The Comp->EQ / EQ->Comp debate.

[Sokar the White]

I've seen plenty of engineers say that they compress first and then EQ, and probably just as many EQ first then compress in order to avoid compressing noise.

'Advanced' engineers, what is your style? It seems to me that I have the most success compressing bass instruments first then EQ. I use to do that for everything I compressed by I am questioning that route now. Do you use compressor then EQ on some instruments/parts and the opposite on others? Which order do you go on which instruments specifically?

Opinions please.

 

[mersisblue]

well what do you mean by \"advanced \"

if you mean certified thats me but if you mean years of exerience

well Im only 25 so .........

but I learned to EQ before comp

and sometimes after as well and very rarely only after comp

 

[Sokar the White]

'Advanced' is subjective. Mostly wide-release engineers. But it doesn't matter.

There's a mixing certification? Hmmm. Thanks for the input.

 

[TheHopiWay]

I've been doing audio work for 35 years full time.
maybe a dozen times or so I've eq'd prior to compression.
the rest of the time it's comp>EQ>Limit

 

[Eurocide]

My way: Cambridge with mainly subtractive settings -> Compressor according to the material -> painting with Pultec Pro

 

[cAPSLOCK]

This is one of those arguments that comes up that I just think is silly. Please excuse my candor.

I mean... in the end you gotta know what are you are doing and why you are doing it. If you EQ first then you are going to hit the compressor with the prominant frequencies first. If you EQ after - you compress the track naturally and sculpt the frequencies after that without regard to a folowwing compressor.

There are good reasons to do either in certain circumstances.

I suppose if I were to break it down I compress first 60% of the time.

Here's one kind of updated way of looking at the whole thing thanks to tools like the UAD1.

'Back in the day' you had a fairly limited amount of hardware to run your audio through. This meant that you might follow some sort of processing order convention to get the most bang for the buck. Thanks to the UAD1 and plugins in general, we are more limited by our imagination than our physical hardware... Even though a single UAD1 card or CPU can only run a finite amount of processors, you can run many more than the hardware option of days past/present. Not only that but you can choose what plugins to spend you CPU cycles on for the project you are working on. You want 12 LA2As for this project?? Well load em up! You'll still have room for a few EQs too. It's like being able to instantly build a custom floor to ceiling rack with exactly what you want for the project, and you don't even have to mess with a punchdown block. _

The point I am making is NOW we can eq before AND after compression if we want. It's decadant, yes. And in my hands, it might do more damage than good...

cAPS

 

[Middleman]

If I am trying to emphasize a range I will EQ into a compressor. Most of the time I compress then EQ.

 

[ATOR]

Most of the time I use corrective EQ before and soundshaping EQ after compression.

If you have an ac guitar recording with a big low mid hump from the resonance freq of the soundhole and the proximity effect from the mic, then all the compressor would see is this big hump. You'll have to EQ this hump to make the comp see the transients you want it to see.

A compressors changes the balance of the sound so it's more logical to EQ the sound after compression. This way the output will be directly affected, if you boost 6dB at 3k you'll get just that.
If you boost 6dB at 3k before the compressor you might get a 2dB boost and some more energy in that area, maybe just some added distortion, you just don't know untill you try and it may just be what you need.

You can EQ dynamicly with the chain EQ->Comp->EQ
If you apply +6dB at 6k before compression and -6dB at 6k after compression, the 6k area will be unaffected when the volume is low but when it gets louder the 6k area will increasingly decrease. This is basicly the way a de-esser works.

It pays to experiment and to keep experimenting with the combination EQ/Comp, there's so much you can do with these two.

 

[boody]

Most of the time I use corrective EQ before and soundshaping EQ after compression.

If you have an ac guitar recording with a big low mid hump from the resonance freq of the soundhole and the proximity effect from the mic, then all the compressor would see is this big hump. You'll have to EQ this hump to make the comp see the transients you want it to see.

A compressors changes the balance of the sound so it's more logical to EQ the sound after compression. This way the output will be directly affected, if you boost 6dB at 3k you'll get just that.
If you boost 6dB at 3k before the compressor you might get a 2dB boost and some more energy in that area, maybe just some added distortion, you just don't know untill you try and it may just be what you need.

You can EQ dynamicly with the chain EQ->Comp->EQ
If you apply +6dB at 6k before compression and -6dB at 6k after compression, the 6k area will be unaffected when the volume is low but when it gets louder the 6k area will increasingly decrease. This is basicly the way a de-esser works.

It pays to experiment and to keep experimenting with the combination EQ/Comp, there's so much you can do with these two.

Amen to that. And do what your ears tell you to do. Rules are there to be broken, and we're in a creative trade... at least, we should be 8)

 

[Sokar the White]

Yeah. On second thought I'm wondering why the hell I even asked.

It's all about which sounds best. Fuck rules. Lol.

 

[Tony Ostinato]

In the original 1176 manual they recommend compressor first, so the convention is at least that old.

 

[Tony Ostinato]

my bad, i meant eq first.

 

[Voodooboom]

Im not the best enginner. But in most cases first EQ than comp (because you can filter out frequences, so the comp don't need to compress these \"unwanted\" frequences).

Is it possible to understand? My english isn't the best! :?

 

[rimbaud234]

My \"grab and stack\" approach is to apply compression followed by EQ because most compression will alter the equalization of the signal. However, if there are some dominant frequencies making the compressor do undesirable things I'll EQ the input to the compressor.

Often when using plugins I'll set up a Comp/EQ chain and then just flip them to see what happens. Occasionally it will do something cool and I'll leave it (and then maybe add EQ after the comp). It's pretty much an ear thing.

B.

 

[MASSIVE Mastering]

Corrective EQ surgery --> Compression --> Shaping EQ --> Coffee & a cigarette.

 

[jcat]

Corrective EQ surgery --> Compression --> Shaping EQ --> Coffee & a cigarette.

Or:

Corrective EQ surgery --> Compression --> Shaping EQ --> Tea and a spliff.

O



Cheers,

jcat

 

[Doublehelix]

Obviously, both ways have their uses, and as has been mentioned, use your ears to decide.

I mostly go Compression -> EQ

Here's my justification:

EQ is really just a \"volume control\" for specific frequencies, right?

A comp is used for squashing high volume peaks, right?

So if you EQ first, you get all your settings just right, boosting here, cutting there, etc., and then you follow along with the comp and squash all the new peaks that you just painstakingly created!!!

To me, it is like fighting yourself!

I MOST cases, it is a lot easier for me to get the sound I want by putting the comp first.

I sometimes will put an EQ first to notch out some bad freqs, then comp, then re-EQ.

 

[Sokar the White]

Corrective EQ surgery --> Corrective EQ surgery --> Compression --> Shaping EQ --> Tea and a spliff.

I'm there.