FREE Mixbus Training + Multi-tracks with Purchase

[FranciscoJ]

'Getting The Most From Mixbus'
Training Bundle

Includes FREE Mixbus Training (5 Hour Video Series)  with Purchase of One Discounted AVA Plugin of Your Choice!

(multi-tracks included)

'Get The Most From Mixbus' Bundle $39 - Plugin $39 + Mixbus Training FREE

Mixbus v7 offer also available - $19,00

https://harrisonconsolesstore.onfastspring.com/Get-The-Most-From-Mixbus-Training?mc_cid=e4665ec443&mc_eid=UNIQID

 

[Larry Shelby]

Or get both for $49

https://harrisonconsoles.com/mixbus-bundle-and-training

[telecode 101]

Hmm.. looks like this deal is still live. Has anyone on here switched from Cubase to Mixbus? Thoughts?  I make .. this kind of music. (In memoriam to the late Alan who passed recently.)

 

[MusicMan]

2 hours ago, telecode 101 said:

Hmm.. looks like this deal is still live. Has anyone on here switched from Cubase to Mixbus? Thoughts?  I make .. this kind of music. (In memoriam to the late Alan who passed recently.)

 

I use Cubase and bought Mixbus the other day. I'll always produce in Cubase I'd say, but I like the idea of exporting stems from Cubase and then mixing in Mixbus.

Performance wise, Cubase is better. If you're purely recording audio, or have a fast enough computer, that may not matter, but otherwise worth keeping in mind.

Mixbus is kinda fun and different and does get a nice warm sound.

I did notice that some plugins didn't work though. A couple have been updated and now do.

Basically Cubase is better, but Mixbus is different and that makes it a fun option to have ?

[Byron Dickens]

Keep in mind that Mixbus is based on the paradigm of recording and mixing onto tape through an analog console and designed to replicate that experience to some extent.

Perhaps the greatest thing about it is that you can complete an entire mix with no plugins whatsoever. The whole DAW is one giant Harrison channel strip.

If you feel the need to time align and pitch correct everything to an unreasonable and unrealistic level of perfection, its probably not for you.

If you are "making beats" (whatever that is, exactly) , its probably not for you.

If you are doing extensive MIDI editing, its definitely not for you.

[telecode 101]

2 hours ago, bdickens said:

Keep in mind that Mixbus is based on the paradigm of recording and mixing onto tape through an analog console and designed to replicate that experience to some extent.

Perhaps the greatest thing about it is that you can complete an entire mix with no plugins whatsoever. The whole DAW is one giant Harrison channel strip.

If you feel the need to time align and pitch correct everything to an unreasonable and unrealistic level of perfection, its probably not for you.

If you are "making beats" (whatever that is, exactly) , its probably not for you.

If you are doing extensive MIDI editing, its definitely not for you.

Thanks.  that help. No. Nothing I do is time aligned or pitch corrected. Swing at 110% and any note goes. 

I started  researching this because I am seeing some older audio engineers on GS that us it. Plus it has the hardware unit option, which is sort of interesting.

 

What i don't quite get is why are people tracking in another DAW and just mixing in mixbus. I guess I will find out when I try it. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by telecode 101

[sarine]

8 hours ago, telecode 101 said:

Has anyone on here switched from Cubase to Mixbus?

I think it's safe to say that nobody has switched from Cubase to Mixbus, as one is a robust, full-featured DAW and the other is a decent software mixer with horrible everything-else.

I did at one point use Mixbus in conjunction with Reaper, routing the audio from Reaper on separate channels via Jack to be mixed in real-time in Mixbus. For mixing Mixbus just worked for me, but for composition it (Ardour) sucks horribly. It was also unstable. My experience was on v4 however, but I'm willing to bet it's the same crap it's been year after year.

[Byron Dickens]

8 hours ago, telecode 101 said:

What i don't quite get is why are people tracking in another DAW and just mixing in mixbus. I guess I will find out when I try it. 

Two things:

1) Like I mentioned before, the whole DAW is one giant Harrison channel strip.

2) What some people see as limitations (fixed number of busses, etc) actually force you to streamline your mixing workflow and make it more efficient.

 

[dubdisciple]

I see this as a great solution for:

 

1)people who grew up mixing on consoles and have little to no interest in midi. It is a virtual equivalent of a Harrison Console recording to a multitrack tape machine with as many tracks as your computer will handle. 

2) Contrary to what was said, this is actually a great DAW for beatmakers but for the type that prefer specialized tools or hardware to do so. Some of the biggest names in hip-hop and EDM use hardware workflows ( Kanye still uses MPC hardware and sometimes even ASR10). For the hardware or for someone creating in something like MPC software ( not an environment you want to mix or arrange in) or even Geist, this might pair nicely and give the exact warmth these kind of producers seek but sometime struggle to obtain in more popular DAWs.

3) singer/somgwriters who are simply tracking things to be mixed elsewhere.

 

I own v4 of this and have not thought to upgrade because I have never used the previous 4 versions i bought. I do think it's worth fwr more than $19.

[telecode 101]

1 hour ago, dubdisciple said:

1)people who grew up mixing on consoles and have little to no interest in midi. It is a virtual equivalent of a Harrison Console recording to a multitrack tape machine with as many tracks as your computer will handle.

This sort of makes a lot of sense.  Thats where I saw mention of it in some  indepth audio engineer forums where most of the people I guess are former tape engineers.

The reason I am starting to look at this is, I am starting to get a little worried where Cubase will go. Plus they are an American company.. it's nice to support someone local.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by telecode 101

[dubdisciple]

14 hours ago, telecode 101 said:

This sort of makes a lot of sense.  Thats where I saw mention of it in some  indepth audio engineer forums where most of the people I guess are former tape engineers.

The reason I am starting to look at this is, I am starting to get a little worried where Cubase will go. Plus they are an American company.. it's nice to support someone local.

 

 

I have thought of buying just to support them despite being unlikely to use.

[Bapu]

I don't see 12 buses in Mixbus 32C as any kind of limitation at all.

In <daw of choice> mix and pre-production (i.e. EQ, automation etc.) with your favored workflow. Export tracks/and or stems and import them in Mixbus 32C. Then, as stated above, mix like you are on a real (warm) analog console.

I tend to export live drums as:
1) stereo WAV of toms

2) stereo WAV of OHs

3) mono kick (maybe even Kick in, out, sub)

4) mono snare top and bottom

Those Mixbus 32C tracks now send to one Mixbus 32C drum bus. 

MIDI drums such as Superior, AD2, BFD3 can be a different animal and should be handled accordingly by either exporting stems (similar to live drums) or load the VSTi and export/import the actual MIDI used. 

5) stereo mix of rhythm guitars

6) stereo mix of solos

7) stereo mix of acoustic guitars

? stereo mix of synths and/or orchestrations

Those Mixbus 32C tracks are sent to one 'music' bus

9) Vocals as needed are sent to one Mixbus 32C bus

10) Bass tracks (dist, clean, DI) are sent to one Mixbus 32C bus 

That's only 4 of the 12 fixed Mixbus 32C buses. Vocals could be broken out into lead/bg/gang using 2 more buses, if desired, leaving 6 more buses available.

IIRC Harrison has finally allowed delay compensation on their AUX buses so there is that luxury albeit they are not true buses with the mojo that comes with them.

One man's opinion.

<edit: wrong bus count fixed>
 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Bapu

[Byron Dickens]

32c has 12 busses. Regular Mixbus has 8.

But yeah, I track and edit in CbB, export all the individual tracks and mix in Mixbus. Probably when the next version comes out and the upgrade goes on sale for dirt cheap I will move up to 32c for that full EQ section....

[Bapu]

18 minutes ago, bdickens said:

32c has 12 busses. Regular Mixbus has 8.

Yeah, I know that but my fingers seemed to have forgotten that.

[kitekrazy1]

17 hours ago, telecode 101 said:

This sort of makes a lot of sense.  Thats where I saw mention of it in some  indepth audio engineer forums where most of the people I guess are former tape engineers.

The reason I am starting to look at this is, I am starting to get a little worried where Cubase will go. Plus they are an American company.. it's nice to support someone local.

 They are heading in a much better direction.  They are changing their licensing to compete with other DAWs.  Yamaha is dropping elicenser because it just isn't as great as iLok.  Cubase is owned by an industry giant.

 

[dubdisciple]

For me the 8 bus thing was never a major limitation. My soul issue with mixbus is I NEVER find myself wanting to transport an entire session into another DAW. I create templates and stuff to speed up workflow. This seems counter to that, but I always flirt with the idea mentally without ever following through.

[sarine]

On 1/8/2022 at 1:50 AM, dubdisciple said:

I see this as a great solution for:

1)people who grew up mixing on consoles and have little to no interest in midi. It is a virtual equivalent of a Harrison Console recording to a multitrack tape machine with as many tracks as your computer will handle. 

2) Contrary to what was said, this is actually a great DAW for beatmakers but for the type that prefer specialized tools or hardware to do so.

Not to contradict, but skeptically inquire; what makes it so great for making beats with specialized tools? Granted that if you're sequencing within the specialized tool you're to some degree avoiding having to deal with Mixbus's sequence/track editor, but I don't see the greatness - unless you refer to the mixer, but I personally associate "digital audio workstation" with something that covers more ground than a channel strip. For instance, Audacity isn't a DAW in connotative sense of "DAW" even though denotatively it definitely can be regarded as a digital audio workstation.

I'm nitpicking on this because when I think of Mixbus/Ardour (or a dozen of certain others), "a great DAW" is not a label I'd use. Rather, it's a bad DAW that comes with a great mixer. I admit I didn't work much with audio tracks in Mixbus as I was mixing in realtime, so I can't say if it's as bad as working with MIDI and VST's.

What I liked about the mixing experience itself was that it just worked for me. I have never touched an analog console, so it seems to me that the layout and workflow are products of cultivation, while more or less arbitrary software mixer interfaces without the historical roots may or may not make sense from efficiency standpoint. I also liked the sound although I was never quite sure if there was actual "secret sauce" in the channel strips or summing algorithms, or if I was just getting better results due to the workflow, or to what extent the effect of "Mixbus sound" was a psychoacoustic illusion created by the hype around and high expectations towards it, and the "feel" of the GUI. In the end I didn't care what, how and why, because shit got done.

[sarine]

On 1/8/2022 at 6:56 PM, Bapu said:

I don't see 12 buses in Mixbus 32C as any kind of limitation at all. 

Yeah and just to clarify, those are mixbuses which you use to sum signals from multiple other buses. The master bus where everything comes together would be the 13th.

[dubdisciple]

11 hours ago, sarine said:

Yeah and just to clarify, those are mixbuses which you use to sum signals from multiple other buses. The master bus where everything comes together would be the 13th.

 

11 hours ago, sarine said:

Not to contradict, but skeptically inquire; what makes it so great for making beats with specialized tools? Granted that if you're sequencing within the specialized tool you're to some degree avoiding having to deal with Mixbus's sequence/track editor, but I don't see the greatness - unless you refer to the mixer, but I personally associate "digital audio workstation" with something that covers more ground than a channel strip. For instance, Audacity isn't a DAW in connotative sense of "DAW" even though denotatively it definitely can be regarded as a digital audio workstation.

I'm nitpicking on this because when I think of Mixbus/Ardour (or a dozen of certain others), "a great DAW" is not a label I'd use. Rather, it's a bad DAW that comes with a great mixer. I admit I didn't work much with audio tracks in Mixbus as I was mixing in realtime, so I can't say if it's as bad as working with MIDI and VST's.

What I liked about the mixing experience itself was that it just worked for me. I have never touched an analog console, so it seems to me that the layout and workflow are products of cultivation, while more or less arbitrary software mixer interfaces without the historical roots may or may not make sense from efficiency standpoint. I also liked the sound although I was never quite sure if there was actual "secret sauce" in the channel strips or summing algorithms, or if I was just getting better results due to the workflow, or to what extent the effect of "Mixbus sound" was a psychoacoustic illusion created by the hype around and high expectations towards it, and the "feel" of the GUI. In the end I didn't care what, how and why, because shit got done.

Interesting counter to a point I wasn't trying to make.  I don't consider Mixbus a great DAW at all. I described a couple of situations that it might be a viable solution for some people. I will give two examples:

 

1) A gentleman I worked with last year had never used a DAW. He is im his late 60s and very set in his ways. He would prefer to use the equipment he used back in the 80s but that is not practical, especially considering he is broke.  He has simple needs. He mostly was recording guitar, vocals and basic mixing at most elementary level. He was using his own outboard effects pedals. I presented him free options ( cakewalk and studio one prime) and lowcost options ( reaper and mixbus). The console like appearance of mixbus in default state appealed to him the most. He's never going to add a VST . Anything not visible on initial opening is not getting used. Psychologically, the illusion of familiarity worked for him, even though I believe studio one prime would be easiest for most im his position. 

 

2) A friend has been creating hip-hop using hardware MPC for decades.  No interest in learning a DAW except on most basic level.  His complaint was that he wants to mix stems in DAW, but wanted it simple and cheap and wanted an analog type sound.  I won't get into the marketing claims of how mixbus sounds other than to say that people claim they hear something reminiscent of analog.  Weighing the truth of that for $19 or even $49 is better than spending more to test marketing claims. 

 

By no means am i claiming Mixbis was BEST  solution for either.  It simply was one they felt fit their needs.