Man I just wanna say thank you for all your content. You've helped me and my masters so much. I'm also very appreciative of how you tend to test your ideas and admit when your thoughts are proven "wrong" or you get a different result than you expect. It's refreshing. You have one of THE BEST audio channels on RUclips! Keep up the great work!
Yeah mate, great thoughts here. That's exactly why Pro-C2 is such an indispensable mixing AND mastering compressor, and a much smarter approach to use the sidechain EQ. I know Luca has been a huge proponent of teaching the use of the S/C EQ as you demonstrated. Interestingly, for the past year as I've been setting up mastering chains, I A/B with the compressor on and off (with everything else in the chain being left as is) and many times I actually prefer the sound without any compression. When I turn the compressor off, of course the clipper and limiter take on extra load, but 9 out of 10 times I like it better. I'm using mix buss saturation, which of course can reduce the need for compression, so perhaps that's why. A lot of people use compression on the master every time by default and I started questioning this in my own process. I was really surprised to discover that I got better results without any compression. Perhaps if I wasn't using saturation I would find I wanted the compressor though.
Ping me an email! I'll send you my TDR Kotelnikov presets; these are my main go-to's for compression in mastering; **And you're right, "traditional" compression which is often taught / spoken of re:mastering can be more harmful than helpful
Part of what makes the Fairchild compressor so well loved is that it has a midrange bump on the sidechain that really focusses in on the range of vocals/piano midrange.
@@panorama_mastering Had the pleasure of talking to Simon Saywood who designed the Analogue Tube AT-101 (intended as the most faithful recreation of the Fairchild) back when I used to work for Doctor Mix. He had a tonne of knowledge on the old units as you'd expect - most of which was a bit too technical for our video review, but was incredibly fascinating.
Do both. EQ before the compressor with proper gain match (if you do a bass cut in proQ 3, it doesn’t really work properly, but as you’ve taught us, there are phase issues that may effect this gain match setting, so do an insight instantiation so as to properly gain match by adjusting output accordingly), then compress. Yes, it makes sense it would minimize your Esq efforts. That’s why AFTER, you now have a compressed signal of what you WANT to compress. Now, you can open ANOTHER surgical parametric eq and tighten up the sound. Again, do BOTH. this is part of why there’s sometimes an added pre filter on some analog modeled compressors a la the VBC bundle from Slate to actually let some of the low end breathe and not trigger compression. An instantiation of ProQ3 just makes it so you’re compressing the frequencies you actually WANT to compress. In VMR, the designer Slate actually may throw an ssl comp before a compressor module and a master eq (the white one) or a Neve after said compressor to bring back some air above 11.2kHz, or maybe some thump at 64 Hz. I’ve found this trick to be integral to getting a fuller balanced result on a master. Granted I’m an attorney who does this as a hobby to “master” my beats that no one wants and that are mixed in a laughably terrible environment. But when I grab my VSX headphones? I can totally hear it.
I really respect you for correcting the error. It’s a topic I wrestle with sometimes and I just go by whatever fits or works in a situation. Sometimes I EQ before and after. Thanks for the great video!
I've settled on doing the same in my workflow (when mixng, not so much mastering as I will go for the most transparent option most often then). I will EQ after for normal eq and compression, but if I have a specific reason to (and on occasion I do), I will eq before. I got into the habit of flipping plug in order sometimes, just to quickly hear what it would do when learning to mix back in the day, and found unless I know I want to EQ before for a specific reason, generally EQing after gives more consistant results if all you are trying to do is EQ and compress alone (and not for example trying to add the tone of a hardware EQ without changing the overall frequency responce or some other niche use case). I think both have their place, but if you're only just getting to grips with this stuff eqing after will be much more useful as you don't have to learn the temperamental relationship that a pre compression eq and the compressor it's self have when adjusting the EQ into the compressor. It's one of them things that you don't really need, unless you know you need it for something specifically, and isn't something that is essentual to a standard mixing workflow generally speakin, and it probably makes it harder to fully understand what either process is doing when their behavior is interlinked like it is with EQ first.
Everyday I think I'm ready to send my master off you drop another video with a technique that makes it sound even better. When will it end?? No seriously don't stop please. Now I only wish I could have used all this gold on the tracks I already released.
Nicholas is right as usual, his evidence shows it and it makes sense for an efficient workflow. Still I prefer the EQ before AND after compression as needed perspective. Not to drive the sidechain going in, but rather because I treat the whole of the processing as a "state" with each state being summed as perfectly as possible before the next affectation (because digital tools mostly follow a linear flow), but it absolutely has the disadvantage of making client changes more onerous.
I think why you were thinking that it would minimize the eq difference is that perhaps you were thinking of if there was a multiband compressor afterwards, sense I think that would make a difference sense different frequencies would be separately compressed
Interesting, compressors work differently than I thought. If you had a signal at -12dB and a signal at -24dB into a compressor, I believed if the threshold was set say at -18dB (assuming hard knee) the -24dB signal would be unaffected, and only the -12dB signal would be compressed in relation to the ratio. Do you have any recommended literature I could read on this topic? As I clearly need to restudy.
Yes! Any literature on conpressors will detail this. Voltage controlled amplifier, the gain reduction circuit, reduces the gain of the whole signal passing through. So everything us moved relative to.
Honestly I feel the most comfortable putting a Century Channel Strip at the top of the chain on my individual tracks tends to get my sonic image looking more defined and with less work involved on those tracks
I can definitely understand that on a master it might be better to use a custom side-chain signal for the compressor as to respect the balance of the track you've been sent, however on the mixing side I definitely do a lot of creative EQ before compression because it is my intention to change the tone. It all comes down to knowing what you want to do and affect. If you just want the compressor to react better but already like the mix balance, refining the side-chain is the perfect choice.
Interesting investigation and inquiry into this topic. It’s among the oldest and most polarizing debates in mixing. And while I agree with your premise and your argument, compression has broader utility than dynamic range management alone. Compressors are also among the best means to impart tone and character. And to really elicit that tonal response, that vibe and color, EQ into compression will always be the superior method I feel. Shorter attack times and longer attack times in particular combined with bolder EQ moves can have a dramatic effect on eliciting tone and vibe and color. But I generally agree with your ideas on sidechain compression. It’s just that it doesn’t reap the full benefits of analog compression. If band specific compression is the goal I’ll always reach for multiband compression first before sidechaining. This could just be me.
I would say it depends o the type of compression being applied. If doing muiltiband compression, I like to that before EQ,, but if you are doing sidechain compression to duck for the bass then you should do that on the whole signal after EQ. Actually what works really well I have found is do multiband compression as the first move, do all the rest of the mastering, and then do another multiband compression as the final move. You could try this and see if t works for you.
@@panorama_mastering this is something I have devised recently, and I call it linchpin mastering,, as far as I know nobody else does this but I will share this as well. Apply MB compression and the start of your fx chain, then copy it and apply it at the end of the chain. Make adjustments. copy back to the start, replacing the original, make new adjustments, then copy back. Do a few more back and forth, then once the adjustments are small, these compression points become the linchpins of the master hence the name I came up with. The idea then is that you work everything around these two reference points. Obviously, you would need to validate this yourself, but since I started applying this, method, it has produced some excellent results for me !.
You raised a very valuable point! EQ on the sidechain of the compressor is often what I reach for. Compression will affect how a source sounds dramatically especially if it’s triggering differently with a side chained version of the source. And now that source is controlled to my preference, it’s simple to make the EQ moves I really want.
I've learned that compressors are just another form of eq. If you change the 1176 plugin model on your vocal (for examples uad to waves or softube) you will change the tone of your vocal drastically even if you apply very similar settings. The compression behaviour changes the way we hear the tonal balance even if the compressor itself wasn't build to change anything in the tone/color the sound
Well, an 1176 like you mentioned does actually change more than just the level of compression. The way the original saturates and brings forward the mid range is one of the big reasons it is so popular. The later editions are designed to be more clean and transparent.
@@DrBuffaloBalls Yeah the rev A 1176 (blue stripe over silver) has a FET as the first component in the audio path for each amp stage making it the most "dirty" sounding 1176, where as the rest ,B (also blue stripe) and C-E (black front), had bipolar transistors instead and "low noise" circuitry added. As well as the rev F (also black front) which is by far the "cleanest" of them all. There's quite a noticeable difference between them, B-E (being the most similar to each other) with A and F being at opposite ends of the spectrum. The original A version being the most gritty and grungy 1176, and rev. F being hyper silky and shiny (as they improved the circuitry over time). They all have their place though, but this is one big reason as to why not all 1176 plug ins are equal, and why there are 2 different 1176 versions in the waves plugs for example. (That is ignoring all the mods people did to their later revs. like changing the capacitors and doing an "orange drop cap" mod to get a more gritty sound closer to the rev A, but still different to any other actual 1176 even then). Some compressors are WAY more colouring than others, even when it comes to the same compressor and just it's various different versions. The reason people use 1176's and things like the LA-2A is precisely because of the colour it gives to the sound, but there are compressors out there that when only compressing a few DB you would struggle to know were even on, had you not pressed the engage button yourself. Especially things like modern bus/mastering comps specifically designed for high levels of transparency.
I agree with you about EQing the sidechain to change how the compressor reacts - that's exactly why sidechain EQs exist. But, I still think there are other factors. One is that a lot of the mixes I've gotten for years are already well controlled (some would say over-compressed at least some of the time). I'm often not using compressors for compression. Either I'm using them to create pumping that sounds like subtle rhythmic swells to enhance the groove (if it's appropriate) or I'm using them for "tone" (read: distortion) as an alternative to something like Kelvin or Michaelangelo,...because sometimes certain ones sound great like that. Any time you're adding distortion, you can get a lot out of EQ shaping both before and after. Kelvin is probably one of the best tools for that considering that it has automatic pre-/de-emphasis EQ AND very general tone-shaping EQ on the way out. Using it wrong is a real good way to ruin a master, especially if the song is already crunchy. But, it can be great. IMHO subtle distortion is most of the "fairy dust" or "secret sauce" people talk about. As for EQ tweaks changing the compression during revisions....yes. But that will also change how your limiter reacts, and the EQ is always before the limiter. There's no way around it - if the client wants an EQ tweak, you're probably going to have to re-work more than just the EQ, or at least you should approach it as though you might have to. Basically....I would agree with one small change: one way to "ruin your masters" is by not EQing after compression. Choosing to EQ before compression or not depends on what you're trying to accomplish, and is not just about how the compressor reacts. If I could only use one, it'd be after. But, I like using both.
There are no absolutes of course. Does the project need EQ'ing a compressed signal or compressing an EQd' signal (or both?). What matters is hearing it all in context, rather than any process in isolation.
I’d say for your test you would need a more dynamic input to the compressor, like a snare drum or kick drum. It would be hard to read fast dynamics with a spectral envelope so I would also take a really fine resolution spectrogram and compare EQing before and after compression.
@@panorama_mastering yeah it’s a tough experiment. I guess anything with dynamics has both the time dimension and amplitude dimension so it’s tough to boil it down to a single metric without losing information - so I understand why you set it up the way you did. But the compressor in a steady state is a static volume adjustment, which is a linear process (as long as you don’t clip). Linear processes are communitative which means the order of operations will not matter, by definition. But the compressor is not a linear device in general, and in non-linear processes the order of operations matters by definition. So I am just saying that your experimental setup shows the compressor in one of the few situations where order literally does not matter (if you ignore the small harmonic distortion introduced) - but in most real scenarios of a compressor the order will matter (not saying which order is better or worse, just saying it will at least make a difference)
Disclaimer: I'm talking about mixing and not mastering here, I wouldn't do any of this in a master. I 100% agree focusing on the sidechain instead in mastering is a much more transparent way to do this. I have a really nice sounding Neumann EQ clone I built, with like 5 op-amps in it (and only 3 bands lol). It sounds absolutely amazing no matter what you put it on, and the more you lean into it, the better it sounds. I will EQ into compression with it intentionally because I can get away with pushing it harder,, bringing out more of it's lovely charicter, without there being crazy peaks in the freqency spectrum like if I had done it after the compression. I will normally EQ after compression, but there are times one might want to EQ before for specific reasons too. I also EQ into compression if I want to use the EQ to shape what the compressor is hitting, and still gain the tone of the EQ, like emphasis or de-emphasis EQ. Sometimes I'll even EQ into compression, then do the exact opposit EQ move on an EQ after the compression.... if I don't want any/much freqency boosting or cutting, but still want to add or remove emphasis on certain areas of the freqency spectrum and want the tone of the EQ added. It can sound really sweet on certain things (diferantly to using the side chain, which is way more transparent). Doing it with the sidechain also works, but gives a differnt sounding result as you're only changing what the compressor reacts too, and not changing the sound it's self with anything other than a compressor. You have to remeber, that yes, a compressor is bringing down the level of entirely everything, not just certain freqencies, but that is only true for what goes over the threashold set. If the threashold is set just above your nominal level, and isn't really being crossed, then you EQ over it, then only your EQ move is getting hit, and only that freqency band is going over the threshold level. (I don't use it exactly like this, but it's an example to explain how you can make a normal compressor somewhat behave freqency dependantly in a roundabout way, by intentionally only letting it see a certain freqency band above it's threashold limit). This also holds true if you just EQ normall into a compressor, because the louder a signal is, the more it gets compressed (due to the way compressors are designed to work), so if you are EQing into a compressor, the more you boost, the more just that freqency band will be gettings hit by the compressor comapred to everything else, as it will be the only thing that's that loud if that makes sense.
I always EQ after the compressor (in mastering), because the compressor always changes the tone. It's only there to let transients through and "flatten" the mix, otherwise you would not need it. You don't actually need it, but it's kinda useful as "glue" as they say. Back in the days I used to follow this advice, never EQ after the compressor, but I have found out it's all bullshit and it only applied to their specific workflow and it's not panacea. As I wrote in a comment on a previous video, more than 80% in mixing and mastering is about EQ, so I'm gonna EQ wherever I want. After EQ we're gonna drive it to other processors and the final limiter. These also change the tonal balance, so we need to monitor our signal after all our processing and adjust so that the balance is not changed than before (which means we didn't fuck up the mix at least).
Funny I've always done the opposite. Get the tone right, then compress that correct tone. If something needed to pop out of the bubble, I will EQ that after the compression.
Interesting concept. Though I’m not sure how side-chaining out high frequencies effects compression in a positive way the same way low cut side chains do. If a compressor is simply looking at peaks, as you mentioned, high passing can result in a positive outcome because low frequencies tend to carry the bulk of higher peaks. Since a lot of mixes, and the way our ears perceive loudness at different frequencies, tend to follow the Harman Kardon curve (higher amplitude at low frequencies, lower amplitude at higher frequencies), how would applying a low pass side chain positively affect the action of the compressor?
for the minimisation to appear with 2 continuous tones, they would need to be very far appart in frequencies, bass and highs, and you'd need a compression with extremly fast timings... another way to show how it can minimise the eq move, is to put different tremolo settings on each tone and fast settings on the compressor. anyways, rules are meant to be broken :)
Yes. All the side chain/high pass filter does is remove the low end from the DETECTION CIRCUIT. So the mids and highs are what is triggering the compressor. But the low end on the track still gets compressed. Does that make sense?
@@a.michaelpadilla844thanks for the comment! Makes total sense. In regards to the LP (high cut) on the Pro C2 sidechain, is this technique common on the mix bus? I like the way it loosens up the highs but usually use a typical 4:1 SSL G-Comp, and that of course only has a HP until 185 Hz. Although now I think of it, the same thing could probably be achieved with a multiband comp on the mixbus… any thoughts?
@@RicherPodcast if you apply the LP & the HP the Mid range will be the thing that triggers the compressor. (@panorama_mastering correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that called a bandpass?) You will not get the same result with a Multiband. Reason being is because it's a series of filter points that are being compressed and expanded independently of one another. The attack, release threshold etc on the Pro C remain the same and processes the material as a whole. A Multiband would be processing different parts of the frequency spectrum differently.
How about this: first you EQ to make the tonal balance of the mix roughly right. In the right ballpark, just somewhat correct sounding. No glaring issues. Then you compress, so that the mix is compressed having more or less the right tonal balance. Then any fine tuning happens after the compressor. So when the client comes back, you use the post compressor EQ to make the changes, not the pre compressor
isn't this quite obvious as compression is purely volume based and doesn't care about frequencies just peaks? multiband compression could flatten out an eq move tho
It has it's own sidechain filter, OR you can set up an external sidechain that received a signal through a seperate bus-channel which can you can EQ at will.
You were correct! If your threshold is below the louder frequency and above quieter the frequency (assuming a hard knee), the compressor will only reduce the louder frequency... thus making the relationship between the frequencies smaller. Granted, in mastering the ratios tend to be small and likely to be soft knee - so the difference the compression makes between the frequencies relative levels will be minimal. I EQ before and after compression... no brain cells wasted! 😎
I am not a professional mastering engineer, just a very dedicated (maybe even obsessed) amateur who is trying to get his own tracks to sound right. I always EQ my master before I it goes into a compressor, because I feel like you want to compress a master that has the right tonal balance. My track might lack high mid clarity and be low mid muddy. That's not what I want to compress. Or I should rather say, glue together, not looking for real compression (forgive me, I know you say you don't always compress the mix bus, but for the sake of glue I ALWAYS have a compressor on my mix bus and I like it). I would want my track to go into a compressor sounding right. Otherwise my compressor might react to something I don't want it to react to. If the compression changes the tonal balance, I could always EQ again after the compressor. But that never happens to me, not on the mix bus at least
One should always remove unwanted freqs before compressing (i.e., low end), as that might affect how compressor is reacting. Other than that, it is a fair game. You can do eq - comp - eq, as long as it has meaning
P.S I guess there is a scenario where those unwanted freqs would actually get the sound out od the compressor that you might like. So there are no absolutes
@panorama_mastering yeah this is a fair point, but I believe that these videos are being watched by beginners as well as pros, so I try to leave these "advices" when I feel like they could be useful, since it is not possible for you to cover everything. Not everyone will go with the Pro C2. That being said I really do enjoy your videos and have been learning a lot, so keep up with great work 👌
Man I just wanna say thank you for all your content. You've helped me and my masters so much. I'm also very appreciative of how you tend to test your ideas and admit when your thoughts are proven "wrong" or you get a different result than you expect. It's refreshing. You have one of THE BEST audio channels on RUclips! Keep up the great work!
Glad to help! Appreciate the support!
💯%
you, sir, are a real "engineer", unlike most other so called engineers. Thanks for the video!
Wow, thanks!
Being wrong then admitting it doesn't make you a loser, it means you just levelled up. Kudos for that, very refreshing.
Thanks man!
Easily the 20th video I've watched on this channel over time. Why wasn't I subscribed yet? Really, what was I doing? GS Nicholas. 🔥
Thanks mate!!!
Yeah mate, great thoughts here. That's exactly why Pro-C2 is such an indispensable mixing AND mastering compressor, and a much smarter approach to use the sidechain EQ. I know Luca has been a huge proponent of teaching the use of the S/C EQ as you demonstrated.
Interestingly, for the past year as I've been setting up mastering chains, I A/B with the compressor on and off (with everything else in the chain being left as is) and many times I actually prefer the sound without any compression. When I turn the compressor off, of course the clipper and limiter take on extra load, but 9 out of 10 times I like it better. I'm using mix buss saturation, which of course can reduce the need for compression, so perhaps that's why.
A lot of people use compression on the master every time by default and I started questioning this in my own process. I was really surprised to discover that I got better results without any compression. Perhaps if I wasn't using saturation I would find I wanted the compressor though.
Ping me an email! I'll send you my TDR Kotelnikov presets; these are my main go-to's for compression in mastering;
**And you're right, "traditional" compression which is often taught / spoken of re:mastering can be more harmful than helpful
@@panorama_mastering cheers mate. I hit ya up with an e-mail. Keen to see what you're doing in Kotelnikov. It's a beast.
Unrelated: that bass is killer.
EQing the mids into a compressor is my secret to getting the top end to expand with the release.
Nice share!
Part of what makes the Fairchild compressor so well loved is that it has a midrange bump on the sidechain that really focusses in on the range of vocals/piano midrange.
Interesting! Where is this documented, I’d love to learn more about this!
@@panorama_mastering Had the pleasure of talking to Simon Saywood who designed the Analogue Tube AT-101 (intended as the most faithful recreation of the Fairchild) back when I used to work for Doctor Mix.
He had a tonne of knowledge on the old units as you'd expect - most of which was a bit too technical for our video review, but was incredibly fascinating.
Do both.
EQ before the compressor with proper gain match (if you do a bass cut in proQ 3, it doesn’t really work properly, but as you’ve taught us, there are phase issues that may effect this gain match setting, so do an insight instantiation so as to properly gain match by adjusting output accordingly), then compress. Yes, it makes sense it would minimize your Esq efforts. That’s why AFTER, you now have a compressed signal of what you WANT to compress. Now, you can open ANOTHER surgical parametric eq and tighten up the sound.
Again, do BOTH. this is part of why there’s sometimes an added pre filter on some analog modeled compressors a la the VBC bundle from Slate to actually let some of the low end breathe and not trigger compression.
An instantiation of ProQ3 just makes it so you’re compressing the frequencies you actually WANT to compress.
In VMR, the designer Slate actually may throw an ssl comp before a compressor module and a master eq (the white one) or a Neve after said compressor to bring back some air above 11.2kHz, or maybe some thump at 64 Hz. I’ve found this trick to be integral to getting a fuller balanced result on a master.
Granted I’m an attorney who does this as a hobby to “master” my beats that no one wants and that are mixed in a laughably terrible environment. But when I grab my VSX headphones? I can totally hear it.
I really respect you for correcting the error. It’s a topic I wrestle with sometimes and I just go by whatever fits or works in a situation. Sometimes I EQ before and after. Thanks for the great video!
I appreciate that! Thanks for sharing :)
I've settled on doing the same in my workflow (when mixng, not so much mastering as I will go for the most transparent option most often then).
I will EQ after for normal eq and compression, but if I have a specific reason to (and on occasion I do), I will eq before.
I got into the habit of flipping plug in order sometimes, just to quickly hear what it would do when learning to mix back in the day, and found unless I know I want to EQ before for a specific reason, generally EQing after gives more consistant results if all you are trying to do is EQ and compress alone (and not for example trying to add the tone of a hardware EQ without changing the overall frequency responce or some other niche use case).
I think both have their place, but if you're only just getting to grips with this stuff eqing after will be much more useful as you don't have to learn the temperamental relationship that a pre compression eq and the compressor it's self have when adjusting the EQ into the compressor. It's one of them things that you don't really need, unless you know you need it for something specifically, and isn't something that is essentual to a standard mixing workflow generally speakin, and it probably makes it harder to fully understand what either process is doing when their behavior is interlinked like it is with EQ first.
I do the same thing, shuffling the order of plugins. Thanks for your reply!
Everyday I think I'm ready to send my master off you drop another video with a technique that makes it sound even better. When will it end?? No seriously don't stop please. Now I only wish I could have used all this gold on the tracks I already released.
Nicholas is right as usual, his evidence shows it and it makes sense for an efficient workflow. Still I prefer the EQ before AND after compression as needed perspective. Not to drive the sidechain going in, but rather because I treat the whole of the processing as a "state" with each state being summed as perfectly as possible before the next affectation (because digital tools mostly follow a linear flow), but it absolutely has the disadvantage of making client changes more onerous.
Thanks for sharing! Nice method to working!
I think why you were thinking that it would minimize the eq difference is that perhaps you were thinking of if there was a multiband compressor afterwards, sense I think that would make a difference sense different frequencies would be separately compressed
thanks for providing as much value as you do. You are very underrated!
I appreciate that!
Interesting, compressors work differently than I thought. If you had a signal at -12dB and a signal at -24dB into a compressor, I believed if the threshold was set say at -18dB (assuming hard knee) the -24dB signal would be unaffected, and only the -12dB signal would be compressed in relation to the ratio. Do you have any recommended literature I could read on this topic? As I clearly need to restudy.
Yes! Any literature on conpressors will detail this.
Voltage controlled amplifier, the gain reduction circuit, reduces the gain of the whole signal passing through. So everything us moved relative to.
Honestly I feel the most comfortable putting a Century Channel Strip at the top of the chain on my individual tracks tends to get my sonic image looking more defined and with less work involved on those tracks
I can definitely understand that on a master it might be better to use a custom side-chain signal for the compressor as to respect the balance of the track you've been sent, however on the mixing side I definitely do a lot of creative EQ before compression because it is my intention to change the tone. It all comes down to knowing what you want to do and affect. If you just want the compressor to react better but already like the mix balance, refining the side-chain is the perfect choice.
Great point!
Interesting investigation and inquiry into this topic. It’s among the oldest and most polarizing debates in mixing. And while I agree with your premise and your argument, compression has broader utility than dynamic range management alone. Compressors are also among the best means to impart tone and character. And to really elicit that tonal response, that vibe and color, EQ into compression will always be the superior method I feel. Shorter attack times and longer attack times in particular combined with bolder EQ moves can have a dramatic effect on eliciting tone and vibe and color.
But I generally agree with your ideas on sidechain compression. It’s just that it doesn’t reap the full benefits of analog compression. If band specific compression is the goal I’ll always reach for multiband compression first before sidechaining. This could just be me.
Good insights!!
I would say it depends o the type of compression being applied. If doing muiltiband compression, I like to that before EQ,, but if you are doing sidechain compression to duck for the bass then you should do that on the whole signal after EQ. Actually what works really well I have found is do multiband compression as the first move, do all the rest of the mastering, and then do another multiband compression as the final move. You could try this and see if t works for you.
Nice! Thanks for sharing!
@@panorama_mastering this is something I have devised recently, and I call it linchpin mastering,, as far as I know nobody else does this but I will share this as well. Apply MB compression and the start of your fx chain, then copy it and apply it at the end of the chain. Make adjustments. copy back to the start, replacing the original, make new adjustments, then copy back. Do a few more back and forth, then once the adjustments are small, these compression points become the linchpins of the master hence the name I came up with. The idea then is that you work everything around these two reference points. Obviously, you would need to validate this yourself, but since I started applying this, method, it has produced some excellent results for me !.
Finally someone verifies my logic of using eq after compression 🔥
You raised a very valuable point! EQ on the sidechain of the compressor is often what I reach for. Compression will affect how a source sounds dramatically especially if it’s triggering differently with a side chained version of the source. And now that source is controlled to my preference, it’s simple to make the EQ moves I really want.
Bang on
I've learned that compressors are just another form of eq. If you change the 1176 plugin model on your vocal (for examples uad to waves or softube) you will change the tone of your vocal drastically even if you apply very similar settings. The compression behaviour changes the way we hear the tonal balance even if the compressor itself wasn't build to change anything in the tone/color the sound
Well, an 1176 like you mentioned does actually change more than just the level of compression. The way the original saturates and brings forward the mid range is one of the big reasons it is so popular. The later editions are designed to be more clean and transparent.
Compression may be a form of eq but it's way more than just another form of eq.
@@DrBuffaloBalls Yeah the rev A 1176 (blue stripe over silver) has a FET as the first component in the audio path for each amp stage making it the most "dirty" sounding 1176, where as the rest ,B (also blue stripe) and C-E (black front), had bipolar transistors instead and "low noise" circuitry added. As well as the rev F (also black front) which is by far the "cleanest" of them all.
There's quite a noticeable difference between them, B-E (being the most similar to each other) with A and F being at opposite ends of the spectrum. The original A version being the most gritty and grungy 1176, and rev. F being hyper silky and shiny (as they improved the circuitry over time).
They all have their place though, but this is one big reason as to why not all 1176 plug ins are equal, and why there are 2 different 1176 versions in the waves plugs for example. (That is ignoring all the mods people did to their later revs. like changing the capacitors and doing an "orange drop cap" mod to get a more gritty sound closer to the rev A, but still different to any other actual 1176 even then).
Some compressors are WAY more colouring than others, even when it comes to the same compressor and just it's various different versions. The reason people use 1176's and things like the LA-2A is precisely because of the colour it gives to the sound, but there are compressors out there that when only compressing a few DB you would struggle to know were even on, had you not pressed the engage button yourself. Especially things like modern bus/mastering comps specifically designed for high levels of transparency.
I agree with you about EQing the sidechain to change how the compressor reacts - that's exactly why sidechain EQs exist. But, I still think there are other factors. One is that a lot of the mixes I've gotten for years are already well controlled (some would say over-compressed at least some of the time). I'm often not using compressors for compression. Either I'm using them to create pumping that sounds like subtle rhythmic swells to enhance the groove (if it's appropriate) or I'm using them for "tone" (read: distortion) as an alternative to something like Kelvin or Michaelangelo,...because sometimes certain ones sound great like that. Any time you're adding distortion, you can get a lot out of EQ shaping both before and after. Kelvin is probably one of the best tools for that considering that it has automatic pre-/de-emphasis EQ AND very general tone-shaping EQ on the way out. Using it wrong is a real good way to ruin a master, especially if the song is already crunchy. But, it can be great. IMHO subtle distortion is most of the "fairy dust" or "secret sauce" people talk about.
As for EQ tweaks changing the compression during revisions....yes. But that will also change how your limiter reacts, and the EQ is always before the limiter. There's no way around it - if the client wants an EQ tweak, you're probably going to have to re-work more than just the EQ, or at least you should approach it as though you might have to.
Basically....I would agree with one small change: one way to "ruin your masters" is by not EQing after compression. Choosing to EQ before compression or not depends on what you're trying to accomplish, and is not just about how the compressor reacts. If I could only use one, it'd be after. But, I like using both.
There are no absolutes of course. Does the project need EQ'ing a compressed signal or compressing an EQd' signal (or both?). What matters is hearing it all in context, rather than any process in isolation.
Spot on!
I’d say for your test you would need a more dynamic input to the compressor, like a snare drum or kick drum. It would be hard to read fast dynamics with a spectral envelope so I would also take a really fine resolution spectrogram and compare EQing before and after compression.
I agree, but how to you measure before and after accurately / empirically?
@@panorama_mastering yeah it’s a tough experiment. I guess anything with dynamics has both the time dimension and amplitude dimension so it’s tough to boil it down to a single metric without losing information - so I understand why you set it up the way you did.
But the compressor in a steady state is a static volume adjustment, which is a linear process (as long as you don’t clip). Linear processes are communitative which means the order of operations will not matter, by definition. But the compressor is not a linear device in general, and in non-linear processes the order of operations matters by definition. So I am just saying that your experimental setup shows the compressor in one of the few situations where order literally does not matter (if you ignore the small harmonic distortion introduced) - but in most real scenarios of a compressor the order will matter (not saying which order is better or worse, just saying it will at least make a difference)
Lol @2:22 there’s a lot less GR then. Of course you get a difference when you switch
Disclaimer: I'm talking about mixing and not mastering here, I wouldn't do any of this in a master. I 100% agree focusing on the sidechain instead in mastering is a much more transparent way to do this.
I have a really nice sounding Neumann EQ clone I built, with like 5 op-amps in it (and only 3 bands lol). It sounds absolutely amazing no matter what you put it on, and the more you lean into it, the better it sounds. I will EQ into compression with it intentionally because I can get away with pushing it harder,, bringing out more of it's lovely charicter, without there being crazy peaks in the freqency spectrum like if I had done it after the compression. I will normally EQ after compression, but there are times one might want to EQ before for specific reasons too.
I also EQ into compression if I want to use the EQ to shape what the compressor is hitting, and still gain the tone of the EQ, like emphasis or de-emphasis EQ. Sometimes I'll even EQ into compression, then do the exact opposit EQ move on an EQ after the compression.... if I don't want any/much freqency boosting or cutting, but still want to add or remove emphasis on certain areas of the freqency spectrum and want the tone of the EQ added. It can sound really sweet on certain things (diferantly to using the side chain, which is way more transparent). Doing it with the sidechain also works, but gives a differnt sounding result as you're only changing what the compressor reacts too, and not changing the sound it's self with anything other than a compressor.
You have to remeber, that yes, a compressor is bringing down the level of entirely everything, not just certain freqencies, but that is only true for what goes over the threashold set. If the threashold is set just above your nominal level, and isn't really being crossed, then you EQ over it, then only your EQ move is getting hit, and only that freqency band is going over the threshold level. (I don't use it exactly like this, but it's an example to explain how you can make a normal compressor somewhat behave freqency dependantly in a roundabout way, by intentionally only letting it see a certain freqency band above it's threashold limit). This also holds true if you just EQ normall into a compressor, because the louder a signal is, the more it gets compressed (due to the way compressors are designed to work), so if you are EQing into a compressor, the more you boost, the more just that freqency band will be gettings hit by the compressor comapred to everything else, as it will be the only thing that's that loud if that makes sense.
Thanks for sharing!!
I always EQ after the compressor (in mastering), because the compressor always changes the tone. It's only there to let transients through and "flatten" the mix, otherwise you would not need it. You don't actually need it, but it's kinda useful as "glue" as they say. Back in the days I used to follow this advice, never EQ after the compressor, but I have found out it's all bullshit and it only applied to their specific workflow and it's not panacea. As I wrote in a comment on a previous video, more than 80% in mixing and mastering is about EQ, so I'm gonna EQ wherever I want.
After EQ we're gonna drive it to other processors and the final limiter. These also change the tonal balance, so we need to monitor our signal after all our processing and adjust so that the balance is not changed than before (which means we didn't fuck up the mix at least).
Bang on!
leaving the top and the bottom "breath" with midrange compressed is a great technique!! cheers from italy
Glad you liked it! All Lucas on that one!
Funny I've always done the opposite. Get the tone right, then compress that correct tone. If something needed to pop out of the bubble, I will EQ that after the compression.
Very useful. Thank you very much!
Glad it was helpful!
do you think i should mix and produce in the same session or would it be wiser to put it on new blank template just for mixing?
Whatever works best for you
Interesting concept. Though I’m not sure how side-chaining out high frequencies effects compression in a positive way the same way low cut side chains do. If a compressor is simply looking at peaks, as you mentioned, high passing can result in a positive outcome because low frequencies tend to carry the bulk of higher peaks. Since a lot of mixes, and the way our ears perceive loudness at different frequencies, tend to follow the Harman Kardon curve (higher amplitude at low frequencies, lower amplitude at higher frequencies), how would applying a low pass side chain positively affect the action of the compressor?
Sibilance can be nasty to compressors, sometimes it’s not a sharp sigilance but just a general high-frequency haeshness
for the minimisation to appear with 2 continuous tones, they would need to be very far appart in frequencies, bass and highs, and you'd need a compression with extremly fast timings... another way to show how it can minimise the eq move, is to put different tremolo settings on each tone and fast settings on the compressor. anyways, rules are meant to be broken :)
Will try this out!
Is it true that what’s cut from the sidechain still gets compressed, but just doesn’t react to the compressor’s threshold value?
Yes. All the side chain/high pass filter does is remove the low end from the DETECTION CIRCUIT. So the mids and highs are what is triggering the compressor. But the low end on the track still gets compressed. Does that make sense?
Spot on! Just filters the signal feeding the detection circuit!
@@a.michaelpadilla844thanks for the comment!
Makes total sense. In regards to the LP (high cut) on the Pro C2 sidechain, is this technique common on the mix bus? I like the way it loosens up the highs but usually use a typical 4:1 SSL G-Comp, and that of course only has a HP until 185 Hz.
Although now I think of it, the same thing could probably be achieved with a multiband comp on the mixbus… any thoughts?
@@RicherPodcast if you apply the LP & the HP the Mid range will be the thing that triggers the compressor. (@panorama_mastering correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that called a bandpass?) You will not get the same result with a Multiband. Reason being is because it's a series of filter points that are being compressed and expanded independently of one another. The attack, release threshold etc on the Pro C remain the same and processes the material as a whole. A Multiband would be processing different parts of the frequency spectrum differently.
cheers boss!@@panorama_mastering
How about this: first you EQ to make the tonal balance of the mix roughly right. In the right ballpark, just somewhat correct sounding. No glaring issues. Then you compress, so that the mix is compressed having more or less the right tonal balance. Then any fine tuning happens after the compressor. So when the client comes back, you use the post compressor EQ to make the changes, not the pre compressor
One EQ to rule them all?
isn't this quite obvious as compression is purely volume based and doesn't care about frequencies just peaks? multiband compression could flatten out an eq move tho
It is, sometimes the most common sense obvious things we spend years missing!
maestro!
Cheers m808
Do you have a website where I can hire you to do a mix for me?
Yeap; www.panoramamastering.com.au/
👌👌 'Preciate your videos bruv!
Glad you like them! Thanks mate
Peace & Blessings to you Nicholas & your family how can I do that sidechain with the ShadowHill mastering compressor A with a EQ?
It has it's own sidechain filter, OR you can set up an external sidechain that received a signal through a seperate bus-channel which can you can EQ at will.
You were correct! If your threshold is below the louder frequency and above quieter the frequency (assuming a hard knee), the compressor will only reduce the louder frequency... thus making the relationship between the frequencies smaller. Granted, in mastering the ratios tend to be small and likely to be soft knee - so the difference the compression makes between the frequencies relative levels will be minimal. I EQ before and after compression... no brain cells wasted! 😎
Ha! Sweet
Who’s bumping eq before compression? Let me know so I can send a sincere email.
Haha lovely!
What’s the audio editor you use? Izotope?
Izotope audio editor
What song is this if its out?
Take me away - Jas.
I am not a professional mastering engineer, just a very dedicated (maybe even obsessed) amateur who is trying to get his own tracks to sound right. I always EQ my master before I it goes into a compressor, because I feel like you want to compress a master that has the right tonal balance. My track might lack high mid clarity and be low mid muddy. That's not what I want to compress. Or I should rather say, glue together, not looking for real compression (forgive me, I know you say you don't always compress the mix bus, but for the sake of glue I ALWAYS have a compressor on my mix bus and I like it). I would want my track to go into a compressor sounding right. Otherwise my compressor might react to something I don't want it to react to. If the compression changes the tonal balance, I could always EQ again after the compressor. But that never happens to me, not on the mix bus at least
Side chain filters can manage controlling how the compressor reacts
There are no absolutes with mixing
Though this is about mastering
@@DerekPower same difference
@@DurkheadAnd you also realise an inherent absurdity in saying "There are no absolutes" ;) =]
Nobody said that
😂 ‚there is no rules‘ is already a rule 🤓
EQ before Compressor is good when you want to force the compressor to react to a specific frequency range like the Kick or Snare
You can achieve that with Nicholas' sidechain method by targeting the kick or snare, as well.
Side chain ;)
This bass gotta be humanized. So rigid
One should always remove unwanted freqs before compressing (i.e., low end), as that might affect how compressor is reacting. Other than that, it is a fair game. You can do eq - comp - eq, as long as it has meaning
P.S I guess there is a scenario where those unwanted freqs would actually get the sound out od the compressor that you might like. So there are no absolutes
Reference 4:00 onwards :)
@panorama_mastering yeah this is a fair point, but I believe that these videos are being watched by beginners as well as pros, so I try to leave these "advices" when I feel like they could be useful, since it is not possible for you to cover everything. Not everyone will go with the Pro C2. That being said I really do enjoy your videos and have been learning a lot, so keep up with great work 👌
Also, to achieve this mid portion compression, you could just employ MB comp, it would be the same thing, right? Just asking, not debating 😅
you're a GOAT
Cheers
This channel is blowing up 🤟
I am flabbergasted
This song reminds me of jamiroquai. Very cool progression.
saya the clown that can't hear -50db of aliasing 😂🤣😂🤣