Global Undo or Return to origional EQ

bax3 · Post by **bax3** » Mon May 10, 2004 8:57 pm

Sometimes I find that I have simply "messed with" the file more than needed, and I would like to return to the origional Eq as it was when I first loaded the song. Instead of stepping back with Undo or reloading the file, could we just return to the files origional EQ as loaded with one click?

Thanks,
Bax

Har/Bal · Post by **Har/Bal** » Mon May 10, 2004 11:33 pm

Bax

Just hold down your Ctrl button and the letter Z for 5 seconds . When you release it the file will restore itself to its initial state.

Earle

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Tue May 11, 2004 8:08 am

You can click the "Create a new EQ filter" button on the toolbar.

Post by **har-bal** » Tue May 11, 2004 10:35 am

That actually may be the best option.

Thanks

Earle

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Wed May 12, 2004 2:09 am

Earle wrote:Thanks

No... thank YOU guys for making an awesome product!

BTW, no problems with ASIO and my M-Audio card.

Jay

Post by **har-bal** » Wed May 12, 2004 10:16 am

Jay

The official version should be released on 17 May. Hopefully we should be able to make the deadline this time

How have things been going for you lately?

Earle

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Thu May 13, 2004 5:34 am

Earle wrote:The official version should be released on 17 May.

Great to hear! I don't know if you remember, Earle, but I'm the guy who tried to hook you guys up with my buddy at Mackie. He took a look at Har-Bal but decided it was too similar to a product they already carry (Final Mix). I told him there were some significant differences that would hopefully be even more apparent with the new release, so hopefully he'll take another look when you guys release the next version.

Earle wrote:How have things been going for you lately?

Fine, thanks for asking.

Jay

HarBal · Post by **HarBal** » Thu May 13, 2004 7:53 am

Jay wrote:
Earle wrote:The official version should be released on 17 May.
Great to hear! I don't know if you remember, Earle, but I'm the guy who tried to hook you guys up with my buddy at Mackie. He took a look at Har-Bal but decided it was too similar to a product they already carry (Final Mix)....
Jay

Hi Jay,

From what I've just seen about Final Mix I don't see much similarity between the two products at all! From what I saw, final mix is more a dynamics processor (multi-band compressor/limiter) than an EQ processor and the EQ seems rather limited in comparison to HarBal. If he could come to the conclusion that they are somehow similiar I don't think he really understands the product or what it does.

By the way, I'm not that interested in HarBal being acquired by a bigger party, particularly if they are intent on rebadging and elevating the price so that it is no longer affordable to the masses. Final Mix certainly isn't. The price I saw was $399.00.

Regards,

Paavo.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Thu May 13, 2004 8:58 pm

Paavo wrote:If he could come to the conclusion that they are somehow similiar I don't think he really understands the product or what it does.

Yeah, I didn't really make it clear, but that's what I think. I'm guessing he only gave your site a cursory glance, and this was back when the site was more, uh... verbose.

Paavo wrote:By the way, I'm not that interested in HarBal being acquired by a bigger party, particularly if they are intent on rebadging and elevating the price so that it is no longer affordable to the masses.

I totally understand that. I wouldn't be interested either if that was their intent. But it never hurts to just investigate, I guess.

Anyway, lookin' forward to the official release.

Jay

P.S. A comment about 1.5: Some of the tips block the frequency labels on the bottom. I know you can disable the tips (which I did), but seems like the tips should just not cover the frequency labels at all, ya know? I don't mind much since I don't use the tips, but I'm sure it'd be helpful for those who do to not have them cover the frequency info.

Paavo · Post by **Paavo** » Thu May 13, 2004 10:30 pm

Jay wrote:P.S. A comment about 1.5: Some of the tips block the frequency labels on the bottom. I know you can disable the tips (which I did), but seems like the tips should just not cover the frequency labels at all, ya know? I don't mind much since I don't use the tips, but I'm sure it'd be helpful for those who do to not have them cover the frequency info.

Jay, I understand your points about the tips display blocking the frequency labels but avoiding this issue requires some significant re-design to avoid the issue you are referring to.

The reason why is that I chose to have the tips drawn on the graph rather than within a seperate window so that they would be automatically printed in output sent to the printer or the clipboard. Than means that I cannot simply move the tip down further as then the tip will be clipped by the window. Furthermore, moving the tip up will obscure the plots.

On the other hand I don't see the obscuring of the axis as a big issue because the actual frequency and power values corresponding to the point under the cursor are reported in the status bar, giving an accurate readout of both frequency and power. This is actually far more accurate than reading the scale on the graph.

I've earmarked this as a possible change in a future release though I'm still undecided as to whether the alternative (putting it in a seperate window out of the way) is better. I'll need more user feedback before I can come to any firm conclusion.

Thanks,

Paavo.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Fri May 14, 2004 3:20 am

Paavo wrote:I understand your points about the tips display blocking the frequency labels but avoiding this issue requires some significant re-design to avoid the issue you are referring to

I figured it was a design choice rather than a bug. Is it difficult to add a few extra millimeters to the length of the window to avoid covering the axis? I guess you already answered that, but I'm just curious since I assumed modifying the window size was a simple task... not that I know your coding methods. Anyway, not a big deal.

Thanks as always,
Jay

HarBal · Post by **HarBal** » Fri May 14, 2004 8:00 am

Jay wrote:I figured it was a design choice rather than a bug. Is it difficult to add a few extra millimeters to the length of the window to avoid covering the axis? I guess you already answered that, but I'm just curious since I assumed modifying the window size was a simple task... not that I know your coding methods. Anyway, not a big deal.

Thanks as always,
Jay

Jay,

Adding a little bit to the window size is not going to help in general. The amount of vertical space the tip takes up will depend upon the width of the main window. If it is maximised it doesn't take up much space but as you reduce the window size it takes progressively more. Also, tip files are user definable and can have as much text in them as you wish so I cna't make any assumptions about how big or small a tip might be.

I guess in a future revision I'll add an option to have tips as they are or as a seperate tip window. Then users can choose whichever they prefer. At least then the change is no more than adding an alternative method rather than also removing an existing one.

Thanks,

Paavo.

Har-Bal Users Forum BBS