Rendering Perfection? (HAR-BAL)

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Talk about whatever you want.
Lets see what happens.
Have a nice day.

[reberclark]

I was turned on to Har-Bal by Randy Bowser, a moderator of these boards. It really helped me learn quickly how to EQ my stuff. I immediately saw and heard the differences. In conjunction with Sound Forge Har-Bal helped me to greatly improve my mixing and mastering - especially with large ensembles. I agree - highly recommended!

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Very cool.

I wish I knew about it earlier.
I was somewhat unaware about "ear fatigue", if your works are not properly balanced.

M

[L0W]

In answer to the question raised, I would not call a product like HAR-BAL (there are similar products - the original I know about was Steinberg's FreeFilter) "rendering perfection" though. Also Harbal is not that new - I tried it about 4-5 years ago!

The flaw with all 'mastering EQ' solutions that use a template or 'learn' facility is the same. The EQ curve applied to your music to 'make' it sound like the template or 'learnt filter' applies equally to the whole mix. In many rendering situations, to get GPO to 'sound like' say film music can sometimes need quite a bit of EQ, but the EQ is only really needed on certain instruments, at certain frequencies and shapes for individual instruments and even perhaps only at certain times. If you need to apply EQ, then the EQ you might like to apply to a harp (perhaps cut the bass a bit and boost high frequencies if you want a 'cutthrough' harp) will almost certainly not be the same as the one you want to apply to Pizz. Basses (perhaps to bring out the 'pluck').

Once Har-bal and other similar product analyse your piece and compare it to a reference mix, it applies a global EQ curve to correct or bring your EQ curve closer to the reference piece. So if your render is overall a bit short of top end and bass (typically this might be the case), then the whole mix gets a top and bass boost. This can therefore add unwanted EQ artefacts so eg, in an orchestral setting, might make a harp or harpsichord pick up an unwanted bass 'boom' along with the instruments (eg bass pizz) that really did need bass boost.

If used carefully, Har-bal and other products (like FreeFilter) can certainly help improve an overall sound and very quickly make dull sounding renders more vivid and alive, can certainly help identify EQ problems in your own mix and help train the ear to listen out for these, but for 'rendering perfection' - the quest of Michael's original question, I would stick to EQing the individual instruments.

[Michael A. Wiktor]

... figure of speech. :)

Great perspective! And thank you for the input.

I did try, some time ago, EQ-ing each instrument separately. Unfortunately my system could not take the strain of about 16 tracks of individual EQ plus overall Reverb. I guess I have a "poor" system. :)

You can apply a general "Classical Filter" or create your "own filter" by tweaking your audio files. This program is very precise and each orchestral instrument has it's own frequency range area. If your careful enough and take an hour or two you can apply EQ effectively where you need it without casting it where you don't. A tedious process but well worth it for the perfectionist.

But Har-Bal should be viewed differently. Har-Bal is more of a harmonic balancing software than a simple EQ. You can add your EQ anyway you want, individually to instruments or generally overall. Then run the completed audio file through Har-Bal to view harmonic irregularities and make balancing adjustments. The result is quite impressive when used more as a refining tool. I always EQ before Har-Bal-izing it. :)

Peace.
M

[Hippie]

Very cool.

I wish I knew about it earlier.
I was somewhat unaware about "ear fatigue", if your works are not properly balanced.

M

I learned about ear fatigue from listening to my 2 ex wives. :p

[Michael A. Wiktor]

LOL! Too bad we can't harmonically balance "some" people. :)

M

[Raymond62]

LOL! Too bad we can't harmonically balance "some" people. :)

M

Yes, you can. Just flattening them out.

Raymond

[germancomponist]

A cool tool for sure. I have had the free-filter from Steinberg, now it`s name has changed. (because their own company)

But, as longer I have had it, as rarely I have used it. Now I use it never.

Because, I trust my ears and do equing in all the audio-channels. In my master-track there is an eq too, but this is for the last fine tweaking.

The graphics of the eq, opps, there is a tool in Cubase where you can see all that. :)

Gunther

[Larry G. Alexander]

I thought Har-Bal was what a cat coughed up. :D

But serially, I will check out this product. Thanks.

Regards,

[Raymond62]

When I am completely wrong about this, or you don't agree with me, just shoot me. I had a serious look at that Har-Bal and rejected it immmediately. Somebody replied that it is just a templated wave form to follow, I agree. I also read that list of frequencies and what it does to ear-perception.

For the sake of comparison I ripped the following CD's onto my system:


Symphony fantastique, Simon Rattle, recorded 2008, Berliner Philharmoniker
Rachmaninov, Symphonie 1 & 2, Mariss Jansons, recorded 1998, St. Petersburg Philharminc Orchestra
Rachmaninov, Isle of the Death, same orchestra

Adobe Audition has a frequency analysis tool with different settings possible to show the curve as mentioned in the description of Har-Bal. Looking at those, they all have their own peaks and valleys on the wrong spots, according to Har-Bal. Still those recordings are great and quite recent to have modern recording techniques on board (digital, I mean).

Then I submitted my own symphony to that same frequency analysis and again I found some peaks and valleys on wrong spots. To overcome those I applied a parametric equalizer on the various bands and got nearly to the graph presented in one of the tutorials of Har-Bal. The result was dramatic, muddy, not clearly accentuated strings, oboes sounded reasonable, but the rest was just an old fashioned heavely loudnessed piece of music, basses high, higher frequencies dead and not sparkling, the middle section nasal. The sound was bad but the graph looked good.

The last thing I did was comparing the non-edited first part of my symphony - the graph - with those from the CD's I mentioned above. They were almost alike. Yet they are completely different pieces of music.

And still, my own music is/was artificial and all I can say is that nothing compares a real orchestra, whatever you do to get it "so-called" better sounding.

Besides that, assuming that all recordings where the highest possible quality, they showed some differences in the graph. My conclusion is simple: other pieces of music, other orchestration, other orchestras, other ambiences.

I am afraid that when we use Har-Bal all music will sound the same, according to their templated graph. Sometimes high voices need to scream, sometimes lower voices really picture an upcoming disaster/drama.

No Har-Bal. I do the equalizing on Sonar, not to bend the tone, but to rule out that typical "sample-lib" sound (mainly the strings), without making it too smoothly sounding.



If you want more highs, just raise the input level of the flutes/violins;
If you want more mid freqs, raise the input of those voices in your orchestration;
More bass, doesn't mean equalize them, but raise the volume of the celli, contrabasses, etc.


In Sonar, Cubase and maybe other programs as well, one can automate almost everything. As DPDAN once said: "don't be lazy and go to work".

My thoughts about this, - and my ears and my equipment dictate the result,

Raymond

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Hey Raymond, thanks for the input!

I don't think anyone is going to "shoot you". :)
Why so much animosity ... is beyond me.

I think we can all agree that what works best for you and your music is what you should obviously use. There are a lot of great products on the market.

A while back I did exactly what you did. Ripped a nice orchestral CD and put it's filter/spectrum to my own music. Sounded like crap. And is not the way to use the software. It is not a "templated wave form to follow". If you're investigating this product please read all the free documentation and watch the video tutorial.

I won't go any further. This really shouldn't be a debate. Har-Bal just worked very, very well for me and I wanted to share this finding with others. And my recordings speak for themselves.

To each their own ...

Peace,
M

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Here is a cool chart:

http://www.miserymadebeautiful.com/chart.jpg

[reberclark]

No shooting here. Some are gunshy on these boards (me included!) because of some history - but whatever, here we are!:)

Har-Bal was advantageous for me because it taught me what waveforms and frequencies to look for and adjust - especially in my large ensemble files. I was completely lost and Har-Bal gave me an excellent starting point.

I now hardly use it at all - I do my mastering in Sound Forge alone and the Mastering EQ, Compressor and Limiting tools work fine. But...NOW I know how to use them. Pre Har-Bal I couldn't get a starting point (just dumb I guess).

The only reason I use it now is to check how to balance (EQ etc) ensemble forms (banjos, ukeles, rainsticks, steel guitars, percussion ensembles, etc) that I am not familiar with. After getting the basic idea from Har-Bal I then have a starting point and can develop things on my own in Sound Forge - leaving Hard-Bal behind on subsequent projects.

So...Raymond ain't wrong, but Har-Bal can be a valuable tool.

[reberclark]

Michael, That chart's a great resource, especially the bottom part! Thanks for posting it!

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Hey, no problem!

And to all who read this post: It is not my intention to debate final mastering techniques and/or software used. I'm just excited about this software and wanted to share it.

Please add any other software that helps you get your best sound out of your recording to this thread. It may help others to get a broader sense of what is out on the market.

Thanks,
M

[RichR]

Great reference Chart Michael!

That's getting laminated and put with my important references!

Thanks

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Your welcome Rich!

M

[dominick]

Thanks for the chart Mike! I was thinking of getting Har-Bal, as it is not too expensive and as germancomponist points out, it seems like a good tool for ear training. However, as Raymond basically implies, our individual preferences eventually leads us to make music that sounds right or pleasing to our own ears.

For example, I tend to like meaty, lower frequency sounds, and find the highest frequency sounds harsh to my ears, without heavy filter modulation (for electronic sounds).

Not having, nor intending to buy a sound editor, can anyone comment on the possible usefulness of Har-Bal for me with the upcoming GPO Aria?

I use Reason as my DAW, which has an excellent compressor and parametric equalizer (but no visual sound editing), and imagine my pieces would rarely have more than a dozen tracks running simultaneously. I guess the purpose of Har-Bal would be to help me balance tracks out to achieve a more realistic rendition of orchestral instruments, which I have very little experience with. You see, I'm used to working with synthesizers, which have virtually no boundaries for how a sound file is to be shaped. On the other hand, blending acoustic instruments will require me to follow more defined limits as to how they should sound in the frequency spectrum.

By the way I did take a look at the book Randy recommended in another thread about mastering :"How To Get Great Sound From Any Audio Studio". It had some interesting concepts like frequency slotting.

[Raymond62]

Hey Raymond, thanks for the input!

I don't think anyone is going to "shoot you". :)
Why so much animosity ... is beyond me.



It was not the intention to hurt anybody. Animosity is a big word and I think I don't deserve this. The whole message was a warning not to fall into the trap of meaningless equalization just because some programmers came up with a program and a graph.

Raymond

[germancomponist]

I think it would be great if Michael will post an audio example: The original and the tweaked with this plug.

Can you do this?

Best,

Gunther

[BenNichols]

Wow, that chart pops up on so many forums :)

I'd like to second germancomponist's request. a before and after demo would be great.

I noticed on the website there are no examples of it at work....only whats in the youtube demo video. I never understand why so many software companies aimed at the professional sound industry use youtube! The sound quality is terrible!

[germancomponist]

I never understand why so many software companies aimed at the professional sound industry use youtube! The sound quality is terrible!

They think some of the 100.000.000.000 user will find their video and buy the product. :D

[L0W]

At risk of repeating my earlier comments, I think its fair to say that applying filter/eq across a mix is though really is never going to sound as good as eq'ing individual channels/instruments, and even that is arguably worst than mixing/arranging for good eq balance in the first place (to illustrate the latter, as Hans Zimmer once said 'if I feel I am missing some top end in a mix, I will add a violin part' - the point Raymond is also getting at).

Another similar product is Automatic Audio Mastering System (AAMS) www.curioza.com (http://www.curioza.com). There is a 'before' and 'after' using AAMS on their website:

http://www.curioza.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=70

Any of Harbal, FreeFilter and AAMS work well in a pop mixing environment to get quick and 'dirty' improvements to eq balance and to obtain more 'commercial' sounding mixes by using 'learning' and 'templates'. Isotope Ozone is another oft-quoted mastering tool but doesn't use 'learning' like these other products. Someone might be able to correct me, but I don't however think that any of the products mentioned have actually been used on a commercially released recording. Their websites certainly don't trumpet it if they have been.

In terms of using these products in a 'mastering' setting, then it is too late to consider eq-slotting which is done on each channel/instrument during mixdown, not mastering. Eq-slotting does work well in a pop/rock mixdown (in fact a pop record which does not have eq slotting can sound 'dated' and 'muddled' to modern ears) but I remain to be convinced anyone would seriously want to do it with Orchestral music though I've never tried it myself.

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Your welcome.
I understand what you are saying. A wonderful training tool Har-Bal can be.
Before I use Har-Bal I believe my "mix" sounds OK. Har-Bal just adds a nice finishing touch.
Thanks for the feedback Dominick.

M
PS, I will research frequency slotting.

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Raymond,
But see, I disagree with you based on my experience with Har-Bal. For me, it is not meaningless but a wonderful tool now that I have had time to learn how to use it properly.

M

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Hey Gunther!
I would if I had them. But please visit and listen anyway.
You can also view the video tutorial.

M

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Hey Ben,
Don't have the before clips. But be my guest and listen to Corridor. This work was very "thick" and I always had trouble balancing a clear sound with reverb. It was my intention to write "full" but needed EQ help.

There is a step by step video. Not sure if you watched that. Yep, I agree kind of weird to use youtube but on HD it's not too bad.

M

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Hey L0W,

I agree, I have tried to EQ each track with some success especially bass drums and timpani. But I am very happy with the Har-BAl results after the fact.

Sure, turning up or adding a new violin might increase the brightness of the top end if you choose so. Writing a new line to EQ is another option.

EQ slotting with Orchestral music - that's something to look into. Thanks for the heads-up.

M

[germancomponist]

So there must be some one out there who has this tool, yes, no?

I would like to listen to a demo, as I said. Then I will download the original track and tweak it with my mastering tools, so we can do a nice comparison.

Hm?

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Cool. What mastering tools do you use?
Part of this thread would be to explore what we all use,... tips, tricks, and techniques...
I will work on my 'Vespertine' track, which is next in line for me, and I'll save the original mp3. If that works for you?

M



So there must be some one out there who has this tool, yes, no?

I would like to listen to a demo, as I said. Then I will download the original track and tweak it with my mastering tools, so we can do a nice comparison.

Hm?

[germancomponist]

I use multiband-compressors, maximizers, eq`s, reverb a.s.o .

I think this will be a great example. You send me the original and I do my mastering by telling you all the things I did.

But please note: If there are big mistakes in the original mix, I will feel free to tell you. ;)

Gunther

[BenNichols]

Cool. What mastering tools do you use?
Part of this thread would be to explore what we all use,... tips, tricks, and techniques...
I will work on my 'Vespertine' track, which is next in line for me, and I'll save the original mp3. If that works for you?

M


Can you send me a copy of the original file too? I will use ozone 4 on it and see what I can achieve with just that tool...this could be very interesting. Lets not forget tho that we are all at different skill levels in mastering. Im only really starting out with it at the mo. I used to just mix my tracks as 'hot' as i could so mastering wouldnt be necessary. But now i know its benefits...even tho im still learning the art of it!

Nice quote from Hans Zimmer there. He is also been reported as saying that for orchestral music he never uses compressors...

Some one stated earlier that there is no evidence that ozone 4 has been used on professional tracks? i think it has... http://www.izotope.com/artists/ <--- some of those artists must be using it!

cheers

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Thanks Ben and Gunther.

Gunther, take a listen now to 'Vespertine'. That is the original since I have not yet put it through Har-Bal. Well?
When I do get to 'Vespertine' I will update you. Currently I am working on 'Harvester'.

Wow, I'm not familiar with "multiband-compressors, maximizers". I guess we are all on different levels. What are these things and what do they achieve?

The original file 'Vespertine'
'Vespertine' (http://www.miserymadebeautiful.com/music/vespertine-R.mp3)

I'm very excited to hear what you guys achieve!
Thanks for the help!

M

[L0W]

Frequency or eq slotting is the term I use to describe only allowing certain 'feature/character' frequencies through for each instrument and reducing/rolling off all other frequencies - I can't remember if it has another name or if this is also what the other posters are referring to.

The aim of eq slotting is to leave room and headroom in the mix for all the instruments and can result in a clearer more balanced mix. Typically an acoustic guitar would have all the bass frequencies cut, and a bass guitar might have all the top end removed. A snare drum might only be left with a mid-frequency peak and not much either side. The theory in all these cases is that the bass part of an acoustic guitar and the higher frequencies of a bass guitar do not contribute significantly to the representing the 'character' of the instrument in the mix so can be reduced/removed. The most important instruments in a mix though might have no slotting done at all (typically in a pop setting, the vocals might get full bandwidth).

Along with panning its a widely used tool to de-muddle a mix as when using it, each instrument is not trying to occupy the same frequency zones as the others and so creates more 'space'. It also creates more 'perceived loudness' without using compression as each instrument is contributing its 'essence' but only using a fraction of the energy available in the mix that it would otherwise consume.

However it often results in an artificial sounding mix, so would not typically be used for folk, jazz or orchestral recordings. For chart/pop music I doubt from listening though that there are many recent recordings that don't use this technique.

[dominick]

Before and after examples from forum members would certainly be helpful. That way, we would be able to determine if there are any significant differences, based on our individual hearing abilities.

I personally seem to be able to find subtle differences in detail when listening to softer sound passages, but often have difficulty making decisions when sounds are louder in a mix.

[germancomponist]

Thanks Ben and Gunther.

Gunther, take a listen now to 'Vespertine'. That is the original since I have not yet put it through Har-Bal. Well?
When I do get to 'Vespertine' I will update you. Currently I am working on 'Harvester'.

Wow, I'm not familiar with "multiband-compressors, maximizers". I guess we are all on different levels. What are these things and what do they achieve?

The original file 'Vespertine'
'Vespertine' (http://www.miserymadebeautiful.com/music/vespertine-R.mp3)

I'm very excited to hear what you guys achieve!
Thanks for the help!

M

Michael,

I like this one! Ok, lets see what I can do with this mp3. ;)

[germancomponist]

Oops,

to get this file to sound best you can`t do it with an eq in the mastertrack, in my opinion. For this I would first tweak the solo/group tracks.

I did a little bit eqing and some other things. :-)

Listen here: http://www.box.net/shared/za4rk8vtlg

What do you think?

[BenNichols]

Ive had a listen to the track, and im going to do some work on it, but not for a few days if thats ok. Ive got to finish some other work first. hope thats ok with everyone who is expecting the different examples..

germancomponist - isnt the purpose of this little exercise to see what we can achieve JUST using mastering tools? If it were my track I too would definitely go into the individual instruments and do a lot of tweaking, but as it is we are just comparing mastering tools and seeing how har-bel shapes up, no?

[germancomponist]

Ben,

I have used only things in the master what I use ervery day when I master my tracks. For example, a good compressoer/limiter must not be named "master-compressor ....) ;)

I have not got the the har bel, but I hope another one will post!

So I think this is a great camparison too.

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Hey,

Well, First, I want to say thank you for taking the time to do this. Very interesting! BUT, it only sounds, OK. Let me say this first, what we are breaking this down to, this entire thread, is PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

Your mix is clean and clear BUT way to upfront, the panning of instruments has been effected, and a bit unnatural. No room to breathe.
SO, this is just my opinion and what I like.

I think I like the LIVE sound vs. the STUDIO sound, if you know what I'm saying.?

Anyways, thank you again, It is very interesting to hear our different approaches on this matter. I will Har-Bal Vespertine on Wed., or Thursday then post it here.

M




Oops,

to get this file to sound best you can`t do it with an eq in the mastertrack, in my opinion. For this I would first tweak the solo/group tracks.

I did a little bit eqing and some other things. :-)

Listen here: http://www.box.net/shared/za4rk8vtlg

What do you think?

[rbowser-]

Interesting thread. As noted by Reber early on here, there was a good discussion about Har-Bal (--don't like that name--keeps reminding of Hair Ball--LOL!)--a little while back here on the Forum. I guess everyone didn't see the discussion.

It's been out for quite awhile. It had been around some time before I discovered it as I was doing the mastering of my "Dorian" tracks several years ago.

At the time I was active at one of the Cakewalk Forums. I was getting as much input as I could get from those with more experience. I kept running by test snippets from my mixes. At first my tests were too muddy. I'd work with EQing individual instruments, return to the board and run another test by. This went on for some time with the experts still giving me notes for improvement.

Then someone mentioned Har-Bal and how it could help me with mastering the 2-track mix down.

>Voila!< I made appropriate comparison files from CDs of Broadway shows. Got the hang of the program enough to jump in with a new test that involved this guided EQing of the whole mix - and the Experts at Cakewalk said --Done! You got it!

Har-Bal was used on every track of "Dorian." For me it was showing that even though I can do EQ work on individual tracks and do what I can to make my master sound great, with judicious application (I discovered I couldn't take HB's guidance totally literally)--HB was indeed doing the trick of having my masters sound much more like the pro cast albums I was emulating.

For me it's not theoretical, and there's no way I can think of HB as just a toy or hocus-pocus. Yes, we must still do what we can with individual tracks, and HB can help with that, but there's still the accumulated EQ of pro tracks which, when we emulate, will guide our masters to sounding--more Masterful!

Randy

[germancomponist]

Hey,

Well, First, I want to say thank you for taking the time to do this. Very interesting! BUT, it only sounds, OK. Let me say this first, what we are breaking this down to, this entire thread, is PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

Your mix is clean and clear BUT way to upfront, the panning of instruments has been effected, and a bit unnatural. No room to breathe.
SO, this is just my opinion and what I like.

I think I like the LIVE sound vs. the STUDIO sound, if you know what I'm saying.?

Anyways, thank you again, It is very interesting to hear our different approaches on this matter. I will Har-Bal Vespertine on Wed., or Thursday then post it here.

M

Very cool, I can`t wait for your tweaked version with Har Bal.

About the panning: It is extreme mixed in your original track. I have not used a stereo-enhancer e.t.c. .

I have inserted an eq, a Sonalskis Compressor, but not to compress but to make it louder without leaving the dynamic. Then a Waves dynamic eq to make the boost frequencies I did before not louder, and then I added a Convo Verb. :) This is because I called it "experiment". :D
Then I used the Waves Limiter and dithering tool.


Interesting: While I was listening I thought, oops, lets use a stereo enhancer to reduce the stereo width, but I didn`t because it ruins the mix. The violines are extrem mixed to the left while I think the other instruments are good balanced.

The problem is that I have had only an mp3 file to tweak, so there were lost many informations. But, as I said before, without tweaking the single tracks the best mastering tool can`t do your mix better. Don`t take this personally, but go back to your mix! :)

Panning and especially equing ist the first imoportant thing, because all frequencies are fighting against each other! Its also interesting how you use the reverb. Spend the violines more reverb on the right channel.

Not only GPO instruments must be tweaked to get the sound best in the master track! This is true for all libraries and all recordings.

I have GPO on my notebook and here last year I began to score a dramatic epic piece. I will look where it is and post it into the liteningroom. A good example I think. ;)

Gunther

[germancomponist]

Randy,

sorry that I brought this thread perhaps in onother direction, but I can`t read the posts here without to comment. :)

The headline here is also "Rendering Perfection", and rendering perfection is not only to use an eq in the mastertrack. I remember DPDAN (Dan Kury) showed excellent examples in another thread here.

I have no problem with Har Bal, and when you say that this is a great tool, then it is certainly.

Best,

Gunther

[sonata5920]

Gday,

I have been aware of Har-Bal for some time. I have not used it for the reasons Raymond has given.

This thread is really about using orchestration techniques versus using effects.

If you are into Rock, you could not do without effects. The Garritan libraries don’t seem to be particularly created for Rock.

As a technical person, I approve of using the wonders of modern technology wherever appropriate. I do not do Rock and mostly do not use any effects at all.

The great masters of composition of the past and of today, with very few exceptions, were and are masters of orchestration. Schubert, Wagner, R. Strauss ... did not need the services of recording and mastering studios to improve their music.

For technical and acoustic reasons, recorded music never sounds perfectly natural. Particularly recordings of orchestral music are often not so perfect. Music performed with the help of sample libraries has its special problems but is fairly convincing nowadays.

The suggestion here is, that sample libraries need to go through a process that will distort its frequency components, to produce an acceptable result (equalization).
The Questions are: does Gary Garritan employ incompetent sound recording staff? Do the programmers corrupt the samples? If this is so, should we not complain and ask for better workmanship in producing sample libraries, rather than distorting the samples by equalization?

Raymond said:


“If you want more highs, just raise the input level of the flutes/violins;
If you want more mid freqs, raise the input of those voices in your orchestration;
More bass, doesn't mean equalize them, but raise the volume of the celli, contrabasses, etc.”

I agree

Herbert

[germancomponist]

Oops,

so why do we have mixers?

The best mixers with the best eq`s cost sooo much money because we don`t need them? ;)

Herbert, if you record an instrument dry with a good microphone, than in the recording often are frequencies what you don`t hear, but they still are there. For example, experiment with a dry recorded trumpet. Detune it - 12 or more semitones. If you can play now a cool tuba, than you know what I am talking about. :)

Best,

Gunther

[sonata5920]

Guten Morgen Gunther,

There is a lot of literature available on composition, orchestration, music production and sound engineering. You should find answers to your questions there.

Mit besten Grüssen

Herbert

[rbowser-]

Hi, Gunther - My contribution earlier was purely about the topic, "Har-Bal." I had my own personal experience with it to pass on, and wrote that down without reading any more than Michael's original post about this EQ application.

I see now from looking through the thread that there's an interesting debate going on, but I wasn't intending to take sides or argue any particular case except to say I've used HB and found it useful.

I really don't think Michael meant that HB was the Holy Grail of rendering and that it alone can provide "Rendering Perfection." It made for a more interesting subject line than "What do you think of Har-Bal" or "Interesting EQ I found." The hyperbole seems acceptable to me. Of course there are many factors that lead to "rendering perfection," as you're pointing out here, Gunther.

Now I've read your post, Herbert, and as always, it's very interesting. I always enjoy your posts.

Regarding this topic of EQ, and the approach that HB takes with it, I can see that you and Raymond are over-looking a basic, critical point:

--Live music, such as a symphonic concert, and recordings are two very different things. Recordings can make attempts to re-create the experience of hearing an orchestra in a concert hall, but they can only be approximations of that experience. Sound is always colored by the microphones that record the instruments, and sonic events occur in the layering of that recorded sound which is unique to the process of producing recorded music. If it was a simple matter to set up some equipment and completely accurately capture the sound of a live orchestra, all the banks of expensive hardware used by top classical engineers wouldn't be needed. They would be able to fairly straight forwardly go straight from live sound to recorded and be able to have an accurate recording. But of course that it isn't the case.

--When we're recording music with software as we do, we have an added complication - We're making recordings of recordings--ie: the samples of instruments we use are recordings subject to the colorization added to the sound because of the microphone used to capture the instrument, and the environment where the sample was recorded. We don't have any truly "pure" samples to work with. Then we layer all these recordings, and it starts sounding very different from a live concert. We need to avail ourselves of many tools to come closer to the kind of recordings large professional studios are able to make.

--A good example of a sample set which is highly colored and sometimes problematic in a computer generated recording using GPO, is the bass string set. It's been noted many times that those samples are more ambient than the other string instruments in GPO, and have an unnatural, muddied thump to them in the lower registers. That's the sort of thing which can be improved with the use of EQ.

--I can easily testify from my own experience that without using any EQ in our projects, a build up of frequencies can damage the sonic totality of our recordings. It's a build up of frequencies unique to using samples and synth instruments which can sound great as solos but are too animated for ensemble work, and the recording process itself.

--In an historical, classical context, the composer is indeed balancing the harmonics of his work, juggling frequencies as he chooses his instrumentation. That's one thing. But it is simply not the case that as composers using computers that we have only that same basic challenge. No, in addition to traditional orchestration considerations, we have to deal also, as engineers, with the harmonic issues introduced by the recording process.

And that's why using an app like HB for reference can be helpful.

Randy B.

[germancomponist]

Hi, Gunther - My contribution earlier was purely about the topic, "Har-Bal." I had my own personal experience with it to pass on, and wrote that down without reading any more than Michael's original post about this EQ application.

I see now from looking through the thread that there's an interesting debate going on, but I wasn't intending to take sides or argue any particular case except to say I've used HB and found it useful.

I really don't think Michael meant that HB was the Holy Grail of rendering and that it alone can provide "Rendering Perfection." It made for a more interesting subject line than "What do you think of Har-Bal" or "Interesting EQ I found." The hyperbole seems acceptable to me. Of course there are many factors that lead to "rendering perfection," as you're pointing out here, Gunther.

Now I've read your post, Herbert, and as always, it's very interesting. I always enjoy your posts.

Regarding this topic of EQ, and the approach that HB takes with it, I can see that you and Raymond are over-looking a basic, critical point:

--Live music, such as a symphonic concert, and recordings are two very different things. Recordings can make attempts to re-create the experience of hearing an orchestra in a concert hall, but they can only be approximations of that experience. Sound is always colored by the microphones that record the instruments, and sonic events occur in the layering of that recorded sound which is unique to the process of producing recorded music. If it was a simple matter to set up some equipment and completely accurately capture the sound of a live orchestra, all the banks of expensive hardware used by top classical engineers wouldn't be needed. They would be able to fairly straight forwardly go straight from live sound to recorded and be able to have an accurate recording. But of course that it isn't the case.

--When we're recording music with software as we do, we have an added complication - We're making recordings of recordings--ie: the samples of instruments we use are recordings subject to the colorization added to the sound because of the microphone used to capture the instrument, and the environment where the sample was recorded. We don't have any truly "pure" samples to work with. Then we layer all these recordings, and it starts sounding very different from a live concert. We need to avail ourselves of many tools to come closer to the kind of recordings large professional studios are able to make.

--A good example of a sample set which is highly colored and sometimes problematic in a computer generated recording using GPO, is the bass string set. It's been noted many times that those samples are more ambient than the other string instruments in GPO, and have an unnatural, muddied thump to them in the lower registers. That's the sort of thing which can be improved with the use of EQ.

--I can easily testify from my own experience that without using any EQ in our projects, a build up of frequencies can damage the sonic totality of our recordings. It's a build up of frequencies unique to using samples and synth instruments which can sound great as solos but are too animated for ensemble work, and the recording process itself.

--In an historical, classical context, the composer is indeed balancing the harmonics of his work, juggling frequencies as he chooses his instrumentation. That's one thing. But it is simply not the case that as composers using computers that we have only that same basic challenge. No, in addition to traditional orchestration considerations, we have to deal also, as engineers, with the harmonic issues introduced by the recording process.

And that's why using an app like HB for reference can be helpful.

Randy B.

Nothing to add, Randy! Great post!

Best,

Gunther

[germancomponist]

Guten Morgen Gunther,

There is a lot of literature available on composition, orchestration, music production and sound engineering. You should find answers to your questions there.

Mit besten Grüssen

Herbert

Oops,

Herbert, I have had no questions.

I do recordings since over 30 years and have produced so many different styles. My way was "learning by doing" and it was a good way! ;)

Best,

Gunther

[dominick]

Sound is always colored by the microphones that record the instruments, and sonic events occur in the layering of that recorded sound which is unique to the process of producing recorded music.

When we're recording music with software as we do, we have an added complication - We're making recordings of recordings--ie: the samples of instruments we use are recordings subject to the colorization added to the sound because of the microphone used to capture the instrument, and the environment where the sample was recorded.

Randy B.

Great points Randy!

Not to mention the added coloring of our speakers, headphones and individual hearing abilities and preferences, as we attempt to make a recording sound realistic and/or pleasing.

[L0W]

The Questions are:
1) does Gary Garritan employ incompetent sound recording staff?
2) Do the programmers corrupt the samples? If this is so, should we not complain and ask for better workmanship in producing sample libraries, rather than distorting the samples by equalization?

Herbert
Hi Herbert,



You have raised these as questions, but from the rest of the post I think you intended them in a rhetorical context. However, I think the answers lead one to the conclusion that yes, you may well sometimes find you have to 'distort' your renderings with EQ to get good results!

no recording situation is ideal
no performance of the original player is going to be tonally appropriate for all uses
a 'dry' close miced recording may not suit every performance for which the library is ultimately used
as Randy mentions the original mic'ed recording will have its own colour which may or may not represent what is trying to be achieved from your own performance
Even the original dry recordings probably went through some equalisation/tonal adjustment prior to incorporation in the libraries to the taste of the engineer(s) responsible.
Niether are the samples you hear when playing GPO instrument constructed out of a faithful straight recording of an instrument - they will have been 'engineered' out of an attack phase, a sustain/loop phase and possibly a release tail.
They may have separate elements like bow noise or vibrato added in programatically
To get the performance and midi control elements into the library that are vital Gary's team will have added more programming that in turn will affect the 'fidelity' of the original raw recording
as 'dry' samples then the user is almost certainly going to use some form or reverb/ambience in their renders again clouding the eq.
the DAW software and the soundcard on the mix will have an impact on tone and frequency make-up
Take a look at some of the brass samples in Kontakt and you will see how short the loops are - perhaps there was a need to keep the library down to a size or perhaps some other consideration was at work I don't know, but this does for certain impact the 'sound' of the brass instruments compared to a real instrument.
For the strings, for some people there is too much 'bow noise' and as Randy says, the Bass strings sometimes are too boomy (and the bass pizz, not plucky enough). These features may or may not need eq'ing to help improve eg harshness at top end.
I don't know for a fact if GPO uses steganography on its WAV files, but if it does this will affect the sound
Some time ago I wrote a post on why 'sample libraries' will possibly never completely satisfy all users. That's because there are three main approaches to sample libraries and none of them are 'perfect' for various reasons:

- the pure sample based approach
- the programmed sample based approach
- the synthesised/physical modelling approach

In GPO (which takes the second approach) the 'performance' that is enabled (via programming) in the libraries inevitably distorts and takes steps away from the original 'faithful' recordings. However without this performance control, GPO would not be wonderful product that it is. I think most people and users recognise this and are delighted that their ~$100 library fits on one DVD and can achieve so much so quickly and so aren't 'up in arms' demanding "better workmanship in producing sample libraries". The Stradivari and Gofriller instruments represent a quantum leap in programming compared to GPO and when Gary was asking this forum what they wanted from GPO2 (advanced) then a common theme was asking for more of this improved programming (and even demanding eveb better programming).

In the meantime we are using GPO (original) and it's my (completely evidence devoid apart from using my ears) current conclusion that some of the best GPO recordings have used small amounts of EQ used judiciously to obtain a better master recording.

Whether that is best done (returning to topic momentarily!) HARBAL, channel EQ or a judicious use of both along with a combination of other tools, well I have stated my opinion already on that.

[Raymond62]

With all "pepper,salt & herbes" mentioned one can even enjoy eating a brick ;). Another strange point to lighten up this discussion:

1. Project Sonar, buffers set to value X & Y, ASIO at Z;
2. Rendering to Audio;
3. Can amplifiy it to 0 dB with amplication factor of 4 dB

4. Exactly the same project in Sonar, buffers set to value X+256, Y+256, ASIO Z+10 (imaginary values);
5. Rendering to Audio;
6. Can amplify it with only 2.7 dB to reach the 0 dB value.

7. Again that same project (from 4 Sonar different buffers), nothing has changed, except the buffers in KP2;
8. After rendering I could amplify it with 3.5 dB.

Also, and that is subjective, the brightness of the higher registers was obvious when using higher buffer settings in KP2.

Is there any conclusion here? What about all those "nuts and bolts" when the sound changes under your fingers without doing anything strange.

Raymond

[Raymond62]

The great masters of composition of the past and of today, with very few exceptions, were and are masters of orchestration. Schubert, Wagner, R. Strauss ... did not need the services of recording and mastering studios to improve their music.

Herbert, thank you for those words. I found myself left alone in this. By the way, you mention some great composers. Don't forget that:



None of Schubert's orchestral works were performed during his lifetime;
Some of the great composers wrote different versions of the same work. Bruckner rewrote some Symphonies- at least some parts of them, Beethoven experimented with sounds and harmonic settings during his whole life. Even Strawinsky rewrote parts of the Rites of Spring.
Conductors can make or break a piece. After all they decide the sound balance of the orchestration in the final product. Listen to different versions in time of the same work directed by Haitink. I have C.Francks Symphony played by Bernstein and Haitink. A world of difference. Which is better? None, just different. I perferred the Bernstein version, by the way.


Raymond

[Michael A. Wiktor]

RANDY,

I
really don't think Michael meant that HB was the Holy Grail of rendering and that it alone can provide "Rendering Perfection." It made for a more interesting subject line than "What do you think of Har-Bal" or "Interesting EQ I found." The hyperbole seems acceptable to me. Of course there are many factors that lead to "rendering perfection," as you're pointing out here, Gunther.

You hit the nail on the head.
Nice little thread we got going here, huh? :)

M

[rbowser-]

Yes, Michael--It's a very nice thread we have going here! - Glad that my interpretation of your subject line coincides with your intentions - that really seemed self evident to me.

My dear Raymond and Herbert, it's interesting to watch as you still don't seem to grasp the basic point here:

"...masters of orchestration. Schubert, Wagner, R. Strauss ... did not need the services of recording and mastering studios to improve their music...."

Of course they didn't. And all the recording studios who have made recordings of the masters have never, and will continue to never intend to "improve their music." The pros at the studios are doing the best they can to make the recordings as acceptable as possible, and they fully understand that recordings are simply not the same as live performances.

It's all been touched on here- recordings are only representations, abstractions, approximations of what happens in a venue with live musicians. As LOW and others have taken great pains to explain on this thread, there are so many factors that make recordings different from live performances. And the end result of the recording comes out of the vibrating pieces of paper we call "speakers"--one of the weakest links in the audio chain. The huge sound of a live orchestra has to be tamed drastically before it will even Fit on any variety of recorded media and come out sounding like actual music.

People of sufficient experience have no problem testifying to how a completely untouched raw recording of live music is going to sound like mud compared to what a good engineer can do to the recording to make it sound more like the live experience. And it's those genius engineers whom we emulate as we struggle to make the most out of our recordings of recordings - our work with samples.

To live in a fantasy land where one's recordings will magically sound great with no actual engineering of the sound applied to them is only to consign our projects to recorded representations that could have been much Much better. That's all.

Meaning no disrespect to anyone here on the thread, it's really a recording 101 extremely basic concept we're talking about, and has nothing to do with the way The Masters composed their music.

Randy

[germancomponist]

Cool Randy, thanks for your detailed explanations,

so now all readers here understand exactly what I said in my posts before.

[rbowser-]

Your posts here are great, Gunther - Just rapping on the same riff in my Americanese. :)

Randy

[germancomponist]

Randy, do you remember my english/americanese when I came to the forum some years ago? :D

[Raymond62]

My dear Raymond and Herbert, it's interesting to watch as you still don't seem to grasp the basic point here:

"...masters of orchestration. Schubert, Wagner, R. Strauss ... did not need the services of recording and mastering studios to improve their music...."


You dare to say that we don't grasp the idea. Wonderful. I grasp the idea fully and reject the idea of using too many "tools" to make something of it. The first thing we all have to get at - and I in particular - is making the original sound excellent. When that basic product is at top level, then and only then are we allowed using something as Har-Bal, Conv-Boy(is a convolution plug), Dynamizers, Exciters, Uppers and Downers or whatever.

Low praised using Har-Bal as a tool, that's ok with me. All I wanted to say with my original reply was: don't try to make a Rolls-Royce out of a VW Beatle. You will never succeed. You should firstly bring that Beatle to a higher level.

I remember a discussion about Expanders/Compressors, etc. where our one and only "master of rendering on this forum" commented against using those too often - or at all. We will never agree, you are using tools, I use instruments and volume levels to get it better, apart from the fact that only for correction of my initial "instrument balance errors" I use:

Sonar - equalizer to get rid of the formants in the violins;
Sonitus - equalizer to "correct" some of the mid frequencies;
PerfetcSpace - as a reverb tool, with equalization set, to the spatial idea;
And of course, the automated sliders for volume level.

Since I've never seen Bernstein with a hardware Equalizer conducting an orchestra, I'll stick to only those tools.

... and be honest, disagreements make the world turn ....evolution, you know.

Raymond

[germancomponist]

I remember a discussion about Expanders/Compressors, etc. where our one and only "master of rendering on this forum" commented against using those too often - or at all. We will never agree, you are using tools, I use instruments and volume levels to get it better, apart from the fact that only for correction of my initial "instrument balance errors" ...
Raymond

Raymond, for me, some tools are like instruments, because they can bring some samples to live :)

Lets do a comparison between samplelibraries:

You know the Sam Brass, the VSL strings and you know GPO, very different libs, especially their sound/brilliance. But, when using the right tools you can get much more out of GPO.

So when you say make the beatle good, this is exactly what I do with my nice tools. And after that the mixing can begin.... . :)

Another example: The snares in GPO, with only a little bit tweaking via detuning and eqing you can get hundrets of different but also good sounding snares.

I have found the score I did last year with GPO and will post it into the listeningroom very soon. There I will post 2 versions: The first out of the box and the other will be tweaked in my way. ;)

Listen to this one I did last year, but now I have much more cool tools. :)


http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/showpost.php?p=555877&postcount=1 (http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/showpost.php?p=555877&postcount=1)


Best,

Gunther

[sonata5920]

Gday.

Raymond you said:

“None of Schubert's orchestral works were performed during his lifetime;”

I am not surprised. The Oxford Dictionary of Music seems to say otherwise. It does not really matter. I will keep on enjoying the many reincarnations of Schubert. His music is very melodic at all times, something I really value. It shows true invention of melodic lines that go to ones heart.

You make a good point about the importance of the conductor in relation to a performance. To some extend the mixing and mastering studios do for pop music, what a conductor does for orchestral music.

Low you said:

“You have raised these as questions, but from the rest of the post I think you intended them in a rhetorical context. However, I think the answers lead one to the conclusion that yes, you may well sometimes find you have to 'distort' your renderings with EQ to get good results!”

Yes my questions were rhetorical. But what do you want to achieve by equalizing? You can’t really say that the sample production team was incompetent and not able to maintain a linear frequency response in the whole process. The amount of bow noise has nothing to do with frequency response. It is simply what the sampling production team decided to be right. You could change to a more suitable instrument.

But yes, you are absolutely right. You can also create a modified set of sample instruments to suit your particular taste by equalizing and even mixing in other instruments. However this has nothing to do with the Har-Bal system.

Randy,

you start off, repeating much of what I have said including that speakers are the weakest link, just in other words, though I never compared a speaker with a vibrating piece of paper. I disagree with your lecture on technical matters.

You said:

“My dear Raymond and Herbert, it's interesting to watch as you still don't seem to grasp the basic point here”

I strongly object.

As is normal in a forum, opinions have been expressed here by everybody. No facts have been presented. Presenting facts may not be easy over the internet. As a moderator you should be impartial, not take sides and not force your opinion onto others.

My opinion is a lot better than yours. Why? I have spent most of my live in electronic engineering, in particular in communication and sound equipment engineering, in design and manufacture. There are no secrets for me in electronics.

Herbert

[Raymond62]

.... Another example: The snares in GPO, with only a little bit tweaking via detuning and eqing you can get hundrets of different but also good sounding snares.

If I have to make those strings sing like birds, Gary should have employed me at a reasonable fee ;). I didn't make GPO, he did and I expect that they are good enough using them without all sorts of "tools" to shape it.

That's why I rejected using Synful last week. The idea behind it is great, but I cannot get a decent downbow sound from it, nor an upbow, staccato, marcato with bow-noise, etc. I have to program every -literally every- note/sound. And I don't want to program that bloody car, I want to drive it safely.

I am willing to listen to your examples, put together in some sort of a sequence, before-mid-after, naming the tools used and what they did to the source.

In the past I listened to some of your tracks and enjoyed them, but this area isn't and never will be mine.

Raymond [for me, closed discussion]

[germancomponist]

Raymond,

good points here. I know exactly what you mean/ how you feel about this. I accept your point, for sure.

In my job they want always the best audiofiles and always compare them to the others, so I must use all the tools.

This means not that GPO would not sound good as it is, out of the box!

I think you understand my point, too. (discussion closed ;) )

Best,

Gunther

[Hannes_F]

I have Har-Bal and although I don't use it in its intended way there is some truth behind its system once you get to the advanced chapter. You can chirugically lower that one note that sticks out and then make the whole mix louder.

That being said I find myself looking on the analysis of Har-Bal and return to the mix then and fix the note there.

I would love to have this thing as a VST and use it as an equalizer though. It has very narrow EQ bands (suiteable for halftones) and auto gain compensation, so you don't mix against the "louder is better" effect.

On the other hand I think it is a myth that high-level mixing can be done by numbers or by looking at a graph. All this helps but in the end good monitoring is essential IMO.

Another bottom line is that there is only so much that can be done with EQing. A good recording cannot be substituted by any amount of tweaking. At least that is what I think.

[germancomponist]

I have Har-Bal and although I don't use it in its intended way there is some truth behind its system once you get to the advanced chapter. You can chirugically lower that one note that sticks out and then make the whole mix louder.

That being said I find myself looking on the analysis of Har-Bal and return to the mix then and fix the note there.

I would love to have this thing as a VST and use it as an equalizer though. It has very narrow EQ bands (suiteable for halftones) and auto gain compensation, so you don't mix against the "louder is better" effect.

On the other hand I think it is a myth that high-level mixing can be done by numbers or by looking at a graph. All this helps but in the end good monitoring is essential IMO.

Another bottom line is that there is only so much that can be done with EQing. A good recording cannot be substituted by any amount of tweaking. At least that is what I think.

Good monitors and a good acoustics, yeah!

Hannes,

how are you, long time no see! :-)
I wrote you an e-mail last month but got no answer? Perhaps it is because my e-mail adress has changed?!~|

metaphon at t-online.de

Best,

Gunther

[Hannes_F]

Hi Gunther,

I can't remember getting your mail, sorry. We have had some stormy days in our family, maybe this is why it slipped through, sorry. -> PM.

EDIT: Checked but did not find it still.

[rbowser-]

Herbert says:

"...My opinion is a lot better than yours..."

Oh my! I've ever heard an adult say anything like that before. Stunning!

"...Why? I have spent most of my live in electronic engineering, in particular in communication and sound equipment engineering, in design and manufacture. There are no secrets for me in electronics..."

I see - Well then it should be no secret to you that the live performance of music and a recording of it are two extremely different things. I'm sure you know that but for some reason have fun being contrary on the subject.

"...I never compared a speaker with a vibrating piece of paper..."

That's right you didn't, I did. When I wrote the post you're referring to I hadn't even waded through yours yet. Paper cones that vibrate in boxes - that's basically a speaker's construction, so the phrase seems good to me.

"...I strongly object...As a moderator you should be impartial, not take sides and not force your opinion onto others..."

Hmmm, well I strongly reject your guidelines for what a moderator "should" do. I'm a member here and enjoy discussions and offering my opinions, as well I should. I have no interest in "forcing" my opinions "onto" others. lol. Just sharing my thoughts like everyone else does. If you can't grant me that right, well, it's unfortunate you have a problem with that.

Meanwhile - I'm mixing a project - Back to Har Bal! :)

Randy

[sonata5920]

Gday,

But my dear Randy, I would not want to miss your active engagement in discussions on this forum.

There could be a case made that a moderator should be on the sideline and only keep order. If you wish to be active on the forum, then one would expect your impartiality at all times. A moderator should never attack or be disrespectful to members of the forum. Having a different opinion is no excuse.

You said:

“My dear Raymond and Herbert, it's interesting to watch as you still don't seem to grasp the basic point here”

Now hat you challenge me, my question is: do you?

You said:

“Herbert says:

"...My opinion is a lot better than yours..."

Oh my! I've ever heard an adult say anything like that before. Stunning!”

Is what you say not what a child might say to an adult? Are you one of those disrespectful people who claim that the ordinary man in the street knows all and the experts are just confused. Reasonable people accept an expert’s opinion. Yes, my opinion is better than yours.

I may not always agree with you but am happy to respect your views as long as they do not intrude on my field of expertise (electronics) and misconstrue facts.

Raymond said:

” If I have to make those strings sing like birds, Gary should have employed me at a reasonable fee . I didn't make GPO, he did and I expect that they are good enough using them without all sorts of "tools" to shape it.”

I agree. But I also think that GPO is very good as it is, but not perfect.

My dear Randy, inform yourself it will show you a new world. I recommend that you read “The Guide To Midi Orchestration” by Paul Gilreath.

Please show more respect in future.

As always, best wishes

Herbert

[AlanPerkins]

With respect,

Anybody who thinks there opinion is better than anyone else's for whatever reason deprives themselves of the opportunity to learn something new.

Anybody who tells someone else that that other person's opinion is inferior is indicating they think that person to be of lesser value - a dangerous slippery slope for all concerned.

While it may be true that an idea is flawed or strong or coloured or based on ignorance, it cannot be said that an idea or opinion is somehow of a better or lesser quality simply because of the experience or knowledge of the author.

There was a time when learned wisdom meant that the opinion that was best was that the world was flat. And that according to the so-called experts.

Edison went through more than 6000 filaments before he figured out what kind of filament would work. Following common wisdom would lead us to the conclusion that kerosene lamps are state of the art.

And flying... Those Wright brothers should have known better!

Having knowledge and experience means that one should have a higher propensity to come out with a quality idea or opinion. It does not in and of itself guarantee or imply superiority.

Let's all not be so opinionated!

We are here to make and enjoy music.

Peace.

[Hannes_F]

* ... speechless ... * :wow:

I do not think everybody's opinion is worth the same, otherwise there would be no beginners and no experts.

However proper self-assessment seems to be a different problem.

Some people think of themselves that they are advanced ... and they actually are ... until they notice there is something else than elementary school.

Don't forget learning works in cycles, and what seems to be an advanced opinion could be outdated from a different point of view.

[sonata5920]

Hi Hannes,

I do fully agree. Thank you.

I was just about to reply to Alan with a similar message. I will now reply tomorrow as it is getting rather late here.

Herbert

[dominick]

:eek: Seems like it's time for a review of some basic forum rules ... and to get back on topic!


"Forum Conduct ...

Please keep discussions free of bickering with each other. We reserve the right to make bickering parties invisible or take other appropriate action...

Please note that when topics get out of control or there is a forum violation, we reserve the right to warn users, delete any messages, or ban users for any or no reason whatsoever and at our discretion... "

[Michael A. Wiktor]

I agree. I was going to let this thread spin out of control and crash but since I started it I'll give it another go.

TOPIC

Rendering Perfection?
I am currently using Har-Bal to master my audio.
What do you think? What do you use? What are your techniques for mastering.


Please stay on topic. And if you two want to continue please exchange email addresses. If the next posts are off topic - I'm done.

M



:eek: Seems like it's time for a review of some basic forum rules ... and to get back on topic!


"Forum Conduct ...

Please keep discussions free of bickering with each other. We reserve the right to make bickering parties invisible or take other appropriate action...

Please note that when topics get out of control or there is a forum violation, we reserve the right to warn users, delete any messages, or ban users for any or no reason whatsoever and at our discretion... "

[Frank D]

Good Day to all!

I've just read through the eight pages of "the hairball thread" (LOL), and would like to simply offer a perspective on how I, a somewhat frequent forumite, looks at "The Big Boys" and their opinions/comments.

I think that even if you are only an occasional visitor to this site/room, you will come to know the big contributors ... there's many more than whom I'm listing, but for this thread, I'm refering to Randy, Herbert, Raymond, Gunther, ... and I'll throw in DP Dan for good measure(s) :).

If Randy, a moderator, gives his opinion on a musical topic, I know it is a comment from Randy Bowser, musician. I personally would feel cheated if all Randy ever did was remind us to use CC1 (LOL) or slap our wrists for infractions :mad:. I value his musical opinions, and in the case of musical theater, I highly value them! He can and always should be two different people. It's pretty obvious to me which hat he is wearing on any particular thread, no? :confused:

But if the thread gets technical/scientific, well, then I take Herbert's opinions and comments very much to heart.

And who here can match the quality and passion of Raymond's epic symphony? If I hear an opinion from Raymond, I know from where he is coming also.

And same for Gunther, an incredible resource on all aspects of music creation and mixing.

I mention DP Dan here also because he is the undisputed "King of Orchestral Renderings" ... wow, I can only aspire to get my mixes into that exclusive club. If I want to learn about incredible recreations, the buck stops in Missouri! :) But when original composition or arranging comes into it, I really want to know more what Randy or Raymond, et al, have to say about the topic ... they create original music and do a great job of mixing/presenting it, and on top of that, each executes it in a different way!

I guess the point of my convoluted comment is that the forum whole is indeed greater than the sum of all its parts. You gentlemen all approach topics from different perspectives, and there is something to be learned from each man's point of view. Viva la differance!

Astute members know this and will move their personal sliders accordingly between technical and emotional, complex and simple.

Regards, and keep those different POV's coming!

Frank

[Michael A. Wiktor]

Hey Gunther,

Here is my email: idrift2u@gmail.com

I will be working on the "HAR-BAL" version of 'Vespertine'.
IF you are sincerely interested please give me a "shout". If not, no big deal.

Again, thanks for your insight into mastering along with L0W and a few others.

bye
M

[germancomponist]

Michael,

sure, I am interested. Lets talk some points via e-mail.

Best,

Gunther

[rbowser-]

Thanks very much for your excellent post, Frank. You went a long ways in describing how this wonderful Forum functions.

At its best, its a lively conversational area where people share their ideas, describe their approaches, and appropriately, nobody is set up as The Expert on any given topic. From reading and participating in threads, we all get new ideas, gather information, and have the chance to talk about our own methods.

Even us "Moderators" are allowed, even encouraged to not simply watch, but to participate.
Moderators here are for the most part simply some of the most actively involved Forum members.

It can take a newcomer awhile to grasp how this unique Garritan
Forum functions. The standard advice online is to watch a Forum for awhile to feel out how the wind blows before jumping in, because then one is more apt to be in synch
and start participating
in a way that works best. To not do that, a newcomer can inadvertently
alienate himself from the very group he's trying to join.

You've mentioned several very active people here and what you find most interesting about them. Dan, for instance, is certainly known for his good sounding mixes. Others achieve the same level of work in their own way. That points out something which becomes underlined for people as they spend more time on this Forum - that the creation of music, both the composition and recording of it, is always a combination of art and craft, and there will rarely if ever be One Solution to a topic they're investigating.

As the winner of two rounds of our Orchestration Challenge, and two time contributor to the Garritan Christmas album, I'm aware that I've attained a certain amount of esteem from other Forum members here, and some may want to call me an "expert"---but that's a designation I would never accept, and feel its one nobody should ever be comfortable with.

As soon as we think we are no longer students in life - we've missed the point of being in class for the duration. It's like what Laurence Olivier said--Acknowledged as one of the greatest actors of the last one hundred years, he said, I paraphrase, "Ah, but we're all amateurs just doing the best we can."

AND thank You very much, dominick, for the excellent reminder about Forum conduct rules. As you can see, we try to interfere as little as possible. Bickering, even of an especially nasty variety, Does seem more common nowadays - Hopefully the drastic actions of deleting posts and blocking members won't be actions taken again soon.

Thanks again, Frank.
Randy B.

[sonata5920]

Gday,

dominick, Thank you for throwing the towel. It had become rather dangerous, with bullets flying in many directions and charges going off all over the place.

Frank, Thank you for your support.

Alan, I promised to com back to you today. If you don’t mind we have a discussion on another day.

Best wishes,

Herbert

[RichR]

I have been following this thread quietly, lurking in the background. Some comments irritated me, some even disturbed me. The idea of "Rendering Perfection" is certainly in the realm of being a personal preference area. Of course, in the long run, whatever audience the presentation is meant for will make the final decision on how the rendering sounds by their acceptance of the piece.

I am in total agreement in respect to Frank's comments. )(~Thank you Frank. Your point of view is what I always look for in this forum. Everyone here, whether just joining us or a long time member, has something to bring to the table and I for one would love to hear everyone's viewpoint. There will be some viewpoints that I won't agree with and some I won't understand (due to my lack of knowledge in the area being discussed), but each viewpoint and expression of ideas brings with it more ways of looking at any given problem.

That is why I like the challenges this forum presents. Listening to the many different ideas and approaches to a specific challenge gives me so many more ideas and directions that I can consider for future pieces of music. It is a wonderful medium for learning and developing ones skills to whatever level one aspires to (even if that is only for the pure enjoyment of the ART OF MUSIC).