Ozone vs. Har-Bal

lucky · Post by **lucky** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:36 pm

I've been using Har-Bal for awhile now and I am getting favorable results.

But,, everybody is telling me I gotta get Ozone because it runs circles around Har-Bal. What's your take on the subject?

Thanks,

Lucky

HarBal · Post by **HarBal** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:12 pm

I'm not about to get into a product slanging match and, for the sake of your own sanity I'd suggest you don't either.

If you are happy with the results you get then Is there any reason to change? You are the final judge of yor work so whatever makes you happy is what counts. If you are curious abouyt how much better Ozone might be why not suggest to those making such claims that they put it to the test with a sample track. Let them do the EQ with Ozone and give you the result, then do your own using Har-Bal and see which you prefer.

If I were to suggest a theory for that assessment of Ozone over Har-Bal I'd suggest it is probably based on a "curve stealing assessment" and not as an EQ. I'd guess those using Ozone and saying this are matching spectrums and Ozone may well perform better in that case though I'd argue I could perform a lot better without "curve stealing".

Cheers,

Paavo.

shanecgriffo · Post by **shanecgriffo** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:53 am

ozone has all the enhancing, multiband,reverb, exciter stuff as well and maybe that is what people are recommending.. you could maybe use it as another step in the mastering process but you could also probably do it with a slightly more trouble using freeware stuff ..'stardust', and also some of the plugins made by the guys that made "Reaper" recording software .. check over at kvraudio.com.
I use a bit of other stuff and have used ozone (i found it was a little harsh, but it was an older version) but harbal is an essential part of my chain for sure!

zumbido · Post by **zumbido** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:52 am

Aren't Har-Bal and Ozone different products?

I do not use Ozone but I do use T-RackS, which probably is a product more similar to Ozone.

I utilize Har-Bal before T-RackS. Har-Bal has a far superior EQ'ing ability than T-RackS and I would assume better than Ozone, as well.

I do NO EQ'ing with T-RackS. I use it exclusively for it's multiband limiting.

Most importantly, I use Har-Bal on individual tracks.

Hopefully someday, Har-Bal will have external synching or plug-in ability.

uncajesse · Post by **uncajesse** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:14 am

I'm not personally bashing anything here... but it's not an unfair generalization to say that the majority of professional mastering engineers consider Ozone and T-Racks to be "pro-sumer" - to put it as nicely as possible. I'm sure much more harsh ways of putting it have been made by individuals.

Har-Bal is not considered to be "pro-sumer" at all by professional mastering engineers, and of the ones that are aware of it are possibly using it on at least some of their own mastering jobs - secretly of course. Even if they are scared it's going to take work away from themselfs.

lucky · Post by **lucky** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:25 pm

Thanks everybody for the feedback.

Paavo, I like your idea about challenging them to Master the same mixed piece of Music with Har-Bal & Ozone. Then post the two finished Masters and let you all be the judge.
Kinda like a taste test!

I will put forth the challenge & keep you posted.

Thanks,

Lucky

dyonisos · Post by **dyonisos** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:16 am

I use BOTH Har-bal and Ozone when putting the finishing touches on a tune. Har-bal for EQ adjustment, and Ozone for nailing the final volume. So the order is Har-bal, and then Ozone. I'm glad I have em both. I also have a lot of the Voxengo stuff, which is very useful as well.

STRMan · Post by **STRMan** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:42 pm

Hey Lucky, email me at psavia@cfl.rr.com if you get this. Thanks!