Har-Bal

[mixmkr]

I suggested use of this over in another thread. Been around for awhile, but wonder what the opinions where of this program and anyone else here using it?

I got it recently (ver. 2.3), and it think it does wonders, if not a nice educational thing-ie.

http://har-bal.com/

 

[MadAudio]

Please tell me you're trolling.

Please.

This thread is a joke, right?

If not, please use the search function to discover why this thread should be a joke if it wasn't meant as one.

 

[mixmkr]

let's see... no joke, unless you think I have been trolling since 2000. I did try the search and nada came up...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Remove the hyphen

https://homerecording.com/bbs/search.php?searchid=1506913

G.

 

[mixmkr]

oops... I see you have to take the " - " outta Har-Bal and search HarBal to get answers.

Seems it aint so popular around here.
Just wished the MP3 clinic would substantiate all the "opinionated" opinions

Oh well... one mans junk is anothers' treasure. Thanks for the response, MadAudio.

 

[mshilarious]

I demo'ed it circa 2005 or 2006. It was OK, but I could outdo it quickly with existing tools (which for me is UAD-1, not exactly a fair comparison, but hey, I own it), and back then it was a standalone rather than a VST, so it was difficult to integrate with workflow.

Since then, UA's mastering tools have gotten even more extensive, so it would be tough for Har-Bal to keep up. I haven't even demo'ed some of the new ones yet . . .

If you have somebody with a terrible monitoring environment, it could help restore some sort of balance to a track desperately in need. But then, so would comparing really bad mixes to a pink noise curve, which doesn't cost any money.

Not that I recommend that, I recommend a reasonable monitoring environment.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Lexus makes a car that they claim will automatically parallel park itself for you. It often works pretty good. The problem with that is that it does nothing to make one a better driver, and it only reliably works in spaces big enough where anybody with a driver's license should be able to do it themselves anyway.

G.

 

[mixmkr]

yeah, I have to most definately agree with the "ears not eyes" and good monitoring setups, etc.

I see back in 2005, the Har-Bal guys came aboard and got rammed up the backside in a thread, just answering a couple of questions. Didn't seem they really were really given any respect, unfortunately.

What I liked about Har-Bal is that it gave me some confirmation of what I thought was happening and it was nice to see that my mixes were actually pretty balanced from tune to tune. I guess tracking and monitoring in the same place had something to do with that too!!

No big "lumps" in the curve either... but I wasn't recording sine waves too

 

[mixmkr]

G.

I hope you're not assuming that someone that's been recording for 35+ years just clicks buttons and expects their mixes to parallel park themselves. Seriously, I know where you are coming from and appreciate your opinions. That's why I post...to get opinions.

I remember when T-racks came aboard...got slammed.. Ozone came aboard...got slammed. L1 came aboard...got slammed... Heck, unless you burn your audio to DVD at 24/96, you're out of the loop. God forbid you send a "master" to be mastered at 16/44.

But, I'll admit I like the VC-64 compressor in SonarPE. Seems the trend is for Voxengo nowadays. Wonder when UAD will be obsolete...or when computers don't need the CPU load reduction... freezing tracks, etc. Shouldn't be long.

But getting back to Hair Ball, I liked the EQ changing but "seemingly" keeping the dB levels in the same ballpark. I'll probably put the "air" function along with the "exciter" catagory however. Meaning, you'll regret it in a year listening to your mixes.

 

[mixmkr]

I demo'ed it circa 2005 or 2006. It was OK, but I could outdo it quickly with existing tools (which for me is UAD-1, not exactly a fair comparison, but hey, I own it), and back then it was a standalone rather than a VST, so it was difficult to integrate with workflow.

I want to think it is still a stand alone, unless you can get into the code of your fav DAW program and make it recognized.... to destructively edit.

 

[mshilarious]

Wonder when UAD will be obsolete...or when computers don't need the CPU load reduction... freezing tracks, etc. Shouldn't be long.

Well, the rumours fly for years about UAD-2. There will be room for DSP. To think what a modern graphics processor could do compared with the UAD-1 . . . and think about the extra flops devoted to better-sounding plugs.

In short, UAD will be obsolete when their plugs stop sounding like audio crack cocaine

 

[mixmkr]

In short, UAD will be obsolete when their plugs stop sounding like audio crack cocaine

That's funny. (your way of phrasing that is...I'll have to "steal that term!)

Down a rabbit trail, I think it's funny that even some "pros" have suggested bouncing to analog...specifically casette to get that "audio high".
I'm just watching the price of my 1/2" reel to reel sitting in my closet go up in value
I DO MISS the ambience of those reels turning though. Better than any lava lamp.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I hope you're not assuming that someone that's been recording for 35+ years just clicks buttons and expects their mixes to parallel park themselves.

Perhaps not, mixmkr, but - with all due respect - I would expect someone who's been at this for 35 years to be long past the stage of needing HarBall to get the job done and to get it done well.

I would also think that someone whose been at this for 35 years to be long ago bored with productions that all have the same kind of spectral fingerprint. I don't know about you, but I would not want to live in a world where every Elvis Costello, Tom Waits or Bob Dylan song used HarBal's recipe for deciding how things should sound. Can you imagine "Pump It Up", "Jocky Full Of Bourbon" or "Love Sick" as ground through HarBal? Next thing we'll all be wearing olive drab Mao shirts

I remember when T-racks came aboard...got slammed.. Ozone came aboard...got slammed.

Ummmm....they pretty much still do .

But getting back to Hair Ball, I liked the EQ changing but "seemingly" keeping the dB levels in the same ballpark.

I always thought that's what the Output Level controls on my EQs were for .

You have to ask yourself (well, maybe you don't have to, but it might not be a bad idea to ), "What problem is HarBal presenting a solution for?" It's amazing how engineers have managed to make high-quality, high-fidelity productions for a half century now without it, and without complaining or wishing something along the lines, "What we need is someone to come along and invent a harmonic balancer, because that is what is holding us back or making things so hard."

The fact is that HarBal exists for one reason: to fool the lay person into thinking that audio engineering is something that can be automated by following a canned recipie, allowing Joe Numbnuts to be the next George Martin.

Makes one sick.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

The fact is that HarBal exists for one reason: to fool the lay person into thinking that audio engineering is something that can be automated by following a canned recipie, allowing Joe Numbnuts to be the next George Martin.

Makes one sick.

G.

Har-Bal wasn't the first, nor will it be the last.

Assuming that you can get a spectral analyzer that captures and stores the frequency curve of one song and allows you to compare it to another, what is the advantage of this product? And as said many times before, why would you want to do this to begin with? One db, even 1/2 db changes can make a big difference and likely will not be visible. Also sometimes big humps may be what a mix requires. Take nearly any Rap or Hip Hop song and check out the "donk" around 60 Hz. Not that you can't make a song look like it has a big hump when it doesn't originally, but what are you bringing up in the mix rumble or a good kick? Only real ears can and should judge this.

 

[LeeRosario]

It makes me think Har Bal should of developed a "common sense" button.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Only real ears can and should judge this.

This is the built-in irony of products like HarBal. If one has the ears to determine that the results of using HarBal are indeed quality, their ears should be good enough not to need HarBal at all.

There's another huge problem with products like harBal that I forgot to mention earlier; they practice and enforce the idea that one should wait until the mastering stage before they do their mixing.

The reality is that if one needs to run HarBal during premastering to get the mix to sound "right", then the mix is wrong and needs to be redone. OTOH, if one actually knows how to mix properly and has the ears for it, HarBalling the mix in premastering will not be necessary.

G.

 

[mixmkr]

Perhaps not, mixmkr, but - with all due respect - I would expect someone who's been at this for 35 years to be long past the stage of needing HarBall to get the job done and to get it done well.

I would also think that someone whose been at this for 35 years to be long ago bored with productions that all have the same kind of spectral fingerprint. I don't know about you, but I would not want to live in a world where every Elvis Costello, Tom Waits or Bob Dylan song used HarBal's recipe for deciding how things should sound. Can you imagine "Pump It Up", "Jocky Full Of Bourbon" or "Love Sick" as ground through HarBal? Next thing we'll all be wearing olive drab Mao shirts Ummmm....they pretty much still do .I always thought that's what the Output Level controls on my EQs were for .

You have to ask yourself (well, maybe you don't have to, but it might not be a bad idea to ), "What problem is HarBal presenting a solution for?" It's amazing how engineers have managed to make high-quality, high-fidelity productions for a half century now without it, and without complaining or wishing something along the lines, "What we need is someone to come along and invent a harmonic balancer, because that is what is holding us back or making things so hard."

The fact is that HarBal exists for one reason: to fool the lay person into thinking that audio engineering is something that can be automated by following a canned recipie, allowing Joe Numbnuts to be the next George Martin.

Makes one sick.

G.

A couple of points, as I think you've driven off into the ditch, Glen.

Firstly, I don't think there is really any product you "need" to get a job, and get it done well, as you put it. The evidence of all the quality recordings that you mentioned a half century ago points to that. It more actually appears that you think those using a product like HarBal, have to be a greenhorn looking do an end around to be the next Mr Mastering engineer supurb. Or, that others with experience should have no need for such a product. Put it in this perspective, why do you need your EQ then with your output controls? Why not record it right in the first place? But in reality, a nice EQ makes things potentially easier. You know that I am sure, as do I.

You might consider there are those with "ears" that can use a wide variety of products, and get good use out of them. Are they THE solution...an individual product? Certainly not. Can you make a good recording without a top end Lexicon? Or a 1073 preamp? (nah...ya need hairball!! )

Sounds like you're making rules on how to make quality recordings, and that in itself I think is a problem right there.

Of course you use your ears. Not sure why you think everyone is going to connect the dots to get their mixes sounding good and twiddle blindly. (or would that be "deafly")

btw, hope you're feeling better from feeling sick

 

[mixmkr]

This is the built-in irony of products like HarBal. If one has the ears to determine that the results of using HarBal are indeed quality, their ears should be good enough not to need HarBal at all.



G.

Again, I'll pose, why didn't your ears pick up your mic placement was wrong in the first place, and you had to EQ your track?

Or take it back a step, why didn't you choose a different instrument/amp/mic in the FIRST place to use? Surely your ears should have told you at that stage too. Heck, it might have been the first track, and you already screwed up

They're only tools man.... take some Pepto!

 

[masteringhouse]

Again, I'll pose, why didn't your ears pick up your mic placement was wrong in the first place, and you had to EQ your track?

Or take it back a step, why didn't you choose a different instrument/amp/mic in the FIRST place to use? Surely your ears should have told you at that stage too. Heck, it might have been the first track, and you already screwed up

They're only tools man.... take some Pepto!

Often times the correct frequency balance can only be determined when all of the tracks have been recorded and assembled, and is difficult to determine in advance. This is a good argument for recording the entire band at once rather than basic tracks and adding tracks later. I do agree (as most engineers do) that the less EQ needed the better.

Of course being able to determine the proper EQ comes with critical listening skills which are better developed by listening and not letting a program do the work for you.

All tools have their use. For example if I needed to perfectly match two separate sessions of the same instrument playing the same part but recorded differently, a product which allowed me to match EQ might be helpful as a starting point. To use a product like this to help me determine the proper frequency balance of a master based on totally unrelated songs and mixes based on a visual representation? I think it misses the point on what mastering a track is truly about.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It more actually appears that you think those using a product like HarBal, have to be a greenhorn looking do an end around to be the next Mr Mastering engineer supurb. Or, that others with experience should have no need for such a product.

You understand my position pretty well, though I'd like to reinforce the point that the whole "Mr. mastering engineer supurb" implies that what HarBall does belongs in the realm of mastering to begin with. This is a perversion of a quality understanding of the engineering process that has become more and more perpetrated by those who are marketing plugs for a living. More on this in a moment.

Put it in this perspective, why do you need your EQ then with your output controls? Why not record it right in the first place? But in reality, a nice EQ makes things potentially easier. You know that I am sure, as do I.

Agreed. And HarBal is really at the base of it little more than a sophisticated parametric EQ.

The difference is that HarBal is an EQ with a pre-programmed idea of what is right; it is an EQ with a massive "preset" assumption built into it; that proper EQing can be content-independent, and that harmonic balancing is the right prescription for all diseases. Put simply, it is one big, fancy, massive preset that has no basis in reality.

Sounds like you're making rules on how to make quality recordings, and that in itself I think is a problem right there.

No, I'm not making them, I'm just stating them. They're not mine, they are inherent properties of the process. Here the way I like to phrase (not invent) what many consider to be The Golden Rule. There are a hundred different ways it has been said in the past by others, but this is how I like to summarize it:

It's the performer's job to make the tracking engineer's job easy.
It's the tracking engineer's job to make the mixing engineer's job easy.
It's the mixing engineer's job to make the mastering engineer's job easy.
It's the mastering engineer's job to make the listener's job easy.

HarBal is designed for reversing the flow of this river; it is part of the current trend of plugs and stand alone software, including "mastering packages" like T-Racks and Ozone and many marketing claims for whizzbang multi-band compressors, to sell themselves as tools that are best used by mastering engineers to make the mixing engineer's job easy, if not downright nonexistent. They are not only marketed and used as substitutions for quality technique, but they actually encourage practices that ignore such technique altogether. This is a prescription for mediocrity.

I agree with MasteringHouse that every tool does have it's uses, and that would include Harbal. And, similar to, but a variation of, one of his examples would be if I recorded two guitar tracks that I wanted to sound the same, but because of something beyond my control such a a guitar amp that changes tone as it gets hotter, or having to replace the microphone in mid-session with one that is not a perfect match, or an increase in humidity, etc. that HarBal may be helpful *on that individual track* to match up the timbre to the original one a bit better. Things like that.

But that is neither how HarBal is marketed nor how it's generally used. I've said it many times here before about MBCs and about HarBal. To blame the software for it's misuse and abuse is like blaming firearms for being the cause of wars. I'm not doing that. Its the common belief in and acts of misuse and abuse of these tools, and the manufacturer's propagation of these beliefs and acts, that is a real problem, IMHO.

G.