Wait the killing, a killing app here.
Allthough in a kind of prenatal stage, the EQing and Analyser / Referencing really rocks.
I just started since last half year finding out how to greatly master my mixes, and spend hours and hours.
One thing i used a lot was a Analyzer and EQ, but i always got stuck with great sounding masters, allthough i was convinced about a big error.
So i really got theoretical, found out all about DB's and RMS, expirimented a lot.... Still i could not go sweep an EQ the right way, as i analyzed all mixes it still was kinda off track.... Until now...
HAR-BAL! Yes, the EQ thingy is fixed now! and i dont even worry about a longtime musical problem anymore.
I just purchased Harbal today, fired up an older master.
The first time i lost it a bit, the sound was really ok, afther 30 minutes i got the master fixed and sounding finally i could really hear all instruments together, stereo field i could hear much much better.
Version 1.5 does the JOB! Really, i allway wanted to master myself in this programen gives an insight to your EQ in the mix, it does what no analyzer program still can do... and finally , the result was rocksolid steady. THANK YOU!
As it took me only 30 minutes to cure the mix, it usually took 2 days of pure frustration!! oh wauw
Still the program is kind of jerky;
and improvements should be-
1. Matching the source to the refence file. (ok this is easy, a button that matches) and that is what i am doing anyway alltime... so that all lines are referenced. As i do have good reference files, sometimes i just like to match, still takes me about 10minutes to adjust things now..... this must be sorted. (killer fast mastering app thoughl!)
2. I loaded a 32bit wave file, it got imported but when recorded, wavelab did not accepct the encoding. Then i made a 16bit file and all worked well.
So the is a lot more format chaning here, cause i only work with 32bit files in wav. And yes, mp3 in all bitrates.
3. As i like the RMS signals, i would like the RMS signals to be predicted of the output file, all i can see now is the imported source file RMS, but it does not change when adjusting EQ. Re-calculation butten or some kind of analysis as found in Wavelab menu.
4. Draw by hand EQ. (just click the mouse and draw EQ lines yourself or adjust current lines by hand).
5. Finally i would like to adjust the graph of the source and reference file, lower or higher, so now use gain in wavelab to correct the two graphs.
As i have Refenrence files
suggestions and kill me now
-
Har/Bal
Below is what you need to do
Hello
I noticed that you stated earlier that you had created about 10 good reference files. If you want to save yourself a lot of time sculpting the spectrum just create filters for each of them. Then each time you load the song you can just apply the filter of choice. The change will be instantaneous. and automatic.
You stated:
3. As i like the RMS signals, i would like the RMS signals to be predicted of the output file, all i can see now is the imported source file RMS, but it does not change when adjusting EQ. Re-calculation butten or some kind of analysis as found in Wavelab menu.
Har-Bal is loudness compensated. The overall volume does not change when you make the eq adjustments. So we have placed an option to do an auto loudness match by clicking on (equalizer/match loudness) option.
As to your other question regarding 32bit files in Wavelab.
There is a known issue in the LIBSNDFILE library that is to do with the ambiguity of some WAV file formats in Wavelab. In particular floating point formats. Basically what happens is that HarBal reads in your 24 bit float format and reports a bit depth of 32 bits (which is not the real bit depth). When it creates a compatible file format it ends up creating a 32 bit PCM file. You can avoid this problem by either using a 24 bit PCM (integer) format or a Type 3 24 bit float format.
Make sure you go through this forum. Most of the questions you brought up have been addressed here. Additionally there are a great bunch of engineers in this forum with a wealth of information.
Happy Mastering
Earle
I noticed that you stated earlier that you had created about 10 good reference files. If you want to save yourself a lot of time sculpting the spectrum just create filters for each of them. Then each time you load the song you can just apply the filter of choice. The change will be instantaneous. and automatic.
You stated:
3. As i like the RMS signals, i would like the RMS signals to be predicted of the output file, all i can see now is the imported source file RMS, but it does not change when adjusting EQ. Re-calculation butten or some kind of analysis as found in Wavelab menu.
Har-Bal is loudness compensated. The overall volume does not change when you make the eq adjustments. So we have placed an option to do an auto loudness match by clicking on (equalizer/match loudness) option.
As to your other question regarding 32bit files in Wavelab.
There is a known issue in the LIBSNDFILE library that is to do with the ambiguity of some WAV file formats in Wavelab. In particular floating point formats. Basically what happens is that HarBal reads in your 24 bit float format and reports a bit depth of 32 bits (which is not the real bit depth). When it creates a compatible file format it ends up creating a 32 bit PCM file. You can avoid this problem by either using a 24 bit PCM (integer) format or a Type 3 24 bit float format.
Make sure you go through this forum. Most of the questions you brought up have been addressed here. Additionally there are a great bunch of engineers in this forum with a wealth of information.
Happy Mastering
Earle
-
new user proudly
solution ?
I think a better solution is to make the Loudness Gain automatic by checking an option in preferences. Now the fader on the left can stay at 0db for user adjusting. Auto gain checkbox.
Also an auto EQ matching option button would be very handy, as i would use it a lot just to fastly compare...
I just sputidly made a reference file years ago, for different kinds of music genres. I did that by taking 10 tracks in a row and fix it with cubase, export it as one stereo file.
I was just lucky that i could use some real mastering tapes and mixes from previous known artist recordings.
As its impossible to mix reference files in harbal (like add 10 reference files and calculate a new one from that) i still work this way.
would like to see it implemented, but harbal will have me stunned for months to come... i am sure i can wait for that a long long time.
Thx for fixing my hearing aid , with this xxxxxx program!
And it works really well... yeah
Also an auto EQ matching option button would be very handy, as i would use it a lot just to fastly compare...
I just sputidly made a reference file years ago, for different kinds of music genres. I did that by taking 10 tracks in a row and fix it with cubase, export it as one stereo file.
I was just lucky that i could use some real mastering tapes and mixes from previous known artist recordings.
As its impossible to mix reference files in harbal (like add 10 reference files and calculate a new one from that) i still work this way.
would like to see it implemented, but harbal will have me stunned for months to come... i am sure i can wait for that a long long time.
Thx for fixing my hearing aid , with this xxxxxx program!
And it works really well... yeah
-
new user proudly
is it true ?
Is it true that i am mistaken ?
If i save a filter file and use it on other material, is this kind of what i mean about MATCHING source and reference file ?
I know i have to set in my head what this program is about, i like the theoritical side of it but i dont know if i really understand it.
Works blatently fine tough, but is the filter like a kind of matching because harbal will EQ and Harmonicly balance ?
Can i use the saved filters for straightforward matching?
If i save a filter file and use it on other material, is this kind of what i mean about MATCHING source and reference file ?
I know i have to set in my head what this program is about, i like the theoritical side of it but i dont know if i really understand it.
Works blatently fine tough, but is the filter like a kind of matching because harbal will EQ and Harmonicly balance ?
Can i use the saved filters for straightforward matching?
-
new user proudly
yes, its true 2 me now... somehow
Hmmm, instant automatic matching.
I checked it with an analyser (yeah i know, i did not trust myself and harbal, i only use it now for 1 day, eheh , my mind cannot handle this yet, i think i need a sleep) maybe tomorrow i fix the theoritical side in my head)
Yes to me its very logical that the filter is the matching equaliser, cause its does EQ in a matter that i now not fully understand, but later will...
so it works, i can kick in any sourcefile and out comes a match to the filter ref i choose ? kinda scary to me, since i use this to fast reference tracks, before i start mastering myself...
I am sorry, i am the kind of guy that will leave the theoretical side alone now, i am convinced that harbals system is a great way to auto-match to a reference track. Its my brains that still rejects to believe it , afther all those years of mastering........ I dont even worry about it, i just heared the results, i think i need a new brain....
When i just think about timesaving and still have fab. sound and takes away all of my frustrations, harbal is a piece of equipment that i think those mean studiobosses use at night , in an dark room that nobody can see... You might crumble a whole industry with a program like this, cause it solves a problem that is about number one searched for.... i know from the start i could not do this EQing myself and even the best of masterers could not fix my badly mixed pieces of music.
Although mastering is lovely doing hands on, harbal will tell you no lies!
THX for your replies so soon, it was a surprice today, when a problem is solved for me that took about 12 years, now its gone.
Harbal (dont eat it!)
THX for explaining.
I checked it with an analyser (yeah i know, i did not trust myself and harbal, i only use it now for 1 day, eheh , my mind cannot handle this yet, i think i need a sleep) maybe tomorrow i fix the theoritical side in my head)
Yes to me its very logical that the filter is the matching equaliser, cause its does EQ in a matter that i now not fully understand, but later will...
so it works, i can kick in any sourcefile and out comes a match to the filter ref i choose ? kinda scary to me, since i use this to fast reference tracks, before i start mastering myself...
I am sorry, i am the kind of guy that will leave the theoretical side alone now, i am convinced that harbals system is a great way to auto-match to a reference track. Its my brains that still rejects to believe it , afther all those years of mastering........ I dont even worry about it, i just heared the results, i think i need a new brain....
When i just think about timesaving and still have fab. sound and takes away all of my frustrations, harbal is a piece of equipment that i think those mean studiobosses use at night , in an dark room that nobody can see... You might crumble a whole industry with a program like this, cause it solves a problem that is about number one searched for.... i know from the start i could not do this EQing myself and even the best of masterers could not fix my badly mixed pieces of music.
Although mastering is lovely doing hands on, harbal will tell you no lies!
THX for your replies so soon, it was a surprice today, when a problem is solved for me that took about 12 years, now its gone.
Harbal (dont eat it!)
THX for explaining.
-
new user 2nd day
we need it
Well i was wrong last day, but so enjoyfull busy that i overlooked what the filter is (in this version of har-bal). I cannot match automaticly, only hands on like its supposed to be, its written in the manual why...
I dont agree with that statement that 'hands on' approach is best and that is why you did not program auto-matching.... It must be a users decition to safe time or do it hands on...
Well for the next update i would like that the source is matched by a press of a button to the reference... or anyhow implemented.
!!!!Its basically what i have been doing all day with mastering a whole CD over again is adjusting EQ to the reference file, so that is matching...
I need this button!, cause even i mastered about 10times faster today than normally (took me about 4 hours or so, and a lot less frustration), this button will speed up the process even a lot, so it must be there.... else i keep on matching hands on , while it can be done automaticly. PLease get it in there!
The thing is , it will solve a lot of EQ when you have a good filter going on.
It works fine on single tracks and matching is also the one thing when it comes to complete a full CD, cause if the filter is auto-matched from source to the reference, its only the case that the reference must be really good made.
Ather that is done, the user can do by theirself a hands-on adjust to make the sound as liked....
--------
1. If you can match only one line (lets say the peak lines) its fine to me, and it seems quite programmeble to me.
2. If you can match all 3 lines , then you are really in the ballpark, but to me looks like this one has to be smartly programmed and toughtout to do.
I only write this a mean the best of all towards a program that will be better and better.
I love the way harbal works though, it works well , and seeing that winamps frequency spectrum is banging from low to high in a straight line must mean something, you can always reconise a good mix by this...
Introduce matching (automatic with a press of a button) in the next few updates and you make a happy user already go bezerk...
Please reconsider!
Thx anyway
I dont agree with that statement that 'hands on' approach is best and that is why you did not program auto-matching.... It must be a users decition to safe time or do it hands on...
Well for the next update i would like that the source is matched by a press of a button to the reference... or anyhow implemented.
!!!!Its basically what i have been doing all day with mastering a whole CD over again is adjusting EQ to the reference file, so that is matching...
I need this button!, cause even i mastered about 10times faster today than normally (took me about 4 hours or so, and a lot less frustration), this button will speed up the process even a lot, so it must be there.... else i keep on matching hands on , while it can be done automaticly. PLease get it in there!
The thing is , it will solve a lot of EQ when you have a good filter going on.
It works fine on single tracks and matching is also the one thing when it comes to complete a full CD, cause if the filter is auto-matched from source to the reference, its only the case that the reference must be really good made.
Ather that is done, the user can do by theirself a hands-on adjust to make the sound as liked....
--------
1. If you can match only one line (lets say the peak lines) its fine to me, and it seems quite programmeble to me.
2. If you can match all 3 lines , then you are really in the ballpark, but to me looks like this one has to be smartly programmed and toughtout to do.
I only write this a mean the best of all towards a program that will be better and better.
I love the way harbal works though, it works well , and seeing that winamps frequency spectrum is banging from low to high in a straight line must mean something, you can always reconise a good mix by this...
Introduce matching (automatic with a press of a button) in the next few updates and you make a happy user already go bezerk...
Please reconsider!
Thx anyway
-
Paavo
I'm glad you seem to getting results that you are pleased with and I can assure you that we haven't forgotten the idea of auto-matching but as I alluded to already, it isn't easy to mimmic in software, what a person would do.
An exact match is something we will not put in to the product because it will result in many people quickly downloading the product, trying it out getting results they are not happy with, and then dissmissing the product as inferior, without even touching upon what it can do. I can say this with confidence because It has happened with the current version! But with a version as you suggest it will happen even more frequently. We shall only ever include such a feature if it can come up with acceptable results at least 95% of the time. From experience I known that exact matching gets no where near that figure. More like 60% of the time if your lucky.
To give you an idea of why exact matching can be problematic, think of a case in which you have a track that has a full drum kit playing with persistent hi-hat and cymbal crashes and another track with say, an acoustic guitar and vocals. Now do an exact match with a fixed reference. Depending upon the reference the first may sound correct or muddied, whilst the second may sound excessively bright or correct. Certainly in the music I listen to it is common to have tracks with varied instrumentation and for this reason alone exact matching wont work. Any scheme to to auto matching has to be pretty smart to avoid problems like this and to date I haven't been smart enough to come up with a solution.
I hope you understand my reasoning...
Regards,
Paavo.
An exact match is something we will not put in to the product because it will result in many people quickly downloading the product, trying it out getting results they are not happy with, and then dissmissing the product as inferior, without even touching upon what it can do. I can say this with confidence because It has happened with the current version! But with a version as you suggest it will happen even more frequently. We shall only ever include such a feature if it can come up with acceptable results at least 95% of the time. From experience I known that exact matching gets no where near that figure. More like 60% of the time if your lucky.
To give you an idea of why exact matching can be problematic, think of a case in which you have a track that has a full drum kit playing with persistent hi-hat and cymbal crashes and another track with say, an acoustic guitar and vocals. Now do an exact match with a fixed reference. Depending upon the reference the first may sound correct or muddied, whilst the second may sound excessively bright or correct. Certainly in the music I listen to it is common to have tracks with varied instrumentation and for this reason alone exact matching wont work. Any scheme to to auto matching has to be pretty smart to avoid problems like this and to date I haven't been smart enough to come up with a solution.
I hope you understand my reasoning...
Regards,
Paavo.
-
new user proudly
I fully dont agree because you are coupling the word "matching" to something that has not been done in this biss!
It is only a word, not reality! I know.....
Words that are abused in the biss.
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyway lets talk about this scary thing you mentioned. That users will not get what they whant ? Because the word "matching" has got heavy resposibillities...
Why would other companies like Izotope,waves,steinberg and alike use words like Matching/Freeze/lossless EQ ?
Why do they have automatic seem features? and why they all know its not really working properly, they stil do this.
Yes! it sells more and all of those companies still abuse words to let a user think it can be done faster and perfectly, while we all know its not.
No, not a user will complain about this, because they are still thinking that their own mix is crap, not the plugin or program... that is what we all think, but harbal fixed this anyway, i just needed an eq like this.
Its a great starter...
I am sorry.
I will refraise the word "Matching" for you now, as this suggests that there is an exact match possible between source and reference.... I understand that would be really hard to program, even impossible.
And would be misleading users? Well i do know some more companies that do this and get away with it perfectly, but ok your trying to keep the standards up, that is fine with me.
@@@ Lets not do this, but refraize the words, its an easy solution between our differences of thinking;
So lets scrap the words "Auto" and "Matching" and replace it by "overlay".
**** OVERLAY ****
Yes , i only need to have the source peakline to OVERLAY the reference peakline, dont tell me again that this is not programmeble ? Because it is... i know how to program that since i was 16 years old.
And the word OVERLAY doesnt have the same load as MATCHING have on you, it will not scare you or any other user anymore.
But i just did that with harbal yesterday 16x times.
Why i do this ???
So there is improvement on ALL tracks because i thrust the reference files we have (they are from libraries in the studio that can date back from today to 50 years ago) and are specially made to do this kind of job.
And yes , i dont trust my ears actually, nor my speakers or headphones.
And now that i have a much more consistent sound on all tracks with harbal, i can start listening to what is basically needed change.
The reference tracks we use are NOT merely single songs or tracks, they are special made with a kind of balancing going on to get a job done and equal. Just like harbal is intended to do, but until now we had to do this by ourselfes... so in practise i am doing the same thing, the workflow did not change by harbal, harbal fits perfectly in.
Ok, dont use the words "matching" until version 5.0 of harbal, hahaha
But make a little button, called OVERLAY or anything stupid what you like to name it.... as long as you dont scare users or yourself..
!!! This Overlay will only re-draw the lines, and doesnt suggest a sound/sound match, but a line/line overlay.
ARe you less scared to program this now ?
Its alway best to give a user what he whants.........................................................................
Thx for the reply tough!
Please reconsider!
Please reconsider.
Please reconsider.
Please reconsider.
PLZ!
It is only a word, not reality! I know.....
Words that are abused in the biss.
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyway lets talk about this scary thing you mentioned. That users will not get what they whant ? Because the word "matching" has got heavy resposibillities...
Why would other companies like Izotope,waves,steinberg and alike use words like Matching/Freeze/lossless EQ ?
Why do they have automatic seem features? and why they all know its not really working properly, they stil do this.
Yes! it sells more and all of those companies still abuse words to let a user think it can be done faster and perfectly, while we all know its not.
No, not a user will complain about this, because they are still thinking that their own mix is crap, not the plugin or program... that is what we all think, but harbal fixed this anyway, i just needed an eq like this.
Its a great starter...
I am sorry.
I will refraise the word "Matching" for you now, as this suggests that there is an exact match possible between source and reference.... I understand that would be really hard to program, even impossible.
And would be misleading users? Well i do know some more companies that do this and get away with it perfectly, but ok your trying to keep the standards up, that is fine with me.
@@@ Lets not do this, but refraize the words, its an easy solution between our differences of thinking;
So lets scrap the words "Auto" and "Matching" and replace it by "overlay".
**** OVERLAY ****
Yes , i only need to have the source peakline to OVERLAY the reference peakline, dont tell me again that this is not programmeble ? Because it is... i know how to program that since i was 16 years old.
And the word OVERLAY doesnt have the same load as MATCHING have on you, it will not scare you or any other user anymore.
But i just did that with harbal yesterday 16x times.
Why i do this ???
So there is improvement on ALL tracks because i thrust the reference files we have (they are from libraries in the studio that can date back from today to 50 years ago) and are specially made to do this kind of job.
And yes , i dont trust my ears actually, nor my speakers or headphones.
And now that i have a much more consistent sound on all tracks with harbal, i can start listening to what is basically needed change.
The reference tracks we use are NOT merely single songs or tracks, they are special made with a kind of balancing going on to get a job done and equal. Just like harbal is intended to do, but until now we had to do this by ourselfes... so in practise i am doing the same thing, the workflow did not change by harbal, harbal fits perfectly in.
Ok, dont use the words "matching" until version 5.0 of harbal, hahaha
But make a little button, called OVERLAY or anything stupid what you like to name it.... as long as you dont scare users or yourself..
!!! This Overlay will only re-draw the lines, and doesnt suggest a sound/sound match, but a line/line overlay.
ARe you less scared to program this now ?
Its alway best to give a user what he whants.........................................................................
Thx for the reply tough!
Please reconsider!
Please reconsider.
Please reconsider.
Please reconsider.
PLZ!
-
Paavo
Overlay...
I'll agree to think about it. That's all at this stage.
Your comment about given the customer what he wants is always right is something I'd disagree with. On the face of it it sounds plausible enough but often the customer doesn't really know what he wants but rather thinks he knows. Then you end up with applications with a raft of half cocked features and little consistency. More problematic is the case that once something is introduced it is very hard to remove or change it without upsetting someone so you want to be damned sure that your feature set is right before you release it otherwise you may have to live with something compromised.
I'll think about your suggestions though I've yet to make up my mind about it and I've a raft of other things that I should be doing anyway...
Thanks for the suggestions in any case. All suggestions are welcome!
Regards,
Paavo.
Your comment about given the customer what he wants is always right is something I'd disagree with. On the face of it it sounds plausible enough but often the customer doesn't really know what he wants but rather thinks he knows. Then you end up with applications with a raft of half cocked features and little consistency. More problematic is the case that once something is introduced it is very hard to remove or change it without upsetting someone so you want to be damned sure that your feature set is right before you release it otherwise you may have to live with something compromised.
I'll think about your suggestions though I've yet to make up my mind about it and I've a raft of other things that I should be doing anyway...
Thanks for the suggestions in any case. All suggestions are welcome!
Regards,
Paavo.
-
new user
You just cant see what can be done with it ?
I used harbal today and yesterday.
Today i examined Izotope Ozone's Loudness Maximiser and Loudness MAx. I used harbal to analyse Pre and Post audio files.
And quest what?
Your estimate is of 60% correctness matching is way off.
The first try yesterday was only 75% percent perfect, but then i started compensating it hands on, with the help of a newly made ref.
Quess what, i could not calculate for the difference anymore, the result was only 84% off, and that is not bad at all.
And i tell you why even!
Because Harbal doesn't have a system that compensates for the means between average and peaks over time. I cannot compesate for that 13% because its inhibited in Harbal! If ever this timeline is implemented, this figure would be even lower.
I tested that also, the accuracy of harbal is about 87%!
I got to my colleges and asked then to verify if i made mistakes.
They rounded about the same on their projects, so this is true 2 me.
Harbal!
So with a 84% result and a accurcy of 87%, this means that the actual deviation was only about 3%. And that is well within range of 95%.
Dont you see?
This means you can MATCH closely! Now i do it only hands on...
(give me my button!)
----------------
And for anyone , why is a single button farmully for you if you dont use it anyway?
I could say this, why dont we remove the Loudness Gain fader from harbal then, i am not using it also.
This feature was only implemented for the fact that Harbal is only an analyzer and EQ, its not a maximiser.... yet!
THANK YOU FOR READING, NOW COMPLY,
resistance is futile....
---------------------
And i am not talking bullshit, i know the facts, and even if i dont know it, i can ask someone te verify it for me...
You just dont understand that HARBAL fixed EQing for 97% accuracy.
SO IT IS FULLY MATCHABLE!
YOU JUST DONT KNOW HOW TO DO IT, I DO!
and that is our company's secret, so i whont tell you.
If you like my idea's on improving harbal, than this button is essencial for YOU and ME, and all users!
You just dont understand YET what it means for YOU also.
YOU CAN COMPARE WITH IT! Lossless!
And if you dont see the light.... i dont even care anymore.. i did my fair share over here... I AM NOT A FOOL!
I know the biss.
Analyze it!
Give me a button!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you!
I used harbal today and yesterday.
Today i examined Izotope Ozone's Loudness Maximiser and Loudness MAx. I used harbal to analyse Pre and Post audio files.
And quest what?
Your estimate is of 60% correctness matching is way off.
The first try yesterday was only 75% percent perfect, but then i started compensating it hands on, with the help of a newly made ref.
Quess what, i could not calculate for the difference anymore, the result was only 84% off, and that is not bad at all.
And i tell you why even!
Because Harbal doesn't have a system that compensates for the means between average and peaks over time. I cannot compesate for that 13% because its inhibited in Harbal! If ever this timeline is implemented, this figure would be even lower.
I tested that also, the accuracy of harbal is about 87%!
I got to my colleges and asked then to verify if i made mistakes.
They rounded about the same on their projects, so this is true 2 me.
Harbal!
So with a 84% result and a accurcy of 87%, this means that the actual deviation was only about 3%. And that is well within range of 95%.
Dont you see?
This means you can MATCH closely! Now i do it only hands on...
(give me my button!)
----------------
And for anyone , why is a single button farmully for you if you dont use it anyway?
I could say this, why dont we remove the Loudness Gain fader from harbal then, i am not using it also.
This feature was only implemented for the fact that Harbal is only an analyzer and EQ, its not a maximiser.... yet!
THANK YOU FOR READING, NOW COMPLY,
resistance is futile....
---------------------
And i am not talking bullshit, i know the facts, and even if i dont know it, i can ask someone te verify it for me...
You just dont understand that HARBAL fixed EQing for 97% accuracy.
SO IT IS FULLY MATCHABLE!
YOU JUST DONT KNOW HOW TO DO IT, I DO!
and that is our company's secret, so i whont tell you.
If you like my idea's on improving harbal, than this button is essencial for YOU and ME, and all users!
You just dont understand YET what it means for YOU also.
YOU CAN COMPARE WITH IT! Lossless!
And if you dont see the light.... i dont even care anymore.. i did my fair share over here... I AM NOT A FOOL!
I know the biss.
Analyze it!
Give me a button!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you!
That's a pretty lame thing to do to come to these forums a telling off the developer like that. I will assure you it isn't the way to make any friends or get any results.
I have used Har-Bal and spoke with Paavo and Earle for many months now regarding suggestions and ideas, as all users have, and they are brilliant people that know what they want and know how to get there, and they DO listen to their customers.
He said he would listen to you and consider the suggestions...what more do you want? Seems pretty lame for you to tell him what to do. I surely have no intention of speaking for them, but I will speak for myself in saying that you were really a jerk in that last post
I have used Har-Bal and spoke with Paavo and Earle for many months now regarding suggestions and ideas, as all users have, and they are brilliant people that know what they want and know how to get there, and they DO listen to their customers.
He said he would listen to you and consider the suggestions...what more do you want? Seems pretty lame for you to tell him what to do. I surely have no intention of speaking for them, but I will speak for myself in saying that you were really a jerk in that last post
-
new user
Well you could ask this question, why program Harbal as a reference EQ (source / ref) and not have this function, while other companies always put it in ? Would users like me be disappointed ? Would the NOOB be dissappointed ? I think 75% percent of your future userbase can be people who dont even understand it at all, but will use it cause its easy to do the job in a fast way ?
Well, the only thing is that i always have this discussion with purists... People who say they listen with their ears... Harbal just proves it can be done on a simple stereo set of headphones...
In if you make a batch function of it , 90% percent of your users will be complete NOOBs, but with good results...
Dont you whant that ? That everybody is buying your app ?
But what about when you are doing Video recordings and you just whant to get the sound better in a really fast way? They are people who actually dont care about quality at all, they just whant the commercial sound appoached. With the difference they will not bother to go spending time drawing hands on....
OVERLAY a line!
Anyway like i said before, i just only need fixation on the peak/average lines. Today i made a new reference file from the expiriences i had.
Ather loudness the source file, i only have to adjust accordingly my reference, i never use the loudness correction in harbal itself i leave it at 0db. The reference i made will get the file down to -10.50db RMS and leaves -0.22db for peaks.
I only did this by still matching the source to the reference, and i have done this about 25 times until now, its repetetive to me.
I still did not completely figured out, if i reload a filterfile in harbal, that this means matching.... did not have an answer also... but ok , i keep on hands on redrawing... just 4 the fun of it lets say.
For programming;
You just have to program that the source line follows the reference line by a click of a button and i am a happy man!
Further calculations are by no means neccesary... its so straightforward programming as it is. I even draw a straight line on a A4 paper, overlayed that on my LCD monitor while displaying the graph and draw accordingly in harbal.
This function will make HARBAL a real good compare analyzer 4 me, witch shows me the road to go from a bad sound, towards commercial in no time.... (execpt that hands on drawing time what is needed now).
And it makes the EQ so steady that i result in an audiofile that represents a lot better what i was doing wrong in the first place.
I cannot help it, i would use this approach simpy just to get close to commercial sound, and then find out what i can do, by listening and seeying what is going on.
I can even compare now with harbal what effect a plugin has in the frequencyrange, like the dammed frequency shifting Loudness Max.
I can SEE now, but NOT auto correct it.
Would not you like to compensate for this also, when you use a plugin ?
Yes its possible at a click of a button.... or now at least redrawing....
Dont you see the wealth of this ?
You just have to program that the source line follows the reference line by a click of a button and i am a happy man!
Thank you for listening.
And wont bother you anymore with my longlasting posts, cause i have seem to make a point come accros...
Think about it, and you will learn that your harbal will superseed with this function beyond normal mastering.
THank You! and have a great weekend
Well, the only thing is that i always have this discussion with purists... People who say they listen with their ears... Harbal just proves it can be done on a simple stereo set of headphones...
In if you make a batch function of it , 90% percent of your users will be complete NOOBs, but with good results...
Dont you whant that ? That everybody is buying your app ?
But what about when you are doing Video recordings and you just whant to get the sound better in a really fast way? They are people who actually dont care about quality at all, they just whant the commercial sound appoached. With the difference they will not bother to go spending time drawing hands on....
OVERLAY a line!
Anyway like i said before, i just only need fixation on the peak/average lines. Today i made a new reference file from the expiriences i had.
Ather loudness the source file, i only have to adjust accordingly my reference, i never use the loudness correction in harbal itself i leave it at 0db. The reference i made will get the file down to -10.50db RMS and leaves -0.22db for peaks.
I only did this by still matching the source to the reference, and i have done this about 25 times until now, its repetetive to me.
I still did not completely figured out, if i reload a filterfile in harbal, that this means matching.... did not have an answer also... but ok , i keep on hands on redrawing... just 4 the fun of it lets say.
For programming;
You just have to program that the source line follows the reference line by a click of a button and i am a happy man!
Further calculations are by no means neccesary... its so straightforward programming as it is. I even draw a straight line on a A4 paper, overlayed that on my LCD monitor while displaying the graph and draw accordingly in harbal.
This function will make HARBAL a real good compare analyzer 4 me, witch shows me the road to go from a bad sound, towards commercial in no time.... (execpt that hands on drawing time what is needed now).
And it makes the EQ so steady that i result in an audiofile that represents a lot better what i was doing wrong in the first place.
I cannot help it, i would use this approach simpy just to get close to commercial sound, and then find out what i can do, by listening and seeying what is going on.
I can even compare now with harbal what effect a plugin has in the frequencyrange, like the dammed frequency shifting Loudness Max.
I can SEE now, but NOT auto correct it.
Would not you like to compensate for this also, when you use a plugin ?
Yes its possible at a click of a button.... or now at least redrawing....
Dont you see the wealth of this ?
You just have to program that the source line follows the reference line by a click of a button and i am a happy man!
Thank you for listening.
And wont bother you anymore with my longlasting posts, cause i have seem to make a point come accros...
Think about it, and you will learn that your harbal will superseed with this function beyond normal mastering.
THank You! and have a great weekend
-
new user
I only took a strong text to convince you and everybody that this feature is neccesary. While i found that the manual explains why it has not been implemented was a little bit awkward. Specially cause its been used by all the NOOBs and even professionals. I would say that harbal is the first real EQ i have bought and we all have had some in our time. It makes all other fade away with ease. In fact i would know how to program it better responding to frequencies over time periods and even consider reporting that too out here, i have a suggestion about that process also.
I must say that i would suspect a reaction comming from a mastering house like yours, you would not use this feature.
I just took about the worst mastering job i ever did, and redone it. Its still worse now, but i have the mixed version also. So comparing with harbal today i saw what i was wrong with the initial mix. I could hear it. Every time i hear it now, i hear where i did go wrong, just because i saw it in harbal being wrong.
I tried my best working fast through the mix and redone the mastering job with hardbal and a maximiser plugin only.
The worst mastering job ever done, has now come up towards the best ones, clear and pristine.
Yeah, i could see why some would not use it, you cannot still charge your clients with hours of mastering!
Mastering now with Harbal in about 2 days;
I just need about 1 hour now, and that includes the coffee also.
I would not know what to do with the rest of my time this week, i think i take a nice day off. I think i might loose my job over this !? Cause Harbal is a definate timesaver... tou might loose your job also , watch out!
hahahahah, sorry!
It might mean that harbal will rampage the mastering world as it is, cause this kind of Harmonic Balancing EQ is a great starting point from where we can all see that we all have to start thinking DIGITAL! and not just replicating what has been done in the Analog worlds until now, like a lot of plugins nowday do.
I think Harbal is a start, and the finish is fully automated mastering.
I cannot lie to my clients for a long time anymore, harbal is such a timesaver, i must cut the billing system!
Thank you for the finest EQ ever made, the presision is so scary afther so many years of working without it.
Revoltution is always a good thing, even when you go out of bizzzz with it.
I must say that i would suspect a reaction comming from a mastering house like yours, you would not use this feature.
I just took about the worst mastering job i ever did, and redone it. Its still worse now, but i have the mixed version also. So comparing with harbal today i saw what i was wrong with the initial mix. I could hear it. Every time i hear it now, i hear where i did go wrong, just because i saw it in harbal being wrong.
I tried my best working fast through the mix and redone the mastering job with hardbal and a maximiser plugin only.
The worst mastering job ever done, has now come up towards the best ones, clear and pristine.
Yeah, i could see why some would not use it, you cannot still charge your clients with hours of mastering!
Mastering now with Harbal in about 2 days;
I just need about 1 hour now, and that includes the coffee also.
I would not know what to do with the rest of my time this week, i think i take a nice day off. I think i might loose my job over this !? Cause Harbal is a definate timesaver... tou might loose your job also , watch out!
hahahahah, sorry!
It might mean that harbal will rampage the mastering world as it is, cause this kind of Harmonic Balancing EQ is a great starting point from where we can all see that we all have to start thinking DIGITAL! and not just replicating what has been done in the Analog worlds until now, like a lot of plugins nowday do.
I think Harbal is a start, and the finish is fully automated mastering.
I cannot lie to my clients for a long time anymore, harbal is such a timesaver, i must cut the billing system!
Thank you for the finest EQ ever made, the presision is so scary afther so many years of working without it.
Revoltution is always a good thing, even when you go out of bizzzz with it.