EQ->Comp or Comp->EQ for vocal recording?

[elmolemon]

Hi,

do you prefer EQ->Comp or Comp->EQ if you are recording?

What is your order for tracking vocals?

[synthoid]

I always put EQ before comp. I use EQ above all to cut unwanted stuff (for example, boominess and junk way down low), and I wouldn't want for the unwanted stuff to trigger the comp.

-synthoid

[msmith]

I usually have an eq on both points. As said, one to cut, then after compressors, one to boost.

[Sk106]

An EQ fist will enable you to control the compression better. A compressor first will compress the frequency profile peaks first. Both ways are useful, depending on the character of sound your handling. Also, don't forget simple auto volume adjusters, which is like automated fader riding. You don't get no compression from those.

[Sigma]

I stopped tracking vocals with compressors..now i do it as a ride and bounce after the raw voaclas are cut into the hard drive..why commit and potentionally over hit the compressor

[tvolhein]

On a project I am doing now (female vocal), the first thing I do is a multi-band compressor. There is some serious "in-your-face" mids and harmonics that I have to tame before anything else. Then I EQ back in some presence.


However, I am really interested in what others do on a reguar basis regarding the fx chain of events.

t

[The dman]

Originally Posted by Sigma

I stopped tracking vocals with compressors..now i do it as a ride and bounce after the raw voaclas are cut into the hard drive..why commit and potentionally over hit the compressor

I've been doing that myself lately unless I'm dealing with a singer that is all over the road dynamically.

[MichaelT]

Originally Posted by tvolhein

On a project I am doing now (female vocal), the first thing I do is a multi-band compressor. There is some serious "in-your-face" mids and harmonics that I have to tame before anything else. Then I EQ back in some presence.


However, I am really interested in what others do on a reguar basis regarding the fx chain of events.

t

What mic are you using? Just wondering whether that's making things worse for you....

-Mike

[Sk106]

There is also the option to record the sound a bit lower in volume, so you get the bulk of the sound around -20 db, and use a soft limiter on the top 6 db of the scale, which applies gradual compression for any stiletto peaks over it's threshold. A signal at -3 db will be compressed harder than a signal at -5 db. And, it still serves as a brick wall to protect against digital overload.

[amishsixstringe]

If I'm really trying to punish a vocal (my favorite thing ever), I'll record the track with no compression. I'll automate the volume of the track with nofx on the insert, just making everything relatively equal volume by phrase. Not really trying to make every word the same level though. Then send the automated track to a bus (since in pro tools inserts come before automation and then compressors work really hard). Then put an EQ in there and rip out the stuff you don't like. Hit the L-1 about 3dB max. Hit a de-esser if it needs it. Now hit your favorite compressor. Then another EQ at the end for boosting the presence.

Now that the track is leveled you can use the volume automation on the Bus send to make the vocal sit relative to the music, since it's so compressed it may get burried in more dense thing and become really naked on the sparse stuff.

This is what I do with punk rock and metally/thrashy stuff. But that's usually what I'm working on.


Neil

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by The dman

I've been doing that myself lately unless I'm dealing with a singer that is all over the road dynamically.

not having to deal with tape noise floor and working 24 bit is quite nice i must say

there is nothing worse than the sound of a vocal getting smaller because of a limiter getting nailed..back in th eday my father used to take 1 track and ride the input to the limiter to tape and then another with no compression as a saftey to punch in where limiter got nailed

[nickynicknick]

regarding tracking vox with a comp....I think you should have the ability to do both...sometimes it's nice to have lower stuff engage the compressor first then clean it up after with an eq...and sometimes the opposite.. I tend more towards eq then compressor.

Nick

[danbronson]

EQ for fixing problems -> Comp -> EQ for tone shaping

I have a highpass EQ as my first plug on every track.

[Peacock]

Originally Posted by elmolemon

Hi,

do you prefer EQ->Comp or Comp->EQ if you are recording?

What is your order for tracking vocals?

The best way is to choose a mic right for the job and avoid EQ and use as little compression as possible or none.

If you are forced to EQ and compress EQ 1st then compress. Think about it-why would you compress something that sounds bad and then EQ it.

Its better to compress a desired sound. So correct EQ 1st. . As always many do this different with great results. So this is opinion only.

[Peacock]

Originally Posted by amishsixstringe

If I'm really trying to punish a vocal (my favorite thing ever), I'll record the track with no compression. I'll automate the volume of the track with nofx on the insert, just making everything relatively equal volume by phrase. Not really trying to make every word the same level though. Then send the automated track to a bus (since in pro tools inserts come before automation and then compressors work really hard). Then put an EQ in there and rip out the stuff you don't like. Hit the L-1 about 3dB max. Hit a de-esser if it needs it. Now hit your favorite compressor. Then another EQ at the end for boosting the presence.

Now that the track is leveled you can use the volume automation on the Bus send to make the vocal sit relative to the music, since it's so compressed it may get burried in more dense thing and become really naked on the sparse stuff.

This is what I do with punk rock and metally/thrashy stuff. But that's usually what I'm working on.


Neil

Man that sounds complicated. I am glad I do not use pro tools to track. Way too many options. i would tweak all day and get nothing done.

[Goldfish]

I prefer to patch in any EQ before comp. The unwanted stuff gets trimmed away fairly early in the game and I don't want my comps to react to unwanted freqs.

[HABBER]

Originally Posted by Sk106

An EQ fist will enable you to control the compression better. A compressor first will compress the frequency profile peaks first. Both ways are useful, depending on the character of sound your handling. Also, don't forget simple auto volume adjusters, which is like automated fader riding. You don't get no compression from those.

What exactly is "volume adjusters" Is it a plug in?

[Sk106]

Originally Posted by HABBER

What exactly is "volume adjusters" Is it a plug in?

That's what I had in mind, yes, but I'm sure there are some rare hardware ones around too. Waves MaxxVolume is one example that would be nice if you could actually set the attack and release times of it.

You'll escape the compression effect, but you'll need to set it very delicatly.

Furthermore - whenever I've been the recording guy, which I have for about 20 times - then I always know what the end result is going to be, or very much thereabouts. Therefore I could make the recording as close to the finished sound as possible. That could mean not making an audiophile naked recording and coax the end result out of that, but use more than half of the processing - that I would later apply at mixdown anyway - already on the input, down on wax. That works, and it's incredibly fast work, if you have an 85% set target in mind and don't budge from it. Whenever will those recording ever be used for something else and therefore need flexibility for that? in 99% of the time the answer is "never".

[tvolhein]

Originally Posted by MichaelT

What mic are you using? Just wondering whether that's making things worse for you....

-Mike

Shure SM7B

t

[JPeters86]

EQ for correcting before comp, EQ for "sound shaping" after comp

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by JPeters86

EQ for correcting before comp, EQ for "sound shaping" after comp

i really think this is the way most of us have morphed while mixing ITB..during console days it was a little different

[elmolemon]

Thank you everybody for your input!

Originally Posted by Sigma

i really think this is the way most of us have morphed while mixing ITB..during console days it was a little different

Yeah, but please remember that my question was about the tracking process!

[princeplanet]

if you need a lot of eq (not ideal!) then eq first, it behaves quite different in the way the comp "absorbs" things. Too much eq after the comp will always sound nasty....

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by elmolemon

Thank you everybody for your input!



Yeah, but please remember that my question was about the tracking process!

i don't even eq ino the daw..let alone compress..i see the tracking as a "naked as posible" archieve [naked bieng mic and preamp only]

[JPeters86]

Originally Posted by elmolemon

Thank you everybody for your input!



Yeah, but please remember that my question was about the tracking process!

Sorry, I misread. I don't use EQ/compression during tracking, I want to get record as authentic as possible, to have as much freedom as possible during mixing.