Mixbus32C v6.0.652 update (now .702)

[Tassy]

I think that many people are inclined to object to a "Swiss army knife" approach that attempts to bundle disparate tools intended for different ultimate objectives or goals, which often creates cumbersome software bloat and an erosion of the quality of the various components.

Agree

One other big contender for me is Lilypond about the only type setting program suitable to produce scores for sight reading for me.

regards

Frank

---

+1, We are not far from someone asking for a feature that MB should also be able to switch the watering tap in the garden on schedule

Feature request solved Tassy !!


One can start any event now from midi. Be it explosions, smoke, raise elevators or Tap on !! Even a event which warns on your mobile you to leave the garden because it will be watered.

Back to music

Regards

I just checked : I stiil have your famous version 2.5 on my system too

Hi Frank
Thanks for your great ideas and welcome among the MB2.5 keepers
Tassy

[chordworks]

Hey guys

Thanks for the input,

I think you guys are missing the fundamental point of what I had mentioned.

Having these additional features would allow Mixbus to accommodate both

The "Mixer guy" and the "Composer guy"

A lot of the time, when you writing and composing music in standard notation, you want to be able to hear what the composition sounds like with the rest of your arrangements in realtime playback.

Composition and Mixing, both are elements of Audio. The "Audio" that you capture, is actually, digital samples. So everything in a DAW, is in fact digital, be it Midi or Audio, they are just two formats but both are still digital data.

I dont know where the "water in the garden" would fit in here, unless its a digital sample.

I my opinion its actually pointless to jump between softwares for the purpose mixing and then composition. To export midi data from one software and then import into Mixbus is just time consuming, and in a lot of cases the midi dont get exported properly. The both music, its all music, and Its a DAW, which means Digital Audio Workstation.

Yes, a Workstation, just like a kitchen, it should have all the tools and ingredients to cook up a recipe, meaning a full composition that is mixed and ready to go.


I wonder if when you frying an egg, you fry the egg on your electric stove inside the house, but you fry the yolk outside on the grill. It dont sense huh.

And I dont its too complicated, nor is it bloat. Its the 21 century, the world we live in now is almost fully digital. Anything is possible and guess what, convienience coupled with robustness sells like a hot cake.

Thank you guys,

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[JiriR]

Exactly as Chordworks writes. I don't want to constantly switch from one daw to another and I want to have all the editing in one sw. I try to do everything in Mixbus32C, but due to a few "little things" it's very difficult. In fact, I only need:

1. vst3 and aax support for Melodyne integration.
2. Better comping cut - easier folding into the top layer
3. Freeze tracks.
4. Better midi editing.

Please don't write me how to use melodyne, comping and freezing, I control the mixbus perfectly, but I also control Studio One and partly other daw, where these things work ...

[Frank]

Welkom Chordworks

Post number 3 ! To be Frank, i am Frank, i always wonder why people do not use their name. But that is not relevant now. I make an exception for MMM He does not know the song Summertime, he calls it wintertime..

I think you guys are missing the fundamental point of what I had mentioned.

Just like you did not get our, or maybe my point

Having these additional features would allow Mixbus to accommodate both

The "Mixer guy" and the "Composer guy"

I am both : and the "live quy" and the "windcontroller guy" and the "film music guy" and the Lazy guy and more

A lot of the time, when you writing and composing music in standard notation, you want to be able to hear what the composition sounds like with the rest of your arrangements in realtime playback.

Here habits already start to differ: but yes we listen. back sometimes.

Now i am part of a community where nearly everybody composes in a different way. Some of my friends use the same tools as lets say Bach used: pencil and paper, some sing in a recorder, some play on the keyboard and grab the midi. Others use Frescobaldi, Denemo, waveform.

Basically they use the tools they are comfortable with

Composition and Mixing, both are elements of Audio. The "Audio" that you capture, is actually, digital samples. So everything in a DAW, is in fact digital, be it Midi or Audio, they are just two formats but both are still digital data.

and intermediate phase : after that it goes different directions : a score to be played, a cd to be listend, to be put under a movie, or to be forgotten

I dont know where the "water in the garden" would fit in here, unless its a digital sample.

That was based on the fact that we should (not) make Mixbus in the swiss army knife of audio (a tool which pretend to do everything, but nothing really fits). Tassy suggested an impossible task. Water the garden with Mixbus. I remembered at preparation of a festival the pyrotechnicians laptop broke down: so i quickly converted his data into mixbus. and i learned Mixbus could make explosions, run elevators , lights , taps. Also water the garden.

I my opinion its actually pointless to jump between softwares for the purpose mixing and then composition. To export midi data from one software and then import into Mixbus is just time consuming, and in a lot of cases the midi dont get exported properly. The both music, its all music, and Its a DAW, which means Digital Audio Workstation.

Famous environment use tools which do one thing good. They share data.

Like one use an editor to write text, A type setter to create documents, another program to write books, for websides we use different tools.

Why because they do their task good. It takes time to select and learn a music editor. And there are several all with uniq qualities.
What important is they share the data.

when one jumps many times back and fro from the music editor and mixer program choose programs which run together.

Yes, a Workstation, just like a kitchen, it should have all the tools and ingredients to cook up a recipe, meaning a full composition that is mixed and ready to go.

I wonder if when you frying an egg, you fry the egg on your electric stove inside the house, but you fry the yolk outside on the grill. It dont sense huh.

Hmm i cook rice in a rice cooker, roast a steak on charcoal, make coffee in an expresso machine, Drink tea from a cup, drink wine from a glass

And I dont its too complicated, nor is it bloat. Its the 21 century, the world we live in now is almost fully digital. Anything is possible and guess what, convenience coupled with robustness sells like a hot cake.

I am convinced it is impossible, the demands are too diverse.
And a waste of time : for the diverse jobs we have just the right programs.

Just think of how many text editors we have..

Thank you guys,

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Thanks for your effort : as well

regards

Frank

[PBuryk]

Hello, Everyone -

One can view the existence of a DAW in a wide and vague sense. Yes, digital data is
digital data - and that is about as vague a statement as you can make. But let's get
a little more specific here. Recording a mic'd piano into a DAW is not the same as
recording a MIDI'd piano into a DAW. Why? Because the mic'd piano "data" stream
starts out as an analog (varying electrical) signal and is converted into a digital
(1's and 0's) data stream where it is then stored into the DAW. The MIDI'd piano,
on the other hand, originates as a digitally represented -event stream- (ie., "something just occurred") and stored in
that fashion in the DAW. Note: the two data streams, stored in the DAW, are in two
different formats - analogue now sampled digital values and MIDI now varied data
structures. The management (conversion to, storage of and manipulation of) each
of these is totally different and, in most products I've ever worked in that supported
both, do not accomplish their implementation equally. That is... In some cases the
available software developers have better vision and able to apply programming
principals to bring about a decent A/D to D/A type engine while others are better
at developing a killer Digital Event engine. Further, if you look deep into the timing
requirements of both of these type of systems you find that they might be best
designed as separate engines. That is, attempting to integrate them into the same
processing pipeline (interrupts, signals, semaphores, threads, etc) adds clouds
that processing path. This is where multi-threading can help tremendously, but
again, the they might still best be looked at, and implemented, as different
products. Add a third product for music notation and scoring.

Harrison was smart to align with Ardour. The two development efforts focus on
two specific areas of the Mixbus product; Ardour, on input acquisition and edting
and Harrison on the Mixing paradigm. I would think that, rather than diluting
their current development resources, a more appropriate move would be to
add a MIDI development partner company whose sole purpose would be to provide
a killer MIDI handler. And, maybe a music notation group as well. I think Harrison
is already looking at this possibility as they are currently "farming out" some
basic Mixbus related features, sort of "testing the waters". The thing to be careful
of, however, is if these outsources don't actually deliver solid results. That's when
subscribers in this Forum start tossing sewage into the rotating ventilator.

In summary, I do expect that the DAW I use to provide all the services described
above so I don't have to switch back and forth between different vendor's tools.
But I don't think Harrison is quite in position to deliver all these solutions using their
current corporate family. Moreover, I would caution Harrison about trying to put
out these additional features "before they are truly ready" as its current user base
does not seem to be totally open to the fact that certain new features may take a
couple releases before they are considered to be mature.

So... And in the meantime, I will continue to use the current (and previous)
versions of Mixbus, and other better suited tools for MIDI and Notation to get my
jobs done rather than complain about what functionality should be part of MB and
how my life sucks because it isn't.

Cheers!
Patrick