Order of effects when mixing vocals?

[Maverick87]

After youve recorded vocal tracks with proper microphone placement/technique and gain adjustments/levels, what should I apply first? I usually stick with EQ with high pass/low cut filter, compression, and a few delays n chorus here n there track by track. Then I run a group of tracks, like all of the vocal tracks for a verse for example, and send them to aux/submix bus tracks with compression and necessary delays or reverbs if needed.

So my question is as Im mixing, should I apply the EQ first? The compressor first? Whats an effective order for mixing the vocals?

Probably not important, but its for rap/hip hop vocals, I imagine the rules apply for vocals in general?

 

[miroslav]

After youve recorded vocal tracks with proper microphone placement/technique and gain adjustments/levels, what should I apply first?

If they were recorded really well, you may not need to apply anything, but whatever you do need to apply, it will depend on the mix...there's no specific formula.

 

[mjbphotos]

High pass is always a good first step, to remove the low rumble of nearby traffic or other noise getting picked up through the floor and mic stand, etc.
Anything else should only be applied as needed. Send the tracks (post f/x) to a Reverb buss to bring it all together.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

I think my usual order is De-esser > EQ > Compresser > Reverb (Though I may be misremembering the order of the first 3).

Then again, no one has ever accused my vocal recordings of sounding particularly hi-fi, so that may be more of a "what not to do" recommendation!

 

[Bobbsy]

Well, as Miroslav says, there isn't a "normal" order because you don't always need everything, However, assuming you're going to add most of this stuff, I differ slightly in terms of preferred order.

In general you would apply compression before EQ, certainly, because if you apply it afterwards, it will screw with the EQ anyway! The way to remember the order is to think of what happens in a mixer - in order, there's a mic pre, an insert where compression can be applied, then the EQ and after that, any other temporal effects like reverb. Specifically what happens with compression after EQ is that if you have put any form of boost onto a signal, the compressor will react more to this than the rest of the signal, and what this means is that the EQ you thought you needed, you haven't got any more because it's been compressed.

For special sounds and effects you can vary this, but the above is the "norm" in most professional applications.

 

[miroslav]

....compression can be applied, then the EQ and after that, any other temporal effects like reverb. Specifically what happens with compression after EQ is that if you have put any form of boost onto a signal, the compressor will react more to this than the rest of the signal, and what this means is that the EQ you thought you needed, you haven't got any more because it's been compressed.

Mmmmmm...but there is the "flip-side" to that.
Suppose you already have too much low end...having the EQ in front of the comp lets you adjust that before it hits the comp.



To the OP:

On some things, I stick the EQ in front of the comp...on others, it's after the comp.
I think one way where there might be some sort of "pseudo-norm"...is to consider that on single tracks, you usually want to tailor one sound, whatever that track is...so you might prefer to EQ first, get the tone/sound you want, then apply compression to adjust levels and dynamics.
However, on a full mix...you may want to stick the comp first and let the mix drive the comp and then apply EQ afterwords to touch up the overall mix....while using individual track EQ to cut/boost before the mix bus to control what is driving the mix bus comp. If there is too much low end coming from the Kick...just adjust that track rather than the low end of the whole mix...etc...etc...

All that also depends on how you want to use the comp...as a dynamics tool or more as an effects box.

This is why we all agree here that there is NO formula!

 

[Elton123]

I tend to use any needed eq first. If I have freq ringing, I'll apply exacting cuts with high q's first, then a second eq to shape the source. Then apply compression if needed. A deesser possibly and then send to one or multiple effect auxs.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Mmmmmm...but there is the "flip-side" to that.
Suppose you already have too much low end...having the EQ in front of the comp lets you adjust that before it hits the comp.

Yep, that's the problem with compressing first. Some gentle eq after compression is okay, but if you're really going to change the spectral balance you want to do it first so the compressor doesn't do weird things like make the mids and highs bounce around to lows that aren't there.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

In general you would apply compression before EQ, certainly, because if you apply it afterwards, it will screw with the EQ anyway!

True only measured over the long term. But at any particular time the compressor is changing the gain of all frequencies together. If you turn 200Hz up 6dB for example and the compressor reacts with more gain reduction then 200Hz will, at any particular moment, still be 6dB hotter compared to 4kHz than it was without eq. We hear tonal balance fast enough that compressors don't really "un-eq".

The way to remember the order is to think of what happens in a mixer - in order, there's a mic pre, an insert where compression can be applied, then the EQ and after that, any other temporal effects like reverb.

Lots of mixers have the eq before the insert. Even the ones that don't almost universally have the HPF before the insert.

[Edit] After looking at a dozen or so random block diagrams I can see that HPF before insert isn't particularly consistent.

 

[Jersey]

Lots of varying opinion. Maybe take a look at the block diagrams of your favorite consoles...although some channel strips like the ssl the logic is changeable. Hmmmm y'all got me confused now. Thanks.
The first few opinions made sense until the last one where boulder talks about co Lessing boosted frequency. I say go as light as possible. Edit more, record better, and squash it in mastering.

 

[RAMI]

In general you would apply compression before EQ, certainly, because if you apply it afterwards, it will screw with the EQ anyway! .

I have to disagree with this emphatically. Of course every situation is different. But if we're talking "In general", I'd put EQ before comression 9 out of 10 times. One's going to screw with the other either way. but I'd rather have a relatively balanced signal going into a compressor, as opposed to having the compressor compressing frequencies you want to cut anyway.

Having said that, there might not be any need for one or both of these things. So a discussion on any standard chain is pretty much useless.

 

[YellowDwarf]

I think the logical answer is to EQ first, compress last and do whatever you want in the middle. No use compressing before you change the sound with EQ ...

 

[Maverick87]

Thanks everyone. If you would've just told me an order I wouldn't have learned anything, but now I understand WHY its done in these orders and how the effects affect each other so thanks.

 

[Bobbsy]

I think the logical answer is to EQ first, compress last and do whatever you want in the middle. No use compressing before you change the sound with EQ ...

Absolutely not, particularly if "whatever you want" includes reverb. Compression really messes with reverb tails and can be very unpleasant.

As for whether compression or EQ should go FIRST, there's not a hard and fast rule and the amount of each effect needed can change this. However, I stand by what I said earlier that IN GENERAL it's best to put compression first.

HERE'S and article from Sound on Sound that goes into good detail of the reasons behind this. A flavour from what they say:

However, in principle there's one straightforward reason why it makes sense to compress before you EQ, especially when you're first learning about processing. Let's say, for the moment, that you've already set up a compression sound you like for a particular track in your mix, and then decide to use a pre-compression equaliser to adjust the track's tonality. Any boost or cut you apply with the EQ controls will change the overall level of the signal relative to the compressor threshold setting you've already chosen, and will therefore mess with your carefully tweaked compression sound, unless you keep revisiting the threshold and/or ratio controls to compensate.

Pre-compression EQ also usually appears less responsive than post-compression EQ, as the compressor's gain changes fight the EQ gain adjustments. This can be disconcerting when you're still getting to grips with this kind of processing, and it encourages you to go for heavier processing than is actually necessary.

Now, if I'm honest, I'll often do things in the order that's most convenient at the time--and I certainly don't apply both compression and EQ to every track anyway. A track that I've recorded badly so it needs extreme EQ might change my mind too. However, for the reasons above (and in the SoS article) I stand by my comment that IN GENERAL compression should come before EQ.

 

[miroslav]

Let's say, for the moment, that you've already set up a compression sound you like for a particular track in your mix, and then decide to use a pre-compression equalizer to adjust the track's tonality.

The "problem" I have with that SOS comment is that why WOULD you already set up compression, if the track hasn't yet been EQ'd to correct for tonal issues...???

To me that's cart before horse when dealing with individual tracks....
...but like I said, on the stereo mix bus, I would have no problem putting a compressor first and then a final touch-up EQ, because the main tonal corrections have already been taken care of at the individual track level and during the mix.

 

[mixsit]

Absolutely not, particularly if "whatever you want" includes reverb. Compression really messes with reverb tails and can be very unpleasant.

Interesting point there. I've thought sometimes in terms of whether a verb might react better pre or post compression, but can't recall actually rerouting to pursue it.
If you're doing sends to bus verbs post would be fairly normal I'd think.

... A track that I've recorded badly so it needs extreme EQ might change my mind too. However, for the reasons above (and in the SoS article) I stand by my comment that IN GENERAL compression should come before EQ.

The "problem" I have with that SOS comment is that why WOULD you already set up compression, if the track hasn't yet been EQ'd to correct for tonal issues...??? ...

I think you both came together with good the exceptions to the rules'.
If we go for the biggest most obvious stuff first in a mix... I'd presume clean up', HP filtering and more perhaps since I'm there in that mode, then adding leveling...

Still the sequence is quite a variable, and depends on what eq'ing.

Ever swap that sequence to see if it makes the track or comp work better? (Sometimes here. Sometime it makes a real difference. (More so in full damage control mode problem tracks.

What would we be looking for? In addition to the dynamics, what tones might be driving the comp?
Swapping eq/comp sequence would be much the same way you'd consider reasons for using side chain eq. To me that's pretty much the same frame of mind.


Does all this fancy logical stuff actually pan out?
Yeah..sometimes.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Pre-compression EQ also usually appears less responsive than post-compression EQ, as the compressor's gain changes fight the EQ gain adjustments. This can be disconcerting when you're still getting to grips with this kind of processing, and it encourages you to go for heavier processing than is actually necessary.

Then set the eq first. Or just be aware that this happens and use it to your advantage. I knowingly drive compressors with eq changes all the time. It's only a big deal if you aren't aware of the phenomenon and forget to adjust the compressor accordingly.

 

[dkelley]

I have to disagree with this emphatically. Of course every situation is different. But if we're talking "In general", I'd put EQ before comression 9 out of 10 times. One's going to screw with the other either way. but I'd rather have a relatively balanced signal going into a compressor, as opposed to having the compressor compressing frequencies you want to cut anyway.

Having said that, there might not be any need for one or both of these things. So a discussion on any standard chain is pretty much useless.

yea.... most channel strips have it backwards. affordable voice channels from art, presonus, and so many ohters put the eq after the comp. I disagree with that concept overall. but either way putting a HPF before the comp is vital so the comp doesn't behave erratically with rumble or wind or consonants and so on.

eq at the end TOO if desired, but the comp will behave better if any LF energy you want removed have been removed BEFORE compression, not after. it makes for a more neutral and transparent compression effect (less pumping or other artifacts).

by the way, just read the SOS post. it's true, for tonal shaping eq after is a stronger audible effect, and eq before will alter how compression happens, but his logic is flawed.

he says "let's say you get a great sound with pre and compression then add an eq before the compressor". why the hell would you do that?

you get your tone sequentially one step in a row at a time. pre first. HPF right in there too. THEN wahtever is next, eq in this case, NOT the compressor. THEN compress to taste. then eq AGIAN if you want to since eq post is different from eq pre comp.

why would you ruin your sound by changing something BEFORE one of the units you have already setup perfectly in your serial chain?

silly SOS guy

but he is on target that eq pre alters the operation of the compressor. so it's ideally not best to ALTER yoru pre-compression eq settings after you've set your compressor unless you're prepared to set your compressor all over again by ear as you normally would.

note to inexperienced users: to set a compressor properly you have to slowly dial it in from no effect to audible effect. you can't just set it a certain way and expect magic. just mentioning this so my previous points make sense.

cheers

 

[ido1957]

.....................