Joe & B.J. Buchalter

I'm starting the see a trend with the subjects of Behind the Gear. In an industry where trade shows demand new models every year, sometimes every quarter, these manufacturers follow their own schedule. Metric Halo is clearly one firm that bucks the trend. Their three main products, SpectraFoo, ChannelStrip and Mobile I/O have remained audio staples while many other models have come and gone. So what goes into the planning for that kind of product? And what in the world do all of those meters in SpectraFoo matter to you and me? We caught up with founders Joe and B.J. Buchalter and put them under our microscope.

How did Metric Halo start?

Joe: B.J. and I started Metric Halo as a recording studio back in the mid-'90s. I had been touring with my band, and we were recording at some of the great studios in Woodstock, NY. At some point we decided that we were tired of paying for studio time, so we built a recording studio above a bagel bakery in Poughkeepsie, NY that our father Stu owned. After completing the studio, we wanted to verify the acoustics of the design and implementation, and determined that we would have to spend more on the test gear than we had spent on the entire studio. Confronted with this, B.J. decided that he could write some software to make the desired measurements, and from this, SpectraFoo was born.

Where did the name Metric Halo come from?

Joe: It was a possible name for my band, but we decided that it wasn't a great band name. However, we all thought it would be a pretty good name for a record/publishing company. We self-released some recordings in the early '90s under the name Metric Halo Records. When B.J. heard the name, it appealed to his inner geek and he immediately got the idea for a logo. When we started our studio (from which Metric Halo grew), that's what we called it.

What made B. J. quit his job as a physicist? Wasn't that a big pay cut?

BJ: After the Cold War ended, there was a flood of physicists from behind the Iron Curtain that killed the job market. I was looking to do something new anyway, and since I had always been a computer guy I decided to seek employment in that field. After a stint at Hewlett-Packard I decided that I'd had enough of the "Dilbert" mentality, and I wanted to pursue my own thing. I moved back to New York with the intention of starting a software company. At the same time, Joe made the decision to build the studio and I got involved.

What was the size and scope of the first studio?

BJ: It was a control room [and] an isolated, floating, live tracking room (about 350 sq. ft.) with non-parallel walls and the ability to extend a tracking snake to the downstairs area in the bagel bakery, which was a large room (about 1800 sq. ft.) with great natural acoustics. The isolated room was pretty incredible in that we managed to achieve better than 60 dB of isolation at 60 Hz and much better than that at higher frequencies — all on a quite limited construction budget. When it was finalized we could track 32 mic channels simultaneously.

Was it analog or digital?

Joe: It was a digital studio with ADATs and a Yamaha ProMix — which had recently been released. We also had a banged up Allen & Heath analog board that was used for tracking. Our secret weapon was SpectraFoo, but our experience with this fairly early digital gear definitely got us thinking about how to make affordable digital recording equipment that sounded better than what was available. This eventually led us to design the Mobile I/O.

You used it in the studio? Most people consider SpectraFoo a live engineer's tool.

Joe: While many live sound engineers use 'Foo daily, the software was actually originally developed as a complete audio reality-check system. In fact for a number of years, it was most popular as a Pro Tools plug-in. Over the years there has been a lot of press about the live applications, such as using 'Foo to tune and time-align P.A. systems, check phasing issues or as an RTA during a show, but there are also lots of recording engineers that use 'Foo as their key confidence monitor. You will also find many mastering engineers who use 'Foo for in-session metering, equipment verification and overall quality assurance.

I understand the value of 'Foo for PA or room design, but what are some practical uses for tracking and mixing engineers?

BJ: The applications are virtually endless. Here are a couple of examples: SpectraFoo is useful on a daily basis. It provides high-resolution, detailed level metering as well as detailed phase measurement. It allows you to verify program level and balance, mono- compatibility, stereo compatibility and other basic measures of mix translatability. The spectrum analysis tools in 'Foo allow you to verify spectral balance of the mix, as well as spectral overlap of individual channels. How often have you had to deal with a kick drum stomping on a bass? SpectraFoo can instantly show you how the tracks overlap and how to EQ the bass drum to make space for the bass. The same process can be used for integrating all the different elements of the mix. Similarly, the spectral tools can be used to assist in mic placement — showing you instantly the timbral balance of the sound at the current position. The time/phase tools allow you to determine exactly how to fix phase problems, either during tracking or mixing. Multi-mic phasing issues are easily fixable rather than being an intractable problem.

Many people learn visually. Do you get reports that 'Foo has helped people improve their hearing as engineers?

BJ: Users report that 'Foo helps them to identify the source of problems before they get out of hand and quickly solve them once they have been identified. Instead of having the sense that something is wrong, but not being able to put their finger on the precise problem, they can zero in on the source and fix it. In doing so, they also increase their ability to hear and identify problems simply by ear — in this sense SpectraFoo is also a "continuing education" tool. Finally, as an added bonus, aligning a control room monitoring system is not something you do once; the response evolves as time goes on and the weather and room change. Monitoring system alignment should be done periodically, and one alignment is worth the price of admission.

How did you get 'Foo to market?

Joe: Originally, we just used 'Foo as an in-house tool, but after seeing a lot of interest in it from people coming through the studio, we decided to see if it made sense to turn it into a product. We went to the 1997 summer NAMM show as visitors, with 'Foo on a laptop. There we met Ed Simeone and Anders Fauerskov from TC Electronic, who thought that SpectraFoo was really cool and that TC might be interested in distributing it. They also advised us to get a booth at the AES show in New York later that fall. TC distribution ended up not working out, but the interest from Ed and others we met at that NAMM show convinced us to get a booth at AES to see what level of interest we got from the industry. SpectraFoo was the talk of the show, and was awarded the EQ Blue Ribbon award and then nominated for a TEC award. After that we began to focus on being an audio company.

I was a Digital Performer user back then. Everyone seemed to be amazed by your ChannelStrip plug-ins.

BJ: At the time we saw a need for a mixing console style of processing. ChannelStrip was introduced at the time that people were just starting to think about mixing "in the box". The vast majority of commercial music projects were still being mixed on large-format consoles at the time. Even though Pro Tools had made inroads into the studio, it was primarily being used as a "smart tape deck" — a recorder/dubber that provided great editing features. But most commercial projects didn't use the mixer in Pro Tools, instead electing to dub out to a full console for the mix. This of course threw away many advantages of Pro Tools (like full automation), but had the benefit of workflow, ergonomics and "sound." So our goals when we created ChannelStrip were to make it so that all of the workflow, ergonomics and "sound" of a multi-million dollar console could exist in the mixer in Pro Tools.

Yeah, but digital audio did not sound that good back then. Weren't you just putting lipstick on a pig?

BJ: We realized that there were a few key issues. The 24- bit processing that was standard in Pro Tools was not sufficient; we made ChannelStrip the first 48-bit plug- in. Consoles have full dynamics and EQ on every channel for a reason; we put all the basic functions into one plug, maintaining resolution throughout. The controls of these processes are very interactive, so we put all the controls into one UI. Finally, you need a ChannelStrip for each channel, so we worked hard to ensure that it sounded great without using too much DSP — so you could use it on all channels. And the result was a plug that made it so that many of the A-List mixers were able to transition to "mixing in the box", using ChannelStrip as their secret weapon — a plug that sounded like a real console. Since we already had SpectraFoo for MAS, and since we had already built a native version for RTAS (which was the first 64-bit plug-in throughout), we also moved ChannelStrip to Digital Performer and then VST and AU. ChannelStrip was one of the first AU plug-ins to be made universal, even before the hosts were ready.

I've heard conflicting stories about your model for ChannelStrip. Was there a specific archetype, like an SSL?

Joe: When we build a process (or a circuit), we take a very hard look at the best in the industry, think real hard about what we want to accomplish and then synthesize the best original product we can come up with. We don't really put too much stock in trying to emulate every detail of any given piece of gear; rather we try to identify the best characteristics of a class of gear and capture the essence of it. There was no specific product that was emulated in ChannelStrip, we just tried to capture the essential benefits of a large-format console channel strip in a plug-in which had the sound we were looking for, while at the same time being efficient. Many users who are accustomed to working on SSLs have told us that ChannelStrip is very comfortable for them both in terms of sound and workflow. I think that's probably where the notion that ChannelStrip is modeled after an SSL comes from.

Metric Halo also makes hardware. In fact, you guys were also one of the first to push mobile recording, right?

BJ: The original motivation for the Mobile I/O was to have a well-characterized interface for SpectraFoo. We really set out to have a "workman-like" converter set — we were working to a budget, and wanted it to be appropriate for making measurements. The thing is, we're not very good at taking half-measures, and we wound up making a device that really sounded great. We realized that we had built a device that actually addressed the original reason that we got into the audio business in the first place — recording. With the MI/O, you could easily (and portably) capture audio with world-class quality, anyplace, anytime. The MI/O was a first in so many ways. First commercially available FireWire interface announced. First 96 kHz FireWire interface. First FireWire interface with eight mic pres. First with remote controlled pres. First FireWire interface that was bus-powerable. First FireWire interface with integrated low-latency mixer. First FireWire interface with instantiable low-latency plug-ins. And with the addition of the ULN-2 to the family, it was the first (and perhaps still the only) interface with real "boutique-quality" preamps.

Is that why it's still on the market while so many other boxes have come and gone?

BJ: We designed it to be future-proof, and the MI/O is the only FireWire device that has had any longevity. Instead of retiring the design and destroying the value of our customer's investment, we have continued to improve and enhance the firmware and software for the units. The 2882 has become an instant classic — with its resale value consistently staying close to the cost for new units. And we still have plans for improving the 2882 and ULN-2...

You are also working with Sonic Studio on the newest releases of their mastering software. Could you give us a view on that?

BJ: We have been working with Sonic for about three years; we are their OEM partner and we design and manufacture all their current hardware offerings. This is a great pairing; many of their mastering customers were already Mobile I/O customers and expressed their interest in Sonic working with us to provide a next generation mastering workstation, utilizing the best of Sonic's workstation technology coupled with our signal processing, DSP and conversion technology. In addition, Sonic has contracted with us to develop a native plug-in hosting engine to provide sophisticated access to AU and VST plug-ins within the workstation. This engine is currently deployed in Sonic's SoundBlade workstation, and will see further development and deployment in future Sonic and MH products. The future looks bright for Sonic's new workstation products!