Spectral Balance Controller!??!

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:33 pm

On 2005-12-01 12:58, djmicron wrote:
Grok,
i'm opened to any new software on the market, but the har bal software does not have a good demo.
The only i've found on the site is limited in the following way :

If you wish to purchase this software click here. The demonstration version of Har-Bal supports most of the functionality of the registered version with the following exceptions:

1. Record function is disabled
2. Playback resolution is limited to 8 bits (With a hiss)
3. Reminder messages
how can i do a test of the software with 8 bit resolution ?

You're right, a very too much limited demo is the way they choosed to "protect their soft against piracy". This situation has to be understood...

But, as I said, there is the possibility of buying Har-Bal with a 30 day's refund if not satisfied. This way you can deeply check the soft 30 day's long, with its real audio quality.

This 30 day's refund is for sure for motivated potential users, not for gamers. But it's pretty fair !...
And, for those afraid, considering the incredible 95$ price with 30 day's refund if not satisfied, there is nothing to loose !...

(...)
i've done a test with 8 bit resolution and i think the samplitude fft filter is much better and more easy to use.(...)

...Try a little more, with the 30 day's refund if you wish and if you're motivated for mastering works, and you will see.
...I have both: I'm a Samplitude user. And I know why I've bought Har-Bal, because it gives me a control that Samplitude can't give me, a control that no other software or hardware in the world at any price can give me; it's simple as that.

(...)
I don't understand why you call the spc a toy, it's simply a different tool, it's great to enhance drums, vocals or every audio material in the mix.(...)

From a mastering point of view, this SBC is a toy, there is no enough frequency bands to correct a mastering problem like it should be, and it is not an analysing tool; it is certainly an overpriced mixing tool but absolutely not a mastering tool (mastering needs serious analysis and proper accurates frequency corrections), it is great b...s..ting from Creamware to present this as a mastering tool, this commercial propaganda is aimed at musicians ignorant about the audio techniques.

(...)
There are other good eq tools on the market, on scope there is the speqtrum that is great, on vst there is the firium and the voxengo stuff....(...)

At this stage of the discussion, I can only repeat this: Har-Bal is unique, there is no other tool like Har-Bal.

All over the world, mastering engineers have understood this and been amazed.
I know that it is a truth difficult to accept like that, but please consider it just a moment and make a deep try if you're motivated.

We all know the other available EQ tools in the market, but Har-Bal has more that the other EQ (in particular, one essential so simple and so brilliant feature that I could never applaud enough: loudness compensation, taking for the very first time in account inside an EQ process the Fletcher-Munson frequency/gain response curve of the human ear !...). Har-Bal is more than them, tool wise.

Har-Bal can educate your ears like no other EQ in the market can, it can help you to find and correct EQ problems like no other EQ in the market can, period.

Cheers,
Grok

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2005-12-01 23:04 ]

alfonso · Post by **alfonso** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:26 am

On 2005-12-01 20:33, Grok wrote:
....but Har-Bal has more that the other EQ (in particular, one essential so simple and so brilliant feature that I could never applaud enough: loudness compensation, taking for the very first time in account inside an EQ process the Fletcher-Munson frequency/gain response curve of the human ear !...). Har-Bal is more than them, tool wise.

Cheers,
Grok

Sorry Grok,

this thing makes me laugh a bit

apart the fact that loudnes curve is just an eq curve, so there is not particular scientific merit in using it, my crappy car stereo has it, the very correct use of it is dynamic, the curve should be enhanced while the volume is getting lower, it is a compensation for the different freq.response that the human ear has at different levels...

The use of such equalization as a static process for the waveform is totally wrong and seems a bit a commercial mistification, it totally defeats the concept of compensation.

My 0,02 €

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:01 am

seconded - my NAD 1020 has it as well

but Grok, I've browsed the site and voilà, what do I find... ?
we have something to agree on

the paragraph that starts with:
So why is Har-Bal better than conventional approaches?
clearly states what I've written dozens of times: less is more.
The omnipresent compression, eq, limiting, tweaking on each and every source for the sake of twiddling the knobs is what brings the sh*t into the sound.

thumbs up for that revealing insight, first chapter in the 101 of sound engineering.

if you have good ears and apply reasonable adjustments to a soundsource you will end with exactly the same result as with that 'plugin inverter'.
it's kind of amusing that people shell lots of cash for top level eqs and compressors only to overuse them, and then invest again to put the result into balance again

It's a companion of that frequency dependant phase shifting thingy, tools that noone needs - for those who already own all and everything.

I'd feel ripped, but if it works faster for you to make the sound you like - OK, let's celebrate we have a common opinion on something

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-12-02 02:02 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:48 am

I'd personally rather invest in Wolf's 'Spectrum'. It's a different tool of course, but at least it's a little masterpiece.... SBC no matter how good it sounds, is not in a class alongside Optimaster & PsyQ, i'm sorry it just can't be & Liquid Len reports it using almost 3 DSP of power ... it just wouldn't make sense to most users to use this tool if it's as hungry as that...utter mince.

Post by **garyb** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:00 am

"real" mastering engineers use custom made, top quality hardware compressors and eqs. they don't use vst plugins. bargain basement guys use vsts.....

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:30 am

okay... before it gets too hot in here.

SBC is a new addition to the scope effects collection. It's simple, but unlike what we had before. So, sure it'll have a place in everyone's collection. You can mix with it or master with it or cook your eggs with it.

The hal-bal thing is an interesting idea, probably working with technology that scope cannot offer. It's a steal for its price. You can do whatever you like with it.

No use getting over defensive or offensive about a plug. it's just a plug. use it and be happy with it.

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:24 am

Oh F... guys, when I give something to you, please don't make me work too much. This is no helpful spirit.

So, I have to answer to each of you one by one. This really piss me off, but, because I like you, I will make this effort.

Let's start...

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:53 am

u dont need to quote everything though.

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:14 am

On 2005-12-02 01:26, alfonso wrote:
On 2005-12-01 20:33, Grok wrote:
....but Har-Bal has more that the other EQ (in particular, one essential so simple and so brilliant feature that I could never applaud enough: loudness compensation, taking for the very first time in account inside an EQ process the Fletcher-Munson frequency/gain response curve of the human ear !...). Har-Bal is more than them, tool wise.

Cheers,
Grok

Sorry Grok,

this thing makes me laugh a bit
apart the fact that loudnes curve is just an eq curve, so there is not particular scientific merit in using it, my crappy car stereo has it, the very correct use of it is dynamic, the curve should be enhanced while the volume is getting lower, it is a compensation for the different freq.response that the human ear has at different levels...

The use of such equalization as a static process for the waveform is totally wrong and seems a bit a commercial mistification, it totally defeats the concept of compensation.

My 0,02 €

Ok.

Let's explain a little more, even if I don't like to make too much free lessons. Please try to be cooperative a little bit, by reading and inform yourself before criticizing with wrong arguments.

You have misunderstood what the "loudness compensation" process used by Har-Bal is, so all your expressed thinking is simply wrong and not relevant. But you laughed, which is very good for health, so there was at least this cool result.

This Har-Bal loudness compensation has strictly nothing to do with your car stereo or whatever NAD, Rotel or Onkyo HiFi stuff you could have. Nothing.

To make you understand this so simple and so brilliant idea, I have to repeat some usual concepts.

We've talked about the Fletcher-Munson curve, which shows that the human ear frequency response is acoustic level dependant. That means that the ears sensitivity is not the same for different sounds levels. If a sound has a high acoustic level, you will not perceive its frequency content the same that if this same sound has a low acoustic level. You know that.

What happens with usuals EQ processes?...

If you boost or if you lower a frequency, the level of the sound change. Ok ?...

If the level of the sound change, your ears frequency response curve change. Everyone understand this.

If your ears frequency response curve change each time you do an EQ, it makes difficult to appreciate what the real result of this EQ is.

That means that for a proper and precise comparison with and without EQ, you should adjust the gain each time to have strictly the same sound level with and without EQ. Like this, the ears/brain can have an effective and "objective" judgement on how the sound is affected by the applied EQ.

Har-Bal does this automatically for you !... That's what they call "automatic loudness compensation". It has nothing to do with stereo cars. It's just a pondered level adjustement, to have the same acoustic level with whatever EQ you could apply. This way, you can work simply with your ears frequency response unchanged, because the level don't change !... This way, you can take EQ decisions quicker.

This is an incredibly simple and a truly brilliant idea. Currently, Har-Bal is the only one EQ in the world to do this.

But, some laughers will say: "Why would this bullshit be necessary, mastering engineers have done amazing works without this shit for a long time !..."

Of course, but this is one of the factors that has made real mastering works so difficult that the rumours says it need "golden ears" !!!...

Even highly experienced mastering engineers can take hours to make proper EQ decisions !...

WITH HAR-BAL THEY MAKE IT IN MINUTES.

That's one of the reason why Har-Bal, a 95$ software application, has a such success with (and is recommended by) mastering engineers.

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2005-12-02 22:25 ]

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:56 am

Sorry, did i just click on the Har-Bal forum by mistake?

Yawn...

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:02 am

great explanation Grok, I've exactly understood it this way - an automatic adaption of that curve to the mix situation.
no hidden irony

I also agree on the fact that a certain (or specific) result can be achieved very fast.

It could help a sound engineer to waste as few time as possible with something that doesn't really deserve it anyway.
A lot of popular crap is expected to be 'finalized' exactly this way (I mean the process, not the device)

But I don't think it's necessary, for the reasons explained before (with carefully handling the sources) and it may even be misleading.
Imho it's narrowing perspective, as it's supposed to 'pre-thinks' your ideas.

cheers, Tom

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:21 am

On 2005-12-02 02:01, astroman wrote:
seconded - my NAD 1020 has it as well (...)

I just answered to this

(...)but Grok, I've browsed the site and voilà, what do I find... ?
we have something to agree on (...)

As usual, Tom, as usual !...

(...)the paragraph that starts with:
So why is Har-Bal better than conventional approaches?
clearly states what I've written dozens of times: less is more.
The omnipresent compression, eq, limiting, tweaking on each and every source for the sake of twiddling the knobs is what brings the sh*t into the sound.

thumbs up for that revealing insight, first chapter in the 101 of sound engineering.(...)

As you know, pedagogy is repetition

There are things that will never enough be repeated to be understood, so there is a lot of work on the road !...

"Less is more" will never enough be repeated, particularly today when there is so much gears that do so much things. It has been repeated millions of times, but it is not enough and will never be enough. So, keep up the good work, Tom !...

(...)if you have good ears and apply reasonable adjustments to a soundsource you will end with exactly the same result as with that 'plugin inverter'.(...)

What "plugin inverter" are you talking about? I miss something, here...

The "good ears" concept can lead us to discuss on several web pages, so I'm reluctant to enter in a such debate but ok, let's go.

"good ears" = "educated ears with no inner physiological problems"

"educated ears" : it takes years to make "educated ears".

"good ears" are nothing if they only have a crap listening system to work with. "Good ears" are not enough to make "good works"

"good ears" can become tired quickly. They become then "bad ears". With sufficient rest, they become again "good ears".

"good ears" needs particular listening conditions to stay "good ears". Too much acoustic level make them "bad ears" unable to discriminate audio events and even unable to discriminate audio events time placement, all this because of the natural protective compression mechanism of the ears.

...etc... ...etc...

(...)It's a companion of that frequency dependant phase shifting thingy, tools that noone needs - for those who already own all and everything.(...)

Which thingy are you talking about?... Psy-Q ?... Psy-Q phase shifting is interesting to correct some audio aberrations coming from "wrong" audio treatments when infortunately they have happened (which is unfortunately very common). But it is better to check its EQing result, with Har-Bal for example, yes. There is a VST that does phase shifting too, but I don't remember it's name right now and haven't tried it yet. There is also the plugin "Sonic Maximizer", which I find not exceptional.

(...)I'd feel ripped, but if it works faster for you to make the sound you like - OK, let's celebrate we have a common opinion on something

cheers, Tom

Kind regards,
Grok

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2005-12-02 22:31 ]

dbmac · Post by **dbmac** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:24 am

HarBal is a very precise FFT analyzer and EQ, quite similar to the one in Samplitude. I agree the product description may seem gimmicky, but it is a very high quality filter, as good as Samplitude's to my ears, and much easier to use.

If you want to see a gimmick, check out the Spectral Balance Controller. This is far from a "professional mastering tool". I have bought every device produced by Creamware over the years. This is the first time I've been so dissappointed. If this is an indication of future Scope development, I'm very uneasy.
Not worth EU98.

/dave

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:52 am

On 2005-12-02 09:02, astroman wrote:
great explanation Grok, I've exactly understood it this way - an automatic adaption of that curve to the mix situation.
no hidden irony

Thank you, Tom. To not allow misunderstandings: it's an adaptation of the acoustic level (for it to stay unchanged when lowering or boosting frequencies), not an adaptation of the EQ curve.
Hi-fi "loudness" is an adaptation of the EQ curve, as Alfonso stated. Which is not the case with the "automatic loudness compensation" used by the application we are talking about.

(...)I also agree on the fact that a certain (or specific) result can be achieved very fast.

It could help a sound engineer to waste as few time as possible with something that doesn't really deserve it anyway.
A lot of popular crap is expected to be 'finalized' exactly this way (I mean the process, not the device) (...)

Yes, that's what mastering is about: correcting and adjusting mixes made by others to allow them to be effective on any listening systems.

(...)But I don't think it's necessary, for the reasons explained before (with carefully handling the sources) and it may even be misleading.
Imho it's narrowing perspective, as it's supposed to 'pre-thinks' your ideas.

cheers, Tom

We're talking about mastering, and not exactly about musical ideas !...

Unfortunately, "carefully handling the sources" is not very common.
And even if it was, acoustic imperfections in the recording and mixing systems (including the acoustical character of the place where it has be done) lead to the need of EQing in the mastering process.
This EQ part in the mastering process should be by no way "pre-thinked". At this stage, it should be really a technical adjustement, not an artistical one. At this stage, it's about correcting existing defects unheard by the mixing engineer, but it's not about remixing his stuff.

Cheers,
Grok

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2005-12-02 22:34 ]

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:11 am

On 2005-12-02 06:00, garyb wrote:
"real" mastering engineers use custom made, top quality hardware compressors and eqs. they don't use vst plugins. bargain basement guys use vsts.....

Wrong...

BTW, Har-Bal is a standalone app, not a VST plugin, and it will never be a VST plugin.

Please allow me to say to you: go check it and buy it, it will become one of your essential tools (I guess you're a sound engineer, aren't you?).

Peace,
Grok

Post by **hubird** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:24 am

I hope we will discuss the SBC now.
There are always plugs in the world that are better (or worse) according to someone.
I would like to hear an example of SBC soon, what it does soundwise, or I will find out myself, as I will update soon.
Man, what about that HB, is it a religion or so?
I hope it's a great tool, thanks for mentioning it, but it was not the subject

I swear I'm gonne let you hear a nice result of the SBC soon, by myself.
Just a nice and usefull result, take notion

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:29 am

hubird wrote:

I hope we will discuss the SBC now.

No please, lets carry on about this Har-Bal thing, it's so interesting and much better than my CW card which is just toys anyway and not for serious audio. What do you think this is a SCOPE discussion forum? Get with the programme hubird.

Post by **hubird** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:36 am

in a way I was repeating you (indeed)

common Grok, you made your point, we are all adults and gear knowers, we know to value stuff, and also know to (possibly) recognice a hype (in general, so to say, don't reply).
We got the message.
And if SBC is half as good as you state Harballs is, then SBC must be a fantastic plugin.

Anyone with SBC who tried it out and can describe more in detail how it sounds?

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2005-12-02 10:42 ]

dbmac · Post by **dbmac** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:45 am

.....quoting myself from 5 posts above.....

This is far from a "professional mastering tool". I have bought every device produced by Creamware over the years. This is the first time I've been so dissappointed. If this is an indication of future Scope development, I'm very uneasy.
Not worth EU98.

ARCADIOS · Post by **ARCADIOS** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:36 pm

today i installed scope 4.5

same

anyway i gave 98 for this spectral something.
what is this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
a 5 band EQ???????????