Harrison's compressors -sidechains-

[vicenzajay]

So PBuryk - completely agree with the overall premise of your post. It's why I decided to just stick with v5. It's a great mixing environment, and I've made peace with the fact that the Mixbus development line (for me) is probably finished. That's okay - because it works nicely for what I need it to do. It's a shame that I won't get to use the new, shiny features in versions going forward - but that's okay; it's not my only DAW. For me, the built in sidechain idea was simply marvelous - it was unique. It really placed a stamp on the console "feel" of Mixbus in a way that was astonishingly simple. Sure, I can sidechain in the plugin window (as long as MB supports this for the given plugin, btw, they do *not* for quite a few of them out there - Waves most of all); however, I can do that (as has been said by the rather brash poster in this thread) in *any* other DAW. In fact, most other DAWs actually do the in-plugin sidechain thing a bit more elegantly than MB does it right now (which is probably the fault of the plugin designers not really taking MB into account when they develop their plugins).

So you're right - I would counsel KYNNAC to just roll back to v5. Nothing really lost if the workflow was something he enjoyed.

All that said, you mention that Harrison and Ardour have demonstrated far more customer support and response to customer-requested features, etc. than any other music related software manufacturer. I have to disagree with this. I love Mixbus, and I think Ben and company are marvelous - but the customer-developer interface and responsiveness in the case of Reaper is on another level altogether - as is the pace of (how did you put it) overall product improvement. No one touches their development pace, responsiveness, and pricing structure. It's not even close (and that's not a dig at MB or Ardour - it applies across the board).

[Andy76]

We all love Harrison. But KYNNAC and others have a very valid point.
That is the integrated sidechain was a very easy and unique feature which served for many workflows.
Maybe this situation can be compared if Harrison had removed their integrated one-knob compressor in favor of 4 knobs but as an insert.

I believe there is a solution to restore the quick and familiar sidechain workflow (KYNNAC presented excellent points re: pressure of time to do the job). Isnt the selling point of Mixbus is to IMPROVE and MAKE FASTER the job? Current solution does not serve this, it should be refined further.

Complexity smartly resolved to simplicity is what I believe people value most.

[Jostein]

I was a big fan of the simple sidechain (I made it!) but it was intentionally simplified; and unfortunately it was -too- simple. Without separate attack/release controls you couldn't do the creative pumping effects that most people were looking for.

I do not use or miss this old simple side chain but you probably hit the bullseye when you made it, so why not make it an option? It seems to me that's one of those jewels that's just made right, like the "simple" compressors that are in the Mixbis families channel strips! :-)

[madmaxmiller]

Haha am I the only one who didn't like the old sidechain feature?

I found it very limited, actually taking a mixbus away just for ducking, plus, I'd still need an extra mechanism before this to make sure the ducking is inverse proportional to the level of the speaker/singer/kick/whatever. Let alone key filtering.
That alone creates many more mouse clicks than the one I might have saved with the hardwired sidechain.

But the biggest no-go of the old "sidechaining" was that there was actually only ONE sidechain bus: all tracks with the sidechain send enabled summed up in this internal bus and all mixbuses with the compressor set to "sidechain" were fed by this one bus and you couldn't even listen to this bus.
I couldn't create this here: the kick track ducks the bass in mixbus 3 and the vox track ducks the strings in mixbus 7. Impossible with that approach. You have only ONE mixed-up sidechain.
This is what Ben tried to explain with his

your comment about "30 tracks to sidechain" would not be possible in the old system, either.

and what KYNNAC got fundamentally wrong.

But hey, if it can be re-implemented without compromising any other functionality...

MMM

[PBuryk]

Great example given by MadMaxMiller!

It's almost like implementing a button, per mixing channel strip, to route to a
single reverb effect - any number of channel strips can route there for that reverb
enhancement, but you can't also set up a concurrent patch to an echo.
Really convenient to use your favorite reverb setting but is that something that you
would expect to take up channel strip real estate and software development time?
I support decision made to get rid of it.

Cheers!
Patrick

[csvk]

@KYNNAC: your comment about "30 tracks to sidechain" would not be possible in the old system, either.

I was a big fan of the simple sidechain (I made it!) but it was intentionally simplified; and unfortunately it was -too- simple. Without separate attack/release controls you couldn't do the creative pumping effects that most people were looking for.

The new system doesn't take many more clicks for the simple case (sidechain the bass to the kick.....) but it does allow much much more flexibility if you need it. And I decided that we didn't need 2 different sidechain mechanisms. So the "big" one won.

-Ben

I'm sorry to say this, but you're mistaken.
I've sidechained entire horn sections and rythmic sections using this.
I'd simply sign all the tracks to a bus and sign them to sidechain.
It worked like a charm.

I understand. I'm not asking to have less control.
i'm asking for more options. All you're saying is "use the plugin approach".
The plugin sidechain is possible in every other DAW. While the sidechain button isn't.
Why can't Mixbus have both? What's so disturbing about a sidechain button to you devs that make you completely remove it, without thinking on how the users used it on the first place?

I mean... You're saying you've developed this feature.
But at the same time you don't know the full capabilities of it (you thought it wasn't possible to sidechain multiple tracks with it). That makes me think that there's something very wrong, regarding how you see your costumers and how do you think they use your software.
You say that this feature was removed because it was too simple. But at the same time you say that what I want to do is too complicated to do on the old system (to sidechain multiple tracks). Well, it seems to me that the sidechain button wasn't so simple like you've imagined. It seems to me that I've discovered a use that you haven't thought possible. It seems to me that Harrison didn't understand its very design, in the first place. And that is sincerely troubling.

I've seen lots of comments today, there are lots of people complaining about this.
I'm not the only one who uses Mixbus for paid work and need this.

As I've said before, sometimes I work with several tracks and have to deliver results fast. I'm thinking about a Game Jam right now, scoring a game on a schedule. Trust me, when the goal is the deliver, it doesn't matter the attack/treshold and release of each individual track. At those times, the quick, "0n-the-fly", "rubberband" approach of the sidechain button was suberb. And actually it was one of the main reasons I've bought this product on the first place.

I've bought it thinking about the quick workflow. Because I need it.
Now I sincerely am going to use the plugin approach whenever possible, but I'll also be looking for a new solution as soon as possible. Like a DAW that thinks on all users, doesn't strip one of its major features without a notice, that doesn't leave fellow sound designers feeling insecure about how their workflow would continue.

i've just upgraded from version 5 and I feel completely, 100% played off.
I won't ask for a refund because it was my fault, I trusted too much... Just saw a video explaining the differences (none of the videos tell that the sidechain button is absent though). I should have investigated further... That's sad.
I sincerely never thought Harrison would strip away one of its major features. For me, the sidechain button, along with the embedded eq and sends were the staple of this DAW. Never thought Harrison would strip them away to substitute with nothing (yes, nothing. Because it was possible to sidechain with plugins before).

Thank you for your attention.

Cheers

---

---

@KYNNAC: your comment about "30 tracks to sidechain" would not be possible in the old system, either.

I was a big fan of the simple sidechain (I made it!) but it was intentionally simplified; and unfortunately it was -too- simple. Without separate attack/release controls you couldn't do the creative pumping effects that most people were looking for.

The new system doesn't take many more clicks for the simple case (sidechain the bass to the kick.....) but it does allow much much more flexibility if you need it. And I decided that we didn't need 2 different sidechain mechanisms. So the "big" one won.

-Ben

What's better?

1 - One method of sidechain that has LOTS of control and options

OR

1 - One method of sidechain that has LOTS of control and options
2 - Other method of sidechain that's quick and easy

I don't know about you fellas, but I can't understand why FEWER options is better.
When I was asking for the return of the sidechain button, I wasn't saying that Harrison should eliminate the plugin sidechain.
Why one has to sacrifice the other?
Why Harrison can't implement both solutions?

Why they claim so hard that their DAW has a physical mixer approach while they remove these features in favor of plain digital ones? That are present IN EVERY SINGLE DAW??

(I sincerely apology for these outbursts and I won't be complaining about something I liked about a previous version of your product anymore. Hope you learn to listen to people who earn their bread by using your software though)

You truly have a point.

There should be a simple option and a advance. I don't have version 6, but found that sidechain was already a pain with other Plug-ins like waves vocal rider. But also dynamic EQ with sidechain can really clean up.

[Subzero]

Unless there's something wrong with the old sidechain option, or any other option for that matter, I see no reason what so ever to remove it.
If it was removed, and your customers want it back, I see no reason not to add this back, no matter how many or how few of them actually use it or find it suitable for their work flow.
To all of you suggesting a paying customer to use an older version of the software, why in the world would any one do this? I pretty sure most, if not all of you would never agree to compromise like this, especially when it comes to a paid product that is used professionally.
My two cents ...

[Pro-Doucher]

I long for the day that Harrison’s plug-ins are sidechainable in their own DAW

[vicenzajay]

[/quote]To all of you suggesting a paying customer to use an older version of the software, why in the world would any one do this? I pretty sure most, if not all of you would never agree to compromise like this, especially when it comes to a paid product that is used professionally.[/quote]

I am doing exactly this. I paid for Mixbus 5 and 32c v5...and I use them professionally. I am not upgrading for a number of reasons - not the least of which is that I really like the simple, easy sidechain function. Thus my suggestion above.

[Subzero]

To all of you suggesting a paying customer to use an older version of the software, why in the world would any one do this? I pretty sure most, if not all of you would never agree to compromise like this, especially when it comes to a paid product that is used professionally.[/quote]

I am doing exactly this. I paid for Mixbus 5 and 32c v5...and I use them professionally. I am not upgrading for a number of reasons - not the least of which is that I really like the simple, easy sidechain function. Thus my suggestion above.
[/quote]
I totally understand what you're saying. You've made a choice, it is YOUR choice, not any one else's, and i totally respect that. I was referring to people suggesting this as a solution to others, to whom a choice like that might not suitable, and in the best scenario this might be a compromise ...