EQ BEFORE or AFTER compression?

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

User avatar
RowdyGleason
audio school graduate
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 12:27 pm
Location: Shoreline/Poulsbo, WA

EQ BEFORE or AFTER compression?

Post by RowdyGleason » Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:29 pm

This seems to be a varied topic. I want to be thoroughly convinced in each argument!
Discuss.
"A wizard is never late, nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he means to."

mvollrath
gettin' sounds
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:29 am
Location: Asheville, NC

Post by mvollrath » Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:39 pm

There is no argument. You just use whichever technique gets you the results you want.

When I'm dealing with a poorly recorded track that needs some repair EQ, that comes before compression. That way you keep, for example, a bunch of muddy or resonant bass junk from rubbing up against the threshold the whole time. Then I might compress and EQ again afterward. Typically, though, I will EQ after compression.

Consider that the frequency that hits the compressor the hardest will tend to dominate the rest of the spectrum. The question is, what part of the sound do you want to hit the compressor the most, and what do you need to do to make that happen?

Don't think about it too much, just make it sound good!
"All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up." - pablo picasso

User avatar
farview
tinnitus
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: St. Charles (chicago) IL
Contact:

Post by farview » Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:49 pm

Yup, it all depends on the effect you are trying to achieve. Do you want to compress an EQ'd signal or EQ a compressed signal?

User avatar
jgimbel
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1688
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:51 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Post by jgimbel » Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:10 pm

farview wrote:Yup, it all depends on the effect you are trying to achieve. Do you want to compress an EQ'd signal or EQ a compressed signal?
+1. What are you trying to address in a track? Whichever strikes you as something it needs first would be the one to do first. That said, I find myself compressing first much more often, as compression in many many cases affects the EQ of a signal. If you turn up the low end in a track, then compress it, that low end is going to be affecting the compressor. If you compress, then turn up the low end, you know exactly what your result is once you EQ.

User avatar
Snarl 12/8
cryogenically thawing
Posts: 3511
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:01 pm
Location: Right Cheer
Contact:

Post by Snarl 12/8 » Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:12 pm

It might be a good idea to high-pass (if you're going to) before the compressor so the compressor's not reacting to a whole bunch of rumble/lo frequency junk.
Carl Keil

Almost forgot: Please steal my drum tracks. and more.

User avatar
Dakota
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:14 am
Location: West of Boston
Contact:

Post by Dakota » Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:14 pm

mvollrath wrote:There is no argument. You just use whichever technique gets you the results you want.

When I'm dealing with a poorly recorded track that needs some repair EQ, that comes before compression. That way you keep, for example, a bunch of muddy or resonant bass junk from rubbing up against the threshold the whole time. Then I might compress and EQ again afterward. Typically, though, I will EQ after compression.

Consider that the frequency that hits the compressor the hardest will tend to dominate the rest of the spectrum. The question is, what part of the sound do you want to hit the compressor the most, and what do you need to do to make that happen?

Don't think about it too much, just make it sound good!
Wise words. Agreed.

It's also very case-by-case for me, but if one wants to start with a few generalizations: yep, "repair" EQ usually before the comp - taming down bad resonance areas with narrow Q cuts. General wide sweetening and shaping after the comp. Bass boost (if needed) usually after comp, not before.

Hmm - one near universal I can think of: if hi-passing is needed anyway to get rid of rumble and low muck, I almost always do that pre-compressor. That kind of muck is one of the likeliest things to make a compressor behave in an ugly and chaotic fashion.

User avatar
Waltz Mastering
steve albini likes it
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:22 am
Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Contact:

Post by Waltz Mastering » Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:54 pm

Corrective eq before, Sometimes touch up eq after.

User avatar
RowdyGleason
audio school graduate
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 12:27 pm
Location: Shoreline/Poulsbo, WA

Post by RowdyGleason » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:04 pm

Thanks, guys, these are the responses I was looking for. I was having a discussion about it today with some friends, and the "repair EQ first, then compression, then other EQ" seemed to dominate the generalized order, but I wanted to hear it from a wider audience. Obviously, everyone has had their own experiences and uses for it, which is why I asked, and I want to see all sides to when is best.
"A wizard is never late, nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he means to."

ashcat_lt
tinnitus
Posts: 1094
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:54 pm
Location: Duluth, MN
Contact:

Post by ashcat_lt » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:11 pm

The idea of "repair, compress, sweeten" is a good one, wonder if we can find a more succinct way to put it?

I sometimes use a technique that is common in overdrive circuits that I call "pre-emphasis/de-emphasis". This is especially useful when adding "color" type compression.

I might, for example, push the low mids going into the comp just to get it squishing and crunching the way I want, and then pull those same frequencies out afterwards, to get back to a more usable tonal balance.

nordberg
pushin' record
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: apalachin, ny

Post by nordberg » Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:21 am

oh, you mean the old RCS technique!? (some new thread will be called what's the RCS technique and how can i do it for under $500?) :lol:
A gaggle of geese? A tangle of cables!

Acoustikitty
audio school
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: Calgary AB
Contact:

Post by Acoustikitty » Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:44 pm

ashcat_lt wrote:I might, for example, push the low mids going into the comp just to get it squishing and crunching the way I want, and then pull those same frequencies out afterwards, to get back to a more usable tonal balance.
This leads into the idea of actually sidechaining the compressor so that it's reacting to another track entirely, say, a clone of the original that's been EQ'd to an extreme. Or you could add compression to the room mic on drums that's being triggered by the kick track, and really get that pumping cymbals thing. This would be a extreme example of putting EQ first to make the compressor react in a certain way. Not sure about putting two EQ's on so much stuff though - sounds like a lot of processing and might degrade the mix if you're doing it a lot.

User avatar
Babaluma
suffering 'studio suck'
Posts: 447
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 6:42 am
Location: Milan, Italy
Contact:

Post by Babaluma » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:40 am

i have my eqs and comps patched to the patchbay, so it's easy and fast to switch the order.

User avatar
Marc Alan Goodman
george martin
Posts: 1399
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 7:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Marc Alan Goodman » Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:58 pm

I've never worried about "too much processing". There's no rules. if it sounds good, it sounds good, if it doesn't it doesn't.

I think it's been pretty well covered, but just to clear it up using an eq before the compressor is useful for way more than just repair. You can totally change how the compressor reacts to the signal, make it act like a totally different beast. Especially with older compressors that are very frequency dependent.

Play with it! I find I EQ vocals before compressing them all the time in the mix. Bass sometimes too.

User avatar
Brian
resurrected
Posts: 2254
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 6:00 pm
Location: corner of your eye
Contact:

Post by Brian » Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:03 pm

You shouldn't "worry" about it, but, side-chaining is an accepted standard for a long time to achieve the very results he was describing he wanted and without ever eq-ing the signal used to mix.
HOWEVER, you can do some weird stuff to tracks doing just what he did on purpose and sometimes it kicks ass. You can get good at it too. I used to do it a lot too.
Might do it again. I did it to compensate for inferior equipment, that's right.
The first three posts sum up why you would compress and eq when in what case.
Harumph!

ashcat_lt
tinnitus
Posts: 1094
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:54 pm
Location: Duluth, MN
Contact:

Post by ashcat_lt » Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:51 pm

When we're looking for color "extra processing" can sometimes be a good thing. In fact, it's sometimes a good idea to get a little bit from here and a little from there, rather than try to get a whole bunch from one device.

Honestly though, I just never really thought about using side-chaining for this. Leads to an interesting point re:
Babaluma wrote:i have my eqs and comps patched to the patchbay, so it's easy and fast to switch the order.
namely, do you have your side-chains run to the patchbay?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 127 guests