Jump to content
Bapu

EQ->COMP or COMP->EQ, when do you and why?

Recommended Posts

If you sometimes chain EQ->COMP and sometimes chain COMP->EQ, when and why?

Edited by Bapu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COMP->EQ most of the time: compression can change how an instrument sounds, so EQ goes after to let it fit better in a mix.

If something's hyped somewhere and is going to unnaturally trigger the compressor, then EQ both before and after.

I don't usually do EQ->COMP only.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty much what I thought, thx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI:) 

Mostly Comp--> EQ, but sometimes as a Deesser for example the other way. Boost a frequency and it get's more compressed.

Accoustic Guitars for Frequncies you doesn't want, Boost on EQ, then use Compressor. 

Now I have this in the 2 way Deesser in the Schepps Omnichannel. Very helpful!

 

Bassman.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Heinz Hupfer said:

Frequencies you doesn't want, Boost Cut? on EQ,

I think "fix" problem frequencies first, then compress, then "sweeten" to taste?
I guess every track is different.
I definitely High Pass first, get the mud out, if a track needs it...

t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EQ generally last because it's the one you're more likely to continue tweaking as the mix progresses. EQ changes levels, which assures you'll have to go back and readjust the comp threshold. Putting EQ last means you're less likely to screw up something else down the chain.

This has long been the standard for hardware consoles that feature integrated channel compression, including my current Yamaha stage mixer. Of course, such compressors are primitive and don't offer anywhere near the flexibility of software compressors - such as sidechain filters.

The exception to the EQ-last rule is if the compressor doesn't have a HPF on the sidechain input. In that case, EQ should precede compression, especially if you're cleaning up mud by rolling off lows on guitars and vocals. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have to use several instances of both on the same track so the “rules” become null.  There are no right answers.

Edited by Miguel Carzola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you have a kick that has too much pop at, say, 50 hz....

 

and you compress that....

 

the kick and signal from 50 hz is what will make the compressor work.

 

if you EQ the kick 1st,

and calm the 50 hz in line with what you really need,

the compressor works less hard.

 

and so on, ad naseum.

it's all dependent on the track, and the need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst-case scenario is a full mix with a lot of accidental subsonic content. If you don't EQ that out before compression, you'll be left scratching your head wondering why your mix sounds so lifeless. Fortunately, mastering compressors usually have a HPF in the sidechain for just that situation, so even then EQing first isn't always necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Filter - Compress - EQ - Limit

Something like that. It doesn't really make a huge difference - there are plenty of things in a mix of greater importance  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can ruin a mix, by putting a compressor behind a track that needed eq first.

drives the compressor nuts.

bottom line, like mark said, you need to have the mix right to start with.

that's why i like to mix into sub busses, so i can treat the different parts of the band on their own sonic merits.

if i eq'd individual tracks right, there shouldn't be a build up of eq at the sub bus level, but sometimes it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...