Har-Bal - I don't understand what it's used for!

[Mattitude]

Hey guys!

I'm totally new to mastering. I have mixed everything using Pro Tools and bounced the mix as a .wav file. I'm now ready to get those levels up and make my mix sound more professional! The main software I am using to master is Wavelab 6.. i've read some good things about it! As I've been doing my research I've found many people talking about a little thing called 'Har-Bal'... and many users use both Har-Bal and Wavelab...they do stuff to their track in Har-Bal first and then finish it in Wavelab. I'm just wondering... what the hell do you do in Har-Bal and how do you do it!? I've read about adjusting the 'peaks' and 'valleys' of your track in it. Is this just making the song more balanced or something? How beneficial is using Har-Bal?.. I've seen some people raving over it on how good it is! I just really need a nice straight answer on what it is actually used for and how it improves your track!

Thanks guys,
Matt.

[Jesse Graffam]

It's nothing more than an EQ. But because you're adjusting the EQ by literally "drawing" on a spectrograph of the track you have loaded, and because it adjusts the loudness of the EQed version to ~match the original... it is a lot easier & faster to use for some people.

There are also automatic and EQ matching "features" but those are imho worthless. Certainly better than other attempts, but none the less the results are sub-par (even to worse than the original if you're "flying blind"), in comparison to using it completely manually, intelligently and with the guidance of your ears.

At this point I shoud insert the customary blah-blah about how you need to have a flat system & room to make a proper decision on this, and about how having someone experienced master your audio will make better decisions and come from a fresh viewpoint.

But yeah, it's an EQ. The title of the Har-Bal page is "Worlds first visual mastering equalizer" written all over. Haven't visited their website yet?

[tribeofenki]

...and welcome to the marvellous world o'mastering

[Mattitude]

Hey uncajesse,

thanks that response! It's all so much clear to me now on what you actually use it for I have actually been on their website but I just wanted sometime to explain to me exactly what it's for .. so thanks!

and thanks for welcoming me i604

cheers guys,
Matt.

[RasCricket]

This is a post of mine from another recent thread. Here is an example of HarBals use:

The controversy about HarBal, especially here at GS, is hilarious to me. Theres really no other way that better ensures that your mix will sound good, balanced, and as spacious as a similiar recordings in the genre your trying to produce. To anyone who says, "Oh, just use your ears" theres this simple fact: Every listening environment is different. Wouldnt you like to use a filter on your music that has been proven to succeed in multiple environments and on multiple speakers?
I could repeat that.

It simply lets you align frequencies to songs from genres and songs similiar to what your trying to create. And theres nothing in the world wrong with that.

After I heard the results first hand, it was an instant sale for me. And to ZERO surprise, now all my music sounds a lot better when played over loud sound systems and I thank HarBal for that.
Also, Im not the guy to attribute any "lack of talent" reasons for liking HarBal, so please...dont.

My comments are left for and meant for anyone considering using HarBal. Its a thumbs up from me. Maybe theres something I simply dont know about it, but when my productions as well as another guy that I produce sound better over large sound systems, I know something is going right

USAGE: We play Reggae music through very large sound systems ~ being able to visually see the bass frequency response to songs similar to ours, we can very easily predict and control the bass frequencies of our own tracks so they sound just as full as other commercial productions also played through the same system. And thats just matching the low end. Being able to visually see how other songs peak in the high range, also lets someone better control their own high end. Every "mix" is of course different and rarely, if ever, do you match your own song exactly to the Source file.

But it sure tells you "Look, dude. Here's the High Freq. response for this song youve heard for years through many different speakers. Going much higher or much lower than this would be a dumb move." I personally like the things HarBal says to me in that regard, lol. I certainly feel better prepared and confident knowing I can, once I have a good mix, have a great shot at getting my frequencies in at least a very similar ballpark to other successful songs in that genre.

EDIT: Its very much worth adding this: My listening environment and overall monitoring is not....good. Indeed, I can make mixes that people marvel at on my current speakers/setup. However, I think HarBal may very well be a more functional tool for people in my situation, with less than perfect monitoring capabilities. It certainly gives me a great shot at balancing and controlling frequencies I simply CANT control due to my current setup. Hope that makes sense and is seen as valid to any skeptics.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by RasCricket

It simply lets you align frequencies to songs from genres and songs similiar to what your trying to create. And theres nothing in the world wrong with that.

Nothing personal, but does it take into consideration the key of the song, instrumentation, the relative levels of the instruments of the mix, the parts of the mix that should be emphasized and more/less present, sibilance or frequency issues that would be better controlled through the sidechain of a compressor than straight EQ, the timbre of instruments used (should a P-bass sound the same as a Rickenbacker), etc.

Even if it did all of the above, why should you try to make one mix sound like another instead of doing what's best for the given mix? You can't automate art.

I feel this way not just about this product, but the concept of "matching EQ curves" in general.

If you are having problems with monitoring it would be best to fix that or at least listen to material in a couple of different environments. After a while even if you don't fix the issue in your monitoring you will know better what to listen for and how to correct it.

[Jerry Tubb]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

You can't automate art.

thumbsup +1

I can't believe this silly hair-ball thing keeps coming up.

No real ME would use such a gimmick, unless it were for a special effect.

JT

[RasCricket]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Nothing personal, but does it take into consideration the key of the song, instrumentation, the relative levels of the instruments of the mix, the parts of the mix that should be emphasized and more/less present, sibilance or frequency issues that would be better controlled through the sidechain of a compressor than straight EQ, the timbre of instruments used (should a P-bass sound the same as a Rickenbacker), etc.

Even if it did all of the above, why should you try to make one mix sound like another instead of doing what's best for the given mix? You can't automate art.

I feel this way not just about this product, but the concept of "matching EQ curves" in general.

If you are having problems with monitoring it would be best to fix that or at least listen to material in a couple of different environments. After a while even if you don't fix the issue in your monitoring you will know better what to listen for and how to correct it.

Sorry, I think you miss the point of HarBal if youre saying these things, my friend.

Why would the Key of the song matter one lick of how the frequencies will be played back on multiple systems? Answer, it doesnt my friend.

"frequency issues that would be better controlled through the sidechain of a compressor than straight EQ" - this point is actually valid. However, these are issues taken care of in the mixing stage. And if you havent taken care of things like sibilance in the mixing stage, only a moron would expect HarBal to help there. Thats why I dont think you quite know what its used for.

Also, about timbre's ~ this is overthinking the issue and simply not understanding what HarBal is used for. Its used for seeing frequencies and matching them in a relative ballpark to a mix that you KNOW sounds good over multiple speaker, system and room situations. Thats kinda the bottom line there.

My example of seeing a bass response curve in a song thats been known to sound great on multiple systems and adjusting your own tracks EQ curve to something similar is what HarBal is used for. And of course, you use your own ears to make further adjustments.

"listen to material in a couple of different environments"
Of course. But hear me a second. I could do that, and I most certainly do, however....being able to "see" an EQ curve of a song thats KNOWN to sound good over multiple systems, and matching mine to it....is golden. Because it works. And likely, my monitors wont "show" or "sound" certain frequencies. With HarBal I can quickly see, in comparison to songs that are widely known to be "harmonically correct enough for the radio", if I have any areas in my freq. spectrum that are completely out of wack compared to any other succesful recordings. Wise move? I think so.

Please let me know why the KEY of the song matters with HarBal? Does a song in A require a different EQ print to sound good over multiple speakers than a song with a key of E?

Not one bit.

[RasCricket]

Originally Posted by Jerry Tubb

thumbsup +1

I can't believe this silly hair-ball thing keeps coming up.

No real ME would use such a gimmick, unless it were for a special effect.

JT

Well, consider my example of matching bass response for play through large sound systems.

Now tell me Im wrong for doing this. And "why", while youre at it.

No real ME? Maybe not, but Id like to know why using HarBal to see how your own mixes line up to professional recordings frequency wise is poor advice for the "do it at home" recording enthusiast. I simply think most people dont know what its used for. Especially if you just said this: "unless it were for a special effect."

That says you really dont know what HarBal is for. If your EQ spectrum on your own song is drastically out of wack to songs that are known to be commercially successful, you see immediatly how bad your monitors and your own mixing is. Its never ever "used for a certain effect" as its not even a drastic change to your sound.

Let me say again: If its drastically changing your sound to the point of calling it an "effect", that means your mixing skills suck - period. That should make sense if your even a slightly skilled "ME" in your own right. Thats why saying someone would use it for an effect is completely false. Sorry.
If youre using HarBal and you drastically have to change your own EQ to match a successful song, then you see all kinds of things wrong in your approach.

For people without good monitors, and for home recording people who want to see how their own mixes match up to commercially successful recordings, I havent found a better way to do it.

[RasCricket]

Ok, BOTH of you, MasteringHouse and Jerry Tubb...

You both obviously charge people for your services.....

Id appreciate a response, if you have one guys.

Im starting to think I just need to get certified, lol

I still want to know how frequency response from a song in the Key of A is drastically different from one in the Key of E enough to split hairs about ~ from a "MasteringHouse". Seriously.

[MASSIVE Master]

When looking at an EQ based on a RTA?

Do you really have to ask that question...?

[RasCricket]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

When looking at an EQ based on a RTA?

Do you really have to ask that question...?

What question is that? No need to be cryptic, MM. We're all adults here.

Since you also charge people for your services, please tell a lowbie like myself why my usage for HarBal is poor choice of things to do with my audio.

So yes, I guess I do need to ask the question. How about leaving some actual words of substance for the future people reading this thread? Im sure theyd love to hear from a guy who charges people just like I want to. Thats probably more helpful to the whole community here than just a lame little sentence that really doesnt help anyone.

So please, now I have three people who charge people for their services that Im asking to correct me or tell me why my use of HarBal is a bad way to go.

I think a few of you have already learned something. Some of the responses of what some people think HB is used for are drop dead hilarious. But the "funny" stops for me when I see these people actually charge other musicians. So please, set me straight

[deadears]

I've used Har-Bal at the request of a client to match up dialog sound quality that was recorded at different times and locations. It worked OK for that.

I'm not a mastering professional, but have mastered CD for clients without a budget for a real mastering engineer, and didn't have much luck with Har-Bal for matching balance to popular recordings.

~deadears

[MASSIVE Master]

Originally Posted by RasCricket

What question is that? No need to be cryptic, MM. We're all adults here.

The question you just asked... This one:

I still want to know how frequency response from a song in the Key of A is drastically different from one in the Key of E enough to split hairs about

Okay, technically I suppose it's more of an interrogative statement...

But for the sake of argument --

Even at the most basic level - A song in the key of "A" is going to have buildups at 110, 220, 440Hz (etc.). In the key of "E", 80, 160, 320 ("ish" - Can't remember E's specific freqs off hand).

The RTA and its visual response will most definitely be drastically different.

[RasCricket]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

The question you just asked... This one:

Okay, technically I suppose it's more of an interrogative statement...

But for the sake of argument --

Even at the most basic level - A song in the key of "A" is going to have buildups at 110, 220, 440Hz (etc.). In the key of "E", 80, 160, 320 ("ish" - Can't remember E's specific freqs off hand).

The RTA and its visual response will most definitely be drastically different.

Now that I can appreciate. A corrective response. Thanks
I'll see what I can find in this regard. Sometimes, I'll do a batch analysis of an entire album to get the average frequency print of the whole album.
The word "ballpark" cant be stressed enough. If youre matching things exactly to another songs print, it will not be a correct mix/sound.

And again, I'll point out how using HarBal will quickly tell you how out of wack frequency wise your own mixing efforts are in comparison to successful commercial releases. Please....tell me why this is a bad idea.

Also, regarding timbre, if youre trying to match your acoustic folk song to a Metallica record or a Ravi Shankar track with a sitar in it.....you've got the wrong idea, lol.
Again, the word "ballpark".

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by RasCricket

Please let me know why the KEY of the song matters with HarBal? Does a song in A require a different EQ print to sound good over multiple speakers than a song with a key of E?

Not one bit.

If a song is in the key of A one is more likely to see "bumps" that are integal values of 440 for a song in the key of E more likely around 330. Are these "bumps" bad? Should you EQ the song in the key of A so that 440 frequencies are more "aligned" toward a song in the key of E at the 330 frequencies?

Again this isn't even about the product but just the concept of matching frequency curves without consideration of the music itself.

If you take pink noise and EQ it so that the frequency curve matches a well mastered song does it sound better? Not trying to be facetious, but just demonstrating my point.

[edit - posted before I saw John's reply]

[RasCricket]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

If a song is in the key of A one is more likely to see "bumps" that are integal values of 440 for a song in the key of E more likely around 330. Are these "bumps" bad? Should you EQ the song in the key of A so that 440 frequencies are more "aligned" toward a song in the key of E at the 330 frequencies?

Again this isn't even about the product but just the concept of matching frequency curves without consideration of the music itself.

If you take pink noise and EQ it so that the frequency curve matches a well mastered song does it sound better? Not trying to be facetious, but just demonstrating my point.

[edit - posted before I saw John's reply]

Thanks for your reply.

Indeed, you're correct about seeing different bumps. And, Im also correct when saying "you dont match things exactly but it will tell you how your current audio compares to something that sounds great on multiple systems." Which is what I personally use it for.

The proof is in the proverbial pudding for me, however. When I play songs of mine that havent been "HarBal'd" through a system with 8 15inch mains and a subwoofer, then I play the ones that have, theres a drastic difference. HB simply prepares my songs to sound better in multiple settings better than anything Ive found.

Paying more attention to the key of the source material is certainly something I'll do ~ Thanks.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by RasCricket

Thanks for your reply.

Indeed, you're correct about seeing different bumps. And, Im also correct when saying "you dont match things exactly but it will tell you how your current audio compares to something that sounds great on multiple systems." Which is what I personally use it for.

The proof is in the proverbial pudding for me, however. When I play songs of mine that havent been "HarBal'd" through a system with 8 15inch mains and a subwoofer, then I play the ones that have, theres a drastic difference. HB simply prepares my songs to sound better in multiple settings better than anything Ive found.

Whether I need to pay more attention to the key of the source material is certainly something I'll look into ~ Thanks.

You really shouldn't have to look at anything! Take a well-mastered Bob Marley album and compare song to song, how consistent are they?

If you are hearing a problem in the bottom end on large systems but not in your studio, maybe you should be looking at a good pair of subs.

At any rate using an RTA to see issues that you aren't hearing doesn't mean that you have to match it with anything.

[RasCricket]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

You really shouldn't have to look at anything! Take a well-mastered Bob Marley album and compare song to song, how consistent are they?

If you are hearing a problem in the bottom end on large systems but not in your studio, maybe you should be looking at a good pair of subs.

At any rate using an FFT to see issues that you aren't hearing doesn't mean that you have to match it with anything.

+1

My current favorite filters for a lot of my own current music are taken from Uprising, my fav Marley album. I'd get the subs if I could afford them or didnt have a crazy neighbor who is a failed musician about to have a kid. He's angry, lol. And since he cant make music, he's hellbent on insuring no one else does. He's a dick. Luckily, I still got a "Song of the Year" award from a predominantly headphones mixed song. He's been an ass for about 6 months now. The award was a victory over his bullshit, to be sure.

Just signed a lease on a new place though, thank god.

"You really shouldn't have to look at anything!" ~ Why not see how my songs compare to commercial releases frequency wise? It certainly gives me confidence knowing my songs will sound good on different speakers. Thanks for the civil banter/discussion about this.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by RasCricket

"You really shouldn't have to look at anything!" ~ Why not see how my songs compare to commercial releases frequency wise? It certainly gives me confidence knowing my songs will sound good on different speakers.

So that you develop your ears instead of relying on a false premise.

Of course you have to be able to hear it first, which is why monitoring is so critical.

[badmark]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

If a song is in the key of A one is more likely to see "bumps" that are integal values of 440 for a song in the key of E more likely around 330. Are these "bumps" bad? Should you EQ the song in the key of A so that 440 frequencies are more "aligned" toward a song in the key of E at the 330 frequencies?

That's what I said to a friend who was blindly Harbalizing one song to another (only better expressed here).

But I have ended up using it like RasCricket does, to do some nipping and tucking in the bass frequencies .

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Mattitude

I'm now ready to get those levels up and make my mix sound more professional!

My advice is to work on the mix. Someone else might be able to do things to your mix to make it sound different (and hopefully better) but if you are working on it yourself, why limit yourself to the bounced stereo file? You already have access to every single track in your mix so why not tweak them to improve the overall sound?

Is the mix sounding a bit dull? Maybe you need to give the percussion a bit more shine. Is the low-end muddy? Maybe you need to hipass those guitars a touch higher. Is it all sounding too narrow and mono? Maybe you can pan those instruments a bit further. Etc.

There should be no reason for you to get better results for your mix by tying one hand behind your back!

IMO, you will get better results by working on the individual elements than you will ever by just tweaking the bounced stereo mix when working in the same room, with the same monitors and the same ears.

I do agree though that it is best to make the "getting those levels up" process a separate step so as not to let it get in the way of achieving the best possible mix.

Alistair

[RasCricket]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

So that you develop your ears instead if relying on a false premise.

Of course you have to be able to hear it first, which is why monitoring is so critical.

True.

But Crick's got some good ears already

HB helps me make up for my lackluster monitoring as well as schools me on certain EQ'ing "things to look for" that I havent had the classes for. I've learned a lot.

[First Aid]

Originally Posted by RasCricket

The word "ballpark" cant be stressed enough. If youre matching things exactly to another songs print, it will not be a correct mix/sound.

Exactly why it's useless, because all it will do is get you ballpark to a mix whose actual content can't really be compared, usually due to factors only affected by production. if your ears can't get you ballpark no amount of halal eq will help.

Unless you're talking about copycat 808/clap hiphop production in which case find a well produced and mixed track in the right key and it will probably be spot on

[RasCricket]

"Exactly why it's useless" & "if your ears can't get you ballpark no amount of halal eq will help"



Its far from useless.

[df1587]

Although Har-Bal is capable of spectrum matching, I feel that this aspect of its capabilities is extremely minor. I view it as a linear/minimal phase spline equalizer with a spectrum analyzer which gives a good representation of the measured power or energy of the entire track. In my limited Har-Bal experience (2 months of experimentation), it works well to identify potential problem areas which may benefit from judicious equalization to optimize the track or mix. It may help reveal unwanted room resonance areas on the spectrum and subtle peaks and valleys which detract from the music. So I view it as an audio restoration tool as much as anything else.

But for God's sake...it is just a tool! The most important element in using a tool is the operator! Like anything else, you need to use your ears, judgement and good old fashioned common sense. If I use it and the track or mix is better...then I have applied it correctly to the problem! Is it capable of helping unmask overlapping instruments with similar spectra? Sure...in some cases. Because of the simple interface, I find it can be be used to make very subtle changes for the better....but can also be used as a sledgehammer when used overzealously, so you need to be even more thoughtful of each change you make.

I consider this to be a great program to have in my sonic arsenal. I also use Voxengo Curve EQ, Voxengo Soniformer, Paul Frindle's Dynamic Spectrum Mapper and a number of others....some general purpose and some more specialized. At this point, I primarily look at Har-Bal as a tool to help tweak my mixes on the 2-Bus to get them mastering-ready. I would always prefer to have an objective set of ears do the mastering on a project I have recorded and mixed.

It just seems to me that people get stuck on the spectrum-matching and fail to see the real utility that this program is capable of (yeah...I know....a preposition is something you never end a sentence with.)

[myrtlebacker]

Is HarBal pretty much the same as MatchEQ in Logic ?

[First Aid]

It just seems that by it applying the processing and not you it's one big step worse than actually using an RTA over ears to analyze a mix and then adjust individual track EQ's.

[df1587]

You have to use it as you would any part of the chain.....using your ears as the final determinant.

[RasCricket]

Originally Posted by First Aid

It just seems that by it applying the processing and not you it's one big step worse than actually using an RTA over ears to analyze a mix and then adjust individual track EQ's.

It just seems like you should demo it - just give it a try. Its a rather old program now. I personally applaud the creators vision with his product. A small operation thats turned out a nice tool.

I've said this before about HB: Do not fear it. It is not 'Godzirra'. It will not crush your town and/or steal your womens.