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
Harrison Mixbus Reviews DAW Software
Old 25th November 2009
  #61
Nrt
Lives for gear
 

I am very impressed with its sound and idea.

The real strength of Mixbus is "we don't have a choice", like 70's recording studio. Even I don't like the sound of Mixbus, I can't change it. And less choice makes my music more focused.

Nowadays, everyone is doing like Waves Neve on guitar track, API of bass, UAD for vocals, etc. and this kind of POSTMODERN mix is actually sounds just scattered when mixed with transparent bus, even each track sounds great. On the other hand, Mixbus makes music more unified, and it is great for musicians and not-so great mix engineers who doesn't have super skill to unify different sounding source materials.

Actually, even top engineers rely on the color of the console, That's why they prefer colored console like API, NEVE. SSL G.... Many who looking at CLA's rack would think CLA sounds great because he uses a lot of gear, but actually CLA sounds great because he relies on SSL. If SSL or API makes something like Harrison MIXBUS, it will be huge hit.

I think the worst current gear trend is 500 series rack with a lot of different mic pre, comp, EQ etc. This trend maybe good for Vintage King, but not good for actual music producing. Too many choices not only slows down the production speed but also makes final product less focused.
Old 25th November 2009
  #62
Registered User
 

Well, I am testing and working with HMB for about a month now, and mixed 3 commercial projects with it so far

While I really like the overall sound of MB, I had big trouble with frozen GUIs and crashes.

I reported my findings to Harrison and got immediate response. So the Harrison support is really top notch. I have the feeling they really try to make MB work.

Am I getting tired of the sound as someone mentioned before? No, I think HMB is not THE solution and the salvation of all our ITB problems. It will be another tool in the toolkit.

I think emulating a mixing desk will be the future, since a somehow enclosed system will be less vulnerable for digital errors than stacks of 3rd party plugins.

As far as I know, until now, the only other company who has also perused the idea of a full mixing desk emulation was Propellerheads with their RECORD release. I am testing RECORD right now and I have to say, sound wise I prefer it even over HMB. Their SSL 9000K emulation and the master buss compression is impressive. And the program is rock solid! Maybe it's worth mentioning that I am not affiliated with Propellerheads in any way.

If there is anybody here who tested both programs, I think it would be great to hear some opinions since HMB and RECORD are the only to products based on the same concept.

Anyway I started another thread "Harrison Mixbus vs Propellerheads RECORD" on GS.

Bottom line: If Harrison is able to fix the bugs it's a great tool to work with.
Old 25th November 2009
  #63
Gear Addict
 

To anyone that has experienced bugs, make certain you report them to Harrison via the email in your documentation you got with Mixbus. They really are fixing them believe me, and 1.1 will have many fixed(Probably not all due to time constraints only), but if they don't get reported they can't be fixed. All I will say on this but feel free to get in touch with me if you have questions, I can usually be found on IRC though will be out for a lot of the latter part of this week.

In as far as documentation...

I know of two seperate projects to write documentation for Ardour, which a lot of that will be very similar to Mixbus. I also know of one book being written and published on the same topic, and I know of a few other things I can't speak of at this moment. There are some decent Vimeo videos that cover the basics of editing in Ardour someone found, I have posted links to them either in this thread or one of the few others I post in. But documentation is coming thankfully

Sorry about the Ardour website. That was a seperate issue with the webhost hosting it, and lots of things going wrong at the same time. Seems to be back up right now.

In as far as tape vs regular tracks.... You are slightly misunderstanding

There is no difference in the sound of a tape track vs a regular track. What a tape track is, is one of the VERY few places you will find destructive recording in Ardour. It is designed primarily for Film post, and was developed with sponsorship by Harrison in Ardour some time ago for this purpose since a lot of their clients deal with this. It is a track that will always reflect a single file on disk. Meaning if you record into this track, there is a file on disc that exactly reflects the state of audio in this track(Obviously if you put additional plugins on it it won't reflect that, it is intended for a destination, not processing really is what I understand). If you record multiple takes on this track, each take on the same area of track will overwrite the previous. So it acts like recording to a two track tape machine, but isn't intended to sound any different from any other track in Mixbus.

It can be very useful for LONG and LARGE projects, where you might bounce everything to a tape track once, and then update sections of it as you work to keep from having to re-export for hours every time.

All this being said, for most people a regular track will probably be what they want and a tape track will probably be the exception to the rule.

Seablade
Old 25th November 2009
  #64
Lives for gear
 
Kenton's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsBot View Post
It sounds good initially and that's mainly due to the huge built-in amount of saturation and added harmonics on each input channel in Mixbus along with some roll off of high frequencies. This happens to every channel even if you run it without EQ, Comp or Tape saturation. I can achieve this basic sound in Logic with the following chain: CL-1B, TCelectronics Brickwall Limiter set to soft saturation, VTAPE, EQ with a roll off at about 15K.
Just to find out if there was any saturation going on in the channel strips, I performed a null test streaming a signal out of Logic into a Mixbus channel (flat and at 0dB) - then back into Logic directly out of the channel strip.
After adjusting for latency and a 7.63dB level difference, they almost nulled - the difference was in the lowest 10 bits of 24, so I reckon that the differences are 84dB down and that might be down to my being unable to adjust level finer than one hundredth of a decibel...
There seemed to be no high frequency roll off either - flat from 20 - 20k.

Of course my methodology might be flawed...

K.
Old 25th November 2009
  #65
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenton View Post
Just to find out if there was any saturation going on in the channel strips, I performed a null test streaming a signal out of Logic into a Mixbus channel (flat and at 0dB) - then back into Logic directly out of the channel strip.
After adjusting for latency and a 7.63dB level difference, they almost nulled - the difference was in the lowest 10 bits of 24, so I reckon that the differences are 84dB down and that might be down to my being unable to adjust level finer than one hundredth of a decibel...
There seemed to be no high frequency roll off either - flat from 20 - 20k.

Of course my methodology might be flawed...

K.
I guess I'll have to try a null test to see if I can verify your results. But people are talking about hearing a very different sound when they compare tracks playing in MixBus with the same tracks playing in another DAW. Most people hear this difference as a type of compression or saturation and enjoy this sound because they don't have to put all the plug-ins on a track to get there. I just don't see how these could null. If they do, then maybe we've finally found "proof" that a null test doesn't explain everything about audio :D

And the few people who have tried to null mixes were not able to make them null. The sound of an instrument playing through Logic with no plugs and everything set to zero is radically different to me from the same track playing through Mixbus with no plug-ins and everything set to zero. And I'm talking about just assigning the channel output directly to the soundcard so that I'm bypassing the Master bus in Mixbus.
Old 25th November 2009
  #66
Lives for gear
 
robot gigante's Avatar
You can't turn the tape saturation all the way off on the busses right now, so for less, again you would want to gainstage your mix at lower levels and gain it up with the master fader.

But I disagree that the only difference with Mixbus is the saturation.

One major thing that jumps out at you right away is also the imaging, it's better.

This gives you more space to work with which is pretty much the opposite effect that I get when I use a lot of saturation plugins. YMMV.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dawhead View Post
one of the reasons for mixbus being "as it is" is based on having a clear understanding of the way that a plugin architecture forces you to play mostly on the edges of whatever mix/audio engine is provided by the DAW. because of Ardour's open source development model, it was possible for harrison to add their DSP in a way that is much more integrated into the overall "engine", because they were free to modify the code that does this, rather than just sit "in the flow" as a plugin. and of course, other companies could do the same thing in the future if they chose to.
Obviously they didn't just slap a little emulated tape sat on every channel and call it a day.

Last edited by robot gigante; 25th November 2009 at 10:47 PM.. Reason: added quote & comment
Old 26th November 2009
  #67
Gear Addict
 
tysonviolin's Avatar
 

I agree Robot- I bumped some tracks into Mixbus that I had previously mixed in Logic and right off the bat I noticed that I could hear right through all the sound. The only way I can describe it is that I could hear the back of the mix. To my ears the dimension and space increased.
Old 27th November 2009
  #68
Gear Head
 

Slightly OT, but I was wondering if there are issues running HMB with 10.6.

I'm SO close to pulling the trigger on this one. Just what the doctor ordered.
Old 28th November 2009
  #69
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxpower View Post
Slightly OT, but I was wondering if there are issues running HMB with 10.6.

I'm SO close to pulling the trigger on this one. Just what the doctor ordered.
It is not support yet on 10.6, but my _guess_ is you will see it become supported shortly.

Seablade
Old 28th November 2009
  #70
Gear Addict
 
tysonviolin's Avatar
 

I'm running mixbus with 10.6
Jack for 10.6 came out this week.
Old 30th November 2009
  #71
Lives for gear
Hey SeaBlade,

You seem to be the guru on Mixbus. I originally posted that I liked the saturation but was somewhat unsure about Mixbus's high end. I found out that it was actually Mixbus's EQs that I didn't like (though I know a lot of people do). Now that I'm using other EQ from AU plugs I'm really starting to enjoy the whole Mixbus sound like everybody else.

But what's up with the processor/latency issues!!?? When I'm running Jack in a very minimal mode 2in 2out, Mixbus is generating a 70% CPU hit with 36 tracks at 48kHz. This seems really excessive. Mixbus seems to be publishing all the ins and outs for every track to Jack which also shows the 70% CPU hit. Does anybody know how to reduce this? I set this file up running Jack, and when I try to open it with Jack turned off and Mixbus addressing the soundcard directly, the file won't open. Maybe I should have started this file without Jack running.

So I opened the processor palette on my 8 core Intel Mac and it looks like Mixbus is only using one CPU at any one time. Sometimes the processing load moves from one CPU to the other, but it never gets distributed to more than one. I've got Jack and Mixbus latency on 1024 which is the max for MOTU Traveler sound card.

Is Mixbus multi-processor aware? When I add one instance of mPressor plug-in it uses 5% of CPU! That would be in line with Mixbus only using one CPU. In Logic the addition of this plug-in doesn't impact CPU whatsoever.

Any thoughts on this? Damn, I'm back to managing every last bit of CPU. I thought those days were gone.
Old 2nd December 2009
  #72
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsBot View Post
Hey SeaBlade,

You seem to be the guru on Mixbus.
Seablade is a heavy user and all around super great guy. I'm one of the ones with my head firmly In The Box, so to speak, though on the Ardour side rather than the Mixbus DSP side.

Quote:
But what's up with the processor/latency issues!!?? When I'm running Jack in a very minimal mode 2in 2out, Mixbus is generating a 70% CPU hit with 36 tracks at 48kHz. This seems really excessive.
70% is too high for that track count on your system. Write Harrison support (the email shown in your download email) and they will try to get it sorted out.

Nevertheless, the goal of Mixbus was not to maximize the track count. The goal was to implement a DAW mixer the "right way". In large Harrison consoles, there are normally 40+ AMD Opteron cores to implement the DSP processing. It is not surprising that your desktop is struggling to run their mixer code

Quote:
Mixbus seems to be publishing all the ins and outs for every track to Jack which also shows the 70% CPU hit.
the CPU load does not come from JACK. And yes, Mixbus publishes all track & bus I/O's because thats a fundamental part of its its open design - connect anything to anything, including other applications, hardware, the network etc. This does not cost anything in terms of measurable CPU load. If you use Apple's Shark tool, you will get a much better idea of where the costs are, but the results are really only intended for a developer, so I'm not recommending it. The main theme is that its in the GUI. This might improve in future versions (not in 1.1, however).

Quote:
Does anybody know how to reduce this? I set this file up running Jack, and when I try to open it with Jack turned off and Mixbus addressing the soundcard directly, the file won't open. Maybe I should have started this file without Jack running.
Mixbus never runs without JACK. Whether you start JACK before running Mixbus or have Mixbus start JACK for you sould make no difference (assuming that you use the same parameters).

Quote:
So I opened the processor palette on my 8 core Intel Mac and it looks like Mixbus is only using one CPU at any one time. Sometimes the processing load moves from one CPU to the other, but it never gets distributed to more than one. I've got Jack and Mixbus latency on 1024 which is the max for MOTU Traveler sound card.
Mixbus shares its internal threading design with Ardour. This design was originated back in the days (that last until about 18 months ago) when dual core systems were relatively rare, and was intended to keep the user interface and other control systems functional in the face of heavy DSP load. People sometimes insist that they want the DSP to use "all available cycles" but when they find that the GUI slows to a crawl, they are not so happy. So, Ardour is capable of using up to about 3 or 4 processors right now, but puts all DSP code in 1 thread (and thus it runs on just 1 processor). This leaves the others free to keep the GUI smooth, disk I/O flowing, MIDI control working without lots of jitter and lag, etc. etc.

Another way to look at this is that the main DSP path is single-threaded because this gives us the most reliable performance at extremely low latencies. The other Harrison DAW, the Xdubber (another Ardour offshoot), runs Jack at a buffer size of 8 samples per period. Mixbus is highly multithreaded however. The disk access, graphics, and other elements will run on separate processors as needed. Some plugins spawn their own threads (at the cost of higher latency), those will show up on a different processor if OSX is doing its job right.

A future version of Mixbus (based on a future version of Ardour) will certainly change this design as heavily multiprocessor systems have become so much more accessible, and it is more reasonable to completely utilize more than 1 processor for DSP.

Quote:
Is Mixbus multi-processor aware? When I add one instance of mPressor plug-in it uses 5% of CPU! That would be in line with Mixbus only using one CPU. In Logic the addition of this plug-in doesn't impact CPU whatsoever.
We will attempt to investigate what might make the difference with this particular plugin.

Last edited by dawhead; 2nd December 2009 at 02:39 AM.. Reason: pronoun-ciation
Old 2nd December 2009
  #73
Lives for gear
Thanks Dawhead for the detailed and very helpful reply, especially in regard to how Jack specifically integrates with MixBus. My 70% CPU load was coming from the plug-ins. When I load up that file at 48 kHz with 36 tracks and remove all third party plug-ins, it runs at 26% CPU. This is with all 8 cores enabled on my Intel Mac, but I get a nearly equivalent 26.5% if I use the processor preference to make the Mac run only a single CPU.

I don't think Harrison was envisioning people using this with 3rd party plug-ins that much, since they promote the included channels plugs a lot. But they're going to sell a lot more Mixbus software and have a happier customer base if they can facilitate this. I'm glad you're saying that increased multi-processor use will be something they're looking at. By the way, I've tested Ozone and mPressor and they both generate the kind of CPU hit in Mixbus that I would typically see in other DAWs running on one CPU on my machine.

For me the strength of Mixbus is the basic saturation on each channel and the summing going straight out and bypassing the buses. In fact, I'm going to be routing around the mixbuses and the Master Bus on my current project because I think they introduce too much of this saturation for the songs I'm working on. It would be nice to have unsaturated buses or a switch where you can completely bypass the tape and tone stuff (which will be useful on some songs for sure as others have reported; don't get me wrong).

Though I can already basically use Mixbus, I'm hoping it will add the features everyone has been mentioning. I was somewhat skeptical initially, but after going back and forth between it, Logic, Samplitude, and Sonar, the other DAWs pale in comparison.
Old 2nd December 2009
  #74
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsBot View Post
For me the strength of Mixbus is the basic saturation on each channel and the summing going straight out and bypassing the buses. In fact, I'm going to be routing around the mixbuses and the Master Bus on my current project because I think they introduce too much of this saturation for the songs I'm working on. It would be nice to have unsaturated buses or a switch where you can completely bypass the tape and tone stuff (which will be useful on some songs for sure as others have reported; don't get me wrong).
Well you CAN already completely bypass the tone controls. The sat controls can be turned all the way down, though currently can't be bypassed completely, that will get you pretty close.

dawhead as usual gave a great explanation of how things work internally, for some reason the lead author of Ardour knows his software even better than me, go figure

I am happy to know that the hit on processor performance is identical across any DAW when run on a single processor, that means there is likely not an issue in Ardour(Had me worried when you told me that via PM.

Seablade
Old 17th December 2009
  #75
Gear Head
 

-Stereo field:

some noises and scratches that I noticed in an acapella, on the far right side of the stereo field, but that I didn't find really annoying in ableton live,
in HMB... WERE OBVIOUSLY NOTICEABLE. It pushed me to edit the sample to remove this noises.
so, I guess yes, the stereo field is BETTER.

-Hi end modification:

I noticed it too, as I had to push the EQs on the drums parts and/or on the master EQ to get the same crisp highs that I had in my ableton mixdown.
But it's not a real problem to me, since the overall final mixdown sounds so much better!

- CPU :

quite OK when mixing, around 30% CPU usage, but while exporting the audiofile as WAV 24 bits 44 khz, my CPU went 130%, then making the macbook fan getting crazy for one minute.


-------

anyway, not speaking of the sound, I'm sure HMB will greatly imporve my workflow, as it will really help me to actually finish my mixdowns, without beeing stuck with 1000 plugs and choices, and getting away from the arrangement

80$ is a joke for such a great tool that inproves both SOUND and WORKFLOW.

BRAVO heh


EDIT: having made my first mix in HMB, I'm 100% happy with the console layout, use, and sound. Soooo much clear, warm, WARM, WAAAARM, "SPACEY", "fat", etc. I would have needed so much plugs in ableton live to (maybe) reach this result !!!

Ardour DAW needs a little time to get around, (I've still not found how to ZOOM, but I guess it's only a matter of usage days)

really worth the price, IMHO
Old 17th December 2009
  #76
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrejumo View Post
-Stereo field:

some noises and scratches that I noticed in an acapella, on the far right side of the stereo field, but that I didn't find really annoying in ableton live,
in HMB... WERE OBVIOUSLY NOTICEABLE. It pushed me to edit the sample to remove this noises.
so, I guess yes, the stereo field is BETTER.

-Hi end modification:

I noticed it too, as I had to push the EQs on the drums parts and/or on the master EQ to get the same crisp highs that I had in my ableton mixdown.
But it's not a real problem to me, since the overall final mixdown sounds so much better!

- CPU :

quite OK when mixing, around 30% CPU usage, but while exporting the audiofile as WAV 24 bits 44 khz, my CPU went 130%, then making the macbook fan getting crazy for one minute.


-------

anyway, not speaking of the sound, I'm sure HMB will greatly imporve my workflow, as it will really help me to actually finish my mixdowns, without beeing stuck with 1000 plugs and choices, and getting away from the arrangement

80$ is a joke for such a great tool that inproves both SOUND and WORKFLOW.

BRAVO heh


EDIT: having made my first mix in HMB, I'm 100% happy with the console layout, use, and sound. Soooo much clear, warm, WARM, WAAAARM, "SPACEY", "fat", etc. I would have needed so much plugs in ableton live to (maybe) reach this result !!!

Ardour DAW needs a little time to get around, (I've still not found how to ZOOM, but I guess it's only a matter of usage days)

really worth the price, IMHO
I agree that you need to push the high end more in Mixbus than in other DAWs. Also, the built-in EQs aren't that great. When you get a good third party EQ going like the UAD precision EQ or Fabfilter's Pro-Q the Mixbus gets even better, especially if you put it in the bottom slot after the signal goes through the channel saturation (though the top slot works better for some things). Also, Mixbus only uses one CPU essentially, so you have to conserve when you apply third party native plugs.
Old 18th December 2009
  #77
Gear Head
 

Ok, here is where one can download 2 mixes of the same track of mine, one made in ableton live, the other in HMB.

Free File Hosting Made Simple - MediaFire ... 3bd6dcbfa2

(you have to downoad the files separately if you're not premium user)

one is an ableton mixdown I just re-worked the same way as HMB's mixdown (named "hadgehog edition" because "harrison" resembles "hérisson", that, in french, means "hedgehog"), trying to match the sound I made in HMB.

the noticeable difference is that I added a little reverb on the claps and hihats in the HMB mix, that is not present in the ableton mix.

I made no panning stuff in either mixes. the sidechain compression is a very little bit different, since I "sidechain-compressed" the stems individually with slightly different values before importing them in HMB. but still really really slightly different values. (bass sub, bass grungy stuff, other synth sounds and the wiiiiish rise)

A/Bing the 2 isn't so much astonishing, at the end. I'm a bit disappointed, and some of you may laugh at that

anyway, I still can hear a difference in the low end and low mids, HMB's seeming more warm on this side, but that just may be some placebo and/or differences in EQing.

So here is the point, the difference is not so huge. I'm still prefering the HMB mix anyway (placebo?)

HMB still is really good for me as it allows me to get away from live and the arrangement, then beeing finaaly able to FINISH my tracks.

The mixing workflow is for me really better in HMB, since everything is handy, ready there in the console strips.

tell me what you think of these 2 mixdowns, if you own good monitors (mine are only alesis m1 active mk2, and headphones are beyerdynamics DT770pro)

it's wav 24bits/44khz files, with no "mastering", so the volume is low, but I tried to have the 2 files at nearly the same. it peaks around -6, and runs around -10db. (approx. 80mb each. the ableton mix has more silence before and after the song)

cheers
Old 15th January 2010
  #78
Gear Maniac
 
ArnauTS's Avatar
 

I always use pro tools but wanted to give a try to this harrisson mixbus because i can't afford a real harrisson board that will be awesome..
So i tried yesterday with a rock mix that i made before in pro tools and i really love the eq and everything
I'm really happy and i will be using more
Old 20th January 2010
  #79
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrejumo View Post
Ardour DAW needs a little time to get around, (I've still not found how to ZOOM, but I guess it's only a matter of usage days)
Heh sorry I haven't gotten back to this...

Ardour (en)

Specifically this covers the basics of zooming...

Ardour (en)

Seablade
Old 26th January 2010
  #80
Gear Head
 

I really like the overall sound of mixbus. I like the summing and the saturation. But sadly, I am not impressed with the EQs or the built in Compression. I find over and over again that I rely on 3rd party software for Dynamics and EQ. But still its worth it because I like the sound of my mixes using mixbus as opposed to Pro Tools.
Old 26th January 2010
  #81
Here for the gear
 

Thumbs up

Hi
I had to register in order to say a few things about Mixbus.
Long time analog consoles and tape machines user (Since 89) but not anymore. Mixing ITB now. Also long time Logic user.
I must say Mixbus blew me away.
As soon as I routed some tracks from logic with Jack, I could not believe it.
My sweet highs are back and my snare just sounds like a snare again. Oh and the Vocals. Amazing. Really I had a sort of flash back to the analog days. Not the real thing off course but closest I have ever heard. I have most of the AU tape saturation plugins (DUY etc. I even use Logic's tape delay as a sat. plug.). But Mixbus is something else. It really SOUNDS GOOD. Stereo image? Fantastic. I DON'T CARE if it lacks capabilities in editing, automation etc. I can use Logic for that. (I think it will improve in future versions.) But when it comes to the MIX the only concern is to sound good!!! no matter how you succeed that. There comes Mixbus and saves the day. Perfect for rock-pop mixes.
What can I say! Thanx Harrison.
I think this is the way for all future DAW's
George
Old 27th November 2010
  #82
Gear Maniac
Can someone comment on the current status of HMB?
Old 27th November 2010
  #83
Gear Head
 
Cayo's Avatar
Look guys...I've been around the block a few times, as alot of you have as well...Let me "hip" these young cats, if I may...HMB is the best sounding software on the market...period...I tried the reason equivalent...It's like a toy to me...and the sound is solid...but HMB blows it away...I'm even putting away my UAD plugs on the channel, and it allows me to use the hogs for sweetening...I have a "spiritual" experience everytime I listen to my mixes on HMB...It reminds me of the awe I had hearing a mix or track through an ssl or neve for the first time...And frankly...Now...The software is buggy, and that bugs meheh...But they improve every time out...That says something...In fact, I'm about to drop two MAJOR sponsors and see if I can be sponsored by them...It's a big deal...Not to toot or whatever guys...seriously but...use your ears man...When I was a younger cat, I made alot of "emotional" decisions based on what I had or may have had invested in a situation(or gear)...Free your ears...It's the best 80 dollars I have ever spent...All things considered...My use is as a multitrack...Old school...No midi, no interfaces, no other software...PLEASE HARRISON, dont' add midi...It will (cuss) everything up...I can compose in freakin...garage band midi and import it(only as an example)...Mix it...and poof...Magic baby!!! I've been frustrated for years by the lack of depth and analog equivalents...I've found it now, and if you haven't...Frankly..that's my secret!!!
Old 27th November 2010
  #84
Gear Head
 
guitarheadhunt's Avatar
 

Has anyone checked out the new mixbus tutorial video. I recieved an email about it the other day, but I have yet to hear any feedback anywhere about it. I bought the first one when it first came out for $19 and it was alright it did not really get into the details of mixing in the program.

The new vid is $29 but I have not heard any feedback on it or seen any samples of the vid. If anyone has seen it or has any news about it please reply.
Old 27th November 2010
  #85
Gear Head
 
Cayo's Avatar
I have...It's good...even for seasoned folks...It cuts through all of the nonsense and the learning curve...Now...I'm a seasoned guy...and I know how to work my way, as quick as possible, through software...the key is the shortcuts menu for me...I can do anything there...ALL software has the same "vien":certain functions require different ways to get to the same end...I know what I want to do...the trouble is the translation(sometimes)...The manual is helpful at critical times, but this video gives you a jump start on 80 dollar software that trumps those costing 10x as much...Hmmmmm....
Old 10th December 2010
  #86
Gear Maniac
My first ever DAW was harrison mixbus, I am fairly new to recording but I have already within a year tracked and mixed over 10 albums, mostly indie rock, punk, hip hop, and a few metal bands. At first I was only using the eq, comp and AU plugs with mixbus. As time progressed I got a few Waves and Soundtoys plugs. Then one random session I was working mixbus would crash within the first 15 seconds of drum tracking. 8 inputs, no mixing yet just basic tracking. Apparently the CPU was being blown beyond control. So my neighbor let me borrow Logic, I recorded and mixed this session on logic and liked it. So now after having and using logic for months, I want to devert back into mixbus. I feel like after the numerous hours using logic, I still can't achieve the same sound mixbus acquires. Namely, the tape saturation. I recently listened to an old session I recorded on mixbus and it sounds 'better' than a lot of the mixes I've done with logic. I've been using the decapitator plug to acheive a similar tape saturation effect but it doesn't seem to compare to mixbus. So in conclusion, my next rock, punk, metal.. whatever session will be tracked with logic and mixed in mixbus. It is a powerful tool, I seriously love it.

In regards to bouncing to mixbus, anyone got any tips as far as ways to transfer the regions? Also, can I transfer automation from logic to mixbus? Or does mixbus have automation? It's been a while since I've used mixbus.

thanks!
Old 10th December 2010
  #87
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattqualls View Post
Then one random session I was working mixbus would crash within the first 15 seconds of drum tracking. 8 inputs, no mixing yet just basic tracking. Apparently the CPU was being blown beyond control.
Make certain you report this if it ever happens again. This is certianly not normal.

Quote:
Or does mixbus have automation? It's been a while since I've used mixbus.
I haven't used Logic much so I will let others talk on it. In as far as automation, yes Mixbus has its own automation system. You should be able to automate nearly everything you can control in Mixbus.

Seablade
Old 10th December 2010
  #88
Gear Maniac
Awesome! thanks so much! that's basically what I'm looking for. With Logic you can automate volume,pan,and your plugs as well. I like that aspect for sure. I am heading home here in a bit to try it out.
Old 12th December 2010
  #89
Gear Maniac
ok, I'm having some issues.. I can't seem how to figure out how to transfer my tracks from logic to mixbus. I feel pretty dumb, anyone have any advice?

EDIT: Figured it out!
Old 28th April 2011
  #90
Gear Head
 

Been useing the linux version of mixbuss since it was released. Very happy with it so far.
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Alchemium / Harrison Mixbus
29
niklassweden / High end
10
mherrane / High end
30
DirkB / Chuck Ainlay, Ed Cherney, Frank Filipetti, George Massenburg, Elliot Scheiner, Al Schmitt
2

Forum Jump
Forum Jump