Go-To Q Values

There are not many controls for digital plugins where i prefer stepped options as opposed to continuous values, but the Q factor of EQ slopes is one of those that generally i do. Not really sure why i prefer them that way; i suppose there are a few reasons.

Regardless, i made myself (and you!) up a nifty spreadsheet of “Go-To Q Values”, based on logarithmic steps between the basic Q value (0.70607) and the minimum or maximum ranges. These Q values are optimized for Ableton Live’s EQ Eight, but can be applied to most any parametric EQ, when you want no-brainer go-to Q values to fall back on.

I’ve provided 2 charts, one with six Q options (rounded to 1 decimal place), and one with eleven Q choices (rounded to 2 decimals). I had thought about charts with more steps, but diminishing returns kick in pretty soon and it kinda defeats the purpose of having go-to values in the first place…

Go-To Q Values: 6 Options
TypeQ Value(precise)
smoothest possible0.1
fairly blunt0.30.26572
a bit sharp2.12.07805
laser precision18

Go-To Q Values: 11 Options
TypeQ Value(precise)
smoothest possible0.1
quite blunt0.160.16301
fairly blunt0.270.26572
slightly blunt0.430.43315
sightly sharp1.211.2113
a bit sharp2.082.07805
fairly sharp3.573.565
brain surgery10.4910.49224
laser precision18

->>>Download “Go-To Q Values” Spreadsheet<<<-

I recommend using the 6 Options spreadsheet by default. If you find you need more choices in-between the given value steps, use the 11 Options spreadsheet instead.

Below are images of some Go-To Q values to give you a quick impression of their slopes.

Q 0.16301 “quite blunt”
Q 0.26572 “fairly blunt”
Q 0.43315 “slightly blunt”
Q 0.70607 “neutral”
Q 1.2113 “slightly sharp”
Q 2.07805 “a bit sharp”
Q 3.565 “fairly sharp”
Q 6.11596 “surgery”
Q 10.49224 “brain surgery”

Please enjoy the spreadsheet. The values have been carefully planned to provide extremely usable Q values covering all desired purposes from smooth tone-shaping to tasteful surgery, which also conform to mathematical intervals, giving just the right number of steps to cover most every situation without excessive choices causing option fatigue.

One aspect of this is that you are given more choices on the sharper side of the spectrum, due to the fact that “neutral value” of .70607 is on the smoother side of things. I found that using logarithmic stepping stretches the intervals in a more usable way than doing so linearly.

When referencing the chart, i don’t generally type in the values to more than the first decimal place, but they are provided up to the fifth decimal place in case more exacting precision is desired.

Addendum: An EQ Mixing Workflow
Now this is just my habits, and everyone differs, but perhaps hearing about it might inspire new methods for you. Sometimes when mixing, i like to initially use default Q values for each given EQ band, set their gains, and then later on (when fine-tuning things closer to the end of the mixing process), work on adjusting the Q values rather than the gains of the EQ bands, if they are adding too much or too little energy.

Lowering a Q value makes the slope broader, reducing the possible “too artificial” sound of an overly sharp EQ band. On the other hand, increasing a Q value makes a slope narrower, freeing up some headroom and affecting adjacent frequencies less.

More reasoning behind this method of adjusting Q values later on in the mixing process is because doing so will also alter the contour of any phase-shifts caused by EQ bands, which can subtly affect how instruments sit against each other in a mix, while retaining the frequency adjustment pinpoints that were already decided upon.

2 thoughts on “Go-To Q Values

  1. nice post, thanks for this article, it helps me a lot. I’m not a fan of non-fixed q values, and I tend to use very tight q, because visually “it’s better”.
    So I prefer equalizers like the surfer eq, which proposes only 4 fixed values.
    So your spreadsheet with 6 options is a great help.
    Beyond that, I have read some of your articles, and I thank you also for sharing your knowledge.
    YouTube videos are often too long for nothing. And very little brings a real added value like your article on The Chain Fade Problem

    • Thanks for the comment. Yeah, there’s lots of good youtube tutorials out there, but you have to sift through loads of crap and disinformation to find them. I can’t tell you how many videos i’ve seen with thousands of views explaining a technique or concept incorrectly, guiding people to make ill-formed decisions. I suck at making videos anyways, so i prefer writing articles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s