EQ->Comp vs. Comp->EQ

[Mathieu Benoit]

Here's a random question off the top of my head. It the signal chain do you typically EQ first then compress or the other way around? I always EQ first, simply by arbitrary habit though. I'm sitting at work thinking about it so I can't experiment with it, but I'm wondering what the difference would be and in what way the sound would be affected.

Any thoughts?

[Christian LeBlanc]

I only have software for both, but I think EQ comes first in the chain. Would there be much of an end difference if it was the other way around? My guess is that compression would quiet/boost the wrong bits based on eq settings that'll be changed later, but it all comes out in the wash?

[Mathieu Benoit]

I'm betting it's a bit more scientific than that. Which is why I asked the question. I'm getting to the point where I'm starting to turn "pro-amateur" so I need to stop doing things arbitrarily and start to suss out the reasons why I should or shouldn't do something.

[Christian LeBlanc]

Fine!
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct07/a ... 1007_1.htm
http://erikhawkins.berkleemusicblogs.co ... mpression/

The first article starts 'scientificating' my guess, but, like the second article, comes to an actual conclusion.

From the second article: "As a rule, using EQ in front of your compressor produces a warmer, rounder tone, while using EQ after your compressor produces a cleaner, clearer sound."

Anyone here agree/disagree?

[Mathieu Benoit]

That would be my impression off the top of my head.

Those are good articles, thanks!

[Christian LeBlanc]

Thanks for goading me into learning something!

[Mathieu Benoit]

Thanks for goading me into learning something!

Regardless of what outsiders think that is the primary function of this site.

[macrae11]

As has already been mostly sussed out, the answer is - it depends.

From the second article: "As a rule, using EQ in front of your compressor produces a warmer, rounder tone, while using EQ after your compressor produces a cleaner, clearer sound."

I don't like this quote, because it's only partially true, and leaves out far more important variables that will have a much larger effect on the sound. Seems common for Berklee stuff I find.

I do agree where he said he uses a compressor first 80% of the time, I'm about in the same boat. Usually I don't want the compressor "fighting" my EQ changes, or my EQ changes screwing up my gain staging. Same reason that generally you want your volume automation to be post compressor, so your compression isn't constantly changing with every move.(although sometimes that's what you want - eg when compressing the mix bus.)

As in the article, I'll usually only go to pre-EQ when I'm fixing a problem, and I'm almost always cutting to get rid of some problem frequency that's triggering the compressor in a way that I don't like. So usually my rule of thumb is cut before compression, boost after compression. But I'm always breaking thumbs.... er I mean rules.

Also the assertion that having EQ pre and post compression will result in an "over EQ'd mix that sounds harsh and grating" is ridiculous. The signal flow itself will have nothing to do with your mix sounding harsh and grating. Excessive EQ can make things sound harsh and grating.

[RoadDog]

I am in agreement with Andrew on all accounts, especially the very first part, "it depends". I'm not copping out here, you need to trust your ears and your monitor path, and Matt has access to some pretty serious monitor path!

[Malcolm Boyce]

Another vote for "it depends" with a high percentage of EQ before compression in practice. I'd say more like 95% for me. For example, in a console type mix, whenever an option, when using a typical single comp inserted in a channel, PEQ then compress is what I would do under normal circumstances. Not for any other reason than I want the compressor to react to any EQ changes made.

I also don't agree with any of the qualitative generalizations for each option. I think Andrew covered that already fairly well.

Whether digital or analog, there are times where you simply will need to compress before an EQ to keep things in the sweet range before clipping the EQ's input.

I think about how the EQ and compression will react in relation to one another, and go in that direction depending on what I hear. Experimenting will help if you aren't able to understand one way or another.

As always, if you are making subtle EQ changes or gentle compression, pre or post will make far less of a difference. Aggressive EQ will be dramatically different pre VS post compression with any substantial gain reduction going on.

[macrae11]

Another vote for "it depends" with a high percentage of EQ before compression in practice. I'd say more like 95% for me. For example, in a console type mix, whenever an option, when using a typical single comp inserted in a channel, PEQ then compress is what I would do under normal circumstances. Not for any other reason than I want the compressor to react to any EQ changes made.

There you go. Different strokes.

[Mathieu Benoit]

I just wanted to say guys... I really appreciate having a place to ask all of my dumb questions. I feel like I should know the answers to all of these questions I ask, and I appreciate your taking the time to discuss them with me.

What I've learned in this is simple, to start experimenting (which in DAWs is very easy) and learn to use both for a particular purpose and to stop make any arbitrary decisions.

[Christian LeBlanc]

I just wanted to say guys... I really appreciate having a place to ask all of my dumb questions.

I know you say that tongue-in-cheek, but dumb questions usually help out people like me, who feel too intimidated to ask in the first place. And, judging by the types of responses (most of the articles I looked up yesterday were also in the 'depends' category), wasn't a dumb question at all.

But yeah, I appreciate being able to ask questions on here and not feel ignored.

[Mathieu Benoit]

I know you say that tongue-in-cheek, but dumb questions usually help out people like me, who feel too intimidated to ask in the first place.

It actually really wasn't at all. I make no bones about my experience (read: lack of experience) in audio. I have 2500 posts in this place mostly from asking questions that I feel everyone can benefit from. The other half of my posts would be me venting... or swearing.

I'm not lazy, I can look up the answers myself. But I'd rather ask the question on here and get answers from people I know and that also allows me to ask specific follow up questions. Also since these people know me and the resources I have available, the can customize the answer to fit in the context of where I'm at and what I have to work with. In the end everyone benefits from the discussions and that's why I like this place.

[giggleycraft]

I love reading through all the Q&A's here. I have a minimal amount of audio equipment at home (eventually hope to build the collection once I have an actual house with space for it), and no idea what I'm doing. I don't have enough experience to even know what to ask.

[macrae11]

Your welcome to all. I know this type of conversation was one of Malcolm's primary goals with this little spot, and I love taking part in these threads from both sides.

Please don't ever be afraid to ask any question no matter how trivial you might feel it is. I always try to impress this on my students(even though it often doesn't work) since it's the best way to learn. Even though I work every day in audio, I'm still learning new things almost daily, and usually it's by asking questions, or reading and seeking out answers. I'm very appreciative of all the mentors I've had over the years and feel very blessed to have ended up where I am. It's nice to be able to pass a tiny piece of what I've received on.

[Malcolm Boyce]

I just read a post on another board on this very topic and it was interesting to hear a few people chime in with similar taste. They suggest "cut" before compression, and "boost" after.

Interesting because when I think about my methodology, that may be something that I do subconsciously. I just never looked at it that way before.

Something else to think about.