I've owned the sofware for about a week and a half now and am enjoying every minute of it. I produce urban, hip-hop, rap styles of music and utilize plugs such as Waves Maxxbass and exciters in my process. Am I correct in using them before Har-Bal or should I use post Har-bal to get the most benefit of the program?
Thanks for an awesome program!
Best signal chain?
-
Har/Bal
Best signal chain?
Here is the process for using Har-Bal.
After your mixed tracks are mixed down to a stereo file you import them into Har-Bal and get rid of the major peaks and dips....
Record the changes and place the file into a sound editor ie: Sound Forge, Wavelab, etc
Apply multiband compression and set your trim for no more than 0.0 or 0.1
Apply Limiting
Set your outceiling for 0.2 or 0.3 and move your threshold fader down. As long as your are observing activity in the outceiling your song is not being squashed.
When you apply Har-Bal in the beginning of the chain and getting rid of the peaks on the yellow line you are actually allowing more head room for your limiter.
If you want to harbalize your individual tracks you need to convert them to a stereo file before you import them into Har-Bal.
Keep in mind that the frequency range for individual instruments will appear different in Har-Bal because the range is minimized.
If you would like me to send you a chart for individual instruments let me know. Send a request to support@har-bal.com
Don't forget the dash (-) in har-bal
We are releasing a version the end of January (free upgrade of course) that will support mono files and have a tips file included with all the instrument frequencies that you will be able to access from within the program.
We also have a pleasant surprise for the folks
We are glad you are enjoying the program
Cheers
After your mixed tracks are mixed down to a stereo file you import them into Har-Bal and get rid of the major peaks and dips....
Record the changes and place the file into a sound editor ie: Sound Forge, Wavelab, etc
Apply multiband compression and set your trim for no more than 0.0 or 0.1
Apply Limiting
Set your outceiling for 0.2 or 0.3 and move your threshold fader down. As long as your are observing activity in the outceiling your song is not being squashed.
When you apply Har-Bal in the beginning of the chain and getting rid of the peaks on the yellow line you are actually allowing more head room for your limiter.
If you want to harbalize your individual tracks you need to convert them to a stereo file before you import them into Har-Bal.
Keep in mind that the frequency range for individual instruments will appear different in Har-Bal because the range is minimized.
If you would like me to send you a chart for individual instruments let me know. Send a request to support@har-bal.com
Don't forget the dash (-) in har-bal
We are releasing a version the end of January (free upgrade of course) that will support mono files and have a tips file included with all the instrument frequencies that you will be able to access from within the program.
We also have a pleasant surprise for the folks
We are glad you are enjoying the program
Cheers
-
AMG731
Re: Best signal chain?
Thanks Earle,
So to verify I'm understanding correctly, any frequency processing, i.e. maxxbass, exciters, need to be done before Har-balizing. And the reference to setting the multiband trim to 0.0 or 0.1 is refering to the output level. Am I correct?
So to verify I'm understanding correctly, any frequency processing, i.e. maxxbass, exciters, need to be done before Har-balizing. And the reference to setting the multiband trim to 0.0 or 0.1 is refering to the output level. Am I correct?
-
SpiderM69
Re: Best signal chain?
I'm still a little confused here...
What I've heard before is that mastering software such as IK Multimedias T-Rack or the Roland VS series Mastering Tool Kit should be used before HarBal.
Are you saying to HarBal the mix before mastering? This might make sense in that a mix with a more balanced frequency response could require less tweaking during mastering.
An unrelated question...
I, like I believe many others, don't have reference monitors attached to my PC, as I used a standalone DAW (Roland VS-2400). My computer speakers are pretty good as far as PC speakers go, and include a subwoofer, but are nowhere near adequate for mixing. Any advice for using HarBal in that kind of environment? I've even felt that headphones give a better representation .
Thanks,
Steve
What I've heard before is that mastering software such as IK Multimedias T-Rack or the Roland VS series Mastering Tool Kit should be used before HarBal.
Are you saying to HarBal the mix before mastering? This might make sense in that a mix with a more balanced frequency response could require less tweaking during mastering.
An unrelated question...
I, like I believe many others, don't have reference monitors attached to my PC, as I used a standalone DAW (Roland VS-2400). My computer speakers are pretty good as far as PC speakers go, and include a subwoofer, but are nowhere near adequate for mixing. Any advice for using HarBal in that kind of environment? I've even felt that headphones give a better representation .
Thanks,
Steve
-
Har/Bal
Re: Best signal chain?
Steve
Here is what we are saying.
If is okay to use T-Racks, but if you use it before correcting the peaks and dips in your stereo track then, the processing from t-racks or any other tool will be incorrect.
Har-Bal is part of the mastering chain.
1. Har-Bal
2. Multiband Compression
3. Final Limiting
Just imagine if you will, that you had a tremendous spike at 80hz and applied multiband compression on it. You would be compressing the heck out of the peak and the rest of the song would probably remain untouched.
When inserting the file first into Har-Bal and making the corrections (taming the peaks) you will find that multiband compression actually pulls your ENTIRE song together and doesn't just process the peaks and dips because you have corrected them. Multiband compression now becomes an effective tool.
What you want to prevent totally is squashed dynamics...you want to only tame them
As far as headphones go let me give you something Paavo posted in another part of this forum.
For mastering monitors, you should be looking for speakers with good imaging and preferably a uniform and controlled frequency response from 50Hz up to 20kHz. You can get away with smaller sized speakers as monitors but you have to be very careful about what you do at the low frequency end of the spectrum with bookshelf speakers : They usually just don't have any useful output below 80-90Hz which can lead to muddy sounding mixes if you happen to play your recording on a system that does reproduce down to 50Hz.
Probably the most important thing is to know the sound of your speakers and to do this you need some reference material that you know well enough to know what it sounds like. Then just use this to evaluate each speaker you try out. Probably the easiest way to get an idea of the way it should sound (if you don't have someone's monitors as a reference) is through a good quality pair of headphones (Sennheiser for example). But beware that the way things sound in headphones is somewhat different than with speakers (mainly the imaging). Just concentrate on the tonality.
Regards
Earle
Here is what we are saying.
If is okay to use T-Racks, but if you use it before correcting the peaks and dips in your stereo track then, the processing from t-racks or any other tool will be incorrect.
Har-Bal is part of the mastering chain.
1. Har-Bal
2. Multiband Compression
3. Final Limiting
Just imagine if you will, that you had a tremendous spike at 80hz and applied multiband compression on it. You would be compressing the heck out of the peak and the rest of the song would probably remain untouched.
When inserting the file first into Har-Bal and making the corrections (taming the peaks) you will find that multiband compression actually pulls your ENTIRE song together and doesn't just process the peaks and dips because you have corrected them. Multiband compression now becomes an effective tool.
What you want to prevent totally is squashed dynamics...you want to only tame them
As far as headphones go let me give you something Paavo posted in another part of this forum.
For mastering monitors, you should be looking for speakers with good imaging and preferably a uniform and controlled frequency response from 50Hz up to 20kHz. You can get away with smaller sized speakers as monitors but you have to be very careful about what you do at the low frequency end of the spectrum with bookshelf speakers : They usually just don't have any useful output below 80-90Hz which can lead to muddy sounding mixes if you happen to play your recording on a system that does reproduce down to 50Hz.
Probably the most important thing is to know the sound of your speakers and to do this you need some reference material that you know well enough to know what it sounds like. Then just use this to evaluate each speaker you try out. Probably the easiest way to get an idea of the way it should sound (if you don't have someone's monitors as a reference) is through a good quality pair of headphones (Sennheiser for example). But beware that the way things sound in headphones is somewhat different than with speakers (mainly the imaging). Just concentrate on the tonality.
Regards
Earle
-
SpiderM69
Re: Best signal chain?
Thanks, Earle, that makes more sense to me (to HarBal first).
Yeah, the PC monitors is a difficult issue, I can really only tell gross adjustments in comparison with reference material. I'll just have to use a combination of headphones and PC monitors, then the 2400/ref monitors.
Speaking of which, someone on one of the VS-Planet forums suggested a HarBal plug-in for the new VS8F-3 card. How difficult an adaption do you think that would be ?
Yeah, the PC monitors is a difficult issue, I can really only tell gross adjustments in comparison with reference material. I'll just have to use a combination of headphones and PC monitors, then the 2400/ref monitors.
Speaking of which, someone on one of the VS-Planet forums suggested a HarBal plug-in for the new VS8F-3 card. How difficult an adaption do you think that would be ?
-
Har/Bal
VS8F-3 and Har-Bal
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the VS8F-3 for "Hardware" plugins.
You can certainly create something approaching HarBal in hardware because the DSP side of things is simply an FIR digital filter which is stock standard DSP. But how would you support the key to Har-Bal, which is a fast an efficient means of designing optimum filters that includes loudness compesation.
A complete hardware solution would be far more expensive and probably a lot harder to use effectively than Har-Bal as software. To support what Har-Bal does effectively in hardware requires a hardware multi-track recording platform that is totally different from what is currently available, so in my opinion, until a recording platform exists that supports the functonality needed to effectively implement Har-Bal in hardware it's a waste of time and money.
That's my point of view on the matter.
Paavo.
You can certainly create something approaching HarBal in hardware because the DSP side of things is simply an FIR digital filter which is stock standard DSP. But how would you support the key to Har-Bal, which is a fast an efficient means of designing optimum filters that includes loudness compesation.
A complete hardware solution would be far more expensive and probably a lot harder to use effectively than Har-Bal as software. To support what Har-Bal does effectively in hardware requires a hardware multi-track recording platform that is totally different from what is currently available, so in my opinion, until a recording platform exists that supports the functonality needed to effectively implement Har-Bal in hardware it's a waste of time and money.
That's my point of view on the matter.
Paavo.
-
bax3
Instrument frequencies
Instrument frequencies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Keep in mind that the frequency range for individual instruments will appear different in Har-Bal because the range is minimized"
I read with interest your offer to send a copy of the frequencies for differant instruments. I have a chart that I have referranced, but yuo are indicating that har-bal will be showing us something slightly altered from a conventional chart.
Anyhow, your chart might be something you would want to add as a link so that everyone could check it: and we all won't be pestering you for a copy.
Bax
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Keep in mind that the frequency range for individual instruments will appear different in Har-Bal because the range is minimized"
I read with interest your offer to send a copy of the frequencies for differant instruments. I have a chart that I have referranced, but yuo are indicating that har-bal will be showing us something slightly altered from a conventional chart.
Anyhow, your chart might be something you would want to add as a link so that everyone could check it: and we all won't be pestering you for a copy.
Bax
-
SpiderM69
Re: VS8F-3 and Har-Bal
Paavo:
Although I'm in the software business, my background is in business and internet software, as well as I've lost my tech skills, being in management for so long . Therefore, I know nothing about the internals of plug-ins.
However, I would assume that plug-ins don't write directly to the hardware, correct? In addition to its awesome logic, I would also assume that HarBal uses Windows services for display, graphics, sound, etc, etc.? As the VS series has it's own internal OS (speculation being a Linux variant), I would think that plug-ins would be writing to the OS layer, as opposed to directly to the hardware. If this is all true, couldn't most of HarBal's logic not require recoding? There's a number of threads on the VS8F-3 on VS-Planet if you're interested, but you may want to start with looking at the middle of the first post of this thread:
http://www.vsplanet.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ult ... 011249;p=0
Of course, I could easily be WWWAAAYYYY off base here, and apologize for taking up your time if so. But other plug-in companies are obviously viewing Roland customers as a potential lucrative market. If this would be a major rewrite for you, of course it may make no sense to do. However, if the bulk of the logic remains the same, the ability for VS users to run HarBal inside our machines would be awesome, and would likely be a lucrative market for you. You already have a lot of supporters in our community.
Please don't feel you have to respond with an explanation of how plug-ins or HarBal work internally, this is meant only to be a suggestion for consideration.
Thanks,
Steve
Although I'm in the software business, my background is in business and internet software, as well as I've lost my tech skills, being in management for so long . Therefore, I know nothing about the internals of plug-ins.
However, I would assume that plug-ins don't write directly to the hardware, correct? In addition to its awesome logic, I would also assume that HarBal uses Windows services for display, graphics, sound, etc, etc.? As the VS series has it's own internal OS (speculation being a Linux variant), I would think that plug-ins would be writing to the OS layer, as opposed to directly to the hardware. If this is all true, couldn't most of HarBal's logic not require recoding? There's a number of threads on the VS8F-3 on VS-Planet if you're interested, but you may want to start with looking at the middle of the first post of this thread:
http://www.vsplanet.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ult ... 011249;p=0
Of course, I could easily be WWWAAAYYYY off base here, and apologize for taking up your time if so. But other plug-in companies are obviously viewing Roland customers as a potential lucrative market. If this would be a major rewrite for you, of course it may make no sense to do. However, if the bulk of the logic remains the same, the ability for VS users to run HarBal inside our machines would be awesome, and would likely be a lucrative market for you. You already have a lot of supporters in our community.
Please don't feel you have to respond with an explanation of how plug-ins or HarBal work internally, this is meant only to be a suggestion for consideration.
Thanks,
Steve
-
mflorio
sorry but...
1. Har-Bal is not a plug-in. There is no real-time input stream of data. If the VS can run Har-Bal, it should be able to run any Windows app, by your way of thinking.
2. An OS switch is always a recode (at some level). Even though the logic is the same.
3. You do indeed sound like a manager ! Development is never trivial.
2. An OS switch is always a recode (at some level). Even though the logic is the same.
3. You do indeed sound like a manager ! Development is never trivial.
-
Har/Bal
VS8F-3 and Har-Bal
Steve,
Har-Bal uses minimal services from Windows. Most of the API it relies on is vintage WIN32 with little or no COM, ActiveX etc.
The issue with regard to supporting Har-Bal on plugin hardware is not one to do with OS services but UI issues and host services. To effectively use HarBal requires a GUI that can host the software needed to design filters. Dedicated hardware typically does not have a screen, keyboard and mouse interface which means having to create one for a hardware solution. That is expensive and is rather pointless if you can just use a PC to do this.
The other issue is having access to the source material so that you can analyze its content to obtain the average spectrum. From my understanding the level of data access transparency in PC plugin hosts is generally not there let alone for dedicated hardware. This means that it is difficult to make the use of the product as transparent and easy is it is as standalone software.
The simple fact of the matter is that the HarBal concept does not easily fit with dedicated hardware unless the hardware has a powerful user interface such as a monitor, keyboard and mouse and if a hardware solution requires a monitor, keyboard and mouse why not use one instead of the added expense of adding this feature to proprietory hardware.
At this point in time our development resources are scarce so we need to concetrate on the biggest market which isn't dedicated hardware. It will take some time before we can afford to dive into that market.
Paavo.
Har-Bal uses minimal services from Windows. Most of the API it relies on is vintage WIN32 with little or no COM, ActiveX etc.
The issue with regard to supporting Har-Bal on plugin hardware is not one to do with OS services but UI issues and host services. To effectively use HarBal requires a GUI that can host the software needed to design filters. Dedicated hardware typically does not have a screen, keyboard and mouse interface which means having to create one for a hardware solution. That is expensive and is rather pointless if you can just use a PC to do this.
The other issue is having access to the source material so that you can analyze its content to obtain the average spectrum. From my understanding the level of data access transparency in PC plugin hosts is generally not there let alone for dedicated hardware. This means that it is difficult to make the use of the product as transparent and easy is it is as standalone software.
The simple fact of the matter is that the HarBal concept does not easily fit with dedicated hardware unless the hardware has a powerful user interface such as a monitor, keyboard and mouse and if a hardware solution requires a monitor, keyboard and mouse why not use one instead of the added expense of adding this feature to proprietory hardware.
At this point in time our development resources are scarce so we need to concetrate on the biggest market which isn't dedicated hardware. It will take some time before we can afford to dive into that market.
Paavo.
-
SpiderM69
Re: VS8F-3 and Har-Bal
Hi Paavo:
Thanks for the reply, I completely understand. And congratulations again on the EQ Magazine award, it's well deserved.
Regards,
Steve
Thanks for the reply, I completely understand. And congratulations again on the EQ Magazine award, it's well deserved.
Regards,
Steve