Oh sure, I've been using Har-Bal for years! Unfortunately it does seem to make my kitty toss those things up more often?

Automatic equalizers are like automatic microphone mixers. They are there for people that do not know how to make good recordings. The basic reason why you are now here is to learn how to make good recordings and so you won't have any Har-Bal problems with your kitty.

Blechhhhhh Cak Cak wretch
oh no!

I haven't tried it. If you are learning, it might be interesting to see what it thinks is good.

Harbal

Not to rock the boat, I have noticed some surprising improvements in many mixes. Doesn't work on every one, but it does do the job on most of them. What I notice in tough mixes is that it brings out the sound of everything in the mix and cleans it up.

"Automatic equalizers are like automatic microphone mixers. They are there for people that do not know how to make good recordings. The basic reason why you are now here is to learn how to make good recordings "

:shock: wow, what a narrowminded, presumptuous thing to say.... coming from the moderator no-less.

1. Maybe not all of "us" are here to uh, "learn". Maybe we're here to just read for fun.

2. I hardly call Craig Anderton,who actaully uses har-bal " a person who doesn't know how to make good recordings." Incase you don't know who he is, I suggest you do a google search on him, read what he has to say, you might pickup a few tips.

3. Anyone who's been around and who knows anything about recording in general also know that the acoustic path to the Speakers VS the electronic signal path in the gear are NOT one in the same.

4. Even " Major" label recordings AREN'T "perfect". They suffer from EQ deficiencies as well, maybe not to the extreme of "home recordings, but the do infact suffer.( just load one into a spectral prog and you'll see) What may translate well on a fine set of highend speakers may not translate so well on a cheapboom box. The whole goal here is to make things work for the "realworld" as best as possible. Even the best ears in the biz cannnot dot all the I's and cross all the "T's". there's ALWAYS some compromise going on. That's a stone cold fact in recording.

I've read some of your posts here... I guess it's nice to call out how you need a cut here a boost there, or how the uh..."bass sounds too boomy or the guitars ratty. But in reality, even the best ears are flawed. Why? Your human, that's why. SO even the great Bob Katz for example.... isn't perfect.

My point?
I think spectral progs such as harbal and the like are VERY GOOD because it puts eyes on the mix, you can see as well as hear. Of course you cant "steal a EQ curve and make a turd better. ( Or even apply another curve to a good mix for that matter.")
No two mixes are alike, or share same decisions made for that matter.

But you can atleast see where the mix is lacking, say in a Freq range your speakers might be lying to you at. ( even the best speakers money can buy lack too, you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. See: acoustic path Vs signal path)

Who knows lady, maybe you have an ok ear, but you don't have a "perfect ear". IE: not are truthful as spectral analysis. These readings come straight from the electral signal path. they don't lie. Yes, you cannot "mix by numbers" but you sure get into the ballpark much quicker.

" there's no such thing as a bad recording, taste & ears vary"

What one person might call an "EQ deficiency," another person might call "the natural tone of the recorded instrument/voice" or "a sonic decision based on artistic whim." Or is Har-Bal the name of a wizard who judges and regulates the correctness of our opinions and tastes?
Must be a very smart wizard indeed....but is he to be fully trusted?

"wow, what a narrowminded, presumptuous thing to say.... coming from the moderator no-less."

Well thank you Mranalog for those kind and relatively pompous opinions. Perhaps this is just some fun bathroom toilet reading for your self?? But it's education for other people of less experience.

Many pieces of software these days have built-in spectral analyzers. With one looking at a spectrum analyzer one can " tweak" their equalizer's for a flatter looking spectrum. You don't need no stinking standalone program to do that. Your software may even contain multi-band dynamics processing which tries to do an automatic equalization thingy based on the level of spectral content in several frequencies bands.

I know all about Craig Anderton and have been following him throughout the years. We are contemporaries. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn what he uses. He is not the be all end all expert. He is no more knowledgeable than I am and please, DON'T YOU FORGET THAT.

Of course the acoustic path and the electronic path may be different but they are related. You take out the acoustic equation when you use headphones but then all headphones sound different from each other as well. Your perceptions of the " Major" labels not being perfect? Well DUH! So basically what you are saying is everything should sound the way you think it should sound? Well you are wrong! The only thing that is deficient here is your perceptions. Why? Because you are an inhuman audio guy, a computer methinks?

This "Lady" has more than an OK ear, my hearing is as good as any spectral analysis program! I don't need no stinking ballpark to get me closer to a good mix then you must be capable of?

At least you and I agree on one fact that there's no such thing as a bad recording (even if there are plenty of them in all reality) just variables in what people perceive as being good.

Now it's time for you to go take out the trash.
Ms. Remy Analog David

There are so many things wrong with this concept - using software to magicially "FIX" or Master EQ on something subjective alone, I don't know where to begin. (And if YOU reading this dont' get it, I can't help you, either....)

Sure, it looks like a great tool to visually inspect a recording's EQ curve, make some adjustments on the fly, etc. But the end result will be "Different", not necessarily better or worse. It reminds me of guys who used to play with graphic equalizers back in the 70s with their 8track tapes, making everything sound "Better" afterwards. (if you say so, kiddo....)

If you're naive enough to think that dialing in the EQ curve of your favorite thrasher CD and convoluting it with your own record is going to let you make YOUR recording sound better, then I can't help you either. You're missing so many of the fundamental concepts of randomness in recording, coupled with the millions of variables that go into each unique recording of sound, it's almost laughable. Sorry kids, it just does NOT work that way.....

As PT Barnun said: there's one born every minute. I know Craig Anderton, and I have always appreciated his work. (He's a homeboy from this area, as well. Go and google "Mandrake Memorial" for a little history lesson. ( http://www.classicwebs.com/mandrake.htm ) Craig's a great guy, and knows his stuff. He's practically a force of nature in this biz, without question. But he needs bucks like anyone else, and I don't see the big deal that a quote from him (probably pulled from a paid review) is used in their ad. It doesn't convince ME to run out and buy it. Nope.

And saying it's great because Craig likes it is, well, just pathetic.

Kids. Whatareyagonna do. :roll:

Not to mention that many folks that don't know what they are listening to are try to use a frequency-domain tool to solve problems that may be time-domain issues. Just because you can change the spectral content doesn't necessarily make it better.

Now, I've heard a few folks that I trust say the Har Bal is a pretty cool tool and is a good start point. however, I have yet to hear anybody give it the props that the marketing material makes it seem to deserve...

There is a similar tool in Sequoia and it is fun, but in the end, I find it to be of very limited use in the end.

--Ben

I'm actually proud to be "dissed" - by name - somewhere on HairBall's site or their forum or something...

I actually took advantage of the "30 day no questions asked" refund.

After an awful lot of questions - And fine explanations if I say so myself, I went for the refund. Worthless as teats on a bull for what it was designed for.

THAT BEING SAID - It isn't the worst sounding EQ I've ever heard. But it certainly doesn't compete with what I'm using already. *IF* it was a VST plug, I probably would've kept it around. But for a stand-alone? Not a chance.

John, I'll bet that big ol' lump of grey matter between your ears does a MUCH better job of picking out the "Good" frequencies vs. the "Bad" ones, and making it all come together as one coherent master.

I'm no luddite, and I'm certainly not anti-computer. I use them all day long for the work I do. But some "magic eq" fix just isn't the answer either. The "Magic EQ" is based on the assumption that there is always going to be some mathematical, predictable profile or algorithmn that needs to be changed "for the better"; as if there's a profile that can be read by this thing, and adjusted to sound "Better."

Again, I say it will indeed sound different - brighter, duller, squakier, mellower, smoother, whatever you dail in. But in the end, it's your brain and your ears, coupled with a great monitoring system that will tell you what's correct or not.

If it was as easy as just a few mouse clicks, then what are we all doing HERE, anyway?

While hairball isn't a tool that I use, I can see that it would be useful for someone that is getting started. maybe more of a learning tool. But let's keep it clean here.

first off "lady": :shock: Calm down, don't get your blood pressure up, It's all O's & 1's here. All in good fun, don't have a stroke!

let's do a Remy Rad reality check here shall we? :lol:

1. where are your published books on the subject of recording? I would love to see them.

2. you procliam to have these" great golden ears", what label do you currently work for? I'd love to see your references and hear some of your work.

3. someone what such a "gift" is merely wasting talent lingering around here as a forum MOD. Have you thought about a "career move"? Maybe one that pays for a change?

Yes, it's the truth "laDy".... I find 99% percent of what yer posting around this fourm to be VERY useful when I'm sitting on the commode with my old laptop. ( prunes would probably less painful...) Outside of that, I really could do without your very weak attempts at uh...."humor". which I seem to stumble upon ALOT in the threads I read. Ah, the pun on words... " har-bal/hairballl" the belittling remarks you make to others about they're gear and recordings they post.

Oh... let us not forget the all the "slapstick, side splitting uh... humor". It's the kind of humor that takes one back to the Vaudeville dayz of the 1920's. :? Yer showing yer age.

Laurel and hardy would be proud. Hey, if the music biz doesn't "pan" out (no pun) you can alway knock em' dead with your uh... "stand up". I know, I know, you're trying to show peeps a good time here and trying to look cute, but you're NOT.... in more ways than one I might add. Ooh.... Let me try some humor like the lady does: One could say, yer face is so ugly lady, you need to cut it off and grow a scab. It would be an improvement.)

at anyrate, spec progs such as harbal are good, regardless of how 'golden" your ear is. this is the reason why Craig is making a killing and your not. " I believe they call that "being openminded".

Update:

I wonder what other " non-showering-pros" are here? recording.org what a joke!

Thanks to a selct few: I've learn my lesson here today.... I would like to share what I've learned: Stay the h@ll out of forums. I've come to learn that forums are chuck full of know it all a*** with nothing better to do execpt let everyone know how great & ALL KNOWING they are. It's funny because you "pro -recording asses" secretly think you're the best of the best and youre' the only one here that knows what yer talking about.( that includes you're peers) A bunch of self -asborbed a******* is what you really are. the only ones here that even thank anyone for the "advice" are the noobs"... to me that speaks volumes upon itself. you "pro a****" can't be taught anything.....

I've also come to realize that these " so called pros" get off on helping "other noobs" for an ego boost because in the real world they don't have a life. So It's time to play Mr & Mrs recording overlord....

seeya A****!

(next time can you please catch all of you cuss words. less work on my part. MOD)

I love it when dips*** get on here with 3 or 4 posts and start telling pro's what they should and shouldn't say. I also love when the newbs press people's buttons then proceed to tell them to calm down. Mr. A***, you're a d*** and pretty pathetic, especially to bash someones physical appearance. I mean most of us aren't really lookers in this business so I'm not sure how that makes one bit of difference to Remy's talents. She's classy, you aren't, end of story. Oh and it will truly be joyous if you f*** off and never return.

such pathetic stuff, indeed.

Actually, I think we've been lucky. This sort of stuff used to happen more in the "bad old days" of internet forums. Ya don't see it all that often, but occasionally, it does rear it's pointed little head here from time to time. The morons show up with no profile or other info, cause a stir, leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth, and dissappear again after leaving a cloud of noxious GAS behind.

Glad MrAnal is gone, indeed. Just trying to imagine the mindset that creates that kind of spew....

I'd say pathetic, but I'd be repeating myself. Again.

(hey Remy, maybe you can share his email address with us, so we can give him some parting words, eh? :twisted: )

Thank you jonnyc for your kind words. While there may be many other people's that may be more professionally known and labeled successful, than myself, nonetheless I have had the pleasure of being employed as an audio engineer in numerous professional studios from NYC to Fort Lauderdale and a broadcaster from local stations in Baltimore to NBC TV and radio network in Washington DC. I have the distinction of having been employed strictly in professional audio throughout my over 35 years of working in the broadcasting and recording arts and sciences business.

One of the reasons why I have always had a particular fondness for rock-and-roll and other forms of popular music is because, it's like the lottery. You've got to play to win! I have heard plenty of dreck that has been successful and some very talented people but that never became famous. So you roll the dice and try again because you never know when Ed McMahon may walk up to your front door and tell you you have won a Grammy award!

I can understand other people's frustrations as well. Little does bozo boy realize that I was pointed here by technical wizard John Klett, a professional acquaintance and friend. This was also an important place for me to be during my convalescence after lifesaving brain surgery eight months ago. I have a lovely variable schedule and am quite the night owl and insomniac, so I sit and watch my cable television and eat my food while playing on the Internet after coming home from doing audio and/or video. And I like to share my knowledge with others and realize there is always more than one way to do something.

I believe preproduction is important prior to recording. Particularly before a live show. But don't get me wrong here, I love spontaneity, I love the glitches, it makes for greater excitement of live and in the studio productions. I believe in spontaneity because if things were always perfect, how did we end up with George Bush? I'm not sure what I'm trying to say? They say stuff happens and we got George. To make good recordings all you merely have to do is know the equipment that you are using, good or bad and how best to utilize the stuff. Many people here like myself are here to share our experiences with others. But I want everybody to be able to make solid and gratifying recordings, so I present my experience and flair. If you try things that I recommend, you'll get a good recording. If you try things that other people recommend, you will get a good recording. If you plug things in wrong and turn all the knobs the wrong direction from lack of knowledge and experience, you will get a bad recording. Life is really that simple, when it comes to recording.

Simply nonplussed
Ms. Remy Ann David

Where do these posters like mranalog come from and go to? They seem to be the proverbial "troll" but why even start downgrading a person who freely shares her vast audio knowledge with every one here like RemyRAD? and then he puts Craig Anderton on a pedestal (maybe he has a shrine to him in his bedroom). Yes Craig is probably up there with people who's names are synonymous with audio but I bet he puts his pants on one leg at a time just like everyone else.

Any way I hope mranalog got his rocks off striking back for the freedom and justice for his way of life.

MTCW

IMHO, that guy is a PERFECT example of why it should be mandatory to register to post here with a working email address, a location (at least a hometown, I"m not talking about home addresses), and if applicable, a website.

Going further, I'd even support a private list (known only to the webmaster) with more important info (phone #, altertnate contact info, etc.) for private use when registering. (Not stuff that would be made public, but certainly stuff that would deter idiots like Anal from posting and scooting.)

Nobodies like him can show up, create problems and then just disappear into the wind.

They are the ultimate losers and cowards - total zeroes who make trouble by tearing up the hard work of others.

As much as I enjoy this place the maturity of 99% of the posters, I'd LOVE to see this place filter the last bits of that stuff outta here with a few simple additions for membership/registration.

while this sounds like a good idea, implimenting it is another thing. But we can bring it up with Chris and see if he has any ideas.

Harbal

Now I know that this little flame war happened some time ago, but I'd like to get back to the topic.

One doesn't have to use Harbal to 'rip' eq curves. In fact, this is one of the least sucessful ways to use the programme. Personally, I use (and rather like) this programme as a quick check on the average/peak spectrum and a quick nip/tuck on the bass end before sending out monitor mixes or demos for approval. It's bloody fast, easy to use and sounds surprisingly decent in combination with a quick 3-5 dB reduction of peaks using an external L2 or sometimes even the internal limiter.

I have recommended this app to several people to check (not to actually burn) files before sending off to our mastering engineer as I find the metering and subsequent 'toe-in-the-water' changes clear and easy. Using the interface, I can show them where their monitors are cheating them - mainly of headroom due to sub-bass and overenthusiastic use of bass. We use it in this way to get people to remix based on what they have learned and to see what good, reference mixes look like and I think some of the home recorded work that comes in has improved as a result.

The whole approach of this app appears to me to be one of education, home mastering and a quick job that does not require the full process of a paid mastering engineer. The fact that it can display instruments in their respective frequency areas points towards this.

When Bob Katz can bring himself to write a quick tutorial on the TC Finalizer I think that what we can lose track of here sometimes is horses for courses.

In fact, I have heard our mastering guy do a couple of quite decent jobs when he came to our studio. At first he was horrified (and not just about Harbal) but on the condition I did not let anyone know who he was and what he did he is now comfortable using this app as a pointer to what he can do on the occasional job - not in his room, of course!

regards,

John

as John pointed out earlier, there are plenty of vst spectrum analyzers, so why go with a standalone when you dont have to?

Good points, both John and saemskin.... Which really does make the case for visual inspection of any work in question. I've got no arguments there. I think what pushed the hot-button for most of us was the idea of automated "fixing' of a final mix, (esp the convolution idea).

From what I saw in the demo, it seems like another way of looking at the overall waveform curve/profile, and that's indeed cool. Samp/Sequoia has an FFT view screen that's a little like that (both static and real-time), and if you spend a few more bucks, there's the Algorithmix reNOVAtor, which continues to amaze me every time I work with it. Its work-window is a spectral viewer/display, so there's left-to-right time domain, then top to bottom frequency display, and finally the colors tell you the real story: cool blue to green for the lowest levels, getting warmer through orange/red to red/yellow to white to show the loudest levels. Even if you're not using the app to make changes, you can at least see - at a glance - where the hotspots are.

Any of these tools that help do a specific task with greater ease and accuracy are wonderful. Just don't ask me to believe it can replace the impossible to define taste and talent of a good mastering engineer.

I've come to the conclusion that a spectrum analyzer is like a midi controller. They all do pretty much the same thing, and one tends to like the one they are used to.
I have a favorite, and am used to that one. Everything else I seem to dislike simply because I dont "know" them.

*shrug*

Hello!
Wow, these posts get violent.......

Here is my .02 cents. The Harmonic Balancer came up in a discussion while I was mixing an acoustic record that just got finished a few weeks back. And to keep the violence out of it:

I can see how the Har-Bal can get you in the ballpark especially if you want to try to copy another spectral imprint. In using it, I however found that it did not sound good or "right" to me. I got much better results using my ears and a Good Ol EQ unit. On a side note, there are very few digital EQ's that sound "good" to me and this was not one of the good sounding ones.
It is my belief that most people would be better off, especially sonically, by spending their money a good EQ plug-in or analog EQ, listening to their favorite CD's, and spending an hour playing around with the EQ.

If you need a spectrogram or FFT to look at, there are many programs out there that have em .02 ya'all!

Firium EQ

I just noticed the Firium EQ is no longer made! I was going to buy one. So now that Steinberg doesn't make their product anymore, or elemental audio, is HarBal the closest replacement? Any other software or plugins to do eq morphing to another source?

Re: Firium EQ

cymbals wrote: I just noticed the Firium EQ is no longer made! I was going to buy one. So now that Steinberg doesn't make their product anymore, or elemental audio, is Herbal the closest replacement? Any other software or plug ins to do eq morphing to another source?

It is being made but has been bought out by Roger Nichols

http://www.rogernicholsdigital.com/ who increased the price substantially and gave them all "cute names"

Here is the email they sent me after I asked what happened

Thank you for writing to let us know how you feel. I understand your frustration with some of the changes that have taken place. Sudden change is often not well received, especially if you were happy with things as they were. We chose to enter into a relationship with Roger Nichols Digital because we believe that the relationship will ultimately result in improved products and greater availability, and because we believe it will help us to grow and improve as a company. Though some of our customers look negatively on this change, we continue to see this relationship as one with much positive potential and we are looking forward to producing many new audio products.

If you have any additional comments or questions, please let us know. We appreciate your feedback and we, of course, value your support.

------------------------------------
Sales & Customer Service
Elemental Audio Systems
Link removed

FWIW

So is it now UniquEQ? I'm going to sound dumb, but I looked, and wasn't sure which one it was now.

Damn

I don't know you, but where I come from, forums are placed online only to gossip and criticize, nothing educational, nothing useful ever comes out of them. At least here I have expert and objective opinions about my work and every bit of advice helps me do a better job, it's truly sad to see how a**** like yourself don't appreciate that. I think Remy has given harsh posts sometimes but hey, I think most teachers in the best music and audio schools should be like that, you learn more after your work has been harshly critiqued. Also, I think most of this post is based on something that is actually subjective, it's like the ever lasting trigger vs acoustic drum sound war, everybody is entitled to their own opinions. But hey Remy, no offense, but allow me to be a bit doubtfull about those golden ears of yours, I've heard that comment before on true suckers in the recording business and it always blows up in their faces. But in the end I totally respect and thank those pro's that even for ego matters or just for fun post in this forum to help others like me, whose life is totally inmersed in music and audio, and dream to be at a pro level one day.

Thank you Cosme. I feel very fortunate that I have been blessed with exceptional hearing, due in part to my professional musician parents. I was raised to listen to everything, carefully. My "Golden ear" status comes from being able to verbalize what I have heard and making changes translating to technical improvements for numerous recording studios and broadcast facilities throughout my professional career. However, I'm not one of those people that completely believes in pristine ultimate fidelity. That is to say, I believe in the practical application of any recording and equipment. I don't insist on the finest equipment. I believe in a "good enough" approach to recording and broadcast. It doesn't matter if you have the best equipment money can buy if the person on the other side of the glass has no talent. I think many of us have referred to that as "polishing turds"? LOL!

Many years ago, Yasha Heifitz was recorded using numerous violins of various quality. It didn't matter whether he was playing on a $1 million Stradavarius or a $25 plastic toy, the recordings that were made still sounded like Yasha Heifitz. I basically feel the same about most recording equipment. In the bygone times of audio, equipment choices were limited and so we all had to learn how to best utilize what we had to work with. We would all love to own Neve or API (I do) but if all you have is a $59 Beringer mixer and an $80 SM57, there is no reason that you can't still make a beautiful recording. HIGH-DEFINITION HOOEY!

One thing that I do believe that is lacking is a good understanding of the equipment that one is using or purchasing. Not everyone wants to be a technician but you cannot drive a car unless you understand the rules of the road. It's important that you know where you're going. You don't have to understand how the engine works but you do need to check your oil from time to time and know how to do it. Many folks just want to learn how to "twiddle" knobs and dials and thus "recording schools" were born.

In an incredible happenstance and twist of events, over 25 years ago, I had an incredible fortunate opportunity to have a one-on-one interview with Sir George Martin in NYC! One of the main differences between American engineers and British engineers he told me, at that time, was that many American engineers only knew how to tweak the knobs and dials. They didn't even know how to solder an XLR connector to a cable. The technicians only had to fix the knobs and dials and they couldn't make recording to save their life. The British engineers, at least the ones that worked for Sir George Martin, were competent technicians first, before they became recording engineers for him. So I have always considered myself to be more of a "British style", practical engineer since I personally traveled that route.

I love to share my knowledge and experience with others that are interested and I apologize if some of my responses on Recording.org have occasionally seemed harsh. Generally I just get a little silly while whimsically musing over questions that are posted. No malice is intended. Just like when I was seeing my Shrink some 20 years ago, sometimes he would say things that would really get me angry. It would make me think. I would stew over it the entire week. The following week I would tell him that I finally figured things out because what he said got me angry. He would just laugh. That was his job. Sometimes I just try to make people think about the practical side of recording and what they are trying to do. As I have said in the past it all comes down to the directions to Carnegie Hall. Practice Practice Practice

"I've got blisters on my fingers"
Ms. Remy Ann David

I seems that their main selling point is that it can be used to tame peaks and allows you to view RMS and Peak Averages at the same time, which is displayed in a graph window.

I actually think they have a good point with this feature (quoted below). It seems that "by the book" this is a feature which should be available on more products of a similar nature, if its not already.

Everyone knows that people have a bias in A/B comparison type scenarious that the program with the louder content may be picked out as being the 'better' one.

So I would think that wouldbe a useful tool, to have something which keeps the volume level fairly constant so you dont get fooled by the ol' louder sounds better paradigm which the human brain seems to be stuck in, and which is a reality regardless of how experienced a person is in audio.

-------------------------------------------

What is Loudness Compensation Technology?

When you perform EQ on a typical equalizer or mixing desk you cannot make an impartial judgment about whether a particular EQ setting is good or not because it is generally not loudness compensated. By that we mean for an A/B test of with and without EQ to be unbiased, the perceived loudness of each case must be the same! If you boost the midrange on your EQ you will have boosted the overall loudness so any in/out test will be biased toward your boosted case simply because it is louder. The only way you can do this on a mixing desk is to cut the output level on the EQ'd case but by how much will you cut it?

Unlike mixing and EQ'ing on a console, Har-Bal is loudness compensated to maintain the same perceived loudness between filter in and filter out. What you hear in an A/B comparison with Har-Bal is truly due to EQ alone and not a bias introduced by the fact that the perceived loudness is higher in one.

Without compensating for loudness it is very easy to make EQ mistakes. With the approach Har-Bal takes it is much less likely.

I believe Voxengo's CurveEq has the loudness compensation technology you are talking about also.

har-bal 2.3 yes. an love it.

An ya what mranolog says.im with ya...............

uuuhhggg.

HAR-BAL................LOVE IT.............

Yes we know. thanks for contributing.

That's pretty much all that guy has to say everywhere I've seen him post.

I'm assuming he works for Hairball.

yes, he also posted at the Digital Audio room and is just words.

hummmmmmm...60hz.......... :lol:

So - does Har Bal have the whole EQ matching feature that Ozone does? I've never played with that before, but it seems as though that might be a useful thing for a starting point. Oh yeah, and I read this thread giggling, waiting for Remy to let it rip and feeling good that everyone jumped in on whoever the hell the other guy was.