Mixbus vs. Cubase vs. SSL - Sound Comparison (Audio Page 7)

[willecho]

My first production with Mixbus 32C V6 no ext. Plug-Ins.

A Song called Summer

And this is a new mix with the SSL Channel Strip and Bus Compressor.

A Song called Summer with SSL Plug-Ins

What a difference. Mixbus runs on my i7 smooth at max. 30% DSP with all SSL Strips.
I loaded the tracks into Cubase and its the same sound with the SSL Plug-Ins. However, I like the Look and Feel Workflow more in MB.
It would be my favorite combination.

Unfortunately lots of little bugs there, where you can work around but a bit time consuming and it would get me sweating with a client next to me.
Lots of crashes mostly caused by ext. Plug-Ins i.e. a not activated Halion 6. Full crash by deleting a Midi track (and it cant get deleted at all),
jerky faders with QCon Pro G2 for no reason and QCon works fine in any other DAW's etc.

My 2 Cent:
Dear Mr. Harrison, take some money in the hand, hire an additional team, get the system smooth and stable running
and I would pay you with pleasure a 500$ for a Mixbus 32C V7.

Till

Just my thoughts.....

Nothing personal, just an observation, I think it is bizarre that you compare to totally different set-ups and write with amazement that there is such a difference!! Of course they are different. What that difference means to an individual will be good or bad depending on their point of view. Ask a 100 people and many will like the Mixbus sound and many will like the cubase sound in blind tests depending if they prefer a bright upfront digital sound or not.

To sum up what you are trying to do I think it is this.....

There is no doubt that Mixbus used EXACTLY how Harrison have set it up gives the user a flavour of the Harrison sound....BUT ... only if you use it EXACTLY as it has been set up.....as soon as you deviate from the Harrison template that they have created then you start to dilute the Harrison sound .....

SO...if you imagine a sliding fader of sound comparison with Harrison at the top end and another DAW at the other end, say Cubase with SSL channel strips and buss compressor on...If you only use Mixbus as it is without any third party plugins then you stay at the top of the slider with the Mixbus sound (far away from Cubase sound with SSL Plugins)....BUT...as soon as you start adding third party plugins to mixbus the sounds starts to dilute and the more you use third party plugins the more you move the fader down towards what you are getting from Cubase....

And as soon as you start adding analogue emulation plugins to the Cubase/SSL combo then the more you are moving your sliding fader of sound comparison up from Cubase towards Mixbus...

Keep that visualisation....SO .. there is a middle area in your sliding fader comparison analogy when the two are very much sounding the same.....when Mixbus users put an army of third party pugins and when Cubase users use an army of analogue emulations....they both hit the middle ground and get pretty much the same results.....(and I am yet to see a Mixbus mix without any third party plugins on!!!)....

SO...again just my opinion...but I think if you want the Harrison mixbus sound...just mix with the template that Harrison have set up...Turning the drive settings off or overloading it with plugins negates the sound....If you want a bright up front modern digital sound, use SSL and Cubase....If you swamp Mixbus with plugins or add analogue emulations to Cubase, there aint gonna be much difference to speak of.

One final analogy for you, just for fun.... I think people fall in love with the initial sound and look of Mixbus, just like you fall in love with a beautiful woman (or man)...then over time it doesn't do everything that you want it to so you try and change it and mold it into what you'd prefer it to be, just like in life many people try to change the beautiful person we fell in love with to someone else, take that beautiful girl and make her like our mothers (or fathers), hahahaaa (not speaking from personal experience there, haha!!!)

Have fun

[Till]

Nothing personal, just an observation, I think it is bizarre that you compare to totally different set-ups and write with amazement that there is such a difference!! Of course they are different. What that difference means to an individual will be good or bad depending on their point of view. Ask a 100 people and many will like the Mixbus sound and many will like the cubase sound in blind tests depending if they prefer a bright upfront digital sound or not.

It's not Japan here. Where people from Yamaha don't sit with people from Mitsubishi at the same table.
So I'm a Sound Engineer behind a Neve console, so I never will touch a Harrisson or SSL? Kindergarten.
The Workflow of Mixbus ist nice, the core engine sound better as any other DAW I heard by default.
The SSL Plug-Ins cost twice a 32C and they also do a pretty good job. Why don't use them?

So Cubase Elements for a 100$ sounds poor. Mixbus for a 300$ sounds much better,
and with the 400$ SSL Channel Strips and Bus compressor, it sounds even better.
Many people are complaining about difficulties with external Plug-Ins in MB.
I shared the experience that SSL Plug-Ins work smoothly as silk in MB.
Why not share this experience?

I thought Mixbus is a DAW and not a religion.

[willecho]

Nothing personal, just an observation, I think it is bizarre that you compare to totally different set-ups and write with amazement that there is such a difference!! Of course they are different. What that difference means to an individual will be good or bad depending on their point of view. Ask a 100 people and many will like the Mixbus sound and many will like the cubase sound in blind tests depending if they prefer a bright upfront digital sound or not.

It's not Japan here. Where people from Yamaha don't sit with people from Mitsubishi at the same table.
So I'm a Sound Engineer behind a Neve console, so I never will touch a Harrisson or SSL? Kindergarten.
The Workflow of Mixbus ist nice, the core engine sound better as any other DAW I heard by default.
The SSL Plug-Ins cost twice a 32C and they also do a pretty good job. Why don't use them?

So Cubase Elements for a 100$ sounds poor. Mixbus for a 300$ sounds much better,
and with the 400$ SSL Channel Strips and Bus compressor, it sounds even better.
Many people are complaining about difficulties with external Plug-Ins in MB.
I shared the experience that SSL Plug-Ins work smoothly as silk in MB.
Why not share this experience?

I thought Mixbus in a DAW and not a religion.

You are absolutely right, you can use anything you want, no worries ... and comparing plugins and how many to use is another subject ... but the topic of this thread is Mixbus vs Cubase sound and my point is (just my opinion)...the more you add 3rd party plugins to Mixbus that you would use in Cubase, the more Mixbus shifts to the same sound you get using Cubase .... and likewise, the more (good) analogue emulations that you add to Cubase the more the Cubase sound shifts towards Mixbus until there is very little between them (assuming you have set up your Cubase template the same way as Harrison have set up their Ardour template)....Note my last point "assuming you have set up your DAW the same way that Mixbus is set up with channels/trim/EQ/Compression ... feeding busses with EQ/tape sturation....feeding master buss with EQ/tape saturation/buss compressor/limiter/K meter...the closer you match the Mixbus spec on Cubase the more Cubase will sound like Mixbus.