28 Oct
2016
28 Oct
'16
4:02 p.m.
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:30:07 -0400, Robert Edge wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Thorsten Wilms
<self(a)thorstenwilms.com> wrote:
Let's take the original apart to help with reading comprehension:
Just to make it clear, I agree, maybe the emulations of EQs,
compressors or what ever might be part of a channel, are excellent.
Maybe mixbus is very good in every department, _but_
the engineers of the mentioned artists didn't use Mixbus, they might
have used mixing consoles, analog and or digital from the same vendor,
but for sure with additional gear. Even if they only would have used
those analog or digital consoles, the IOs of such a mixer, the real
faders and knobs are something completely different, than an emulation.
Name-dropping in this context is dubious and especially mentioning the
artists and not the engineers is dubious.
No to mention that at least one of those engineers e.g. does use
microphones each one for 5000 EUR. The former friend's microphone
company advertisements were done with Bruce Swedien. So go and get
Mixbus and a German microphone, maybe you get one of the microphones I
build years ago. To get the same sound as the sound of the well known
artists, a chain of tools is required and even rooms are required. How a
recording does sound could have much to do with the recording room,
too.
Regards,
Ralf
Harrison Mixbus 32C ... incorporates at the mixing stage the 32C
channel strip. The 32C channel strip that was used to make famous
recordings by ...
But it doesn't.
The original Mixbus claimed to have the same EQ algorithms as the large
format digital Harrison consoles.
The Harrison 32C was an ANALOG console, Mixbus 32C has an EMULATION of
the analog channel EQ.
Maybe it's a fantastic emulation. Maybe people can't tell them apart
in a double blind test. I have no idea, but it is NOT the same
channel strip.
I've heard enough Line 6 products mixing live bands to be skeptical of
emulations in general.