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

[granville]

This thread has got really interesting now...

Tui, how about you try the test that Kenton suggested in post 1757. I think everyone reading this thread would be very interested to know what you find..

[TANK]

I can't try Mixbus , someone know how is set his pan law?

[Tui]

Originally Posted by granville

This thread has got really interesting now...

Tui, how about you try the test that Kenton suggested in post 1757. I think everyone reading this thread would be very interested to know what you find..

Why don't you do the test? I'm tired of this nonsense.

I've shown that MixBus features no "proprietary, secret" processing. That's all I wanted to know.

[Seablade]

Originally Posted by granville

This thread has got really interesting now...

Tui, how about you try the test that Kenton suggested in post 1757. I think everyone reading this thread would be very interested to know what you find..

Just to save some time, they should null or pretty dang close to it, if you are only summing without any panning or mixing at all. Just to make certain before I posted I ran my own test(No Logic installed here though sorry), and got very slight amounts of noise, which I am fairly certain was actually a difference in dithering is the only reason I got that.

EDIT:
For basic info from the very basic test I did:

Architeuthis:export Seablade$ sndfile-info export.wav 

Version : libsndfile-1.0.20

========================================
File : export.wav
Length : 52920044
RIFF : 52920036
WAVE
fmt  : 16
  Format        : 0x1 => WAVE_FORMAT_PCM
  Channels      : 2
  Sample Rate   : 44100
  Block Align   : 4
  Bit Width     : 16
  Bytes/sec     : 176400
data : 52920000
End

----------------------------------------
Sample Rate : 44100
Frames      : 13230000
Channels    : 2
Format      : 0x00010002
Sections    : 1
Seekable    : TRUE
Duration    : 00:05:00.000
Signal Max  : 4 (-78.27 dB)

Architeuthis:export Seablade$ sndfile-info export_postnorm.wav 

Version : libsndfile-1.0.20

========================================
File : export_postnorm.wav
Length : 52920044
RIFF : 52920036
WAVE
fmt  : 16
  Format        : 0x1 => WAVE_FORMAT_PCM
  Channels      : 2
  Sample Rate   : 44100
  Block Align   : 4
  Bit Width     : 16
  Bytes/sec     : 176400
data : 52920000
End

----------------------------------------
Sample Rate : 44100
Frames      : 13230000
Channels    : 2
Format      : 0x00010002
Sections    : 1
Seekable    : TRUE
Duration    : 00:05:00.000
Signal Max  : 25 (-62.35 dB)

Since I didn't set dithering at all, I am fairly certain that is exactly the noise I am hearing in this. A more proper test would have been to play with dithering to match as much as possible, but that is something I didn't have time for. For the reference, the "Signal Max" value is what you are looking for for a null test. The only difference between export and export_postnorm is that postnorm is after normalization of the exports from the 2 DAWs before they are summed in opposite polarity.

I will post the wav files in a bit if I get time and people are curious.

Seablade

[Seablade]

Originally Posted by TANK

I can't try Mixbus , someone know how is set his pan law?

In Mixbus Pan Law is -3dB IIRC, or something really close to it.

Seablade

[Kenton]

Originally Posted by Seablade

Just to save some time, they should null or pretty dang close to it, if you are only summing without any panning or mixing at all.

OK, just to chip in once again - doing the test as I described, the two files will NOT null because one bounce is done through the MixBus Saturation and the other bounce isn't. You should get around -72dB residue with the Tape Sat fully down, around -36dB with it where you would have it for normal use.

Originally Posted by Tui

I might just write to Motu, Steinberg, Apple and a few others to ask them what they think of the suggestion "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." Those "traditional" DAWs would naturally include DP, Nuendo and Logic. Harrison's competitors might just find those claims actionable.

I don't think so. As has been stated:

DAW's like Logic, Cubase and DP started life as Atari based MIDI sequencers (Notator, Pro24 etc.) While IIRC ProTools started out as an Audio editing platform on the Atari in the early '90's (SoundTools).
Later they had Audio and DSP (and MIDI in PT's case) bolted on but certainly in Logic's case, the heritage still shows in some of its better known flaws - such as only having 128 steps of fader and pan resolution - a hangover from MIDI controller data. Also it's awful metering, lack of dithering and possibly inconsistent latency (and yes, I think I can remember how to demonstrate that one) to name but a few more.

However, I must thank Tui for helping me to expand my thinking, as this morning I had an epiphany about how I might better integrate MixBus into my workflow within Logic. I'll have to do a bit more testing (MUHAHAHAHAHAHA) but I think that there is a good chance that it will retain the Harrison sound that I like but will avoid some of the annoying issues I find when routing audio from logic into MixBus. Thus I'll have the best of both worlds.
I'll post the results if it works.

[dougb415]

Originally Posted by Tui

Why don't you do the test? I'm tired of this nonsense.

You're "tired of this nonsense" (right!) but you'd still have time and energy to "just write to Motu, Steinberg, Apple and a few others to ask them what they think of the suggestion "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." Those "traditional" DAWs would naturally include DP, Nuendo and Logic. Harrison's competitors might just find those claims actionable.

I might also start a couple of threads on different forums to warn people of Harrison's questionable business tactics."

You are on some kind of fanatical mission and you STILL haven't tried mixing with HMB. You complain about this, that, the other but you still won't try using the product for mixing.

I was thinking about making steak, but hamburger comes from the same source and all my tests verify this. Instead I'll make a cheeseburger because steak and hamburger are the same thing, right? And maybe I should start a letter-writing campaign informing everyone of this travesty.

I'm getting hungry but I think I'll run more tests on this steak. After all, what would cooking and eating it accomplish? And why are all these steak lovers telling me that hamburger does not taste the same? Look at all of my tests! Cretins! Morons! Imbeciles! Sherlocks!

I guess I'd better run more tests so I can prove again that hamburger and steak come from the same source. And no, I will NOT eat that steak. Steak lovers are just sockpuppets and everyone knows that. Nothing more than shills for the steak industry.

Wait 'til they see my latest test on this steak! I've got pictures this time! That'll really show them! My stomach is rumbling but nothing will stand in the way of my tests. Hunger be damned - I must conduct TESTS!

[Seablade]

Originally Posted by Kenton

OK, just to chip in once again - doing the test as I described, the two files will NOT null because one bounce is done through the MixBus Saturation and the other bounce isn't. You should get around -72dB residue with the Tape Sat fully down, around -36dB with it where you would have it for normal use.

Sorry I should have clarified that I again brought down the sources significantly(I believe all of them had to be at -30dB due to the amount of sources this time) so as not to activate the saturation circuit.

If I had let the saturation kick in at all it would have been significantly different.

Seablade

[macmuse]

Originally Posted by dougb415

You are on some kind of fanatical mission and you STILL haven't tried mixing with HMB. You complain about this, that, the other but you still won't try using the product for mixing.

+1. Perhaps he doesn't want to mix because he doesn't want to risk finding out he's been wrong. If he did an actual mix and found the mix was faster/better, etc. like I certainly have, he probably wouldn't want to admit it, nor post at all. He didn't have time to mix, and also stated he was bored with it all, yet the posts continued.

Brings to mind the scenario of a stubborn person resisting improvement to the point where they bite off their nose to spite their face.

Place raw tracks in Logic. Place the same raw tracks in Mixbus. Mix them in Logic. Mix them in Mixbus. Compare the experience/speed/sound. There you go. No lab necessary.

[bluesky]

Tui, stick to music. You clearly have no understanding of legal concepts such as fraud, libel, and what exactly might constitute a viable cause of action.

[Kenton]

Sorry, me again.

Part of the problem during this debate has been that people have not been comparing like with like.
We have different views of what constitutes "Summing".

I've been taking the view that summing is what happens between the Pan Pot output and the top of the Master Fader, like on an analogue console. Since you can't bypass the Sat section it (MixBus) will sound and measure different from other DAW's.

Tui takes the position that the summing process in MixBus is the actual addition of digital numbers - and is the same as the addition of digital numbers in all other DAW's. (and ignoring the Sat Algorithm)
His contention is that aspects of MixBus could be implemented in a basic form (in Logic) as a Channel Strip and as a Master Bus plugin.

Now, it's taken me a while to get my head around this but I did the following test this morning:

Take 2 tracks of audio in Logic,
Route track 1 to track 1 in Mixbus
Route track 2 to track 2 in Mixbus
Route these two tracks to the Master Bus in MixBux.
This gives you two tracks summed in MixBus

Now, ALSO, sent the 2 audio tracks in Logic to an Aux (Bus 1) sending at 0dB.
Flip the phase of the Aux Bus with a gain plugin and route it to Track 3 in MixBus.
Route Track 3 of MixBus to the Master Bus.
This gives you 2 tracks summed in Logic and phase inverted.

So what do we have? Two tracks summed in MixBus nulling against the same two tracks summed in Logic - all before it hits the Tape Sat section.

And the result is.........








Well, of course I'M right... <tongue firmly in cheek>

No, but seriously:

By his definition, Tui is correct - there is a small difference (-96dB) between the digital addition in MixBus and the digital addition in Logic. When listened to it sounds like the original audio, so I would guess that the difference is due to very slight differences in scaling factors and dithering.
To achieve a better null would require being able to adjust level in 0.0001dB steps or smaller.
This needs corroboration though.

And the upshot of all this?
You may well be able to use MixBus channels as inserts in Logic tracks and then bussing your Logic output stems back into MixBus to get the benefit of the Sat sections - and still retain the Harrison sound.
You won't get all the benefits of the whole MixBus package but the improved sonics from dithering, pan tweaks, gain staging & Sat etc. should be largely retained (if I'm correct).

Of course, you shouldn't take my word for it... Peer review please.

[Tui]

Originally Posted by dougb415

You're "tired of this nonsense" (right!) but you'd still have time and energy to "just write to Motu, Steinberg, Apple and a few others

Yes.

From reading through the most recent posts, it seems there are still a few people left who don't understand what the issue is. I'm not going to address those posters anymore. It does indeed get tiring.

However, if Harrison don't remove their misleading advertising from their web site, I will write to some of the leading DAW manufacturers. It will be entirely up to them what they do with the info.

I will also start threads at a few places that attract knowledgeable audiences and individuals that are relevant to the industry.

Harrison claim to have created a virtual analogue mixing desk with their "proprietary" technology. They have done no such thing. They have fused a plug-in with an open-source DAW and need to be honest about it.

[shmoo2407]

Originally Posted by Tui

Yes.

From reading through the most recent posts, it seems there are still a few people left who don't understand what the issue is. I'm not going to address those posters anymore. It does indeed get tiring.

However, if Harrison don't remove their misleading advertising from their web site, I will write to some of the leading DAW manufacturers. It will be entirely up to them what they do with the info.

I will also start threads at a few places that attract knowledgeable audiences and individuals that are relevant to the industry.

Harrison claim to have created a virtual analogue mixing desk with their "proprietary" technology. They have done no such thing. They have fused a plug-in with an open-source DAW and need to be honest about it.

Tui's on a mission! Free the world from the lies Harrison is spreading. He's bored, has no time, yet can spare the hours it takes to write each individual company and post on different forums the fact that Harrison said their DAW is the next best thing and he did a null test and they nulled out.

All in the name of saving poor folks $80 bucks before getting duped, because they're being lied to! Mixbus is a sham! It could really be a plugin! It doesn't sum any different than Garageband!

An $80 dollar plugin that has a good EQ, a great tape sat, a limiter, and a compressor. And a cool workflow for some people. I'm sorry, what's the problem again? A company lied to you because you believed their spin and hype in order to sell a product? Hi, welcome to the world of audio companies. There's a lot of spin of there, you're going to start calling BS with Mixbus? The company that actually is putting out one of my favorite deals of the year? Come on man... Start with some company like Beringer that blatenty rips off other co and sells it as the new great thing. Or Logic copying ProTools. Or ProTools copying Logic.

So in other news... When's MB 1.3 coming out? Each version update has been very cool and very welcomed. But a more streamlined way to get external controllers (i.e Faderport) up and running would be stellar.

[Coyoteous]

Of course, -96 is at the 16 bit level. If it is dither, I don't think I would want that. OTOH, maybe it's an analog electronics noise simulation, though tape noise would generally be some 30 dB higher than that.

I have played around with the injection of gained-up 16 bit TPDF to simulate analog electronics and tape noise. It works, but it's also, no surprise here... noisy.

Anybody remember the old Digi dithered mixer plug-in vs. un-dithered on TDM systems. Surely that's not the flaw Harrison is on about. I believe that was dither a a 24 bit level.

Historically, there is a good case for that controversy having spawned analog DAW summing. Anyway, is dither/noise the "special sauce," or uh, "secret signal routing?" I'm starting not to care.

[PascalC]

Sent to admin now it's enough

[Seablade]

Originally Posted by Kenton

By his definition, Tui is correct - there is a small difference (-96dB) between the digital addition in MixBus and the digital addition in Logic. When listened to it sounds like the original audio, so I would guess that the difference is due to very slight differences in scaling factors and dithering.

Scaling factor is the most likely suspect from your description. Though if you ran them all at 0dB one would hope think that scaling would not come into play there.

To achieve a better null would require being able to adjust level in 0.0001dB steps or smaller.
This needs corroboration though.

While I don't think you can go to that level, if you double click in the box above the fader in mixbus, you can type in more precise values.

And the upshot of all this?
You may well be able to use MixBus channels as inserts in Logic tracks and then bussing your Logic output stems back into MixBus to get the benefit of the Sat sections - and still retain the Harrison sound.
You won't get all the benefits of the whole MixBus package but the improved sonics from dithering, pan tweaks, gain staging & Sat etc. should be largely retained (if I'm correct).

You are correct, and this is exactly what people have been doing for some time. As I tried to explain earlier, the signal flow path for reading a file off disk vs routing it into Mixbus via Jack is nearly identical. In fact the only thing different is the first step, which should really make no difference. As a result you could do either, import or route via Jack. Some have decided they prefer the route method vs exporting and either dither or losing resolution from some DAWs I have been told, though haven't ever looked into it. In all honesty I would probably export and re-import myself, if I didn't just work in Mixbus cause it is easier for my work.

Seablade

[Seablade]

Originally Posted by Coyoteous

Of course, -96 is at the 16 bit level. If it is dither, I don't think I would want that. OTOH, maybe it's an analog electronics noise simulation, though tape noise would generally be some 30 dB higher than that.

I don't believe there is any such noise simulation to be honest. I would be willing to bet the difference there comes entirely down to a slight level difference is my bet.

I have played around with the injection of gained-up 16 bit TPDF to simulate analog electronics and tape noise. It works, but it's also, no surprise here... noisy.

Yea can't say that would be something I would do in my work, but for some people that want to play with sound creation, more power to them.

Anybody remember the old Digi dithered mixer plug-in vs. un-dithered on TDM systems. Surely that's not the flaw Harrison is on about. I believe that was dither a a 24 bit level.

Actually I would bet that is likely one of the issues Harrison may have been thinking of. But as I said earlier I really don't know, and the list is from across a wide range of DAWs, so it may or may not be. It certainly isn't the only issue that has come up over the years that digital audio has picked up.

Historically, there is a good case for that controversy having spawned analog DAW summing. Anyway, is dither/noise the "special sauce," or uh, "secret signal routing?" I'm starting not to care.

Honestly, I would say it is a good thing to not care myself More correctly I think caring is valid, but working in it, determining if it produces the sound you want and as conducive to your work should be the most important thing. How it produces that should be secondary unless you are trying to copy it elsewhere to me.

All this being said, I believe proper dither is part of what does mean I enjoy working in Mixbus myself. But it certainly isn't the only ingredient.

Seablade

[Pale Pyramid]

C'mon guys .

Tha' dudes just stating his position.he's done quite a bit of research on his end and has posted his findings in detail . Sea blade returns with his own research to validate his findings. it's a civil tone between the two as they debate this.

I'm 100% switzerland on this .

But... think about the UAD vs Waves camps or the DAW wars that people have hear on GS that really turn into childish name calling or graffitti posts that nastily condemn something without giving a single reason that product is bogus. It can get ugly . The spirit of community is not remembered by these types of posters.

Tui is quite fiery , perhaps evangelical (there are no GS rules stating you can't be so) , but he makes logical and compelling statements . He's not just urinating on this thread .

Your allowed to have heated discussions on GS as long as there is reason involved .

Also , you all seem to enjoy Harrison's Mixbus and the mixes your posting sound it to.

This isn't going to change for you. Your all free to post whatever in the midst of this discussion without involving yourselves. i really like to read about your positive mixbus experiences like your discoveries made about workflow, perceived spatial depth, quicker mixes etc.

perhaps that would change the focus of the thread at this time..

i'm just saying their is a place for the negative as well as the positive as long as it's truly debatable . He may not be any ones favorite but so far Tui has kept it so .

[TeleJuan]

I wonder how many song could've been written, recorded and mixed with the time spent testing and typing on this thread...

[Ol' Betsey]

Originally Posted by Kenton

And the upshot of all this?
You may well be able to use MixBus channels as inserts in Logic tracks and then bussing your Logic output stems back into MixBus to get the benefit of the Sat sections - and still retain the Harrison sound.
You won't get all the benefits of the whole MixBus package but the improved sonics from dithering, pan tweaks, gain staging & Sat etc. should be largely retained (if I'm correct).

Of course, you shouldn't take my word for it... Peer review please.

Originally Posted by Seablade

You are correct, and this is exactly what people have been doing for some time. As I tried to explain earlier, the signal flow path for reading a file off disk vs routing it into Mixbus via Jack is nearly identical. In fact the only thing different is the first step, which should really make no difference. As a result you could do either, import or route via Jack. Some have decided they prefer the route method vs exporting and either dither or losing resolution from some DAWs I have been told, though haven't ever looked into it. In all honesty I would probably export and re-import myself, if I didn't just work in Mixbus cause it is easier for my work.

I'm confused... Am I wrong or have you guys just agreed on the fact that Mixbus can be used as a plugin on individual channels in Logic (as an insert) and get the same results?

R.

[Seablade]

Originally Posted by Ol' Betsey

I'm confused... Am I wrong or have you guys just agreed on the fact that Mixbus can be used as a plugin on individual channels in Logic (as an insert) and get the same results?

R.

You misunderstood, or I am misunderstanding your question

The closest you can really do is exactly what people are doing, which is essentially route outside of the DAW into Mixbus, and use Mixbus for the mixing portion.

But implementing Mixbus itself as a plugin however wouldn't work as I explained earlier.

Seablade

[Kenton]

Originally Posted by Ol' Betsey

I'm confused... Am I wrong or have you guys just agreed on the fact that Mixbus can be used as a plugin on individual channels in Logic (as an insert) and get the same results?

R.

I'm going for a "maybe" - the way I'm going to try it is by using the I/O plugin in Logic to route audio to and from individual MixBus channel strips, disconnect the channel strips from the master bus and MixBuses, then mix everything to 5 stems (Master, MixBus1, 2, 3 & 4) in Logic and route those back to MixBus on buses for final summing.
I can't see why that wouldn't work and produce a couple of functional benefits. I've set up a template already.
However, I don't know what downsides there might be apart from more complex routing and loss of some functionality.

Not exactly an elegant way of carrying on but it might be worth trying - as long as "the Harrison sound" isn't lost.

Nothing proved, no conclusions drawn, just conjecture.

[Seablade]

Originally Posted by Kenton

I'm going for a "maybe" - the way I'm going to try it is by using the I/O plugin in Logic to route audio to and from individual MixBus channel strips, disconnect the channel strips from the master bus and MixBuses, then mix everything to 5 stems (Master, MixBus1, 2, 3 & 4) in Logic and route those back to MixBus on buses for final summing.
I can't see why that wouldn't work and produce a couple of functional benefits. I've set up a template already.
However, I don't know what downsides there might be apart from more complex routing and loss of some functionality.

Actually that wouldn't quite work like you might think IIRC. Routing in via Jack directly to the Mixbus itself I believe bypasses some of the DSP. I remember having a conversation with Ben about this some time ago about this, but I don't remember all the details. If that is what you were referring to, then I misunderstood your original post, sorry about that.

Seablade

[Kenton]

Originally Posted by Seablade

Actually that wouldn't quite work like you might think. Routing in via Jack directly to the Mixbus itself I believe bypasses some of the DSP. I remember having a conversation with Ben about this some time ago about this, but I don't remember all the details. If that is what you were referring to, then I misunderstood your original post, sorry about that.

Seablade

I think you're correct - you would have to create 5 stereo (Ardour?) buses in MixBus and route the stems to THEM then route the output of THOSE buses to the Harrison DSP Buses.
That's the plan anyway.
I don't think you can "Jack" into the Harrison MixBuses directly from Logic.

[Seablade]

Originally Posted by Kenton

I think you're correct - you would have to create 5 stereo (Ardour?) buses in MixBus and route the stems to THEM then route the output of THOSE buses to the Harrison DSP Buses.
That's the plan anyway.
I don't think you can "Jack" into the Harrison MixBuses directly from Logic.

Ok so let me ask, what is the benefit of going back and forth repeatedly from Logic like this, assuming it works like you want(And from your description I think it will), vs just letting Mixbus do the summing instead?

Seablade

[slammy80]

Originally Posted by shmoo2407

I'm sorry, what's the problem again? A company lied to you because you believed their spin and hype in order to sell a product? Hi, welcome to the world of audio companies. There's a lot of spin of there, you're going to start calling BS with Mixbus?

From my standpoint, and the standpoint of other engineers in the field which I know and have discussed this with, the problem is exactly what you've described: a company (Harrison) has lied about what their product actually is, created a hype about it, and when called on it numerous times has backed itself into a corner of repeating that same "hype" and "spin".

It is very unprofessional.

And in this business, will likely cause them to lose quite a bit of high-end business.

But of course, they may be transitioning to low-end consumer products and if this is the case, then no harm/no foul. In the case of not, well the worst thing a professional company can do is to "hype" or "spin" a product's abilities because it calls into question everything about that company's ethic. In the case of Harrison, there are plenty of console makers on par and better than they - and most professional engineers will remember the "mixbus" debacle as when they began to lose (or lost completely) respect for a certain company. Sad, but true.

[spok]

Originally Posted by slammy80

And in this business, will likely cause them to lose quite a bit of high-end business.

Yeah. You name it: All the companies considering to buy a 1.5million Harrison will think about it twice now - now that some trolls "found out" that Harrison's $80,- software does the same as $500,- Logic or $20000 Pro Tools...

Originally Posted by slammy80

But of course, they may be transitioning to low-end consumer products and if this is the case, then no harm/no foul.

Originally Posted by slammy80

In the case of Harrison, there are plenty of console makers on par and better than they (...)

Name but one of the "plenty"... so far I've encountered just one (on par - not "better").

Originally Posted by slammy80

(...) and most professional engineers will remember the "mixbus" debacle as when they began to lose (or lost completely) respect for a certain company. Sad, but true.

Most "professional engineers" don't waste their time by reading ridiculous threads when they're hijacked by jerks doing null tests - they'd rather sit in front of their gear and use their ears.

[Kenton]

Originally Posted by Seablade

Ok so let me ask, what is the benefit of going back and forth repeatedly from Logic like this, assuming it works like you want(And from your description I think it will), vs just letting Mixbus do the summing instead?

Seablade

Fair question.

With our way of working there are three main advantages:

Firstly, it allows me to use Logic's automation AFTER the MixBus channel strip compressor - up to now I'd automate fader levels in Logic and then I'd get the MixBus channel compressor fighting that.

Secondly it allows me to use Logic's Aux sends (to reverb etc.) Post Fader with respect to MixBus EQ & Compressor. Otherwise Logic's sends are Pre-EQ, Pre Fader which is not ideal. While you CAN route audio back into Logic from MixBus to access Logic's reverbs and delays, the latency through Jack makes this impracticable.

Thirdly, if you're streaming audio in from Logic to MixBus, PDC for my UAD plugins in MixBus doesn't work - it works beautifully on audio running WITHIN MixBus but not on audio being streamed into it. This is no surprise as it's technically impossible to do and no fault of anyone's. But this also relates back to point no 2 regarding where in the signal chain you tap in to in order to send to your parallel effects.

We like to stay in Logic as long as possible as we make tweaks to our VSTi's during the mix process. We also like our Logic reverbs and delays.
We could lock MixBus to Logic using MTC and automate in MixBus - that would address point 1 - but my Alphatrack Faderport doesn't seem to want to work properly with with MixBus at the moment.

The other solution would be to bounce everything to audio and mix within MixBus entirely but that precludes the use of our favourite Logic FX and usually pins us down too early - for us, the line between tracking and mixing is virtually non-existent.

I'm sure that there will be unforeseen downsides to my suggested routing scheme too.

[Kenton]

Originally Posted by slammy80

From my standpoint, and the standpoint of other engineers in the field which I know and have discussed this with, the problem is exactly what you've described: a company (Harrison) has lied about what their product actually is, created a hype about it, and when called on it numerous times has backed itself into a corner of repeating that same "hype" and "spin".

Just to make sure, I went back and looked at Harrison's web page.
I can find nothing that I would call untrue.

There is one word that we could quibble over regarding it's definition but everything else seems reasonable to me.

I have to wonder what evidence your standpoint is based on?

(I do find this statement a little sad - you actually discuss this with other engineers? And they're interested? In my experience that seems unlikely...)

[dougb415]

Originally Posted by slammy80

In the case of Harrison, there are plenty of console makers on par and better than they - and most professional engineers will remember the "mixbus" debacle as when they began to lose (or lost completely) respect for a certain company. Sad, but true.

Thanks for the first laugh of the day!