I started teaching myself a new workflow on Mixbus

[Studio Saturn]

I usually give Drum, Bass, Keys, Guitar, etc their own Bus on mixbus which I love to do a lot if Harrison didn't limit the number of Busses to 8.

Now, This is how I do it, I group Drum, Bass Keys, Guitar and the other with their own group and then I don't give them the 8 busses rather they go directly to Master output, the 8 Busses are used 1 for side chain until we get a proper side chain function. 3 reverb may be 4 the others are parallel compressions delays and echo similar FXs are used by duplicating the track and put all the way wet and blend it to dry signal.

I thought it might help.

[Jostein]

This is no bashing against you BHBstudio, I just see that this subject comes up from time to time and just want to comment it.

I usually make this 6 buses: drums/perc, guitars, keys, lead vocal, back ground vocals and reverb. That means that I usually have two left. I really don't understand the fuzz some people have about "being limited" to 8 busses. Strings can be sent to the keys bus (or in a new one), the same goes for brass and the bass can be sent to the guitars bus or directly to the master. That this mixbuses exist doesn't mean that we have to use all of them. And we can make as many groups we like and also sub buses. I guess that a part of the sounding secret in MB is that a lot of traffic goes through the maximum of 8 busses and if that is the case, then I hope that they wait for a really long time or make an entire ny DAW if they double the mix buses; just a thing as changing the compressor and the limiter in v 3 made a huge difference for me and costed me a lot of time.

Is it old habits from non console mixers that is the problem? A lot of songs have 15 to 30 tracks and a lot of pop songs have up to 60-90 tracks, witch is not uncommon when the producers/composers sends a lot of loops and audio snippets converted from MIDI tracks in for example Logic. I do very seldom find 8 busses as a limitation. But of course, getting rid of limits is always nice.

One have to adapt and change the workflow for every type og gear one have. That's is the curse and blessing of having choices.

[PBuryk]

Funny... I tried to setup a template for session MixBus assignments but
end up changing them all the time. I guess it's a good idea for projects
where you have a very consistent mixing need throughout the project.

Here's an example of what I have for my current project - 18 songs with
tracks generated here or submitted from (4) other satellite studios:

Drums - About 1/4 of the songs require 10+ tracks of drum mixdown. Others are submitted with a stereo drum mix. For the stereo mixes I still might use the MB for ambiance processing.

Background Vocals - I always seems to have a need for MB here.

Reverb Return(s) - as needed

Slapback Return(s) - as needed - usually only Lead Vocals and Lead guitar

Strings - multi KBD strings arrangements

Horns - Multi KBD horn arrangements

Rhythm Guitars - one MB for electric, one for acoustic

Comp'd tracks - guitars, keys, vocals, whatever... one MB for each type of "instrument"... using automated MUTE to control whose on or off the bus as needed.

Percussion - snaps and claps seem to always need ambiance processing

Then there are a bunch of odd needs from time to time.
"Fly-bys", and other cameo drop-ins, etc.
The point here, is that I don't have all of the above needs in all or even
most of the songs in the project!

So... given the above variety and the setup of each MB for the need of
the song, I've found there isn't much of an advantage to pre-set them up at all.

Cheers!
Patrick

[Domino]

I can't say that I've discovered "the workflow" for Mixbus yet. When ever I think I've figured it out I tend to hit a strange limitation. Like using region gain to gain stage all tracks to -18.0 and finding each track needs to be pretty much full screen for editing. Mixbus is missing a separate visual zoom level so details can be seen on normal sized tracks for that way to be correct.

Is it old habits from non console mixers that is the problem?

Maybe. I got started with Mixbus because of the allure of Ardour plus console goodness. I feel like I got more console and less Ardour than I expected. I'm learning a lot from that, but still feeling like I've not figured out the best workflow after six months using Mixbus is a problem. Maybe that's an area Harrison could address in the manual, but for now this quote from there is still a goal and not yet a result in my opinion.

Once you have reached the level of a Harrison Console, you are ready for new flights of engineering imagination. Unlimited. Unhaltered. Uninhibited by the bounds of technical obstructions. YOU BECOME THE STUDIO.

Ask anyone in the 'Stereo Buses not working!' thread if they feel inhibited by technical obstructions

Mixbus is still my favourite daw, I just hope I've not got unrealistic expectations due to marketing hype.

[stepaan]

BHBStudio: It seems interesting. But with this setup, you are missing the tape saturation and additional compressor/eq of these 8 buses. You don't "glue" drums for example?
Jostein: Since I produce mainly electronic music, I usually need more than 8 buses. Not much, but more ;-) Count with me: 1. Drums, 2. parallel drums, 3. basses, 4. synths, 5. guitars, 6. voc. And now I have 2 more buses left for fx's. One is usually used for a gated reverb on snares (so it can't be used with anything else) and only one left for all the remaining sends. Some of them can be hacked using aux busses, but they're not latency compensated and many of the fx's have a strong latency. So yes, the 8 mixbuses introduce some limitations for certain music genres... ;-)

[Studio Saturn]

BHBStudio: It seems interesting. But with this setup, you are missing the tape saturation and additional compressor/eq of these 8 buses. You don't "glue" drums for example?

You are right actually. I only use this way when the tracking number is beyond 40 and 50 otherwise drum always take mixbus 1 and 8 for parallel

[Jostein]

Jostein: Since I produce mainly electronic music, I usually need more than 8 buses. Not much, but more ;-) ...
...
...Some of them can be hacked using aux busses, but they're not latency compensated and many of the fx's have a strong latency. So yes, the 8 mixbuses introduce some limitations for certain music genres... ;-)

When working with (real) consoles, which is the MB idea, one always overcomes limitations someway or another, but I do understand and sympathize with our point. But the limited number of 8 buses is a part oft the genius thing with MB, I consider this limitation to be one of the real important reasons that makes MB so effective and effortless regarding making good sounding mixes in no time. I also guess that another reason that they don't have more than 8 buses is that it would probably slow down many people's machines considerable. So in my opinion, latency compensated aux buses is the way to go if that kind of workflow is important.

Thinking about that this subject comes up so often: -I can't remember that I've seen the Harrison folks comment on this subject. Will MB in the come with more mix buses and/or get latency compensation related to plugins with latency?

I just got an idea: With MB (and jack) you can connect anything to anything anywhere, so why not treat the FX with latency as external things? I guess that then the FX must run as a stand alone program (or inside a host) and that you connect it with a send and insert points and then measure the latency, then you are set. More about it here:

http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/mixbus/m...nd-inserts

[stepaan]

Well maybe you're right. I am a bedroom producer. I have never been using real console and everything I have known about mixing comes from online tutorials. They're using tens of buses for nearly anything in these tutes. However, I'm able to make better and faster mixes in MB using the native tools than for example in Reaper using procedures learned in the web. So again, maybe you're right. Probably I should reconsider my POV on mixing and get closer to what you are talking about – take these 8 buses as an advantage. And also as a part of the final sound or "shape" of my songs.
BTW: Someone from Harrison have mentioned, they're going to release more versions (flavors) of Mixbus at a time in the future focused at different clients and workflows. But no date was said.

[youki]

latency compensated aux buses is the way to go if that kind of workflow is important.

It's also my opinion. Unfortunately it was already stated on another thread that it's not a priority (and i guess with very good reasons from a dev point of view). From my simple user point of view that's the number 1 missing feature, but well i'll have to wait for it a few years, no choice. I'm confident that when it will be available, it will be well done though.

Also, i already talked with Pro-tools users that were looking for something else due to the pricing policies of Avid. They were interested in Mixbus, but each time the lack of busses latency compensation disheartened them (kind of "we had to wait for it very long in PT, we're not going back to this situation").

[Studio Saturn]

Actually until it gets delay compensation all I care about is if at least Harrison corrected the aux stereo panning. That is all. They have already stated that delay compensation is not going to be a point release thing. I have no problem with that.