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

[sunrat]

There was a really long thread last year about almost exactly the same thing - http://mixbus.harrisonconsoles.com/forum...-8262.html

[csvk]

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.

Threatened? No. It just that the difference is to big. I admire the test and the effort. But it's not a honest one. Some instruments sound so different.... The result doesn't add up to my own testings. Differences between DAW products and Plug-ins are generally small, when. Comparing them at same loudness.

It that shows that they are two different animals,

[Andy76]

...there must be some angle I'm not getting.

Given the amount of flame around OSs, browsers, mobile phone brands, DAWs etc..it is safe to assume that the choice of software makes a huge part of self-identity of the modern people.

When someone says that %his product of choice% is better than %your product of choice%, even if he provided 100% valid arguments it could be perceived as a personal attack, because someone is challenging another persons system of values and belief.

In a context of a public discussion (exchange of opinions could be interpreted as a soft form of conflict) we can often see the prevalence of the emotional side of intellect over the logical one.

And its a fact that humans operate mostly on emotions, not logic.

So emotions will continue to flow as long as there are means to express them, e.g free forums, chats, comment sections etc.

[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

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

Nope. Mixbus does have these features and when you use the functionality it will sound better.
MMM

[waltermente]

I come back here one more time, just to try to clarify what I meant and maybe it was misinterpreted.
I did NOT want to disavow or devalue the work of the creator of this thread, OR FAR LESS attack anyone. I just wanted to give my point of view on the best way to compare two different products (maybe not better or worse, just different).

Before giving a reason to my point of view I want to say that I have already heard comparisons between different daw (Cubase, Logic, Harrison, Luna, Studio One and Protools) using the method that I proposed in my previous post and Yes, a great difference is heard . Much difference.

Now yes, I delve a little more about my position, but only to try to clarify, not to argue anything:
I think the most honest way to compare two daws would be to put the same files on both daws and Ok, let's apply processes; Let's lower the volume 3dB from the mixer fader to the guitar, compress it with the native compressors of each daw, BUT with exactly the same thresshold configuration, exactly the same Ratio and exactly the same Attack and release on both daws ... Let's give it treble with native Eqs, BUT let's give it the same amount of gain on exactly the same frequency and with exactly the same bandwidth on both daw. Only in this way can a comparison be loyal.
Just saying "give treble" or "compress" without specifying is soooo wide to take as a reference.

Obviously all plugins sound different, otherwise there would be only one. And even if it contradicts me, I want to say that to be completely honest the comparison should apply in exactly the same proportions.

Anyway, I am very sure that at the end of this test Harrison will continue to "win" (Let me say that it has nothing to do with music because music is not a competition).
Of course this is a matter of criteria and there is nothing written about tastes. Nothing. I can only say that from that test I heard from different daws mixing the same song with exactly the same parameters, (According to MY point of view as everything I exposed here !!) Harrison was the daw that sounded the best!

Final clarification: The values ​​I expressed for volume eq and compression are just examples!! (As to not generate another controversy or confrontation also for that) I do not like fight or leave a bad image with anyone! Although the language barrier may not collaborate with me. Cheers!!

[Andy76]

For those who dont want to spend 100+ hours comparing DAWs theres a guy who did it for you:

http://admiralbumblebee.com/DAW-Chart.html


For those who wants to hear Mixbus32C vs Reaper:

[Till]

Well, I'm reading a lot of wisdom here.
It's about Sound Engineering - right?
For me, it was a three years study of Electronics, one year SAE, followed by an endless experience - I got 40 years of it now.
I build more than 20 studios in my life.

I worked with Cubase as it was just a Midi Sequencer on an Atari.
I got Alpha Versions for testing because Steinberg is from my hometown Hamburg.
I heard the first sounds from the lab as Mr. Palm creates the famous PPG Wave Synthesizer.

So if I'm doing a sound comparison, I know what I'm doing.
The idea was: Just take some well-recorded stems and just use the two daws for a mix with their onboard tools. No extra Plugins.

So a DAW doesn't sound - right?
But you emulate Compressors, EQ's, Instruments to receive its original sound?
From those famous hardware devices like Fairchild, Neve etc.

With Mixbus, we are emulating the sound of a legendary console. And it's pretty close.
So if a console doesn't have a sound for you, it's your big day today:

You don't need to buy a 150K$ console, like SSL or Harrison.
Just get an 800$ Behringer and you are fine.

[sunrat]

...
You don't need to buy a 150K$ console, like SSL or Harrison.
Just get an 800$ Behringer and you are fine.

Very funny. Where I work is a live venue with Digico SD10 consoles (~$100K each) , Adamson and Nexo speakers, Camco amps. Sounds very nice.
One touring act insisted on using their Behringer X32 for FOH. I don't think I ever heard anything quite so painfully bad.

[Till]

One touring act insisted on using their Behringer X32 for FOH. I don't think I ever heard anything quite so painfully bad.

Let's wait if they emulate their consoles as a DAW.

Behringer is an insult for Sound Engineers.

[doncolga]

What song is this from Telefunken? I'd like to drop this into my DAWs and give a listen.