The idea is great. The idea of randomizing all channels to yield slightly different versions of a mix, too. Problem is it all feels so random, workflow and sound (TMT, not the general sound) alike. That's all okay, but the marketing of “not just a channelstrip, but a whole console“ is simply wrong as long as they don't model actual console channels instead of random component tolerances.
All that said, I find the new 9000 to sound really good, TMT aside.

Only use what actually works for your tastes. We spend a lot of money on software learning what that is exactly.

For most, plug-ins are a necessary compromise in order to get work done in the most convenient of ways. Their sound isn't always going to be optimal for people's mixes, but if they know what they're trying to achieve sonically, rather than "throwing random darts and seeing where they land", people can manipulate what they have ITB to get what they need accomplished, especially when working with material that was recorded well with high end gear.

The man or woman is the one that has to make the mix groove, and most if not all channel strip emulation plug-ins, by themselves, wont have all the mojo you need to achieve similar results to working with the actual hardware. IMO, working ITB with plug-ins often requires thinking outside of the box in regards to how you approach your processing. A 1:1 approach often doesn't yield a 1:1 sound in comparison. That's why most serious people try to work "hybrid" whenever possible. The idea hybrid setup will give you the best of both worlds, and for a slight trade up in convenience, it will make it easier to achieve the type of sonic outcome that most of us are going for with each mix we do.

Because with the former, you have to decide what to make different with your settings, where with the latter, you're simply rolling a dice and seeing where it lands and using your ears to decide if you like what you hear. If not, it's as simple as rolling the dice again.

Eventually, if you work with the console strip long enough, you may actually even figure out which channels you like the sound of most for certain things, and rather than randomizing, and you can just set them up the way you want each mix. The latter can help you to stumble onto results that you wouldn't have considered otherwise on your own, if you just decided to do things like the former.

You can achieve more varied results with much less effort, so your focus can be direct toward more important aspects of your mixing efforts.

Right, I see the workflow difference/benefit (a really good description of this by the way), but I'm speculating that the sonic result is about the same. It's a cool concept admittedly, I just think it is sold (at least by strong implication) as something it's not, which is 72 actual modelled channelstrips from a console.

CLA sure didn't hold back when asked about TMT

ha Interesting - what did CLA have to say about it?

TMT is an amazing marketing thing
just don't forget to check that TmT disabled..there are more suitable plug-ins for working with stereo/phase

IIRC he flat out called it "stupid", and that he would rather have his golden channel on every track where he knows exactly what to expect. Granted he was in the middle of promoting Mixhub at NAMM but it was funny how agitated he got

Edit: found it https://youtu.be/4PPrIx5ikYU?t=314

If Console 1 worked with PT i'd be using a lot less plugins, that's for sure. As it stands though, i'm very happy with the Mixhub and Scheps Omni. I do miss Console 1 though.

That's why I'm mixing hybrid with a lot of hardware busses ;-) what I meant was that it's very easy to buy new plugins, for two reasons: they are affordable (at least in comparison to HW) and they get better. So you have an XY emu you use and love and three years later someone else comes with their take on XY, tech has evolved and it's easy to convince you this newer version MUST be better. Sale here, voucher there...
I have hundreds of plugins. Many great ones. Many obsolete. Which ones I really need to get the job done? Like 10. With HW you think twice about shelling out that dough, buy on purpose and make sure you use that. Having both is great. Having a great channelstrip plugin can make a lot of other ones obsolete. Having too many bodies in your plugin folder is wasted money.

Wise words!

Thanx. Just sharing my experience.

It works great! The ability to equalize and edit multiple channels in one plugin window is better and more practical for me than slight channel variations (I wouldn't mind if it had those , but it looks more like a marketing tool than a real advantage).

The only think that really bothers me is the interface. Please make it more modern-looking! By that I mean a bit brighter and without all these unnecessary 3d button effects, shadows, dark metal textures and screws. I mean, why does a computer plugin need button shadows?
The ability to scale (or at least make it full-screen and back) would also be nice, considering that a lot of people, myself included, are working on laptops or high-resolution screens.

New promo video for Mixhub:

https://www.waves.com/plugins/cla-mi...und-cla-mixhub

That's some serious gain reduction going on!! Think this is in response to the BX J??

Red lights flashing everywhere... no pretentious delicate fine-tuning of V-Gain or TMT... Dude's an absolute legend

Nope. This isn't the first time this plug-in has been on sale for a great price, and as we all know by now, Waves plug-ins are often on sale, with heavy discounts off the list prices. At $38.99, it's a dollar cheaper than the previous lowest price it has been sold at.

Waves did a good job with this SSL emulaltion. Togheter with CLA MixDown it sounds like the real thing. No I'm not a Waves fanboy, but with this two plugins you have all you need basically.

Well actually, I meant the fact they’ve put out a new promo tackling some things in response to the BX. I was using this as my goto strip but I have to say, I cannot get it to sound as good as the new J, which is bad news for my bank balance.

Mixhub is great anyway..

I haven't checked out the new BX plug-in yet for good reason... that intro price! But from what I've heard so far online it's definitely something I could get along well with.

The reason you probably wont get MixHub sounding as good as the new J is because your personal sound preference is the SSL 9000. The MixHub is a great 4000 E, based on modelling a great 4000 E console, but if one prefers the sound of the 9000, none of that matters.

I take your point but it’s not really on that level. If we were talking about the hardware, then it’s just spot on - I couldn’t give a monkeys whether it’s E, G or anything else. I know this from the hardware I have - yes it’s all different and has unique flavours but it’s all of a certain quality. Not the same with plugins, the most important thing usually is the standard of the DSP and emulation, not which piece was emulated!

This is why we all have around 15 different 1176 plugins, not because we necessarily like all the different revisions but because we crave the one which sounds the same as hardware (in my case anyway!).

The previous BX consoles just don’t sound as good as the new version but why should they? Plugins are improving all the time!

Yeah there’s is a very good reason for that, and it’s about 10 -20 years of SSL console evolution. The J is far more precise, transparent and modern, the E is more classic and vintage sounding. They both tend compliment certain musical styles their own way, with a bit of overlap in the middle. Actually the E eq option on the J helps with that.

So yeah, it’s quite understandable that youd’ prefer the sound of the J over the, depending on your style and tastes. Vice versa for the E. Neither is right or or wrong, better or worse, as it is all relevant and subjective.

I do get that but given the fact that these are all emulations, it can be hard to decipher whether one product is just a better model or if it’s down to the differences between the hardware!

My point is, BX E & G are on a similar quality level but have different EQ curves etc.. ‘In my opinion’, the J is just better - theoretically, the compressor should be similar in all those models and the EQ curves on the J and G ought to be similar but not finding the older versions nearly as good sounding as the newer J.

One more example - look at Acustica’s offerings. Sand has a G, E and a J EQ. You can’t say one is better than the other, they’re all superb but just different. It isn’t the same situation with algo modelled plugins, where things are constantly evolving.

On Friday, what started as matching in Pluign Doctor a snare drum preset I had for DMG TrackComp's E-channel, turned into a review of the compressors in quite a few channel strips. I was struck that the CLA Mixhub compressor had more in common with with the BX J (and the SSL native strip) than PA's earlier E and G. Aside from the compression curves, CLA Mixhub has a 'hold" knob: where's that found on the E or G gates?

In the midst of the BX "metering debacle", I pointed out that the chief source of trouble was PA's decision to retain the emulation of their Neve console's meter bridge, re-using it in the E and G emulations. Emulation can take you to some funny places.

I get what your saying, although I don’t think realise how different these designs sound. You say that the compressors should be all the same or close enough for example, but taking just that point...

The G compressor has had many incarnations I it’s life time. With every incarnation there has been slight changes to design or components. So a G compressor built into a console in the 80s for example, actually sounds a bit different from G compressor built in the 90s. The same is true for their consoles as well.

You’d think there wouldn’t be much difference, but in reality, the difference you’re hearing is quite realistically the difference from the evolution of the design.

Have you tried the CMT tools for testing compressors (gives accurate attack/release/knee measurements and you can configure how to hit it (e.g. to emulate short peaks or longer sustains etc...): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...Y8eztnytA/edit

Yes the E-channel comp despite its supposed simplicity seems very elusive in how each dev approaches modeling it. It's supposed to have a quicker release for transients (think I read that on the UAD SSL page) and it's only the old Waves SSL that seems to model something similar (on the flip side its attack seems more like a peak compressor than an RMS one). TrackComp's release can get too slow too quickly, even on very short peaks, and so I'm not even sure it has program dependency in its release... so many other unique quirks in the different emulations that it gets confusing All I know is that MixHub's sounds pretty special and sounds close enough in shootouts against the HW.

Hi Bouroki-

I had seen a Blue Cat notice about CMT, and for some reason overlooked it. Thanks for the reminder; it's a work of genius! I'll be sending Mr. Orlov some money.

Obviously still learning CMT, but I went back and reviewed the CS presets I'd matched, and I hadn't done too badly with Plugin Doctor. With some changes here are "TrackComp E" presets for:

http://vze26m98.net/gearslutz/SSL_CS...20E-204023.zip

BX Console E
BX Console J
IK British Channel
Metric Halo CS3 MIO
TBProAudio CS5501
DMG Trackcomp E
CLA MixHub

I won't really say much about these, as there's lots to say. Look at the actual knob settings as they're all over the place; quite an education. BX E has a pretty hard knee, although not the only one. I would have used the VCA mode in the TBPro CS, but its curve is all wrong for an E-channel comp, more like a dBX "over-easy".

Matching might have +-0.5dB of slop, +-2ms variance. Note that many of these plugs have only two attack settings, and the release knob can only go so far anti-clockwise.

I started with DMG Trackcomp E and a snare sample, so the preset is sort of fast attack, fast release, 4dB (actually more like 9) of compression. Preset won't set your world on fire, but it is comparable among all these plugs, which is the idea.

Please let me know of problems, although I'm glad to be done with this exercise.

If we're going to be exact about it, the MixHub plug-in isn't of a similar quality level to the BX E channel strip though... it sounds markedly better, with smoother sounding EQ, and a much more accurate sounding channel compressor. It is a different level of E channel emulation.

The thing that the BX E has going for it that made it a top choice was its CPU usage footprint for the quality of sound it had, a quality that competes well against other emulations like the UAD E channel strip.

So the point of my post was just because you can't get the MixHub sounding as good on something as you can when using the BX J, that doesn't necessarily mean that the MixHub plug-in isn't of a similar quality level. The 4000 and 9000 are different enough from each other that most people are either going to prefer one or the other depending on the thing that they're trying to mix; so you can be happy that you now have two very good options for that SSL sound ITB. When you're mixing something that actually favors using a more vintage SSL sound, the MixHub should hold its own and provide you with results that you can be confident in.

I think Mixhub is great but I’ve always felt it was a slight compromise over Sand 3 - the compressor is more solid at low GR and it still adds punch with fast attack. Mixhub kills the transient a bit too much. Then there’s the EQ... But, I hate using Sand - so I’ve been using Mixhub and it sounds really good - especially the EQ which I much prefer over the BX E.

I’ve barely used the BX G/E! Anyway, I think we agree that that Mixhub is very good but you can’t really comment on the quality of it vs BX J until you’ve tried that

I’m sure there are scenarios where Mixhub can be better - wish Brainworx would take a leaf out of Waves’ book for smooth knob controls - the BX consoles are fiddly as hell!!

I discovered these CMT tools recently - very useful for matching compressors. Where have you heard Mixhub vs hardware?!

Yes the TBPro has linear release, just like Reacomp and way too many others I learned from another forum that it is more a "lazy" way to code compressors than an artistic choice. Logarithmic release should be the standard for modern comps (Sonnox Dynamics manual is a great read on this and also DMG confirms so) unless a specific "pumping" character or vintage emulation is desired.

I'll check out the presets thanks! Btw there is also the NI Solid Dynamics which I remember was actually the closest to Trackcomp although with a bit tighter attack.

I mainly got the audio files from this SSL video series (although the website link seems to be dead now): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrwni5mGtK4