Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cclarry

Don't Crack Crazy Deal - Buy any $49 AVA plug-in and get a full DAW for FREE !

Recommended Posts

This is an even better deal than buying a full DAW and getting a plug-in for free.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Carlos said:

You can get for $79 Mixbus32c, which is better, right?

Mixbus 32c is $299, Mixbus Standard is $79. With this deal you get a plugin worth $89 for $49 and the $79 DAW

Edited by LadyFuzztail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 They never wow you with an upgrade price either especially on 32c. The authorization is simple, you don't have to be online.  You can install it on every machine you have.  As for me I can't really get into this software. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Mixbus standard from time to time for audio mixing and mastering but the MIDI is absolutely horrible!!!!!!!

It does have a warmness and character to it that I don't quite get from my other DAWs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sidney Earl Goodroe said:

I use Mixbus standard from time to time for audio mixing and mastering but the MIDI is absolutely horrible!!!!!!!

It does have a warmness and character to it that I don't quite get from my other DAWs.

THIS is why you use Mixbus...and I'm sure the MIDI will improve!
Remember, this feature was just added recently, so I'm sure they
will make it better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mixbus is intended to be an emulation of Harrison's analog consoles and a tape  deck.  

When you understand THAT'S  the paradigm,  I think some of the "limitations" make a whole lot more sense; it's like we're back in 1982 and sitting behind a Harrison 32c recording and mixing onto tape.

You know, back when musicians with actual skill and talent played actual performances that got captured for posterity. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Byron Dickens said:

Mixbus is intended to be an emulation of Harrison's analog consoles and a tape  deck.  

When you understand THAT'S  the paradigm,  I think some of the "limitations" make a whole lot more sense; it's like we're back in 1982 and sitting behind a Harrison 32c recording and mixing onto tape.

You know, back when musicians with actual skill and talent played actual performances that got captured for posterity. 

 

 

I would rather you cut the elitism out. There is no reason to look down on people who edit MIDI and compose music.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of my projects are live musicians playing real instruments and midi vst instruments played by musicians later. I find it very easy to edit the midi if needed alongside of the live tracks. That is why the midi capabilities are important to me.

While I listen to ALL music, I personally do not do EDM and I have never used a loop of any sort EVER!!!!

That being said, music and creativity live in your work whether you're chopping up loops or playing or singing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Byron Dickens said:

Mixbus is intended to be an emulation of Harrison's analog consoles and a tape  deck.  

When you understand THAT'S  the paradigm,  I think some of the "limitations" make a whole lot more sense; it's like we're back in 1982 and sitting behind a Harrison 32c recording and mixing onto tape.

You know, back when musicians with actual skill and talent played actual performances that got captured for posterity. 

 

 

I actually found MIDI a huge plus for the limitations back in the day, and also saved a huge amount of cash.

I could record 16 tracks of keyboards at home for free, then run the sequences "live" sync'd to tape (or later ADAT) through the console when I got to the studio... and when using a 4-track or 8-track, it was fantastic for keeping tracks free for "real" instruments.

There's no rule that says you have to edit or quantize, and nothing to stop you using MIDI to record exactly what you played.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Byron Dickens said:

Mixbus is intended to be an emulation of Harrison's analog consoles and a tape  deck.  

When you understand THAT'S  the paradigm,  I think some of the "limitations" make a whole lot more sense; it's like we're back in 1982 and sitting behind a Harrison 32c recording and mixing onto tape.

You know, back when musicians with actual skill and talent played actual performances that got captured for posterity. 

 

 

In fact, you have to ask yourself why they would even want to create a new MIDI-fluent DAW. This seems to be the inexorable pattern with Big Audio Software; it starts out being focused on a limited number of useful functions and then starts adding new "features" until it is a monster that may not be all that good at everything. Cakewalk started as a sequencer, the over time added so much audio processing that MIDI became almost vestigial by comparison. Other DAW's started as audio recording studios and then added MIDI that was, as in Harrison's case, pretty lame. Hence the endless discussions over which DAW is best for what, and users who are learning to use a few features of each of several DAW's to get something done. In the meantime, the market is getting massively crowded to the detriment of everyone's bottom line. What users save in price competition (imagine a world where the only choice is ProTools), they lose in time and money by amassing a collection of applications in the search for the perfect DAW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LadyFuzztail said:

I would rather you cut the elitism out.

Let him have it. Maybe he has a point? Not that what he said is absolute truth. I mean, it's a pretty ridiculous notion that musicians "back then" had "actual skill and talent", as if the opposite was never true back then, and is generally true now. It's a nonsensical proposition, and it's only fair to assume that's not exactly what he meant.

Instead of straight-out telling him to get off the high horse, maybe you should think where your inner elitist resides on this matter? Is there a method and means of music production which you'd look down on, and criticize for lack of human involvement in the creative process?

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sarine said:

Let him have it. Maybe he has a point? Not that what he said is absolute truth. I mean, it's a pretty ridiculous notion that musicians "back then" had "actual skill and talent", as if the opposite was never true back then, and is generally true now. It's a nonsensical proposition, and it's only fair to assume that's not exactly what he meant.

Instead of straight-out telling him to get off the high horse, maybe you should think where your inner elitist resides on this matter? Is there a method and means of music production which you'd look down on, and criticize for lack of human involvement in the creative process?

The mistake is in assuming that there is no skill or talent involved in the MIDI editing process. Considering the legacy of Cakewalk and what it's created for, y'all should really know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LadyFuzztail said:

The mistake is in assuming that there is no skill or talent involved in the MIDI editing process. Considering the legacy of Cakewalk and what it's created for, y'all should really know better.

Instead of skimming over a post and guessing what was in it, I would rather you actually read and think about it. Because you never know, it could have been something interesting.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know, some of y'all have a real talent for misreading things out of context.  (Yeah, I  know what I said.)

The "skill and talent " comment in the last paragraph of my previous post was an aside, a by-the-way, and the main focus of that post is an explanation  (paraphrased from Harrison themselves)  of the design philosophy behind their software. 

I see a lot of criticism directed at Mixbus for not being good at things it really isn't  intended to do and I was hoping to offer some clarity.  If you do a whole lot of MIDI, then it probably isn't for you. If you want to record real-time performances and/ or mix audio tracks using an analog-like workflow,  it just might be the ticket.

Nowhere did I "look down on people who edit MIDI and compose music."  In fact,  nowhere did I even address that. What I did is point out how Mixbus is designed for recording and mixing live (as in real-time) performances.  

I have some small idea of what kind of skill - and work - is involved in creating a MIDI recording that displays a fair amount of realism.  I've done it. I've even posted such up here. But I suppose since I'm not a member of the mutually masturbatory clique in the songs forum, it never got much traction or comment.  I  got more response from a guitar forum on orchestral music.

Some of these responses seem to me to be indicative  of a much broader issue endemic in today's society: that of a pandemic of back injuries suffered by people carrying enormous chips on their shoulders; people ever-ready to take offense where none is intended. Quick on the draw to level accusations of malicious intent where there is merely misunderstanding.  

Maybe more people - more often - should seek clarification and understanding before they draw their guns - or their lawyers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2019 at 3:52 PM, Byron Dickens said:

If you do a whole lot of MIDI, then it probably isn't for you.

I'll be the contrarian here as in my opinion the MIDI editing facilities in Mixbus (i.e. Ardour) have come a long way, and in fact I think it's quite competitive in that department at this point. It is awkward, but if anyone really wants to give it a try, you need to sit down with the manual and google and do some tedious reading, trial & error and reconditioning to learn how the panning, zooming, scrolling, note editing etc. work in Mixbus, but if you do persist through, it's not bad. I certainly like the Ardour way more than Reaper or Bitwig (1.3, 2.x) for instance.

As a VST host (which MIDI editing usually implies) though, Mixbus was a nightmare. Graphic glitches (GUI cropped), abysmal performance, generally extremely sluggish UI... I can only assume it was the 3rd party plugins as so many people tout Mixbus to excel at working with audio tracks. Judging only by what I've experienced first-hand, I wouldn't bet on it though. But the lag, unresponsiveness and crashes made me abandon Mixbus altogether - it just wasn't worth it to involve Mixbus in any project any longer.

Now, the sound, I did like. I don't think it's any more special than the plethora of other analog emulations that exist in form of separate plugins, and I certainly am highly skeptic of the claim that somehow the advantage is the "integration" of the processors into Mixbus - I think technically that's a bullshit sleight of hand. What Harrison does have however is control over the most crucial parts of the processing chain and their architecture and a vision of where they want to go with it, a vision that seems to satisfy many. You also get the "analog" sound and relatively high quality channel strips at an unbeatable price, especially on sale.

I also like Harrison's symbiosis with an opensource project (the actual underlying DAW; Ardour) as they also contribute to free software, so that might be a reason to support them if that's your thing. It's just that for me the tool was unusable, which kind of trumps any idealism. YMMV...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...