Mixbus

[Cassandra Lesh]

I tried Harrison mixbus a while back before I lost everything in a fire. I thought about getting it again since I can download it but I didn't like it.

I mean like, the mixer is cool but it's no midi sequencer.  If you work mostly with midi, stay with cakewalk.

[Bapu]

In a perfect world you can have both.

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

On 10/10/2022 at 5:48 AM, Cassandra Lesh said:

I tried Harrison mixbus a while back before I lost everything in a fire. I thought about getting it again since I can download it but I didn't like it.

I mean like, the mixer is cool but it's no midi sequencer.  If you work mostly with midi, stay with cakewalk.

Mixbus is Ardour with some proprietary plugins thrown in. It's even developed by the same people.

[Terry Kelley]

Is there any sonic difference? I hear some people claim "it's got the sound of the original analog board" but what little I've played with it, the results sound no different than Cakewalk.

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

On 4/9/2023 at 12:15 AM, Terry Kelley said:

Is there any sonic difference? I hear some people claim "it's got the sound of the original analog board" but what little I've played with it, the results sound no different than Cakewalk.

Those claims are simply confirmation bias. If anything, I wouldn't trust any claims of Harrison sounding "just like their analog board." Not after the whole 32C Channel plugin which claimed "Every resistor, capacitor, and transistor is included in the model," and when Dan Worrall tested it, he discovered the plugin was just a bog standard digital EQ with no emulation at all.

As per MIDI sequencing in Harrisson, Pro Tools has a more developed MIDI sequencer and that's considering PT's MIDI sequencer is primitive at best, just like REAPER's.

[Terry Kelley]

After a bunch of testing, I agree ... it's hype. There are certain things I like about like the three band EQ and the limiter/compressor/leveler being on each track (albeit rather hindered.) The saturation controls are interesting but not a must. But I can essentially achieve the same thing in Cakewalk even though the ProChannel takes up a lot of room. I also notice that most people record in their favorite DAW and then mix in HMB. They don't record on it.

I think one thing that fools people is they export the tracks from their favorite DAW and then wind up not putting as much FX on the tracks (by amount or quantity) and they say it sounds cleaner. Well, yeah. You didn't slather it with FXs which is very easy to do in some DAW and especially in Cakewalk.

Yes, and them saying "Every resistor, capacitor, and transistor is included in the model" is the dumbest f*@&ing thing I've heard all year. But hey, that's just me.

Thanks for the reply!

Edited April 15, 2023 by Terry Kelley

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

8 hours ago, Terry Kelley said:

After a bunch of testing, I agree ... it's hype. There are certain things I like about like the three band EQ and the limiter/compressor/leveler being on each track (albeit rather hindered.) The saturation controls are interesting but not a must. But I can essentially achieve the same thing in Cakewalk even though the ProChannel takes up a lot of room. I also notice that most people record in their favorite DAW and then mix in HMB. They don't record on it.

Based on a small amount of experience I have with using Ardour with the plugin suite Linux has available, the DAW is decent for audio centric stuff but not so much MIDI. In order to use Ardour on Windows, you either have to donate or subscribe to Ardour, buy Mixbus or compile Ardour from source.