Mixbus DOES NOT have a "sound" - until it does!

[willecho]

The “Sound” of Mixbus de-mystified

Let’s put this to bed once and for all using science, logic and clear thinking.

In answer to the question “does Mixbus have a sound” both these statements are true:

1. No - “Mixbus” DOES NOT have a “unique” sound – it sound exactly like every other DAW.
2. Yes - “Mixbus” DOES have a “unique” sound, but then so does every other DAW.

The answer depends on how you take the scientific measurements.

Therefore it is true to say that ALL DAWs will have both a “unique” sound and no “unique” sound at all. All DAWs sound exactly the same upon opening and become “unique” when plugins are added.

Let me explain further:

Fact 1: All DAWs in their basic state, with no plugins inserted, sound the same (Mixbus included).

Scientific proof: (firstly check the “points to note” below) Take a track and import it into Mixbus and one other DAW, exporting the track as you go without altering anything on each DAW. You will then have 2 exported files from 2 DAWs. Now import both files into the same project and change the polarity of one track/channel only. Press play and silence will result as both exports cancel each other out (two identical signals one with opposite polarity to the other = silence aka: null test) proving both signals are identical, proving both DAWs sound the same.

Points to note: If your exports are not cancelling out it is because of one of the following.
a. You have plugins inserted somewhere – deactivate them.
b. Panning laws are not the same on both DAWs – set them the same.
c. You are routing audio through a Mixbus “buss” with drive on – route straight to the master buss AND turn off the drive on the master buss too.
d. The master buss drive is on – turn it fully left.
e. You have the Mixbus “limiter” on – deactivate it.
f. You have not used a clean Mixbus session with all compressors and eq off – start with a clean session.
g. Sampling rates and bit rate is not the same – export at the same rates

So if all DAWs sound the same when “booted” up, at what point do they become “unique”. The answer is – when the sound is processed through a plugin.

Fact 2: There is no “voodoo” magic surrounding Mixbus bussing system.

Scientific Evidence: Repeat the “null” test above BUT this time route the audio to buss 1 ONLY (deactivate the master send in the source track), WITH the “drive” setting for buss 1 off – i.e turn the dial all the way left (the master buss drive should be off too). Export this new file and it will again cancel out to silence meaning that sending audio via a Mixbus buss does not change the sound and Mixbus still sounds like any other DAW.

So, where does Mixbus (or any other DAW) begin to sound “unique”.

As soon as you activate any of the included audio processing, albeit the buss “drive”, eq, compression or tone controls. Mixbus starts to sound different to all other DAWs.

BUT then, insert your choice of audio processing into a different DAW and that too starts to have a “unique” sound and become “unique” exactly the same as Mixbus does and at exactly the same stage.

To conclude: Mixbus is no different to any other DAW and in fact sounds and reacts EXACTLY the same up to the point of introducing audio processing through plugins.

The “sound” of Mixbus is the plugins Harrison have added. But that is no different than adding a collection of say “Waves” plugins to Cubase to create a “Cubase” sound. Remember all DAWs are equal upto the point of plugins.

Where Mixbus excels is that Harrison have carefully selected plugins for you that work together in a logical manner and have laid out your workflow and bussing for you, again in the most efficient way, so you don’t have to think about it.

Whether the plugins that Harrison have inserted are better than third party ones is another subject, and do these plugins make for a better mix? Does having everything simplified from the outset make for a better mix? These are subjective topics that cannot be proven scientifically.

One thing is for sure – Mixbus does not have a “sound” – until it does! No DAW has a sound until it does!

[Sthauge]

The “Sound” of Mixbus de-mystified

Let’s put this to bed once and for all using science, logic and clear thinking.

Well, here we go again. Look up the other threads here in the forum about sound differences.

Let's make a metaphor and some direct statements to the resonnement in your post.

You have two cars, one with AC(Mixbus) and one without AC(any other DAW). When both engine are of, they are just as hot as the other in a sunny place. You see - they are both the same and both are hot.

Then you turn on the engine in both cars and the car with AC gets cold while the other car remains hot. So now they are different.

I think this experiment have minor real value. I'm interested in how it feels to drive the two cars in a sunny day and if one is better than the other.

The interesting comparison is: Is there a difference if you use the options you get in the program and utilise the tools provided from the vendor. Mixbus32C have a digital model of transistors, resistors etc. from the analog EQ in a 32C console. Just turn it on and it will change the sound to the better. The summing engine are Harrison specific and it comes more into play when you have more than one track.

So, the post are mainly technical correct, but it's a academic exercise that I guess have minor interest in practical life.

When I use Mixbus the way it's meant to be, it sound different and better than other DAWs. I'm coming from another DAW and Mixbus sound way better than my previous DAW. When you also count in the easy and flexible licensing regime, the great user support, the open communication between the developers and the users, Harrison is a very easy, safe and pleasant choice.

:-)

[willecho]

The “Sound” of Mixbus de-mystified

Let’s put this to bed once and for all using science, logic and clear thinking.

Well, here we go again. Look up the other threads here in the forum about sound differences.

Let's make a metaphor and some direct statements to the resonnement in your post.

You have two cars, one with AC(Mixbus) and one without AC(any other DAW). When both engine are of, they are just as hot as the other in a sunny place. You see - they are both the same and both are hot.

Then you turn on the engine in both cars and the car with AC gets cold while the other car remains hot. So now they are different.

I think this experiment have minor real value. I'm interested in how it feels to drive the two cars in a sunny day and if one is better than the other.

The interesting comparison is: Is there a difference if you use the options you get in the program and utilise the tools provided from the vendor. Mixbus32C have a digital model of transistors, resistors etc. from the analog EQ in a 32C console. Just turn it on and it will change the sound to the better. The summing engine are Harrison specific and it comes more into play when you have more than one track.

So, the post are mainly technical correct, but it's a academic exercise that I guess have minor interest in practical life.

When I use Mixbus the way it's meant to be, it sound different and better than other DAWs. I'm coming from another DAW and Mixbus sound way better than my previous DAW. When you also count in the easy and flexible licensing regime, the great user support, the open communication between the developers and the users, Harrison is a very easy, safe and pleasant choice.

:-)

Thanks so much for taking the time to reply.

Firstly, I have to make it clear that I love Mixbus and have been a supporter and user since for many years and I too love it! I also agree with everything you say about how it feels to drive, but feelings are subjective and there are always many subjective terms applied to Mixbus by Mixbus users. I have followed the forum for many years and have enjoyed reading all the fabulous posts on the "sound", but I couldn't find any posts with test results nailing down exactly what the sound is as I've laid out, apologies if I am duplicating previous posts, I must have been looking in the wrong place....but I think with so many "subjective" superlatives being applied to Mixbus it should be crystal clear to users both new and old exactly what is happening technically, rather than just being told "it sounds great", and I feel my original thoughts set that out. Thanks again for your views, it is appreciated :-)

[Sthauge]

It's some threads in this forum on the topic, but it is also a topic that have been discussed on other forums as well, as Facebook etc.

Yes, it's interesting to actually see what the differences are and identify why it's sound different, though I thought that the first part of your test was not interesting because that test disabled everything that could make Mixbus a better sounding DAW so the answer was obvious if you ask me.

An interesting test would be to take some multitrack recordings, load the same tracks into Mixbus and some other DAWs, turn on the standard processing but not turn any knobs in all DAWs, pan the tracks equally and use some mixbuses(auxbusses in other DAWs). This will be a more realistic test by engaging the EQ, saturation and summing engine, but it will also introduce some variables that will make the test less scientific. Likewise you'll have to put a zeroed EQ ++ on the tracks in the other DAWs so it's even. Anyway, it's in practical life the differences appears, so making a real life test is what matters. Record the slightly mixed tracks, export, import to a DAW and then flipp the phases. :-)

[Byron Dickens]

*Yawn*

[madmaxmiller]

Scientific Evidence: Repeat the “null” test above BUT this time route the audio to buss 1 ONLY

Hello Mr "scientist", the "magic" lies in the summing engine, the emulation of real analogue circuits (32C) or the emulation of analogue summing (Mixbus).

If you use only 1 channel through 1 bus - what do you need a DAW for? We are talking about mixing here.

MMM

[willecho]

Scientific Evidence: Repeat the “null” test above BUT this time route the audio to buss 1 ONLY

Hello Mr "scientist", the "magic" lies in the summing engine, the emulation of real analogue circuits (32C) or the emulation of analogue summing (Mixbus).

If you use only 1 channel through 1 bus - what do you need a DAW for? We are talking about mixing here.

MMM

Hey, thanks to you all for joining in....I really appreciate it....I agree mixing is all about instinct and feel, of course...but there is a part of music creation that involves experiment and discovery, time and space for analysis and testing too..(and for talking to great people about mixing)....so, I had one question that I did not know the answer to.......what EXACTLY makes Mixbus special?...I did not know and I could not find an answer backed up by factual information anywhere....I now know....and no, the magic is NOT in the summing engine itself - if you take the "summing engine" at it's literal meaning of combining audio from different sources. ...I now know that (without any added drive) no magic at all happens by mearly summing audio in Mixbus....the magic comes ONLY from the plugins Harrison have added and the ease of workflow they have laid out...the same as a customized "template" in any other DAW.....and it is a lovely thing

This may be obvious to many, but to many it won't be ... I feel there is no such thing as a stupid question if you don't know the answer...I personally did not know the answer, now I do.... and for all those who didn't also...there the answer is in my original post.

Great stuff, thanks for your time. I am off to create reactionary, emotional music without engaging the "scientific" mind, ha ha...take care one and all

[Phil999]

I also would say that the good sound is a result of many channels played back or rendered together (summing). I had this 'revelation', if you want, in a Cubase session with about a dozen channels, when I activated each u-he Satin plugin instance in each channel. Satin is a tape emulation that can be combined internally (each instance in each channel acts as a single track of one virtual multitrack tape machine). When the plugins were activated, something happened. The sound changed, obviously, but in a kind of way I only knew from tape machines. A single channel solo'ed does not sound special, but combined the magic starts to happen.

I think this is what appealed to me when Harrison Consoles created the Mixbus software. It has the same effect as described above, but much more easier and faster to handle. I could do the same in Cubase or any other DAW I believe, maybe even better than in Mixbus (sans plugins), but it's not practical in daily use (apart from the time to set up there's also the problem with CPU cycles and stability).

[Tassy]

Hi, to understand it clearly:
soundcards make music (analogue signal) from 0 and 1 digital stuff
daws all have different programs, their "sound engine", that handles that 0 and 1 info in different ways since the programs are different.
The sound so is also different, maybe so close to each other that cannot hear or can hear depending on the daw. all daws may sound the "same" in 99.999% but not 100.

MB is the most different since it not only handles the digital data as any other daw but handles it in a way as the original hardware dit it, so MB is not a DAW but a console emulation. adds saturatin by default and doeas some other things as well other daws not.

If you put the same song, one track, into different daws the MB will sound a hair different and the difference is for the better.

Without starting the old dabate I may state that there are a lot users of MB here who can hear the small difference even among the earlier versions of MB not speaking about 32C that is a more special one.

As to "magic" and the plugins ,do not mess them up. magic comes from the mixing enginer's skills and not from any special plugin. If it were like that everyone would be a Grammy winner just by using this one plug as Kevin from Mixcoach would say
best
Tassy

[willecho]

I also would say that the good sound is a result of many channels played back or rendered together (summing). I had this 'revelation', if you want, in a Cubase session with about a dozen channels, when I activated each u-he Satin plugin instance in each channel. Satin is a tape emulation that can be combined internally (each instance in each channel acts as a single track of one virtual multitrack tape machine). When the plugins were activated, something happened. The sound changed, obviously, but in a kind of way I only knew from tape machines. A single channel solo'ed does not sound special, but combined the magic starts to happen.

I think this is what appealed to me when Harrison Consoles created the Mixbus software. It has the same effect as described above, but much more easier and faster to handle. I could do the same in Cubase or any other DAW I believe, maybe even better than in Mixbus (sans plugins), but it's not practical in daily use (apart from the time to set up there's also the problem with CPU cycles and stability).

Exactly. Something good happened when you activated a plugin in Cubase. Something good happens ONLY when you activate a plugin in Mixbus - Not merely by summing...you have to sum AND activate a plugin for the magic to happen. Remember the "drive" plugins Harrison have added on the "Mixbus busses" are active by default...Turn them all the way left to deactivate them and the magic disappears.... No magic but still summing.

---

Hi, to understand it clearly:
soundcards make music (analogue signal) from 0 and 1 digital stuff
daws all have different programs, their "sound engine", that handles that 0 and 1 info in different ways since the programs are different.
The sound so is also different, maybe so close to each other that cannot hear or can hear depending on the daw. all daws may sound the "same" in 99.999% but not 100.

MB is the most different since it not only handles the digital data as any other daw but handles it in a way as the original hardware dit it, so MB is not a DAW but a console emulation. adds saturatin by default and doeas some other things as well other daws not.

If you put the same song, one track, into different daws the MB will sound a hair different and the difference is for the better.

Without starting the old dabate I may state that there are a lot users of MB here who can hear the small difference even among the earlier versions of MB not speaking about 32C that is a more special one.

As to "magic" and the plugins ,do not mess them up. magic comes from the mixing enginer's skills and not from any special plugin. If it were like that everyone would be a Grammy winner just by using this one plug as Kevin from Mixcoach would say
best
Tassy

Tassy my friend, great to hear from you, and it is not often I disagree with you ... BUT.. on this occasion I do, sorry;

I feel it is these statements that "Mixbus" is somehow special without factual evidence that I was trying to overcome in my original post. Mixbus IS a DAW like any other; a DAW built on the Ardour DAW. It contains an edit screen and a mix screen like any other DAW. It reacts like any other DAW until you activate the plugins Harrison have added for your convenience. Yes the embedded plugins combined are an emulation of Harrisons console so it can be thought of as a console emulation too, but so too when you add channel strip plugins to any other DAW are you too creating your own "console emulation" - just a different one. but it is first and foremost a digital audio workstation with Harrison's version of a console emulation generated by activating their modeled plugins.

And yes, you are right magic does come from interacting with plugins in a pleasing way...but that is another subject....We are focusing on factually what happens where and when in mixbus....Always love to hear your thoughts, it's been a while, thank you