. Well, not that I read all of it.I'm a skimmer generally.
Except for the part about me not being clueless. I'm flattered, but I am clueless.
But seriously, I've read your posts over the years and respect your knowledge, as well as Ethan's and others like you two that I consider so knowledgeable about audio that I'm not even in the same league.
The reason I say that the argument is ridiculous is because you have one side arguing that something makes 0.0000000 difference, and the other side saying it makes something like 0.000005 difference. So, either way, no matter who's right or wrong, if the difference had to be measured through endless studies, tests, different opinions and experiences of professionals in the industry, etc... and it's STILL debatable to many.....then that means that even if there is a difference, it's not even worth worrying about. Certainly not to 99% of home recordists who have about 2,000 more important things to worry about.
I take back saying it's ridiculous. I'm usually pretty liberal and not always accurate with my adjectives. I meant that I find it very trivial. If others find it interesting, that's cool.
Last edited:
B
Beck
Guest
Funny thing is, I agree with most of what you said. Well, not that I read all of it.I'm a skimmer generally.
Except for the part about me not being clueless. I'm flattered, but I am clueless.
But seriously, I've read your posts over the years and respect your knowledge, as well as Ethan's and others like you two that I consider so knowledgeable about audio that I'm not even in the same league.
The reason I say that the argument is ridiculous is because you have one side arguing that something makes 0.0000000 difference, and the other side saying it makes something like 0.000005 difference. So, either way, no matter who's right or wrong, if the difference had to be measured through endless studies, tests, different opinions and experiences of professionals in the industry, etc... and it's STILL debatable to many.....then that means that even if there is a difference, it's not even worth worrying about. Certainly not to 99% of home recordists who have about 2,000 more important things to worry about.
I take back saying it's ridiculous. I'm usually pretty liberal and not always accurate with my adjectives. I meant that I find it very trivial. If others find it interesting, that's cool.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I actually agree with Ethan about a lot of things, like his opinion about commercial TV and of course his bass traps are super, but we certainly talk past each other quite a bit because we have different views about how to go about testing or analyzing, or if its even necessary to go about it at all in many cases.
As for the digital perfection thing I always try to shed light on it by talking about real life products rather than the theoretical.
The saying concerning digital that we know today as, “What goes in is exactly comes out” is incomplete and out of context.
The full saying is this: “Unlike analog tape, the frequency response of digital is virtually flat and thus what comes in is what goes out.” The statement is specifically referring to frequency response and nothing else.
This is what happens when amateurs take over a profession that was once dominated by learned engineers. Because so many people lack technical depth they believe things like “digital is a perfect medium.” The designers of a digital device wouldn’t make such a claim. The marketing department of course would.
On the consumer side you have Sony’s trademark mantra concerning CD from 1982, which was, “Perfect sound forever.” But again that was marketing and not engineering.
As soon as you start comparing actual devices like different CD player models and find you prefer the sound of one over the other, you can’t say they are both perfect. And if you have a number of CD players that all sound different than the other you cannot support the claim that they are all perfect because if they all sound a bit different they are coloring the sound to some degree. There’s no way around that. You can’t say that five different CD players sound different than each other while at the same time claiming they have no character that would alter the sound.
It’s the same on the recording side. The people who chose specific products based on audio performance do so because they prefer the sound of one to another. That’s all you need to know to expose the myth of digital perfection.
Still trying to post.
Did I just triple post? damn. If not here it is:
I love these threads. Let's just face the fact that the buzz word saturation (in the world of plugins) is just another way of saying distortion. As to whether it is pleasing or not is purely subjective. I dare not venture into the debate about digital vs analog. Regrettably there is to my knowledge no perfect recording medium or reproduction system. Pure analog would be the truest as it is analogous to the input. What sounds good is open for debate. FWIW, I sometimes venture into the "saturation" plugin world and if it improves the delivery of the musical message so be it. One more thing, 44,100 individual " looks" per second at a source will never be a true reproduction nor will 96k "looks". We will need infinite "looks" for truly accurate capture and infinite "speaks" for reproduction. I have worked with analog gear and digital gear both have limitations that we must address (or ignore). It saddens me to read about interested and passionate who people get so wrapped up in the nuttiness about audio quality today. Great music can be captured by proper attention to basic recording/mixing techniques that are readily available in texts, classrooms, studios and kind "old hands" around the globe. My .02. Lets go make/record/mix/master/inspire. Be well all. It is late here and I just saw a great show but it was too loud.
Did I just triple post? damn. If not here it is:
I love these threads. Let's just face the fact that the buzz word saturation (in the world of plugins) is just another way of saying distortion. As to whether it is pleasing or not is purely subjective. I dare not venture into the debate about digital vs analog. Regrettably there is to my knowledge no perfect recording medium or reproduction system. Pure analog would be the truest as it is analogous to the input. What sounds good is open for debate. FWIW, I sometimes venture into the "saturation" plugin world and if it improves the delivery of the musical message so be it. One more thing, 44,100 individual " looks" per second at a source will never be a true reproduction nor will 96k "looks". We will need infinite "looks" for truly accurate capture and infinite "speaks" for reproduction. I have worked with analog gear and digital gear both have limitations that we must address (or ignore). It saddens me to read about interested and passionate who people get so wrapped up in the nuttiness about audio quality today. Great music can be captured by proper attention to basic recording/mixing techniques that are readily available in texts, classrooms, studios and kind "old hands" around the globe. My .02. Lets go make/record/mix/master/inspire. Be well all. It is late here and I just saw a great show but it was too loud.
Some say there is no such thing as analogue recording! FM stereo is sampled at 38kHz. Tape by the bias oscillator, usually around 120kHz but could be as low as 50k. Even the beloved vinyl it could be argued is "sampled" by surface noise! If we are generous and allow a DR of 70dB that is not quite 12 bits!
Dave.
B
Beck
Guest
Yes some might say that, but there’s a problem trying to reference analogue to digital, because there’s no direct comparison for all the different parameters. Analogue is electrically speaking “analogous” which is of course why its called analogue.
The 12 or 13-bit figure you see people throwing around lately is a very narrow picture. Ironically it’s like a poorly sampled view of the capabilities of analog recording. People try to put analog in digital terms now because they can’t even think outside of digital terms. The modulation of FM or the frequency of a bias oscillator has no direct comparison to digital sampling. Nothing is being “sampled” in analog.
The comparison to bit depth is only comparing the theoretical S/N ratio of digital to the S/N ratio of tape. The sound of tape and digital is so much more than its signal-to-noise ratio.
I don’t know about being generous with 70 dB because if you want to tell the whole truth you should compare the S/N ratio of tape using long established noise reduction methods that have been around for decades… dbx, Dolby A, C, S or SR. Even on so-called prosumer gear with dbx or Dolby S the S/N ratio and dynamic range is superior to CD and on par with higher resolution digital, depending on the specific device. For example, the S/N ratio of the Tascam MSR-16 with dbx is 108 dB and the same model with Dolby S is 105 dB. Even the better Tascam cassette portastudios have a S/N ratio of 95 dB. In laymen’s terms that’s, “Pin drop quiet.” And it exceeds the rec/repro S/N ratio of some really good CD recorders
Digital marketing people have always been less than honest by using an imaginary worst-case analog machine for comparison, while ignoring professional noise reduction, which was regularly used in the real world the whole time they were writing these misleading marketing blurbs.
Consider yourself lucky. You focus on the important stuff - writing good songs and giving good performances. This technical mumbo jumbo is just a huge unnecessary buzzkill.
Yes some might say that, but there’s a problem trying to reference analogue to digital, because there’s no direct comparison for all the different parameters. Analogue is electrically speaking “analogous” which is of course why its called analogue.
The 12 or 13-bit figure you see people throwing around lately is a very narrow picture. Ironically it’s like a poorly sampled view of the capabilities of analog recording. People try to put analog in digital terms now because they can’t even think outside of digital terms. The modulation of FM or the frequency of a bias oscillator has no direct comparison to digital sampling. Nothing is being “sampled” in analog.
The comparison to bit depth is only comparing the theoretical S/N ratio of digital to the S/N ratio of tape. The sound of tape and digital is so much more than its signal-to-noise ratio.
I don’t know about being generous with 70 dB because if you want to tell the whole truth you should compare the S/N ratio of tape using long established noise reduction methods that have been around for decades… dbx, Dolby A, C, S or SR. Even on so-called prosumer gear with dbx or Dolby S the S/N ratio and dynamic range is superior to CD and on par with higher resolution digital, depending on the specific device. For example, the S/N ratio of the Tascam MSR-16 with dbx is 108 dB and the same model with Dolby S is 105 dB. Even the better Tascam cassette portastudios have a S/N ratio of 95 dB. In laymen’s terms that’s, “Pin drop quiet.” And it exceeds the rec/repro S/N ratio of some really good CD recorders
Digital marketing people have always been less than honest by using an imaginary worst-case analog machine for comparison, while ignoring professional noise reduction, which was regularly used in the real world the whole time they were writing these misleading marketing blurbs.
Agreed things like Dolby S are excellent. I have a Sony Dolby S cassette machine and the dynamic range is as good as my 2496 (the distortion is orders worse than digital at any particular level of course but that is academic) . The figure of 70dB was for vinyl and there is no escape from that unless discs were Dolby encoded and pre amps suitable equipped!
Dave.
Dirtnaper2323
New member
Dont leave home without it. the decapitator is great. i love it on bass (and acoustic gtrs, snare, hearty vocal effects ect). especially if you are doing a parallel track (rock/metal/hardcore) you can really get that thing to growl. i use it quite a bit on vocals as well. if you havent tried the sonnox inflator, i would say that it is def worth your while. i use that on group sends all the time. talk about bringing something to life.....can come in handy on the master buss as well. nice tool to have.