Mixdown Signal chain...

[Dom Franco]

In your oppinion, is is better to compress the mix before running through final EQ, or vice versa? I've been experimenting with different routings and inserts. Even putting Compression on an effects send and mixing back in with full stereo mix... What do you think?

Dom Franco

[mrT]

Originally Posted by Dom Franco

In your oppinion, is is better to compress the mix before running through final EQ, or vice versa? I've been experimenting with different routings and inserts. Even putting Compression on an effects send and mixing back in with full stereo mix... What do you think?

Dom Franco

I think it really just depends on how you want it to sound. Sometimes I run one before and after the compressor. just dial to taste and there is no wrong way.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Dom Franco

In your oppinion, is is better to compress the mix before running through final EQ, or vice versa

Personally I think it's better to do neither, to get that stuff taken care of as much as possible before summing to the two mix.

But I also think it'd been better if Yoko stepped in front of John and Mike Nesmith persued a music career where he turned down the Monkees gig. We can't always have our way .

With that in mind, a nice general rule - at any stge of the production - is to look at the EQ compression relationship like this:

FixEQ --> Compression --> TweakEQ

where "FixEQ" is where you actually try to fix bad EQ. Do this before compression so that you are compressing a good sound instead of a bad one. This also includes EQing out some unwanted forments that may not be so audible now, but will be accentuated by the compression if left alone.

TweakEQ, OTOH, is taking the final compressed signal and just nudging the EQ a bit to sweeten it up or give it that final gentle shaping curve to put the polish in the mix. This kind of EQ should wait until after compression because if you try it before compressing, chances are the compression itself will mess it up again.

HTH,

G.

[SonicAlbert]

The danger to putting eq after the compressor or limiter is that if you are running very hot levels you can overload the signal by adding some eq boost. If you leave yourself enough headroom then you don't have to worry about that, unless you dial in extreme boost. When you put the compressor after the eq the dynamics will be squeezed and any eq boost will be kept under control.

[ecktronic]

I prefer to use compression on each channel (that needs it) then EQ.
Compression changes the EQ so I prefer to compress before EQ so I have a more fine EQ control.

Eck

[chessrock]

Originally Posted by ecktronic

Compression changes the EQ so I prefer to compress before EQ so I have a more fine EQ control.

Compression should have very little effect on the frequency balance of a sound source. On the other hand, EQ can have pretty drastic effects on the dynamics.

.

[ecktronic]

Originally Posted by chessrock

Compression should have very little effect on the frequency balance of a sound source. On the other hand, EQ can have pretty drastic effects on the dynamics.

.

Yeah, it might have more effect going compression then EQ, but im all about gettting the EQ balance right, not to say I dont care ab9out dynamics. Just the way I like to do things.

Eck

[xstatic]

Originally Posted by ecktronic

I prefer to use compression on each channel (that needs it) then EQ.
Compression changes the EQ so I prefer to compress before EQ so I have a more fine EQ control.

Eck

There is a big difference betwene 2 buss/master compression and individual channel compresison. They are often used for two completely different reasons and one does not really negate the need or desire for the other. In general, when speaking of 2 buss and master compression I tend to gravitate towards the compress first camp. A big part of the reason that I do this is because EQ'ing first will change the way the compressor triggers and as a result will change the output. This could be a good thing, but generally I prefer it to not be this way. The advantage would be the already compressed output which would help contain peaks, but then that could also be viewed as a disadvantage. One other reason I like EQ last is that it seems to give add back the appearance of dynamics to a compressed source without completely negating the compression itself. Pretty much I do it the way Glenn described above, except that "fix EQ" as he puts it is where I typically address things at the individual channel layer, or maybe one of the group stems.

[My Name]

I think this thread illustrates perfectly the "everyone has thier own way" argument, and you need to find what works/makes sense to you. I reckon every song needs to be treated on it's own merits.

[ecktronic]

Originally Posted by xstatic

There is a big difference betwene 2 buss/master compression and individual channel compresison. They are often used for two completely different reasons and one does not really negate the need or desire for the other. In general, when speaking of 2 buss and master compression I tend to gravitate towards the compress first camp. A big part of the reason that I do this is because EQ'ing first will change the way the compressor triggers and as a result will change the output. This could be a good thing, but generally I prefer it to not be this way. The advantage would be the already compressed output which would help contain peaks, but then that could also be viewed as a disadvantage. One other reason I like EQ last is that it seems to give add back the appearance of dynamics to a compressed source without completely negating the compression itself. Pretty much I do it the way Glenn described above, except that "fix EQ" as he puts it is where I typically address things at the individual channel layer, or maybe one of the group stems.

Yeah I know the difference between the 2. I dont use compression on the stereo bus. I only use it on seperate cahnels when need be.
Funny actually, cause when I do add a compressor to the stereo out I put it at the end of my chain.
So we do the exact opoeite in each case!

Eck

[demirateser]

I usually eq prior to compression, just to get the high energy, inaudible low end out of the signal ( I usually roll off < 80hz-100hz ). This inaudible low end will cause your compressor to make unwanted adjustments to the high freqs...and ya want to minimize this. The more low end you have, the more the higher freqs will be adjusted. One can solve this with a multiband compressor to separate the low band from the high band. Now you have slightly compressed individual tracks that can be eq'd so that each instrument sits in its own little freq space and does not stomp on anyone else. Sometimes, I run the output of my slightly compressioned individual tracks into my enhancer/exciter to add some transparency to the high end.

Now I take my slightly compressed individual tracks, with similiar peaks and set them up together in their own freq space.

[Beck]

A Comp/limiter/gate has normally been the last thing in the chain for me, if I'm applying compression to the composite mix… unless I’m applying reverb to the composite mix; then that’s last.

There are exceptions. In most cases where it’s needed a phase alignment device like the Sonic Maximizer will be last.