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