Har-Bal Users Forum BBS

If you are experiencing any issues or have any suggestions for the beta version of Har-Bal 3.0, please feel free to post them here.

Cheers

Earle

I found this a bit confusing , I loaded the same file into both Har-Bal 3 and Har-bal 2.3 .
Now , I want to read the average dB for the whole track in Har-Bal 3 but the average read out is for the mid , side , left and right .
In Har-Bal 2.3 you get the average dB read out of the whole track .

Am I missing something .........

All the best
Jan

Thanks for the report on the .tmp file issue on the desktop. I'll look into resolving it.

The question on average levels is a good one. The average level you are interested in is the mid channel level when no segments are selected (outer one). Mid corresponds to L+R which is basically the same as the level you obtain from HB 2.3 with one exception. In HB2.3 the levels are referenced to full scale sine wave, however in HB3 they are referenced to full scale square. That means that 2.3 values are nominally 3 dB higher.

You might wonder why I changed it. The reason is with full scale sine reference is that the maximum level on the histogram view would have to be +3dB, not 0dB, which would look rather odd. Referencing to full scale square levels means to remains at zero.

Independant L, R , Side components report the average corresponding to those channels. Probably not something your likely to use much but it is informative in any case and self consistent. Your use the comparison of Mid and Side levels as a measure of stereo field width for example.

You'll note that what was peak and average level in HB2.3 is now Compressed and Average. The peak level has gone (it isn't very informative and the histogram tells more about what you really need to know) and has been replaced by Compressed (or maybe that should really be labeled Processed). That value corresponds to the prediction of the track average level post processing.

The important point to note about that is that it is a pretty accurate prediction that takes into account dynamics processing (if you apply compression through the dynamics node editing) and limiting. You can see that quite easily for yourself by switching to histogram view and bumping up the gain (when no segments are selected). You'll note that while the yellow histogram hasn't maxed out each dB of gain increase will result in a corresponding dB increase in compressed level. However, when the histogram maxes out (when the peak levels get pushed into the top 0dB bin) the gain increase slows down because the limiter will be cutting the gain to make the track fit into the available dynamic range.

That's pretty much it.

cheers,


Paavo.

I have been testing the new beta. There are new features such as mid, side etc and the time line. Which some audio recorders can record.
What has happened to the 2.3 stereo format, where we just modify a stereo track, and not a separate left and right channel. (I must be getting lazy, or something?)
Does the frequency response section have any purpose other than a visual rep of what is happening? Can be edited?

The bugs, for me so far, has been the zoom out function freezes and crashes everytime.

If it crashes please email us the crash report so we can figure out what is happening.

As said in the discussion, filter edits in the Mid channel is exactly the same as filtering in HB2.3.

The frequency response is exactly what it says it is, which is the frequency response of the selected filter. What is a frequency response. It is the function that defines the gain of the filter as a function of frequency so you can see what the filter is doing to the track signal. Can you edit it, yes. Try and see.

Is it useful. Yes. I can suggest one extremely useful case whereby you are working with multiple segments and you've designed them to you satisfaction but when it comes to playing the track through your hear a timbre change at the split point that sounds off putting. To figure out why you select the segment you like the sound of most as the segment reference and the one it switches to/from as the selected segment. Then go to the frequency response view and look at how the two segment responses overlay. If you find they are wildly different then look at the regions where they are and that might be the cause of the off putting timbre change. Do a few experimental edits to see how it changes.

Frequency response view is much better to determine these issues because splits are usually place where the spectrum naturally changes from say the verse to the chorus. As such, the spectrum's shouldn't overlay and trying to make them overlay will make it sound worse. In spectrum view it is therefore difficult to see why there is a problem. In frequency response view the timbre change is actually caused by the change in frequency response from one segment to the next and you can clearly see that change.

But you should also note that this does not mean that you can't have a change in frequency response and not have a good sound. You can. It's just that the degree of change and where it can occur depends on the content of the spectrum for each segment and what gave rise to it in the first place. It's a case of if there is an audible problem then go looking for the fix.

cheers,


Paavo.

By the way, if you hadn't already read them please read these threads as well. They will probably explain a lot to you about the new aspect of HarBal.

http://www.har-bal.com/ipw-web/bulletin ... =47&t=1074

and

http://www.har-bal.com/ipw-web/bulletin ... =47&t=1075

cheers,


Paavo.

Hi Paavo , thank you for the in-depth explenation

I`ve noticed that I don`t need a freq / note chart anymore Har - Bal is also displaying the corresponding note now .
Nice !!!!

All the best
Jan

Hi Paavo and Earl , again I have to say that Har-Bal 3 is great !!!

I`ve been busy getting my head around all the new features : - )

Har-Bal 3 is a powerfull tool !!!

Keep up the good work : - )

All the best
Jan

Thanks for that Jan. We appreciate it.

As always, it's not the end of the line as far as scope for improvement. There's quite a few major things left out of this version simply out of lack of time.

Beyond that, I've got some bugs to fix before release, most stupidly on my part are one's associated with different sample rate files (96kHz for example). In the whole chaos of development I failed to try EQ'ing a 96kHz file and if I did would have immediately noticed a implementation fault. As it is, a much appreciated beta tester has picked up on it.

I suppose that is what beta is for but I find it a little embarrassing that this one got through. It should have been something I tested ages ago.

Oh, well. Live and learn, hopefully.

cheers,


Paavo.

Hi

I've been getting to grips with Harbal 3 all day and there's plenty to be excited about. Also some things that I was expecting that aren't in there! Here are my thoughts after just a day:

Great new features:
-------------------

1. Double arrow in main window for moving the traces up and down is a very welcome addition, would be nice to be able to do the same for the reference traces if necessary


Possible Interface improvements:
---------------------------------------

1. Biggest problem for me is a lack of right click functionality. You should be able to delete and create splits and copy filters via a right click menu. Deleting/resetting filters from segments and channels is a bit confusing as it stands. The new filter dialogue isn't clear whether it will delete Left, Right, Mid or Side filters (or all of them) from segments or the Outer filter.

2. Sliders on left for vol, gain and air take up a lot of room. They could be smaller and have the option for text box entry for precise values.

3. The actual window for working in appears greatly reduced compared to HarBal 2.3 (largely due to the overviews at the top). The interface could be less cluttered and I think the overviews at the top could take up less room vertically. Also, it still looks very Windows95 (Not the most important concern but people do care about that sort of thing).

4. Users should be able to name/label the Segments. This should be displayed in the main window, especially useful for knowing whether you are editing a segment filter as opposed to the main "Master" (Outer) filter.

5. Switching between segments is a pain. As it stands, you have to use the "double arrow" to come out of current segment, it involves too many clicks and too much mouse movement and I felt a bit lost at times. There should be an unzoomed overview at the very top at all times with the splits so you can select between them at will.

6. A standard waveform view would be nice to have at the top (as in many Audio Editors). The peak and average trace could be overlaid and it should be there at all times to allow faster selecting / switching between segments. This would make it clearer to see what segment you are working on and for navigating in general. A click and vertical drag (as in ableton live) would work better for zooming in and out to fine tune the splits etc.

7. If you create a master "outer" filter first (before making any splits), then you should have the option of applying that master filter to the newly created segments and leaving a new blank outer filter, OR, create the splits with new blank filters and keeping the existing master filter.

8. Users should be able to delete segments rather than the splits. Otherwise you can't choose whether the left or right segment adjacent to the split is the filter that is kept after deletion! If the existing behaviour is to be kept, then the user should be able to choose which filter is kept (the one to the left of the split, or to the right).

9. I can't see any way to copy filters between Left, Right, Mid and Side or between segments either. This is absolutely essential, and again should be accessable via a right clicked context menu in the main window.

10. Meters!!! On the far right you could have peak and Average meters all the way up the screen as in most audio editors. You could even use Green and Yello to reinforce the intuitiveness of referring to peak and average.

11. In the same way you can quickly navigate through the different views using Alt-1, Alt-2 and Alt-3, you should also have shortcuts to toggle through L, R, Mid and Side filters (Freq response views).


Workflow Improvements from 2.3 that should be implemented in 3:
--------------------------------------------------------------

1. Multiple references and files open at once would be ideal: each track of an album on separate tabs would have been a great improvement and would allow a faster workflow with greater cohesiveness throughout an album mastering project.

2. Plug-in slots on the output would be great for letting users choose their own compressor and/or limiters etc. I think a lot of users want this and it really shouldn't be difficult to implement.

Undesirable behaviour:
----------------------

1. When zooming into the waveform, making an edit resets zoom to global.

2. Turning off Dynamics turns off the limiter/Gain too. This reduces functionality of the match loudness feature. An option to adjust the gain of the reference instead of the file that is being edited when using the match loudness command would also be good and would largely bypass this limitation.

3. Selecting splits and moving them seems ok but holding down the left mouse button whilst deleting doesn't work in bootcamp on my macbook. This is something to do with the macbook keyboard having backspace as opposed to delete - in Bootcamp you have to hold down the function key as well as backspace to get a delete command. This is hard to do whilst holding down the mouse button but doesn't work in any case making it impossible for me to delete a split. A right click to select and delete would work better I think. Same goes for the Ctrl-S command for creating splits, a right click and select "create split" would be more intuitive.


Other observations:
-----------------------

1. Analysis takes considerable longer than previous versions, it would be great to be able to select a folder (say your album of tracks to be mastered (plus another folder of references) that can be analysed as a batch while you go off to make a coffee or whatever

2. I'm not sure about the Dynamics tab at all as of yet. I understand how to use the nodes to create a transfer function but have to mentally convert the process into the standard compressor input output graph in my head! I'm sure with more time and experimentation that this way of working could become more natural and intuitive to me though The lack of metering doesn't help and it would seem logical to implement the match loudness function for the effect of compression!

I would have thought that if HarBal was to implement Dynamics control, the best way to do it so would be to integrate it in a multiband fashion (similar to Paul Frindles DSM). When the Peak and Average traces are farther apart there is greater dynamic range and being able to compress in certain ranges to get a more even looking trace would be a great way to adjust dynamics. I'm not sure that wide band compression implemented in this unusual way is going to be easy for many people to grasp.

The effects of compression isn't represented in the traces and this seems to go against the "giving eyes to the ears" idea behind harbal. It would be far cooler if you could somehow control the effect of compression by either boosting the average trace (whilst leaving the peaks relatively the same), OR, reducing peaks whilst maintaining the average. Of course this would involve having to represent the effects of compression on the traces.

I realise that many hours have gone into the current compression scheme and that there is likely no way that you could or would implement this behaviour at this point. It would be amazing though hey?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously with no manual or help files as of yet it's more than likely that many of my issues are down to user error or not knowing what I'm doing yet so forgive me if many of the issues I've raised are because of that. I nevertheless think that HB3 will be a seriously powerful tool and I'm really looking forward to seeing how it develops

All the best

Ady

Wow. That's a head-full of points. I briefly reply now and probably give a more detailed response later.

yodonsen wrote:Hi
1. Double arrow in main window for moving the traces up and down is a very welcome addition, would be nice to be able to do the same for the reference traces if necessary

I don't understand the point of moving the reference.

1. Biggest problem for me is a lack of right click functionality. You should be able to delete and create splits and copy filters via a right click menu. Deleting/resetting filters from segments and channels is a bit confusing as it stands. The new filter dialogue isn't clear whether it will delete Left, Right, Mid or Side filters (or all of them) from segments or the Outer filter.

Can you give more detail on how you expect it to work with right mouse clicks?

I thought the wording of the new filter dialog pretty unambiguous though perhaps I was wrong.

2. Sliders on left for vol, gain and air take up a lot of room. They could be smaller and have the option for text box entry for precise values.

Sliders take up a bit of room but not much different from HB2.3. It's entirely consistent with 2.3 being a carbon copy of it. The room aspect I can accept to an extent though I don't see it as a big issue because you can maximise the screen and it then takes the full screen. At that size I find the graph display decidedly large, and monitors seem to be getting bigger by the day. Not a high priority.

3. The actual window for working in appears greatly reduced compared to HarBal 2.3 (largely due to the overviews at the top). The interface could be less cluttered and I think the overviews at the top could take up less room vertically. Also, it still looks very Windows95 (Not the most important concern but people do care about that sort of thing).

Well, I've pointed out my views on this many times. What many in the audio software game call slick skinned interfaces, I call trash. I actually prefer the software design guideline that says that the UI should adhere to the UI principles of the OS. That is how Har-Bal is written and will continue to be written. It adds no value in my opinion and is a complete distraction on my already stretched development time.

The timeline control takes a bit of room, particularly when loading a playable reference, but again, I don't see it rendered unusable at all by this because you can maximise the window.

4. Users should be able to name/label the Segments. This should be displayed in the main window, especially useful for knowing whether you are editing a segment filter as opposed to the main "Master" (Outer) filter.

Your getting into the territory of future releases. The UI is NOT going to substantially changed for this release.

It seems perfectly clear to me which segment you are working on from the bars in the timeline control. The blue bar shows this. When a sgement is selected the upper bar shows the selected segment bar the area in blue. The grey shows the portion of the timeline visible and the split points are also there to be seen.

5. Switching between segments is a pain. As it stands, you have to use the "double arrow" to come out of current segment, it involves too many clicks and too much mouse movement and I felt a bit lost at times. There should be an unzoomed overview at the very top at all times with the splits so you can select between them at will.

Doesn't need to be that complex. As per above, the grey bar shows the position of the visible timeline in the entire track. You have segment A selected, You want to selected segment B. Click and drag the upper grey box so that it overlays the segment you want to select (you can see that from the segment markers in the upper bar). then click on the lower bar and you've selected your segment. Is two operations that complicated?

6. A standard waveform view would be nice to have at the top (as in many Audio Editors). The peak and average trace could be overlaid and it should be there at all times to allow faster selecting / switching between segments. This would make it clearer to see what segment you are working on and for navigating in general. A click and vertical drag (as in ableton live) would work better for zooming in and out to fine tune the splits etc.

A standard waveform view is not presented because Har-Bal is not designed as a wave editor. It isn't part of the design spec and I don't see any reason to make it so. There are dozens of capable audio editing applications out there and if that is what you want to do then you should use one.

7. If you create a master "outer" filter first (before making any splits), then you should have the option of applying that master filter to the newly created segments and leaving a new blank outer filter, OR, create the splits with new blank filters and keeping the existing master filter.

I don't understand this. The outer filter is applied in addition to the splits. It is mean't as an overarching filter for the entire track. I can't see why you would ever want to copy the out filter response into a split. Can you explain to me why this would be a good an necessary thing?

It seems to me your workflow is back to front. You should put in the splits first before doing any filtering, otherwise how do you know if there is a local or a global problem in the track. If you find that it's easily handled by a global filter then just delete the splits.

8. Users should be able to delete segments rather than the splits. Otherwise you can't choose whether the left or right segment adjacent to the split is the filter that is kept after deletion! If the existing behaviour is to be kept, then the user should be able to choose which filter is kept (the one to the left of the split, or to the right).

Fair point.

9. I can't see any way to copy filters between Left, Right, Mid and Side or between segments either. This is absolutely essential, and again should be accessable via a right clicked context menu in the main window.

Again, can you explain why it is "absolutely essential" to be able to copy filters between Left, Right, Mid and Side? I fear you may misunderstand the workings of this. The way I see it you would never want to do this!

10. Meters!!! On the far right you could have peak and Average meters all the way up the screen as in most audio editors. You could even use Green and Yello to reinforce the intuitiveness of referring to peak and average.

It's proposed for the future.

11. In the same way you can quickly navigate through the different views using Alt-1, Alt-2 and Alt-3, you should also have shortcuts to toggle through L, R, Mid and Side filters (Freq response views).

Good point.

Workflow Improvements from 2.3 that should be implemented in 3:
--------------------------------------------------------------

1. Multiple references and files open at once would be ideal: each track of an album on separate tabs would have been a great improvement and would allow a faster workflow with greater cohesiveness throughout an album mastering project.

2. Plug-in slots on the output would be great for letting users choose their own compressor and/or limiters etc. I think a lot of users want this and it really shouldn't be difficult to implement.

You jumped ahead a few versions here. Beta means feature complete - No new features. You've proposed some major features here that are actually already slated.

Undesirable behaviour:
----------------------

1. When zooming into the waveform, making an edit resets zoom to global.

good point

2. Turning off Dynamics turns off the limiter/Gain too. This reduces functionality of the match loudness feature. An option to adjust the gain of the reference instead of the file that is being edited when using the match loudness command would also be good and would largely bypass this limitation.

The point here is that toggling compression toggles the focus markers on the histogram plot which includes the effect of gain. If we didn't include the limiter gain then the display is not consistent with what you hear. It is a feature, even though a not perfect one.

I don't see how this reduces the functionality of the match loudness feature? Can you explain further.

3. Selecting splits and moving them seems ok but holding down the left mouse button whilst deleting doesn't work in bootcamp on my macbook. This is something to do with the macbook keyboard having backspace as opposed to delete - in Bootcamp you have to hold down the function key as well as backspace to get a delete command. This is hard to do whilst holding down the mouse button but doesn't work in any case making it impossible for me to delete a split. A right click to select and delete would work better I think. Same goes for the Ctrl-S command for creating splits, a right click and select "create split" would be more intuitive.

You don't need to hold down the left mouse button to delete a split. Click on a split (ie, mouse down and mouse up). Note how it displays inverted. That means it's selected. Now press delete and it's gone.

I can certainly add a right click context menu and it would certainly be intuitive but I doubt a power user would use it. I certainly wouldn't. That doesn't mean it will never be included though.

Other observations:
-----------------------

1. Analysis takes considerable longer than previous versions, it would be great to be able to select a folder (say your album of tracks to be mastered (plus another folder of references) that can be analysed as a batch while you go off to make a coffee or whatever

H'mmm. Would you not expect that to be the case. You don't get something for nothing.

There is a batch analysis option there already under the file menu. That was part of HB2.3 and it is continued in HB3.

2. I'm not sure about the Dynamics tab at all as of yet. I understand how to use the nodes to create a transfer function but have to mentally convert the process into the standard compressor input output graph in my head! I'm sure with more time and experimentation that this way of working could become more natural and intuitive to me though The lack of metering doesn't help and it would seem logical to implement the match loudness function for the effect of compression!

Match loudness takes into account the effect of HB dynamics.

Implementing dynamics via a more conventional means would be far from easy to incorporate into match loudness.

I would have thought that if HarBal was to implement Dynamics control, the best way to do it so would be to integrate it in a multiband fashion (similar to Paul Frindles DSM). When the Peak and Average traces are farther apart there is greater dynamic range and being able to compress in certain ranges to get a more even looking trace would be a great way to adjust dynamics. I'm not sure that wide band compression implemented in this unusual way is going to be easy for many people to grasp.

I don't know if you realise but I personally find the whole concept of multiband compression completely screwy. I have no intention of ever implementing it. When the documentation for HB3 is done you'll no doubt see my reasoning.

Complex time selection and filtering will be how HB handles difficult transient material but that isn't coming out until later.

The effects of compression isn't represented in the traces and this seems to go against the "giving eyes to the ears" idea behind harbal. It would be far cooler if you could somehow control the effect of compression by either boosting the average trace (whilst leaving the peaks relatively the same), OR, reducing peaks whilst maintaining the average. Of course this would involve having to represent the effects of compression on the traces.

I realise that many hours have gone into the current compression scheme and that there is likely no way that you could or would implement this behaviour at this point. It would be amazing though hey?

Computational complexity is the reason it isn't done. It takes quite a bit of re-processing to account for it and it was considered not that important at this point in time. That's not to say it won't ever be implemented but managing multiple segments and accounting for that is complex enough for a software engineer like myself to get ones head around and not make design mistakes. When HB3 is more mature and better understood then it may well be included.

Thanks for the detailed feedback. It's much appreciated, despite the tone of some of my comments.

Thanks,


Paavo.

Hi Paavo

Thanks for your reply. luckily I have some free time today so will continue to check out HB3.

My point about moving the reference would be more useful if it was possible to have multiple references / files open at the same time, so you are right, it's no biggie right now. I realise that much of what I said is beyond the scope of the current Beta. This forum thread seemed like the logical place to voice ideas relating to Harbal 3 and it's possibilities. Would you find it more helpful if I was to limit discussion to current features here, and post my thoughts about future features elsewhere?

As for right clicks to create splits: simply right clicking on the top overview at the point you want to make the split and selecting (from a small menu: Create Split, Delete Split). this would be two mouse clicks without having to move your second hand or the mouse. Holding down the mouse button, then Ctrl, then s is more complicated than it needs to be. A small point but why not have both behaviours and let users use whichever they feel more comfortable with?

The wording of the new filter dialogue is perfectly understandable but it didn't seem to behave as I expected. in a new file I made an edit on the right channel, then went to new filter and chose the first option. The filter remained as it was with my edit in place. I expected it to create a new blank filter. Maybe I'm missing something, I'll have another look today when I get to the studio

Sliders using up room not being a high priority is fair enough at this point, but again with adding new features in future versions, space will increasingly be a problem. Keeping things identical to 2.3 is not too important. If it ever needs to change, it would probably be best to do it at 3.0 rather than 3.x. Again if multiple files and tabs were ever implemented, then I imagine screen space will start to become an issue.

I'm totally with you regarding "slick" interfaces. It's not my main concern either. However, some things effect functionality (sliders on left have to be dragged by their handles only, you can't click on the slider bar anywhere to get a new value). Whilst not needing to be slick and shiny, I think most users would agree that the interface could be a little more streamlined and tidy. Sideways text on the main window is a bit strange. I'm a graphic designer so I know what I'm talking about here.

The waveform view I mentioned would serve to make potential split points more obvious. It's reasonably clear from the overview peak and average trace at the top but a waveform view would make it more so as we are all used to reading them. Just my opinion

I think you're probably right about me getting the workflow back to front RE: outer filter. I'll get to grips with it today I expect

As for copying filters. Say you have a verse, chorus, verse (3 splits) you make filters for each but prefer the second verse to the first. you should be able to go to the second verse filter, right click and copy it, and then paste it over the first verse. If this is possible to do so already, forgive me, I couldn't see how to do it. Being able to copy filters like this between segments seems logical to me. If the functionality for doing so was there, I see no reason for not letting users copy filters between channels (or indeed from anywhere to anywhere) as well.

As for the Dynamics / match loudness feature I mentioned. I had an unmastered file loaded and a mastered reference. In 2.3 I would use the match loudness command and it would apply limiter gain to the file being harbaled. I actually found it useful to turn down the reference file by the amount of boost suggested by the limiter gain (and then return the limiter gain to unity on the file to be harbaled). With Dynamics turned off I could find no way to change the gain of the file against the reference so I could compare the sound of each at similar rms values. Is there something I'm missing here?

I couldn't find a way of deleting dynamics nodes either, does dragging them all the way to the right achieve this?

I will have another try at the split navigation today, perhaps it is easier than my first attempts at it. Like I said I felt a bit lost at times and it wasn't 100% clear (at least to me) which segment filter I was working on at a glance.

I overlooked batch analysis and you are right, longer analysis times are to be expected, sorry for overlooking the batch functionality already being in place

Again, I totally agree with you about multiband compression. I try and avoid it at all costs myself. However, sometimes a single extra band of compression around a strong resonance or cymbal crash / esses that are too loud call for some dynamic eq. I found that looking at the difference between the peak and average traces indicated where in the spectrum these things are sometimes needed. My observation about being able to control dynamics with directly editing one or other of the peak / average traces was more of a dream feature than one that is likely (or indeed possible) to be implemented. I realise that saying so doesn't really help you or this version's beta right now, sorry.

I totally understand the defensive tone of your comments. I presume that you are largely developing this software single handedly so haven't had a "committee" style development process. This has it's strengths and weaknesses as I'm sure you're aware. For someone like me to come out of the blue and list so many points at once must seem like a bit of an attack. It really isn't meant to be, and I'm sure after a few more long sessions with HB3 things will become clearer to me. It is very important to make these initial observations though, as you only get a first impression once (just as with sending your masterng to a fresh pair of ears!)

Also, although slick interfaces aren't important to people like us, they are often a factor in determining how many people jump aboard. As a commercial venture I wouldn't understimate the power of this. It would make sense to have a GUI designer on board imho. If for no other reason it would allow you to bounce ideas off someone and two heads and opinions are always better than one. My favourite plug in EQ is DMG Audio Equality. The developer took care of the coding and he employed a designer to co-develop the interface. The result is something far superior to much of what is out there and his eq cost only a little more than harbal. If Harbal looked great as well as sounding great, it would impress the client, seduce new users and generate more revenue for you to develop it. The website and new icon look fantastic and very up to date. The UI doesn't I'm afraid and there is no reason why this should be so. I will be in front of the website for a few minutes at a time but in front of Harbal for perhaps hours.

Anyway, I hope I'm helping in some ways and not just being a pain in the butt to you

I'll work for a few more days in HB3 and let you know how I get on

All the best and much respect

Ady

HarBal wrote:There's quite a few major things left out of this version simply out of lack of time.

Could you elaborate on what that might be ? : - )

All the best
Jan

Complex time selection, room analysis and equalisation, metering, 5.1 surround and plugin hosting to name a few. I've mentioned a few of these in other posts regarding version 3 on this forum.

cheers,


Paavo.

Hi again

I have got to grips with the segment navigation and I think that it works well, just took a little getting used to. Also having no problems deleting splits now

I have a question:

I opened my file and split it into 3 segments. I made a filter (using the mid trace) and got the first segment sounding how I wanted. Now I want to copy that filter to the third seciton (the middle segment needs a slightly different filter, it's a break) How do I go about copying the first segment's filter to the other segments (so I can apply a slightly different filter to the middle segment?

This is why I was asking how to apply a general master filter before splitting that could then be copied to the segments (leaving a blank outer filter). Then I could just adjust the offending segment slightly differenty to the rest of the track.

Sorry if this explanation is confusing!

Cheers

Ady