Compression before or after EQ?
- Thread starter Hi-Lo
- Start date
thedreampolice
A backwards poet writes inverse.
EQ after the compressor unless you want the compressor to overcompensate on certian frequences. If you dont know you had better play it safe and compress first.
Sanova
Guess Who's Back
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 9
depends..
Sometimes i have to eq an instrument to get the sound that i wanted in the first place.. then i'll compress that as if i hadn't eq'd it.
Lets say i took a snare.. but it sounds muddy and low n shit. What i'll do is cut some lows, and ad some highs and midhighs thru EQ, and bam thats a hot ass snare sample.
but it still needs to be compressed. So now i treat this EQ'd snare as a totally new instrument. and eq that.
Sometimes i have to eq an instrument to get the sound that i wanted in the first place.. then i'll compress that as if i hadn't eq'd it.
Lets say i took a snare.. but it sounds muddy and low n shit. What i'll do is cut some lows, and ad some highs and midhighs thru EQ, and bam thats a hot ass snare sample.
but it still needs to be compressed. So now i treat this EQ'd snare as a totally new instrument. and eq that.
thedreampolice
A backwards poet writes inverse.
Right but if you boost the highs and then compress you are causing your compressor you kick in to gear earlier makeing it clamp down harder on the highs. This is sometimes what you want but not always.
thedreampolice
A backwards poet writes inverse.
ya totally!
thedreampolice
A backwards poet writes inverse.
um, its usually better to compress first then eq.
thedreampolice
A backwards poet writes inverse.
also this may help
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan01/articles/advanced.asp
here is the key text to read
Compressors are often used in conjunction with equalisers, especially in mastering applications. However, there's a big difference in the results achieved, depending on whether you put the EQ before or after the compressor, especially if the compressor is a full-band type. Let me give you an example: let's assume that a mix needs more low-end energy, so we add some bass boost at 80Hz. If we then feed the EQ'd signal through a compressor it will respond most to the loudest signal peaks, which in all probability will occur exactly where we applied the boost — in other words the compressor will attempt to turn down the level of the sounds we've just tried to emphasise. Sometimes this will produce a musically useful effect, but where you want the EQ to be unaffected by the compressor, you're better patching the compressor first in line. If you have a hardware EQ and a compressor, or corresponding plug-ins, I'd recommend you try a few experiments to demonstrate just how great a difference can be made simply by moving the EQ before or after the compressor.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan01/articles/advanced.asp
here is the key text to read
Compressors are often used in conjunction with equalisers, especially in mastering applications. However, there's a big difference in the results achieved, depending on whether you put the EQ before or after the compressor, especially if the compressor is a full-band type. Let me give you an example: let's assume that a mix needs more low-end energy, so we add some bass boost at 80Hz. If we then feed the EQ'd signal through a compressor it will respond most to the loudest signal peaks, which in all probability will occur exactly where we applied the boost — in other words the compressor will attempt to turn down the level of the sounds we've just tried to emphasise. Sometimes this will produce a musically useful effect, but where you want the EQ to be unaffected by the compressor, you're better patching the compressor first in line. If you have a hardware EQ and a compressor, or corresponding plug-ins, I'd recommend you try a few experiments to demonstrate just how great a difference can be made simply by moving the EQ before or after the compressor.
good looking man. as the guy below me said that makes a lot of sense now that I think about it