saturation pre/post- linear-reverb

[maxkc]

Hi all,

here´s one more question of this kind as there´s something I do not fully understand.

I understand that when you use linear convolution reverb, it doesn´t make a difference whether you use linear processing as for example eq´ing before or after the reverb in the fx-chain. And I also can fully understand -and even visualize before my eyes, when I think about it-, that it makes sense, that non-linear processing as compressing for example affects the result, whether it is used before or after the reverb.

But I must admit, that I am unable to visualize the same in terms of saturation or distortion. Here is how I imagined it, but you surely will tell me, that I am wrong about it.

I have a dry audio file, when I put a linear reverb on it, I get the same audio file processed in a linear way. When I now run it through a saturator, this adds distortions and harmonics on that sound file.

And here probably comes my thinking mistake: When I run my dry sound file through the same saturator with exact the same settings, distortions and harmonics are added. Now, when I run the result through a linear reverb, should the result not be the same as in the first case? Because I thought, that the distortions and harmonics added in both cases should be the same as the linear reverb in both cases only processed the audio file, well, in a linear way. In this specific case (because of the linear reverb) I see the saturation process and its processing in a similar way than the linear eq.

Even that I know that I´m pretty wrong with my thinking, I can´t see (feel) the difference in my specific case here. What do you think?

Have a good day,

Christian

[Dietz]

Hi Christian,

saturation is a non-linear (dynamic) process. There will be differences when you use saturation pre- or post-reverb. In the former scenario, you will get "clean" reverb from a harmonically "enriched" signal; in the latter the reverb will receive some distortion, too.

The actual effect will depend a lot on the type and intensity of saturation you use, though, so the differences might be subtle. :-)

HTH,

[maxkc]

Ok, I see what you mean and now I can see/feel the difference in both cases. Thank you Very much fot that. :) You said the differences might be subtle, depending the amount and the type of saturation that is used. Well I wanted to use a console emulation plugin on my tracks to emulate for example that typical neve or ssl-console-warmth. As this is maybe not exactly the same as a „simple“ saturation plugin, I wonder if I should run my tracks dry or processed (reverbed) through that console emulation. Because in an „analog“-studio, the reverbed sound would also run through that console.

[Dietz]

In a "real" studio (back in the days) you would have recorded your orchestra on tape, mixing these tracks through a console afterwards. With that concept in mind I would add MIR Pro before running the signal through tape simulation, add some algorithmic reverb to _this_, and then route everything through the console emulation. (You could use another instance of tape emulation here, printing the mix to half-inch tape virtually ... 8-) ...)

... but then, the beauty about DAWs is that you don't _have_ to stick to these old-school approaches if you don't want to! :-)

Kind regards,

[maxkc]

That seems very logic to me. So as the recordings on tape would get mixed in the console afterwards, it is now clear for me, that I will add the console plugin after the reverb. Thank you very much Dietz. Great advices. :)