Saturate then EQ, or EQ then saturate - Which sounds best?

So you want to enhance your harmonics, but the result is too bright. Simple - add an EQ. But should the EQ go after or before the saturator? Does it make any difference? Find out in this video. Check out the Audio Masterclass Music Production and Sound Engineering Course at bit.ly/3W3tpKo
EQUIPMENT USED
Digital audio workstation software: Pro Tools
Plug-ins: Slate Digital Infinity EQ, SSL X-Saturator, Blue Cat FreqAnalyst Pro, Flux Stereo Tool
Computer: Apple Mac Pro 5,1 (MacOS Mojave)
Microphone: Sennheiser MKH 416
Audio interface: Behringer U-Phoria UMC202HD
Camera preamp: Comica LinkFlex AD2
Lighting: Amaran 100D, Phot-R 95cm softbox, Switti S45
Teleprompter: Padcaster Parrot with PromptSmart Pro teleprompter app
Camera: Sony Alpha A6600
Image editing software: Adobe Photoshop
Screen capture software: ScreenFlow
Video editing software: Apple Final Cut Pro X
CREDITS
'Breaking the Laws of Love' © David Mellor - All Rights Reserved
Funny cat - Original source unknown. If you know, let me know.

[@jeromeperian4588]

I’m 62, and didn’t start computer recording until 2016 so I’m relatively new. This was a great illustration, because the discussion is always about which plug-ins go first. Especially when it’s EQ and compression. Good tutorial!

[@AudioMasterclass]

EQ and compression... Fix any frequency balance problems first with EQ, then compress. Then optionally follow with another EQ to improve the sound subjectively or help blend the track in with the mix. There's always scope for creativity but mostly EQ-compression-EQ will be the best way to go, remembering not to use a process if you don't need it. DM

[@perchrhalvorsen]

@@AudioMasterclass But...every compressor (digi og ana, in or outboard) will color the sound, and then you end up with different sound/frequency balance depending on what is first or second. I always testing out both ways, and LISTEN. So for me the rule is; NO rule! I rather trust my ears :-) And as you say; many time no processing at all is the best. So again: Listen. Thanks for a good tutorial and channel.

[@cholkymilkmirage4984]

eq then saturate sounds more distorted and crispy but saturate then eq sounds cleaner. Im doing this with my eyes closed too I swear

[@eventidewinds]

now that was an knowledge "enhancing" video, thanks! I will try in my home studio someday soon.

[@TheShpmusic]

The second channel sounds the best.

[@TheAndpush]

If we were talking of linear processing, I would agree that the order does not matter. But the saturation is clearly non-linear processing and theoretically the order matters. That what you assumed before starting the experiment. I also haven't noticed any difference. And here is my explanation. I think the saturation adds mainly 2nd and 3rd harmonics, that brighten sound. If you apply Eq before - you minimise the base for harmonics, if you apply it after - you minimise the product. Pretty obvious, but that means that the power of harmonics is very small, and even though there are there are higher frequency harmonics produced in latter case, they are then filtered by Eq, that explain the subtlety of the difference. In some extreme case, if the processing were more aggressive, I assume that EQ them SAT would work better, because non-linearity also create intermodulation high frequency garbage, which we do not want to be here. Speaking of theoretically correct way of processing, it should be EQ, and in parallel (e.g. with the help of the send bus) you define a spectrum for saturation, which means another EQ2 that creates base for harmonics. With the second EQ2 you can limit lower frequencies and higher frequencies that would produce unpleasant distortion products (intermodulation), and then mix them in.

[@szeredaiakos]

If he does crossover saturation a gentle eq has almost no effect in regard to the order.

[@jeremiahchamberlin4499]

I would have thought that EQing the individual tracks before saturation would sound ‘better;’ but my theory was proven wrong. Scientists may not publish ‘null results,’ but graduate students often turn in papers that show what they learned when their theories were proven wrong. Again, because it adds to knowledge.

[@adsertheblade]

Thanks for the great video. I often find it difficult to tell subtle differences and wonder if I'm imagining things...I guess this is a great way to consolidate what I think I hear. I have a few places to test out these techniques and see what's really going on.

[@tomstickland]

If the harmonizer algorithm doesn't have any non-linear effects then this makes sense. It doesn't matter if selected frequencies are scaled down before or after applying the harmonizer.

[@designemusica]

This video is perfect in so many ways. Thanks a lot!

[@HongFeiHo]

Thanks for the 'experiment' ;)

[@djnickhodgkins]

Great vid. Very helpful. I'm trying to simplify/standardize the order of processing on each track (I know this rigidity is frowned upon, but I need to reduce choice at every count in the mixing process; I'm still fairly noob) - that is: between eq, compression, saturation, (and to a lesser extent) clipping. This vid tells me eq and compression order - doesn't really matter. Cool. But where does compression come - after both saturation and EQ? I'm guessing yes, but just wanted to check what your pro opinion is. Thanks again!

[@AudioMasterclass]

It doesn't matter in this instance, but I think I did say in the video that with other plugins it might. I might return to this point in a future video. Regarding order, my view is EQ to get rid of any frequency balance problems first, then compress, then saturate. Compression evens out the signal level so the saturation will be more even and not just on peaks. Then EQ again for pleasure.

[@djnickhodgkins]

🙏😉 @@AudioMasterclass

[@basieljozey]

Great video and demonstration. Thank you.

[@vsbryan]

Super informative video!!

[@thegroove2000]

Paul is that you?.

[@neolyth]

you too huh? XD

[@qyoo620]

ive subscribed to like three or something channels in my entire life and this will be the fourth or something

[@AudioMasterclass]

Thank you. I hope you'll find my future content useful. DM

[@Brutuscomedy]

I prefer bouncing a digital mix to tape for saturation. Plugins have come a long way but the real thing still can't be beat imo.

[@drrodopszin]

The area where I could actually hear the difference is clipping distortion with low frequencies. The ugly upper harmonics of those low frequencies cannot be fixed if you high pass _after_ the clipping. But I'm not sure in anything anymore, so I will actually test it. (Edit: tested it, the stereo test really showed the difference off).

[@MiguelCruz-cm1fe]

Hi. Nice demonstration. Harmonic enhancement is a kind of EQ. Does the order of 2 EQ instances matter? I would think not.

[@markfischer3626]

Here is the mathematical definition of linearity. F(A) + F(B) = F(A + B) = F( B + A) As long as the functions are in the linear range they should be the same. Now drive the system to clipping and see what happens to the results. BTW, treble boost IS harmonic enhancement. If you are looking for tonal accuracy from your little shoebox studio monitors then use at least a 10 band equalizer on each channel and tune them one at a time. Sorry to say it but for what most of the market for recorded music listens to and what equipment they listen with it could hardly matter less.

[@bobe.thomas]

great video, great idea, very interesting.. thanks!

[@MacinMindSoftware]

To find the difference between two different versions of the same audio, what I do is invert the phase on one and then combine them. The result will be the difference. I've used this to discover the difference between different encoding compressions lossless for example where otherwise I'm unable to hear the difference.

[@AudioMasterclass]

This is a useful method but it doesn't work so well if there are timing differences. Having said that, it may still provide useful insight if not total accuracy. DM

[@Smung]

I wonder if they perfectly cancel in a null test

[@Slugxthalickman]

Great vid

[@yamdigger]

I prefer the original track over the 2 processed ones. But then again, that's just me.

[@designemusica]

that's something about art, right?

[@yamdigger]

@@designemusica Not really. It just sounded cleaner.

[@kingkyoga9263]

He said he exaggerated the saturation for demonstration purposes is probably why

[@teashea1]

most excellent

[@alessandrogarofalo8699]

I think that a bigger difference would be made if you would use a low cut instead of an high cut

[@danceswith7wolves]

The fundamentals weren't touched by the eq on low pass

[@vontreherumaiBH]

On my speakers , the Solo sounds better then both of them 🥶🥶

[@eranddroory9987]

Thanks for the video. But you're wrong. There's a difference. Just take this video into any DAW. have two identical copies, and put the plugins on as in this video, then flip the phase on one track and put the eq you use here with an analyzer on the master track. play both tracks and you will see there is a difference in the high end, that some of clearly can hear even though it's KZbin.

[@AudioMasterclass]

Thank you for your comment. Yes an inversion test does show an extra level of precision with the difference being around -20 dB on peaks. I'll stick to the point of my video however that I was expecting an easily audible difference just listening to the tracks, and I expected the stereo test to make the difference crystal clear both visually and audibly. This is of course just one combination of plugins and settings and I may return to this topic in future, including an inversion test. DM

[@faridsh.8669]

This is Strange for me cause I can better hear notes in Saturation + EQ and it sounds some how brighter where in EQ + Saturation the sounds are somehow dimmed in comparison. Greate video and approache and thanks for sharing your knowledge . :)

[@eranddroory9987]

You hear a difference because there is. He's not doing a proper Null test!

[@ampersand64]

​@@eranddroory9987 I agree. I'm headed over to my DAW right now to test this. My guess, for now, is that the differences are so small because the amplitude of the frequencies above 5khz didn't cross into the nonlinear range of the distortion's transfer function. Or at least, not enough to show up on the limited resolution of the goniometer. A true null test would consist of printing each track, reversing the polarity of one, and analyzing with a level meter and a high quality spectrum analyzer. If there is any difference, we can conclude that the order matters. One thing to note is that the difference between EQ before and EQ after distortion is likely proportional to the amount of distortion. Therefore, the application that this would matter the most in would be something like guitar amps. But those usually employ clipping-style distortion, which is a different type of nonlinearity.

[@BILLY-px3hw]

I think we get so caught up in these details of mixing that we waste a lot of time, we should spend more time just trying to make our mixes sound better overall. Even if there was a slight difference it doesn't really matter, what matters is if the music is worth mixing at all. If the music is good then a standard comptent mix job will work. If the music is bad it doesn't matter what plugin comes first

[@G_handle]

I don’t understand this (pretty common in the KZbin Gearsluts world) point of view. We’re making music, not washing the dishes. It feels like some people are just trying to get it over with, which is bizarre. Who’s forcing you to make music? To me, audio engineers are artist and musicians as well, and their instruments are the Mics & Pres, Comps & EQs, buttons knobs and faders. Mixing is a performance. Is anyone telling the guitarist Not to worry about what Strings, Pickups, Pedals, Amps & Cabs they use. Can the change the tubes in an amp without someone, presumably a fellow musician, rolling their eyes like it’s a waste of time. Who’s time? Who decides that it’s wasted? Sorry to snap back at You in particular, but I genuinely don’t understand where this attitude comes from. Of course better songwriting is going to matter more. But this whole game is about sonics and the nuances and emotions buried within. What am I missing here? Is this your passion or just a job?

[@Zickcermacity]

First of all, what is "saturation" in an audio production context??

[@AudioMasterclass]

Here's a suggestion for a Google search query - what is saturation in an audio production context. DM

[@Zickcermacity]

@@AudioMasterclass Folks: Audio MasterCLASS is suggesting I google the meaning of audio saturation. Since you're the "MasterClass", why act like a Gen-Z telling someone to "google it" when you could just explain it here? THANK YOU

[@IconOfSin]

@@Zickcermacity since you're too lazy to do your own research, saturation is subtle distortion, also referred to as colour (color for yanks). You should familiarise yourself with these concepts, Google is a truly revolutionary thing

[@Zickcermacity]

@@IconOfSin You're call ME lazy? "Lazy" are those smug Gen-Y and Gen-Zs who tell folks my age to "google" something, instead of having the bloody courtesy to take the time and explain it.

[@RoastedHVAC]

What is the name of that guitar solo?

[@AudioMasterclass]

It's just me - one of my doodles. DM

[@dilemmacubing]

Chords are Nowhere Man by the Beatles. Macca is that you?

[@heavymetalmixer91]

I didn't expect that null to happen. Also, I wonder if it happens with any saturation plugin? Btw, what do you think about Emphasis and De-emphasis EQ? kzbin.info/www/bejne/fl6qpGClaJ52a9E

[@AudioMasterclass]

I would have to test this further with other plug-ins. I would be surprised if the SSL X-Saturator was the only plug-in to act like this. Regarding the video you linked, yes I can see this being useful for compressors that don't have a side chain input. I may look into this further. Meanwhile there is kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZncqpVra8SJnMU DM

[@عبدالعظيمالموالي]

👍

[@orefilemmutlana8120]

😊

[@dancemusicorganisation]

I could definitely hear a difference between the two but I still prefer the original.

[@designemusica]

Do you think that this could be some subconscious brain activity, or some subjective audio aspect that the analysis in the video couldn't cover? Because at first I think I also heard a slight difference, but by the end I was convinced that both were the same.

[@dancemusicorganisation]

@@designemusicaIt's certainly possible, but I can hear 0.01dB or 1,000th of a Q difference when tonal balancing, so it might be just me 🤔

[@kingkyoga9263]

@@dancemusicorganisation I was looking for this comment because I heard a different as well

[@PeterbFree]

I thought the original sounded the best

[@luizhenriqueferreira3314]

You look a awful lot like Paul McCartney