EQ before Master Compressor

[Paralytik]

Long time user here. Re-reading the manual to check some things made me remember a routing I want to try.

Many years ago, I saw a tutorial where someone used a Control Room Out routing to an EQ, and then back (?), to make the Master Compressor not hit for the sub and bass (or whatever you set the EQ to, I guess).

How would you go about making a routing like this? Is it possible, or am I remembering things incorrectly?

[Baylo]

This video?

[Steedus]

I'm only noting this because for ages I myself forgot I had the SSL components as Rack devices. But if you have R12 (or was it 11?) you can bypass the built-in master comp and use the rack one, then you can easily put whatever you want in front of it.

But be aware, the default settings on the Rack device are different to the built-in one! I find this so annoying.

[Ansar]

I AM A SPAM BOT
The simple answer to the question is yes, you should EQ before you compress. However, there is more to this story than just a simple answer. Compression is a tool that is used to even out the dynamics of a track. In other words, it makes the quiet parts louder and the loud parts quieter. This can be very useful for evening out a performance or taming rogue frequencies. However, before you reach for the compressor, it is important to first address any issues with the EQ of your track. This is because compression will affect the entire frequency spectrum of a track, not just the specific frequencies that you are targeting. If your track has any problem frequencies that need to be addressed, it is best to do so before you add compression. This way, you can compress your track without worrying about amplifying problem frequencies. Overall, EQing before compression will result in a cleaner and more polished sound. So next time you are reaching for the compressor, make sure you take care of any EQ issues first!

[RandyEspoda]

Instead of the control room out you could also use for instance a spider audio splitter to split the mix channel output and then use a high pass filter to filter out the low end, but as it is technically the exact same principle as in using the control room out, it is effectively obsolete.

There are many ways of reaching the same solution of compressing only the high end, like for instance using the mclass stereo imager to split the signal between low and high, but again, with control room out available it is obsolete. Back in the day though, before there were mix channels and automatic routing capabilities, it was such ingenuity that drove the average reason user to finding several solutions to a problem.

I still do many things the olden way, just because of the fun factor.
But all in all, you should definitely use EQ ing before the master bus compressor.

What I also often did was splitting the master signal between MID and SIDE, eq and compress both separately and recombine into a limiter.
Another interesting mastering tool in the factory soundbank is the Peff mid-side Varimu mastering combinator, the best olden approach to achieve mid-side mastering in Reason.

Happy fiddeling.

[dan_g]

I AM A SPAM BOT
The simple answer to the question is yes, you should EQ before you compress. However, there is more to this story than just a simple answer. Compression is a tool that is used to even out the dynamics of a track. In other words, it makes the quiet parts louder and the loud parts quieter. This can be very useful for evening out a performance or taming rogue frequencies. However, before you reach for the compressor, it is important to first address any issues with the EQ of your track. This is because compression will affect the entire frequency spectrum of a track, not just the specific frequencies that you are targeting. If your track has any problem frequencies that need to be addressed, it is best to do so before you add compression. This way, you can compress your track without worrying about amplifying problem frequencies. Overall, EQing before compression will result in a cleaner and more polished sound. So next time you are reaching for the compressor, make sure you take care of any EQ issues first!

you are perfectly right! but i think the OP hat in mind to EQ the Sidechain input of the master eq so that the compressor only affects the higher frequency range without getting triggered by the much more powerfull lowend.

BR,
Daniel

[selig]

Here's how I've setup my startup song, which loads every time I select "NEW SONG":

Setup:
Insert a Stereo Imager in the insert with no connections (shift drag into insert).
Connect "To Devices" to the input of the Stereo Imager.
Connect "Separate Output" from the Stereo Imager to the Master Compressor Key input.
Switch the Separate Output from Low Band to Hi Band.
In the Mixer View, set the Master Insert Signal Path to "INSERTS PRE COMPRESSOR".


That's it - from there, adjust crossover frequency to taste (mine lives around 300-400 Hz).

IF you want additional insert effects contact them to the output of the Stereo Imager and the From Devices jacks. Otherwise, you don't need the main output of the Stereo Imager connected because the insert doesn't need it - this creates a splitter without needing a splitter!

If you want a great use for the Control Room outputs, connect it to the Sampling Inputs as in my example.

[motuscott]

I keep repeating myself but Selig is The Man!
2 great tips in 1

[crimsonwarlock]

...

...

BR,
Daniel

I hope you realize you were replying to a spam-bot

EDIT: maybe you can edit your message and remove the spam-link in the quote (the mods already removed it in the original message).

[selig]

...

BR,
Daniel

I hope you realize you were replying to a spam-bot

EDIT: maybe you can edit your message and remove the spam-link in the quote (the mods already removed it in the original message).

I edited the original to make it more clear…

[crimsonwarlock]

I edited the original to make it more clear…

Nice one

[kuhliloach]

If you are compressing that hard on the stereo bus, or find the need to EQ the stereo bus, or that you need to sidechain out low end on the stereo bus something much bigger is wrong. With a proper mix far less processing will be required by the MBC so then it can be used more gently to give that special sauce as a final touch. In Logic's SSL compressor there is a filter section that can be used like this but I still find doing so less desirable than just getting the busses themselves hotter and better prepared, putting less pressure on the final stage. In my most recent projects I am experimenting with Reason's MBC in Logic using the Rack Plugin (now that it works somewhat without always crashing).

[Arpeg]

Thank you Selig for the advice and visual, and others, too. Great work.

"Another interesting mastering tool in the factory soundbank is the Peff mid-side Varimu mastering combinator, the best olden approach to achieve mid-side mastering in Reason"
Most of my projects use the mid-side vari mu from Peff, it is recommended for folks like myself who are a little confused as to what to use in the Master Section and want an instant no fuss approach to a great sound

[Paralytik]

This video?

It wasn't that video, but yes, that's what I meant. Thanks.
Also thanks selig for the tips, and all you others who has replied.

[dan_g]

I hope you realize you were replying to a spam-bot

EDIT: maybe you can edit your message and remove the spam-link in the quote (the mods already removed it in the original message).

I edited the original to make it more clear…

omg no i didn't realize. also didn't see the spam-link at all. just fokused on the text.

thanks guys. good mod work!

BR,
Daniel

[Quarmat]

(...)

Just a litte question for Selig, as i have a very similar "new song" template: you switch on the master channel's comp after the inserts, but if you put a limiter in the master inserts like I do as my "final" device on my master chain, its output will be routend into master channel compressor, and I am not sure it's a good thing to do. Amrite?

Can you elaborate a little bit on this point? FYI i use an EQ with a steep cut on the low frequencies (instead of stereo imgr) to feed the master comp, and after that i usually have a soothe2 for removing any leftover spike and then a FF L2 limter as the final mastering device.

I am a certified noob in mastering, so any insight is a treasure to me

[selig]

(...)

Just a litte question for Selig, as i have a very similar "new song" template: you switch on the master channel's comp after the inserts, but if you put a limiter in the master inserts like I do as my "final" device on my master chain, its output will be routend into master channel compressor, and I am not sure it's a good thing to do. Amrite?

Can you elaborate a little bit on this point? FYI i use an EQ with a steep cut on the low frequencies (instead of stereo imgr) to feed the master comp, and after that i usually have a soothe2 for removing any leftover spike and then a FF L2 limter as the final mastering device.

I am a certified noob in mastering, so any insight is a treasure to me

Here’s what I do, which you can partly see in my screen grab above. I treat mixing and master “old school”, meaning you mix in the mixer and master outside of the mixer/after the mix. I take the output of the Big Mixer and connect it to my simple mastering Combinator.
There are also technical reasons for this. The main one is that the master inserts are PRE master fader. That means if you put your mastering (brickwall) limiter in the insert it is NOT the last thing in the signal path - the master fader is the last! But by putting your mastering AFTER the master fader you eliminate this issue and re-create how mastering is traditionally done. One main reason for doing this is because of dither, which needs to be the LAST thing in the signal path with no further modifications in any way after it.
This lets me bypass my mastering in one easy place and leave the ‘mix’ unaffected (including the rare chance the master fader is used in any way).
Hope this makes sense!

[Chizmata]

I AM A SPAM BOT
The simple answer to the question is yes, you should EQ before you compress. However, there is more to this story than just a simple answer. Compression is a tool that is used to even out the dynamics of a track. In other words, it makes the quiet parts louder and the loud parts quieter. This can be very useful for evening out a performance or taming rogue frequencies. However, before you reach for the compressor, it is important to first address any issues with the EQ of your track. This is because compression will affect the entire frequency spectrum of a track, not just the specific frequencies that you are targeting. If your track has any problem frequencies that need to be addressed, it is best to do so before you add compression. This way, you can compress your track without worrying about amplifying problem frequencies. Overall, EQing before compression will result in a cleaner and more polished sound. So next time you are reaching for the compressor, make sure you take care of any EQ issues first!

i see it the exact other way round, compression before EQ is usually better. lets say you have dialed back highs and mids with an EQ and now apply compression. it will affect the low hits the most because lows need the most db to gain percieved loudness. unlike the lows, the high and mid hits will likely fall below the compression threshold, so your out-EQ'd highs and mids will get a boost in between low hits again and therefore negate the EQ effect. so i'd rather say you balance the raw dynamics first until you get the desired sense of "flatness" or whatever you're going for, then emphasize or attenuate specific frequencies with full control over the end result.

[Quarmat]

(...) The main one is that the master inserts are PRE master fader. That means if you put your mastering (brickwall) limiter in the insert it is NOT the last thing in the signal path - the master fader is the last! But by putting your mastering AFTER the master fader you eliminate this issue and re-create how mastering is traditionally done. (...)

So you mean that the defalut signal routing in reason is master inserts → master fader?
The Reason Manual says

The Master Inserts Section is identical to the Insert FX section in the channel strips, except that it affects the master bus, i.e. the whole mix. Master Insert effects are ideally used to apply mastering effects, such as compression and limiting/maximizing for finalizing the mix.
Master Insert effect devices are added to the Master Section device in the rack.
The Master Insert effects can be placed ahead of the Master Compressor in the signal path. By default, the Master Insert effects are placed after the Master Compressor in the signal path. This makes sense, as you usually add a Maximizer or Mastering Combinator as a Master Insert effect, and this must be last in the signal path to avoid clipping on the output. However, if necessary, you can place the Master Insert effects before the Master Compressor, by activating the "Inserts Pre Compressor" button.

so I've always assumed the master inserrs it's where you wanna put your mastering chain..

Shall I put the limiter after the master inserts and before the hardware interface?

OMG was I so wrong all these years?

[dan_g]

Here’s what I do, which you can partly see in my screen grab above. I treat mixing and master “old school”, meaning you mix in the mixer and master outside of the mixer/after the mix. I take the output of the Big Mixer and connect it to my simple mastering Combinator.
There are also technical reasons for this. The main one is that the master inserts are PRE master fader. That means if you put your mastering (brickwall) limiter in the insert it is NOT the last thing in the signal path - the master fader is the last! But by putting your mastering AFTER the master fader you eliminate this issue and re-create how mastering is traditionally done. One main reason for doing this is because of dither, which needs to be the LAST thing in the signal path with no further modifications in any way after it.
This lets me bypass my mastering in one easy place and leave the ‘mix’ unaffected (including the rare chance the master fader is used in any way).
Hope this makes sense!

thats why i stopped using the master fader at all. because i sometimes wondered why my masters were so "quiet". jep because of the inserts being pre master fader.

instead i use selig gain everywere when in need of a dedicated volume control. can't thank you enough for this giles

[selig]

I AM A SPAM BOT
The simple answer to the question is yes, you should EQ before you compress. However, there is more to this story than just a simple answer. Compression is a tool that is used to even out the dynamics of a track. In other words, it makes the quiet parts louder and the loud parts quieter. This can be very useful for evening out a performance or taming rogue frequencies. However, before you reach for the compressor, it is important to first address any issues with the EQ of your track. This is because compression will affect the entire frequency spectrum of a track, not just the specific frequencies that you are targeting. If your track has any problem frequencies that need to be addressed, it is best to do so before you add compression. This way, you can compress your track without worrying about amplifying problem frequencies. Overall, EQing before compression will result in a cleaner and more polished sound. So next time you are reaching for the compressor, make sure you take care of any EQ issues first!

i see it the exact other way round, compression before EQ is usually better. lets say you have dialed back highs and mids with an EQ and now apply compression. it will affect the low hits the most because lows need the most db to gain percieved loudness. unlike the lows, the high and mid hits will likely fall below the compression threshold, so your out-EQ'd highs and mids will get a boost in between low hits again and therefore negate the EQ effect. so i'd rather say you balance the raw dynamics first until you get the desired sense of "flatness" or whatever you're going for, then emphasize or attenuate specific frequencies with full control over the end result.

This is an age old question I’ve heard for my entire life. Back in the 1980s when learning the newly installed SSL, the engineer from SSL (Roger Charlesworth) was explaining the signal flow and showed how you could swap the position of EQ vs Compression. Naturally I asked which one was better. He answered with the best answer for any of these questions: it depends. So I asked how to know? He replied with the second best answer for any of these questions: “try both, choose the one that sounds better”.
Anyone who says one way is better than the other is missing out on half the possibilities! I’ve never found one to ALWAYS sound better than the other. For one, the order only matters when BOTH EQ and Compressors are actually doing something (obviously). So the more EQ/Compression going on, the more different the processing order matters.

One exception I’ve learned for my work is when removing low frequency mud/muck, which is better to do PRE compression to avoid having the compressor respond to material that is not related to the original source.

Reasons to EQ first: to make a compressor more or less sensitive to a certain range, for times when only part of the song has a problem range (EQing first means the compressor will catch the moments when that range becomes excessive and not respond otherwise).
Reasons to compress first: when you’re still messing with the EQ (so changes to EQ WON’T affect compression settings), when compression affects the sound and you need to ‘correct’ it (like when a compressor dulls a sound).

These days since plugins allow nearly unlimited numbers of EQs and compressors, many folks suggest BOTH, like EQ/Compress/EQ/limit or similar - which I’ve never needed to resort to but many swear by. I prefer to use the fewest devices possible to get the job done, which not only sounds better to me in most cases but is far less work over time - especially when revisiting a mix and trying to remember exactly what each device is actually doing in the signal path!).

[selig]

(...) The main one is that the master inserts are PRE master fader. That means if you put your mastering (brickwall) limiter in the insert it is NOT the last thing in the signal path - the master fader is the last! But by putting your mastering AFTER the master fader you eliminate this issue and re-create how mastering is traditionally done. (...)

So you mean that the defalut signal routing in reason is master inserts → master fader?
The Reason Manual says

The Master Inserts Section is identical to the Insert FX section in the channel strips, except that it affects the master bus, i.e. the whole mix. Master Insert effects are ideally used to apply mastering effects, such as compression and limiting/maximizing for finalizing the mix.
Master Insert effect devices are added to the Master Section device in the rack.
The Master Insert effects can be placed ahead of the Master Compressor in the signal path. By default, the Master Insert effects are placed after the Master Compressor in the signal path. This makes sense, as you usually add a Maximizer or Mastering Combinator as a Master Insert effect, and this must be last in the signal path to avoid clipping on the output. However, if necessary, you can place the Master Insert effects before the Master Compressor, by activating the "Inserts Pre Compressor" button.

so I've always assumed the master inserrs it's where you wanna put your mastering chain..

Shall I put the limiter after the master inserts and before the hardware interface?

OMG was I so wrong all these years?

Not wrong, you can do it any way you like! I just prefer doing it that way because it’s how I learned on hardware. On hardware you patch the output to the 2 track recorder where you do NOT want mastering committed. Plus, with hardware you don’t likely have mastering style tools in a mix room!
Often I’m adding simple mastering myself (typically just a bit of limiting), and I’m set up so that if I bypass my mastering combinator I’m left with a raw mix at the correct level to send to a mastering engineer. Or if I’m mixing several songs for an EQ or album I can’t commit to mastering during the mix process since mastering a collection should be done in context.
Bottom line, I’ve found this approach gives me the most flexibility and the least confusion!

Another option which was not avilable when I first started working this way would be to use the RE version of the bus compressor, which would allow you to build the side chain section in the Master Insert AND move things into any order - but you STILL can’t touch the master fader if you’re adding brick wall limiting and dither during mastering! Basically speaking IMO, mastering should be the LAST process, so logically speaking it must come after the master fader.

[crimsonwarlock]

I AM A SPAM BOT

...

[Chizmata]

i see it the exact other way round, compression before EQ is usually better. lets say you have dialed back highs and mids with an EQ and now apply compression. it will affect the low hits the most because lows need the most db to gain percieved loudness. unlike the lows, the high and mid hits will likely fall below the compression threshold, so your out-EQ'd highs and mids will get a boost in between low hits again and therefore negate the EQ effect. so i'd rather say you balance the raw dynamics first until you get the desired sense of "flatness" or whatever you're going for, then emphasize or attenuate specific frequencies with full control over the end result.

This is an age old question I’ve heard for my entire life. Back in the 1980s when learning the newly installed SSL, the engineer from SSL (Roger Charlesworth) was explaining the signal flow and showed how you could swap the position of EQ vs Compression. Naturally I asked which one was better. He answered with the best answer for any of these questions: it depends. So I asked how to know? He replied with the second best answer for any of these questions: “try both, choose the one that sounds better”.
Anyone who says one way is better than the other is missing out on half the possibilities! I’ve never found one to ALWAYS sound better than the other. For one, the order only matters when BOTH EQ and Compressors are actually doing something (obviously). So the more EQ/Compression going on, the more different the processing order matters.

One exception I’ve learned for my work is when removing low frequency mud/muck, which is better to do PRE compression to avoid having the compressor respond to material that is not related to the original source.

Reasons to EQ first: to make a compressor more or less sensitive to a certain range, for times when only part of the song has a problem range (EQing first means the compressor will catch the moments when that range becomes excessive and not respond otherwise).
Reasons to compress first: when you’re still messing with the EQ (so changes to EQ WON’T affect compression settings), when compression affects the sound and you need to ‘correct’ it (like when a compressor dulls a sound).

These days since plugins allow nearly unlimited numbers of EQs and compressors, many folks suggest BOTH, like EQ/Compress/EQ/limit or similar - which I’ve never needed to resort to but many swear by. I prefer to use the fewest devices possible to get the job done, which not only sounds better to me in most cases but is far less work over time - especially when revisiting a mix and trying to remember exactly what each device is actually doing in the signal path!).

i agree that its situational. but as a synth only musician i rarely encounter situations like your first example, where like recording artifacts have to be filtered out before compression (maybe if FM adds infrasound frequencies). so it's mainly comp -> EQ for me, but yes there is no "always right" solution without context.

[Chizmata]

...

i thought he was joking... must have been the most credible spam bot i've ever encountered