The IntuitQ Function

There are many features of Har-Bal we still haven't discussed in this forum. Below we will start sharing a few items. Please feel free to add yours.
Post Reply
har-bal
Site Admin
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Atlanta/Australia
Contact:

The IntuitQ Function

Post by har-bal »

Why Does intuitQ Work as Well as it Does?

If you mentioned something like this to a professional mastering engineer they’d most likely tell you it can’t work, it will compromise your recordings and you’ll never obtain as good results as they could through listening and considered EQ adjustment through their high end gear. If they were talking about spectrum matching there argument is absolutely correct but where in the preceeding example did we use spectrum matching? We didn’t! I don’t recommend it, even though Har-Bal has the intuitMatch function capable doing just that. Simply put, matching only works well in very specific cases. It is not something you should do as a matter of course. The arguments you hear from mastering engineers in this respect are absolutely correct.

Let say it again. I don’t recommend spectrum matching and nowhere in my recommended use of the product in the preceeding re-mastering, or anywhere else for that matter, did I do so.

If you wish to refer to IntuitQ as spectrum matching then you would say that it is a self-referential process but in truth it isn’t even that. IntuitQ is a smoothing algorithm that smooths the spectrum in the frequency range you choose with a penalty constraint on curvature. Put plainly, that means that it attempts to come up with a spectrum shape that overlays the original spectrum but has fewest sharp bends. What is the significance of that? Masking! If you have a sharp transition in the spectrum then it is indicative of an instrument occupying one part of the spectrum possibly masking another. After applying intuitQ you typically hear more detail than before though in some cases that extra detail is not desired. In those circumstances we can restore that masking with intuitNull. The key point here is that these tools empower you with the ability to quickly and easily optimise the track EQ.

It is an interesting exercise applying intuitQ to a well mastered track. Often the resulting changes intuitQ makes is small and inaudible indicating the validity of the algorithm. In cases where intuitQ degrades the response it is generally always due to the over-emphasis of quiet content that is normally masked, either partially or fully. Simple application of intuitNull corrects the error resulting in a very good equalisation. Again, the key issue is that these tools give resulting equalisations that are consistent with the decisions made by professional mastering engineers. IntuitQ and the other tools provided by Har-Bal form a natural, efficient and effective means of performing equalisation. It would seem that much of the objection stems from the fact that we don’t offer single button mastering perfection though we never made such claims. Perhaps a case of damned if you do or damned if you don’t.

One thing that intuitQ offers that mere listen can never do is objective separation from the acoustic peculiarities of a specific listening setup. All studios, no matter how good, will have some degree of biasing, be it from imperfect acoustics or imperfect components or even imperfect engineering (people in all professions have bad days). Subtle variations in frequency response will introduce bias into the perception of the recording by the mixing or mastering engineer. That bias translates into incorrect equalisation and / or mixing decisions. In fact, if you happen to overlay the realised frequency responses to the equalisation filters for re-mastered tracks from one album recorded in one studio a pattern generally emerges.

Cheers

Paavo
Post Reply