where are the sidechains?

[madmaxmiller]

One should understand that nowdays most people do mixing and fiddle with the DAW just for fun, its another form of gaming.

Hello Garageband

I hear what you say, but too much "gaming" features are in the way of everyone who wants to work seriously. An airplane is not intuitive either and so aren't many tools of trades.

MMM

[PBuryk]

So... I guess that's where we come in....
Will this forum community drive Mixbus advancements to be more gaming, or more
for the serious user?

Cheers!
Patrick

[Andy76]

So... I guess that's where we come in....
Will this forum community drive Mixbus advancements to be more gaming, or more
for the serious user?

Cheers!
Patrick

Gaming is a VERY serious business indeed! ))

Define "serious user".
I sense you imply intelligence as if a "serious" user would know how to use his brain to solve problems with the usability and shortcomings of a software. So give him more riddles so that he would feel more serious and important.

If you mean commercial pro-mixer, they value simplicity because it saves them money and health.

But what I mean here is efficiency of the design. Complexity solved into simplicity. Result is less wasted time, effort, energy. More fun.

What does it mean in practice? For example one click to perform any given operation instead of two or god forbid three clicks. Fewer dropdown menus. Bigger knobs, bigger fonts , handles. And so forth.
MB integrated compressors, eqs and sends already saved us days of wasted time and millions of tendon damaging clicks. Isnt it a miracle?

Mixbus is the king of the workflow but still not perfect.

Think aircraft cockpit, I disagree its complicated to use because as a rule they have one knob/switch per function. No hidden menus, dropdowns.

[DanielTT]

Hey, back to the subject...
I was a bit surprised to see this feature being removed in v6 as well. Nothing against progress, and yes the new method is great for new projects, but that all my existing mixes made in v5 with SC now all of a sudden sound different is a bit of a bummer.

For me backwards compatibility is super important.
If you need to go back to old projects for whatever reason you need to be able to open them in the latest version....

Dan

[Dingo]

@DanielTT
You can maintain v5 and v6 on the same system without issue and I would advise finishing on the version you started with.

[DanielTT]

Yes, I know, but that’s far from ideal.
Prefer to work in one version... Like you can in most software...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PBuryk]

Hello, DanielTT -

I participate in a remote recording effort (5 separate studios), all using Mixbus since
version 3. And, I'll tell you, if any of our members could only work with one version
of Mixbus - they would. However, it is more of a PItA to remap channel processor
settings and trouble shoot issues whenever you start a mix on one MB version and
try to finish it on another that we all have come to agree that in completing albums
of 12+ songs, if some of them are originally worked with, say MB4, then we all use
MB 4 to complete those songs. Without question that is the easiest, most trouble
free way to go.

And, to offer opposition to the "that's how other software works" claim... I've been
in the software app business for over 40 years and can assure you that that is NOT
always the case. And, when it is, the product is generally so bloated with backward
compatibility code that it becomes virtually impossible to improve with either new
features or corrected operations.

Embrace change... it really is for the best sometimes.

Cheers!
Patrick


Cheers!
Patrick

[DanielTT]

Hey Patrick
totally agree with embracing change, this is why I upgraded to six, anxious to see the new possibilities.
But what I am talking about is something else, it is backwards compatibility.
I have been and still are a ProTools (PT) user, and I work for many different clients on many different jobs.
There is some stuff I like about mixbus, and that is why I am shifting some jobs to MB.
For me the logical thing is that when you have a new version, you can open existing projects in the new version and they will sound the same. So that you can work while using the new version’s features. Not to mention projects of years ago which the client wants to revisit.

PT is very good at that. I can open sessions made 20 years ago. And I can even export from the latest version to a very old version, and PT will warn me which session data will get removed.
That MixBus, except for a warning in the manual which I saw before I tried, just removes a tool that changes the sound of your mix, is for me a difficult one.

I have been in the software business a very long time as well, and I am more used that they will warn you that a feature will be deprecated, or they’ll have a pref setting where you can enable old features.
Of course there is many software that doesn’t work that way, but there is plenty that does...

Daniel

PS and I liked the simple SC a lot, very quick, and it did it’s job. Dont understand why they had to remove it....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bernardo jimenez]

I still can't get over it. Missing it far too much...(not even mentioning that apparently neither of my compressors have a sidechain feature )