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

[Tui]

Originally Posted by BenLoftis

If this goes on much longer, I'm going to ask the moderators to step in, because this is going to quickly get off-topic if we start debating the meaning of a "null" test. Please stop.

I think this remark tells us more about you than we would want to know.

[dawhead]

Originally Posted by Tui

Not a single one of my tests was run near unity.

so, just what processing do you believe MixBus was doing with the signal? why was your initial assumption anything other than that MixBus would provide an output that could null, which would be among my first requirements for any DAW that I was considering using?

perhaps you could state succinctly just what it is that you believe that your test shows? if you believe that your results contradict something that Harrison have said about MixBus, could you point to that as well?

you keep insisting that the null test has some kind of significance that goes beyond "these two DAWs can do bits out = bits in", which i think everyone has acknowledged as something that any DAW should be able to do. i'm just really unclear on what you think that extra/different meaning is.

[Tui]

Originally Posted by dawhead

perhaps you could state succinctly just what it is that you believe that your test shows? if you believe that your results contradict something that Harrison have said about MixBus, could you point to that as well?

I've done that several times already, but for your benefit, I'll do it again. The following paragraph from Harrison's web site absolutely stinks:

"Traditional DAW mixers were designed by companies with no pedigree in music mixing, and they suffer from well-known flaws. Harrison eliminated these flaws in Mixbus by completely replacing the DAW's internal mixing engine and applying proprietary True Analog processing. Harrison consoles are known for their great-sounding EQ, filters, dynamics, and bus summing on every track. Now Mixbus offers every engineer a real Harrison music console "in the box"."

They suggest other DAWs suffer from flaws that Harrison eliminated by "replacing the DAW's internal mixing engine and applying proprietary True Analog processing." That's complete hogwash. As my tests have shown, their "internal mixing engine" does the exact same job as that of other DAWs.

If Apple were to try selling Logic in a similar fashion, lawyers of competing companies would be all over it, make no mistake.

[dawhead]

i'm going to pick up on a small detail of what ben said in his last post, and explain my POV on this in a different way.

if i was looking at two (analog) reverb stomp boxes, and was evaluating them to decide which one to buy (or just use), there are a number of things that would affect my decision. One of them would be how well they handled settings designed to provide a massive factory-style reverb effect, since I like to drench all kinds of things in such an effect. So to test that, I'd play with the knobs, buttons etc, and I'd feed various kinds of signals into it to see how the results compared. I might not be able to tell the difference, or it might be really obvious ... depends on the stompboxes. I might really really like one of them, and not like other - these are my feelings, for example, about the large hall settings in two plugins i use - one of them is great, the other is pretty weak for this kind of effect.

But that's not the only test I'd want to run. I'd also want to make sure that when I have the wet/dry mix turned all the way to 100% dry, that neither of them mess with the signal at all.

OK, now lets make two changes to this testing scenario, one at a time.

First, lets make the stompboxes digital. This means that my 100% dry test can be done with great accuracy by doing a null test between the input and output signals of the boxes. Great. I can now establish definitively whether or not they leave the signal unaffected, and if not, roughly what the magnitude of the changes they introduce are. It might be small enough for me to not care, or big enough that it helps me make a decision. Chances that are than any decent digital stompbox is going to leave the signal totally unaffected when on 100% dry.

The second change is more subtle: lets get rid of the wet/dry mix control. Instead, its the values of all the other controls combined that determine whether or not the box should leave its output signal identical to its input. Now I run my tests again. I'm not totally sure what the settings are that should give me a null test between the ins and outs, but I have a fairly good idea. I set things up. I test both boxes. Lo and behold - they both null!

So, at this point, do I assume that both boxes are equivalent in terms of what I actually want to do with them? Well, no. Because my other testing - of how the reverb actually sounds, of how it behaves when I change the parameters while playing, of how well it can do a large super wet factory effect - have already demonstrated that I prefer one to the other.

My position is that your testing of MixBus is really effectively just the null part of what I've described above. The reason people say that they like MixBus, and indeed the reason it was created, has a lot more to do with the other part of the testing I've described above. Perhaps its more clear to you now why some of us don't view your testing as particularly interesting, even though we don't claim that its "wrong". We expect the results that you got (or at least, we expect that you could get them), but they are not the interesting part of the gear at all.

[dawhead]

OK, lets take it clause by clause:

"Traditional DAW mixers were designed by companies with no pedigree in music mixing,

I'm not a deep historian of the audio tech industry, but I believe this is true. The majority of the original designers, developers and managers at Digidesign, Steinberg, Cakewalk, Emagic, Magix etc did not come from the world of music mixing (they were almost all programmers with an interest in music and audio technology - great people too). And its certainly true that the companies they founded had no pedigree in music mixing, certainly at the time that the basic design of their DAWs took place. True or false?

and they suffer from well-known flaws.

Ben has already explained previously precisely what kind of flaws he's referring to. Do you believe that his list of issues with existing DAWs is wrong?

Harrison eliminated these flaws in Mixbus by completely replacing the DAW's internal mixing engine and applying proprietary True Analog processing.

We could quibble with the first use of the "the" in the above sentence, but I can vouch for the fact that they certainly did replace "a" DAW's internal mixing engine (Ardour's) with one entirely built around their own digital implementation of their own DSP. Did you also notice how it said "mixing engine". The word "summing" is nowhere to be found. I can also vouch for the fact that the structure of the mixing engine they added differs in some significant ways from what happens in several other DAWs that I happen to know some internal details about. Harrison are not going to tell you precisely how, so you can either use it and listen to the results, or you can do null tests on it if you believe that such testing reveals much. Your call.

Harrison consoles are known for their great-sounding EQ, filters, dynamics, and bus summing on every track

Seems reasonably well established. Do you disagree?

Now Mixbus offers every engineer a real Harrison music console "in the box"."

I guess one could debate what a "real Harrison music console" is. My impression is that most MixBus users have been quite satisfied with whatever extent MixBux provides a "real Harrison music console", even if the control surface and data display experience is quite different.

Now we're back to your text:

They suggest other DAWs suffer from flaws that Harrison eliminated by "replacing the DAW's internal mixing engine and applying proprietary True Analog processing." That's complete hogwash. As my tests have shown, their "internal mixing engine" does the exact same job as that of other DAWs.

No, you showed that you could get MixBus to null with Logic. You haven't refuted:

1. that they replaced the internal mixing engine (of Ardour, which is pretty typical of other DAWs)
2. that they replaced it with their own DSP
3. that it can produce different results than the mixing engine in other DAWs

You just showed that with a particular combination of settings and a given input signal, it nulled with Logic, which as has been explained over and over is a highly desirable and utterly expected result.

[PascalC]

Originally Posted by BenLoftis

... learning Mixbus might be a better investment than other DAWs, because you also learn how to use Ardour and other products (present and future) that are based on it.

Future of Harrison's projects ?

thanks to B.L. really interesting to read.

[Tui]

Originally Posted by dawhead

You just showed that with a particular combination of settings and a given input signal, it nulled with Logic, which as has been explained over and over is a highly desirable and utterly expected result.

Really? When I joined this thread, people were raving how MixBus sounds so much different from other DAWs, and that its summing was much better than that of other DAWs, that MixBus makes everything sound more analogue and 3D.

Did I imagine all that?

Go, read through the first 50-odd pages of this thread, and you'll find no mention of the fact that MixBus is little more than a plug-in that was fused with Ardour.

If it is true that you need to engage the EQs or compressors or saturation effect to benefit from any special "summing", Harrison should state that clearly in their documentation. If you run a signal through MixBus without any processing, nothing extraordinary happens to it, at unity or at different settings. This is a reality, very different from the ideas that were bandied around on this thread, before some people, myself included, did some actual testing.

If I wasn't bored already with this MixBus nonsense, I would perform more tests to determine if engaging EQs, compressors or saturation does anything unusual to the summing. However, my money is on that it doesn't.

Quite frankly, Harrison's marketing department seems unbelievable incompetent and inept at efficiently dealing with the public. Harrison are bullshitting their way into the DAW market, and it's embarrassing to watch.

[PascalC]

Ardour is imo one of the best DAW in the market for audio. (not for MIDI or VST of course... ) I started to use Ardour few years ago, under Linux, with the 1st version of Agnula Demudi (Live CD). I was a Samplitude's user and switched from Sam to Ardour (open source software, a lot of plugs, Unix more stable than windows, Jack is a REVOLUTION because we can connect everything to everything. The concept is brillant and interesting and because i could not bear anymore CTD and a lot of pbs had under windows. Samplitude is great, but only usable on windows even I could launch - sometimes- Sam6 under Linux with Wine ASIO) SO... MBH seems to be an advanced version of Ardour (Harrison works with Paul Davis on Ardour, never forget) for 80 dollars (or less if we don't want the video) Without doing anything (same signal same level same soundcard etc) : it sounds better in MBH. And the soft is more stable. Had a pb with Ardour, no pb with MBH 1.2. That's all I want to know.If MBH is only an advanced version of Ardour + a plug made by Harrison for 80 dollars, it's ok for me.

Maybe we could talk about something else now ? I can't see the need of bashing MBH and Harrison for pages and pages. Or maybe we'd talk also about SSL console in Record... about virtualisation, about all "professional" plugins etc.

I'd be more interested by the future of MBH maybe ? (Linux version, Ardour 3> Mixbus 2.0 etc)
Can we expect other versions ? more busses ? With MIDI ?

Quite frankly, Harrison's marketing department seems unbelievable incompetent and inept at efficiently dealing with the public. Harrison are bullshitting their way into the DAW market, and it's embarrassing to watch.

...I see, everyone can notice it... BL talking with an incredible patience to everyone for weeks, for a 1st price software.

Your actual testing is a test of does 1+1=2.

^^

[Seablade]

Originally Posted by Tui

Really? When I joined this thread, people were raving how MixBus sounds so much different from other DAWs, and that its summing was much better than that of other DAWs, that MixBus makes everything sound more analogue and 3D.

Did I imagine all that?

You apparently imagined that it was all done with no mixing involved in the process at all, merely signal addition, or so your tests seem to be based around.

Go, read through the first 50-odd pages of this thread, and you'll find no mention of the fact that MixBus is little more than a plug-in that was fused with Ardour.

Let me get this straight... You are arguing with the lead developer of Ardour, and with some of the Harrison folks, and others that I would bet have FAR more programming experience than you, and some may in fact have more mixing expertise, telling them that what they have said repeatedly, that the processing done by Mixbus can not be implemented correctly by the modern standard plugin format, are wrong?

Do you even realize how stubborn this is making you look?

If it is true that you need to engage the EQs or compressors or saturation effect to benefit from any special "summing", Harrison should state that clearly in their documentation.

As dawhead correctly pointed out, they don't even say 'summing engine' in their documentation, but rather mix engine. This would imply you need to 'mix' on it.

If you run a signal through MixBus without any processing, nothing extraordinary happens to it, at unity or at different settings.

Wow imagine that, this effects box states it will 'magically change my sound'...

Except for some reason when it is bypassed, it does nothing to my sound. It must be broken.

This is a reality, yet again very different from the ideas that were bandied around on this thread, before some people, myself included, did some actual testing.

Your 'actual testing' has an extremely limited scope. It only tests when something is run at an apparently single level, with no automation. Heck even the moment you introduced pan into the equation it ceased to null by your own admission, and that also wasn't automated.

Your actual testing is a test of does 1+1=2. Math geeks aside that could prove otherwise, no surprise it does, and that Mixbus implements this correctly. Ok if you want to be technical, it tests, does (1/LevelMod)+(1/LevelMod)=(1/LevelMod)+(1/LevelMod)? Also unsurprisingly, the answer is still yes.

If I wasn't bored already with this MixBus nonsense, I would perform more tests to determine if engaging EQs, compressors or saturation does anything unusual to the summing. However, my money is on that it doesn't.

How about doing that or what others have been telling you for some time, actually mixing on it? Like I said to test via null tests exactly what is going on correctly would take a significant amount of time, much more than anyone has thus far done.

Quite frankly, Harrison's marketing department seems unbelievable incompetent and inept at efficiently dealing with the public. Harrison are bullshitting their way into the DAW market, and it's an embarrassment to watch.

You know I find it funny... Harrison's 'Marketing' department are quite used to dealing with specific clientele. Namely those that are already well established in the field, and are looking at or mixing on consoles with a budget of several hundred thousand. People buy their consoles because they work for what they need, and these are people that likely know a thing or two about sound and mixing. They don't need to bullshit these people at all to be truthful, and if they did they would be called out on it rather quickly and in a much more competent way than a simple null test that tests a specific combination of conditions, that really don't reflect much in the way of mixing at all.

Ah well, I suppose I will be done with this topic, it has taken to much time to try to explain something to someone unwilling to listen.

Seablade

[dawhead]

Originally Posted by PascalC

Future of Harrison's projects ?

thanks to B.L. really interesting to read.

there are other companies in addition to Harrison that currently have products based on Ardour planned for 2010.

[jrathkopf]

Tui, why do you care so much? What dog do you have in this fight?

I use Mixbus for my mixes and love the layout and resulting sound.

If you don't like it, don't use it. Conversation over... You seem hellbent on bringing down Harrison for an $80 product....Get over it

[dawhead]

Originally Posted by Tui

Really? When I joined this thread, people were raving how MixBus sounds so much different from other DAWs, and that its summing was much better than that of other DAWs, that MixBus makes everything sound more analogue and 3D.

Did I imagine all that?

I imagine that is a rhetorical question, since that's a matter of public record.

Go, read through the first 50-odd pages of this thread, and you'll find no mention of the fact that MixBus is little more than a plug-in that was fused with Ardour.

Did you know that steel is just iron fused with a few other trace metals? Why would anyone waste their time with "A fused with B"? While we're at it, why would anyone waste their time with Shakti either, who were just "jazz fused with carnatic music"? Or a chocolate milk shake which is just .... several pages ago, I carefully explained to you how you description of MixBus as just "Ardour with a plugin bolted on" was wrong. You've now changed terminology to "fused with", and that's more or less equally misleading.

If it is true that you need to engage the EQs or compressors or saturation effect to benefit from any special "summing", Harrison should state that clearly in their documentation.

interesting perspective. Harrison never made any claims about special summing. That was done by a lot people in this thread who don't really know what is going on. Harrison talked about a mixing engine, and tried, when challenged about what the idea of MixBus was, to talk about the mixing experience, workflow etc. For people who do this stuff for a living, or even for those who don't know what they are doing, having a tool that "just gets it right (or close to it) with minimal effort is no small thing. I asked to you to come up with quotes from Harrison that claim there is "special summing" going on, and so far, you haven't done so. What was claimed is that MixBus works the way that Harrison believes a music mixing console should. You've never even bothered to ask what that means, and you don't seem remotely interested.

the feedback I've seen about MixBus that is the most gratifying doesn't say anything about summing or DSP or anything like that. its from people who say "i can just get my mixes sounding better, faster". that was the goal, and for a substantial majority of MixBus users, that has been the experience.

If you run a signal through MixBus without any processing, nothing extraordinary happens to it, at unity or at different settings. This is a reality, very different from the ideas that were bandied around on this thread, before some people, myself included, did some actual testing.

there are nearly 1700 posts in this thread. there's a lot of noise from people trying to speculate on what MixBus does. if Harrison spent time carefully explaining why each post was wrong, they'd have a lot less time to provide support and implement features for their customers. yes, a lot of what was said by those people was at best misleading and at worst just wrong. i tried to correct some of it as best as i could.

but you've gotten hung up on what some people have said about "summing", confused that with anything ever said by Harrison or myself, and have now wasted even more time demonstrating something that was known all along: MixBus, like any other DAW worth using, can do bits out = bits in.

If I wasn't bored already with this MixBus nonsense, I would perform more tests to determine if engaging EQs, compressors or saturation does anything unusual to the summing. However, my money is on that it doesn't.

ah, summing, summing, summing.

[PascalC]

Originally Posted by dawhead

there are other companies in addition to Harrison that currently have products based on Ardour planned for 2010.

Could you give some links please ?

the feedback I've seen about MixBus that is the most gratifying doesn't say anything about summing or DSP or anything like that. its from people who say "i can just get my mixes sounding better, faster". that was the goal, and for a substantial majority of MixBus users, that has been the experience

. Same for me.Works fine. Nice soft for low cost.

I'm trying to think of the last time a $80 product caused this much controversy? Is this really that big a deal? Just use your ears, mix on it, if you like it, use

)

[morgs500]

Tui, why do you care so much? What dog do you have in this fight?


Tui get over it man .you negative energy and bullshit does not help.
HMB is a great product .Just look at there history

[dougb415]

Originally Posted by Tui

When I joined this thread, people were raving how MixBus sounds so much different from other DAWs, and that its summing was much better than that of other DAWs, that MixBus makes everything sound more analogue and 3D.

Did I imagine all that?

No, you did not. I'm one of those users and I will still say with no reservations that my mixes done on HMB sound better and come together quicker than they do on Logic.

However, I am a user. I am NOT Harrison. I am making those claims, not them. Can you appreciate the difference?

[shmoo2407]

I'm trying to think of the last time a $80 product caused this much controversy? Is this really that big a deal? Just use your ears, mix on it, if you like it, use it.

I'm all for null tests, but they only go so far. Maybe Harrison should do a comparison test to refute these claims that it doesn't do anything to the master bus, since I HEAR a difference when I use MB.

Then again, I don't see people doing null tests of different u47 clones. And those are $3000 mics, not $80 apps. Geez!

[Kenton]

Originally Posted by Tui

You can pick any variation of routing you like, the result is always them same. Hence, MixBus does not offer any special summing, contrary to what they suggest in their disingenuous advertising.

OK, been out all afternoon and things seem to have moved on a bit...

Tui, could I respectfully ask for you to indulge me for one more test:

1. Bounce your 7 tracks in Logic
2. Import those 7 tracks into MixBux
3. Bounce the 7 tracks in MixBus.
4. Import the two bounce files into Logic and perform your null test. Some time alignment and level matching might be required...

Let me know what happens.
Sherlock.

[Tui]

Originally Posted by Seablade

As dawhead correctly pointed out, they don't even say 'summing engine' in their documentation, but rather mix engine. This would imply you need to 'mix' on it.

It would appear some people live on a different planet from myself. In my world, when I mix signals in digital audio, it involves summing. Or, in other words, there is no mixing without summing.

We can, of course, spend the rest of this month with splitting hairs over this. We can start to argue that up really is down, that black is white and that identical signals are not identical.

We can convince ourselves that mixes in MixBus sound better than those same mixes made in other DAWs, but simultaneously recognise that the resulting signals are identical. We can listen to the wonders that come out of Harrison's "proprietary True Analog processing", but simultaneously scoff at the idea that different DAWs sound in any way different.

A while ago, someone argued at length over at the music computers forum that he could hear a difference between bit-identical files, even between different hard drives!

There's got to be an asylum somewhere, especially for gearslutz.

[PascalC]

This message is hidden because Tui is on your ignore list.

[Tui]

Originally Posted by Kenton

OK, been out all afternoon and things seem to have moved on a bit...

Tui, could I respectfully ask for you to indulge me for one more test:

1. Bounce your 7 tracks in Logic
2. Import those 7 tracks into MixBux
3. Bounce the 7 tracks in MixBus.
4. Import the two bounce files into Logic and perform your null test. Some time alignment and level matching might be required...

Let me know what happens.
Sherlock.

I'm sorry mate, I've deleted those test sessions and I'm too busy right now to do it all over again. It involves a fair amount of matching levels and adjusting for differences in timing, so it's not totally trivial.

I suppose if you don't believe me now that summing in Logic and MixBus is identical (except for the effects of tape saturation which can't be turned off completely on the master bus), you're not going to believe me then.

For the record, this is what's going on in MixBus:

No special processing when summing (or "mixing"), using the audio, regular bus and 4 mix bus channels. Fixed minimum tape saturation effect on the master bus.

That's it. If people like this concept, fine. Go forth and be happy. Do Trevor Horn proud.

[dougb415]

Originally Posted by Tui

We can convince ourselves that mixes in MixBus sound better than those same mixes made in other DAWs, but we would actually have to try mixing on it first to reach that conclusion.

Fixed it for you

[Francz]

Originally Posted by Tui

Harrison's "proprietary True Analog processing"

Tui

Even though I can't spell very well, I have read over and over the first and only marketing post here from Harrison and again on theri website and I just don't see where it says "prorietary True Analog processing" as you have quoted several times here. It just doesn't say that.

It says

"proprietary digital mixing technology"

then

"redesigning the DAW's internal mixing engine and applying proprietary algorithms"

and then

"Precision DSP algorithms for EQ, Filter, Compression, Analog Tape Saturation, and Summing based on Harrison's world-renowned large format analog and digital mixing consoles"


I don't see "proprietary True Analog processing" anywhere. You just made it up and worse you put quotation marks around it. Talk about miss leading. I'm no B.A. but I'm pretty sure when you put "" around something it is referring to a direct quote.

Sounds like you read into it what you wanted and now have wasted so much time. I mixed 11 songs this week and only posted 3 times. I even broke my own rule of 2 per topic on this one.

No more.

[Tui]

Hey tiger, next time you check your facts before posting. OK?

harrisonconsoles.com - Mixbus

"Traditional DAW mixers were designed by companies with no pedigree in music mixing, and they suffer from well-known flaws. Harrison eliminated these flaws in Mixbus by completely replacing the DAW's internal mixing engine and applying proprietary True Analog processing."

[Francz]

Originally Posted by Tui

Hey tiger, next time you check your facts before posting. OK?

harrisonconsoles.com - Mixbus

"Traditional DAW mixers were designed by companies with no pedigree in music mixing, and they suffer from well-known flaws. Harrison eliminated these flaws in Mixbus by completely replacing the DAW's internal mixing engine and applying proprietary True Analog processing."

Hmmmm from post #1 here:

"Traditional DAW mixers, designed by companies with no pedigree in music mixing, all suffer from well-known flaws. Harrison eliminated these flaws by completely redesigning the DAW's internal mixing engine and applying proprietary algorithms."

Interesting. Good catch. I read both and there you go.

OK that's it now I really am done with this. Sorry Lion.

[Coyoteous]

Wow... did the mod threat shut the discussion down here?

Drama aside, this was finally getting interesting, IMO.

It all boils down to two questions for me.

Disregarding the interface, and anything that could be translated to a plug-in in any DAW, is there anything else going on here?

If not, hasn't Harrison been misrepresenting this product?

[dawhead]

Originally Posted by Coyoteous

Disregarding the interface, and anything that could be translated to a plug-in in any DAW, is there anything else going on here?

I, the original and lead author of Ardour, along with Ben Loftis from Harrison, have explained several times that the signal flow in MixBus cannot be replicated in a DAW+plugins situation. Its getting really tiresome to explain this over and over again. And no, neither Harrison nor myself are likely to explain any more about precisely what that signal flow is.

If you read what has been said about MixBus carefully I think you will find that the extravagant claims about "magic" in the sound come from users, not from Harrison (and certainly not from me). The key ideas behind MixBus are not about magical DSP that nobody else can do - there are plenty of really incredible plugins around already that certainly represent some incredible DSP expertise and creativity. Rather, MixBus is about about creatively integrating the experience of a very seasoned console manufacturer into a DAW to provide a different experience when mixing than is offered by most DAWs.

It is really amazing to me that so many people in this very long thread seem to keep wanting to focus on/find some "magic" inside MixBus' DSP. If MixBus is good for anyone, its that way because of its engineering as an integrated system. That integration is there to take the kind of workflow that console users would use, which often consists of a number of things are harder to do with a regular DAW, and make them as easy as possible. As was said roughly 1000 posts ago, the extent to which MixBus works for anyone is about the forest, not the trees.

[DaveC]

Whoa, 59 pages, and still this null-BS going on??
In the meantime, I had excellent results with Mixbus so far.
It makes things a whole lot easier, as it should be.
Why don't we talk about newly discovered features, etc?
Noooo, we have to make sure that our precious spent $80 is justified...*sigh*

[Coyoteous]

Originally Posted by dawhead

I, the original and lead author of Ardour, along with Ben Loftis from Harrison, have explained several times that the signal flow in MixBus cannot be replicated in a DAW+plugins situation. Its getting really tiresome to explain this over and over again. And no, neither Harrison nor myself are likely to explain any more about precisely what that signal flow is.

I'm disregarding the parts of your reply that have nothing to do with my questions. So, there is a secret "signal flow" that cannot be replicated with the same functions as plug-ins... fine.

I would encourage MB users to try to determine what this secret is... not for the purpose of reverse-engineering, but just for understanding. I'm not likely to drop 80 bucks for this, just to figure it out.

It wouldn't be that hard to do. You just need to test it as though it were hardware... and no, you wouldn't need an AP test set, etc. I'll bet you could get to the bottom of it with tones, sweeps, meters and a spectrum analyzer.

[Tui]

Originally Posted by dawhead

I, the original and lead author of Ardour, along with Ben Loftis from Harrison, have explained several times that the signal flow in MixBus cannot be replicated in a DAW+plugins situation. Its getting really tiresome to explain this over and over again. And no, neither Harrison nor myself are likely to explain any more about precisely what that signal flow is.

You see, statements such as this one are the reason why I find it difficult to accept some of your assertions. You and the guys at Harrison make a big spiel how your "proprietary" technology is so different from that of other developers, and that it couldn't possibly be made to work inside other DAWs. Yet, you don't provide one shred of evidence to support this idea. Not one diagram, not one audio file, not one patent you could point to. We have to take your word for it.

Sorry, but the world doesn't work like that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

When bypassing the EQs, compressors and tape saturation, there is no difference in processing between MixBus and other DAWs. I should hope we can agree on that much. If, however, some special processing takes place in MixBus with EQs, compressors and saturation engaged, Harrison (or yourself) should state that openly, rather than treating MixBus as if it was some sort of a state secret.

Come to think of it, tomorrow when I get a chance, I will compare using MixBus' processors inside MixBus with using MixBus for a plug-in, to see if that makes a differences.

[dawhead]

Originally Posted by Tui

You see, statements such as this one are the reason why I find it difficult to accept some of your assertions. You and the guys at Harrison make a big spiel how your "proprietary" technology is so different from that of other developers,

Your definition of "big spiel" is interesting too. Harrison released 1 PR about MixBus. Most of the noise about the "technology" comes from people on forums like this, who generally are just guessing at what is going on. Early adopters seemed fascinated at why they felt it sound better than whatever else they were using. I have no real opinion on whether it really did sound better at all, and I'm not sure it matters one way or the other. Nevertheless, quite a few people spent a certain amount of time guessing. You've spent a lot of time trying to debunk their ideas, not Harrison "spiel".

and that it couldn't possibly be made to work inside other DAWs. Yet, you don't provide one shred of evidence to support this idea. Not one diagram, not one audio file, not one patent you could point to. We have to take your word for it.

Nobody even said "extraordinary". Consider the steps involved to take a random DAW and set it up to work like MixBus does. Can it be done? You can get something pretty close to it with the right combination of plugins and a flexible enough routing system. But where will the compressor control be? What if you just want to tweak the midrange? What was involved in setting up the bussing architecture? The people who seem to be enjoying MixBus so far appear to me to be people who don't want to have to think about these questions, because a company that has spent 30 years building music consoles already had a fairly good idea of what is actually needed.

Harrison felt that offering this kind of thing was pretty new and different and would be useful to a broad class of users. If you don't agree, then you're free to ignore it.

You (or anyone else) can also quibble with any particular part of MixBus that you wish too. Perhaps you wish it didn't null with Logic. Perhaps you don't like the compressor. Perhaps the tape saturation is not to your taste. That's all fine - you are free to use another system. MixBus isn't any of these specific details - its the aggregation of them all into a design that reflects what Harrison have learned about the process of mixing music.

When bypassing the EQs, compressors and tape saturation, there is no difference in processing between MixBus and other DAWs.

"When I use MixBus in a way that totally avoids everything that Harrison did to change it from Ardour, it behaves just like Ardour and other DAWs".

Yeah, no argument here.