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

[Farshad]

Originally Posted by Hint

Combining it with Ardour and Jack makes me think of Tritone and their reliance on Pluggo, and we know how that turned out.

despite the pluggo thingy, you could still use tritone stuff as plugins on most DAWs (Win and Mac).

[Farshad]

Originally Posted by SOLOIST101

this all sounds pretty awesome!!!

hey correct me if i'm wrong but protools le is lacking in delay compensation right?

MC

Many of us want to know about the new "summing engine" though ...

[fossaree]

Ok , so I just decided to take Harrison's side regarding their new product .

We're talking about Harrison . Yeap , the one that have made spetacular consoles !

Could you imagine a company like this would put their name in something crap ?

Go figure !

[jwells]

Originally Posted by littlenemo

It looks interesting, a dedicated control surface would also be interesting

Love your sig.

JPW

[Mr.HOLMES]

Interesting but looks like any other DAW to me.
Nothing I could not do with my Logic 9 except that I have the freedom to use any console emulation I have....Harrsion/SSL/NEVE

I bet behind the EQs is the code from UAD so I got it already... at the time I do not see the difference except it seems like there is no plug in delay compensation so I would buy trouble into my studio.

So what is the difference and why should I buy a new DAW?

The only reason why all HW companies like to step into the software business is:

They do not sell enough consoles to reach the Break Even Point anymore.
They figure out very late that HW is going to die one day...
That there will be a new digital future in producing music.

What was the difference to my actual Logic 9?

Yes no MIDI editing... Great.

Sorry for being a prick here!!!

[Nowak]

Alrighty, got Logic routing into this baby this morning, no brainer.

Soooo quick to get a good mix happening.

Loving life.

[Leon EA]

Originally Posted by Harrison Press

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.

Can you step of that high horse for a minute to explain if the summing is actually an algorithm instead of pure math, like the pedigree-less companies do it, who have set benchmark after benchmark in the workstation world you seem so eager to enter? This question has been asked repeatedly but it seems to get anxiously ignored.

[Coyoteous]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

Why no Demo? I would just download it right now...

I'm speculating, but maybe because there is no CP? I don't no if it has copy protection or not, but Ardour doesn't. I suppose they would have to code a crippled demo version and with Ardour being open source, that might be even easier to circumvent.

BTW, does "2+ processors required" mean you have to have more than 2?

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by Nowak

Alrighty, got Logic routing into this baby this morning, no brainer.

Soooo quick to get a good mix happening.

Loving life.

Ähhhh

I have seen the video it is a DAW and not a console except the layout is more like a console.

I do not see the diffrence YET but I would love to understand waht the aim behind a new DAW is?

Does it sound like a Harrison console?
Is the engine diffrent?
Is every little part of a console moddeld?
(That would mean millions of Impulse responses)

I know how to get a great mix in Logic and I do not see the reason to change my workflow for just a HARRSION LOGO!!!

So I would love to understand waht is the advantage?

[BenLoftis]

Originally Posted by Coyoteous

BTW, does "2+ processors required" mean you have to have more than 2?

No, it means "2 or more processors"

[nightscope]

Originally Posted by Leon EA

Can you step of that high horse for a minute to explain if the summing is actually an algorithm instead of pure math, like the pedigree-less companies do it, who have set benchmark after benchmark in the workstation world you seem so eager to enter? This question has been asked repeatedly but it seems to get anxiously ignored.

You can't really expect them what's got good breeding and pedigree to answer mundane questions like that. They be off busy setting benchmarks dontcha know. I think we can rest assured this will contain only the finest pedigree math, none of yer common garden, flaw riddled, hoi polloi, riff raff math.

We are saved.thumbsup

ns

[tuRnitUpsuM]

So I would love to understand waht is the advantage?

Its Open Source , problems that arise in say a "non-open source" DAW will have users waiting until a revision is figured out and implemented, course if its deemed worthy enough to get people working on a rememdy, then updated (hoping the bug didnt start in a .8 or .9 version) in probably a paid for update. Where as Open Source... if theres a few people noticing trouble somewhere... low and behold theres a work around or a fix written by someone within the community and available to all sometimes without even an update to software.... written code fix you simply copy paste.

But to answer the real meaning to that question... is entirely up too you... if you are happy with what u use now..nothing short of a free large frame console will deter you away.

What this offers is Algo's from a Company who has history designing digital consoles.... you add that to an amazing Open Source DAW like ardour... add Jack ( routing anything anywhere) and Bob's ur uncle.

In Open Source land its tough dealing with certain things like licences, etc ( offer MP3 VST AU RTAS compatability etc). To have a company not only allow an Open Source DAW to use their Algos, but get involved!!!! thats the real WOW factor and revolution. Tables are beginning to turn...open source DAW's arent looking at others thinking damn id like some of those VSTs AUs etc.,.. now its gonna be DAW users looking at Open Source Users saying damn i wish i had that Harrison.....

[Washington]

Not being ironic at all. There's something I don't get:

- We have a Jack / Ardour / Harrison combination DAW.
- Said new DAW in arrives in a crowded market where people gut each other alive about how much their DAW is better than the next.
- Said DAW has limitations such as no midi or only 4 fully delay compensated busses.
- We have a company that designs monster desks of incredible quality, true classic studio gems that cost both arms and both legs, hence that are intended for big studios with big bucks.
- And we have a "revolutionary" new platform introduced for $80, apparently aiming at the exact opposite target group.

So why in the world did Harrison NOT make a worldclass channel strip and be done with it? They could've sold it to every top-class engineer working ITB. For what I understand, they did not design the DAW if it's Ardour.

What am I mising (again, no irony here)?

Besides:

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.

Now that's a bold statement if I ever heard one. And if Ardour is an open source software that already exists and is available (though I never heard of it, that's why I'm asking), how did they "completely redesign the DAW's internal mixing engine"?

Enlightment appreciated.

[Mr.HOLMES]

Long Story Short.

They have a new product and they can not cummunicate to the useres what the big bang is about it.......

1. Point waht is diffrent from other DAWs?
2. Why the heck should they have found the holy DAW grail in Ardour?
3. If this audio engine is the "HOLY GRAIL" please tell us WHY?

Thats all I want to know..... I wil buy this product as soon as I understand for waht I need it. As long as I do not understand it I just can guess there is nothing special waht seperates it from other DAWs except its GUI and integreatet EQs / Compression as well as Saturation on the mix buses.... this I can have with any other DAW as well.

There is no information about the algos waht is so special about it does it makes a diffrence to all the other DAWs?

So please Harrsion could you answer my questions?

[BenLoftis]

Hi guys,

I think you are thinking way too much into this.

Mixbus is only $80 because we didn't have to write a whole workstation, or come up with excellent mixing DSP code. We already had both. This is one of the benefits of open-source development.

The 4-bus limitation is because 4 knobs fit easily on my (small) laptop screen and let me do the kind of mixes that I do, and would be a reasonable amount of buses for someone who spends $80 on a workstation and wants to make a great-sounding mix fast.

The "hyperbole" on the marketing is because when we designed the system, this is what we wanted to make for ourselves, and it was our target while we designed the system. Time will tell if we "nailed" it or not, and for which users.

When beta testing and demo-ing Mixbus, we had many users that told us we should charge $1000 or more for this workstation. Believe me it was tempting. But we chose instead to make it available to a wide range of people. You might have to know a lot about me personally, and the histories of Harrison and Ardour to fully understand this. Keep in mind that we already made an "expensive" pro version, the Xdubber.

Finally, we are in a very unusual position because our large-format consoles are still highly in demand. We can be somewhat magnanimous with a side-project like this one. Some of the proceeds go directly into Ardour open-source development team, so the code is available for future projects, Harrison or otherwise.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions about where we are coming from.

Best Regards,
Ben Loftis
harrisonconsoles.com - Home

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by BenLoftis

Hi guys,

I think you are thinking way too much into this.

Mixbus is only $80 because we didn't have to write a whole workstation, or come up with excellent mixing DSP code. We already had both. This is one of the benefits of open-source development.

The 4-bus limitation is because 4 knobs fit easily on my (small) laptop screen and let me do the kind of mixes that I do, and would be a reasonable amount of buses for someone who spends $80 on a workstation and wants to make a great-sounding mix fast.

The "hyperbole" on the marketing is because when we designed the system, this is what we wanted to make for ourselves, and it was our target while we designed the system. Time will tell if we "nailed" it or not, and for which users.

When beta testing and demo-ing Mixbus, we had many users that told us we should charge $1000 or more for this workstation. Believe me it was tempting. But we chose instead to make it available to a wide range of people. You might have to know a lot about me personally, and the histories of Harrison and Ardour to fully understand this. Keep in mind that we already made an "expensive" pro version, the Xdubber.

Finally, we are in a very unusual position because our large-format consoles are still highly in demand. We can be somewhat magnanimous with a side-project like this one. Some of the proceeds go directly into Ardour open-source development team, so the code is available for future projects, Harrison or otherwise.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions about where we are coming from.

Best Regards,
Ben Loftis
harrisonconsoles.com - Home

Fo all useres who are not into the History of "Harrison" can you explain us a bit more?
What are the advanteges compared to other DAWs?

[fossaree]

Originally Posted by BenLoftis

Hi guys,

I think you are thinking way too much into this.

Mixbus is only $80 because we didn't have to write a whole workstation, or come up with excellent mixing DSP code. We already had both. This is one of the benefits of open-source development.

The 4-bus limitation is because 4 knobs fit easily on my (small) laptop screen and let me do the kind of mixes that I do, and would be a reasonable amount of buses for someone who spends $80 on a workstation and wants to make a great-sounding mix fast.

The "hyperbole" on the marketing is because when we designed the system, this is what we wanted to make for ourselves, and it was our target while we designed the system. Time will tell if we "nailed" it or not, and for which users.

When beta testing and demo-ing Mixbus, we had many users that told us we should charge $1000 or more for this workstation. Believe me it was tempting. But we chose instead to make it available to a wide range of people. You might have to know a lot about me personally, and the histories of Harrison and Ardour to fully understand this. Keep in mind that we already made an "expensive" pro version, the Xdubber.

Finally, we are in a very unusual position because our large-format consoles are still highly in demand. We can be somewhat magnanimous with a side-project like this one. Some of the proceeds go directly into Ardour open-source development team, so the code is available for future projects, Harrison or otherwise.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions about where we are coming from.

Best Regards,
Ben Loftis
harrisonconsoles.com - Home

BRAVO !

[bluemix]

Originally Posted by matt thomas

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?

Why is this question being ignored repeatedly?

[bwrecordings]

Ben,

Your post made it seem that you and your company were not as dedicated to this side project as I had hoped. Pro Tools is what it is. But people surely are dedicated to it.


I'm sorry to hear this because your consoles are great and I was hoping to come across something worthwhile.


Rick

[Coyoteous]

Originally Posted by bluemix

Why is this question being ignored repeatedly?

- cuz y'all didn't say "purdy please?" Seriously though, most pricing questions were not answered either. That's okay, but I am also starting to wonder how long this will be supported and developed, being a "magnanimous side-project" and all. There's already a tone of "what do you expect for 80 bucks?" It's time to own up about commitment and fairy dust. I'm probably in either way, unless I miss the intro offer and the price increases considerably. Although even at $80, this is seeming more and more a risky proposition.

[ProducerBoy]

Not to be rude, but please, can we get a few simple questions answered? What mix engine or changes did Harrison implement in place of "the DAW's" and what is "True Analog processing"? What differences do these alleged parts impute?

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

[AMIEL]

I have a couple of questions:

What are the differences between Ardour and Harrison Mixbus?



and again can somebody at Harrison explain this?????:

Quote:
"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."

that means that the H. Mixbus audio engine sounds better?

I think everybody here would be so happy if H. Mixbus sounds REALLY better than other DAWs, but with no demo download and no proper explanation to our questions this is hard to know and to evaluate.

[BBT]

Originally Posted by bwrecordings

Ben,

Your post made it seem that you and your company were not as dedicated to this side project as I had hoped. Pro Tools is what it is. But people surely are dedicated to it.

Please check up on the history... You can do that by just looking into ardour mailing lists. This may be too hard, so here is a short breakdown.

The main reason WHY Harrison can claim this, is because Ben Loftis has worked in the ardour development team for a long time... obviously with the x-dubber and this new product in mind. Paul Davis (the main Ardour developer) is also a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to the engine (libardour) and it was one of the first DAWs, free or otherwise, to actually null properly. Harrison's input made this progress smoother, and they can claim to have an input in the development.

How many tracks do you need to sum if you want 64bit float mixing?

With 32bit you can sum 256 channels of 24bit input, tracked peak to peak (stupid) and still have ZERO bit loss internally.

Your output will be? MP3, CD, 24bit DVD? You loose 8+1 bit right there, even with 32bit.

Ardour2 natively has:

• Unlimited audio tracks and buses
• Non-destructive, non-linear editing with unlimited undo
• Anything-to-anywhere signal routing
• Unlimited pre- and post-fader plugins
• 32 bit floating point audio path
• Automatic track delay compensation
• Sample accurate automation
• Standard file formats (BWF, WAV, WAV64, AIFF, CAF & more ...)
• Full AudioUnit plugin support on OS X
• More than 200 LADSPA & LV2 plugins freely available
• Support for Windows VST plugins available
• MIDI CC control with 1 click
• Level 2 MIDI Machine Control
• MIDI Timecode (MTC) Master or Slave
• Full integration with all JACK applications
• Video-synced playback, pull up/pull down
• No copy-protection
• Distributed, world-wide development
• Released under the GPL
• Source code for everyone
• Open XML session file format
• On OS X, works with any CoreAudio supported audio hardware
• On Linux, works with any ALSA/FFADO-supported audio hardware
• Network audio (full fidelity over local network or long haul with CELT) via NetJack

Now, adding the Harrison DSP component for $80 makes it even better

[BBT]

Originally Posted by bluemix

Why is this question being ignored repeatedly?

Because the answer is freely available.

[BBT]

Originally Posted by AMIEL

I think everybody here would be so happy if H. Mixbus sounds REALLY better than other DAWs, but with no demo download and no proper explanation to our questions this is hard to know and to evaluate.

If you have decent converters, the sound you get from this should be no different from what you could get from any of Harrison's latest digital consoles.

If that is not good enough for you, then I don't know what would be.

[siddhu]

As someone who has worked extensively with IT and developers (non music and music) I think that the open source aspect of this project is to be highly commended.

You cannot compare an open source project with with shareware or "pluggo" based products. Open Source projects have the potential to become huge with a world wide community of dedicated developers.

Look at how free open source web projects like Joomla and Wordpress have totally changed the internet landscape.

However, I too would like an answer to the question about the code used for the summing engine.

[LOU AU]

Please, just a short before (or alternate DAW) and after (Harrison) sample. The proof is in the pudding. The price is dirt cheap. I just spent that at the county fair on pulled pork sandwiches and lemonade! I'm on Digital Performer and would route audio into it as I assume it won't import a tempo map. Looks great.
Thanks!

[ProducerBoy]

"Mixbus is only $80 because we didn't have to write a whole workstation, or come up with excellent mixing DSP code. We already had both. This is one of the benefits of open-source development."

So the answer is, the marketing is hype. You're getting Harrison EQ, Comp, and Tape something or another in Ardour, and that's it. Doesn't actually have a new, fresh, or otherwise superior DAW sound. It doesn't harken back to anything. Just a cool console-ish design (which I really, really like), and a bunch of "hyperbole."

This wouldn't bother me, but I don't appreciate the hype being followed by, "I think you are thinking way too much into this." Harrison shouldn't advertise that they reinvented the DAW and it sounds better, drop a few marketing buzz words ("True" and "Analog"), then tell people, we found the idea of charging a $1000 tempting... but what do you expect? It's geared towards folks who will pay $80. This doesn't add up.

($1,000??? )

No offense intended. I think that this is a fine project that fell into impressively bad marketing hands. If there were a demo, I'd probably sucker into it and pull the trigger.

[Nowak]

Can somebody PLEASE enlighten me?

Everyone creams in their pants about Propellorheads RECORD and their fake SSL.

Harrison does this and gets crucified......

PLEASE, somebody explain the rationale?

Stef

[AMIEL]

Originally Posted by BBT

If you have decent converters, the sound you get from this should be no different from what you could get from any of Harrison's latest digital consoles.

If that is not good enough for you, then I don't know what would be.

???????

That would be probably great, and yes I have great converters and monitoring and speakers.
But with no Demo download to check H. Mixbus and not answer to certain questions, the only thing we can do is to believe you????

Why we can not have a Demo to evaluate Mixbus?????? so we can judge without guessing and have a better exchange of opinions based in real experience.