Watch this before you f*ck another master up! 

Unrelated: that bass is killer.

you, sir, are a real "engineer", unlike most other so called engineers. Thanks for the video!

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 RU-vid! Keep up the great work!

Being wrong then admitting it doesn't make you a loser, it means you just levelled up. Kudos for that, very refreshing.

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. 🔥

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.

thanks for providing as much value as you do. You are very underrated!

Finally someone verifies my logic of using eq after compression 🔥

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.

leaving the top and the bottom "breath" with midrange compressed is a great technique!! cheers from italy

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.

EQing the mids into a compressor is my secret to getting the top end to expand with the release.

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.

Very useful. Thank you very much!

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!

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.

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).

👌👌 'Preciate your videos bruv!

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.

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

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 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.

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.

maestro!

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 :)

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 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

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

Who’s bumping eq before compression? Let me know so I can send a sincere email.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

There are no absolutes with mixing

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

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?

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! 😎

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?

Peace & Blessings to you Nicholas & your family how can I do that sidechain with the ShadowHill mastering compressor A with a EQ?

What’s the audio editor you use? Izotope?

This bass gotta be humanized. So rigid

Do you have a website where I can hire you to do a mix for me?

This channel is blowing up 🤟

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

What song is this if its 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?

Lol @2:22 there’s a lot less GR then. Of course you get a difference when you switch

EQ before Compressor is good when you want to force the compressor to react to a specific frequency range like the Kick or Snare

saya the clown that can't hear -50db of aliasing 😂🤣😂🤣

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

you're a GOAT

This song reminds me of jamiroquai. Very cool progression.