Channel comp before EQ?

[Jeff Scott]

Was working with a finished vocal track last night. Normally I leave the channel strip set to the default condition....which is to have the signal running thru the EQ section and then into the Dynamics/ Gate/compressor section. Without altering any settings in my EQ...I switched the order of the EQ/Compressor and put the compressor first. THE SOUND AND TONE CHANGED COMPLETELY!

In fact..it wasn't "usable" . Not that it was "bad" Just completely different. I would have to set out slightly different Comp /attack/ release /threshold settings and definitely change the EQ.

It got me thinking about the order of the Compressor and how the EQ is interacting. In simplest terms, the compressor works by pulling down the volume of the track, in a specified way, at a specified threshold. If a portion of the audio track is loud...it pulls it down. With the EQ before the compressor...we are purposely making certain portions of the frequency spectrum louder or quieter. Therefore...are we not "shooting ourselves in the foot" if we put the EQ before the Compressor?

If I am trying to accentuate certain frequency portions of my vocal track by boosting the EQ, I then turn around and run it thru a compressor which is actively engaged in pulling down the level of the track, and presumably, those frequencies I just boosted. If I cut a frequency range in my vocal track, i then run it thru the compressor , which could be set in such a way that it is allowing the quieter portins of the track to sit louder in the mix :confused::confused::confused:

By putting the compressor first in the signal chain I noiced that the EQ adjustments were way more "responsive" to any changes I made. I was actually uncomfortable with how different it sounded as i am so used to it sounding "the other way";)

Anyone care to comment on this? Anyone else noticed this?

[Dave Labrecque]

Was working with a finished vocal track last night. Normally I leave the channel strip set to the default condition....which is to have the signal running thru the EQ section and then into the Dynamics/ Gate/compressor section. Without altering any settings in my EQ...I switched the order of the EQ/Compressor and put the compressor first. THE SOUND AND TONE CHANGED COMPLETELY!

In fact..it wasn't "usable" . Not that it was "bad" Just completely different. I would have to set out slightly different Comp /attack/ release /threshold settings and definitely change the EQ.

It got me thinking about the order of the Compressor and how the EQ is interacting. In simplest terms, the compressor works by pulling down the volume of the track, in a specified way, at a specified threshold. If a portion of the audio track is loud...it pulls it down. With the EQ before the compressor...we are purposely making certain portions of the frequency spectrum louder or quieter. Therefore...are we not "shooting ourselves in the foot" if we put the EQ before the Compressor?

If I am trying to accentuate certain frequency portions of my vocal track by boosting the EQ, I then turn around and run it thru a compressor which is actively engaged in pulling down the level of the track, and presumably, those frequencies I just boosted. If I cut a frequency range in my vocal track, i then run it thru the compressor , which could be set in such a way that it is allowing the quieter portins of the track to sit louder in the mix :confused::confused::confused:

By putting the compressor first in the signal chain I noiced that the EQ adjustments were way more "responsive" to any changes I made. I was actually uncomfortable with how different it sounded as i am so used to it sounding "the other way";)

Anyone care to comment on this? Anyone else noticed this?

I haven't messed with the order of EQ and compression very much. Seems like one of those areas where you can do a lot of theorizing, but really the most important thing is how it sounds, which may/may not obey one's theory. ;) Interesting observations you make, though.

>>If I cut a frequency range in my vocal track, i then run it thru the compressor , which could be set in such a way that it is allowing the quieter portions of the track to sit louder in the mix :confused::confused:<<

That's what a compressor does, isn't it? :)

[Jeff Scott]

>>If I cut a frequency range in my vocal track, i then run it thru the compressor , which could be set in such a way that it is allowing the quieter portions of the track to sit louder in the mix :confused::confused:<<

That's what a compressor does, isn't it? :)

It could be set to tame the extreme peaks...more of a "Limiter" function. It wouldn't neccesarily raise the quieter portions.

Try it out Dave. Take an EQ'd and Comped track and change the order. I noticed a profound difference in the sound and tone of the track.

That's why I posted this. I'm trying to make sense of what my ears told me was happening:eek:

[Dave Labrecque]

It could be set to tame the extreme peaks...more of a "Limiter" function. It wouldn't neccesarily raise the quieter portions.

Try it out Dave. Take an EQ'd and Comped track and change the order. I noticed a profound difference in the sound and tone of the track.

That's why I posted this. I'm trying to make sense of what my ears told me was happening:eek:

Well, actually a compressor doesn't raise volume, it lowers it selectively. So, whether for general compression or peak limiting, it brings down certain portions of the source material. It's up to us, then, to raise the overall level if we choose. And I think we usually make that choice. :)

I believe you on the results you're getting. I've just not messed with it much. Perhaps now I will, though. Thanks for your insights.

I'm just saying trust your ears first. Hypothesize about the technical stuff second. We have so much technical capability (and discernability) now, I think we tend to sort of get intimidated by it all, and forget that it's all about how it sounds. We forget that we can (and should) trust our ears. Let our ears be our guide, no matter what the dials and meters say. In some ways I think it would be better not to have all this technical capability to get bogged down in and intimidated by (even unconsciously). In the old days, they didn't have a whole lot more than their ears. And they did pretty well. Better, sometimes, I think.

But not to rain on your parade. You've made some really valuable observations, and your technical reasoning sounds sound to me. :)

[Bob L]

Changing the order of EQ and DYN should make no audible difference in sound with both of them disengaged... of course, with both engaged, there may be quite a difference in sound... that's why the option to do so is included.

Bob L

[Sean McCoy]

EQ/Compressor order has been a topic of conversation (and controversy) forever. Placing the EQ before the compressor will cause the compressor to react differently because the EQ can alter both RMS and peak volumes. Placing the compressor before the EQ can alter the frequency content by squashing resonant peaks, and many compressors tend to dull the signal a bit. If I have a really problematic track with lots of peaks, I might place the EQ first to treat those problem areas before the compressor kicks in. With most tracks I'll place the compressor first, as I often find it necessary to add some air back in after compression. Sometimes I'll use two or more of each, in alternating order, for micro-specific tasks. It's all situational, no rules.

[Cary B. Cornett]

I find myself reminded of the Flickinger console that I helped a friend modify. It had been used "stock" for maybe ten years, recording and mixing a fair number of hit records, before the guy bought it. During all that time, there was no way to insert a compressor (or anything else) between the EQ and the fader. You either had to patch in before the EQ or after the fader. One of the first big mods we made was to add an insert point between EQ and fader.

Somehow they got along for a decade without that capability.

[Jeff Scott]

Changing the order of EQ and DYN should make no audible difference in sound with both of them disengaged... of course, with both engaged, there may be quite a difference in sound... that's why the option to do so is included.

Bob L
Bob: I was specifically refering to the dramatic difference in tone on a track for when both the compressor and the EQ were engaged... the difference in tone arriving from whether the EQ was placed first or the compressor placed first. I haven't noticed any difference in the order when they are not engaged.



Placing the EQ before the compressor will cause the compressor to react differently because the EQ can alter both RMS and peak volumes. Placing the compressor before the EQ can alter the frequency content by squashing resonant peaks, and many compressors tend to dull the signal a bit. If I have a really problematic track with lots of peaks, I might place the EQ first to treat those problem areas before the compressor kicks in. With most tracks I'll place the compressor first, as I often find it necessary to add some air back in after compression. Sometimes I'll use two or more of each, in alternating order, for micro-specific tasks. It's all situational, no rules.

I appreciate your observations Shaun. Your comment on needing to "add some air" back in is interesting. This stems from an experiment on a track I was working on. The vocal had a rather "lifeless' dull tone, even after cutting out the mud. I tried to add some upper mids (at 2.5 and 6k repectively) to give it some air and I noticed the compressor kicking in a bit more than usual. Putting the compressor first completely changed the tone of the track. I didn't change the EQ at all...just the compressor / EQ order. It got me thinking....If I can tame the peaks first...then I'm free to apply EQ to shape the tone....without having to wory about the compressor pulling down any boosts i might attempt.

[Ian Alexander]

The difference in sound caused by the order change of EQ/Comp to Comp/EQ shouldn't really be surprising. In the first case, you are changing the tone, then reducing the dynamic range of that new tone. In the second case, you are reducing the dynamic range, then changing the tone. I would expect that to result most times in a track with more dynamic range than in the first case, depending on what freqs you are boosting or cutting.

Here's a wacky analogy: You have a rough piece of wood, some green paint, and some sandpaper. If you sand, then paint, you'll have a piece thats all green and smoother than when you started. If you paint, then sand, you'll have a green piece with brown accents on the high points. It might be even smoother than the first approach if the paint fills the low spots. But it's certainly going to look different.

I rarely EQ after compression. In most cases, my goal with compression is to get a VO to compete with the absolutely smashed production music we are blessed with these days.:) So, I want to reduce the dynamic range a lot to get the VO riding on top of the music without lowering the level of the music as much as I'd have to without compressing the VO. If I EQ'd after compression, I'd have more dynamic range and the VO would pop up and dive under here and there.

In a musical piece, the order switch just gives you another color to work with. If it makes the music more interesting or supports the artist's goals in some way, go for it.

[Carl G.]

I just simply add a few thoughts to the already great explanations here.
As Bob said - it will yield two different sounds.
I add - all depending upon how much you eq and/or compress (and your various parameters within those variables).

Generally, EQ after compression is often done just as a minor touch up or ambiance.... before is for also helping remove the artifacts of undesirable compression action on certain spectrum combinations.

Accessive EQ adjustments either before or after will bring drastically different results when A/B'd either way.

[Grekim]

There's really no one best way. I tend to look at it as what needed most and do that first in the chain. If levels are really all over the place I go with trim automation then compression. Or, compress first with threshold automation and then channel fader.
Often a little compression just makes things more balanced such as reigning in some boominess and therefore less or no EQ is required (post compressor).
Just have fun experimenting.

[Sean McCoy]

I rarely EQ after compression. In most cases, my goal with compression is to get a VO to compete with the absolutely smashed production music we are blessed with these days.:) So, I want to reduce the dynamic range a lot to get the VO riding on top of the music without lowering the level of the music as much as I'd have to without compressing the VO. If I EQ'd after compression, I'd have more dynamic range and the VO would pop up and dive under here and there.

In a musical piece, the order switch just gives you another color to work with. If it makes the music more interesting or supports the artist's goals in some way, go for it.
Interesting that you bring this up, Ian. With commercial production, where I'm mainly concerned with guaranteeing that the voice stays steady and cuts through while still allowing me to keep the music and SFX levels hot, I much more frequently EQ before compression. I'm more likely to reverse that, or add multiple levels, when mixing music, where the preservation of some semblance of dynamics and subtle tone shaping are more desirable.