Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2015 6:41:27 GMT -6
Yeah, just got the message of V.3 beeing out over facebook, but unfortunately did not receive any email yet.
How much is the upgrade price, guys???
Really, i did not expect it to come out this soon, after the years of waiting!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2015 6:55:15 GMT -6
OK, i just found out anyway. Harrison is generous! Upgrade pricing is 40 bucks (USD) and the full pricing will be FIXED 79 USD. This is hilarious. I can only advise to jump this train. It's the price of cheaper plugin for a complete console emulation that gives you the analog fun feeling back, like winetree described so to the point. Even if first customers might have some problems with the new version, Harrison has been good in sorting out stuff in the past in V.2, my V.2.5 is pretty usable already. For sure i will upgrade as soon as i got my email. Excited! (John K. would say "like a little schoolgirl" 8) )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2015 6:57:55 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2015 7:58:39 GMT -6
I'm the first to jump up and down and say that nothing sounds the same both analogue and digital regardless of how much people try and present otherwise. but, still I'm curious as to why things don't sound the same and what gives mixbuss it's uniqueness. to be honest you saying to me it makes you like itb is pretty good that i'll give it a go. Harrison not only has a long tradition of analog console engineering, but also in excellent large format digital consoles. They have obviously excellent DSP algorithms that were developed in these decades to fulfill the expectations of the customers in their brand and the skills to implement them with different processor architectures. So it's not surprising they chose an open source linux workstation software as a foundation to mount their proprietary DSP on top. Mixbus is the entry level product in their portfolio, and since their main business nowadays is to sell and maintain huge expensive digital consoles and installations, the obvious argument for marketing is analog sound and workflow in the digital world. Selling a native product for peanuts is their strategy to push the brand name towards a huge number of audio engineers, so that those who make decisions about large investments in future should have heard about Harrison and speak highly of the Harrison sound from their own personal customer experience. The great thing about Mixbus is that it is a full DAW without any crippling of features for a silly low pricing. You get a full licence for the pricing of e.g. the lowest reaper pricing plan, which is already incredibly cheap.... It's like they are giving away their DSP knowledge for near free in native form in the hope you will remember them if you will ever be in the market for a big console. Great opportunity for us, if you ask me... So, how is this done technically? Obviously, they have something like an evolution in their software, from each generation of digital consoles to the next, leading to good sounding and optimized algorithms. In the large console business you are absolutely committed to good sound, so this their business since decades. Good sounding, optimized DSP is the proprietary intellectual property that their business relies on. I doubt we will ever hear too much details of how they achieve it, that it's so convincingly analog sounding. The workflow thing is simply traditional oldschool console knowledge that has proven to be highly productive since there are consoles. Mixbus has astonishingly little demands for CPU power and memory, nothing like dynamic convolution or similar techniques that use a brute force approach to emulate analog nonlinear hardware behaviour - while you still get excellent results. Hearing and using is believing. Mixbus can easily be tested in demo mode, you just install the software and run it without the license. (Hope it's the same for V.3) It creates intermittent silence after a few minutes, if i understood it right, without crippling any other features. Never tried that, bought it right from the start...
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jul 8, 2015 8:09:23 GMT -6
Can you install MixBus on more than one Computer?
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jul 8, 2015 9:22:37 GMT -6
Can you install MixBus on more than one Computer? The answer is YES! From Harrison: "What is the Mixbus user license? If I have a desktop and a laptop computer, can I install it on both? Yes. Mixbus is licensed to a "single user". This means that as long as you are the only user, you can install it all of your personal computers. If multiple people will be using the software, you will need to purchase a license for each user. Commercial businesses and educational facilities should purchase a license for each computer."
|
|
|
Post by papag on Jul 8, 2015 9:53:44 GMT -6
The price of Mixbus is absolutely incredible.
|
|
|
Post by baquin on Jul 8, 2015 14:34:48 GMT -6
Ok ok ok I'll go and buy Mixbus, seems a no brainer. Just as a side note, there is no surface control support right now(for v3). Still they say it'll be available in the next update so it's all cool.
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on Jul 8, 2015 14:56:27 GMT -6
Is it working on Linux?
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 8, 2015 15:26:57 GMT -6
I guess I'll give it a go, I just wish they'd let you take a small test drive on it. It does look like they've made workflow and editing more advanced. The only question is the routing and such, but at $40 I'll get on it and see how it goes. The sound of it is no question, I mean you're getting the 32c eq's, as many as you want and the UAD version of them cost more than they whole freaking DAW, at full price not upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on Jul 8, 2015 16:25:23 GMT -6
I almost went for this last time it surfaced. It looks like a great idea for workflow, and I am very curious with the sound. I have used Logic, ProTools, Studio One Professional, and Cubase. I have heard the difference in sound with different DAWS, don't ask me what, but I have heard it myself with the same hardware. Studio One is so efficient it's not even like running a DAW, it doesn't tax my system at all. Protools 11 is still not as efficient as Cubase or Studio One, Logic was a little better than PT. I have been on ProTools for the last 4 years, so a change might be in the cards, especially with working with more midi now a days. How is the midi implementation on the Harrison Mixbuss?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2015 16:44:40 GMT -6
Yes. All Platforms, Linux, OSx, Windows. Linux is the home of Ardour, which is the open source DAW Mixbus is built on. Therefore in previous versions that used JACK, Linux had the best feature implementation i.e. it had surface controller support, that was a bit problematic on OSx and not implemented on Windows. This was the main reason for me to set up a linux environment for audio. V.3 should overcome this. Waiting for the update that enables surface controller support, if the actual V.3 doesn't have this as mentioned above...
|
|
|
Post by winetree on Jul 9, 2015 0:47:47 GMT -6
Just got my Ver 3 update e-mail. $40.00 What a deal. They also offer a subscription program for $9.00 a month. At first I thought what B.S. but not subscribing does not effect the use of the Mixbus 3 Program. It offers incentives to discounts of plugins and other stuff. And at only $108. a year (the cost of a fancy dinner) I'm going to think about it. I'm definitely getting the upgrade to Ver 3. They are going to come out with a controller also. A program, plugins and a controller from the same company, being a long time Harrison user, this is something I've been waiting for. I'm all in.
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on Jul 9, 2015 2:35:51 GMT -6
Yes. All Platforms, Linux, OSx, Windows. Linux is the home of Ardour, which is the open source DAW Mixbus is built on. Therefore in previous versions that used JACK, Linux had the best feature implementation i.e. it had surface controller support, that was a bit problematic on OSx and not implemented on Windows. This was the main reason for me to set up a linux environment for audio. V.3 should overcome this. Waiting for the update that enables surface controller support, if the actual V.3 doesn't have this as mentioned above... That's my dream setup a solid stable linux DAW.
|
|
|
Post by henge on Jul 9, 2015 7:52:11 GMT -6
I almost went for this last time it surfaced. It looks like a great idea for workflow, and I am very curious with the sound. I have used Logic, ProTools, Studio One Professional, and Cubase. I have heard the difference in sound with different DAWS, don't ask me what, but I have heard it myself with the same hardware. Studio One is so efficient it's not even like running a DAW, it doesn't tax my system at all. Protools 11 is still not as efficient as Cubase or Studio One, Logic was a little better than PT. I have been on ProTools for the last 4 years, so a change might be in the cards, especially with working with more midi now a days. How is the midi implementation on the Harrison Mixbuss? I've heard that it has difficulty with some plugs I use ( Soundtoys ). If that's the case then I'd have to render all tracks, including FX, in Reaper and then export to Mixbuss. Not a fluid workflow imo. Also what's the difference between this and the Slate offerings. Mixbuss lokks like it can be replicated with Slate stuff...
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 9, 2015 8:35:45 GMT -6
So this is just a console emulator software?
I've been using SSL Mixer DSP console emulator for almost 10 years now..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 9:21:20 GMT -6
Yes, guys. There are other console emulators. Even my Sonar has one built-in. i used several in the past, that got good reviews and sound ok, though. This one is pretty much a no-nonsense Harrison32 emulation with everything done right and unlimited channels and automation. With everything i mean: Very sophisticated gain-staging, no harshness of digital kind that could result from internal format conversions, forgotten dithering stages, internal digital clipping etc.pp., i.e. you simply don't have to think in digital terms, it feels like working on a console from the start to the master bus. Filters and EQs sound marvellous. Same for the dynamics. Drive the busses hard and it sounds like this in analog world. Do conventional clean mixing. K-Meters are a handy features. If you have something like this already in your assets, o.k., stay with it and be happy. :-)
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jul 9, 2015 9:39:10 GMT -6
Yes, guys. There are other console emulators. Even my Sonar has one built-in. i used several in the past, that got good reviews and sound ok, though. This one is pretty much a no-nonsense Harrison32 emulation with everything done right and unlimited channels and automation. With everything i mean: Very sophisticated gain-staging, no harshness of digital kind that could result from internal format conversions, forgotten dithering stages, internal digital clipping etc.pp., i.e. you simply don't have to think in digital terms, it feels like working on a console from the start to the master bus. Filters and EQs sound marvellous. Same for the dynamics. Drive the busses hard and it sounds like this in analog world. Do conventional clean mixing. K-Meters are a handy features. If you have something like this already in your assets, o.k., stay with it and be happy. :-) Thanks for turning me on to this. I'm definitely going for it on Linux and Windows.
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on Jul 9, 2015 10:29:30 GMT -6
Yes, guys. There are other console emulators. Even my Sonar has one built-in. i used several in the past, that got good reviews and sound ok, though. This one is pretty much a no-nonsense Harrison32 emulation with everything done right and unlimited channels and automation. With everything i mean: Very sophisticated gain-staging, no harshness of digital kind that could result from internal format conversions, forgotten dithering stages, internal digital clipping etc.pp., i.e. you simply don't have to think in digital terms, it feels like working on a console from the start to the master bus. Filters and EQs sound marvellous. Same for the dynamics. Drive the busses hard and it sounds like this in analog world. Do conventional clean mixing. K-Meters are a handy features. If you have something like this already in your assets, o.k., stay with it and be happy. :-) Has anyone tried using UAD platform with this DAW? Are the UAD plugs compatible? I really like what I'm reading, nice price.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 11:26:14 GMT -6
I tried UAD-1 with Mixbus 2.5. This worked flawlessly on my Windows PC. I cannot speak for Mac or UAD-2.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 9, 2015 11:43:42 GMT -6
Since UAD is just a VST, AU, AAX etc. plugin's it shouldn't make any difference. I went ahead and upgraded as well, had a chance last night to mess around with the workflow and such on my laptop and I really like how much easier the editing is. They've really stepped up their game on the look and feel of the editing part of the DAW. I like that it's very nuts and bolts, there's not distractions with this, it's straightforward and for those that were raised up on consoles this brings back that feel.
I wanted to make a full switch when Mixbus came out a long time ago, I really wanted to and tried to, but the editing was just very clunky, and it was extremely buggy. I just couldn't make the switch. I've got to check out the routing on my rig and make sure everything is good there, but I never had issues with that in the previous version.
|
|
|
Post by KJ on Jul 9, 2015 12:07:21 GMT -6
Is it possible to route signals so that I can use outboard gears as inserts in mixbus? How does it deal with the latency issues (parallel processing for example)? If it's better than native protools then I might give it a go.
|
|
|
Post by baquin on Jul 9, 2015 12:23:18 GMT -6
Is it possible to route signals so that I can use outboard gears as inserts in mixbus? How does it deal with the latency issues (parallel processing for example)? If it's better than native protools then I might give it a go. Had that doubt too. I don't know if it's better than native PT, maybe this video might help you.
|
|
|
Post by KJ on Jul 9, 2015 12:34:50 GMT -6
Is it possible to route signals so that I can use outboard gears as inserts in mixbus? How does it deal with the latency issues (parallel processing for example)? If it's better than native protools then I might give it a go. Had that doubt too. I don't know if it's better than native PT, maybe this video might help you. Thanks working with latency in native protools is a huge pain. Latency is calculated automatically but I always end up having to make manual adjustments.. I hope measure latency function in mixbus is better than protools.
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jul 9, 2015 12:46:36 GMT -6
|
|