Great Job guys.. Har-Bal 2.0 has done wonders... BUT

This area of the Forum is where you can post your suggestions and ideas for future update releases of Har-Bal, as well as any gripes you may have on the software, its useability and its interface.
JTroska
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:18 am

Post by JTroska »

HarBal wrote:I did think about that and I think it should be available to the user. However, I didn't pursue it as I wanted to get something out pretty quick and a user adjustable option would require a GUI interface that would have slowed he release. Actually, I think I'd invisage the Gui for a "semi-manual" intuitQ along the lines of a click and drag frequency selection followed by the intuitQ smoothing when you release the mouse button.

Thanks for the ideal!

Paavo.


This is EXACTLY what I was thinking would make IntuitQ perfect--Being able to stretch a highlight over the area it should work on.

There are 2 common scenarios that trick the current IntuitQ:

1) A lot of rock mixes have a bump at about 100hz. IntuitQ tends to raise, say, 200hz to smooth out the hump. But that makes it sound woolly.

2) If a mix lacks treble, IntuitQ sometimes makes the problem worse by dragging down what little treble there is to smooth out an otherwise sharp roll-off.

Being able to command IntuitQ to ignore these tricky areas would be useful.

Of course, it isn't difficult to work around as it is. Just turn on the gray analysis of your original signal and put back any areas IntuitQ over-corrected.

So time would be better spend on making the Mac version so that I could use this through my proper monitors instead of through cheap 1" Dell speakers. :wink:

BTW: This is one of the best audio software programs in my arsenal. What you SHOULD invest time in--for your own deserved benefit--is beautiful graphics and "skins". Then you could easily charge the naive public much more money. Why else do you think T-Racks (with nowhere near as many well-thought features) costs 4x as much as Har-Bal? 8)
HarBal
Site Admin
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:18 pm
Contact:

Post by HarBal »

Not that cosmetic thing again! Yeah, I know some people love sculpted GUI's but I'm not one of them (unfortunate for you I guess).

Like I have said before, I'd much rather spend the time on developing the features of Har-Bal and if you think it is good now just wait till the next major release! The next key feature I have in my head will blow your mind and make problem tracks that much easier to deal with. I'll say more when I get to the prototype stage but it may well do away with another piece of gear in your arsenal.

You can call me obstenate on this matter but even if you are correct I'm happier to have Har-Bal sneak up on the world over a long period of time rather than being an instant success, if only for my sanity and one of the main aims of the project has always been to keep it affordable.

Cheers,


Paavo.
JTroska
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:18 am

Post by JTroska »

HarBal wrote:Not that cosmetic thing again! Yeah, I know some people love sculpted GUI's but I'm not one of them (unfortunate for you I guess)..


Don't get me wrong. I wasn't wishing for a prettier interface for myself. I don't care what it LOOKS like, I just need to it to fix my mixes. I think your priorities serve my best interests. I was just commenting on the superficial public.
dyonisos
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:59 pm

Post by dyonisos »

Interesting comments. My opinion is that everything EQ-wise that might define a song's "genre" should be arrived at in the mix (at the track level especially) prior to arriving in Har-Bal. Har-Bal then provides the final touch up. I don't think I've ever used Har-Bal to radically change the overal sound of a song. Just my 2 cents.
HarBal
Site Admin
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:18 pm
Contact:

Post by HarBal »

That is exactly the way it should be used and is the idea behind intuitQ, even though the implementation isn't as good as it should be, but I'm working on that. The only exception is in audio restoration cases (when you don't have the luxury to be able to remix it). If only more people would follow your line!

Cheers,


Paavo.
Jrel
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:50 pm

Post by Jrel »

I like IntuitQ. I take a mix, pop it into Har-bal and apply IntuitQ to one of 3 areas ( low end, midrange or highend) that I think the track might need some work on. I'll look at what IntuitQ did and then play around with sections of it (lower/raise/remove) to see what can be done to make the track sound better. In this way, I'm using IntuitQ as a suggestive tool and then choosing whether I agree with the "suggestion" or not, or just tweak the "suggestion" to my liking. The high-shelf and low-shelf options are awesome. Sometimes I only have to use those to make a mix sound better.
Post Reply