Okay Earle, trying to understand it fully

[ickaprick]

Here's my issue with understanding Har-bal. I opened up the .ref file of 50 Cent's "in the club" Then I opened up the intro to Big Boi's (Outkast) Speakerboxxx. I compared the two. I noticed that the green line for "intro" had a much higher hill between 30-90hz (the 808 kick is strong). Then, there is a drop, or a "hole" between the 90-400hz range.

Now, am I to understand that because there is a hole in Big Boi's track that it is harmonically unbalanced? And if so, then the person who mastered it didn't do the best job he could have done, right? This is what I don't get because the track sounds good to me.

On the speakerboxx intro, the bass range is very strong and everything else is considerably lower. Is this due to an absence of mid-range instrumentation? On tracks 3 & 4 (unhappy & bowtie), they are much more harmonically balanced.

Is the major point of har-bal to make the peaks and valleys more leveled, but at the same time not sacrifice the unique harmonic characteristics of a track? And if so, then is it that the .ref track is only a loose guide to compare what a well-mastered track should look like, but not necessarily be matched curve for curve?

.

[HarBal]

You have the point exactly! Exact (or loose exact) matching of spectrums only makes sense if the instrumentation is the same. If it isn't you'll be boosting areas that really shouldn't be. That is why spectrum matching is so unreliable, why we recommend against it and why we don't offer a automatic match to reference.

References are meant as a guide only and as a means to obtaining consistent tonality across a compilation. If you have a hole in your spectrum due to instrumentation then it should be left alone. On the other hand, if you have a hole that is due to mixing or recording environment then you should probably do something about it. As with everything it comes down to a matter of experience and judgement.

Cheers,


Paavo.

[har-bal]

Here's my issue with understanding Har-bal. I opened up the .ref file of 50 Cent's "in the club" Then I opened up the intro to Big Boi's (Outkast) Speakerboxxx. I compared the two. I noticed that the green line for "intro" had a much higher hill between 30-90hz (the 808 kick is strong). Then, there is a drop, or a "hole" between the 90-400hz range.

Now, am I to understand that because there is a hole in Big Boi's track that it is harmonically unbalanced? And if so, then the person who mastered it didn't do the best job he could have done, right? This is what I don't get because the track sounds good to me.

On the speakerboxx intro, the bass range is very strong and everything else is considerably lower. Is this due to an absence of mid-range instrumentation? On tracks 3 & 4 (unhappy & bowtie), they are much more harmonically balanced.

Is the major point of har-bal to make the peaks and valleys more leveled, but at the same time not sacrifice the unique harmonic characteristics of a track? And if so, then is it that the .ref track is only a loose guide to compare what a well-mastered track should look like, but not necessarily be matched curve for curve?

.

If this is Darryl, he stopped by my house and we went over the functionality of Har-Bal. Just in case anyone needs some good advice, he is also an intstructor at AIU. He has one heck of a Jazz album out as well.

Earle

[ickaprick]

Here's my issue with understanding Har-bal. I opened up the .ref file of 50 Cent's "in the club" Then I opened up the intro to Big Boi's (Outkast) Speakerboxxx. I compared the two. I noticed that the green line for "intro" had a much higher hill between 30-90hz (the 808 kick is strong). Then, there is a drop, or a "hole" between the 90-400hz range.

Now, am I to understand that because there is a hole in Big Boi's track that it is harmonically unbalanced? And if so, then the person who mastered it didn't do the best job he could have done, right? This is what I don't get because the track sounds good to me.

On the speakerboxx intro, the bass range is very strong and everything else is considerably lower. Is this due to an absence of mid-range instrumentation? On tracks 3 & 4 (unhappy & bowtie), they are much more harmonically balanced.

Is the major point of har-bal to make the peaks and valleys more leveled, but at the same time not sacrifice the unique harmonic characteristics of a track? And if so, then is it that the .ref track is only a loose guide to compare what a well-mastered track should look like, but not necessarily be matched curve for curve?

.

If this is Darryl, he stopped by my house and we went over the functionality of Har-Bal. Just in case anyone needs some good advice, he is also an intstructor at AIU. He has one heck of a Jazz album out as well.

Earle

Ha! Haaa!!! Yeah it's me! I totally understand now. I'm remastering my old albums as I type at this moment. Brother Earle, I can't thank you enough! Everyone I know that is in audio will have to buy har-bal in order to continue being associated with me! Genius!

Darryl

[b33fj3rky]

If you have a hole in your spectrum due to instrumentation then it should be left alone. On the other hand, if you have a hole that is due to mixing or recording environment then you should probably do something about it.

That's exactly the kind of thing I've been wondering about--when I see a hole in a Har-Bal spectrum graph-display-thing, how do I know if I should fix it or not? I know a lot of people say, "well, just trust your ears," but due to years of abuse, my eardrums aren't exactly golden, to put it kindly.

And, whoo-hoo, right there, that is what I like about the Har-Bal concept--the idea that I can use my eyes to make up for my ears' deficiencies. (And my monitors' deficiencies. Being a home recording artist, I have monitoring equipment that is pretty low-fi, too, at least when compared with a "real" recording studio.)

When I try using Har-Bal on my stuff, sometimes the results are so obvious and dramatic, even a half-deaf old punkass like myself can tell the difference, and appreciate the improvement. Sometimes, though, I'm honestly not sure if Har-Bal has made the track better, or worse, or anything. Obviously, with Har-Bal, a "problem" in the mix is easy to see--but how do I know if it's really a problem, or just a normal, reasonable artifact of the type of song I'm recording? Much of what we enjoy about music IS the imperfections; the distortion, the synocopation, etc.

How do I know if Har-Bal is telling me to fix something that shouldn't be fixed?

[har-bal]

If you have a hole in your spectrum due to instrumentation then it should be left alone. On the other hand, if you have a hole that is due to mixing or recording environment then you should probably do something about it.

That's exactly the kind of thing I've been wondering about--when I see a hole in a Har-Bal spectrum graph-display-thing, how do I know if I should fix it or not? I know a lot of people say, "well, just trust your ears," but due to years of abuse, my eardrums aren't exactly golden, to put it kindly.

And, whoo-hoo, right there, that is what I like about the Har-Bal concept--the idea that I can use my eyes to make up for my ears' deficiencies. (And my monitors' deficiencies. Being a home recording artist, I have monitoring equipment that is pretty low-fi, too, at least when compared with a "real" recording studio.)

When I try using Har-Bal on my stuff, sometimes the results are so obvious and dramatic, even a half-deaf old punkass like myself can tell the difference, and appreciate the improvement. Sometimes, though, I'm honestly not sure if Har-Bal has made the track better, or worse, or anything. Obviously, with Har-Bal, a "problem" in the mix is easy to see--but how do I know if it's really a problem, or just a normal, reasonable artifact of the type of song I'm recording? Much of what we enjoy about music IS the imperfections; the distortion, the synocopation, etc.

How do I know if Har-Bal is telling me to fix something that shouldn't be fixed?

Hello

The broad rationale of IntuitQ is to smooth out the peaks and valleys of the dominant parts of the spectrum. By that I mean it only does processing between the points at which the spectrum rolls off at either end of the spectrum. You'll readily note this by looking at the frequency response of the filter it comes up with on a number of different tracks by the fact that the frequency limits of each track filter is different. Basically, it is attempting to minimise masking.

A word of advice. Don't look upon intuitQ as something that is "optimum" in an absolute sense. If you can tweak it further to obtain a better sound do so. It isn't intended to take you out of the process and disagreeing with what it did is fine. Like anything, it isn't perfect but it does pick up on some things that I wouldn't.

Har-Bal simply gives you an option. It will balance the spectrum without bias, but if you hear something that you feel should be corrected by all means make the correction manually. Since intuitQ balances the entire spectrum, the further corrections you make will not have a negative affect on the overall track at all.

Har-Bal allows your ears to work in concert with your eyes. There have been times where I have used intuitQ and realized I may want to add a slight sizzle in the upper range. I make the small additional change and I am on my way. It just prevents the long process of experimentation that folks used to experience in the eq'ing phase. It gets you there much faster

Another point to be made is the fact that a track with a balanced spectrum prevents hearing fatigue over long periods of time. Definately makes for a more pleasing hearing experience.

Cheers

Earle

[b33fj3rky]

Har-Bal allows your ears to work in concert with your eyes. There have been times where I have used intuitQ and realized I may want to add a slight sizzle in the upper range. I make the small additional change and I am on my way. It just prevents the long process of experimentation that folks used to experience in the eq'ing phase. It gets you there much faster

Another point to be made is the fact that a track with a balanced spectrum prevents hearing fatigue over long periods of time. Definately makes for a more pleasing hearing experience.

Cheers

Earle

Thank you for the very fast reply!

What you said is rather helpful, and cuts to the heart of my problem--balanced spectrums. Specifically, I don't know if I can tell the diff between balanced and unbalanced using my ears alone.

I mean, due to years of listening to way-too-loud music, I've done some irreversible damage to my hearing, and I've particularly destroyed my ability to hear high-end frequencies. It's not a good thing, let me tell you... In fact, these days, I find that I prefer classical music to any other kind, simply because the dynamic range of classical is so exciting and varied. Since I can't so much hear subtle spectral differences anymore, I think I've begun to appreciate dynamic differences instead. And popular music is so squashed, dynamically, the 'loudness wars' and such, that pop/rock bores the crap out of me.

So I guess what I'm saying is... i think this should be another selling point of Har-Bal, yes?! People who've spend waaaay too much time in loud-ass environments, blithely ignoring all warnings and losing their hearing, should take heart... Har-Bal will, hopefully, help them use their eyes, in lieu of their failing ears.

[har-bal]

Har-Bal allows your ears to work in concert with your eyes. There have been times where I have used intuitQ and realized I may want to add a slight sizzle in the upper range. I make the small additional change and I am on my way. It just prevents the long process of experimentation that folks used to experience in the eq'ing phase. It gets you there much faster

Another point to be made is the fact that a track with a balanced spectrum prevents hearing fatigue over long periods of time. Definately makes for a more pleasing hearing experience.

Cheers

Earle

Thank you for the very fast reply!

What you said is rather helpful, and cuts to the heart of my problem--balanced spectrums. Specifically, I don't know if I can tell the diff between balanced and unbalanced using my ears alone.

I mean, due to years of listening to way-too-loud music, I've done some irreversible damage to my hearing, and I've particularly destroyed my ability to hear high-end frequencies. It's not a good thing, let me tell you... In fact, these days, I find that I prefer classical music to any other kind, simply because the dynamic range of classical is so exciting and varied. Since I can't so much hear subtle spectral differences anymore, I think I've begun to appreciate dynamic differences instead. And popular music is so squashed, dynamically, the 'loudness wars' and such, that pop/rock bores the crap out of me.

So I guess what I'm saying is... i think this should be another selling point of Har-Bal, yes?! People who've spend waaaay too much time in loud-ass environments, blithely ignoring all warnings and losing their hearing, should take heart... Har-Bal will, hopefully, help them use their eyes, in lieu of their failing ears.

Well, it will certainly be a selling point now that you have said it

Over the years I have learned to master at a very low volume. Myself and plenty of other engineers spend a lot of time trying to educate the public regarding squashed music. Unfortunately a lot of the record companies are responsible for placing this type of pressure on the mastering engineers, hence the loudness wars.

I completed a classical album project two months ago for Dr Jenkins in Florida and the experience was most pleasurable. I think a lot of folks have forgotten how much of an addition real dynamics adds to the listening experience.

Earle

[Phi Lion]

I think thats the perfect word for it Earle

Addition.

[Ged Leitch]

Don't mean to butt in in this thread guys but heres how i see HarBal.
You mix a track - your happy with it - ok next morning you attempt to master it.
You have to "listen" to it first! alot sometimes, before you even open Harbal and look at the eq curve.

So after you listen to it, make some notes, e.g too bassy? too harsh sounding? dull etc...
Then, if you need to correct the freq balance open h.bal and take look at the spectrum,
if you originally heard too much bass then it will show in the spectrum.

Simply reduce the low end in h.bal till the sound satisfies your ears,
A/B with the eq button in and out to hear if it's affecting the overall tone of the song.
If it's affecting the song too much i'd say a remix was in order if not then cool.

The spectrum should be look more balanced now, if the spectrum was way off to start with then you need to remix!

You now have a more balanced track to work with, so save it and then obliterate it with your fave multiband regurgitator!!! just joking! lol

seriously though once you have a balanced track all thats left to do is really perhaps some compression if needed then limiting.

This is just MY way of working and by no means am I saying it's the only way.
Cheers.

[har-bal]

Don't mean to butt in in this thread guys but heres how i see HarBal.
You mix a track - your happy with it - ok next morning you attempt to master it.
You have to "listen" to it first! alot sometimes, before you even open Harbal and look at the eq curve.

So after you listen to it, make some notes, e.g too bassy? too harsh sounding? dull etc...
Then, if you need to correct the freq balance open h.bal and take look at the spectrum,
if you originally heard too much bass then it will show in the spectrum.

Simply reduce the low end in h.bal till the sound satisfies your ears,
A/B with the eq button in and out to hear if it's affecting the overall tone of the song.
If it's affecting the song too much i'd say a remix was in order if not then cool.

The spectrum should be look more balanced now, if the spectrum was way off to start with then you need to remix!

You now have a more balanced track to work with, so save it and then obliterate it with your fave multiband regurgitator!!! just joking! lol

seriously though once you have a balanced track all thats left to do is really perhaps some compression if needed then limiting.

This is just MY way of working and by no means am I saying it's the only way.
Cheers.

Ged

I am so glad we have the types of members in our forum who are passionate about their craft. I think your process was well documented and will prove to be a guideline for those folks out there who are really want to understand the mastering process. Thank you so much for those words of wisdom and for continuing to be a contributing member to our forum.

Cheers

Earle

[Ged Leitch]

Don't mean to butt in in this thread guys but heres how i see HarBal.
You mix a track - your happy with it - ok next morning you attempt to master it.
You have to "listen" to it first! alot sometimes, before you even open Harbal and look at the eq curve.

So after you listen to it, make some notes, e.g too bassy? too harsh sounding? dull etc...
Then, if you need to correct the freq balance open h.bal and take look at the spectrum,
if you originally heard too much bass then it will show in the spectrum.

Simply reduce the low end in h.bal till the sound satisfies your ears,
A/B with the eq button in and out to hear if it's affecting the overall tone of the song.
If it's affecting the song too much i'd say a remix was in order if not then cool.

The spectrum should be look more balanced now, if the spectrum was way off to start with then you need to remix!

You now have a more balanced track to work with, so save it and then obliterate it with your fave multiband regurgitator!!! just joking! lol

seriously though once you have a balanced track all thats left to do is really perhaps some compression if needed then limiting.

This is just MY way of working and by no means am I saying it's the only way.
Cheers.

Ged

I am so glad we have the types of members in our forum who are passionate about their craft. I think your process was well documented and will prove to be a guideline for those folks out there who are really want to understand the mastering process. Thank you so much for those words of wisdom and for continuing to be a contributing member to our forum.

Cheers

Earle

Thanks Earle, no probs man, oh by the way that guy was really happy with that hip hop track i sent you to listen to, so he was happy about the low end he felt it was just right.
cheers.