HAR-BAL

har-bal has loudness compensation. but since you usually do eqing before limiting that should not be an issue

It is an issue, because if you boost any eq band, it causes an increase in overall volume. And to untrained ears louder often is percieved as sounding better. Of course, this might not apply to people like jsaras. Don't forget - he does mastering for a living.

and if you lower a band it decreases in volume. so I guess what people who are not professionals or jonas aras do who are using eqs without loudness compensation (ie all eqs except from har-bal) is that they always only push up bands. yes, this is the way I do my mixes, why degrade if you can upgrade ;-)

Ok, you are missing something fundamental here.
Most EQ's sound different.
Boosting sounds is different than cutting. Cutting is usually a more transparent and less harmful thing to do with EQ.

Some EQ's like the Pultec sound great when you boost on certain sounds.
You can boost the **** out of the high mids on electric guitars or drums and cymbals too with a pultec and it sounds great AND it gives a certain character.
If you did the same boost with voxengo Gliss EQ(no dynamics on) it will not sound the same. Both are great tools but can be used for different things.
Sonalksis EQ has a certain sound(s) to it. It's great for boosts on certain things but it sounds different than the UAD pultec.
The sonitus EQ sounds great for some things but imo it's not up to the level of the others i mentioned but still a cool EQ.

The thing about this Harbal thing is that it is supposed to be nuetral EQ.
So is Curve, so is Wave Lin EQ. They are all just EQ's
So if you want to adjust the mid range in some material, do you want to do it with the sonalksis or something transparent? Should you use Gliss EQ to get some Dynamic Action or use Cambridge, it has it' own Character also.

The goal should be to get to know the character of your tools and to KNOW WHAT YOU NEED TO DO to the material.

Maby then it would be better to not buy Harbal and save up for some better monitors so you can hear what you need to do to a track. Or some books on acoustics in the monitoring enviorment.
Or spend some time comparing your mixes to other mixes and listening specificaly to each range of the spectrum.
Are you paying enough attention to the low mids, why is there so much clutter down there. Maby it would be better to roll off some tracks down there instead of making big drastic EQ cuts to the whole mix with ANY eq?
I understand how harbal and Curve etc can be great learning tools to see where your mistakes are but plan to move past that level very quickly and start listening and getting some form of internal reference established. Inevitably you are gonna have to get there sooner or later so why not make a goal of gettting to it now and skip the short cuts.

my 2 cents.

Halljams....you're reading my mind....dude, get out of my head!

ORIGINAL: pdarg
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 found both of your examples to be a little thin sounding..too fizzy-tizzy on the top end. I used an analog EQ to give the top a little layer of dark chocolate. The bass region received minor surgery as well. I think is was a dinky boost at 100 and a slight cut at 200. Although I didn't use any visual help to create the curve, I'd bet that the treble region on my example probably has a roll-off of around 5 octave.

Eventually your ear learns "where the hoop" is and you then can use almost any EQ to get it your mix thru there.

ORIGINAL: Dyonisos
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".

That's a lot of stuff you're doing there. Hopefully it's all applied for a reason. Some mixes don't even need mastering! (Did I say that out loud?) I had that happen to me about a week ago. I gave the client a discount because I had virtually nothing to do to his songs. It's rare, but it does happen.

Yep, I agree. Don't make a habit of trying to fix what isn't broken, and try to never lose the ability to trust what your ears are telling you, just because you happen to have a bunch of plugins.

ORIGINAL: zentatonic

har-bal has loudness compensation. but since you usually do eqing before limiting that should not be an issue

It is an issue, because if you boost any eq band, it causes an increase in overall volume. And to untrained ears louder often is percieved as sounding better. Of course, this might not apply to people like jsaras. Don't forget - he does mastering for a living.

Ummmmm, so do I...

This thread has turned into a very interesting discussion. Thanks everyone.

For my .02, I am of this mind that when it comes to Mastering.......when you apply a Mastering tool of any sort (Ozone, Har Bal, Waves, etc), if you hear a radical difference in sound when you apply something, you have a problem in the mix. I agree with what's been said by the experts that any mastering tool is to apply subtle, final sheen. Plus, what sounds good is not not necessarily sonically correct.....keep it clean and tight through mixdown, apply subtle Mastering effect, and your track will stand tall forever, on any system. Sometimes, in the process of using things to make something sound good, we create sonic nightmares.

I truly believe the best recordings are kept as simple as possible.....light on effects and EQ, recorded correctly with alternates (so you have choices at mixdown).....so that when you are mixing down, you are dealing with clean signals. Everything in a mix clamours for space and the muddier each element is, the thicker the mud they create when they come together. In sonic context, less is truly more. And I do not believe there are magic bullets.

Again, just my .02. Carry on

Some of you guys forget - a mixing engineer is not a mastering engineer. Many of us here are writing music (most importantly), too. And working day jobs. Time is an issue. Learning is slow (but sure). Most of our energy is put into our instruments.
No recording engineer claims to be a mastering engineer. Har-Bal at least gets the eq in the ballpark.
I applaud dbmasters for being open-minded and humble. Kudos to that!

hi halljams, I guess you missed something fundamental in my reply to zentatonic, it was completely ironic.

Just read through all of this... fascinating thread, indeed. I'll have to check this thing out at some point.

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 think a question like this is kind of missing the point.

The strength of HarBal, and where it is most productive and saves the most time isn't a sas simple as "here's two, which sounds better". The point is it simplifies and speeds up the process of making your music sounds it's best across all speakers and rooms. Which is the primary job of mastering, assuming the mixing and premaster was done properly.

There is also the fact that any song could have any number of issues beyond the scope of what HarBal is meant to accomplish...I didn't listen to these, and likely won't, as it would be unproductive. Judge for yourself, it's your music.

To see for yourself what is better, burn both of those version to a CD, and listen to them both in your studio, your car, your stereo, your neighbors stereo, your little portable radio and so on...THAT, my cakewalk-using compadre's, is the strength of HarBal.

ORIGINAL: SteveJL
I agree with what's been said by the experts that any mastering tool is to apply subtle, final sheen. Plus, what sounds good is not not necessarily sonically correct.....keep it clean and tight through mixdown, apply subtle Mastering effect, and your track will stand tall forever, on any system. Sometimes, in the process of using things to make something sound good, we create sonic nightmares.

Exactly! The vast majority of my mastering is done in broad, gentle strokes. It's as close to playing with a bass and treble knob on my home stereo as I can make it :} I'm not kidding! Although I don't like the sound of PSP Vintage Warmer, especially when the "drive" is turned up (that's not what tubes sound like!), I totally relate to the way the interface is set up. It's essentially just bass, treble, tweak the knee on the compressor and you've got a smile on your face.

The power, and ironically the weakness, of Har-Bal and other related ultra-surgical tools (Voxengo Soniformer comes to mind) is its level of control. A decently recorded and mixed song shouldn't need microscopic EQ changes.

That said, I'll back track a little here. I spent even more time with Har-Bal late last night playing with piss-poor mixes that I've worked on in the past that should have never seen the light of day (talk about sonic nightmares). I actually had to use three EQs in a row to get some of these things sounding passable. Hal-Bal's microscopic level of control actually got me "there" much more quickly. The next time I'm presented with a hot steamin' one I may very well be tempted to get Har-Bal.

ORIGINAL: halljams
...The goal should be to get to know the character of your tools and to KNOW WHAT YOU NEED TO DO to the material.
...Or spend some time comparing your mixes to other mixes and listening specificaly to each range of the spectrum.
Are you paying enough attention to the low mids, why is there so much clutter down there. Maby it would be better to roll off some tracks down there instead of making big drastic EQ cuts to the whole mix with ANY eq?...

halljams - A very excellent post my friend ! I like the whole thing but just excerpted a couple of key points here - the details you mentioned are very important also.

Aside from that I'll mention something that I have just gotten involved with, probably not too many folks on the Sonar forum are involved in but as I research this more I can see it is a small part of many project commercial studios. That is audio transfer & restoration from a multitude of sources beginning with Edison cylinders, shellacs, vinyl, tape, and radio transcriptions. All of these masters, once transfered into the digital domain require remastering and are indeed quite broken EQ wise just by virtue of the medium they were originally mastered to. A good transparent DAW EQ fits the bill nicely here among a few other tools (delickers like Adobe Audition w/Clickfix and denoisers like Redunoise and Virtual Tube amplifiers obviously!).

PS I almost forgot the most important thing:

ORIGINAL: halljams
...harbal and Curve etc can be great learning tools... but plan to move past that level very quickly and start listening and getting some form of internal reference established.

Internal reference curves - coming ASAP ! Can I borrow your internal presets, hehe? Sometimes I get stuck watching the fun lights and curves bounce around and forget to listen, hehe - sad I guess when I focus on that too much. But it's coming - knowing the forest from the trees - the sound from the spectrum...

Sorry man. it was late. Shoulda caught that.