Step One: EQ, Step Two: Compress - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Step One: EQ, Step Two: Compress

Posted by oFFbalaNce on Apr-26-2006 13:27:

Step One: EQ, Step Two: Compress

Hey! Yepp you guessed it, another �kick compression� thread!

What I don�t understand is the concept EQ then Compress? When you equalize a kick, what you do basically is lowering the volume of frequencies you don�t want. However when you compress the kick what you do is �flattening� the volume over the frequencies?

So what�s the point?

Don�t get me wrong, professional kicks often sound way better then mine, but it just feels like compression only removes character of the sound?

Posted by T-Soma on Apr-26-2006 13:46:

By compressing a kick you are removing some of the dynamic range (loudest point to the softest i believe) depending on how you do this you may end up with a rounder kick or a dull kick. By compression it can sound louder and thumpier without as much volume but it may sound flatter.

Posted by Chronosis on Apr-26-2006 13:48:

Was this really important enough to post on two forums?

Besides. Compression doesn't remove character, it changes it. Same with EQ. It's all about where you're aiming at.

Posted by Eldritch on Apr-26-2006 14:03:

Compression helps alot to gain headroom in a mix where EQ isn't enough. Especially on the kick, which usually takes up the most space in a track.

Posted by PutBoy on Apr-26-2006 16:18:

First thing first:

You don't have to compress.

Second:

If you EQ then compress it doesn't cancel out the EQ, unless you compress it like crazy, which you don't want to do. It does flatten it out a little bit, but you can compensate that by lowering the EQ even more, so no harm done really.

Posted by messytechie on Apr-27-2006 11:37:

i always eq AFTER compression, because surely that would get round the problem of cancelling out the EQ?

is that right?

Posted by PutBoy on Apr-27-2006 11:41:

quote:
Originally posted by messytechie
i always eq AFTER compression, because surely that would get round the problem of cancelling out the EQ?

is that right?

Anything is right, but it might mess up your compressiong more than it would mess up you EQ if you would do it the other way around.

If you do this you should compress after the EQ to. I often do that. ie:

Compress -> EQ -> Compress

But I often overcompress so...

Posted by Audio Beverage on Apr-27-2006 14:01:

There is no right or wrong imho. What you're aiming at is crafting a sound. Sometimes you comress, eq, compress then eq to get the sound, sometimes you eq then compress. Sometimes you just eq. Sometimes you do nothing. The combinations are endless, and it's all about learning what to use and when with the source sound's you're trying to craft.

Posted by /I\ on Apr-27-2006 22:17:

yeah, another example would be if you want to just compress the tail of a kick then you could use a long attack time to let the click of a kick through the compressor untouched. Suppose you could achieve this with eq too but the results sound different