EQ then compress or Compress then EQ?

B

BeagleFaceHenry

Member
I was hoping to make a poll, but I'm not savoy enough to pull it off.

Do you compress an EQ'd signal or EQ a compressed signal (assuming you're both compressing and EQing a signal)?
 
Well you have to think of it this way. Since compression can color the overall sound, you may end up having to make some eq adjustments. So what does that tell you? If your eq doesn't change after applying the compression, ie you do not feel compelled to change anything.....what does that tell you?
 
In most common situations....you EQ first, then compress.
If there are frequencies that are too extreme and need to be fixed, they would affect the compression if left alone before compresson...like say, a lot of low end, etc.....so then the compressor would be reacting to the excessive low end.
By EQ-ing first, you tame the signal, and then the compression reacts more evenly.

Of course, you certainly can also apply EQ after compression to touch things up if you needed.
 
I've always thought it made sense to clean up the signal before you compress it, but I feel like a lot of mixers are compressing 1st as compressing will bring more issues to the surface.

Greg, as near as I can tell, it's the 1st time this week, but hey, thanks for contributing to the discussion. I assumed this wasn't the 1st time this topic has come up, and I knew there was risk of being chastised for starting the thread but I don't spend every waking moment in the forum and I wanted to part of the discussion. Naively I hoped that people who wanted to participate in the discussion would post, and those that are sick of the topic would ignore it. Silly me.
 
I'll admit, this forum has made me edgy. I have yet to see a thread that wasn't derailed. I don't understand the need for commentary. True, no one 'chastised me', but I knew when I started the topic that I'd have to defend myself in one way or another...and here we are. I don't understand why people can't just ignore a post that doesn't interest them. If you're trying to be helpful, post the link to an older thread. I get it, you spend a lot of time in the forum, but that's not the topic of the thread, the topic is order of operations.
 
There are tendencies, but no order of operations. Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally does not apply here. Recording/mixing music isn't an algebra equation. If you need to EQ then compress, do it. If you need to compress then EQ, do it. Hopefully you don't actually need to do either. Only you can decide that with your own mix. It doesn't matter what anyone else does.
 
I think if I had a norm, which I don't :) , I would say it's light comp, EQ then more comp. But it ends up being what the tune needs. At times, it's the exact opposite.
Sometimes I can figure that out pretty quick, other times I go light touch on a bunch of different filters, hate it, throw them all out and try something outta the box.

Like I say, I don't have a set anything that I do except for basic templates for my tracking.
 
I'm not saying it's the only way to go, I'm sure there a times when it can be challenged, but it makes sense to me to remove some of the unwanted energy before comressing it, and then adding back some color that the comp might have squashed.

Anyhow, hope it helps, there are some other interesting articles on that site that help me alot, I'm still a noob when it comes to mixing so every bit helps.
 
I think you've got the answer here. It's whatever the situation calls for.

Sometimes you'll have to eq a track to make it worth compressing. Maybe a vocal track with massive proximity effect or something?
Consider that ^^ a mistake that could have been addressed earlier, though.

As Greg pointed out, the goal is to need neither!
Well....compression's a taste thing sometimes, but the goal is certainly not to need eq. ;)
 
Steenamaroo said:
Sometimes you'll have to eq a track to make it worth compressing. Maybe a vocal track with massive proximity effect or something?
Consider that ^^ a mistake that could have been addressed earlier, though.
Click to expand...

That certainly is a reason to EQ first...(but so the OP doesn't misunderstand....:))....that's not to say that EQ prior to compression is just because of poor tracking decisions.
Like for instance....if you are looking to compress a track for effect....then you might want to EQ the lows out of it, if the lows are causing the comp to over-react....BUT....if you were not going to compress, then the EQ roll-off would not be needed, and the track could stay as-is.
So the EQ before compression is often about prepping the signal specifically for the comp.

And yeah....sometimes you prep that signal with EQ cuts....and then after compression you may want to put back what you took out pre-compression.
 
I compress for the sound of compression, not necessarily to reel in the dynamics. So I will tend to EQ first, so I can make the compressor do what I want it to.

But generally, massive is right. Corrective eq first, tone shaping eq after compression. It all really depends what you are trying to accomplish at the time.
 
If you still need another eq, then add one. If you still need another compressor, add one. No rules here! Just make it sound nice :D
 
I'm assuming this pertians to vocals? My preamp is already set to eq first then compress so I have no choice lol...
 
I don't see a difference between corrective and tone shaping eq. It's all corrective tone shaping to me. If I'm doing anything substantial with eq, especially in the LF, then eq goes ahead of compression because it sounds odd to me when a signal's dynamics don't match it's tonal balance. For example, compressing first then correcting for proximity effect lets a vocal track's mids and highs bounce around in reaction to the lows even when the lows are attenuated. That just sounds odd.
 
I can dig it. Thanks for all the perspective guys!
I know there's no one way to do everything, but I don't have the luxury of time. I appreciate the tips and experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top