YouTube video shows no analog saturation or modeling is taking place?

[D.Rice]

Made this account to ask that this video be addressed:



It seems to suggest that Harrison Mixbus 32C is not doing any kind of analog modeling or convolution at all, and that it's really just "look and feel".

Explanation?

[x42]

Did you actually enable a EQ or some saturation stage in Mixbus? If not, Mixbus will just pass the signal as-is (down to some dither level < -70dB, so you can't do a perfect NULL test).

PS. This has been discussed a couple of times already, search the forum.

[Matt]

It’s a bit of a flawed test. He’s already used mixbus processing while mixing the stems. And then only brought out the stems and remixed them inside of reaper. So only the master buss processing would be different. And the secret of the mixbus sauce, IMO anyway, is how mixbus passes audio through the plug ins and to the busses. By the time the audio is going from the busses to the master buss, you’ve already added 90+% of the mixbus mojo.

That all said, I good engineer can use any daw and get a great mix. There are no “bad” daws. Just some work, and potentially sound, better for one person than another.

[Byron Dickens]

*Yawn.*

[D.Rice]

Did you actually enable a EQ or some saturation stage in Mixbus? If not, Mixbus will just pass the signal as-is (down to some dither level < -70dB, so you can't do a perfect NULL test).

PS. This has been discussed a couple of times already, search the forum.

So then there's no actual emulation of the original console's preamp?

The promotional language says, "Precise emulation based on Harrison's famous 32 series analog console circuit designs.

Precision algorithms for EQ, Filter, Compression, Analog Tape Saturation, and Summing."

That to me implies that the whole console is being emulated - including the preamp - mainly because it mentions summing, as well as "analog console circuit designs." But there's no modeling of the actual console's preamp. That should probably be mentioned somewhere so as not to mislead people.

Alternatively, you could add it to a future version of the software, with a "preamp on / off" switch on each channel.

For example, Acustica just released "Cream", where they actually sampled all 24 individual line and mic preamps from the source mixing console, and made them available and selectable within the plugin, so you can replicate exactly the original console's summing.

[Ben@Harrison]

hmm, I think it's different when you model "someone else's" console, because you don't know what the original intent is; you can only recreate the behavior of a particular device, and hope that you are "capturing the magic".

Whereas we still have some of the original console developers ( of the 32Series, from 1975 ) here at the factory. We have a much more in-depth knowledge of the intent, and in fact we've made many iterations of consoles since that time. Some things are worth emulating and some are not. Knowing the difference only comes from deep knowledge.

-Ben

[D.Rice]

*Yawn.*

Heh, so I guess this has been brought up and caused some controversy before?

I am being completely sincere in my asking about this. (I.e., I promise I'm not trolling.) I'm coming from using mainly Reaper but also Studio One. Have been using Acustica plugins after discovering them just over a year ago and learning about their convolution sampling / signal modeling process.

In their promotional video for Cream, they are hinting at a DAW in the future, where like in their plugin, every input and control on it is separately sampled, so it will have a "true to the real thing" result. I had heard of Harrison Mixbus 32C before and began wondering about it since I was under the impression that it was a DAW that did that sort of thing right now. So after searching and reading about it I found that video and was confused as to why he gets the results he does.

I mean, I *just* checked Cream, and ran only the preamp (no eq or compressor) on a track, inverted, and mixed, and it definitely had a big effect, as about 40% of the samples were affected. I also checked Prime Studio's Charly, a free preamp/amp summing tool, and that also has an effect when running an inversion test (about 10% or so of the original samples are affected).

So I guess I'm confused as to why Harrison Mixbus 32C does not emulate the hardware's preamp, either via circuit modeling or signal convolution modeling. I know that doesn't make it bad or anything like that, and I'm still considering purchasing a license. Just confused on this point really is all.

[Boydbob]

Get the License. It's well worth it.

I was a happy Reaper/Studio One user for a year or so, until I found MixBus 2.?? for $19 dollars.
I had heard a little about it and the price was a no brainer.

I don't know if MixBus sounds like anything else or not.
I do know that my songs now sound much better, with much less effort.

[Byron Dickens]

I guess I don't understand what people who make videos like this are trying to prove. Or why.

I mean, what's the point?

I thought the idea was to use the tools to make music that other people (hopefully) will enjoy. Not to use music to prove how good (or bad) someone else's tools stack up against yours.

[dayvyg]

Well, as a member of the Reaper forum I can comment on this.

Occasionally someone shows up there and says something like "Mixbus emulates a real console and sounds so much better than Reaper ya da ya da....". So, of course, people take offence to this and do null tests etc. It's a very active forum and has some really bright members so it usually gets sorted out.

I believe the general consensus is that if you don't engage the eq, compression and turn the saturation down it sounds pretty much like every other daw. No surprise there.

Anyway, both Reaper and Mixbus are good daws. Different strokes for different folks.

d.