HAR-BAL

RE: HAR-BAL (halljams)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:12:46 GMT

Sorry man. it was late. Shoulda caught that.

RE: HAR-BAL (kylen)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:10:33 GMT

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...

RE: HAR-BAL (jsaras)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:20:13 GMT

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.

RE: HAR-BAL (dbmasters)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:50:11 GMT

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. " />

RE: HAR-BAL (Akshara)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 06:55:30 GMT

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

RE: HAR-BAL (drjee)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 06:25:11 GMT

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

RE: HAR-BAL (zentatonic)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 06:15:22 GMT

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!

RE: HAR-BAL (SteveJL)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 06:13:02 GMT

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" />

RE: HAR-BAL (dbmasters)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 05:20:51 GMT

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...

RE: HAR-BAL (Dyonisos)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:46:46 GMT

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. " />

RE: HAR-BAL (jsaras)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:32:27 GMT

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.

RE: HAR-BAL (jsaras)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:27:02 GMT

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.

RE: HAR-BAL (jsaras)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:10:33 GMT

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

RE: HAR-BAL (halljams)

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:45:03 GMT

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.

RE: HAR-BAL (drjee)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:27:32 GMT

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 ;-)

RE: HAR-BAL (zentatonic)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:11:48 GMT

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. " />

RE: HAR-BAL (kylen)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:27:02 GMT

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.

RE: HAR-BAL (drjee)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:57:46 GMT

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

RE: HAR-BAL (Dyonisos)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:56:21 GMT

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.

RE: HAR-BAL (drjee)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:18:12 GMT

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

RE: HAR-BAL (ricstudioc)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:17:50 GMT

Dan -

- Thank you.

- Thank you

and lest I forget...

- Thank you.

Appreciate it mucho.......

RE: HAR-BAL (dbmasters)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:13:43 GMT

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.

RE: HAR-BAL (groovetracks)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:30:06 GMT

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?

RE: HAR-BAL (pdarg)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:27:36 GMT

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.

RE: HAR-BAL (halljams)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:30:03 GMT

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.

RE: HAR-BAL (jsaras)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:02:00 GMT

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!

RE: HAR-BAL (drjee)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:57:22 GMT

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

RE: HAR-BAL (ricstudioc)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:55:21 GMT

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.......

RE: HAR-BAL (halljams)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:54:12 GMT

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.

RE: HAR-BAL (drjee)

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:29:21 GMT

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