Another Success Story...

mflorio · Post by **mflorio** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:46 pm

Just got the latest cd of my favorite band. After listening to it, I couldn't resist the urge to attempt to 'remaster' it with HarBal. I loaded the first song into my audio editor and as I suspected, the waveform was very squashed (as is the trend these days). I then opened up the squashed song in HarBal, and after a while I managed to design a great eq filter (and without using a reference !). It got to the ridiculous point where the original sounded as if it was coming out of a cheap radio compared to my HarBal-ized version. I just couldn't believe how much better my version sounded. But this gets better: I was wondering if it were possible to restore some of the dynamic range that was lost in the initial mastering. So I tried reducing the gain in HarBal, figuring that might just give my filter a little more 'breathing room'. I found that reducing the gain by 3db brought the saturation levels back within the acceptable 0% - 30% range. I recorded the output file in HarBal, then brought it into my audio editor for comparison to the original. As I had hoped, the Harbal-ized waveform was more 'spikey' than the original. And even though I cut the gain, it actually sounded louder than original (and checking the RMS readings in my audio editor, I confirmed that the original was indeed the louder of the two). I noticed the peak on the original was -0.2, so I simply applied the same limiting on the my version (with threshold set to 0), and I was done. Now I'm going to have to remaster the rest of the album because I simply cannot bear to listen to the original anymore !

Post by **har-bal** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:47 pm

THAT IS FANTASTIC!!!

Now you are beginning to understand where a total track fits into the spectrum. It makes all the difference in the world. Now lets take it one step further.
Now that you know how an entire track should appear, how about looking at individual instruments. Lets say you needed to harbalize individual tracks. We know at this time that you can only process stereo tracks in Har-Bal.

Take a mono of...hmmm. lets say a vocal track and convert it to stereo just for the purpose of observation.
By know you realize that a full track should always start high on the left and ultimately attenuate downward to 20khz.
If you wanted to harbalize vocals where would you start?

Lets see
Alto vocals start at 130.81
Baritone vocals start at 98.00

Bass violin starts at 41.20
Cello starts at 65.41

Get the picture??

This means that if you fed an individual instrument or voice into Har-Bal the peak on the left would start from the beginning frequency range of that instrument (everything to the left of it would appear as a large hole which is perfectly fine) and of course you would make sure the shape starts attenuating downward from that point.

If you would like me to send you a chart of all the frequency ranges for all instruments and vocals, pop me an email to support@har-bal.com

Regards

Earle

Post by **har-bal** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:48 pm

I've always found it intriguing how by simply changing the balance of the spectrum in a completely static fashion (ie. fixed frequency response) you can end up with a recording that sounds more dynamic! I guess it all boils down to the intricacies of psychoacoustics.

I remember the time (prior to a release deadline) when I was contemplating all the CD's in my collection that I wanted to re-master. The funny thing is I've only managed about 3 because now I simply don't have the time to indulge. Sigh!

Paavo.

mflorio · Post by **mflorio** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:50 pm

Thanks Earle, I actually do have a good chart for acoustic instruments. I assume that theory would apply to synths too.

I can already tell I'll be experimenting with Har-Bal on individual tracks. Mostly in order to locate and eliminate problematic resonances for a specific track. Then an eq can be further fine-tuned to help the instrument sit better in the overall mix. In other words, a properly har-balanced acoustic guitar may have all nasty resonances removed, and sound nice and full. But to make it work better in the context of the whole mix, I might have to further shave the lows a bit, for example. Does this two-step approach make sense ?

note to Paavo: Support for mono files would be very cool !

Mike

HAR/BAL · Post by **HAR/BAL** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:51 pm

Yes, it does make sense. The major importance to getting a good mix is to make sure all instruments are sitting in their own space. By knowing the frequency areas specific instruments reside in you can use har-bal to insure the resonances are all correct. It enables the engineer to create an overall much better mix.
When you finally mix the entire song to a two track file you won't need to perform a lot of sculpting.

Regards

Earle

shockwave199 · Post by **shockwave199** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:52 pm

Now you're talking guys. Mono file capable would be awesome.

I too have been digging into harbal more this week. I applied it to a recent mix I did. The mix was more an experiment to see how Vegas 4.0 works for a 24 track mix, and more so, how my pc could handle the task. I also incorporated my new UAD-1 card, so that was the excersize; Vegas 4.0 and the UAD-1. The results were outstanding, but I paid little attention to the eq of the final mix. When I burned a cd, it was, well...badly eq'd overall. I could have used a wonderful Pultec eq in the UAD-1 card, but I instead chose to get the job done with Harbal. Man, did it ever do the Job! The mud in the lower end was corrected. The smear in the mids was corrected. Btw- this was because I was loving the realverb plugs a little too much on this mix The end result was my mix became punchy and well balanced. The snare came back to life. The congas re-appeared! I no longer had to compensate with bass treble control on the playback deck in my car. In short, it's an amazing radio ready mix! And I did it without a reference file. If anyone is interested, I'll post the mix. Thanks again Earle and Paavo. Harbal continues to rock! How did I survive without it

Dan

Har/Bal · Post by **Har/Bal** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:53 pm

I would be happy to listen to the mix. Where do you have it posted?

We have changed the screenshots menu to hopefully show potential customers the best way to understand how Har-Bal is used. We hope it both helps and clears away any confusion.

Earle

shockwave199 · Post by **shockwave199** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:55 pm

Click the link below to hear the track. Two things- this song was written by my good friend John. I played guitar and Pete Generous played drums. John is the wizard on the organ, keys, and vocals. This is his song. He's no doubt a very talented musician. This was also a long distance colabaration, whereas John sent the original tracks around to Pete and me for our overdubs. All three of us own an Akai dps24, so it made project sharing a snap. The other thing is I feel an mp3 doesn't do justice as a listening sample. Anyone who uses harbal will tell you- you have to hear the original wav file to appreciate it But, here ya go none-the-less. A great song, the dps24, Vegas, UAD-1, and Harbal. Quite a powerful combo

Dan
http://www.songramp.com/homepage.ez?Who ... pleid=9868

Har/Bal · Post by **Har/Bal** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:56 pm

I have just one thing to say: AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let me tell you what I did. I recorded the song to my CD recorder here in my studio. I then played it on everything including my car stereo and guess what. It sounded awesome. I will put this mix and mastering up against anything out there that is considered commercial. I was ablt to turn up the volume with no distortion and the balance was perfect. I even put the CD in my DVD player and ran it through my big screen TV. It is such a pleasure hearing music this way. The vocals are sitting great in the mix. I am so happy you have the entire recording process figured out. What a nice song by the way.....
It sounds like the keyboard player is using a Hammond B3 which is still one of my favorites.

Congratulations on a job well done!!

Earle

Har/Bal · Post by **Har/Bal** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:56 pm

I'm sorry, there is one more thing I have to comment on. Most people have a big problem in the bass region and I noticed on your song it is just right The bass area has the right amount of depth to give the song the fullness it deserves.
The midrange isn't clinical. You actually get a good feeling just listening to the song.

Much respect

Earle

shockwave199 · Post by **shockwave199** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:57 pm

Earle, I have to tell you that I'm blown away by your comments, as I respect your ability much more than I trust my own. I'm still new to Harbal. I'm still learning to adjust my ears; to trust my ears. The wonderful thing about Harbal is that it's not an automatic fix. The ears are still the most important part of the equation. But the way you've layed out the program has helped me understand and utilize eq in a way I don't think I ever would have with just hardware. I can't imagine signing off on my mixes without Harbal in the chain. Thank you so much for the product and your comments. The biggest part of the success with this mix is the great song, courtesy of John Havlicek. It is with his blessing that I posted this track. Thanks John.

Dan

Itamar · Post by **Itamar** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:58 pm

Hi

Sorry for making such a basic question, but when mflorio says in the initial post...

"I found that reducing the gain by 3db brought the saturation levels back within the acceptable 0% - 30% range."

...what does he mean by that?

I'm completely lost about what should I understand by "saturation levels" and "acceptable 0% - 30% range" in this specific case.

I mean: what's the difference between "levels" and "saturation levels"? How or where do I check a song's saturation levels status? Why should I care about saturation levels?

Anything you can tell me about saturation levels and what keeping them within the acceptable 0% - 30% range means will be welcome.

Thanks in advanced for any help

Itamar

mflorio · Post by **mflorio** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:58 pm

You obviously havn't read the manual / tutorial. It can't be explained better than it is there !

Havlicek · Post by **Havlicek** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:59 pm

I just got here...what'd I miss? Just kidding, I really like your mix and what you and HarBal did! Sounds great to me

-john

Itamar · Post by **Itamar** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:00 pm

You're right

Actually I have read the Har-Bal Quick-Start Manual but i really hadn't read the Har-Bal Tutorials until now. Maybe it's a upgraded version from the quick-start I have in my PC but I really don't know. The fact is that I've been using Har-Bal in a lot of mix and with such great results (in my opinion and other's opinion as well) that maybe I tought I had learnt everything I should know about it.

I just took a look at the tutorial now and I can see there's a lot of information there. Something to read carefully in the next weekend.

Thanks again

Itamar

Har-Bal Users Forum BBS