EQ then compress or Compress then EQ?

There are about 10 new threads on the forum every week and about 5 people answering them.

If people didn't rage at things, there wouldn't be anything left :p


Topic:
Just try both.
It'll cost about about 10 seconds.
 
I don't see a difference between corrective and tone shaping eq. It's all corrective tone shaping to me.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing with you particularly, but just for potential clarity to others --

I'm using "corrective" as things that need to be addressed at the basic level -- Things that are "wrong with" the sound at any application. Plosives, sibilance, odd peaks or what not. "Shaping" comes down to what needs to be done to that source to make it fit in well with the rest of the mix.
 
I do EQ before OR after compression, and sometimes before-AND-after compression. It all depends on what I'm trying to achieve.

Or I'll use a multiband dynamic compressor, which is a compressor that can be adjusted differently in various parts of the equalization band. For example, I can squash stuff in the mid range while allowing the low end to be lightly compressed and maybe not compressing the high end at all... Or any other combination of settings. I use a multiband that allows adjustment in five stratifications of the band (L/ML/M/MH/H). Within each band I have gain, ratio, knee, all that crap... Think of it like an EQ and compressor combined, sorta but not really (see what I did there?), where the goal is to target specific frequencies.
 
Great thoughts on experimentation Tim, but do you have a thought on the topic at hand? Don't get me wrong, I'll remember your comment when I start a thread about the merits of experimentation.
 
BeagleFaceHenry said:
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)?
Click to expand...

Do you mean you're not in the alps enough?
And the answer is "yes". Depends on the signal. A lot of my guitar work is compressed on the way in, then EQ'd. Vocals are usually EQ'd then compressed. And an overall mix is often compressed after all is said and done.
 
Schwarzenyaeger said:
Just try both.
It'll cost about about 10 seconds.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking. It's like... the push of one button in most DAW programs.

FTR: I never bothered. I think Cubase is default to do Inserts>EQ>Sends. Compressors being on the Insert strip.
 
I just do what I need to with regards to the mix that I'm on at the time. EQ and Compression are my least used plugins though as I try to do without.
 
jimmys69 said:
Yes true, but insert slots 7 and 8 are post fader so the eq would be before those inserts if wanted it there. :)
Click to expand...
And you can insert an EQ and put it before the inserted compressor.

Is it strange that I don't even think of using the built in EQ?
 
Farview said:
And you can insert an EQ and put it before the inserted compressor.

Is it strange that I don't even think of using the built in EQ?
Click to expand...

I rarely use it for anything other than LPF or an occasional notch. Much prefer other EQ inserts. PSP NobleQex is still my favorite.
 
The beauty of Reason. You have a digital SSL desk and a virtual effects rack. You can plug anything in in whatever order you want. The virtual board is based on the standard 9000J and has the switches to put dynamics before EQ or leave it alone, place the inserts before or after that pair, and filter to sidechain the dynamics (or not). Great board. Pretty good program, too.
 
Savoy Truffle?
I'm not savvy but do work, more or less, like massive suggested.
I also TRY to make my EQing essentially subtractive but thath's hard work and required getting things as right as possible at the source.
 
BroKen_H said:
Do you mean you're not in the alps enough?
And the answer is "yes". Depends on the signal. A lot of my guitar work is compressed on the way in, then EQ'd. Vocals are usually EQ'd then compressed. And an overall mix is often compressed after all is said and done.
Click to expand...

No! He mean he can't afford to stay at a certain expensive London hotel!

I don't really have anything to add to the main discussion other than to add another voice saying "it depends".

Probably I'll more often EQ first then compress but it's more down to what works on a particular mix.

(And don't be surprised if quite often it doesn't make a lot of difference.)
 
EQ first for the main tonal balance, then compression. I don't like compressing a sound that doesn't sound right, because it will only emphasize the faults even more.
 
I think also one good thing to remember is that if your are using Eq to fix a problem area then your capture was not pleasing. If you are using Eq to enhance then you are putting a gloss coat on to bring out the best highlights. If you cut with Eq then that actually means you have just boosted each side of the cut. Therefore if you compress after the Eq cut you would most likely bring up the cut level again due to the semi normalizing process of compression. This means it has been a waste of time and will result in a smeared sound and worse than when it when in. If you boost Eq you have just cut each side of the boost so to speak. Then if you compress that you will most likely bring up the cut again, & again, this means it has been a waste of time and will result in a smeared sound and worse than when it when in. Now if you compress a signal that does not need Eq & has a stable & even energy spread then you will lift detail out of the troughs/valleys of its dynamic range. This may result in some eq being needed because you have just exposed some harshness or rumble. Now you think we are going around in circles here and you would be right. So what is the moral of the story? flapped if I know..Hahahha....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top