which has to be put first the compressor or the Eq?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semsem612
  • Start date Start date
S

semsem612

Member
Can any body helps me? in mixing a vocal track? which has to be put first, the compressor or the Eq.? thanks a lot.
 
I usually compress after EQ, this is because then the compressor is not acting on frequencies that you have removed / cut. For example low end that has been shelved. It also acts on frequencies that you have added and helps to keep it smooth.

However there are no rules and sometimes I will set it up compressor first so that the compressor does not act on frequencies added, so try it both ways and see whats best for the track you have.

More often than not, I have a track with eq > compressor and another identical track (exact copy or parallel bus whatever is easier) with just the same (or similar) eq and no compression. Then I mix the tracks together this grabs the peaks but still sounds uncompressed. Do a search for parallel compression.

Alan.
 
it really does depend on exactly what you want to do.

just as an example, if you're going to gate or compress a drum mic, you mic want to eq out all the very low end first to stop any spill from the kick drum triggering the dynamics.

There isn't really a wrong way, just keep trying out new things and you'll find some ways work better for you than others :)
 
Thanks a lot for your reply and i'll try both as you told me and see which is best.

Semsem612
 
Nothing has to be done first. Try it both ways and see what you like better.
 
What i end up doing is cutting it into sections and Eqing twice.

My chain usually looks like this.

EQ -> ONLY cutting frequencies i dont want ... no boosting
Compressor -> compress to what i see fit
EQ > Boost frequences if necessary.

TWO EQ's? ... yup
 
semsem612 said:
Can any body helps me? in mixing a vocal track? which has to be put first, the compressor or the Eq.? thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

I EQ vocals both before and after.

Before: I use a high pass filter on the mic pre to roll off the lows around 140hz
After: I EQ in some air (16K) and cut a little 3K ( "sss" freq)
High pass again in the mix.
 
Lots of techniques, and whatever works is fine. But, I would say start simple and work up to more complex only if you need it. More often than not most tracks will sound better with EQ then Compression...it allows the compressor to work on the EQed frequencies.

To start, keeping it simple, I'd just do what you asked about...1) Set the EQ, then add a compressor after, 2) Set the compressor, then add an EQ...see what works, and listen for the differences. I'll bet EQ then Compressor will work best.
 
I turn the 5k up to 10 and then i squash it to death:cool:
 
For individual tracks I always do EQ then compression.

On the stereo mix...I actually like touching it up with EQ after the 2-bus compressor. I mean, you could go EQ first too, and I've done that, but since I already have most of the "rude" frequencies accounted for at the individual tracks, and I also run the 2-buss compressor with a HP filter, I like using the EQ at the end, just to very lightly fine tune things.
 
This is how I usually do it. (If i would happen to use everything)

Gate -> EQ -> Compressor/Expander -> Modulating effects -> Time Based effects
 
Either or both. I'll often highpass a vocal while tracking, maybe add a touch of air or take away a touch of "chest". That might go into a tracking compressor set to a very fast attack and release, just tapping a few db. There may be another compressor (or more) after that, and then after that, EQ.

There may be nothing at all (although that's rare on a vocal)

Generally, a compressor after an eq is can undo some of what the eq did, in a sense. I find it's often more powerful and effective to do the majority of eqing after the heaviest compression.
 
eq first all the time
some rules you just stick to because they work not because your trained to do so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top