Compression (AGAIN!) Before EQ or After EQ???

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaynm26
  • Start date Start date
I wasn't really being serious, guys. Let's not spend another 4 pages dissecting it. :D
 
bouldersoundguy said:
I don't think in terms of desirable or undesirable frequencies. I think in terms of spectral balance. That is, I think of the ratio of x frequency to y frequency. Compressors do not change the spectral balance on the time scale of perception of the present, so the "un-eqing" argument doesn't stand.
Click to expand...
So are you saying EQ's before the comp dosent change of the actual balance that is coming from the comp?
 
jaynm26 said:
So are you saying EQ's before the comp dosent change of the actual balance that is coming from the comp?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that, regardless of what parts of the signal trigger the compressor, all frequencies get affected by the gain reduction equally. Of course they can affect frequency balance over time, but that's different from the tone of a signal in the moment.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
I'm saying that, regardless of what parts of the signal trigger the compressor, all frequencies get affected by the gain reduction equally. Of course they can affect frequency balance over time, but that's different from the tone of a signal in the moment.
Click to expand...
Aahhh I see...and I agree.
 
So lets say for instance your processing a bass guitar...Do you EQ 1st or Comp 1st. We know that whatever we do want change tone so when equing bass to taste what would be the best approach..lets just say your trying to tame the low end and bring out the bite on a particular bass part. What gets put on first?

(Im going somewhere with this) :guitar:
 
bouldersoundguy said:
I'm saying that, regardless of what parts of the signal trigger the compressor, all frequencies get affected by the gain reduction equally. Of course they can affect frequency balance over time, but that's different from the tone of a signal in the moment.
Click to expand...

Ah I see what you meant now- I thought you were addressing the 'if eq should go second because the comp might un-do the eq'. Yes the complete sig. gets attenuated.
But.. to get back to that..
jaynm26 said:
So lets say for instance your processing a bass guitar...Do you EQ 1st or Comp 1st. We know that whatever we do want change tone so when equing bass to taste what would be the best approach..lets just say your trying to tame the low end and bring out the bite on a particular bass part. What gets put on first?
Click to expand...

That would depend- 'Eq trim the low end first so it's in closer shape to want you want in the first place, then dial in your dynamic?
Or, eq 2nd- And maybe the cpmp reacts to that low tone balance and/or pulls' the low notes down -A similar effect to 'eq'.
But.. what if it's reacting too much to those lows, not recovering fast enough and the next higher note (and/or your 'bite) is suffering for it?

A lot of it is just jump in and see. But the whole exercise is just kinda being aware of what cause and effects might be in play, and use it as you can. :)
 
mixsit said:
That would depend- 'Eq trim the low end first so it's in closer shape to want you want in the first place, then dial in your dynamic?
Or, eq 2nd- And maybe the cpmp reacts to that low tone balance and/or pulls' the low notes down -A similar effect to 'eq'.
But.. what if it's reacting too much to those lows, not recovering fast enough and the next higher note (and/or your 'bite) is suffering for it?

A lot of it is just jump in and see. But the whole exercise is just kinda being aware of what cause and effects might be in play, and use it as you can. :)
Click to expand...

Exactly you dont want end up chasing your tail. By cutting bass and boosting highs just to get the squashed by the comp. In this particular instance I can see "Massive's Approach" or rule of thumb might come into play of where EQ>Comp>EQ. Guess it all depends on source martial.
 
jaynm26 said:
Exactly you dont want end up chasing your tail. By cutting bass and boosting highs just to get the squashed by the comp.
Click to expand...

Except that it's not just the highs that get squashed, it's all frequencies at once.
 
I thought this would appear to be common sense:

If it sounds better to me on a specific track at that time before, then before.

If it sounds better to me on a specific track at that time after, then after.

If I need to edit before and after to make it sound good, then before and after.

And if it sounds better without eq, then I don't use eq.
 
PaddyGordon said:
I thought this would appear to be common sense:

If it sounds better to me on a specific track at that time before, then before.

If it sounds better to me on a specific track at that time after, then after.

If I need to edit before and after to make it sound good, then before and after.

And if it sounds better without eq, then I don't use eq.
Click to expand...

Of course, but after inserting stuff on tracks unknown thousands of times I don't feel the need to try every option every time. Anything with too much LF and a significant cut there sounds weird to me with the eq after the compressor. It doesn't make as much of a difference to most other material unless eq settings get fairly drastic. So if I use both the eq goes first because it never sounds weird to me.
 
PaddyGordon said:
I thought this would appear to be common sense:

If it sounds better to me on a specific track at that time before, then before.

If it sounds better to me on a specific track at that time after, then after.

If I need to edit before and after to make it sound good, then before and after.

And if it sounds better without eq, then I don't use eq.
Click to expand...
Sorry too late :) We already got it covered (..why it might work nicer one way or the other
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top