Q setting when mastering?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mixaholic
  • Start date Start date
M

mixaholic

New member
What is a good q setting when mastering tracks. is 1 good or is it too wide?
 
:rolleyes:

Just like using eq for an instrument or voice, there is no simple "set and forget" for mastering. It all depends on what the audio needs, or doesn't need.
 
I'm with Scrubs. And MadAudio. I'm just confused at this point.
 
Massive Master said:
I'm with Scrubs. And MadAudio. I'm just confused at this point.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I dunno if I should set my Q in accordance with square roots of 2; like 1.414, 1, 0.707, or if I should use the Golden Ratio, like 1.618, 1, .618. Then I look at my Precision EQ and it's set the opposite way, in dB/octave rather than octave/dB.

It makes me wanna sit in a corner huddled in a fetal position and shudder and hope someone will come and hold me :o
 
Mixaholic, since you started this thread, I'll ask you this. What exactly does the Q do? Can you please give me a brief explanation of how it works. ? Thanx.
 
How can one truly become a "Mixaholic" without yet mastering the "Q"?

Anyway, you are all wrong. "Q" is a giant bird that lives in the top of the Chrysler building and rips people new assholes. There is no proper setting because nobody can master "Q"! You are all gonna die!
 

Attachments

  • q-the-winged-serpent-01.webp
    q-the-winged-serpent-01.webp
    44.3 KB · Views: 159
faderbug said:
are you sure? i always thought it was : Q=(1/Tw)/e
Click to expand...
Ah, a common mistake. That is actually the formula for determinimg the amount of high fructose corn syrup added to any given supermarket product based upon it's location in the store.

Easy to confuse the two.

G.
 
If you can sing the note or the offensive frequency, it's a high Q problem. If there's not enough sparkle or oomph, it's a wider Q problem. If there's no bottom end, or a dull top end, it's a very wide Q problem.

Everything in between is a judgement call. :D
 
RAM by Q i mean the amount of what frequencies will increase or decrease depending on the center frequency and the amout of gain added or subtracted. the higher the q number, the less frequencies around the center frequency will change when you apply and gain or cut and the lower the q number, the more frequencies around the center frequency will change when you apply and gain or cut. the higher the q number the more narrow and the lower the q number the wider.
 
mixaholic said:
RAM by Q i mean the amount of what frequencies will increase or decrease depending on the center frequency and the amout of gain added or subtracted. the higher the q number, the less frequencies around the center frequency will change when you apply and gain or cut and the lower the q number, the more frequencies around the center frequency will change when you apply and gain or cut. the higher the q number the more narrow and the lower the q number the wider.
Click to expand...
Ok mix, I'll get serious...

There is no "right Q" for mastering any more than there is a "right frequency" for mastering or a "right boost/cut" for mastering. It entirely dependends on the content that's being mastered. Harvey provided a good general starting point for determining general bandwidth requirements, but it's up to you to determine a) IF any EQing is needed, b) where it's needed and c) how much is needed. There are no "right numbers" for any of those.

It's also important to note that Q values do not necessarily translate precisely from one make/model of EQ to another. The different manufacturers sometimes have slightly varying formulas for Q value or have the same fornmla, but the resulting value is different because of the actual "physical" curve characteristics of their EQ. Put simply, the actual bandwidth and slope of the EQ curve with a Q of 1 can differ from EQ to EQ. If you use a Spacely EQ on your mixdown, you might want a Q of 1, but with the Cogswell EQ, the better-sounding Q setting could easily be 1.5. Or vice versa.

G.
 
mixaholic said:
RAM by Q i mean the amount of what frequencies will increase or decrease depending on the center frequency and the amout of gain added or subtracted. the higher the q number, the less frequencies around the center frequency will change when you apply and gain or cut and the lower the q number, the more frequencies around the center frequency will change when you apply and gain or cut. the higher the q number the more narrow and the lower the q number the wider.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanx


(oy!)
 
Some general ideas:

For corrective EQ, meaning some freq pops out that shouldn't, use a tighter Q (higher number) and decrease the offending frequency. Increasing gain can help bring out certain instruments like a snare.

To change overall tone, a wider Q and increase/decrease as needed.
 
masteringhouse said:
Increasing gain can help bring out certain instruments like a snare.
Click to expand...
Can you explain that, please?
Are you referring to increasing boost on the eq? or increasing the overall gain of the track or whatever?

Thanks.
 
eraos said:
Can you explain that, please?
Are you referring to increasing boost on the eq? or increasing the overall gain of the track or whatever?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Increasing the gain/boost of the EQ at particular frequencies. For example much of the "energy" of a snare is somewhere between 1-3K. Increasing the freqs in this range (depending on if the snare is a picolo, concert, etc.) can make it stand out more.

I wouldn't depend on mastering to fix these sort of things however as anything in the frequncy range will also be boosted. Distorted guitars for example have a lot of "bite" in this area. So trying to boost the snare this way also make the guitars cut more.

One of the most difficult things in mastering is doing this sort of balancing act, especially when some instruments are bright in the mix while others are dull. It's all about the art of compromise. Sometimes I think that MEs would make good politicians :-)
 
masteringhouse said:
Increasing the gain/boost of the EQ at particular frequencies. For example much of the "energy" of a snare is somewhere between 1-3K. Increasing the freqs in this range (depending on if the snare is a picolo, concert, etc.) can make it stand out more.

I wouldn't depend on mastering to fix these sort of things however as anything in the frequncy range will also be boosted. Distorted guitars for example have a lot of "bite" in this area. So trying to boost the snare this way also make the guitars cut more.

One of the most difficult things in mastering is doing this sort of balancing act, especially when some instruments are bright in the mix while others are dull. It's all about the art of compromise. Sometimes I think that MEs would make good politicians :-)
Click to expand...

Alright, that makes sense. Thanks.
 
I think there is no one size fits all.

But if you are boosting or cutting too much in the mastering stage a remix might be in order.
 
pingu said:
But if you are boosting or cutting too much in the mastering stage a remix might be in order.
Click to expand...

True.

The same applies to mixing (except for effect). If you have to massage the audio that much, you've probably tracked something wrong.

The best stuff is the stuff that you don't have to play with much, either in performance, dynamics, EQ, format conversion, etc. If there was a general rule it would be that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top