Hi, guys!! Got a question here. Not sure if this topic has been discussed before but i had a quick search & i couldnt find any.If i missed it, my bad then.

Alright, here goes. Mixing your track question. Do most of you apply EQ before or after compression?

 

It all depends. For example, usually, if your source material has 'too' much of something, cut a little of that "too much" (perhaps low end, with a high-pass filter), and then apply your compression, so that the "too much" doesn't get amplified by the compression (because compression amplifies stuff). But, as well, when I encounter those situations, I still EQ after the compressor/s, too. Try it out for yourself; it's all about what sounds good. If it sounds good, it is good.

 

I always use EQ to cut in first instance, than compression and boosting is last (probably in mixing stage), I remember advice: "EQ first when you cut, compressor when you boost", so I'm always cutting first so that rule is part of my workflow anyways :dancing:

 

Hmmm...interesting point, guys! So if there are a few frequencies that need to be cut, I need to do it before the compressor. Otherwise, those frequencies will only get boosted with compression, eh??

 

I tend to use EQ's before compression.

After having bounced your tracks you can follow the line of many PRO mastering engineers:
1. Treating Frequencies with EQ's
2. Treating Dynamics
3. Loudness adjustments
4. Using Limiters

But this is not a straight line, it may change according to the music or material.

GOOD WORK!

 

Hmm...I'm sorry, but I think you have these principles bassackwards.

 

If you EQ before compressing, the frequencies you have tried to highlight with EQ will be the first levels to trigger the threshold of your compressor. Unless you are using a multi-band, the frequencies you just tried to highlight are the first things to get squeezed. use just enough compression to bring out what you think is hidden, and then correct with EQ. A compressor reduces the dynamic range between the lowest sounds and loudest. To the listener, the softest sound are relatively louder and the strongest signals become relatively less loud. I still believe that if you can't hear something in the mix, then go back and fix the mix, or record a smoother track, Or use volume envelopes in the wave files, or run an automated mix, or Vocal Rider or Bass Rider. Compression is a tool that best works sparingly, or because you get lazy.

 

I use EQ before compressor. Works best for me.
I used to compress and then EQ when I started out back in the days. Didn't give me the same good results, obviously.

 

There are alot of different ways to do this and there isn't one right answer and it depends what you're using the compressor for. If you're using the compressor to make your sound louder (i.e. even out peaks and bring the overall level up) then you should be cutting out unwanted frequencies first. Then boost the frequencies that you like after the compressor. If you're using the compressor to bring out the attack of say a kick drum or a snare hit then you could use a compressor first and then eq after that. But for me 80% of the time I will:

1)EQ cut
2)compress
3)EQ boost if needed or maybe use a saturator if I wanna add some harmonics to the sound

 

@ Juboh,

It depends of your audio material and mainly of its spectral range.
If your audio material uses a narrow spectral range, it will perhaps not be necessary to do it upstream.
By cons, if your audio material takes a large part of the 'common' spectral range (20Hz-20kHz), you could try to cut (lower) the extremities of this full spectral range (the very low ends and the very high ends).

Here also, it depends of the audio material source to be compressed.

Compress your audio material as usual with your favorite Compressors Plug-Ins (or Hardware), then if you feel (and above all : hear !) that your compression settings lower too much some frequencies of the spectral range of your audio material, then use EQs (afterward) to recover all these lowered (or almost lost in some cases) frequencies, due to the type of Compressors and/or Compression settings used...

Also dependent of your Compression settings... At a ratio of 1:1 (and without any other change done within the settings), it shouldn't have difference between your audio material source and that outputted by your Compressor(s). When you start to raise this ratio (ex: 2,5:1; 4:1; 6:1;... ), here comes the effective compression, and if you still don't change any settings apart this ratio, your audio material will rather be lowered than boosted...
That's why you must to 'compensate' this lowered volume with the provided 'Gain' (Output) or 'Auto Gain' (also available within some Compressors). In this last case, the 'Auto Gain' function acts automatically according to the audio material feed within the Compressor(s) and the diverse settings that have been done upstream (Threshold, Ratio,... ).


So my 2 cents are... 'No straight or frozen rules !!!' *no*

Experiment is the key (as with all which is related to audio processing).
Try both ! I mean, if you feel the need, try to EQ your audio material upstream. Then if needed, try to EQ your audio material after compression... then choose what best fit your desired final result. *yes*

 

Thanks, guys!! Thank you, all of you!! I'm gonna take all your advise and experiment it tonight!

 

You Can Do Both some do there cut's before compression so the compressor dose not work as hard and then there boost's after

 

Before... it's what I do!

 

Some of each, typically.

• If you're going to do any hi-pass and/or lo-pass on your signal, do that first (which you should for most signals, anyway). Get those unwanted subs and harsh upper harmonics out as soon as possible, so they don't interact with the compressor performance or anything else down-chain at all. Be careful not to over-do it, though. You can always hi-pass/lo-pass more again later, if necessary. Mainly, it's just to help the compressor respond to the important parts of the signal only, which is going to sound better. Typically, I just hi-pass out the low garbage on most signals and leave the lo-pass stages for later in the mix process, except maybe kick and bass on the way in... I will lo-pass them a bit.

• Now, your compressor is free to respond to the signal you want heard; either to just fill up the needles a bit and tuck in the things that poke out or for a deliberate, over-compressed coloration... either reason is justified. Sometimes a broad tonal-shaping EQ or tilt EQ is good before the compressor just to get the overall "tone" of the instrument in the right ballpark to begin with. It's not that the compressor will necessarily defeat this by bringing back up the softer frequencies; quite the opposite. The compressor will mostly just tuck in anything that may poke out a little too much due to the re-balancing of the tonal EQ, while still maintaining the overall tonal color you created with the broad EQ. The compressor is not going to reverse that.

This is usually done while tracking. A lot of people have gotten scared to do any EQ at all on the way in because with ITB they can get away with not doing it at all... but most great recording engineers don't operate like that. They know what they're doing and aren't afraid to commit. They're creating a "sound" and that's what a good tracking engineer does. They get it mostly right to begin with and, yes, err on the conservative side just to be safe; otherwise, there is no musical direction being defined, it makes everything downstream more work and potentially confusing and it doesn't work towards building a "vibe" that the overdubs can play to. Every time I've had my hands on sessions done by a good tracking engineer, the tracks sounds pretty close to being finished just by pulling up the faders, and that's what you should strive for (for a lot of reasons).

Now, you're free to do more surgical EQ later as you try to get your various elements to co-exist. Oftentimes, more lo-pass and some hi-pass are the answer to carve out room for other things; and broad, tilt-type EQs are still your friend. Same with more compression after tracking: either to get a track to sit or for extreme coloration. Some of the best tracks I've been involved in had parts that sounded pretty mediocre (or even bad) on their own, but sounded perfect in the track; so don't be afraid to throw away frequencies, especially as the track gets more dense. Obviously, sparser songs tend to need things sounding more full and natural.

Bottom line, if you have a really good EQ, don't be afraid to use it while tracking. Same with a good compressor. In some ways, they will be the best processors you've got, because all EQ and compressor plug-ins are digital at the end of the day, no matter how cool they look in the GUI. There's something innately natural and right with the analog signal and processing before it gets digitized, so get that as good as you can (within reason) before the AD converters. The less you have to do ITB, the better. At least your plug-ins may not have to work as hard, and you know that your basic tracks are always at a good starting place in case you have to start over. If you ever have to hand these basic tracks over to a re-mixer, he will have the intended tone in hand as a good starting place.

Make sense?

 

Thanks, buddy!!! That is very helpful!!!

 

Cool. Glad that helps...

What I managed to leave out was that after the EQ--->compressor, you can always tweak another EQ post-compressor before you print, if you know what you want and still aren't there yet. To your original question, there is very much an interaction with EQ and compression, and the order of the two results in somewhat different outcomes. If you have two really good EQs, then one before and one after the compressor is not uncommon before printing, especially in the old analog tape days... but they have to be good quality or the noise becomes a factor.

So, to reiterate, I usually do some hi-pass (and maybe lo-pass) so that the compressor is not responding to extreme signals that aren't going to ultimately be there anyway... I get rid of them ASAP. Depending on the capabilities of the EQ I'm using for that, I may also do some subtle tonal shaping before the compressor, as well. This is subjective; but I personally like having the compressor respond to a frequency response in the ballpark of what I'm going for. And I'm not crushing this compressor, typically... just filling the needles a bit and smoothing out the peaks for a good, overall sound. I can always mangle it more later.

Sometimes when tracking, I may patch in a 2nd EQ post-compressor, if there's really something missing to the sound I'm going for. But, in general, I don't do this because if the tone is that far off that it takes 2 EQs to get it there at this stage, then there's usually a problem at the source that needs to be addressed (different microphone or placement, tweak the amp settings or keyboard sound, move the singer, re-tune or swap the drum, etc.) I usually will leave this 2nd stage of EQ'ing for the console or the DAW mixer; as any post-compressor EQ may change several times as other elements are added to the mix.

Now comes another question: with tracks that are already recorded, EQ or compression first?

Simple answer: fix whatever is the bigger problem first.

If levels are jumping around or a part isn't sitting (it sounds right, but it keep getting buried or jumping out too much), it may first need a compressor to tame it down somewhat. Then EQ that signal to further shape it into the mix, if necessary.

If it's not a presence issue, but a clarity issue (it's loud enough but just not sounding right), then EQ it first. Get rid of the cloudiness or muddiness (or boost the area you need to pop out), or maybe try some more hi-pass and/or lo-pass and see if that brings it into better focus, overall. Then a compressor afterwards may be the final glue to get the part to stick.

The interactions of EQ before or after a compressor are different, for sure; but you eventually get a feel for it and instinctively know what the chain should be. And really, it's a whole bunch of little interactions that ultimately determine the final outcome.

Hope that doesn't confuse you. :^)

 

No, doesnt confuse me. Makes perfect sense. But what about De-Esser?? Where does that go in the chain? Where would YOU put it?

 

NEVER track with a de-esser. Same with gates. If your settings aren't perfect, you can never correct the mistake. Do that after you've cut good, solid basic tracks.

De-essing became more of a necessity as singers started eating the mic while recording, usually on mediocre condensers in cardioid. Backing off a bit usually fixes a lot of sss problems, but you need to be in a good-sounding room to back off the mic. Most home studios are not cut out for that, so you have to close-mic.

If you see older pics of the legendary singers, they're anywhere from an arm-to-elbow to full-arm's length away from the mic. That won't give you that modern, throaty proximity-effect sound that's common today... but it gives you the best overall sound if you back off the mic a bit. It's been said by wiser engineers that "AIR is the best EQ and compressor"... so a little space between the source and mic is a good thing, usually.

Rather than use-a de-esser, the better way is to edit by hand in your DAW. Section off those "ess" sounds and drop them anywhere from 4-10 dB non-destructively. Every DAW does that a little differently, but you'll get to where you recognize the sibilance waveform for S, F, Z, and even Ts.

While we're at it, a lead vocal benefits tremendously from a good once-over by a good editor engineer. After you comp your vocal, go through and--with the same process as manual de-essing--balance out the vocal. Bring up (or down) those syllables as necessary, so that the track is smoothed out without automation or compression. Then your compressor is not being over worked, and you'll be able to set it to its sweetest spot. Then any automation will be minor and musical, not corrective.

You can apply that same waveform editing philosophy to guitars, bass, keys, whatever. All depends on how much time you have in your day. At a certain point, you have to finish it!

Point being, don't be afraid to do a (non-destructive) edit on the waveform to fix those big problems--on any track--like a note jumping out too much or a bass note not speaking. Processors, especially plug-ins--can only do so much before crapping out.

Oh, and don't print so damn hot. -18 dB is where you should float for individual tracks; because the plug-ins are designed to see that level at their input. That's the reason so many ITB 2-mixes sound like shit... they've been overloaded at both the processing stage with plug-ins and definitely at the final combining stage.

It feels awkward at first to leave so much headroom; but at 24-bit 44.1k and higher, you'd have to be down at, like, -90 dB before the sound gets bad. TURN DOWN THOSE LEVELS!!! And you'll be AMAZED at how good it starts to sound as you add more tracks.