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

[Till]

[/quote]

I find the difference not to as subtle I suspected.
[/quote]

Really? For me there are worlds in between.

[csvk]

I find the difference not to as subtle I suspected.
[/quote]

Really? For me there are worlds in between.
[/quote]

That is what I mean. I thought it would be much more subtle. But It's not. I guess this is because it's quite difficult to match both DAW's EQ's. I think the main difference is because of that.

[waltermente]

I think that the correct and more honest way to compare is to load the files in both daws, leave the faders and knobs all to zero, modifying the volumes from the gain of each region (do the same in both daw for each channel) and export them from this way, without adding compression or eq and in case of adding it, it should be with third-party products and in the same measure in the different daw.

[Andy76]

I think that the correct and more honest way

Makes sense to compare workflow/decisions/time to perform any given operation.
As humans we mostly look for "better solution" of the problem with a product, isnt it?

Is Mixbus DAW solves the problem of creating a good mix faster, better, easier, cheaper, more fun than competitors?

[Till]

Is Mixbus DAW solves the problem of creating a good mix faster, better, easier, cheaper, more fun than competitors?

The answer for me is clearly:

YES

[madmaxmiller]

I think that the correct and more honest way to compare is to load the files in both daws, leave the faders and knobs all to zero, modifying the volumes from the gain of each region (do the same in both daw for each channel) and export them from this way, without adding compression or eq and in case of adding it, it should be with third-party products and in the same measure in the different daw.

That's the equivalent of comparing a passenger car to a tractor, by removing everything from the car that the tractor doesn't have.
The productivity of Mixbus is exactly because of the built in knob-per-function channel strips, they are an organic part of the software and make your mixing faster than with other products where you spend a lot of time to add the functionality via plugin. And on top of that is the summing engine which behaves "analogue" when driven.

MMM

[waltermente]

I think that the correct and more honest way to compare is to load the files in both daws, leave the faders and knobs all to zero, modifying the volumes from the gain of each region (do the same in both daw for each channel) and export them from this way, without adding compression or eq and in case of adding it, it should be with third-party products and in the same measure in the different daw.

That's the equivalent of comparing a passenger car to a tractor, by removing everything from the car that the tractor doesn't have.
The productivity of Mixbus is exactly because of the built in knob-per-function channel strips, they are an organic part of the software and make your mixing faster than with other products where you spend a lot of time to add the functionality via plugin. And on top of that is the summing engine which behaves "analogue" when driven.

MMM

So what you are comparing is functionality, NOT SOUND. You should change the title of this thread.

[JamieLang]

So what you are comparing is functionality, NOT SOUND. You should change the title of this thread.

I use Mixbus 100% for the sound.

Why are people so threatened by a DAW not sounding like all the others?

[Till]

So what you are comparing is functionality, NOT SOUND. You should change the title of this thread.

I use Mixbus 100% for the sound.

Why are people so threatened by a DAW not sounding like all the others?

If you load some stems into Cubase or in Mixbus - they sound equal.
Once you touch the EQ of Cubase, it sounds dull and flat.
In Mixbus nice and airy.

[JamieLang]

Actually, IME, if your "stems" are mono and pan them where you want them, they will not sound the same. Wish they did. Man I wouldn't use Mixbus.

My question is why is anyone threatened by the fact that it sounds different? That's actually the only angle I see is competitors who WANT it to be about stability and function. But, do they plant people here to endlessly debate crap? I doubt it...there must be some angle I'm not getting.