分人@静如处子，动则闪腰@

This applies particularly to mastering, but it can apply anytime you are using EQ and compression together.

It's an obvious question. Should you EQ then compress, or compress then EQ? The answer depends on exactly why you are EQing.

If you are EQing a track because it has some sort of defect - perhaps too dull, too bass-heavy, mids lacking in sparkle - whatever the reason, you should EQ before you compress.

If you compress a track that has an EQ problem, then the compressor will be making its gain change decisions on faulty information. That is hardly going to result in good compression, which should be obvious once you think about it.

On the other hand, if a track already sounds well-balanced EQ-wise, then there is no need to EQ before compression. The action of a compressor however often results in a subjective dulling of the sound, so there is every likelihood that you will want to EQ after compressing.

The ultimate solution is to separate conceptually the corrective and creative applications of EQ. Once this is in your mind, it will be obvious that EQ problems have to be fixed before compression, and then after compression you will want to take the opportunity to perfect the frequency balance of whatever it is you are working on.

It's a good job that extra EQ plug-in instances don't cost anything (other than processor power of course!).

其实挺有道理的，压缩的确会在一定程度上使音轨的均衡发生变化，因此均衡-压缩-均衡的办法不失为一个实施起来比较方便的途径。不过这样要多用掉一块均衡，如果是多轨，恐怕会多用掉很多DSP。能不能在压缩之前把压缩造成的频率损失用均衡补回来呢？这问题值得研究研究