The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Mixbus vs 32c Audio Interfaces
Old 10th November 2017
  #1
Gear Guru
 
jwh1192's Avatar
Mixbus vs 32c

Mixbus vs 32c .. any thoughts ??? i have had mixbus since it came out .. deciding oon the 32c but would love to hear some real world thoughts form you Cats !!!

thank you in advance .. john
Old 11th November 2017
  #2
A lot of the extra costs are those plug ins which are meh. I like my third party plug ins much better.
Old 11th November 2017
  #3
Gear Guru
 
jwh1192's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason rocks View Post
A lot of the extra costs are those plug ins which are meh. I like my third party plug ins much better.
any thoughts sound wise .. are they pretty much identical in that regard ??? or ???

more BUsses, etc .. ??
Old 12th November 2017
  #4
Gear Addict
I use MixBuss 4 as a summing mixer. Mix things in Logic Pro X to busses, print the busses and export for MixBuss. Kind of fun and helps my brain a bit.
Note that I have a local studio with a very nice Neve 5060 in the B room. I can bring my stems to the studio and make some very nice mixes.

Doing the first passes in Logic gets things organized, then MixBuss to narrow it all down to actual audio...

I treat MixBuss as control software, so it works great and gives me a better feel for using the Neve.
Old 12th November 2017
  #5
I'm using v4 standard Mixbus for mixing down/summing projects from stems prepped in Reason; I did try tracking projects in Mixbus but the latency was a bit funky especially with the Harrison plug-ins (which weren't self-reporting latency...at least back then).

I have a few of their plug-ins and they sound great but there's a lot more great 3rd-party ones too.

When/if I get time I'd like to try the 32C Mixbus and it seems good value as an upgrade. I originally tried Mixbus as an alternative to Reasons (SSL-style) summing/mixer but currently I'm summing OTB via RADAR Studio so I have less need for Mixbus.
Old 13th November 2017
  #6
Haven't used the "standard" Mixbus once since I got 32c. You get the sensational sounding full 32c channel strip with 4 bands of EQ and Hi AND Lp filters on every channel as well as four busses more. For me that was the step up needed to mix projects exclusively in Mixbus. Don't know what all the talk about the Harrison plugs is about, there aren't any more (so basically none) included in 32c, so use whatever you like.
Old 13th November 2017
  #7
There's a range of Harrison plug-ins but AFAIK they are limited to use with Mixbus; I have a few and they sound great but take a while to suss out.
Harrison Consoles Direct Online Store: Mixbus Plug-ins
Old 13th November 2017
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
There's a range of Harrison plug-ins but AFAIK they are limited to use with Mixbus; I have a few and they sound great but take a while to suss out.
Harrison Consoles Direct Online Store: Mixbus Plug-ins
That's correct, they just had an everything bundle sale. I got the reverb and delay back then and use them on a project-to-project basis. They look **** but do sound good. Like the "rock echo" preset on the delay. They are in LV2 format, so not usable in other DAWs based on VST or AAX or AU.
Old 13th November 2017
  #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSchlomo View Post
That's correct, they just had an everything bundle sale. I got the reverb and delay back then and use them on a project-to-project basis. They look **** but do sound good. Like the "rock echo" preset on the delay. They are in LV2 format, so not usable in other DAWs based on VST or AAX or AU.
Yes, the interface is a bit funky, lol. The reverb is very nice - a 'poor man's Bricasti.' I also like the bass and vocal enhancer but there's big latency on it; need some time to suss it out. I quite like the Ardour DAW too, good workflow.
I'm definitely going to try the 32C - they keep making offers I can't refuse.
Old 13th November 2017
  #10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Yes, the interface is a bit funky, lol. The reverb is very nice - a 'poor man's Bricasti.' I also like the bass and vocal enhancer but there's big latency on it; need some time to suss it out. I quite like the Ardour DAW too, good workflow.
I'm definitely going to try the 32C - they keep making offers I can't refuse.
Go for it, if you like the regular Mixbus you won't ever look back!
Old 15th November 2017
  #11
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Yes, the interface is a bit funky, lol. The reverb is very nice - a 'poor man's Bricasti.' I also like the bass and vocal enhancer but there's big latency on it; need some time to suss it out. I quite like the Ardour DAW too, good workflow.
I'm definitely going to try the 32C - they keep making offers I can't refuse.
I like the reverb also the tight bright one I use a lot in conjunction with Valhalla VVV. I also like the Multiband comp to clean up bass. Seems to really focus the sound, not sure why, maybe the crossovers? Anyway, I have the delay and eq which seem to be useful, but a shame are self contained. I can't use 32c since I work on a laptop. Love the flow though although the GUI drives me crazy with the track naming being tiny.... Really stupid in an otherwise very cool package....
Old 16th November 2017
  #12
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardis View Post
I like the reverb also the tight bright one I use a lot in conjunction with Valhalla VVV. I also like the Multiband comp to clean up bass. Seems to really focus the sound, not sure why, maybe the crossovers? Anyway, I have the delay and eq which seem to be useful, but a shame are self contained. I can't use 32c since I work on a laptop. Love the flow though although the GUI drives me crazy with the track naming being tiny.... Really stupid in an otherwise very cool package....

You can increase the font size in the preferences, however the name strip stays the same size unfortunately.
Old 17th November 2017
  #13
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha Trion View Post
You can increase the font size in the preferences, however the name strip stays the same size unfortunately.
Yeah I hate that! That's so important. The plug in names are larger and that makes NO sense. I work on a laptop so really really bad design. I can't believe the don't take it more seriously.

I could care less about the "mixer realistic" GUI. I actually liked the old gray one more. The tiny knobs and track names are really badly designed. You'd think Harrison would be all over functionality, a major fail. Even a functionality like the simple Valhalla model would be a tremendous improvement! Ben are you listening?
Old 17th November 2017
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardis View Post
Yeah I hate that! That's so important. The plug in names are larger and that makes NO sense. I work on a laptop so really really bad design. I can't believe the don't take it more seriously.

I could care less about the "mixer realistic" GUI. I actually liked the old gray one more. The tiny knobs and track names are really badly designed. You'd think Harrison would be all over functionality, a major fail. Even a functionality like the simple Valhalla model would be a tremendous improvement! Ben are you listening?
I think the mixer realistic GUI is one of the main selling points, that's why they suggest a resolution of at least 1200px height. I can understand and like that, however you're right that it should somehow work on a laptop also as that's where a lot of people work on these days.
Old 29th November 2017
  #15
Gear Nut
 
zukan's Avatar
 

The 32C sounds lovely, especially if you engage the Limiter and slam that threshold on each and every channel.

We reviewed the mixbus last month in the magazine but I am about to write a review specific to the 32C.

Current shortcomings are:

Scaling of the mixer GUI puts the controls over the screen. If you don't scale this you can barely see the eq and send knobs.

Insert tree should be a floating dock otherwise it's for hawks only at the moment.

Few crashes experienced but alleviated when a reinstall of the software was done with all antivirus, malware etc software disengaged.

Plugins are good but not competitive with third party plugs.

Better navigation required when editing audio.

Timeline editing is a real hassle as all markers, loop points etc are squeezed on one nonadjustable window.

Limited audio and midi editing but the software never claimed to be a fully fledged DAW.

No floating docks.

No resizing of docks.

I am still conducting tests but will say this: it is gorgeous and if the niggles are sorted out it will take some rethinking by the big boys to compete with it. In terms of how it sounds, it is in a league of its own..
Old 9th December 2017
  #16
Lives for gear
 
robot gigante's Avatar
AFAIK the only difference between 32c and standard Mixbus is the EQ. The rest is the same. The EQ in the standard version works fine for me, so, that's what I'm rolling with.

I like Harrison's paid plugins a lot, actually. The ones that come with Mixbus are the standard Ardour set, which are so-so, and demos of Harrison's plugins. Harrison's plugins sound excellent and just work, especially when nothing else does. Fact, I don't think most 3rd party sets compare at all. They are LV2, which is a plugin standard for Linux, so you need a host that can run LV2 to use them in another DAW. I dunno, I don't like bloated plugins that have a million features but not usable sound so much, these are generally the opposite.

Have been running MB since V1. It feels like it is really coming into its own and maturing now on all fronts.
Old 9th December 2017
  #17
Lives for gear
 
bgood's Avatar
How is CPU on either if the harrison daws? Also, is it equipped with an easy way to patch in outboard comps, etc?
Old 9th December 2017
  #18
Lives for gear
 

@ bgood :

Mixbus uses significantly more CPU than a typical DAW, because we are emulating the behavior of a console. If you turn on an EQ for a channelstrip, it doesn't affect the cpu usage, because that dsp has already been allocated.

Every track and mixbus bus can have "insert points" in addition to plugins. An "insert" has connections to go out to a physical device and back in, through your I/O device. These can be "pinged" to measure the delay, and then latency-compensated like a regular plugin.

I hope this answers your questions!
-Ben at Harrison
Old 9th December 2017
  #19
Just to add, those hardware inserts are really easy to set up and work well and reliably.

One thing to note though is that you can't drag your hardware inserts around. In Cubase e.g. you can drag your hardware inserts from a track to another track (like a aplugin). This is NOT possible in Mixbus. If you wanna have your hardware on a different track, you'd have to delete the insert on the current track and create it again on the new one. Workaroudn for me is to have audio tracks with my hardware in the template, decide which tracks need what and pulling the audio to that track accordingly.

CPU usage is higher, as Ben said, but far from problematic. As long as you don't run 200 tracks, I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robot gigante View Post
AFAIK the only difference between 32c and standard Mixbus is the EQ. The rest is the same.
It's been said many times in this and other threads: The difference is the EQ AND 12 instead of 8 busses which I find very important!
Old 10th December 2017
  #20
Gear Guru
 
jwh1192's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSchlomo View Post
Just to add, those hardware inserst are really easy to set up and work well and reliably.

One thing to note though is that you can't drag your hardware inserts around. In Cubase e.g. you can drag your hardware inserts from a track to another track (like a aplugin). This is NOT possible in Mixbus. If you wanna have your hardware on a different track, you'd have to delete the insert on the current track and create it again on the new one. Workaroudn for me is to have audio tracks with my hardware in the template, decide which tracks need what and pulling the audio to that track accordingly.

CPU usage is higher, as Ben said, but far from problematic. As long as you don't run 200 tracks, I guess.



It's been said many times in this and other threads: The difference is the EQ AND 12 instead of 8 busses which I find very important!
thank you all !!
Old 13th December 2017
  #21
Lives for gear
 

Like the impetuous fool that I am I recently went straight to 32c from MB3 and discovered after the fact that on my 2 32inch screens I cant read the text on certain elements of the mixer panels no matter what I do with settings.
However, those lovely people at Harrisons have kindly let me retrograde to MB4 (which I can read) with the option to go back to 32c as and when I can afford a higher dpi monitor than my 1920x1200s.

Frustrating but at least I wont have to buy it twice!
Thanks Harrison guys!
Old 13th December 2017
  #22
I'm running a single 1920x1080 at home at the moment and although it's far from ideal I can read everything. In 32c v4 that is.
Old 13th December 2017
  #23
Have not yet gotten over the Mixbus version 2 that I paid for which never worked reliably on Windows, still waiting for my free upgrade to a more recent version that works.

The only music software I ever bought that did not work as marketed. Regret buying. At the time, there was no trial version to test before we buy, so its only fair for Harrison to do the right thing and give the guinea pigs who invested in their business but got no stable outcome from our investment (who helped fund development of later versions) a cost free upgrade - for our generosity.

I have raised this need to do the right thing with Ben in the past - maybe he will have a rethink, after reading this.
Old 14th December 2017
  #24
Deleted efff87a
Guest
Overall I like (and use) 32Cv4 better than v4 for the above mentioned reasons (EQ and 12 mixbuses). But both sound extremely good.

Per the Harrison plugins, I’m on the fence about them due to price and lack of AU or VST compatibility. I did pick up the Reverb and Delay plugs a while back whenever I bought v4 as they were discounted at the checkout but the only other plugs that seem tempting are the Character plugs. To be honest I’ve got so many other 3rd-party plugins in my quiver as it is and I’d rather put future $$ towards plugs that are cross-compatible with the rest of my DAWs. Not sure the Harrison plugs merit the asking price, at least for my usage. They do sound good but so do a lot of other plugs.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump