Thoughts on Harrison Console's Mixbus?

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

Post Reply
User avatar
liftyrfists
gettin' sounds
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Thoughts on Harrison Console's Mixbus?

Post by liftyrfists » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:52 am

Hey all,
A good engineer friend of mine brought this to my attention, anyone have any thoughts or experience working with one? I understand it to be an exporting / mixdown software that allows for a more true outflow sample-rate to be achieved...basically less space between the 1's and 0's, I guess?

If you couldn't tell, I don't know much about it @.@

http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/joomla/ ... &Itemid=42

Here's more info (from the site) on it if you're not familiar...

Mixbus? is a virtual "analog console" integrated into a full-featured Digital Audio Workstation (DAW). Mixbus "True Analog Mixing"? provides critical mixing functions in a knob-per-function interface. "True Analog Mixing"? is based on Harrison's renowned 32-Series and MR-Series console designs, plus Harrison's proprietary digital mixing technology. Mixbus? enables you to record, edit, and mix a musical performance in-the-box while getting a sound that harkens back to the golden age of album recordings.

Traditional DAW mixers were designed by companies with no pedigree in music mixing, and they suffer from well-known flaws. Harrison eliminated these flaws in Mixbus by completely replacing the DAW's internal mixing engine and applying proprietary True Analog processing. Harrison consoles are known for their great-sounding EQ, filters, dynamics, and bus summing on every track. Now Mixbus offers every engineer a real Harrison music console "in the box". With Mixbus's logical knob-per-function interface, the user works with the fluidity of a traditional analog recording studio while retaining the convenience of a DAW. Mixbus enables the user to record, edit, and mix a musical performance "in the box" but get a sound that harkens back to the golden age of album recordings.

Mixbus Features:

* Straightforward ?knob per function? mixer layout based on Harrison's renowned 32-series and MR-series music consoles.
* Precision DSP algorithms for EQ, Filter, Compression, Analog Tape Saturation, and Summing based on Harrison's world-renowned large format analog and digital mixing consoles.
* Unlimited stereo or mono input channels (based on available CPU power) featuring High-pass Filter, EQ, Compression, and 4 Mix Bus sends on every channel.
* 4 Stereo Mix Buses (can be used for groups or auxes) featuring Tone controls, Compression, Sidechaining, and Analog Tape Saturation.
* Stereo Master Bus that features Tone controls, Analog Tape Saturation, K-meter, and Limiting to help you make polished mixes.
* Plugin delay compensation to support effects such as parallel compression.
* Comprehensive "at-a-glance" metering with peak, peak hold, and compressor gain reduction visible on every track and bus.
* Extensive DAW features via the Ardour Digital Audio Workstation.
* Supports AudioUnit plugins and any CoreAudio interface.

mjau
speech impediment
Posts: 4023
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 7:33 pm
Location: Orlando
Contact:

Post by mjau » Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:39 am

I've been using it for about a year, sort of like how i used to use a Folcrom for summing. i track and edit in Reaper, basically getting whatever mix I'm working on about 80-90% of the way there. Then I'll bring the project up in Mixbus and use the 4 busses to group stuff together, e.g., drums and bass, guitars, synths and noises, etc., etc.
It's good. It makes a difference, and has helped me get better depth with ITB mixes. It kind of reminds me of mixing with a Folcrom, in the sense that things don't sound quite so two-dimensional. I feel like I'm hearing better low and high-end extension, and the stereo field is more accurate. Could it be placebo effect? Sure. I don't care. I like it.
The eq and compression that come on each channel are pretty damn good, too!

jhharvest
steve albini likes it
Posts: 375
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:58 pm
Location: Seoul

Post by jhharvest » Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:00 pm

How CPU intensive is it? Could a Macbook run a 24 channel mix?

Danders1
audio school graduate
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 7:32 am
Location: Vermont

Post by Danders1 » Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:20 pm

I can't speak to much from using it myself -never have. But our engineer used it after Logic and to my ears it does seem to impart some more depth to our mix.

Seems very inexpensive compared to the alternatives.
Danders1

getreel
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1563
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:01 am
Location: The Oldest Town in Texas
Contact:

Post by getreel » Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:34 am

I've been running Mixbus for the last 9 months on a regular MacBook I bought in 2006. I think it could handle 24 tracks but I'm usually working with 18-20 so I can't verify that for certain. As soon as I heard one of my mixes done with Mixbus versus Tracktion which I had been using before, I was sold. It definitely has more depth and width. It is closer to mixing on a console to me. I also like the EQ and Tape Saturation.

Bro Shark
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: SF

Post by Bro Shark » Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:05 am

What about this software causes better results than standard ITB mixing? What is "proprietary True Analog processing?" What does "bus summing on every track" mean? Thanks. :)

getreel
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1563
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:01 am
Location: The Oldest Town in Texas
Contact:

Post by getreel » Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:37 pm

I don't know

User avatar
analogcabin
buyin' gear
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 10:38 am
Location: Afton, Virginia
Contact:

Post by analogcabin » Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:46 pm

getreel wrote:I don't know
life is a placebo masquerading as a simile






.

getreel
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1563
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:01 am
Location: The Oldest Town in Texas
Contact:

Post by getreel » Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:38 am

Well, it does sound different. I just haven't really paid attention to the claims about how they do it. I think Mixbus sounds great when mixing but I don't know and don't care how. I was giving my opinion on it since I own and use it quite a bit but I haven't poured over the literature figuring out how it's supposed to be different. I bought it because it looked like cool software and the price was right.

User avatar
Nick Sevilla
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5555
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:34 pm
Location: Lake Arrowhead California USA
Contact:

Post by Nick Sevilla » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:03 am

getreel wrote:Well, it does sound different. I just haven't really paid attention to the claims about how they do it. I think Mixbus sounds great when mixing but I don't know and don't care how. I was giving my opinion on it since I own and use it quite a bit but I haven't poured over the literature figuring out how it's supposed to be different. I bought it because it looked like cool software and the price was right.
This is simple.

They have come up with a distortion causing algorithm which is close the their own analog consoles.

It's all the rage right now. Controlled distortion artifacts. Yum.

Logical
Howling at the neighbors. Hoping they have more mic cables.

getreel
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1563
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:01 am
Location: The Oldest Town in Texas
Contact:

Post by getreel » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:42 am

OK. Cool. but isn't there supposed to be something different about the summing/mixer part of it too?

Osumosan
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 6:55 am
Location: New York

Post by Osumosan » Sun Dec 26, 2010 2:46 pm

MixBus is cool.

But it's Kludgy. You have to launch and configure Jack first. Saving and archiving is nearly impossible to do logically.

And it only has four busses.

Definitely has a sound that a lot of people like. If I didn't go OTB, I'd probably look past all the weirdnesses.

User avatar
Nick Sevilla
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5555
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:34 pm
Location: Lake Arrowhead California USA
Contact:

Post by Nick Sevilla » Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:10 pm

getreel wrote:OK. Cool. but isn't there supposed to be something different about the summing/mixer part of it too?
Not that I'm aware of.

It all comes down to distortion artifacts from different pieces of hardware that comprise the console they are emulating.

X amount of transistors in a certain order, plus X amount of other components, plus X amount of transformers, etc... all arranged in a software configurations to mimic the console.

There might be some slight calculation things going on, but you know they won't tell you what it is...

Cheers
Howling at the neighbors. Hoping they have more mic cables.

User avatar
Spindrift
pushin' record
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by Spindrift » Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:16 am

mjau wrote:I've been using it for about a year, sort of like how i used to use a Folcrom for summing....... It kind of reminds me of mixing with a Folcrom, in the sense that things don't sound quite so two-dimensional.
I've been considering buying a Folcrom for a while, but have also been intrigued by the Harrison software. Why did you stop using the Folcrom and how would you compare the sound of Mixbus to it? Which pres were you using on the output of the Folcrom?

Thanks
a.
"Bounce it around, lose a little quality. I can't hear that stuff anyway." - Tchad Blake

www.14blue.com

mjau
speech impediment
Posts: 4023
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 7:33 pm
Location: Orlando
Contact:

Post by mjau » Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:24 am

Spindrift wrote:
mjau wrote:I've been using it for about a year, sort of like how i used to use a Folcrom for summing....... It kind of reminds me of mixing with a Folcrom, in the sense that things don't sound quite so two-dimensional.
I've been considering buying a Folcrom for a while, but have also been intrigued by the Harrison software. Why did you stop using the Folcrom and how would you compare the sound of Mixbus to it? Which pres were you using on the output of the Folcrom?

Thanks
a.
The Folcrom helped me learn how to better gain stage while tracking and mixing, and once I figured that out, I started making better ITB mixes. So I sold the Folcrom, figuring that I could get 80-90% of the way there exclusively ITB, and would save myself from another round of A/D conversion. Mixbuss gets me a little closer to what I had with the Folcrom, though not all the way there. I didn't have lots to choose from with the Folcrom, but I really loved using two Purple Audio Biz preamps, which can cover lots of ground.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests