What's your workflow

[RMorgan]

Hi everyone,

Well, since I'm new to Mixbus, I'm curious to know where it fits in your workflow.

If Mixbus isn't your main DAW, do you do a little pre-processing (level automation, corrective eq, light compression, etc...) in your other DAW before exporting the stems to Mixbus?

How and where does Mixbus integrates into your workflow?

Thanks in advance for your insights.

Cheers,

Morgan.

[sonik]

I use MB from A to Z.

[tinoroho]

Same here. Especially with midi integration. It may not have all the midi bells and whistles that other Daws have although the x42 stuff is pretty awesome. But I'm learning it more and more and I have not opened Studio One since I got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Studio Saturn]

Same here a to z All I need is just a little improvement over the midi and the side chain compression becoming easy going and I will be drowned in it.

[Dingo]

Hi everyone,

Well, since I'm new to Mixbus, I'm curious to know where it fits in your workflow.

Hi Morgan, I track and edit in Pro tools and then export tracks into Mixbus for final mixing.
The main reason I use this path is that I know Pro tools editing backwards, and most of my sessions come pre-recorded by others in Tools.
But I do not enjoy the mixing work flow in Tools, MB3 kills every other DAW in that regard.

[macmac]

RMorgan, good topic. I'm glad you brought it up. I've been thinking about this too.

Right now I do the MIDI in Logic. In the past I used to print the MIDI tracks and do the effects and editing in the mixing stage (separate project file). That didn't work well for me because I'd later add parts to the mix that weren't in the initial MIDI project, so then I'd have stuff strewn between the two projects.

For now I'm doing any crucial EQ, plugin uses, and effects, which means spending more time in the MIDI stage than before. The upside of this, though, is that the arrangement and production is completed in the MIDI stage. (like people who mix their MIDI tracks and/or freeze).

I'm thinking I will export the tracks to Mixbus to mix there, e.g. levels, pan, compression, etc. The only thing I'm pondering is this fact: aside from the sound, Mixbus is also quicker to mix in. So, if my mix is almost done in the MIDI stage, is it just ridiculous to set it all up again in Mixbus when there is so little left to do? Otherwise I could take advantage of Mixbus being quick to mix in if I did all of it there. I guess I'm just very used to Logic for all the editing and stuff, automation, plugins. Also I like the idea of the MIDI project having all the effects that normally would be in the mix, because it's then fleshed out exactly as I hear it in the writing stage, being easy to alter before committing to the mix.

Here's another thing: I also do various remixes / versions of the original track, so am debating whether to 1) create the versions in Logic from the original MIDI project, then export and mix them in Mixbus (using the same Mixbus template as the original track with all the levels and pans etc set up already)? Or, 2) once the original is mixed in Mixbus, just do the various versions there (saving as new appropriately-named projects, of course)?

I'm trying to come up with a good workflow rather than make things harder.

[RMorgan]

...I track and edit in Pro tools and then export tracks into Mixbus for final mixing.
The main reason I use this path is that I know Pro tools editing backwards...

Yeah, so far I'm sticking to my main DAW for the same reasons.

I feel like eventually Mixbus will become a full featured DAW, but so far the only thing it does really well is mixing.

Don't get me wrong, it really is an excellent mixer and provides an excellent workflow in this aspect, but regarding midi, automation and general editing, it still has a long way to go until it becomes truly competitive in the DAW market. I believe it will eventually get there, though.

RMorgan, good topic. I'm glad you brought it up. I've been thinking about this too.

Thanks.

For now I'm doing any crucial EQ, plugin uses, and effects...
...I will export the tracks to Mixbus to mix there, e.g. levels, pan, compression, etc...

Yes. So far I'm sticking to my main DAW to do some fundamental corrective EQ, MIDI, and automation, then I export the stems to Mixbus.

The only thing I'm pondering is this fact: aside from the sound, Mixbus is also quicker to mix in. So, if my mix is almost done in the MIDI stage, is it just ridiculous to set it all up again in Mixbus when there is so little left to do? Otherwise I could take advantage of Mixbus being quick to mix in if I did all of it there. I guess I'm just very used to Logic for all the editing and stuff, automation, plugins. Also I like the idea of the MIDI project having all the effects that normally would be in the mix, because it's then fleshed out exactly as I hear it in the writing stage, being easy to alter before committing to the mix.

That's indeed a dilemma. Like yourself, I also compose and mix as I go along. Mixbus requires a different workflow, since you have to finish most aspects of a production before exporting stems to it.

This might be a good thing, though. It forces you to finish a song, you know, to make decisions, instead of tweaking it for all eternity.

Anyway, I'm new to Mixbus, but so far, when I export something to it, it's already pre-mixed, for the reasons I just explained above. Like you said, at this stage, there's just a little mixing left to do on Mixbus.

However, Mixbus sounds really good, even if I'm not really starting a mix from scratch on it.

I'm trying to come up with a good workflow rather than make things harder.

Me too. Time will tell if it's really worth the effort.

I'll only be able to judge if Mixbus will become a consistent part of my workflow when I have a reasonable amount of mixes to compare.

So far, I believe my Mixbus mixes are sounding reasonably richer and more polished than those made in my main DAW, but I still haven't decided if it's worth the workflow annoyances.

Maybe, instead of trying to turn Mixbus into a full-featured DAW, the guys from Harrison should work on ways to integrate it into other DAW's workflow more fluidly. You know, make the routing thing easier and more intuitive.

I've been experiencing with the routing thing using Jack, Virtual Audio Cable and ReRout, but it's a ridiculously disruptive process, independently of the method. I'm sure the terrific programmers from Harrison could make this process much easier if they wanted to, though. This would be one good way to go, in my opinion.

[javadth]

also Mixbus

[macmac]

Mixbus requires a different workflow, since you have to finish most aspects of a production before exporting stems to it.

This might be a good thing, though. It forces you to finish a song, you know, to make decisions, instead of tweaking it for all eternity.

Yes, this too ^^^

They were all great observations and exactly what I'm debating with myself right now. I definitely felt mixes came together quicker in MB and I heard the difference in depth. There was only one time years ago that I remember doing a particular track (and it came together quickly) but in comparison I felt it was too saturated and not as clear as my other mix, but I think that was likely the choices I was making in MB.

When you export, when you refer to stems, are you exporting each track separately or submixes? I've noticed some people refer to submixes as stems and others consider each track a stem.

[RMorgan]

When you export, when you refer to stems, are you exporting each track separately or submixes? I've noticed some people refer to submixes as stems and others consider each track a stem.

When I say stems, I'm referring to "printing" each individual track or channel into an individual audio file and then opening them in Mixbus for mixing.

In my opinion, there's no point in exporting submixes since the biggest advantage of Mixbus is to use its busses to glue/gel individual tracks together.

So yes, I think the idea is to import individually printed tracks/channels/stems into Mixbus to take advantage of its great summing algorithms. That's where its "soul" is, in my opinion. It gels things really really well.