Random musings

[timbo]

"Perhaps a case of damned if you do or damned if you don’t. "
It appears that the online video tutorial is "damned if you do" and the tutorial that comes
with the program is "damned if you don't".

I am a new user of Har Bal and I think it is wonderful.
It has really opened my eyes to my mixes problems.
However, I'm having a lot of problems unerstanding it's "correct" usage.

After reading the example tutorial in the program and trying to follow along and watching all the online videos available and reading through a bunch of posts and other stuff, I think I'm more confused than when I started. Actually, I was doing fine just loading up some mixes and referencing them to commercial songs and then I started reading and watching the videos.

The tutorial seems to demonstrate what is wrong about the product more than how to use it effectively. It would seem that "re-mastering" a George Benson Album is not a likely goal for most users. As, most users would be elated with their own recordings sounding like a professionally mastered Benson album. Perhaps you could have MP3s on line that correspond to the tutorial that could be changed to wav so that the whole
wav/reference/ani/filter/listening thing was a little clearer.

The video tutorial online seems to address the way the program should work, I think.

I also thought the idea of Har Bal was to help correct one's listening environment
frailties.
""On listening the result the clarity is significantly improved though there is a hint of
low frequency masking and the upper mid range is over-emphasised around 2kHz. Both these issues arise out of side effects from using intuitQ with tracks in which spectrum holes exist.""
Ok, right, "on listening". That's the problem I thought?
so how do I know what a spectrum hole is? Can I "see" it?

The whole 'filter'/'reference' file thing has me baffled.
Why does there even have to be a filter file? The filter is written to the reference file if
so desired. no? I mean, aren't they the same thing (if edited/saved) except the reference file also has the 'match loundness'.

"Having designed our equalisation we now save the filter file, record the result and open this track and the corresponding filter as a reference for the remaining tracks to be processed. Now we move on to track 1 (In the Air Tonight).""

huh?????? Does that mean, 2 separate "openings"? "this track"(.wav or .ani file) and "the corresponding filter" (a filter file).
And then,"as a 'REFERENCE' for the remaining tracks to be processed.

The "intuitmatch", "apply intuitmatch" and "apply intuitQ" buttons are not explained at all in the program tutorial and are just briefly mentione in the online tutorial.
The tutorial is based solely on the 'intuitQ' draw function. So, I need to also "apply intuitmatch" after I draw 'intuitQ'? What do these other buttons do?
The "apply intuitmatch" seems to match a reference recording a lot better than the
'intuit match' draw function which seems to just smooth out the spectrum but not address the reference. Ah, but then I guess that's all that would be required of a RE mastering of a Benson album as apposed to mastering final MIXES? And then there' the "harmonic cursor" huh? confused.

Ok, one more thing:)
Everytime I go to 'open' something, the default dialogue for 'file type' is
always 'NexT/Sun files (*.au)'. Sort of driving me nuts as I have to switch to .wav or all
or whatever. Is this a bug? There also seem to be 'law' related file choices in the dialogue box?

Let's pretend I'm deaf. What is the best way to use this program?

Ok, I'm done for now..
Great tool though, (if I could understand what you are talking about:)

Thanks
Tim

[HarBal]

"Perhaps a case of damned if you do or damned if you don’t. "
The tutorial seems to demonstrate what is wrong about the product more than how to use it effectively. It would seem that "re-mastering" a George Benson Album is not a likely goal for most users. As, most users would be elated with their own recordings sounding like a professionally mastered Benson album. Perhaps you could have MP3s on line that correspond to the tutorial that could be changed to wav so that the whole
wav/reference/ani/filter/listening thing was a little clearer.

I think the problem here is that the target audience for the manual ranges from people who have no problem producing good mixes all the way through to novices struggling to understand how the professionals do it. One tutorial can't really cater for one audience and I chose to write it from the perspective of an semi-experienced user. Maybe I'll write a few other versions catering for different levels of experience.

I also thought the idea of Har Bal was to help correct one's listening environment
frailties.
""On listening the result the clarity is significantly improved though there is a hint of
low frequency masking and the upper mid range is over-emphasised around 2kHz. Both these issues arise out of side effects from using intuitQ with tracks in which spectrum holes exist.""
Ok, right, "on listening". That's the problem I thought?
so how do I know what a spectrum hole is? Can I "see" it?

The purpose of Har-Bal has never been to eliminate listening to the track. It's purpose is to help you identify where problems lie. The trick in mastering is not identifying when something doesn't sound right. Most people can learn to do that very easily. The real issue is knowing the cause of the problem simply through listening. Most people can't and even professional ME's have recordings that they can't handle (though they're not likely to openly tell you). If you want the best results you'll have to listen to the track and you'll have to make some effort ot correct the frailties of your listening environment.

The whole 'filter'/'reference' file thing has me baffled.
Why does there even have to be a filter file? The filter is written to the reference file if
so desired. no? I mean, aren't they the same thing (if edited/saved) except the reference file also has the 'match loundness'.

"Having designed our equalisation we now save the filter file, record the result and open this track and the corresponding filter as a reference for the remaining tracks to be processed. Now we move on to track 1 (In the Air Tonight).""

huh?????? Does that mean, 2 separate "openings"? "this track"(.wav or .ani file) and "the corresponding filter" (a filter file).
And then,"as a 'REFERENCE' for the remaining tracks to be processed.

Looks like you sort of answered your own question - maybe. The fundamental purpose of referencing (contrary to popular belief) is to produce albums with a consistent sound. In that scenario there is no external reference that you consider an excellent example to call upon. The reference comes from the album itself, just as in the tutorial. But as in the tutorial the track used as a reference is not as good as it could be so why use the compromised original for a reference when you could use the better version? That is where the filter comes in because you use the track plus the filter you design for it as the reference and you end up with a reference that represents your best take on it.

You could do without it by loading the EQ'd version of the track as a reference but you will first have to wait for it to be written and then wait for it to be analysed. By providing the filter file and the original you don't have to wait for either so you can look upon it as a convenient time saver.

The "intuitmatch", "apply intuitmatch" and "apply intuitQ" buttons are not explained at all in the program tutorial and are just briefly mentione in the online tutorial.
The tutorial is based solely on the 'intuitQ' draw function. So, I need to also "apply intuitmatch" after I draw 'intuitQ'? What do these other buttons do?
The "apply intuitmatch" seems to match a reference recording a lot better than the
'intuit match' draw function which seems to just smooth out the spectrum but not address the reference. Ah, but then I guess that's all that would be required of a RE mastering of a Benson album as apposed to mastering final MIXES? And then there' the "harmonic cursor" huh? confused.

IntuitMatch is not discussed in any great detail because the way it should be used is much more limited than intuitQ. The example you mention of using it to match a reference will work but it is not recommended and is unlikely to obtain the best results possible for that recording. The principle failing of that approach is that it does not respect the production intent of the original recording. It may if the reference happens to look a lot like the original but if that were the case then why not use intuitQ.

In essense, by chosing to match a reference you are saying to hell with the mix, I want it to be mixed like this. If that is the desire then why not go back to the tracking and re-mix to get closer to the sound you want? If you can't seem to mix to get that sound then either your not trying hard enough (sorry - I know it can be difficult) or you've got a compromised acoustic environment. In both cases you can choose to do something about it or give up in resignation. Which choice do you wish to take?

Ok, one more thing:)
Everytime I go to 'open' something, the default dialogue for 'file type' is
always 'NexT/Sun files (*.au)'. Sort of driving me nuts as I have to switch to .wav or all
or whatever. Is this a bug? There also seem to be 'law' related file choices in the dialogue box?

Let's pretend I'm deaf. What is the best way to use this program?

The dialog remembers the last file type selected. Just click on the file types drop down and select "Audio files" and you wont be troubled again.

If you're deaf then I think making recorded music isn't something for you...


Cheers,



Paavo.