I have had Harbal for a number of months now and have 3 tracks that are mixed to my satisfaction and I have tried 4 approaches to using Harbal folloed by mastering (as described in the forum) and am not sure if any are really correct.
1. I have taken the "Contemporay" reference and matched each track pretty much exactly.
2. I have taken a reference track of a commercial CD that is a similar instrument base and matched it roughly, ie. got an approximate match without matching exactly
3. I have taken the original mix and not used any reference but just averaged out any significant peaks and holes
4. I have not used Harbal and just mastered with multiband compression and a limiter.
My problem is this - approach 2 seems to be the best approach so far, but even this shows a significant difference in sound when I A/B the settings with the EQ button in Harbal and can sound a little high on the treble.
I have a friend that is a sound engineer by trade who considers Harbal to be a 'gimmick' - ie. how can you take a track with it's own instruments and tones and match it to some other track or reference and end up with an good result. However, my view is different - Harbal shows me the frequency response of each track independent of my audio setup - ie. the way that I hear it, and from the imports of various commercial tracks that I have seen I can see that the frequency response of my tracks does not fit the mould - they are all over the place, whereas commercial CDs seem to be much more controlled - ie. a fairly flat frequency response overall.
I guess I am asking the impossible, but I am trying to find the best approach to take with Harbal to benefit from what it offers. My gut instinct is telling me that the answer is there with Harbal, but I am struggling to see it exactly.
Could I send you one of the tracks for you to look at and let me know what you would do in Harbal to give me a point of reference from those that created it?
Thanks
I'm struggling a little and could do with some help.....
I'm struggling a little and could do with some help.....
Antony Richards
My Music: http://www.artistlaunch.com/AntonyRichards
Cubase SX v3.1 - Halion 3.1 - VG (Electric)
Waves Platinum - RMIV - Autotune 3 - HarBal - Jamstix - dfhSuperior - NI Guitar Rig - Trilogy
My Music: http://www.artistlaunch.com/AntonyRichards
Cubase SX v3.1 - Halion 3.1 - VG (Electric)
Waves Platinum - RMIV - Autotune 3 - HarBal - Jamstix - dfhSuperior - NI Guitar Rig - Trilogy
Hi Antony,
References are generally to be used as a guide only and to obtain consistent tonality within a compilation. If you religiously try to match (loose or otherwise) you track with a particular reference the results will be mixed. Depending on your choice you maty get something satisfactory or you may not.
We recommend that once you've gain a little experience with HarBal then you should really try designing an EQ for your track without a reference. It really doesn't take a great deal of effort once you've gotten the hang of what you are supposed to be doing.
Feel free to post a link to an mp3 snippet of your track to our filter bank forum and you'll likely get many responses and advice (http://har-bal.com/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/ ... m.php?f=11) . If you like, you can also email me (support@har-bal.com) the .anl file for your un-eq'd track and I can attempt to design a filter (without hearing it) for you. This is much easier for me to handle since I'm only on a dialup and downloading mp3's is time consuming for me. I'll email back my take on a filter file and you can load it up and see if it sounds any good and take a look at what I did and try to understand why.
Cheers,
Paavo.
References are generally to be used as a guide only and to obtain consistent tonality within a compilation. If you religiously try to match (loose or otherwise) you track with a particular reference the results will be mixed. Depending on your choice you maty get something satisfactory or you may not.
We recommend that once you've gain a little experience with HarBal then you should really try designing an EQ for your track without a reference. It really doesn't take a great deal of effort once you've gotten the hang of what you are supposed to be doing.
Feel free to post a link to an mp3 snippet of your track to our filter bank forum and you'll likely get many responses and advice (http://har-bal.com/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/ ... m.php?f=11) . If you like, you can also email me (support@har-bal.com) the .anl file for your un-eq'd track and I can attempt to design a filter (without hearing it) for you. This is much easier for me to handle since I'm only on a dialup and downloading mp3's is time consuming for me. I'll email back my take on a filter file and you can load it up and see if it sounds any good and take a look at what I did and try to understand why.
Cheers,
Paavo.
If you like your mix...
In my experience, Har-Bal should be used to 'fine tune' your mix, to observe and correct areas within the overall frequency curve of your mix.
I think it's an obvious temptation to 'copy' a commercial frequency curve. But that is a mistake. You are going to completely alter the sound of the mix that you already like.
I use Har-Bal to find problems within my mixes. And then generally go back and re-mix (ad naseum sometimes). I fortunately have a pretty good listening environment. But, for instance, if Har-Bal indicates that I have a problem in the bass area I would go back to the mix and rework the instruments that are playing in the region indicated by Har-Bal. Just reducing or increasing a section of the overall curve by using only Har-Bal is going move all the instruments in that region when it may just be the bass guitar that is creating a peak or dip.
If you are using a finished master that has already been EQ'd, harmonically balanced, limited and compressed as your template I think you are inviting poor results and serious alteration to your mix that you obviously already like.
Having said all that, if you are working on several songs (i.e., for an album) with the same or similar instrumentation, it makes sense to me to create a template from and for THIS collection.
I do this all the time. I usually pick the artists' favorite song from their project and use it as the model. Work it with Har-Bal, re-mix, re-Har-Bal, re-re as much as neccessary.
Then I'll put the song in T-RackS for multiband limiting. And, of course, put it back into Har-Bal for a final look. At this stage I never make any further tweaks in Har-Bal, if changes are required I step back to earler stages. Also, in this last look you can observe what the levels are and can make adjustments in the previous stage of T-RackS in the multiband limiting. Har-Bal is great for observing the levels of a collection of songs for an album.
In my experience, Har-Bal should be used to 'fine tune' your mix, to observe and correct areas within the overall frequency curve of your mix.
I think it's an obvious temptation to 'copy' a commercial frequency curve. But that is a mistake. You are going to completely alter the sound of the mix that you already like.
I use Har-Bal to find problems within my mixes. And then generally go back and re-mix (ad naseum sometimes). I fortunately have a pretty good listening environment. But, for instance, if Har-Bal indicates that I have a problem in the bass area I would go back to the mix and rework the instruments that are playing in the region indicated by Har-Bal. Just reducing or increasing a section of the overall curve by using only Har-Bal is going move all the instruments in that region when it may just be the bass guitar that is creating a peak or dip.
If you are using a finished master that has already been EQ'd, harmonically balanced, limited and compressed as your template I think you are inviting poor results and serious alteration to your mix that you obviously already like.
Having said all that, if you are working on several songs (i.e., for an album) with the same or similar instrumentation, it makes sense to me to create a template from and for THIS collection.
I do this all the time. I usually pick the artists' favorite song from their project and use it as the model. Work it with Har-Bal, re-mix, re-Har-Bal, re-re as much as neccessary.
Then I'll put the song in T-RackS for multiband limiting. And, of course, put it back into Har-Bal for a final look. At this stage I never make any further tweaks in Har-Bal, if changes are required I step back to earler stages. Also, in this last look you can observe what the levels are and can make adjustments in the previous stage of T-RackS in the multiband limiting. Har-Bal is great for observing the levels of a collection of songs for an album.
Re: I'm struggling a little and could do with some help.....
Send me the link for your mp3 and I will take a look at.AntonyR wrote:I have had Harbal for a number of months now and have 3 tracks that are mixed to my satisfaction and I have tried 4 approaches to using Harbal folloed by mastering (as described in the forum) and am not sure if any are really correct.
1. I have taken the "Contemporay" reference and matched each track pretty much exactly.
2. I have taken a reference track of a commercial CD that is a similar instrument base and matched it roughly, ie. got an approximate match without matching exactly
3. I have taken the original mix and not used any reference but just averaged out any significant peaks and holes
4. I have not used Harbal and just mastered with multiband compression and a limiter.
My problem is this - approach 2 seems to be the best approach so far, but even this shows a significant difference in sound when I A/B the settings with the EQ button in Harbal and can sound a little high on the treble.
I have a friend that is a sound engineer by trade who considers Harbal to be a 'gimmick' - ie. how can you take a track with it's own instruments and tones and match it to some other track or reference and end up with an good result. However, my view is different - Harbal shows me the frequency response of each track independent of my audio setup - ie. the way that I hear it, and from the imports of various commercial tracks that I have seen I can see that the frequency response of my tracks does not fit the mould - they are all over the place, whereas commercial CDs seem to be much more controlled - ie. a fairly flat frequency response overall.
I guess I am asking the impossible, but I am trying to find the best approach to take with Harbal to benefit from what it offers. My gut instinct is telling me that the answer is there with Harbal, but I am struggling to see it exactly.
Could I send you one of the tracks for you to look at and let me know what you would do in Harbal to give me a point of reference from those that created it?
Thanks
Cheers
Earle
PaavoHarBal wrote:Hi Earle & AntonyR,
If I'm not mistaken AntonyR already sent me an anl file for his track and we resolved the issue of how to balance his track. I sent him back a filter and he tweaked it to get the result he was after so I believe it's already done.
Cheers,
Paavo.
You know I'm getting old
Earle