On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote: Oddly (to me, anyway), they chose to put some "third-party mastering plugin" in the Mixbus chain. For me, some of MB's strengths are its mastering EQ and and the lovely compressors, which have helped me do some decent mastering on my mixes, though I am NOT a mastering engineer. I didn't hear him say which plugin was used, nor whether it's the same one used in Reaper. Aside from the fact that I think the 'shootout' isn't going to show anything, he starts with trying to compare apples to apples, then rubs a bunch of orange flavor on apple A and a bunch of grape flavor on apple B with the plugins, and thinks he'll still have a valid comparison. The mixes weren't too far off from what I could tell, but a YouTube video is not condusive to A/B testing. I think the biggest thing that this proves is that despite being new to Mixbus, he was able to come up with a mix pretty quickly that rivals what he got from Reaper, which he's been using for years. No matter which gets chosen as "sounding better," Mixbus is already a winner. I've been using Ardour almost exclusively since the 0.9x days. One of the biggest things that turned me into a Mixbus user was that my workflow hardly changed at all. The transition was really easy, plus my sessions imported nicely! Anyway, nice publicity for MB. -- ====================================================================== Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa

On 10/28/2016 02:56 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: They were recorded using Harrison consoles. Mixbus is emulating the channel strips from those consoles.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:59:10 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: PS: Sure, they could emulate the kind of EQs that were used, but nobody needs exactly the same EQ, Fons' EQ or what ever else good EQ does what's needed. What makes analog consoles from different vendors that good, is the electronic, the ergonomics, ..., the bundle as a whole. Apart from a good EQ, e.g. Fons' EQ, you need a good sound card and a good remote mixer, with good DAW integration, not some obscure emulation.

On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 16:07 +0200, Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote: You can't emulate the result, if something is missing in the first place. Before the sound does reach the EQ, it does pass the console's input and not a sound card. And even if the behaviour should be emulated, you are not using the same knobs, you need to use a remote, a mouse or remote mixer. And the console is just a part of the complete tool chain used by those engineers and artists. In short, the result of the mix has nearly nothing to do with the used DAW and its virtual mixer, even the work-flow depends much on external gear, e.g. if you are using a mouse or a remote mixer, a KORG nanoKONTROL or such an expensive beast as Paul Davis once mentioned (IIRC he owns). Regards, Ralf

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:20:41 -0400, jonetsu wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:12:56 +0200, Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote: Neither should an usable EQ nor the complete mixing console add its individual characteristics to the sound. An EQ shouldn't add "warmth" or anything else to the sound, it should simply allow to amplify or attenuate frequencies with a wanted quality (width). That mixing consoles could sound different, e.g. in regards to "warmth" is caused by the complete chain, especially by the IOs and bad designed EQs, but it shouldn't "add" warmth, cheap mixing consoles remove warmth, while expensive mixers cause less biased signals. Regarding the work-flow I have difficulties to understand how software could be compared, when using the same hardware, sound card, mouse or remote mixer. If they use the same sound card, just different, but well designed EQs, then there should be no sound differences either. I agree that some DAWs are a PITA and that others are good, this has to do with the complete design of the user interface, comparing the sound quality of professional DAWs and professional mixing consoles, analog or digital, is nonsense. This is not Hifi gear that adds an individual note to the sound. Pro equipment should do it's job and should be easy to repair. If an EQ, IOs, a fader adds warmth or any other bias to the sound, then it's a bad designed mixer. This is true for hardware and software mixers. The sound quality of expensive hardware mixers shouldn't be a topic. They are all very good. It's the same for recording software, but while hardware has it's fixed design and could provide a good work-flow, software needs to care about different screen sizes, different remote controls, so a comparison makes sense in regards to the work-flow, when using the same monitor and external remote devices. Regards, Ralf

On fredag 28 oktober 2016 kl. 19:50:51 CEST Fons Adriaensen wrote: Yes, that's probably true, but the bottom line is: -I like it, and that's good enough for me. :-) Jostein

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: 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.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:30:07 -0400, Robert Edge wrote: 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 has been mostly in the business of making digital consoles for a couple decades now. The previous product with the Mixbus name used the EQ, dynamics, and tape saturation algorithms from those consoles, thus literally providing the same channel strip. Not an emulation, the same thing. At least that is what Harrison claimed. So yes, the distinction matters.

Do you not understand that the channel strip on a digital console is software? Harrison Mixbus contained that channel strip. Not an emulation. The same channel strip. In the same sense that you can run Gverb on a Linux machine or a Windows machine or a Mac and you are doing the same processing to the samples. Mixbus 32C contains an EMULATION of HARDWARE. Specifically of a well regarded analog console Harrison used to make in the 70's. Do you really not understand the distinction? On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:33 AM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Ralf Mardorf wrote: We noticed. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Robert Edge wrote: I would take my tech21 pedal over Line 6 any day (I like it better than guitarix for that matter, but that may be my settings). Neither the tech21 or the line 6 have any tubes in them, but the tech21 sounds closer by far with a good solid state amp into a 12 inch speaker. Line 6 is not a good comparison. line 6 tries to emulate a large modification, Mixbus is more subtle. Not a good comparison. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, jonetsu wrote: Listening to the engineers remarks about his reaper setup, he relies heavily on plugins and perhaps outboard electronics to get an "analog warmth" and other plugins to achieve "tape saturation feel". So you should not expect transparency from either take. It is possible on the Reaper mix he chose to let a track or two go unprocessed... same with mixbus, but I don't get the idea this engineer lets anything go without tweaking. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:25:14 -0400, jonetsu wrote: The design in regards to the work-flow, sound quality and reliability, as well as how easy or hard it is to maintain/repair one of those mixing consoles doesn't make a big difference, at least not in regards to software emulations. This is humbug. Do you think a production will sound different when using Fons, Neve emu or Harrison emu EQs for the channels? As long as the EQ does it's job, the differences are unimportant. How good can you move the EQ knobs using a mouse, assign it to a remote control? You only could compare this kind of work-flow, not the sound quality, as long as the DAWs and plugins shouldn't be buggy. Regards, Ralf

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, jonetsu wrote: except that workflow does affect the final product. For example, a knob in plain view on MB and only in a plugin GUI that may not be on screen may be adjusted on MB and not in Reaper. At least these are pretty simple mixes. There is drums and a few guitars (vocals are glaring in their lack as the projects the 32c are known for focus on vocals). The drums are most complex to mix/set up, but seem to be pretty much the same from one to the next in micing/mixing. It says a lot about the engineer's (producer too I think) focus and vision. (no I do not mean eyesight) So yes workflow is in question. From other comments there is a thumbs up for MB workflow just because of how close the two mixes are with such a short lead time.... or maybe not, we do not know how long the engineer played with MB before this test. Even more missing info. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, jonetsu wrote: Actually it is pretty import in this case. It was not meant as either a put down or admiration. It is important what the goal was in the first place (focus and vision). There is a difference between "I mixed this on Reaper with their eq/comp etc and then on MB with their eq/comp etc." and "I mixed this on Reaper but chose eq and comp plugins that emulate analog equipment and then use mixbus with it's internal plugins". (the second in this case) It is important because in both cases the goal (focus and vision) was to end up with a product that sounded the same (did a good job too). This is not a Reaper/Mixbus comparison. It is a Mixbus compared with 'the set of plugins I have been using for ages to get the same sound'. It is really a plugin comparison between an unknown mix of plugins and the MB32c strip plugins. That unknown mix of plugins is what he has used for some time (years maybe) and works for him. He does not say if he uses any special preamps before the ADC, but I would expect so even if he was using an analog mixer with excelent preamps. This is a money making studio after all, and some mics just work better with some preamps. There may even be a Harrison 32c preamp or eq strip sitting around. I suspect he would have mentioned if he was using such a thing though. He was certainly up front about using plugins in his Reaper setup to look for an analog sound. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:54:56 +0200 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote: Obviously not. Some filters are very well known for their sound. The Moog filters for instance. Here is soemthing from Analogue Systems UK that sums it up: "Moog's filter used a circuit called a ladder network. In itself, there is nothing special about this, and many other filter designs are capable of emulating its response. However, Moog's circuit was flawed because it exhibited a small amount of distortion. Many engineers would have sought to correct this but Moog did not, perhaps because he recognised that the sound was musically pleasing. Indeed, if a synthesiser sounds like a Minimoog, it is called "warm" or "creamy". If it does not it will often be referred to as "thin" or "uninspiring"." The same can be applied to any audio hardware referred-to as 'vintage'. They all have characteristics. The best emulations are trying to replicate these characteristics.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:18:12AM -0400, jonetsu wrote: Define (in the context of audio quality): - warmth - cohesiveness - separation - loudness - tranparent Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:28:50 -0400, jonetsu wrote: A sound is warm, if it provides lower middle and deep frequencies without being muddy and at the same time higher middle and high frequencies without sizzle. Assuming the source signal has got this quality, the equipment should bias the signal as less as possible. This is what I call transparent sound. Cheap gear, especially build with non-discrete circuits, but especially build with older integrated circuits make the sound less transparent, IOW the frequencies are biased with spikes and gaps. So the definition of "warmth" is not adding spikes and gaps within the frequency range. This is caused by the interaction of many factors, even the design of the conducting paths could be important. However, while even professional gear isn't perfect, it does minimal bias the signal, but the amount is that marginally, that there is no difference in mixing with the EQ of what ever expensive mixing console. If emulations of analog EQs bias the sound, then they either emulate crappy EQs or they don't emulate an EQ at all, but are just bad programmed things. Good gear doesn't bias the signal, just cheap gear does. You don't need to emulate an EQ circuit, you just need to program an EQ that does what it should do. Emulations of guitar gear are something completely different. While a mixing console should not bias the signal, guitar gear should do so. But even if you emulate your favourite wah pedal's circuit absolutely perfect, you still need the pedal that allows to use the emulated wah circuit in the same way as the original pedal. I own an Ibanez Blubber and a Behringer V-AMP LX1-X. The peal of the Behringer is that bad, that it doesn't matter if the wah effect is good or bad, since it's a PITA to use this pedal. An emulation doesn't gain much. Before we could copy software, we already could copy analog circuits. If you make a 1:1 copy of the analog circuit of a wah, we still need the pedal.