Dubstepforum.com

Hello

Two Questions?

Eq pre compression or after? I've been compressing before the compressor so the bass frequencies don't trigger the compressor early? Any thoughts?

Also, regarding spatial imaging, should this be done pre or post compression?

Thanks!

futures_untold wrote: Also, regarding spatial imaging, should this be done pre or post compression?

been wondering this too

futures_untold wrote:Hello

Two Questions?

Eq pre compression or after?

i had a long chat with a friend about this, turns out we thought it was better to eq before compression.

sorry for the cliche but what ever sounds right

compress the eq or eq the compression. I have read that people debate this often and there is no clear answer, so as whineo already said, whatever sounds best to you wins.

Found this : http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/new ... ycode=3492

On some samples like kicks and snares the actual 'punch' of the sound might actually be quieter than some of the less wanted frequencies.When you do compression these will trigger the compressor. I try and eq these down a bit before compresion so they don't trigger the compressor (esp. low freq). So the 'punch' gets it.
It's probably rubbish but it does sound good.

So that article advocates a potential third way:

comp -> EQ -> comp

...with the first compressor working hard, and second compressor just catching any stray peaks caused by the EQ but otherwise being pretty transparent - a limiter would work just as well there probably.

What Chewie said also makes sense, sometimes you don't want the boom-y backend of a kick.

Perhaps the comp->EQ->comp thing would work on a whole track, but the EQ->Comp would be best for sculpting individual sounds?

Pre compression EQ vs Post Compression EQ

Sqwol wrote:compress the eq or eq the compression. I have read that people debate this often and there is no clear answer, so as whineo already said, whatever sounds best to you wins.

Found this : http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/new ... ycode=3492

Thanks for that link, I have pre & post compression eq more sussed in my head now.

The quote below kind of helped me suss what I was wondering.

EQ Before Compression
The problem—and advantage—of this option is that the compression "undoes" some of the effects of the EQ. For example, if the EQ is set to boost a range of frequencies, compression will tend to bring that boost back down again. Conversely, if the EQ is being used to cut, compression will bring that range up a bit.

Basically, if I want to achieve smoother overall compression on a signal, I need to use an eq to attenuate loud problem frequencies prior to compression. Because certain frequencies are louder, they trigger the compressor earlier than if there was less dynamic variation in the signal.

This is desirable when trying to mould a mix together using any material with lots of dynamic fluctuations.

After this 'leveling' compression, I suppose that if the material could benefit from tonal colouration, I can use a second eq. While this will change the tonal character of the material, it may also effect the dynamics (see http://www.bluebearsound.com/articles/eqnotes.htm). In some cases, it may be neccessary to use a second compressor.

So for really smooth compression on sounds, I guess my signal chain should look something like:

Signal source--->EQ--->Compressor--->EQ--->Compressor--->Mixer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pre compression spatial imaging vs post compression spatial imaging

With regards to my original question, I think I've found some solutions! Please bear with me as I attempt to logically approach the issue.

I've been reading some stuff over at http://studio-central.com. Over there, the general opinion is that stereo imaging tools should be left alone unless completely neccessary. The opinion seems to be that stereo imagers damage the source material, although I didn't find an explaination as to why. I have some ideas though.

First it must be said that signal dynamics and stereo width are two separate issues. One effects volume levels while the other effects percieved panoramic size.

I've noticed that when using a stereo widening plugin to create width, I get a loss in volume. I've also read that the converse is true when bouncing down to mono. The signal becomes louder.

A loss in volume due to widening is bad. This is because in order to maintain the constant volume of my material within my mix, I would need to apply gain either before or after compression. Applying gain introduces phase shifting which becomes apparent when playing back material loudly, and can sound crap.

But stereo widening plugins can introduce shifts in phase too!

To combat this I'm going to try parallel bussing instead of relying on stereo imaging plugins to achieve stereo width. If I pan one buss left and one buss right, I should be able to achieve good width without any loss of volume or phase integrity.

Thus for widening, in order to avoid volume loss and potential phase distortion, I should be compressing the signal proir to widening. I can then use the bussing technique outlined above to create width!

When forcing mono however, I think it is not an issue. Attenuation causes less phase distortion than applying gain, so if I force mono, I can either use the input or output stages on my compressor to maintain the desired volume, or the volume control on the mixer.

For further reading surrounding spatial imaging, I found this excellent article here--->
http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resources/ ... ing_A4.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's amazing what can be learned by using google and the search function on forums!

N00bs like me wouldn't have to post silly questions then, eh?

Thanks for the responses guys!

Chewie wrote:On some samples like kicks and snares the actual 'punch' of the sound might actually be quieter than some of the less wanted frequencies.When you do compression these will trigger the compressor. I try and eq these down a bit before compresion so they don't trigger the compressor (esp. low freq). So the 'punch' gets it.
It's probably rubbish but it does sound good.

It makes perfect sense to me. Having unruly frequencies triggering the compressor ultimately means less scope to sculpt the sound using the compressor

DougD wrote:So that article advocates a potential third way:

comp -> EQ -> comp

...with the first compressor working hard, and second compressor just catching any stray peaks caused by the EQ but otherwise being pretty transparent - a limiter would work just as well there probably.

Perhaps the comp->EQ->comp thing would work on a whole track, but the EQ->Comp would be best for sculpting individual sounds?

I think your right!

futures-untold wrote: I'm going to try parallel bussing instead of relying on stereo imaging plugins to achieve stereo width. If I pan one buss left and one buss right, I should be able to achieve good width without any loss of volume or phase integrity.

I've now tested this, and it does give a much clearer sound than using a spatial imaging plugin alone.

Happy days!

futures_untold wrote:

futures-untold wrote: I'm going to try parallel bussing instead of relying on stereo imaging plugins to achieve stereo width. If I pan one buss left and one buss right, I should be able to achieve good width without any loss of volume or phase integrity.

I've now tested this, and it does give a much clearer sound than using a spatial imaging plugin alone.

Happy days!

what kind of plugins were you using?

^^^Reasons M Class Stereo Imager and Clone Ensembles Steroid Bouncer.

if you EQ something and then compress it, you are negating much of what your EQ is accomplishing..

say you have a nice bass sound that needs a bit of 250hz boost for some body in the low mids, so you boost that 3 db..

now you throw a compressor on that because everyone youve ever talked to told you to compress the bass.. but you compress it slightly because you shouldnt overcompress a bass track..

so you are knocking down all your peaks about 3db on some slight compression and guess what.. you boosted 250hz roughly 3db above the rest of the spectrum..

you compressed it right back into place


obviously this is a simple example.. but EQ after compression. if compression alone doesnt bring out what you are looking for, then give it some EQ.. but in all honestly if you are using softsynths or software... you should just be getting the sound right before resorting to EQ.. same principles apply in recorded music, why do you think there are so many microphones? because they all have different sonic characteristics so you pick the one that is going to give you the sound you want so EQ use is minimal

abstractsound wrote:if you EQ something and then compress it, you are negating much of what your EQ is accomplishing..

say you have a nice bass sound that needs a bit of 250hz boost for some body in the low mids, so you boost that 3 db..

now you throw a compressor on that because everyone youve ever talked to told you to compress the bass.. but you compress it slightly because you shouldnt overcompress a bass track..

so you are knocking down all your peaks about 3db on some slight compression and guess what.. you boosted 250hz roughly 3db above the rest of the spectrum..

you compressed it right back into place

i'm no expert, but this is how i see it^^

that situation would only cause the compressor to lower the volume when there were peaks in the track, so it would not lower 250hz at all times, but it would lower all frequencies equally when there was a peak in volume.

so, your EQ that you applied prior to the compressor, and the overall timbre of the instrument you have created with that EQ, would maintain even when the peaks were lowered.

that is unless 250hz is only present (or more present) during the peak, and is what is triggering the compressor.
in that case, you boosted 250hz because you wanted it to be more present, but when 250 hits, you pulled the volume down. in that case your boost should go after the compression

i was always told, as a general rule, to apply cut EQ before compression and boosts after.
but obviously your approach should be a little different for each application

abstractsound wrote: obviously this is a simple example.. but EQ after compression. if compression alone doesnt bring out what you are looking for, then give it some EQ.. but in all honestly if you are using softsynths or software... you should just be getting the sound right before resorting to EQ.. same principles apply in recorded music, why do you think there are so many microphones? because they all have different sonic characteristics so you pick the one that is going to give you the sound you want so EQ use is minimal

i think the rule of "minimal EQ" applies less when talking about synthesized or unnatural music. how else do you get your synth to sound right before using EQ? filters are EQ's and are included and often integral parts of the synth patch.

futures_untold wrote:^^^Reasons M Class Stereo Imager and Clone Ensembles Steroid Bouncer.

you were using that on individual tracks?

NoSpin wrote:

futures_untold wrote:^^^Reasons M Class Stereo Imager and Clone Ensembles Steroid Bouncer.

you were using that on individual tracks?

I have been going back through a lot of my really old Reason songs recently. I've been pimping what's good and ignoring what's unusable.

I find that many of my older tracks lack width. Specifically, I like to have very large sounding pads. Yes, I was using the M Class Stereo Imager on individual tracks. (But not at the same time as the Steroid Bouncer plugin lol That would be overkill IMO).

So while it is a quick solution to pimping old material, it is perhaps not the best solution to rely upon whilst creating new material. As I mentioned previously, parallel bussing seems to work well while retaining better clarity to to my ears. Hence forth, I'm resolved to create the best possible mixes that I can, before turning to compression and stereo imaging to fix problems.

While EQing and compression are no means necessary on every element in a mix, I do like to subtly eq and compress everything to help things sit well together.

I always try to subtractive EQ instead of boosting. I'll turn everything down in a mix to bring out one element that I like before I boost with EQ.

I guess the only consideration to make when creating music is to think about the technical limitations of the playback medium. What I mean to say is that if we are trying to make a radio friendly tune that will also be cut to vinyl, then we need to take into account the fact that radio limiters and cutting needles work best with particular types of material produced in conventional ways.

There is no right or wrong way to create music at the end of the day, if it sounds good then great! But surely if we as producers wish to be taken seriously, we have to learn to work using methods that have proven succeful!?

futures_untold wrote:Clone Ensembles Steroid Bouncer.

????? what the hell is that??????

darkmatterUK wrote:

futures_untold wrote:Clone Ensembles Steroid Bouncer.

????? what the hell is that??????

Google is my friend, and any friend of mine is a friend of yours!

Ps. maybe there's a clue in the topic of this thread? Compression, EQ & Spatial Imaging!

point taken, im slightly pissed at mo, saw that and thought wtf? googled, found, slightly better educated

All good

I should have done some readin myself before posting this very thread! I ended up learning more for it when I did do some research into the matter.

Safe!

yea, s'all good tho, your own research and the people you know on hear's opinions, good way to go bout things i spose

i just got bit confused, coz ive drank way too much alize, stella and cider, saw reason and Clone Ensembles Steroid Bouncer in same sentence