hey guys what do u think if this? is this any good? has anyone tried using this before? http://www.har-bal.com/
Comments
I have Harbal in my mastering collection. I must admit though th
I have Harbal in my mastering collection. I must admit though that what it suggests on doing with your final mix isn't what I ended up liking. A friend of mine also used it to do some mastering my mixes but I was very dissapointed with his results and ended up remastering the mixes myself. I will be finishing another cd project soon and will probably attempt the mastering myself again using Harbal as part of my analysis. I will gladly contribute to this thread if I narrow a magic approach with my Harbal (hairball as remy puts it).
I agree with the last post with the matching EQ thing. Ears are still best. I think there way of removing peaks though has helped me recognize problems when l listen to mixes on my other set of monitors. I think having a good set of speakers for mastering as well as headphones is very much key and a big part of this thread discussion.
Non necessity Indeed this thread is "old" technically. But, jus
Non necessity
Indeed this thread is "old" technically. But, just as valid as the day it was started.
I can certainly see the potential argument over automatic eq's and plugins that supposedly take away from the randomness of mastering and all its glory in the end. Its pretty darn obvious what plugins have done to music today compared to the past when they weren't around.
When someone needs $1000 to get a result that is fine and great. But when they get $10,000 do they only spend the $1000 and forget the rest? Not likely. That's the problem with modern days of recording. Everyone is capable of going beyond the limits and ending up with the same sound as everyone else. Suddenly you squish down the audio and become a master engineer.
In the days when it took thousands to get a start that was out of the question for a guy like me. But the end of the 90s brought the glorious computer recording into my home and I suddenly was able to have a blast doing what I dreamed about in the 80s. There were still limitations. I didn't own AutoTune so I had to alter pitches by hand and it was painful. But it worked. Those old recordings still have something that my later ones never did. I fell for the sensation of Waves plugins among others. It made it easy to get a result. But, there was a uniqueness that was lost. So I went back to the old way.
I dont put compression on the bus and I dont use analyzers on my tracks. I cross reference as much as possible and use my ears and others' opinions. Many say that the music of the 70s and 80s will never be topped by today's music. That's in a nutshell to me. Years ago people actually "worked" for something. Today, the middleman runs it all.
By the way. I hate AutoTune. It destroys audio and make it all sound exactly the same. I can recognize any commercial recording that uses it. I had recently discovered an old plugin that does the trick without adding a trademark sound to the audio. Very underrated plugin.
Other plugins to throw away are L1, L2, L3, LinMb. The old tube compressors do much better at balancing a mix without extracting whats good. I have actually done many comparisons in the past between L2 and SSL plugins and the latter wins everytime. There's a certain quality and punch in the original audio that gets kept. L2 set at even the most subtle level destroys this about audio.
Of course these are opinions are far as anyone else is concerned. But, I do believe that everyone should ackowledge the reality that Waves plugins are driving the uniqueness of music into the ground. The temptation of quick and easy creates a bad world with meaningless sounds just like McDonald's creates quick and easy food for fat and lazy people.
Once upon a time there were people who were real and stood for something. And because they worked so hard for it, they stood firm against the rich bigots in the world. But since it takes little effort to get something these days, it isn't worth much to anyone and so the bigots run the show. Adam took the forbidden fruit. Snow White ate the apple. The devil got a signed contract. Just think about what you are throwing away when you buy Har-Bal.
Well said. It's unfortunate that the voice of experience often d
Well said. It's unfortunate that the voice of experience often does nothing for the lazy and those who don't know any better don't want to know any better because it might mean more work. You can tell people and you can show them but they won't learn to love it until they experience it for themselves.
Har-Bal Is Simply Another Tool Wow! There's a lot of personal
Har-Bal Is Simply Another Tool
Wow! There's a lot of personal slamming going on about the use of this tool.
I ain't got perfect golden ears. I can still make decent recordings in my home studio.
There are several uses for Har-Bal in my arsenal. The first being a simple eq tweak for individual tracks. For instance, I have a single guitar track that has a boxy sound, and the vst eq tools I have aren't handling it as my "silver" ears think it should sound for the project at hand. I export the individual track to a .wav file and open it in Har-Bal. From there, I can tweak the nuances of the guitar track and isolate the problem with a visual and sonic reference to guide me.
Ultimately, the result is up to my ears. [duh] It's an audio production.
I like it as a tool in my home studio tool box! I keep my copy up to date, and use it regularly. Just like my screwdriver and my soldering iron.
:roll:
music_guy wrote: OTOH, I find its little analyzer useful for id
music_guy wrote:
OTOH, I find its little analyzer useful for identifying mixes. Sort of like footprints --- :D
I like taking a recording I made and watching the visualisation through windows media player. I like the pretty lights and colours.
I listen to my music, not watch it whilst making it though.
Greener wrote: [quote=music_guy] OTOH, I find its little analyze
Greener wrote: [quote=music_guy]
OTOH, I find its little analyzer useful for identifying mixes. Sort of like footprints ---
I like taking a recording I made and watching the visualisation through windows media player. I like the pretty lights and colours.
I listen to my music, not watch it whilst making it though.
I don't know about new versions, but the one I got a couple of years ago did not contain an RTA. The software would give a measure of the average and peak spectrum content drawn graphically for easy comparison to whatever you want to. I find this to be interesting (even amusing) and the only good utility for me, but it's certainly not a mastering method or something that would replace anything that I do in a real mastering session using my trusted ears. I do understand the principles of harmonic balancing, but I don't use a cookie cutter to accomplish that. :)
Edward Vinatea
Mastering Engineer
It's worthless as a "matching" EQ... So are all the other "matc
It's worthless as a "matching" EQ... So are all the other "matching" (notice the sarcasm) EQ's I've ever tried.
Use your ears. Setting an EQ should be a "second-nature" thing.