I'll be the first to admit that I've got an ear that's beyond picky, but the filtering of this EQ isn't transparent regardless of the mode used.
I have a chamber music piece in which I used Har-Bal to do some gentlle smoothing out of the bass region. On the whole ,the peaks in the bass region were brought down rather than bringing the valleys up. When A/B -ing against the original unprocessed version (using the EQ bypass button) there is definitely something lost in the upper register. It's extremely subtle, but it's noticeable.
I wonder if this is a byproduct of the loudness compensation feature or a weakness in the filter design itself?
EQ not transparent in linear or minimum phase modes
Ed,
When I refer to an Equalizer being transparent I am doing so in an engineer/scientific sense, which translates to the process being linear, relatively free of added noise, and free of intermodulation products due to non-linearities. In short, scientifically measureable performance. Under that "test" HarBal IS transparent. Some equipment that people like to refer to as transparent actually aren't and deliberlately so.
Valve EQ's, for example, are prised for there analog warmth, which comes about from the non-linearities of valves "adding" something to the music. The point here is it is adding IM products that weren't in the original which actually makes it sound different. I think calling processes such as this one transparent as a misnoma.
Now on the one hand you say the EQ is definitely not transparent and on the other hand you say that the difference is extremely sublte. I would argue that the subtle difference you are hearing is due to the behaviour of human hearing and not the technology. Basically, you've cut frequencies in a certain range which were probably masking some sounds in a higher range, ut you've cut them sufficiently to allow what was masked to be heard. If what was unmasked adds to the performance then you'll think it sounds better but if what was unmasked is delaterious to the performance you'll think it sounds worse. This is the nature of human hearing and has little to do with what equipment you use. If you dial up the exact same frequency response that you have with HarBal on any other equipment you'll get the same audible behaviour.
The art in mastering equalization is how you use the equipment and not the equipment itself. By the way, I am not a believer in "voodoo HiFi". I don't go in for the $300 gold plated OFC RCA cables and the like. The area I pay most attention to is room acoustics as this is by far the weakest link in the whole chain.
Regards,
Paavo.
When I refer to an Equalizer being transparent I am doing so in an engineer/scientific sense, which translates to the process being linear, relatively free of added noise, and free of intermodulation products due to non-linearities. In short, scientifically measureable performance. Under that "test" HarBal IS transparent. Some equipment that people like to refer to as transparent actually aren't and deliberlately so.
Valve EQ's, for example, are prised for there analog warmth, which comes about from the non-linearities of valves "adding" something to the music. The point here is it is adding IM products that weren't in the original which actually makes it sound different. I think calling processes such as this one transparent as a misnoma.
Now on the one hand you say the EQ is definitely not transparent and on the other hand you say that the difference is extremely sublte. I would argue that the subtle difference you are hearing is due to the behaviour of human hearing and not the technology. Basically, you've cut frequencies in a certain range which were probably masking some sounds in a higher range, ut you've cut them sufficiently to allow what was masked to be heard. If what was unmasked adds to the performance then you'll think it sounds better but if what was unmasked is delaterious to the performance you'll think it sounds worse. This is the nature of human hearing and has little to do with what equipment you use. If you dial up the exact same frequency response that you have with HarBal on any other equipment you'll get the same audible behaviour.
The art in mastering equalization is how you use the equipment and not the equipment itself. By the way, I am not a believer in "voodoo HiFi". I don't go in for the $300 gold plated OFC RCA cables and the like. The area I pay most attention to is room acoustics as this is by far the weakest link in the whole chain.
Regards,
Paavo.
I actually tracked down the cause of this problem. As it turns out, this track had received prior M/S processing. When bass cuts were made (with any EQ !!) the stereo image of the top part of the spectrum started to narrow.
Conversely, when cuts it the top part of the spectrum were made the "wiidth" of the bottom increased.
What a strange "see-saw" effect. I've never encountered this problem before. Live and learn.
The good news is that Har-Bal wasn't at fault.
Conversely, when cuts it the top part of the spectrum were made the "wiidth" of the bottom increased.
What a strange "see-saw" effect. I've never encountered this problem before. Live and learn.
The good news is that Har-Bal wasn't at fault.