Match EQ to a reference

[George]

Hello,

I'm having trouble understanding how matching to a reference of a different song (a commercial CD, for example) is any help at all.

I've been looking at the curve of a few different professional songs, and the curves are all quite different, and many songs have different curves within themselves (if you compare the verse to the chorus, for example, and the two are oftem pretty different, a quiet sparse verse, a loud full instrumentation chorus).

Plus, many of the pro curves have many peaks and valleys, which, if I didn't know better, would need "fixing".

So, it would seem, that unless your track is nearly if not completely identical to the track you're referencing, the whole matching thing seems useless.

Thanks.

[Ged Leitch]

yep, matching IS useless, but thats why theres no "match" button on harbal.
Harbal was never meant to be an EQ matching program, it's just an EQ.
References are a guide, you'll notice on the commercial tracks most rock and pop stuff is balanced, yes there are plenty of peaks and dips but those are meaningless as most of them dont span more than 1/4 octave each.
What you will see is that the bass is usually the highest (in most rock/pop/dance etc)
the mids are lower, then the high end is usually the lowest.
Think of it in three bands, even though you may see peaks and dips that individually dont span more than 1/4 octave the low,mids and highs are always balanced, if they werent the tracks would not translate to different speaker systems, and considering the commercial tracks are mastered by pro engineers, it's highly unlikely that they arent balanced.

[George]

Thanks for the quick reply!

Some pro tracks do "look" balanced, but some definitely do not, though they sound right, it seems to depend very much on the song, the instrumentation, and so on. Like I said, if I didn't know better, looking at the curve of many pro songs, one would think they need fixing...

so if the matching thing is useless or not what Har-bal is for, then it would seem one is left to using their ears...and so that leaves me wondering why one needs har-bal over just a regular EQ.

The intuit button seems to just flatten the curve a little. I understand the level compensation thing...and then there's the tone matching...but again, that would seem that all your songs would have to be very very similar, or you're back to having to make adjustments using your ears.

Or maybe I'm just not getting the advantage here.

[Ged Leitch]

The advantage is this...
Har bal is a high quality linear phase or minimum phase EQ
it can be extremely precise or can be used in a general low Q way
it will actually HELP your ears after a while due to the visual confirmation of the spectrum
If your monitors are full range e.g 20hz to 20khz (or near) then shelling out Ł8000 for a pair of B&W 802's is pointless due to the visual confirmation of the spectrum.
I now work 80% faster due to the way it's implemented.
You can "home in" on problem frequencies you hear and "see" them on the spectrum.
In countless A/B tests i have done with numerous equalisers on the exact same settings Harbal sounds just as good if not better.
I was a TOTAL sceptic before I purchased it, believe me, sincel i got decent monitors and HarBal i'm now 100% happy with my work as are my customers.

[Ged Leitch]

Also regarding commercial tracks looking as if they need fixed...
i too was confused when i loaded an old Prince track into harbal to find peaks and dips, i thought wait a minute, these guys are saying there should be none.
But that was my mistake, as there should be no MAJOR peaks or dips i.e broad low Q peaks or dips.
And funnily enough there was none on the Prince track, just small peaks and small dips, and when i say "small" i dont mean "height" i.e gain, i mean "width" or how far they span across the spectrum, all the dips and peaks were like one from 150hz to 190hz, or 700hz to 850hz, which usually mean nothing but instrumentation.
Looking at the prince track it WAS actually balanced, i.e the low end (which has the most energy) was highest, mids slightly less and highs (least energy) were lowest on the spectrum.And all commercial tracks i've looked at since are the same (if the same instruments are used) regardless of the tiny peaks or dips that dont span wide enough to disrupt the balance.

[George]

The thing is, when I look at my tracks, they (for the most part) look fine, in fact better than some pro tracks, but they don't sound nearly as fine . There are no major peaks and valleys (widthwise or otherwise), but I'm sure that improvements could be made, but since it looks fine, i'm back to having to make adjustments solely with my ears, and it seems that one can be more accurate with a regular EQ, than sliding around trying to adjust the width and height that way accurately.

I would like for the visual thing to be of help, but so far I'm just not seeing it .

Thanks.

[Phi Lion]

The thing is, when I look at my tracks, they (for the most part) look fine, in fact better than some pro tracks, but they don't sound nearly as fine . There are no major peaks and valleys (widthwise or otherwise), but I'm sure that improvements could be made, but since it looks fine, i'm back to having to make adjustments solely with my ears, and it seems that one can be more accurate with a regular EQ, than sliding around trying to adjust the width and height that way accurately.

I would like for the visual thing to be of help, but so far I'm just not seeing it .

Thanks.

This sounds like its a case of a balanced stereo track but poor recording and mixing.

Mastering is the icing on the cake, it will NOT bring life to a lifeless track.

No one can.

[George]

The thing is, when I look at my tracks, they (for the most part) look fine, in fact better than some pro tracks, but they don't sound nearly as fine . There are no major peaks and valleys (widthwise or otherwise), but I'm sure that improvements could be made, but since it looks fine, i'm back to having to make adjustments solely with my ears, and it seems that one can be more accurate with a regular EQ, than sliding around trying to adjust the width and height that way accurately.

I would like for the visual thing to be of help, but so far I'm just not seeing it .

Thanks.

This sounds like its a case of a balanced stereo track but poor recording and mixing.

Mastering is the icing on the cake, it will NOT bring life to a lifeless track.

No one can.

That doesn't really make sense to me.

I mean, yes, of course the recording and mixing could be better I'm sure...but I can make improvements, and I have, with the regular tools, and I have had stuff mastered by pros, and while it still may not be to the level of a true professional recording, there is definite improvement.

Besides, that seems kind of illogical that a well recorded track would have obvious visual peaks and valleys that are correctable with Har-Bal, doesn't it?

Let's forget about my tracks for a minute, the question seems still to be, how do you know which peaks and valleys are right and which are wrong based on the visual if well recorded pro tracks have them too?

[Ged Leitch]

]

the question seems still to be, how do you know which peaks and valleys are right and which are wrong based on the visual if well recorded pro tracks have them too?

the answer is quite simple, listen to it, judge it, then correct it if you think it needs it.

[Ged Leitch]

The thing is, when I look at my tracks, they (for the most part) look fine, in fact better than some pro tracks, but they don't sound nearly as fine . There are no major peaks and valleys (widthwise or otherwise), but I'm sure that improvements could be made, but since it looks fine, i'm back to having to make adjustments solely with my ears, and it seems that one can be more accurate with a regular EQ, than sliding around trying to adjust the width and height that way accurately.

I would like for the visual thing to be of help, but so far I'm just not seeing it .

Thanks.

This sounds like its a case of a balanced stereo track but poor recording and mixing.

Mastering is the icing on the cake, it will NOT bring life to a lifeless track.

No one can.

That doesn't really make sense to me.

I mean, yes, of course the recording and mixing could be better I'm sure...but I can make improvements, and I have, with the regular tools, and I have had stuff mastered by pros, and while it still may not be to the level of a true professional recording, there is definite improvement.

Besides, that seems kind of illogical that a well recorded track would have obvious visual peaks and valleys that are correctable with Har-Bal, doesn't it?

Let's forget about my tracks for a minute, the question seems still to be, how do you know which peaks and valleys are right and which are wrong based on the visual if well recorded pro tracks have them too?

George, the thing is, you say you think your track looks ok on the spectrum, well ok, but you then say that it sounds not as good as a pro track.
Well, lets not forget that most "pro" recordings are done by bands or artists with a big budget and LOTS of recording time, access to the best mics, pre amps and mix engineers.I've known bands to spend a month recording a single!
All that equates to "getting it right in the mix!" if the mix is'nt there, you cannot hope to "EQ" it better.
Theres two main things in music, EQ and dynamics.Have you used compression appropriately in the mix? what mics are you using? pre amps? room acoustics? or if your using samples are they good quality?
One small thing can make the biggest difference.
The main problem i get in mixes coming from home recordists is low end problems, i.e too much and not enough compression used, cause they either have bad monitors and/ or dont know how to use compression to gel the bass in the mix.But the pro's know exactly how to do this and it usually quite simple as long as their monitors are up to scratch.
Comparing your tracks to a commercial recording is pointless due to the fact that more than likely TOTALLY different equipment was used and different instruments are involved and mics etc...
If you feel you get easy results with regular eq then post a link to a track you've done like this, but to be honest you should actually be able to use harbal even better as you have much more control and you have a visual aid.

[George]

]

the question seems still to be, how do you know which peaks and valleys are right and which are wrong based on the visual if well recorded pro tracks have them too?

the answer is quite simple, listen to it, judge it, then correct it if you think it needs it.

Right. That's my point.

So if you fix what "looks" wrong, and then listen, but that's not the problem, then what? Or if there are no obvious visual problems, then what?

The visual thing just seems very misleading, because a good track can look bad, and vice versa.

[Ged Leitch]

] the answer is quite simple, listen to it, judge it, then correct it if you think it needs it.

Right. That's my point.

So if you fix what "looks" wrong, and then listen, but that's not the problem, then what? Or if there are no obvious visual problems, then what?

The visual thing just seems very misleading, because a good track can look bad, and vice versa.

ok, George hope your not finding me argumentitive but i'm trying my best to help out mate.
Basically, it comes down to what you think is "right" or "wrong".
You are the engineer, and the balls in your court so to speak.
As i said earlier, in production, two important things are, EQ and Dynamics.
Both are seperate entities, but also affect each other in different ways.
You might look at a track in harbal, and think it looks "correct"
but to your ears it might sound wrong, so, what is it about the track that sounds wrong??? is it a dynamic issue or is it an eq issue???
I still say you should post a track for me to hear, one you think looks good but "sounds" wrong to you.