Need for and technical posible with a "light weight mode" or a Mixbus light version?

[dagh]

My vocal mic are connected to my arranger keyboard, and my keyboard to MB for low latency live mixing. This is when I've several times been playing for dance.
For that I only need one -1 - channel in stereo!!

I don't need many channels either when I am occasionally sitting at home to study MB, or if I would decide to record a live or a home demo. Would gess that more then me, could have a use for only one stereo channel sometimes.

BUT, THE PROBLEM is that my computers have little cores, and although I use only one track, the DSP goes fast towards 100 as I add plugins. Also starting the program takes quite a lot of time.
The MB have been used because it was a little more light weight than the MB32c.

And yes, I figered out that I can select number of prosessors and number of tracks in the preferance meny. I have done that.

Is it technical possible to make a "light weight mode" (or a Mixbus light version) to handle that???
Need for that?
The software will be "cheaper", if some of us also not have to upgrade the hardware only because of MB.
- More attractive also to the target group of novices, in addition to the existing group of you sound/data/Mixbus experts on the forum and everywhere.
- You can have the most expensive computer, but from time to time it is handy to install MB on the old or cheap computer, when you are not in studio or on holiday...

Will we see a Mixbus 32c v4 with this?

[Andy76]

maybe try Ardour DAW (on which Mixbus is based)? i guess we could call Ardour "light version of Mixbus".

and its free and crossplatform!

[Frank]

My vocal mic are connected to my arranger keyboard, and my keyboard to MB for low latency live mixing. This is when I've several times been playing for dance.
For that I only need one -1 - channel in stereo!!

I don't need many channels either when I am occasionally sitting at home to study MB, or if I would decide to record a live or a home demo. Would gess that more then me, could have a use for only one stereo channel sometimes.

BUT, THE PROBLEM is that my computers have little cores, and although I use only one track, the DSP goes fast towards 100 as I add plugins. Also starting the program takes quite a lot of time.
The MB have been used because it was a little more light weight than the MB32c.

And yes, I figered out that I can select number of prosessors and number of tracks in the preferance meny. I have done that.

Is it technical possible to make a "light weight mode" (or a Mixbus light version) to handle that???
Need for that?
The software will be "cheaper", if some of us also not have to upgrade the hardware only because of MB.
- More attractive also to the target group of novices, in addition to the existing group of you sound/data/Mixbus experts on the forum and everywhere.
- You can have the most expensive computer, but from time to time it is handy to install MB on the old or cheap computer, when you are not in studio or on holiday...

Will we see a Mixbus 32c v4 with this?

You do not give any details of your hardware setup. Do you have an efficient AD converter.
Increase the size of your buffers so the dsp load will go down.

But the way it sounds : Mike into keyboard and keyboard makes the sounds: why use Mixbus than ?

I think for your line of music : NI Mashine is the tool ...


regards

[dagh]

maybe try Ardour DAW (on which Mixbus is based)? i guess we could call Ardour "light version of Mixbus".
and its free and crossplatform!

Whoa, look at the DSP now! For me, the light Ardour was worth an extra donnation! Thanks

So far after a quick look at Ardour

Pros: I can use more of all of the Harrison Mixbus plugins and the X42 equalizer, that I already have got, an try more of them together at same time.

Cons: Missing saturation in tracks and master(?) i guess. So I have to use either MB or Ardour.

May be Ardour will be a competitor to bouth my light weight, fast Reaper DAW and Harrison, for me, in my case?

---

You do not give any details of your hardware setup. Do you have an efficient AD converter.
Increase the size of your buffers so the dsp load will go down.

I have an OK Focusrite Scarlett soundcard. I increase my buffers (and latency), but not when I am playing live.

But the way it sounds : Mike into keyboard and keyboard makes the sounds: why use Mixbus than ?

Mic into keyboard syncs vocal delay to the different rythms an "styles" of each song.
And MB masters total sound from keyboard, compensates sound and placement of PA speakers, adjusts sound to fit room and audience.

After having used the Reaper daw, the first moment just trying to send through a Mixbus stereo channel. We stood there, staring at each other, bouth thinking "what was that...?" Well, it was then we discovered the Harrison Mixbus sound.

Your question, that's why use Mixbus then.

I think for your line of music : NI Mashine is the tool ...

Thank you for your suggestion, Frank. See you are from Netherlands. Having the wonderful dutch tune "Sylvia" of Focus on reportuare, and trying to perform in a Thiis Van Leer organ style. This tool would have been a challenge to me. Just to illustrate...

[dagh]

COULD THIS BE THE SOLUTION?
If I open only a new file, whithout any new channels/tracks, Mixbus32C-4 (64-bit) and Mixbus32-3 32bit uses 50% and 60% of the DSP, after a while when it is stable. This is on my cheap Windows computer.

If I do the same in Ardour 5.8 in bouth the 64-bit and the 32-bit, Ardour uses only 3-4% of DSP!

Why? As far as I can see, it is because Ardour miss the Mixbus mixbuses. I will also guess that the master in Mixbus needs more DSP than the master in Ardour.

In Ardour you do not have to go through the master.
Ardours master has also a "allow-special-bus-removal" option that Mixbus don't have.

Hello, Ben@Harrison , or some else...
..could the solution be to make an option in Mixbus where you can choose to throw out the mixbusses and the master?

If this option also is on start up, the start up time will also be a few seconds shorter. On this PC the 32-bit Mixbus uses 1.5-2 minutes to start, and the 64-bit version takes about half a minute, so everything helps.


CHANGING FILES BETWEEN ARDOUR AND MIXBUS
If you do so, it is may be because you want to make use of the light weight benefits in Ardour, that you do not have in Mixbus, in the working process.

Then you should not use the mixbusses, because this will be a mess when you take a file from Mixbus to Ardour. Instead you should open up separate buses, if you cant be without at least a few.

[Andy76]

..could the solution be to make an option in Mixbus where you can choose to throw out the mixbusses and the master?

Whats the point in using Mixbus then? Ardour is the answer.

"Hey Bill Gates, could you throw away unnecessary stuff from Win10 so I could start it on my 386 PC?"

[Ben@Harrison]

Mixbus requires significantly more CPU resources than a typical DAW, because it is emulating the operation of an analog console.

However please note that, because of the way Mixbus works, it does not increase the cpu to enable all the EQs and compressors; the DSP load for that processing is already pre-allocated when you run Mixbus. This means that if Mixbus is running smoothly, you won't accidentally overload your system if you enable all the channelstrip eq+comp features while you are mixing.

If this option also is on start up, the start up time will also be a few seconds shorter. On this PC the 32-bit Mixbus uses 1.5-2 minutes to start, and the 64-bit version takes about half a minute, so everything helps.

Hmm, Mixbus should only take a few seconds to start. That is not normal operation. Please send a note to our support email ( mixbus @ harrisonconsoles.com ) and include your system specifications including OS version and soundcard(s) that you have installed.

Best,
-Ben

[dagh]

Tanks for responding, Ben!

May be we have different premises to conclude from?

Here are mine:
Possibilities to use available, but not so powerful computers with one or a few cores. (Compared with what we could expect from people who want the computer to run smoothly)
Possibilities to use several extra plugins - where the DSP load is not pre-allocated - in addition to the included EQs and compressors.

The principle here is to get low unnecessary DSP load from start, to have as much as possible DSP resources to spend.

You say:
"Mixbus requires significantly more CPU resources than a typical DAW, because it is emulating the operation of an analog console".
Then required resources exceed even more with encreased number of preinstalled mixbusses.

To show this:
I don't know the DSP load for the master channel and each of the preinstalled 12 mixbusses. This experience I have done, is ment just as an example:
The preinstallet mixbusses, the master and all together takes the first halv of the DSP, on this PC.
Then if I go from zero and up to 12 stereo audio inputs or extra busses (OK, not exactly the same as the included mixbusses.)
On my rotten PC for this use, with MB32C-3 32bits Buffer size: 256 samples.

Then the DSP load are just slightly under 100 %. That is nothing left for the extra plugins. Neither demanding or not demanding plugins. [Of course we need the delay and reverb,] and if someone want to try the Mixbus master compressor and master eq in addition...?

Does it then make sense to have an option, where you can choose only the number of the preinstalled mixbusses you need, and well, may be also the master if there is considerabel DSP load to save?

Short about my equipment:
This is a cheap and not new PC, but it is good enough for my daily use!
Celeron N2830 2,16 GHz Win10
It is the computer I am refering to, and the bottle neck in my system. (And I have earlier performed live with a Macbook Pro Mid 2012 and Mixbus 3.)

I have a Focusrite Scarlett 18i8 first gen soundcard, but the free ASIO4ALL driver can work as a referance as well, because not much difference in DSP use.

High DSP is also related to my buffer size 256 samples, to keep latency low when playing live.

[bapu]

High DSP is also related to my buffer size 256 samples, to keep latency low when playing live.

An therein lies the rub.

You probably need to pre-plan (bounce) your tracks better, so there is no extra DSP load when playing live.

---

The moment I start adding plugins to a project I am no longer in tracking mode.

The same should be held true that if I need to add plugins to what I will use live the project is no longer in live mode (it's in mixing mode).

Know what I'm saying?

[dagh]

About me, bapu:
There have not been many places to put the only audio stereo input from the keyboard when playing live ;-)
Admit that I also usually use at least two of the mixbusses in parallell for the delay and reverb for live music, and if I have more channels.
Understand what your mean.

About my topic:
My topic was that I hoped to reduce the system requirements for myself and others.
Because no matter how I or others do, we all will have som kind of limitations with processors that are below the minimum of recomended requirements or below what Harrison recommend.