Auto Spectrum Matching... again

[HarBal]

Hi Robert,

The unpredicatability of EQ matching (as you've experienced with CurveEQ) sounds just like my experiences from early prototype versions of HarBal. That is exactly why I ditched it as an approach. On the other hand, now that HarBal is established and we have got the message out about it not being a great approach I may well just add such a feature.

One reason I didn't is because I believe I can come up with a "loose" EQ match that does work well most of the time. I just haven't had the time to develop the algorithm. Either way, you're not likely to see anything new for a while as I'm buried in the Mac port at this moment.

Regards,


Paavo.

[Mister]

If I may add my two cents, I'd prefer not to have any "automated" matching. Better results can be achieved by using the eyes to create a "loose" match with the reference file and then using the (all improtant) ears to fine tune the final touches.

Even then, this matching approach can only work when: 1) the instrumental combinations are similar; 2) the mixes, as well, have similar balances; and 3) the mics and/or EQ's used on the individual instruments were also similar.

[har-bal]

If I may add my two cents, I'd prefer not to have any "automated" matching. Better results can be achieved by using the eyes to create a "loose" match with the reference file and then using the (all improtant) ears to fine tune the final touches.

Even then, this matching approach can only work when: 1) the instrumental combinations are similar; 2) the mixes, as well, have similar balances; and 3) the mics and/or EQ's used on the individual instruments were also similar.

Mister

You are right on poInt. The whole idea/concept of using reference files is simply to act as a guide. It insures that the user is in the right ballpark based on the genre of music they may be working with. They can see immediately if the song is bass heavy, has holes in the spectrum, incorrect midrange, etc.

If used sparingly it will work everytime.

Cheers

Earle

[Jay]

If I may add my two cents, I'd prefer not to have any "automated" matching. Better results can be achieved by using the eyes to create a "loose" match with the reference file and then using the (all improtant) ears to fine tune the final touches.

I am still baffled by resistance to automated matching as an *option*. I'm sure that every user of Har-Bal doesn't use every option of Har-Bal, so what's wrong with having an option that *some* people will use? Those who don't want to use it wouldn't have to. Doesn't that sound reasonable?.

Even then, this matching approach can only work when: 1) the instrumental combinations are similar; 2) the mixes, as well, have similar balances; and 3) the mics and/or EQ's used on the individual instruments were also similar.

That's generally (not always) true, but I think you're missing the point. I and others have suggested this merely as a time-saving feature. No one is suggesting that there should be an "auto-match" button that you click and be done with it. It is simply a way to *quickly* get in the ball park; then adjustments can be made. Besides, if someone is convinced that matching another songs spectrum *exactly* is the way to go, there's nothing stopping them from taking the extra time to do it. So who is being "saved" from not having the option?

And as I mentioned earlier in this thread (and you addressed above), auto matching would be very useful when working with single instruments. It is not at all unreasonable to want to copy a single instrument's timbre, and I see this as being the main benefit of auto-matching functionality.

Jay

[har-bal]

If I may add my two cents, I'd prefer not to have any "automated" matching. Better results can be achieved by using the eyes to create a "loose" match with the reference file and then using the (all improtant) ears to fine tune the final touches.

I am still baffled by resistance to automated matching as an *option*. I'm sure that every user of Har-Bal doesn't use every option of Har-Bal, so what's wrong with having an option that *some* people will use? Those who don't want to use it wouldn't have to. Doesn't that sound reasonable?.

Even then, this matching approach can only work when: 1) the instrumental combinations are similar; 2) the mixes, as well, have similar balances; and 3) the mics and/or EQ's used on the individual instruments were also similar.

That's generally (not always) true, but I think you're missing the point. I and others have suggested this merely as a time-saving feature. No one is suggesting that there should be an "auto-match" button that you click and be done with it. It is simply a way to *quickly* get in the ball park; then adjustments can be made. Besides, if someone is convinced that matching another songs spectrum *exactly* is the way to go, there's nothing stopping them from taking the extra time to do it. So who is being "saved" from not having the option?

And as I mentioned earlier in this thread (and you addressed above), auto matching would be very useful when working with single instruments. It is not at all unreasonable to want to copy a single instrument's timbre, and I see this as being the main benefit of auto-matching functionality.

Jay

Jay

Read this post from Paavo. You may be pleased

http://www.har-bal.com/ipw-web/bulletin ... .php?t=440

Cheers

Earle

[Mister]

Mister wrote:
If I may add my two cents, I'd prefer not to have any "automated" matching. Better results can be achieved by using the eyes to create a "loose" match with the reference file and then using the (all improtant) ears to fine tune the final touches.

I am still baffled by resistance to automated matching as an *option*. I'm sure that every user of Har-Bal doesn't use every option of Har-Bal, so what's wrong with having an option that *some* people will use? Those who don't want to use it wouldn't have to. Doesn't that sound reasonable?.

Mister wrote:
Even then, this matching approach can only work when: 1) the instrumental combinations are similar; 2) the mixes, as well, have similar balances; and 3) the mics and/or EQ's used on the individual instruments were also similar.

That's generally (not always) true, but I think you're missing the point. I and others have suggested this merely as a time-saving feature. No one is suggesting that there should be an "auto-match" button that you click and be done with it. It is simply a way to *quickly* get in the ball park; then adjustments can be made. Besides, if someone is convinced that matching another songs spectrum *exactly* is the way to go, there's nothing stopping them from taking the extra time to do it. So who is being "saved" from not having the option?

And as I mentioned earlier in this thread (and you addressed above), auto matching would be very useful when working with single instruments. It is not at all unreasonable to want to copy a single instrument's timbre, and I see this as being the main benefit of auto-matching functionality.

Jay

Hi Jay

You make some valid points. I guess I should have clarified my postion when I made those comments.

I'm using Har-Bal as a mastering equalizer on "other people's" (clients) full mixes - I'm the third party so to speak. I don't generally do my own projects or use Har-Bal to EQ individual tracks in a mix. I should have considered that not everyone is going to be using something in just one way - I guess I temporarily forgot the first rule of Audio, namely there are no rules! I realize that if you have 20 or more tracks to EQ in a mix one doesn't really want to spend any lengthy amount of time "massaging" each instrument in place by hand.

I would like to share a recent experience, however, that may illustrate where I'm coming from. I recently had a compilation project involving 20 songs of an artist's output of the last 7 or 8 years. You could not imagine a more "diverse" set of spectra even though the instrumentation for the tracks were basically identical (typical country arrangements). I quickly honed in on the best sounding track, did a few very minor tweaks and then used that as my guide for the rest of the album. Without Har-Bal this would have been an almost insurmountable task, but I was able (often using only "broad strokes") to get all 20 tracks to match very nicely in just 2 hours!! I was able to spend the rest of the time (ie: the client's budget) just listening and making very minor adjustments. I was able to concentrate on fine tuning things like compression/limiter settings and soundstage widths; and I was able to produce an extremely consistent and satisfying product for the client. (This was also due in no small part to Har-Bal's loudness matching feature). And this, with Har-Bal, has become a rather typical scenario! My point is that Har-Bal (as it stands now @ v1.51) was able to not only save me a considerable amount of time in the equalisation stage, but to use my remaining alloted time much more productively, more so than I ever could without it. Har-Bal, to me, arrived as a very complete and refined product, of which I could find absolutely no major complaints. It has provided me a ten-fold increase in the pleasures of Mastering.

I hope you understand that it was certainly not my intent to deny anyone new features! And I thank you, Jay, for helping me widen my perspective a little bit!!

Mister

[Robert H]

Hi Robert,

The unpredicatability of EQ matching (as you've experienced with CurveEQ) sounds just like my experiences from early prototype versions of HarBal. That is exactly why I ditched it as an approach. On the other hand, now that HarBal is established and we have got the message out about it not being a great approach I may well just add such a feature.

One reason I didn't is because I believe I can come up with a "loose" EQ match that does work well most of the time. I just haven't had the time to develop the algorithm. Either way, you're not likely to see anything new for a while as I'm buried in the Mac port at this moment.

Regards,


Paavo.

Nice to hear your considering adding spectrum match in the future.

[Robert H]

I It is not at all unreasonable to want to copy a single instrument's timbre, and I see this as being the main benefit of auto-matching functionality.

Jay

Me to