HAR-BAL

ORIGINAL: Susan G

Hi-

I've been playing around with this a bit, and I'm sure I'm missing something simple. When I lower the peak (yellow line) the green line (dip) changes, and vice versa. According to the tutorial, I should be able to adjust these independently, no?

TIA-

Susan

Yellow is peak and green is average signal level. Changing one will change the other. If you take a look at the Har-bal forum, all this will be de-mystified.
Cheers
CC

Hi Counting Coup-

But shouldn't I be able to adjust the peaks and dips indepentently? That's what I understood from the tutorial. As it is, they just seem to operate in tandem.

Thanks-

Susan

ORIGINAL: Susan G

Hi Counting Coup-

But shouldn't I be able to adjust the peaks and dips indepentently? That's what I understood from the tutorial. As it is, they just seem to operate in tandem.

Thanks-

Susan

Yes. You use the tab key to change.

Hi-

Yes, the Tab key does work as advertised, but any change I make on the peak rule (Yellow) is echoed on the average rule (Green), and vice versa. What am I supposed to be looking at/changing for dips, if you know. I thought that was the Green line.

TIA-

Susan

>> shouldn't I be able to adjust the peaks and dips indepentently?

No. If you lower the peak power (yellow), it will also bring down the average power (green).

Here's an analogy: say you're in college, and the peak score for a math test was 100%, and the average score was 80%. But then the teacher finds out that the student who scored 100% really made a mistake and got one wrong. The student's score should in fact be 98%, not 100%. The change in the peak from 100% to 98% brings the average down from 80% to something less than 80%.
- john

Hi john-

Yes, I understand what an average is, thanks! but what was confusing me was the Quick Start thing that says to adjust peaks with the Yellow line and dips with the Green. The traces seemed to change in tandem no matter what I did, so I didn't see the point of working with them independently.

Anyway, I'm starting to get the hang of it and there's a good explanation of the three traces with a similar question in the Tips and Tricks section of the Har-Bal forum for anyone who might be interested: What is the purpose of the three lines in Har-Bal?

Thanks all!

-Susan

Hi-

I thought that was interesting, but I guess no one else did! Anyway, I like Har-Bal so far, but I'll move my questions over to their forum.

-Susan

Well, I just tried the demo for about a couple of hours. Basically Har-Bal is an EQ that has a STATIC graph that shows the peak, average and mean of the EQ spectrum of the whole song in its display. This is different from Curve EQ's DYNAMIC display (although it can show a running average).

I personally didn't take to Har-Bal's approach of flattening out the response (I read all the material very carefully...yes I used it correctly). It often produced an EQ curve that was not appropriate for the material. BTW, achieving a flatter EQ curve is easy to accomplish with any EQ used in conjunction with a frequency analyzer such as Voxengo's SPAN.

I also tried using its various refernce curves. This is always a shot in the dark whether you're trying to match the EQ curve of your favorite CD with a tool like Curve EQ or if you're using Har-Bal's mystical genre defining curves. On one song, I tried every reference curve that Har-Bal had to offer and they were all inappropriate for the material.

Some of the demos on the site were a little misleading as well. One "after" song clearly had additional reverb on it that the "before" version did not have. The volumes between the "before" and "after" examples weren't matched either.

The conclusion of the matter, IMO, is that some users may be able to relate to a static EQ graph better than one that moves around dynamically. If that's your mental mindset, then Har-Bal may be useful to you. In any event, it's not the "magic-bullet" to all of your EQ problems. I'm an EQ nut and I'd gladly spend $90 for a tool that I'd use even occasionally, but in this case I'm gonna pass.

Just one man's opinion

Good points. Still, many of us are finding (going in with open minds) that our songs sound better with har-bal than they did before using it. Not wishful thinking, mind you, but clear improvement not influenced by our having invested $90. So, I'm still a believer. But, I still use your Ozone preset! Although since I started using har-bal I don't use the Ozone EQ as much (if any).

I'm always looking for a better way to do things, so I'm curious about Voxengo CurveEQ and GlissEQ, and might just download those demos to see what they can do.

Just one man's opinion

Spoken like Sean Penn from the movie, 'I am Sam:'

Har-Bal work real good for me. Har-Bal good.

Seriously though, for those of us who make decent and reasonable mixes (like me), Har-Bal really can be helpful. It's an easy tool to abuse (which I have already done and spanked myself for), but when used correctly it is a very useful and helpful tool.

Thanks,

The hype around HAR-Bal is some what over rated.. if you can hear what sounds good and what is flat enough response curve so what for you need tools like HAR-Bal..? I tested and on some songs its main hype to get flat reasponse goes to woods.. If song contains instruments and sounds where ain´t lets say fregs between 200- 500 then there ain´t.. why you have to pull these frecs up to get flat response curve? Of course men behind this sofware knows this but many newbies can step to the dark..

Many good headphones can reveal lets say problems in bass area or mids. Yes speakers are speakers and with full range system you get best results in STUDIO environment but at home bass is many times the BIG problem..

Many times I have used my headphones as a reference when I tune PA stacks.

I use SPAN and speakers and headphones when I "master" my mixes.

Art of Pros not of hybyist.

Art of Pros not of hybyist.

What's that supposed to mean?

ORIGINAL: danhazer

Art of Pros not of hybyist.

What's that supposed to mean?

MMmmm i supose the word is... Hobyst (" amateur" ... newbie ?? )

Greets
ROlo

I have worked with it for two weeks now.

It is really only an EQ application, not the hyped magic bullet that it is sometimes touted to be. But for me, the question was, is it a better EQ app than the plug I am currently using?

My answer has gone back and forth. Right now, with judicious use, and avoiding extreme settings (forget about trying to "flatten" your EQ signature - instead use it to find areas that may need boosting or cutting), I seem to be getting better results than I was with the Firium EQ plug. However, it's close, and of the demo's I posted here in this thread the votes for "which one sounds best" was never universal for one or the other.

Perhaps it's time for me to demo that Curve EQ . . .

well, pdarg, don't hesitate and you will find that CurveEQ is not only an eq but can do, if you want, an incredible job of giving an analog touch to your mixes. It has serveral coloring algorithms and it has gear-match (which convolutes your stuff with the touch of high-end analog gear).

best, drjee

MMmmm i supose the word is... Hobyst (" amateur" ... newbie ?? )

I gathered that much and hence - my question was rhetorical.

It almost seems that Pipes implies anyone who uses a tool like Har-Bal is somehow a hobbyist. To make such an implication would be somewhat arrogant, IMO. But I could be mistaken in my inference...

IMO mastering & tools gets confusing fast. I'm an amatuer for disclosure sake - that means I don't take money or sell services currently - it doesn't mean I can't hear, hehe.

The conversation about Har-Bal and using it to flatten visual peaks shown on its spectrum is going a little wrong from my point of view.

Har-Bal is a parametric EQ (can adjust from full b/w down to 1/6 octave) with both low and high shelf. During Mastering if you're doing more than general wide bandwidth shelving adjustments you've got an unfinished or broken mix IMO, this requires a remix. Mastering is the time for EQ shelving in general. In Har-Bal this equates to using the low/high shelves to nudge your material into the desired bass and treble regions (below approx 120Hz and above approx 4K) for the mids open up the bandwidth and just nudge the lo-mids and hi-mids up or down a bit to flatten the general shape of the curve. Flat in Har-Bal is the same slope as pink noise which is a -3dB/octave slope and is common in various spectrum analyzers like the DEQ2496 I use also.

If you're not moving wide bandwidths that can be described as bass, lo-mid, hi-mid, high/treble then your're repairing or restoring. I do this too. Sometimes stuff can't be remixed and has to be repaired for re-mastering. In this case a single parametric EQ like Har-Bal may not be the only tool you need. In fact the Har-Bal folks know this and even recommend some additional dynamic processing when things are really out of balance.

There's a limit to how far down you can push on a narrow peak in Har-Bal and still have things sound balanced. If I'm doing rebalancing of that nature I'll pull out Voxengo Soniformer2 and a few other dynamics plugs to gently pull the dynamics into shape then balance the EQ curve of the music using Har-Bal, CurveEQ or GlissEQ.

Long story short - With Harbal (or any EQ with a visual averaging spectrum) I don't like to push down on individual peaks during mastering but use broad strokes to 'flatten' the overall general shape of the curve. In this context flatten usually means mids are generally on a -3dB/octave slope (or even have a slight parabolic shape), bass rolls off at some good sounding point, highs roll off at some good sounding point. What's really fun is tweaking a song, make it sound the best you can, then see how it looks in Har-Bal - that's good practice too!

Just a couple of ideas

A couple comments...

<<It almost seems that Pipes implies anyone who uses a tool like Har-Bal is somehow a hobbyist. To make such an implication would be somewhat arrogant, IMO.>>

Agreed. Professionals are known by the results they deliver, not the tools they choose to deliver those results.


<<if you can hear what sounds good and what is flat enough response curve so what for you need tools like HAR-Bal..? I tested and on some songs its main hype to get flat reasponse goes to woods.. >>

The idea is NOT to flatten the response, it will sound terrible! The idea is to find unwanted peaks.

<<Har-Bal is a parametric EQ>>

I know what you're trying to say, but technically it's an FIR EQ.

One of the coolest applications I heard of for HarBal was from a guy who mixed multitrack projects. He used HarBal on individual tracks to get rid of room resonances for tracks recorded in spaces with bad acoustics. It allowed him to salvage projects.

<<With Harbal (or any EQ with a visual averaging spectrum) I don't like to push down on individual peaks during mastering but use broad strokes to 'flatten' the overall general shape of the curve.>>

That's a good plan, and in an ideal world, you'd get good mixes that only needed a little bit of boost or cut here and there. But sometimes it's necessary for a mastering engineer to fix something with "rogue peaks" or dips. That's when HarBal is really useful for me.

ORIGINAL: Anderton

One of the coolest applications I heard of for HarBal was from a guy who mixed multitrack projects. He used HarBal on individual tracks to get rid of room resonances for tracks recorded in spaces with bad acoustics. It allowed him to salvage projects.

That might have been me. This morning I'm using it to sort out an Irish bodhron so it will co-exist with a very deep electronic kick.

I've been following this thread with great interest. If I had to go back to hardware, and keep but one SW product, it would be Har-bal. It's the no.8 fencing wire of music technology!

Yes, all of the above Craig ! How can we loose with the cool DAW tools we have now, hehe? Knock on wood...

I guess I was trying to say that Har-Bal is a cool parametric with a unique eq cursor control and visual interface. A 8192 point Fir in parametric clothing! From a layman (non-DSP programmer) point of view...

Har-Bal is a good tool to use during mixing on individual tracks, mastering, and repair/restoration. I think I may use it more after it becomes a VST plugin.

PS - While I'm thinking about Har-Bal I almost forgot...if you look at the Graph->View->Frequency response of the cumulative eq 'curve' you've built for your audio it can look like something you might build with Voxengo CurveEQ or Elemental Audio Firium curves. If it's real wavy & curvy then guess what - you're an audio repair/restoration specialist now ! I get those sometimes...

ORIGINAL: kylen

Yes, all of the above Craig ! How can we loose with the cool DAW tools we have now, hehe? Knock on wood...

I guess I was trying to say that Har-Bal is a cool parametric with a unique eq cursor control and visual interface. A 8192 point Fir in parametric clothing! From a layman (non-DSP programmer) point of view...

Har-Bal is a good tool to use during mixing on individual tracks, mastering, and repair/restoration. I think I may use it more after it becomes a VST plugin.

As a VST plug, should I not be able to insert it in my Sonar output bus (ouch) and compensate globally for room shortcomings - assuming I've correctly done all the necessary sweeps etc. A known 240 Hz dip (say) could reflect as the equivalent 240 bump. Or is this a naive or simply bad practise?

ORIGINAL: mwbrown

Does anyone use this?
http://www.har-bal.com/

I haven't read each and every post in great detail, but glossing over most of them, no one has mentioned that this app can produce uniformity over an entire cd. Not only volume but eq uniformity from one track to another if the genre is similar. I believe that is one of it's main functions, and very easily achieved.
I own it, I like it... just my .02

Thanks,
Toby

ORIGINAL: Counting Coup
As a VST plug, should I not be able to insert it in my Sonar output bus (ouch) and compensate globally for room shortcomings - assuming I've correctly done all the necessary sweeps etc. A known 240 Hz dip (say) could reflect as the equivalent 240 bump. Or is this a naive or simply bad practise?

I would think inserting an EQ such as Har-Bal on the mastering buss would be ok with the mastering police, hehe.

I don't think hyping your Mixing Application to account for room acoustics is a good practice although I haven't tried it. But...

Generally folks use outboard gear that has 1/6 octave resolution or greater for measurement but then use physical objects (bass traps, auralex, etc.) to actually adjust the EQ. I've also been on audiophile sites where in-line EQs are used to adjust for room problems at 1/3 and 1/6 octave - some folks swear by it, others swear at it. I use physical objects and speaker placement myself.

There are also some DAW tools that give you full resolution spectrums to measure acoustic response with so I guess it's not too far fetched to try room correction from within the box using a DSP. I've swept my room and put it in to Har-Bal among other things just to see what it looks like. I tried an in-line DEQ2496 to adjust my acoustics at one point but didn't like it and went au natural using auralex & 703.

I guess you could try it - the trouble with EQ is if you have to set a steep slope (you probably will if you're trying to fix room standing wave comb filtering I think) various digital EQs may whoosh or ring a little depending on some other factors below my radar. I just remember not liking the sound. Maybe a balance of some acoustic treatments and some EQ would've sounded better...

Something to try - it should be a fun acoustic experience !

Craig Anderton?!!

Grovel, grovel

:LSB

<I don't think hyping your Mixing Application to account for room acoustics is a good practice although I haven't tried it. But... >>

I pretty much agree. If you can't correct room acoustics acoustically, you'll always be fighting an uphill battle. But I sure think the idea of doing salvaging of pre-existing conditions with HarBal is pretty clever, and yes, I think it was Counting Coup so credit where credit is due!

No! Craig..

I'm on my knees.. you taught me everything when I was a kid
And saved me from myself. I was a real looser in my teens
but I did enjoy building everything in Electronic Projects for musicians.

I managed to make it in life by working in the electronics business in spite of myself (as my father said :-) )

I'll never forget spending an afternoon trying to null the carrier in the Ring-Mod!



Thanks for everything.

:LSB

OK, I am just catching back up here, I think it should be noted that HarBal is not a VST plug at the moment, thought it is being worked on.

For me personally one of the strengths I see is what was mentioned above, it's not always about making a song sound good, it's about making a complete compliation sound good. Harmonic balancing, resonance control and perceived volume control from song to song...which is pretty much what mastering is all about.

That said, I have used it on a single track of a mix and as a parametric EQ as well. When the VST plug version is released it will become infinately more valuable in those kinds of situations.

Craig Anderton?
:: bowing :: "I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy"

ORIGINAL: dbmasters
Craig Anderton?
:: bowing :: "I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy"

Yeah. This has me worried too.

ORIGINAL: Counting Coup

ORIGINAL: dbmasters
Craig Anderton?
:: bowing :: "I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy"

Yeah. This has me worried too.

Ya know, I consider myself a pretty knowledgable guy, I am approached by gear manufacturers on a very regular basis to review their products, write tutorials, participate or help conduct beta tests and such things...but I feel like a 10 year old kid that just met my guitar idol when in the presence of Craig Anderton...

Kudos to you. I only hope and try to someday achieve the level of respect that he commands. And the chicks, my god man, the chicks!

Hi Dan-

Yes! (Well, minus the enthusiasm about the chicks!) I still have my copy of "Home Recording for Musicians" that I got as a gift back in the early 80s, and I still keep bookmarking and referencing it!

-Susan

Craig is 'prolly gonna leave now.



:LSB

I think he's lurking sometimes - like an Electronic Santa - he knows if you're naughty or nice

If we're all good he'll send some great tips & musical goodies down our chimneys (is that a good visual ? hehe) to use in our studios...

Well, minus the enthusiasm about the chicks

Oh Susan you hav'nt lived!

:LSB

Sorry to the thread-starter for a minor side-track.....

But I also wanted to say "Hey" to Craig Anderton, glad to see you out here.....and Thank You for your fine work in the audio field......Loved your Mixing and Mastering in Sonar 3 book recently.

Cheers and keep up the good work

Ok all, carry on...........

Hi bitman-

Oh Susan you hav'nt lived!

LOL! There's still time...!

-Susan

Another big hello to Mr. Anderton! His book is indeed part of my required reading.

Okay, one last time, I have two short MP3 samples, one was Har-Balized, and the other was EQ'ed with a more conventional plug. The question (as always), is which one sounds best/most professional, etc.:

http://www.edusim.net/music/Dockside-1.mp3 and
http://www.edusim.net/music/Dockside-2.mp3

As always, your totally honest opinion is always appreciated . . .

And of course, a comment from Mr. Anderton would undoubtedly get printed up here and posted on my wall!!

Hey everybody, thanks so much for the kind words! I have a great gig :)

I'm here just cause I'm like y'all, a Sonar user who's always looking for ways to get more out of it, and to find out what others are using it for.

I gotta tell you a HarBal story.

When it first came out, the hype was so over the top I was convinced it was snake oil and maybe even fraudulent. So I went to Mitch at EQ and said "Let me review this HarBal thing, I want to expose them." He said fine.

So I got the program and installed it. Whoa! It worked pretty well. Then I took a tune I'd done in the early 80s that was unmasterable. I could never get it to sound right. Thinking it was my mastering skills, I let a hotshot pro mastering guy give it a try. He said "There's something wrong with this, not sure what, but you have problems in the lower mids."

I loaded it into HarBal, and immediately saw the problem: A massive dip and a massive peak, just a tiny distance apart in frequency. No wonder I couldn't EQ it: I just couldn't find a bandpass shape that dealt with one problem while not affecting the other. If I got rid of the notch, the peak got boosted more. If I notched out the peak, the notch got notched more.

Well, HarBal fixed it. Luckily I'd never said anything derogatory in public, so I didn't have to take it back :) But I was impressed.

I've since mastered projects for two other clients and used HarBal. Both said, without any prompting, that these were the most transportable songs they'd ever heard...worked on anything. I really think that has a lot to do with HarBal.

By the way, about the chicks...the thing about the maid, the French poodle, and Mary-Kate and Ashley was COMPLETELY overblown. Besides, the jury agreed that the sheets had been clearly marked "non-flammable." So there! Thanks for giving me this opportunity to set the record straight <G>.

Have a great Thanksgiving, y'all!

By the way, about the chicks...the thing about the maid, the French poodle, and Mary-Kate and Ashley was COMPLETELY overblown.

hehehe

Yeah, actually, while not quite as dramatic, my first experience with HarBal was strictly on a professional level, I do mastering a lot for people so I didn't see this as snakeoil (thought I know MANY did, and understandably from the way over the top marketing as you stated) I had to give it a try, it has saved me so much time, and therefore made my mastering services so much more profitable, AND all while getting praises from my clients.

Lots of people get onto the "it's all about your ears" soapbox, and thats fine, I don't sit and argue, or try not to, but really, in this business, it's about getting results, plain and simple. HarBal has helped me get great results more quickly, end of story.

I have, since that first experience gotten to be freinds with Earle and Paavo at HarBal and found they are actually very good people as well...so that's just a bonus.

Happy thanksgiving, and thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding.
Mr. Anderton, I really want to do what you do, I do a lot of writing for my web site (in the sig below) and deal with a lot of manufacturers, while this may be off topic, how many chances like this does a guy get? Any tips for breaking in to publishing?

I certainly wouldn't argue with using Har-Bal for the situation you just described, but there are other tools, notably Voxengo Curve EQ, that could have been used to perform the same task. All you'd have to do is to trace an EQ curve (spline mode) that follows the average display and then hit the invert button. Although this won't getcha perfect, it will get you to within two or three mouse-clicks of getting the job done. Just a different way to cook the same turkey!

That said, the material that I receive that is unmasterable usually just suffers from basic frequency conflicts. When the vocalist, ride cymbal and electric guitar are all competing for 2k there isn't much I can do to make it sound good. The other classic battle is kick drum and bass guitar. When a bottom-boosted bass drum overwhelms the fundamental tones provided by the bass, the mastering job is done even before it's started.

Craig, you seem to encounter more than your fair share of room resonance problems ;}. What I run into more often are instrumental resonances. Many bass guitars, for example, have a "sweet" or a "dead" spot and sometimes both. I once had a bass guitar track where even the most severe compression or expansion didn't even it out. Creating an EQ curve that tamed these anomalies did wonders. If I didn't have access to this individual instrument track and I only had access to the final stereo mix I doubt that I could have done anything worthwhile with it.

The common thread thru all of this, IMO, is that it's all about EQ! It's great to have a variety of these tools at your disposal to get the job done.

Yes, but Voxengo Curve EQ lacks the loudness compension, which, to me at least, makes all the difference in the world. Other than that though, yeah, your right, there are a dozen tools to do a lot of jobs...I just have never found one quite like HarBal, often imitated, never duplicated :-)

Craig Anderton!?!?!?!

Does anybody know how to spell "genuflect"? (that's as close as I can get...)

From my first Tascam 144, back around '79, thru every change in medium and track count - there's been one (or several) of your books within easy reach.

Thanks for everything you've given us, Craig - I for one wouldn't be anywhere near as good at all this as I am (matter of opinion, of course) wthout your patient de-mystifying of it all.

You Da Man -

I bought Har-Bal when it was first released. I thought I knew how to use it, but got inconsistent results - until just a month ago or so. It's all about the green and yellow lines. To retain dynamics, work mainly on the green line. Only tame your really obscene peaks in the yellow up to 5k.
It took me a year of fiddling with it suspiciously and dismissing it as trash to even realize what the Tab button was for[sm=rolleyes.gif].

I've taken some really poor MP3s off random Soundclick pages, converted to WAV and done some great things learning Har-Bal over the past month. Playing MP3 Bandit engineer is pretty fun, especially when you can hear such a profound difference - more honestly than with your own music.

By the way - it kicks ass to see you here, Mr. Anderton.

really poor MP3s off random Soundclick pages

Yea..Like mine I'll bet!

I thought, and all my everyday ears friends thought, that they were "mastered" well enough.

Pshhh.....! I harbaled two of them and It's like night and day!

Ya know, My wife is my guinea-pig on all mixes or new riffs.
It used ta go like this: I'd come up drom the dungeon (basement studio?)
with a shiny new CD-R in hand and stand there like a little boy with ca-ca
waiting for a commercial on the TV so I can quickly plop it into the home stereo
and get her approval. Only to scramble and tweak the EQ on the fly like the
wizard of oz, all the time thinking why does it sound like crap? And "never
mind the man behind the curtain"

I har-baled two old tunes that had been "released" to sound-click and
(sigh) TAXI, and sat there like the cat that ate the track-sheet while the tunes played and not only sounded EQ-correct, but the next song sounded like it belonged with the first one. Oh and then I took the Cd to those crappy PC
speakers.. ya know the ones without a sub, And there was a hint of high bass
just like commercial CDs! So I took it to my car.. really expecting to tweak the
EQ.. nope - close enough to perfect! My car stereo has those stupid EQ presets
like ROCK and JAZZ and XPLODE..etc. My mixes would sound like crap on half
of those presets. Now I can run through the eq presets and none of them sound
like they are exagerated.

Nirvana.

And embarassment.
I need to update those sound click files now.

:LSB

Okay, one last time, I have two short MP3 samples, one was Har-Balized, and the other was EQ'ed with a more conventional plug. The question (as always), is which one sounds best/most professional, etc.:

http://www.edusim.net/music/Dockside-1.mp3 and
http://www.edusim.net/music/Dockside-2.mp3

As always, your totally honest opinion is always appreciated . . .

And of course, a comment from Mr. Anderton would undoubtedly get printed up here and posted on my wall!!

Nirvana.

Some progs have fans: Har-bal has devotees.

this time my winner is file no 1. was that the har-baled one? analysing the files, however, showed that both seem to have some spectrum imbalanced especially on the left channel around 2000 Hz and, less dramatic, also around 1000 Hz and 3000 Hz.

drjee

ORIGINAL: pdarg

Okay, one last time, I have two short MP3 samples, one was Har-Balized, and the other was EQ'ed with a more conventional plug. The question (as always), is which one sounds best/most professional, etc.:

http://www.edusim.net/music/Dockside-1.mp3 and
http://www.edusim.net/music/Dockside-2.mp3

As always, your totally honest opinion is always appreciated . . .

And of course, a comment from Mr. Anderton would undoubtedly get printed up here and posted on my wall!!

I can't for the life of me figure out the point of this.
Please explain.

So OK - after reading all this (and noting Mr Andertons' comments - no small endorsement to me...), I'm gonna go ahead and buy HB. Sounds like it can do me some good.

A couple questions for current users -

- What's the registration scheme like? Will it be usable from the moment I download, or will I be waiting for an emailed key or some such? As I tend to dump and reload my system at least twice a year, I'd like to know if there's much hassle. (Also, I may be upgrading the hardware soon, is the registration hardware-dependant?)

- "Standalone app..." Well, does it show up, or can it be made to, in
the "Tools" menu, like Sound Forge does? If I want to grab a track on the fly to look at it - howzat work?

- The promised VST version (or "bridge") - based on current users experience, think current users will get it free, or reasonably priced upgrade, or.....what? Basically, should I be waiting for a bit to expand my options? Obviously not expecting any concrete answer here, just whatever thoughts current users may have........

Thanks all - Happy Thanksgiving.......

I think it's clear, he wants to see if his use of har-bal realy gets him better results than the conventional method. but I have a suggestion to make. please also post the unmastered example and let's test then if how far one get get with whatever tools one uses (like ozone, cureeq+othet voengo stuff etc.)

best, drjee

ORIGINAL: pdarg
Okay, one last time, I have two short MP3 samples, one was Har-Balized, and the other was EQ'ed with a more conventional plug.

Neither one stood out as being that much better than the other.

Here's a link to pretty close to where I would EQ for this one:

http://audiorecordingandservices.com/dockside_ja_master.wav

I used v1 as my departure point and the volume is matched to the original. No other effects were employed, just my trusty EQ!

ORIGINAL: drjee

I think it's clear, he wants to see if his use of har-bal realy gets him better results than the conventional method. but I have a suggestion to make. please also post the unmastered example and let's test then if how far one get get with whatever tools one uses (like ozone, cureeq+othet voengo stuff etc.)

best, drjee

So he is basically guessing and asking for opinions on his guess? Then if everyone says harbal he will buy the progam and use it on evrything as a default?
Nice.

ORIGINAL: jsaras

ORIGINAL: pdarg
Okay, one last time, I have two short MP3 samples, one was Har-Balized, and the other was EQ'ed with a more conventional plug.

Neither one stood out as being that much better than the other.

Here's a link to pretty close to where I would EQ for this one:

http://audiorecordingandservices.com/dockside_ja_master.wav

I used v1 as my departure point and the volume is matched to the original. No other effects were employed, just my trusty EQ!

Very interesting. Both Har-Bal and the Firium seem to be pointing towards a high-mid gain and low-mid cut; since they are working in the same way, they tend to sound alike, but apparently both are producing a bit too much treble overall. I thought that maybe the first sample (The Firum EQ) was a bit too dull in the highs, but it would seem that - in comparison to your treated sample - both are brighter than they should be.

I'll keep working with this - I've learned quite a bit in the last two weeks. I still don't know if Har-Bal is the best choice for me, but it's been fascinating journey.

ok i understand that harbal is similiar to voxengo's curve eq but i am considering ozone 3 as an all round mastering package - Is it fair to say that i could expect to achieve similar results with the spectrum analyser in ozone or is this function completley different to har-bal?

ORIGINAL: ricstudioc

So OK - after reading all this (and noting Mr Andertons' comments - no small endorsement to me...), I'm gonna go ahead and buy HB. Sounds like it can do me some good.

A couple questions for current users -

- What's the registration scheme like? Will it be usable from the moment I download, or will I be waiting for an emailed key or some such? As I tend to dump and reload my system at least twice a year, I'd like to know if there's much hassle. (Also, I may be upgrading the hardware soon, is the registration hardware-dependant?)

- "Standalone app..." Well, does it show up, or can it be made to, in
the "Tools" menu, like Sound Forge does? If I want to grab a track on the fly to look at it - howzat work?

- The promised VST version (or "bridge") - based on current users experience, think current users will get it free, or reasonably priced upgrade, or.....what? Basically, should I be waiting for a bit to expand my options? Obviously not expecting any concrete answer here, just whatever thoughts current users may have........

Thanks all - Happy Thanksgiving.......

- Reg code will be emailed to you shortly after purchase

- Yes it can be registered under "tools" options of different apps using different methods, it's not automatic tho

- VST upgrade will be a free upgrade to registered users.

Dan -

- Thank you.

- Thank you

and lest I forget...

- Thank you.

Appreciate it mucho.......

Both Har-Bal and the Firium seem to be pointing towards a high-mid gain and low-mid cut; since they are working in the same way, they tend to sound alike, but apparently both are producing a bit too much treble overall. I thought that maybe the first sample (The Firum EQ) was a bit too dull in the highs, but it would seem that - in comparison to your treated sample - both are brighter than they should be.

Hi pdarg,

actually, at least I liked both your versions better than the example of jsaras, but his again reveals that sound is also something very subjective.

but I completely agree with jsaras that I cannot see why har-bal is so much hiped. cureq has a very similar approach and it sounds fantasic. the only thing is, as dbmasters pointed out, that har-bal has loudness compensation. but since you usually do eqing before limiting that should not be an issue.

best, drjee

I now have all three: Ozone 3.0, har-bal, and voxengo mastering suite. They're all good! One of the things I like about har-bal is the large display. Ozone and curve-eq are great, but har-bal is best for quickly spotting and quickly adjusting the problem areas (even if it is "static" as opposed to "dynamic"). I'm not totally "up" on the understanding of curve_eq for solving the same types of problems. The more I use har-bal, the more I like it. I had thought about not extending past the 30-day trial period (after getting the mastering suite) but I think I'm going to keep it. It's just as useful as both Ozone and Voxengo, IMHO. The process I'm currently using (not set in stone, will probably change as I gain experience) is to use curve_eq and soniformer on the initial file_export > to 24 bit, import that into har-bal to correct any glaring problems, write that to file_eq, import back into Sonar for final processing with Elephant. Still experimenting with "polysquasher" and "transmodder". Again, this is mostly experimentation. Trying to determine how best to use the strengths of all of the apps, to best arrive at some kind of new working regimen. Looking forward to the plugin version of har-bal.

interesting. so you are using mainly sonar as a (pre-)mastering host. I use a dedicated wave editor - in my case audition, since it has very good visualization and statistical tools which give you a lot of important information. so I am exporting the mix without any dithering and downsampling and then all the rest is done in audition using its integrated tools (also very good for restauration) and plugins like ozone (less often) and the voxengo stuff (more often). if needed/wanted I also use some further coloring plugs like warmifier or even lampthruster. so a typical settup would be transmodder > crunchessor and/or soniformer > curveeq (> wamifier or lampthruster) > elephant. I never likesd polysquasher, for me crunchessor is much better, it can be rather clean or give you so many "colors". and soniformer is a beast, I am only slowly lerning to tame. transmodder has become very valuable for me though. especially, when you get stuff which is already compressed you can use it as a kind of decompression tool.

best, drjee

ORIGINAL: drjee
I never likesd polysquasher, for me crunchessor is much better, it can be rather clean or give you so many "colors". ..

Besides the newer crunchessor I've recently been working in the GPP-1 instead of Polysquasher as a single band mastering compressor, right after Soniformer2 (if I need it for spectral rebalance) and right before Elephant mastering limiter:
http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/gpp-1.php

Sometimes I'll put GCO-1 there instead of GPP-1 trying out soume new sounds:
http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/gco-1.php

I like the Golden series the more I use it and hear it part of it is the Program dependent ramp times I think...if I can figure out what's eating me about Polysquasher lately I'll mention it on the Voxengo forum cause I like it's parallel mode - the developer over there always tries to keep up with the times when possible.