Har-bal before or after compression??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fishybob
  • Start date Start date
F

Fishybob

New member
OK. Now I know that the subject of this program and it's merits (or lack of them) comes into question a lot... but...


I recently upgraded my monitors and am learning how to mix on them. This package really made a nice difference to the sound of my latest mix (although I was pretty darn close to be fair!).

My question is, was it designed to go straight after the mix, ie before I send it to a seperate window for compression and limiting? Or was it supposed to be used after compression??

I ask because It sounded good on the dry mix but I then used a little multiband and checked it against the graph and it was nowhere near! The track would benifit from MB comp but I want to see the DESIGNED route for this program... Anyone have an idea??? :confused:
 
Don't worry guys, they have LOADS more info than I thought on the website.
 
Why would you put maul-the-band compression on a mix that didn't specifically need it?

I still don't understand this "MBC as a standard mastering tool" thing...

P.S. - Take whatever you see on the hairball site with a grain of salt...
 
Not to mention the fact that any mix that needs Har-Bal to get it to sound right simply wasn't mixed properly to begin with! :cool:

It really amazes me to see how much money people spend on assorted crap in vain attempt to make their recordings sound better, when all they had to do was learn how to track and mix it properly in the first place! :rolleyes:
 
Hi Massive

I respect your opinion as high as anyone on this forum. You know what you're doing and can hear what needs to be done. I (still) have a cr@p sounding room and need a real reference for my mixes. I've tried listening to CD's but I upgraded my monitors and need to get a mix out sharpish. Har-bal just lets me know what I was doing wrong so I don't make the same mistake again and don't need har-bal from then on.

My reason for interest in MB comes from the SoundonSound magazine. They did an article on Psuedo mastering. In this they outlined MB as a great option. I can hear the highs getting sucked down when using a single band compressor and prefer to keep my tunes sounding as open (read uncompressed) as possible while still blending the sounds.

I don't want to use MB to 'alter' the sound (not in a bass boost, top lift, nip tuck way) just to improve teh sense of togetherness.

But once it's fed into Har-bal after MB it looks nothing like the nice eq curve that I created minutes earlier... very dissapointing.
 
Blue bear. If you read my first post I said that my mix was pretty close (nigh on perfect to their chart actually) I just needed to check it and this tool works wonders at that.
 
Fishybob said:
I can hear the highs getting sucked down when using a single band compressor and prefer to keep my tunes sounding as open (read uncompressed) as possible while still blending the sounds.
Click to expand...
That's exactly my point.... why aren't you getting your sounds blended during mixing? You shouldn't need another step to get the mix sounding correct. Mastering is a final polish, not the place for a mix to come together..... the mix should be "right" BEFORE it goes to mastering...... (and if you're doing DIY mastering then, then getting the mix right means less mucking about with pseudo-mastering tools afterwards!
 
Why spend an hour tweaking an MBC during mastering when you could have spent an extra 2 minutes getting it right in the mix?????
 
Cloneboy Studio said:
Why spend an hour tweaking an MBC during mastering when you could have spent an extra 2 minutes getting it right in the mix?????
Click to expand...
Remind me that I owe you rep points when I can hit you again... :D
 
THE MIX IS GOOD.

It has very little compression on most of the parts. They each have their own space, they each compliment each other, a slight (and it is slight)compression helps homogonise the sound.

Don't you EVER use compression during mastering? From the amount of information and advice offered around here it seems pretty 'standard' (I understand there are no preset standards for mastering). If not, why do all mastering houses spend thousands on compressors they don't use??


I don't mean to sound harsh but it was a quick question about the order of processes. It wasn't supposed to be a 'lets have a go' session.
 
I almost always use some sort of dynamics control - I almost NEVER use mulit-band unless there's a specific problem with the mix. If the mix is good, chances are you don't need MBC.

Or hairball, for that matter...

On the "blunt" side, I'm not a fan of hairball... I had it and used it on a trial basis. For mixes that were really screwed up, I was actually pretty impressed with how quickly you could make a mix "less irritating" - even going around their goofy interface. But on mixes that actually sounded good in the first place, "impressed" was nowhere to be found.

The whole "spectrum matching" thing is one of the most worthless ideas to repeatedly come up from the industry. It doesn't work. It never has. If you happen to record the same song, with the same equipment, in the same studio, with the same musicians, then *maybe* there would be a reason for it. But trying to match an EQ curve against another song? That's even a worse idea than mastering your own mixes.

And MBC... Ugh... That's another one. On a really shoddy mix, it might be just the thing to save it from chaos in only three seconds. Would proper EQ'ing and compression do beter? Probably.

But both of those tools miss the whole point - LISTEN to the mix. Mentally VISUALIZE what the mix "should" sound like. Then simply put a chain together with the basic adjustments that you think it'll need to get it there. Then listen again and tweak.

If it needs something more, it missed something during tracking or mixing. And if you're mastering your own mixes, you must have access to the original files anyway, so fix it in the mix or retrack the problem parts.
 
Last edited:
Thanks massive.

I'll continue to use Har-bal until I get used to my speakers, but I shall restart trying out Single band compression. I'll spend some time learning how to best use them on a mix to keep things as delicate as possible.

It's something that would be benificial in the long run anyway. I don't like using presets (ok, other than Harbal... but that's only temporary).

Once I get the hang of these Mackies the skies the limit... Until I find my next "must have".
;)


Thanks all, I'll get practising :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top