Harrison Mixbus - Virtual Harrison Mixer plus full-featured DAW for OS X

[fossaree]

Originally Posted by DSpec1

I did a dumb thing. In excitement, I completely skipped the Snow Leopard compatibility issue.

I bought and downloaded Mix Bus. It installed fine and recognizes my Duet.

However, I imported one audio file, pressed 'play' and it doesn't play. The playhead just doesn't move. I can see the waveform and all, but nothing happens.

It also doesn't recognize my Glyph drive. It only wants to import files from my hard drive.

I was dumb and now I must wait for Snow Leopard compatibility.

Live and learn.

don't feel sorry man ... if you're following this thread you could notice how long i've been talking about it ! Actually I was holding my CC at the time I was asking here ...

But it seems it won't take too long . Harrison guys aren't kidding and I think I they're really commited to Mixbus !

[DSpec1]

Originally Posted by Seablade

Yep, this is exactly a Jack issue on Snow Leopard. As I mentioned before a SL compatible version is in development at the moment, but until it gets released and MB gets throughly tested, it is better not to do this.



This however is probably a misunderstanding though. You need to navigate to /Volumes/NAMEOFDRIVE to see the contents of the drive, at this time external drives do not automatically pop up on the left hand side of the file dialog.

I can assure you that I have been able to import audio repeatedly from external drives. I added /Volumes to the Left hand side manually as a shortcut myself.



Sorry about that

Seablade

Thanks for this. It's my own fault.

When Jack comes out for Snow Leopard, I'll retry finding the Glyph.

OH well. In the meantime, someone, please, set up a little project for us to hear!!!

Oh yes, and pray for JackOSX for Snow Leopard soon!!!

Cheers

[fossaree]

Originally Posted by DSpec1

Thanks for this. It's my own fault.

When Jack comes out for Snow Leopard, I'll retry finding the Glyph.

OH well. In the meantime, someone, please, set up a little project for us to hear!!!

Oh yes, and pray for JackOSX for Snow Leopard soon!!!

Cheers

Why did I install snow today ? I'm dumb



Mixbus Buzzzz !!!!

[ProducerBoy]

I am super jazzed for this! I've been wanting a DAW that was set up like this. So, I was scheming on how to rig Logic to be something like a console, and then this comes along. Love it! I want to hear how the EQ, Comp, and Tape Saturation sounds though. The editing looks real nice, but if those processing tools don't sound good, or the MixBus doesn't sound better than all the other DAWs out there, then there is no point.
Fingers crossed!

[Seablade]

What exactly do you all want for a test session out of curiosity? Not saying I have any material at the moment to do one, but I am curious what you are looking for in your sample material.

Seablade

[ProducerBoy]

Originally Posted by Seablade

What exactly do you all want for a test session out of curiosity? Not saying I have any material at the moment to do one, but I am curious what you are looking for in your sample material.

Seablade

I would like a straight forward pop/rock type of arrangement. I'd like to hear how MixBus's built in processing handles drums, gtrs, bass, vocals, synths, etc... The effect on the mix from the Tape Saturation on the mix buses definitely has me intrigued, as does the alleged "sound that harkens back to the golden age of album recordings."

[AMIEL]

Originally Posted by Seablade

What exactly do you all want for a test session out of curiosity? Not saying I have any material at the moment to do one, but I am curious what you are looking for in your sample material.

Seablade

I think the test here is very personal!

to have a sample that will convince, first have to be a great mix.!! so how do u know if H mixbus sounds great with a bad or regular mix, or even a great mix??? all of us need to
open some tracks in H Mixbus , see and compare against your current DAW!!

[Benmrx]

ooohhhh... and this was sooo close!! No hardware insert latency compensation is a killer for me. Also, if they would have just given us a standard setup like a 24 buss console + 8 aux sends ALL with latency compensation I might have already made the purchase.

It IS good to see DAW's taking this turn though.

I hope an SSL 4K is next...

[mark714]

At 80 bucks this is practically free. I seriously doubt the target market includes those that have lots of converters and high end hardware to justify adding delay compensation on multiple busses. With this being based on open source code, the potential is definitely there.

Let's get realistic about expectations... this MIDI-less DAW is less than 1/4th the normal price of the Tube Tech CL-1B plug-in that was just released. What you get for the money is staggering.

If this MixBus has a real sound (like the analog Harrison EQ's and filters), I'm curious if you could use JACK to dump tracks to and from PT for processing or submixing.

[The MPCist]

Great idea!

Hmm.. it's like as if SSL put out a virtual C200 console for you -- they provide the software and you provide the CPU/controllers.

But... how does this sound and would it be possible to get some ADC?

[Coyoteous]

I guess my price questions were ignored. I've been reading up on Ardour... SAE, SSL, Harrison. A variation seems to be the basis for the software end of the Harrison Xdubber.

[Farshad]

Originally Posted by Benmrx

I hope an SSL 4K is next...

I guess, that would be Waves next move. Modeling the CLA's console...

[cane creek]

Originally Posted by Blinddot

Do the plugins work on any other AU host? (I guess they don't)

Id be quite happy to part with my $80 right now just to have the 3 plugins work in logic

[musicjon]

Is there a way to increase the size of the faders and knobs on the screen? I have a 24" screen and the faders are less than an inch long.

[Googlyman]

Originally Posted by musicjon

Is there a way to increase the size of the faders and knobs on the screen? I have a 24" screen and the faders are less than an inch long.

Come on, wake up and get real guys!

This is HYPE again

Software thats only $80 and shares resources with the OS and other stuff on the same CPU or few CPUs without optimized resource sharing will not ever sound as good as for example the MIO 80 BIT mixing console costing serious $$$ with DEDICATED processing muscle ... Not buying that for a second tutt

Was the same Hype with Record.... SSL sound, yes but it can never come close to either dedicated dsp power nor the real console sound and performance. For this you need serious serious processing.

[Leon EA]

Good idea, great price. Probably a great sound as well.

But it is so limited and dependent on 3rd party development that for now I won't even consider it.

And what's up with all those companies deciding to only develop for the mac platform? Ignoring over 50% of your potential customer base?

Ignorant. tutt

[Nowak]

OK, here's a quick bounce of a chorus of a song I'm currently mixing - instruments only.....

This sounds awesome, tomorrow I'm going to route Logic into it via Jack, lets hope all works as expected.

All EQ and compression handled in MixBus, totally dry.

Stef

[matt thomas]

OK, after reading the manual and the replies form the employees in this thread I am losing interest. It seems to be largely marketing hyperbole.

The DAW is ardour, which is free anyway.

There has been no mention of why the actual mixing portion (the harrison part) is better than mixing on any other DAW. Is it just a standard 32 bit float summing or not?

sure there is eq, comp, and tape saturation on each channel, but this is essentially just another channel strip plugin. I admit it is nice though to have dedicated controls on each channel.

I guess I was hoping for too much, after all it is only $79

I also don't like the fact that you have to run another program "jack". Its all sounding a little amateur. When I saw the Harrison name I was hoping for something that lifts the bar

Hopefully I'm missing something?

matt

[lostinmusic]

The AU plugins on their own would be nice.

[j-uk]

[QUOTE=matt thomas;4633645
There has been no mention of why the actual mixing portion (the harrison part) is better than mixing on any other DAW. Is it just a standard 32 bit float summing or not?
matt[/QUOTE]

This seems to be the pivotal question. If this thing has an edge over other DAW in that respect combined with a dedicated strip for each channel than it's seems like a no-brainer - guess I'll have to bite the bullet.

[Seablade]

Originally Posted by Coyoteous

I guess my price questions were ignored. I've been reading up on Ardour... SAE, SSL, Harrison. A variation seems to be the basis for the software end of the Harrison Xdubber.

It wasn't ignored, it is just that there isn't an answer as of yet I don't believe. As I mentioned I am not qualified to answer, and I suspect Harrison is still feeling things out as this is a bit different than their 'normal' business model.

And yes you are correct, the XDubber also uses a version of Ardour modified by Harrison specifically for that task. Some of Ardour's development has been funded by Harrison specifically to make sure the functionality they wanted was in it(Tape Tracks for instance). They then modified the UI to fit for the purpose they needed it for.

The same amount of customization also went into Mixbus. There was some specific work done to support Mixbus itself, the DSP as well as some specific features in Ardour seperate from the DSP. Some of this Harrison did themselves, some of it Paul from Ardour did. The Harrison team also customized the UI of Ardour, removing some of the flexibility, but also making it much easier to use as a result and concentrating on where Ardour was strongest(Stereo instead of multichannel) to bring out what many people would call a more polished product.

I am not an employee of Harrison, just one of their beta testers. I can tell you I was perfectly happy with the sound of it, but I have also not mixed on a Harrison console to be able to compare. My understanding is that the code from the DSP is exactly the same as you will find in the Harrison digital consoles. I could be wrong, but I certainly didn't have much complaint about it, and it did mean I am going to invest in this rather than other channel strip plugins, as it does just work for me.

And what's up with all those companies deciding to only develop for the mac platform? Ignoring over 50% of your potential customer base?

Ignorant. tutt

In this case it is practicality. Because Ardour is developed and supported on Linux and Mac, that means that many of the editing functions have been being tested for the past several years on those platforms, and since they already existed why re-invent the wheel? That is part of the beauty of open source software.

I also don't like the fact that you have to run another program "jack". Its all sounding a little amateur. When I saw the Harrison name I was hoping for something that lifts the bar

Hopefully I'm missing something?

I think/suspect you are a little, and that is what Jack accomplishes. Jack is probably closest to the ReWire protocol in the commercial world. On OS X because of Jack you can route any CoreAudio software or hardware into Ardour, or Ardour out to any software or hardware. Useful in itself, I am curious to see how the routing between Logic and Mixbus went for the above poster as I don't think there is any reason it shouldn't work.

Not only this, but on actual Jack compatible programs you can sync up transport, so what I commonly am using this for, and what I did testing with, was to sync up Mixbus to a different program called Jadeo, to do SFX design for animation. Jadeo provided me with an ability to play back a video in sync with Mixbus, it would act like a VTR sync'd to Mixbus. Very useful. There are a few other Jack programs out there though things I use on a regular basis. A drum machine program called Hydrogen for instance that should be able to sync to mixbus(Haven't tested this one, just not something I use) and with audio routed into Ardour be recorded exactly in sync. Blender I know has a plugin to do this as well that some people have started using, and I believe the next version will have it built in.

The final thing I will mention is that you install JackOSX, and Mixbus takes care of launching it and controlling it for you. You don't really have to run another program at all if you don't wish to as Mixbus will take care of it for you. When you select your project audio settings (Sample Rate, Buffers, etc.) you are setting up Jack within Mixbus.

I hope that clears it up a little.

Is there a way to increase the size of the faders and knobs on the screen? I have a 24" screen and the faders are less than an inch long.

Sadly at this time I don't think so. But I would image if you mention it to Ben they might consider doing that for future versions. Right now if you increase the size of the mixer the plugin list grows to allow you to see more plugins if you are using them.

I think the test here is very personal!

Personally I tend to agree myself with everything in your post.

Do the plugins work on any other AU host? (I guess they don't)

No. Sorry.

Hmm I think I caught up, time to go get ready for work. Have fun.

Seablade

[eddierodriguez]

give us a comparison

Originally Posted by Nowak

OK, here's a quick bounce of a chorus of a song I'm currently mixing - instruments only.....

This sounds awesome, tomorrow I'm going to route Logic into it via Jack, lets hope all works as expected.

All EQ and compression handled in MixBus, totally dry.

Stef

[Coyoteous]

I'll give it a chance, but I'm always looking for something different. Even if the worst assumptions being made here are true, it still seems unique. And I doubt that all of the negative assumptions are true. It obviously lacks in the MIDI/send/bus department compared to other DAW's. I don't see it as really competing with any other DAW, though. I actually think for some of the oddball stuff I do, it could be pretty cool. Maybe if enough people buy-in, they'll add to the feature set. Let's face it, a lot of really good records were made with fewer features than these. It seems as though many modern production techniques are trying to fill the "lack of good sound" void, that wouldn't be there in the first place if things sounded great from square one. I'm babbling now, but I hope you catch my drift. After a fair amount of consideration, I think I "get it." I've been intrigued by Ardour since I first heard about it several years ago. I tried it, and ran back to Pro Tools. It seems to have improved considerably. Otherwise, how could Harrison get away with using it for their Xdubber? I think SAE, SSL, Harrison and users have put some considerable money into supporting and continuing its development. Plus, I've always wanted a WYSIWYG digital mixer. Okay, that's it... for now.

[Seablade]

Ardour is not the simplest platform to use diving into it I will certainly admit that. That being said, development certainly has continued, and I personally think Mixbus represents a level of polish over Ardour it needs for most users. That being said the next major version of Ardour has some new features I am really looking forward to, and is being polished a bit better than the previous versions, to me it will be taking a huge step forward at once.

All that being said, as I mentioned I definitly have a place in my setup for Mixbus, I like the sound of it myself, and that level of polish comes off very well.

Seablade

[matt thomas]

Originally Posted by Seablade

I hope that clears it up a little.

Well not really. I was really wondering about what is different about the mix engine?

My placement of the statement "perhaps I am missing something" did come straight after my statement about Jack, so I can see why you thought that is what I was wondering about. I realize what Jack does, its just very "shareware" like to have to install something like this, then the actual program is half a shareware program anyway, so theres basically three parts: Jack (shareware) Ardour (shareware) and the mixer which is added by Harrison. And we've been given no information about what makes the mixer anything unique to Harrison other than the channel strip plugins.

I don't mean to be overly negative (note that I was one of the first posters in this thread, where I showed my excitement about the product), I'm just wondering what makes this product anything other than a conglomeration of shareware programs with Harrison plugins? I see it is based on Harrison 32 series, doe the "32" mean it has a 32 bit float engine the same as nearly every other DAW?

Harrison says "Harrison eliminated these flaws in Mixbus by completely replacing the DAW's internal mixing engine and applying proprietary True Analog processing" So they are saying that it is NOT the standard 32 bit float summing? This statement implies that it is more than just plugins on separate channels and busses, but that the actual mixing engine is different. What is different about it?


matt

[Seablade]

Originally Posted by matt thomas

Well not really. I was really wondering about what is different about the mix engine?

Not something I feel qualified to comment on sorry. Most of my personal testing work was non-musical (SFX) so it isn't something I got a lot of hands on experience with.

I do know that Ardour's data path is at least 32 bit, what I don't know is how much Harrison tweaked to the mix/sum engine.

I don't think the 32 number in the series has anything to do with the capabilities of the datapath though, but that is also just a guess.

Seablade

[H-Rezz]

Someone actually did it, this was my prediction on IK Multimedia's guessing game thread ...., i must have a sixth sense ..

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-p...ss-what-6.html

Maybe not a DAW but a mixing interface(no editing features) like a console that can mimick cross-talk and induce phase like a console and also break up the more you push it ,it can be set up as an API,Neve and SSL console with more models coming in the future. Adding plug-in adds small amounts of phase shifts,again like a console+outboard , the internal channels are not matched 1 for 1 and can be calibrated ! The technology partly coming from their latest T-Racks emulations , with new technology specifically designed to simulate the non linear behaviour of analog ...... all testing shows a 98% similarity with the hardware counterparts ......

Thought of more ...

The concept is based around just mixing and not being bogged down with features , just super routable mixer and great automation , the idea being of working on tracks in your chosen DAW and then mixing in a different enviroment meant to take all things that get in the way out of the equation ....

Oh,Yeah and it has a dedicated control surface for all parameter's of the software, technology from their guitar based controllers ....

How's that for a wild wild guess, then i woke up and was only dreaming, hope there is a prize for the most creative guess ....

[Number 6]

Well, I bought it... and... I have to say, it doesn't do it for me.

The whole Jack / Ardour thing is clumsy, for one thing. Users will want something they can integrate with their current DAW of choice. Or if you want to make it a closed platform, do it right like Propellerheads did with Record. The 'shareware' element that people have been talking about is very evident.

The sound of the EQ DSP is disappointing, for me. It doesn't offer any improvement over the sound I can get from Logic's built-in EQ. It doesn't come close to the UAD Harrison (which is a very round and warm affair, nice bottom end to it).

The Tape Saturation is quite a nice touch, but it doesn't sound like tape, at all. More like a soft clipping / overdrive. And it can't be turned off on the master bus (unless I'm missing something).

It may work well for others, but I feel like I just wasted $80.

[AMIEL]

Originally Posted by Farshad

I guess, that would be Waves next move. Modeling the CLA's console...

Waves and Digidesign are such a good friends and partners that I do not think Waves will ever make the move of creating a DAW! only would happen if Pro Tools popularity falls drastically .

[tnaugle]

Originally Posted by musicjon

Is there a way to increase the size of the faders and knobs on the screen? I have a 24" screen and the faders are less than an inch long.

We are aware that the knob and faders get a bit small on a large screen. That is something we plan to address in a future update.


Todd