Mixbus 4 for $29.95 til Nov. 5th

[glowrak guy]

Replicating analog gear in digital often presents the situations where digital is
more flexible, and better at some things, but there can be a healthy market
for faithful reproductions. U-he forums often discuss the tradeoffs in accurately
modeling famous synthesizers, versus adding all manner
of popular modern capabilities.

Harrison consoles have been used at least twice, to create proper mixes.
Mr. Davis has been involved with them at various levels since 2004,
A 500 page manual hints that the software version can also be used
to good effect. The Harrison project manager is active in their forums,
perhaps reminding him of ways to improve functionality could pay off
in V4.3, or the long run?

http://mixbus.harrisonconsoles.com/forum/index.php

[sysrqer]

I don't know what you're talking about, it's nothing to do with Paul, he did what any person would expect in ardour. The mixbus devs changed it to a restriction and they have no intention of altering this.

[Luc]

I believe (as in, this is my opinion or belief, not necessarily sysrqer's) that sysrqer is referring to the fact that the restrictions present in Mixbus are not present in 32C, another product of theirs that costs three times as much, and that Mixbus is meant to be sold as partially a full product, partially a demo/bait for 32C.

Here:
http://mixbus.helpscoutdocs.com/article ... mixbus-32c

It's interesting to note their own choice of words on the matter:

Rather than charge less for "limited" versions of Mixbus, we differentiate the price by the "mixer" features, which is what Harrison is known for. 32C is the more expensive program, and it provides a bigger, more feature-ful mixer.

It should be obvious to anyone with two neurons to rub together that charging less for limited versions and differentiating the price by features are the exact same thing, but they present the two concepts preceded by "rather than" to create the illusion that the two things are opposed.

I posit that they have every right to sell any products they want at any price they see fit. I just wish they were more straightforward, or even more aboveboard about it. I, for one, feel very uncomfortable dealing with any business that is clearly grasping my attention with one hand while the other is doing its trick.

[glowrak guy]

You got it all backwards, look at the 5 years time passed between an early version of Mixbus
and the first release of Mixbus 32c.

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/harrison-mixbus 2010

http://mixbus.harrisonconsoles.com/foru ... -2608.html 2015

' To run this complex DSP on every channel strip was impossible just 5 years ago.
“The last 32C analog console was produced 33 years ago,” says Ben Loftis, Mixbus Product Manager,
“we are thrilled to be able to finally bring it back.” '

Mixbus was never a lite version derived from
'the real thing'. Many years passed before the new features were ready, and are clearly
meant for serious producers, optimized for 1200 pixel vertical resolution,
a rarity among laptop wannabee producers

https://www.laptopmag.com/articles/lapt ... ion-ripoff

As to marketing, several industry leaders have deep-discount sales
on a regular basis, to boost the customer base for future and
improved products, like IK Multimedia, and Native Instruments.
No different in this case, Mixbus 32c is a future and improved product
compared to it's predecessor, which is an excellent linux supporting daw
in it's own right. If you need more advanced features, they were just on sale,
and will be again soon enough. My cup is half full, and rising!
Cheers

[tavasti]

That discount is over, but for real, what more Mixbus would provide over Ardour? Things like 'real 70's sound' or 'analog mixer feel' are not for me.

[sysrqer]

It'll be on offer again in a few days, it's continually on sale.

[glowrak guy]

That discount is over, but for real, what more Mixbus would provide over Ardour? Things like 'real 70's sound' or 'analog mixer feel' are not for me.

The defaults in the channel strip might be a real time saver for some people,
and a some people use it mainly for mix/master duties. And there is the
longstanding working relationship between Ardour, and Harrison,
the details of which all parties seem happy with, in the absense of quotes
to the contrary.

We're fortunate to have so many good daw app options. I prefer the
windows Reaper in wine, followed by the linux Reaper, to get things started,
and will use Mixbus further on in the process, with the nice Bitwig effects chain
thrown in at times.
Cheers

[tavasti]

What is difference in Mixbus 32C DAW vs Mixbus DAW?

And it looks like huge amount of plugins are sold separately, so I get confused what would be included in 'basic price'?

[English Guy]

What many do not grasp with Mixbus is that the mixer is a 'plugin' in itself. It has tape saturation and dithering built in. It has 3 stages of eq: per channel, per Mixbus and in the master bus, all tweaked differently. It has compression and limiting at each of those stages as well as a master limiter. Each channel has a high pass filter. It has a K meter and a stereo compatability meter. The built in dithering is to give a more analog sound, as are the two stages of saturation that ate meant to emulate mixing to a master tape.

The philosophy us to emulate a hardware console where the tools you need are to hand. Love it or leave it, if it were not like that it would defeat the whole point of Mixbus. I like the fixed framework but understand some will not.

For myself, when you get used to having the logical tools for a mix ar your fingertips, going back to loading in everything you use is frustrating and time consuming.

[jonetsu]

I use Mixbus 32C exclusively for mixing. I use Bitwig to create. I like analog emulations, of which there's not much at all in Linux (no Windows 'bridge'). I find tracks imported in 32C are given some warmth before doing any further processing. Which is for me a nice way to start a mix.

Cheers.

[Luc]

For myself, when you get used to having the logical tools for a mix ar your fingertips, going back to loading in everything you use is frustrating and time consuming.

Other DAWs have solved that with the concept of templates. You load a template and everything is there, where you expect it.

[tavasti]

What is difference in Mixbus 32C DAW vs Mixbus DAW?

Ok, they tell it:

http://mixbus.helpscoutdocs.com/article ... mixbus-32c

[jonetsu]

For myself, when you get used to having the logical tools for a mix ar your fingertips, going back to loading in everything you use is frustrating and time consuming.

Other DAWs have solved that with the concept of templates. You load a template and everything is there, where you expect it.

Mixbus supports templates but that's aside the point. In Mixbus the basic controls (compression, limiter, leveler, EQ, tone, tape saturation) are right there, visible for every track. No need to mouseclick on anything. Since we know that changing the bass on one track can influence the mids on another, it then becomes intuitive to make minute EQ adjustments between tracks and try things. Moreober with the 32C EQ. On top of that plugin parameters can be exposed for each track.

[Luc]

Mixbus supports templates but that's aside the point. In Mixbus the basic controls (compression, limiter, leveler, EQ, tone, tape saturation) are right there, visible for every track.

In other DAWs, you put the basic controls "right there" and save that arrangement as a template.

You just said, "It's not the same as templates in other DAWs, since Mixbus already does what templates do in other DAWs."

[tavasti]

Ok, maybe I give it a try (with demo version). This review video got me convinced that it is worth trying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Omd3pMOok