Which order? EQ - Compressor - De-esser

[anonymous]

I once cut out some peices of paper, each with different words on them:

EQ
Compressor
De-Esser
Mic Pre
Mic

And droped them on a table in front of 4 very experienced engineers. It was funny the way they argued and scratched their heads as to 'the right order' for them. There was no uniform concensus at all.

Now it's obvious that the Mic then Mic Pre are first (unless your mic is loud enough to feed directly to eq or compression), but after that it down to preffered working methods.

I found the option switch to have the EQ pre or post insert (where you might have a compressor) handy on the SSL console. But I never realy got a handle on what 'was better'.I would just click away at the switch and seem to learn little from it.

Personaly I tend to EQ then compress. I ALMOST NEVER compress then EQ (with the one exception of vocals where I often go: eq/comp/eq/de-esser).

What order you do it in and why.

Inst & Vox

 

[Rog]

I EQ then compress. I see EQ as a (bad) way of sorting out problems with mic choice and placement. In an ideal world I wouldn't need EQ but there again, in a ideal world I'd have instant access to every mic, pre and studio on the planet

 

[roninmusic]

Ahhh, another age old debate.

Personally, I run compressor -> eq (in most cases). My feeling is that if I want to boost a frequency why would I then want to compress it back down? It's all opinion though and, in the end, probably about as important as whether the guitarist uses Duracell or Energizer in your stomp boxes... as long as it sounds good, who cares?

[="http://www.roninmusic.com"]RoninMusic[/]

 

[anonymous]

Both are fine, it all depends on the application. If you EQ prior to the compressor, the things you did with the equalizer will affect how the compressor reacts. If you boost the highs, then the compressor's "detector" circuit will make the compressor start reacting to high frequency information before it reacts to low frequency information [that is the basic premise of a "de-esser", except that the 'high end boost' occurs in the 'side chain'.

In the Drawmer 1969, I had the designer put a switch on the front that engaged a 100Hz filter prior to the detector, thus allowing the 'vocals' to drive the mix compression, not the bass and kick drum.

When you EQ prior to compression, you're doing similar things to these 'side chain' activities, except in the audible signal path.

With the exception of the rare occurance where I'm looking for that kind of effect, I generally compress first, then do EQ touch ups subsequent to the equalizer. That way I don't end up going in a circle having to alter the compression as I mess with each equalizer.

To each their own I suppose...which is what makes this such a fun sport, and each engineer have a different sound.

 

[MadMoose]

I'll EQ either before or after I compress for the reasons Fletcher mentioned. 90% of the time the EQ is after the compressor. One thing I'm stuck on is where to put the de-esser. For a long time I put it post EQ but the other night I put it before the EQ and dialed in a HF boost after it and that didn't sound bad but I think it might've defeated the purpose of having it there in the first place. Where would you put it?

BTW, sometimes I'll stick a Mic Pre on a bus send or across the 2-mix.

 

[anonymous]

Of course you could do a different 'paper cut out' test with band managers.

Going
Are you
When
Pay me?
The ^#$%

Some might push those cut outs round all day and still not be able to figure it out!

 

[anonymous]

It is possible that the reason for my lack of massive international sucess is due to my not using EQ post compression.. That and not owning a pair of ADAM S3 monitors!
I've got this all worked out, trust me!

 

[Henchman]

Originally posted by Julian Standen:
It is possible that the reason for my lack of massive international sucess is due to my not using EQ post compression.. That and not owning a pair of ADAM S3 monitors!
I've got this all worked out, trust me!


I think my lack of international success is due to the fact that:

A. I suck.
B. I'm an opinionated sonofabitch.

Nah, that can't be it. Because there's alot of people that match the same descriptions above, yet have tons of success.Hmmmm...

Oh, of course, I haven't stuck my tongue firmly up some A&R guys ass. Yes, that must be it.

 

[stedel]

Wow, Julian, and you thought I was rude? Or maybe this time I misunderstand. Is Henchman asking for advice here? Has an opening recently appeared in his career path? Hmm. Anyway, I will check up tonight, (not about Henchman), but on the Manley Vox Box which I think uses a different signal path than most of the other channel strip type units. My memory is hazy (I've had a long day) and it seems strange, but I think they put the compressor right at the front of the chain. be good to see how this relates to the equation, see what you think. By the way my night is your day. Australia y'know.

 

[droog]

all you need is gear, hey, jules
(with apologies to george martin (the other other gm))

cheers
max
newcastle, oz

 

[anonymous]

That VoxBox has a de-esser to die for, I asked Eva Anna from Manley if the secondhand Manley de-esser I bought was the same circuit (that's why I bought it)... She smiled and said "Nope"! I was bummed...
She said the VoxBox de-esser is even 'quicker' and differrent alltogether..
ho hum..

 

[mixfactory]

Totally depends if mixing or tracking. If mixing certain combinations work best for certain instruments. For vocals EQ-compressor-EQ is my normal mixing chain. For bass EQ/compressor also for guitars(Acoustics). For drums the standard way still works.

 

[stedel]

Well good morning folks. Re my post above about the Manley Vox Box. Literature I've got seems to indicate this, but this is too vague for this discussion- if I have time I'll contact Manley and get some hard facts. Meanwhile let's not speculate till I do. Maybe someoneelse has some experience of the unit and can inform us of their signal chain.I've gotta tell you I am so hanging out to test drive some of the Manley gear.BTW - and I'm SURE you know this already, but is anyone else impressed by the flexibility and re-configuration strategy of the Focusrite Producer Pack unit in respect to Julians query? Pretty versatile box of tricks.
Regards