Har Bal Version 2

[randygo]

I think they should focus on improving the quality of the eq instead of taking it in a new direction. This move won't attract the pro engineers, that's for sure.
While I thought Har-Bal was a good idea (as a concept) their marketing strategy seems to me all wrong.
It's a pity as I hoped they will bring substantial improvements in sound quality instead of another product.

What exactly is wrong with Har-Bal's sound quality? It always sounded good to me

I suspect he is complaining about the 8-bit demo mode. I have done all my Harbal work at 24-bit and have noticed no issues with sound quality.

Randy

[bduffy]

Thanks for enlighting me on the subject, so it is a standalone tool. BTW (I wonder why I was not notified of your reply, no mail from KVR turned up. Weird.)

Sure thing. I didn't get a notification either, but the server was getting really slow there earlier.

2. I'm sure some people are aware of this already, but just in case there's confusion: You can't take an EQ curve from a song and apply it to another song. It'll sound terrible. What you need to do is take the EQ curve from the reference song, and then tweak your song until the curves end up looking similar. Depending on the original content of YOUR track, the actual EQ applied to it in order to 'match' it to the reference track could end up looking completely different.

Good point - just in case I wasn't clear, that's what AAMS does; it's suggesting a new EQ curve to get you to the desired spot.

[kylen]

2. I'm sure some people are aware of this already, but just in case there's confusion: You can't take an EQ curve from a song and apply it to another song. It'll sound terrible. What you need to do is take the EQ curve from the reference song, and then tweak your song until the curves end up looking similar. Depending on the original content of YOUR track, the actual EQ applied to it in order to 'match' it to the reference track could end up looking completely different.

Good point - just in case I wasn't clear, that's what AAMS does; it's suggesting a new EQ curve to get you to the desired spot.

Triple agree! That's what I do with CurveEQ...I just let Aleksey make "suggestions" like he's standing over my shoulder! Then I amplificate or attunate to my taste (and individual HRTF!)

[Lagrange]

Ok so what I get from Har Bal is that what the ear cannot hear (or speaker) the eye can see... Downloaded the mp3's from the site and do your own analysis on the audio...

http://www.har-bal.com/samples.php

c

[stash98]

I just got back from a mastering session with a guy who does major label records all day. He is very cool, and not secretive at all. He uses Wavelab, with a hardware L2 a Tc finalizer and some more hardware.

Here is what he does, and every guy I have worked with in the business:

He A/Bs his mix to a reference while he masters. Thats it. That is your EQ matching or whatever...you HAVE to hear this stuff.

Obviously all the EQ techniques, and multiband compression are there, but it boils down to this guy just listens very closely to a few refernce mixes that are similar and does his tweaking.

I believe you should really try this technique along with a mastering program like Harbal, or Izotope, or whatever...Mastering will never be simplified to matching up EQs..it is a whole different art, and if you feel your ears are burnt, or you don't have time for it...etc..let someone else do it. It's not worth Fing up the mixes you spent so much time on.

Definitley don't think you can match up EQs visually and be done. Mastering is all about the ears involved.

[Lunch Money]

I agree mostly, BUUUUuuttt....

HarBal people probably ALSO agree. The process they're moving toward (and seem to be halfway there for) is a dynamic approach, not a static one. I'm sure they know as well as anyone that a single EQ curve applied to a whole track won't ever be able to "master" it.

Until then, I'll also mainly use my ears. And I actually DO have fun doing it, most of the time.

[kylen]

Another thing about curve-matching that Lunch Money started talking about...IMO using certain commercially mastered reference material can be a bit misleading so you have to be able to see & hear thru it a little. In other words, many times contemporary mastering includes adjusting the dynamic range of the major freq bands (sub, bass, lomid, himid, presence, treble) in such a way that rms and transients are manipulated and controlled very tightly. Matching that with an EQ visually is just plain tricky and listening becomes even more important - maybe that's where AAMS might come out ahead, I can't say since my demo won't work. I think Har-Bal might try to inform you of this with the various colored curves - they are working on tuning that piece up also which I'm most excited about, a sense of dynamic changes. Anyway, partially for that reason I like to look at things (while I'm listening, always listening!) using SPAN with the speed set to 8. That lets the curves dance in time with the music a bit - but not too fast. I can also watch the dynamic range of the rms as well as the entire dynamic range using VU & peak meters elsewhere (DEQ2496 metering).

[OMU]

I just got back from a mastering session with a guy who does major label records all day. He is very cool, and not secretive at all. He uses Wavelab, with a hardware L2 a Tc finalizer and some more hardware.

Here is what he does, and every guy I have worked with in the business:

He A/Bs his mix to a reference while he masters. Thats it. That is your EQ matching or whatever...you HAVE to hear this stuff.

Obviously all the EQ techniques, and multiband compression are there, but it boils down to this guy just listens very closely to a few refernce mixes that are similar and does his tweaking.

I believe you should really try this technique along with a mastering program like Harbal, or Izotope, or whatever...Mastering will never be simplified to matching up EQs..it is a whole different art, and if you feel your ears are burnt, or you don't have time for it...etc..let someone else do it. It's not worth Fing up the mixes you spent so much time on.

Definitley don't think you can match up EQs visually and be done. Mastering is all about the ears involved.

interesting post, stash98.
The ones who have ears to hear,let them hear

[OMU]

I think they should focus on improving the quality of the eq instead of taking it in a new direction. This move won't attract the pro engineers, that's for sure.
While I thought Har-Bal was a good idea (as a concept) their marketing strategy seems to me all wrong.
It's a pity as I hoped they will bring substantial improvements in sound quality instead of another product.

What exactly is wrong with Har-Bal's sound quality? It always sounded good to me

I suspect he is complaining about the 8-bit demo mode. I have done all my Harbal work at 24-bit and have noticed no issues with sound quality.

Randy

Hi Igor and randygo.
I'm not complaining about the 8bit demo (which, by the way, is a ridiculous idea as this tool is aimed to mastering!).
I'm refering strictly to it as an eq.
It doesn't sound bad... but not very good either. Not what one would expect from a mastering (lin-phase) eq. Sounds a bit cheap to my ears. Comparing it with Waves LinEq this thing is obvious for me.
I personally think that the developers know these things too and that's way they are targeting the amateurs as their customers, cause they don't have the experience to immediately hear and point the problems and are just happy that they don't have to worry about mastering cause the tool does it for them. I think that this marketing perspective is totally wrong and I can understand why the mastering engineers don't use it and are making jokes about it. Some of them surely exagerate but regarding just the sound quality I agree that it's not something to rave about.
BUT.
As a learning tool... I think it can be really useful. What a pitty they don't develop just the spectrum analizer in this direction. I think the visual representation is very intuitive and useful, being closer to the human hearing than that of other spectrum analizers that are very detailed in the upper part of the spectrum. But even there they should standardize a bit the interface.
Anyway, I'm not against it at all, but I think it's sad that a product with real potential is driven to the wrong direction (at least from my personal point of view). But just for hobbysts composers and musicians it could be really great fun
All the best.

[bduffy]

I just got back from a mastering session with a guy who does major label records all day. He is very cool, and not secretive at all. He uses Wavelab, with a hardware L2 a Tc finalizer and some more hardware.

Here is what he does, and every guy I have worked with in the business:

He A/Bs his mix to a reference while he masters. Thats it. That is your EQ matching or whatever...you HAVE to hear this stuff.

Obviously all the EQ techniques, and multiband compression are there, but it boils down to this guy just listens very closely to a few refernce mixes that are similar and does his tweaking.

I believe you should really try this technique along with a mastering program like Harbal, or Izotope, or whatever...Mastering will never be simplified to matching up EQs..it is a whole different art, and if you feel your ears are burnt, or you don't have time for it...etc..let someone else do it. It's not worth Fing up the mixes you spent so much time on.

Definitley don't think you can match up EQs visually and be done. Mastering is all about the ears involved.

interesting post, stash98.
The ones who have ears to hear,let them hear

Hmmm...I like how this is getting mildly condescending...

I simply do not have another person to send my mixes to for work, so that's why I like these apps. They point you in the right direction. I certainly don't think mastering will be totally automated! Why would it? Professionally mastered records sound amazing as is and I just don't see auto-computer-mastering getting any respect as a replacement.

When my band's album is done, I'll send it off to a human being who's been doing this for years. But for day-to-day help with final mixes, these apps help. Besides, I find it really fun to get that "fresh" perspective on my mix, then do the mastering without the undue fatigue.

[OMU]

Hmmm...I like how this is getting mildly condescending...

I simply do not have another person to send my mixes to for work, so that's why I like these apps. They point you in the right direction. I certainly don't think mastering will be totally automated! Why would it? Professionally mastered records sound amazing as is and I just don't see auto-computer-mastering getting any respect as a replacement.

When my band's album is done, I'll send it off to a human being who's been doing this for years. But for day-to-day help with final mixes, these apps help. Besides, I find it really fun to get that "fresh" perspective on my mix, then do the mastering without the undue fatigue.

[bduffy]

Good point, OMU.

[4damind]

Mmh, seems like dynamic EQ response curves or something like EQ curve matching? I have seen similar (as plugins) from Elemental Audio or Voxengo?

I think that mastering has something todo with good ears to mix a balanced frequency-spectrum. Massiv EQing has nothing todo with this. I think Har-Bal is the wrong way, who suggest "you can be master pro-like sound with our program".

[OMU]

Hmmm...I like how this is getting mildly condescending...

I simply do not have another person to send my mixes to for work, so that's why I like these apps. They point you in the right direction. I certainly don't think mastering will be totally automated! Why would it? Professionally mastered records sound amazing as is and I just don't see auto-computer-mastering getting any respect as a replacement.

When my band's album is done, I'll send it off to a human being who's been doing this for years. But for day-to-day help with final mixes, these apps help. Besides, I find it really fun to get that "fresh" perspective on my mix, then do the mastering without the undue fatigue.

Appologies, I didn't intented to be condescendent. Don't want this. I'm learning like everybody here and I think our mate gave us here a tip.
Regarding the way you use aams (which in my oppinion is something I wouldn't use ever even if it was free, no offense intented) you speak from a different position now and I don't see any problem in doing some "quick" job. Even than you admit you take your mixes to somebody who has good ears and some experience to fix them.
Ok, we don't have the experience these golden-eared engineers have to make those hits but isn't a tottaly wrong idea to expect that some program will do for us what they do? Cause, you know, they treat each song differently, they don't have "presets".
Again appologies.

[bduffy]

Appologies, I didn't intented to be condescendent. Don't want this. I'm learning like everybody here and I think our mate gave us here a tip.
Regarding the way you use aams (which in my oppinion is something I wouldn't use ever even if it was free, no offense intented) you speak from a different position now and I don't see any problem in doing some "quick" job. Even than you admit you take your mixes to somebody who has good ears and some experience to fix them.
Ok, we don't have the experience these golden-eared engineers have to make those hits but isn't a tottaly wrong idea to expect that some program will do for us what they do? Cause, you know, they treat each song differently, they don't have "presets".
Again appologies.

That's cool. This is (like many others here) a touchy subject, and I know some people are going to think I'm suggesting that AAMS can replace mastering, and that just is not the case. I'm glad we're clear on that. Really all I was saying originally is if you're going to use a program to help you spectrally improve your mix, why not use one that exports to a mastering EQ that you don't have to configure manually? Of course, if your ears are up for it, good stuff; I wish I had your stamina.

Thanks for the apologies. Not necessary, I assure you.