x
anonymous 26 September 2006

Been doing some extensive reading on Hal-Bar Harmonic Balancer used as a Mastering tool aid.
Any users out there?
Any comments?

Comments

anonymous Tue, 09/26/2006 - 15:22

Re: °º¤º°ChEap MeDs!!! cIaLiS aMbIeN vIaGrA!!!!°º¤º°

Reggie wrote: YES!!! HALBAR IS ULTIMATE REFERENCING TOOL!
PLEASE USE!!!
YES THANK YOU!
>[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.asl.edu/…"]Hal-Bar[/]="http://www.asl.edu/…"]Hal-Bar[/]<

°º¤º°ChEap MeDs!!! cIaLiS aMbIeN vIaGrA!!!!°º¤º°

Ive read real good reviews on the Hal-Bar,Im currently trying to get my hands on the software----any ides where I might find it?

Thomas W. Bethel Wed, 09/27/2006 - 05:25

It does have one redeeming quality and that is it makes very nice graphs of what the music overall frequency response looks like and you can print them out. As to using the program for any serious mastering - forget it. It tries to fit music into a predefined pattern and does not really care if that music is classical or punk. Use at your own risk.

anonymous Wed, 09/27/2006 - 21:24

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Eddie, what are you trying to accomplish????

It's a program that molds your mix to a preset. that's it...

If that's what you want, then buy it. If it works for you, great...

If your mixes still don't turn out the way you want, email har-bal.

Id like to visually see what Im hearing,now that Ive upgraded my monitor system with a new pair of JBL 4410As,and the Bryston amp,and repaired acoustics in my control room,my mixes have improved tremedously,but seeing as how I dont have all those years of expierence when it comes to really knowing what freq does what before i start adjusting them at the eq,I figured i could look at the freqs via the spectrum,and try to better my understanding of what freq does what.
If I see numbers,in relation to the freq being showed to me via the spectrum,then Im almost certain that I will start better understanding what freq does what.
Id love to listen to a mix,and know exactly what freq is the problem even before I start knob dicking.
I see the Hal-Bar as a teaching aid for me to better understand,learn,and comprehend what a good mix not only sounds like,but what it looks like.
I know a good mix when I hear one,but I also know a bad one when I hear one

Michael Fossenkemper Thu, 09/28/2006 - 06:20

If you are tunning a room, or measuring equipment, or checking the frequecy response of something, then it's benifitial to have something like a spectrum analyzer as one of your many tools you'll need. But since a mix is unique in many many many regards, seeing it's frequency balance is not really useful. What it can do, is tell you what is going on beyond your monitors ability to reproduce, like below 60hz and above say 16khz. But if you look at many mixes, you'll notice that there is no "standard" in regards to these extreme freq's. So what do you learn from it??? That every mix looks different. Sure it's cool to look at the bass line dance around, but you are turning what should be an auditory exercise into a visual exercise.

What you should be looking at while mastering:
The position of your volume pot.
That your eq's aren't in bypass while you are turning the knobs.
The position you are in while you are listening.

That's about all I can think of. You can look at some meters like a VU or RMS but just a glance will do you here and there.

I used to stare at a whole slew of analyzers and meters all day long. It's a distraction. You will try to visually mold a mix into what you think it should look like. It's better to learn what a mix sounds like, train your ears to hear problems and solutions. It's ok for a mix to look wrong as long as it sounds right, not the other way around.

anonymous Thu, 09/28/2006 - 20:27

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: If you are tunning a room, or measuring equipment, or checking the frequecy response of something, then it's benifitial to have something like a spectrum analyzer as one of your many tools you'll need. But since a mix is unique in many many many regards, seeing it's frequency balance is not really useful. What it can do, is tell you what is going on beyond your monitors ability to reproduce, like below 60hz and above say 16khz. But if you look at many mixes, you'll notice that there is no "standard" in regards to these extreme freq's. So what do you learn from it??? That every mix looks different. Sure it's cool to look at the bass line dance around, but you are turning what should be an auditory exercise into a visual exercise.

What you should be looking at while mastering:
The position of your volume pot.
That your eq's aren't in bypass while you are turning the knobs.
The position you are in while you are listening.

That's about all I can think of. You can look at some meters like a VU or RMS but just a glance will do you here and there.

I used to stare at a whole slew of analyzers and meters all day long. It's a distraction. You will try to visually mold a mix into what you think it should look like. It's better to learn what a mix sounds like, train your ears to hear problems and solutions. It's ok for a mix to look wrong as long as it sounds right, not the other way around.

Thnaks for the advise Mike,you really piss me off though,,,partially due to the fact,that you make absolute "good sense" 8-).
I know when I hear something thats wrong in a mix as far as eq,but what I dont have "yet" is the ability of looking at S on the EQ,and knowing for a fact what freq # I should be adjusting,,,I can find the problem freq,but it takes me a graet deal of time and effort.
THe one point that Bob Katz brings up in his book,is that it takes yrs of practice of training youre ears to listen for problems,then turning to the eq and knowing where the solution is at.
Ever since I started to work on my mastering skills,( purchasing good monitors and refrence amp included) I swear I cant listen to anything anymore without trying to analyze the living shit out of it,,,from television,to radio.
Just last night,I forced myself to get after adjusting a mix via my parametric,rather than cheating,and using dynamic processors etc... before I knew it 2 hrs went by :shock: :shock:

Thomas W. Bethel Fri, 09/29/2006 - 05:07

eddies880

There is such a thing as OVER listening and processing and I think you maybe there already. Sometimes if you work on a project, especially your own, you start to hear things that are not really there. The more you work on a song the more things you hear, or think you hear that are wrong with it. A suggestion would be to call it a night, and start fresh the next morning when you have a chance to sleep on it and give your ears a rest. Sometime when a client is mastering here they try to fix in one day problems that have taken months to produce. They start hearing things that they should have fixed in the recording or in the mixing or in the song writing and some of them you can't fix with mastering no matter how much time you spend on it or how many eq tweaks you do.

Just a friendly suggestion...

Michael Fossenkemper Fri, 09/29/2006 - 07:22

Thomas, I'm not sure I agree on overlistening, especially in the beginning stages. It takes some time to sift through the rubble to hear what is going on. training ears to hear subtle things takes a lot of time. When I add a new piece of gear to my studio, it can take up to a month before I actually use it on a project. I insert it and play with it and listen, come back and listen to it again, put it in another area of the chain tweek and listen, etc... The first impression of something can be big, it's usually later that the details start to come into view.

The old school way of finding something is to boost and sweep. Guess at the freq, boost and sweep up and down to see how close you guessed. this will also allow you to hear what else the eq is doing in adjoining freqs. listen to the phase shift, any dips or ripples. Now you are listening to the eq and not just fixing a bump on a graph. a spectrum analyzer isn't going to tell you how that eq sounds. It isn't going to tell you how much distortion you are creating. all it is telling you is what freqs have more or less energy at a given point in time, not the quality of that energy or how you should deal with it. A compressor can change that energy just as easily as an eq, which one should you use and why? Only listening will tell you.

If you look at say a snare drum on a graph, what should it look like? well that would depend on what kind of snare, how hard it was hit, what kind of mic was used, was there a compressor on it, how big or small the room was. Tons of variables. Each one will have a totally different look to them. maybe it has a noticeable note to it, do you take that out or leave it in? a graph won't tell you any of these things. only listening to it will.

Thomas W. Bethel Fri, 09/29/2006 - 07:56

Michael,

I do basically the same thing when I get in a new piece of gear or a new piece of software that works with my DAW.

I also listen to a whole heck of a lot of music from a lot of different genres and try and figure out what was done in the mastering versus what was done in the recording and mixing and what I think sounds good and what I think sound crappy.

Training your ears is critical for a mastering engineer.

I have had clients bring me material that they have worked on and taken 3 weeks mixing one one song. They were so busy tweaking it and making it sound the way they wanted it to sound that they failed to notice simple things like the two channels were recorded 180 degrees out of phase or after all the playing and tweaking and listening, their studio monitors did not have any bass in them and, their stuff sounded really bass heavy and muddy. All the listening in the world to bad monitors is not going to get you anything. They got caught up in doing all the "tweaky" things to the sound and forgot what it was they were doing and could not hear what they were really doing so all the listening was for naught.

I agree with what you are saying and if you have the proper monitoring environment and the proper speakers to listen to things on it is worthwhile.

anonymous Fri, 09/29/2006 - 16:56

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Thomas, I'm not sure I agree on overlistening, especially in the beginning stages. It takes some time to sift through the rubble to hear what is going on. training ears to hear subtle things takes a lot of time. When I add a new piece of gear to my studio, it can take up to a month before I actually use it on a project. I insert it and play with it and listen, come back and listen to it again, put it in another area of the chain tweek and listen, etc... The first impression of something can be big, it's usually later that the details start to come into view.

The old school way of finding something is to boost and sweep. Guess at the freq, boost and sweep up and down to see how close you guessed. this will also allow you to hear what else the eq is doing in adjoining freqs. listen to the phase shift, any dips or ripples. Now you are listening to the eq and not just fixing a bump on a graph. a spectrum analyzer isn't going to tell you how that eq sounds. It isn't going to tell you how much distortion you are creating. all it is telling you is what freqs have more or less energy at a given point in time, not the quality of that energy or how you should deal with it. A compressor can change that energy just as easily as an eq, which one should you use and why? Only listening will tell you.

If you look at say a snare drum on a graph, what should it look like? well that would depend on what kind of snare, how hard it was hit, what kind of mic was used, was there a compressor on it, how big or small the room was. Tons of variables. Each one will have a totally different look to them. maybe it has a noticeable note to it, do you take that out or leave it in? a graph won't tell you any of these things. only listening to it will.

All things taken into consideration,I find myself possible trying to reach for a tool that will help on the eq tuning,but as we all know,theres no substitute for hrs spent in the control room eqing away.
As far as the Har-Bal goes,Ive already ordered it,if it works,fine,if not,Ill just shove it into the "what a piece of shit " file.along with many other items Ive purchased in the persuit of audioing.

anonymous Tue, 10/17/2006 - 19:36

Thomas W. Bethel wrote: Michael,

I do basically the same thing when I get in a new piece of gear or a new piece of software that works with my DAW.

I also listen to a whole heck of a lot of music from a lot of different genres and try and figure out what was done in the mastering versus what was done in the recording and mixing and what I think sounds good and what I think sound crappy.

Training your ears is critical for a mastering engineer.

I have had clients bring me material that they have worked on and taken 3 weeks mixing one one song. They were so busy tweaking it and making it sound the way they wanted it to sound that they failed to notice simple things like the two channels were recorded 180 degrees out of phase or after all the playing and tweaking and listening, their studio monitors did not have any bass in them and, their stuff sounded really bass heavy and muddy. All the listening in the world to bad monitors is not going to get you anything. They got caught up in doing all the "tweaky" things to the sound and forgot what it was they were doing and could not hear what they were really doing so all the listening was for naught.

I agree with what you are saying and if you have the proper monitoring environment and the proper speakers to listen to things on it is worthwhile.

Thomas
I went ahead and took upon myself to try the Har-Bal,after trying the new "tool" out and learning the basics,its not all that bad.
Theres much too learn with the Har-Bal,but its gonna have to do untill I can afford my nice Manley or Drawmer eq. 8)

anonymous Wed, 10/18/2006 - 07:33

Re: °º¤º°ChEap MeDs!!! cIaLiS aMbIeN vIaGrA!!!!°º¤º°

Reggie wrote: YES!!! HALBAR IS ULTIMATE REFERENCING TOOL!
PLEASE USE!!!
YES THANK YOU!
>[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.asl.edu/…"]Hal-Bar[/]="http://www.asl.edu/…"]Hal-Bar[/]<

°º¤º°ChEap MeDs!!! cIaLiS aMbIeN vIaGrA!!!!°º¤º°

Ive tried it,and youre right! it is a good refrence tool.

x

User login