Posts: 24
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2020
Reputation:
0
This isn't a feature comparison. I know that Standard fits better on smaller screens by default and has a more generic 3 band para. I know that 32c is modeled after the 4 band
Question for Mixbus users who are familiar with both standard and 32c: I would love to know which one you prefer to work with: 32c or standard? Why?
Without considering the sonic difference of the 32c EQ vs the 3-band in Mixbus standard, do you find that the 32c covers significantly more of your workflow before needing to insert a specific EQ plugin? EG does that extra sweepable midrange control regularly come in handy for you? Or do you find yourself reaching for a specific EQ plugin when you need more EQ control, regardless of whether you work with 32c or standard? I'm primarily on a laptop, so my inclination is to stick with standard, but I'm willing to work with 32c if it means staying away from plugin EQs a bit longer.
I could see myself missing the LP filter a little and the extra options for peaking vs shelving on the HF and LF. Just wondering what those of you who've had a chance to compare both have found.
Also, do you find you often use the 4 additional busses?
Thank you!
Posts: 87
Threads: 13
Joined: Apr 2020
Reputation:
6
I use both, MB and 32c. I prefer MB on my laptop for tracking, as i use a studio that is pretty much just a room with no gear other than what I take with me into it.
Normal MB fits the screen better and the eq and compressors and number of busses are fine for the monitoring for dubs when I track off site, plus I assume it must be less demanding on the computer than the 32C.
I then mix on a desktop with two monitors using 32C and having the better eq is now essential to me, altho I'll often use both the channel eq and a plug-in filter for some things. I often use at least 10 busses while mixing, so that's a plus too.
Posts: 681
Threads: 44
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
36
06-10-2020, 05:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2020, 05:42 AM by Jostein.)
(06-09-2020, 06:42 PM)ethanay Wrote: Question for Mixbus users who are familiar with both standard and 32c: I would love to know which one you prefer to work with: 32c or standard? Why?
32C is the one I prefer, even on my laptop with its smaller screen. The reason is that the two middle bands give me so much more control. For me, the 32C is foremost more efficient when it comes to vocals and for example, also saving a muddy bass together with the HPF, the interaction between the bands is very powerful IMO. I do use also 32C for EDM, but I see that some likes the regular Mixbus for that. I find it very easy to use both of them for setting the right frequency - both of them are sweepable (turning gain up makes a narrow Q value), and when I turn them back, everything normally sounds balanced.
I see that many people use other EQs for more surgical work, but it seems to me that I'm almost always lucky and have good source material to work with.
Posts: 315
Threads: 17
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation:
17
06-10-2020, 10:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2020, 04:51 AM by Yriisem.)
I prefer the standard, I tried 32c, as a result, the mix always turned out worse. In 32c, the steepness of the bands is more gentle and the mix turns out to be less transparent, and the fourth band just interferes  very rarely there is not enough correction on one of the channels, then I just add a 10-band equalizer. 8 tires is enough, one tire for a group of drums, the rest of the sends for effects. I am a fan of the standard version
Posts: 24
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2020
Reputation:
0
Ha! 3 answers, one prefers Standard for very good reasons, one prefers 32c for very good reasons, and one prefers both for very good reasons.
Thank you for sharing your responses! Lots of good food for thought.
Posts: 233
Threads: 13
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation:
15
I prefer 32c. It has the type of eq controls that I grew up on, so I (my ears) feel right at home. Don't misunderstand, I can do nicely with standard, which I did until 32c was released. You have to use the tool that you feel most confident with, plain and simply.
Win10 64 i5 3330 Quad Core, AVL/MXE i5, MB 3-9, MB32C 3-9, Tascam US 20x20(2), Tascam 388, Alesis HD24, Alesis ML 9600(2), A&H GL2400, Soundcraft Studio Spirit 24, Roland Integra7, Roland S-50, M-Audio Hammer 88, ART/ MPA Gold/ TPSII/Pro Channel(2)/Pro VLA(3), lots of tubes
Posts: 190
Threads: 20
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation:
11
06-11-2020, 06:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2020, 06:05 PM by whiskeynipple0088.)
32c EQ really shines on Elec guitar and vox. I dont use much samples or midi instruments that usually already have a degree of EQ applied - so for me it is very useful. I have yet to insert an additional EQ plugin unless I need to do 'surgery' on a frequency.
I agree with theotherguy it is very pleasing to my ears too.
I use Highpass to some degree on everytrack.
I use nearly all 12 busses for a standard full (rock/pop/indie) band recording. 1-8 instruments 9-12 effects.
It was the 32c eq that sealed the deal to use MB as my main daw.
OSX, i9 10850k, 64GB, MixBus 32C, Logic Pro X, Metric Halo ULN8 3d & 2882 3d, Icon Qcon Pro X & Icon Qcon Pro XS
Posts: 34
Threads: 10
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation:
0
I hate what the HPF in the 32c eq does to the high end. I don't care if it's an accurate repro. I'd like more busses without the color eq, please.
Posts: 24
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2020
Reputation:
0
(06-12-2020, 06:43 AM)richhickey Wrote: I hate what the HPF in the 32c eq does to the high end. I don't care if it's an accurate repro. I'd like more busses without the color eq, please.
What in your experience does the HPF do to the high end?
It sounds like you want the mixbus workflow and interface without the modeling/emulation (i forget which one Harrison does) of their classical console hardware?
|
