Mixbus quality jump

[msnickybee]

Hi there

I've found an internal jump in the quality of my mixes in 7.7 (which I love btw), and whilst I've looked at (ie guessed at) the whole 32bit float etc etc angle, internal distortion through plugins blah blah, I can't explain it any other way other than *the software got better* at the internal mixing & summing algorithm.

Now, I can't believe I'm referring to (*ahem*) other products, but you guys got any experience of eg. Harrison Mixbus? The whole "we've got a fab analogue quality algorithm" built-in, and all other things being equal, claims to sound better than a bunch of other DAWs.

What do the Mixcraft folks feel about that, and what would you say about your software engine type stuff?

thx!

[JonInc]

"we've got a fab analogue quality algorithm built-in"

Not to sound like a cynic, but is it honestly better than any DAW mixer with your fave tape/tube plugs?

I like to cook my own warmth, so to speak. Seems all they've done is code it for you under the hood. Same thing with the summing -- Do you want it neutral or warm to their specs (I guess that's the million dollar question).

I can certainly see the appeal. I do like the look of their console -- very "pro" looking (May be based on the actual Harrison console).

[AHornsby]

Wiki says Harrison Mix Bus is based on Ardour. Ardour is free with any current Linux distro all of which are also free. So, one could actually get a grasp of some basic parameters that way. Then, if you decide to get the Mixbus, all you gotta do is come up with about a $Grand extra for an assortment of plug-ins. Then, you have to relearn what Harrisons idea of what a DAW is and then try to shake off the buyers remorse as you revert to Mixcraft.

We all know what an algorithm is, right?

-h

P.S. MSNIcky: I heard your updated song and have to tell you it's way better. Video too.

(I might get around to posting a link to it later. )

[JonInc]

... Then, if you decide to get the Mixbus, all you gotta do is come up with about a $Grand extra for an assortment of plug-ins...

You don't have to buy their plug-ins. If I'm not mistaken, Mixbus supports standard VSTs.

"We all know what an algorithm is, right?"

Is that a trick question? I believe I addressed the "under the hood" part in my post.

[AHornsby]

... Then, if you decide to get the Mixbus, all you gotta do is come up with about a $Grand extra for an assortment of plug-ins...

You don't have to buy their plug-ins. If I'm not mistaken, Mixbus supports standard VSTs.

"We all know what an algorithm is, right?"

Is that a trick question? I believe I addressed the "under the hood" part in my post.

I appreciated your cynicism and you post.

No trick question. You addressed the issue about the programs coding all too well. I couldn't help thinking about their particular recipe, i.e., algorithm, as a claim to fame. If it's coded from an Open Source program, how 'proprietary' could the generated result actually be? Anyway, I see it as packaging and hype all rolled into one. Is it the same thing with their VST's? The hook just might be the cheap, getting-your-feet-wet price and then, an inability to use other non-proprietary VST's. I don't really know though. Using other VST's as you probably well know, can run into compatibility issues. This forum can't go very long without a post about that.

This is one reason I believe the people at Acoustica are in it for the sound.

-h

[msnickybee]

I believe the people at Acoustica are in it for the sound.
-h

Sure, I do too...
But also I'm surprised that Acoustica folks aren't commenting to eg mention timestretching and it's effect on fidelity, or dither, or all of those internal software things that I guess I need reassurance on...
Because, sure, all DAWs for a given set of parameters *should* sound the same, but there are some areas where it can differ (I mentioned a couple I guess)

[Rolling Estonian]

I can't speak for anyone from Acoustica but I can say that there's a lot less activity on this forum on the weekends, everyone deserves some time off, even these guys!

M

[chibear]

..........also I'm surprised that Acoustica folks aren't commenting to eg mention timestretching and it's effect on fidelity, or dither, or all of those internal software things that I guess I need reassurance on...

It would be odd for Acoustica or any DAW developer to comment directly on or give a comparison to a competing product. Think of the flame wars that would ignite between developers.

Only way to address your queries would be for you to purchase Mixbus and then ask the Acoustica guys if/how to duplicate specifically the easier work flow and superior results you got from Mixbus in Mixcraft.

[msnickybee]

Only way to address your queries would be for you to purchase Mixbus and then ask the Acoustica guys if/how to duplicate specifically the easier work flow and superior results you got from Mixbus in Mixcraft.

Well, I've no intention of buying Mixbus. And I certainly wish I hadn't mentioned it! Was just an example really.
My original question was about the sound algorithms built into mixcraft, but I do agree that comparison is contentious/futile.

[AHornsby]

My original question was about the sound algorithms built into mixcraft, but I do agree that comparison is contentious/futile.

Those algorithms have been about for decades -- mostly since the early 1940's-- and are probably used in all DAW programs in some manner. Some audio related calculations have been around for more than a HUNDRED years, e.g., http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-RT60.htm

The calculations remain the same today. What differs are the variables and DAW programmers use them to make up 'Pre-Sets' according to no standardized methodology, i.e., ad lib, So if ABC DAW advertises something unique it's most likely a result of an ad hoc approach to using those same variables differently.

There' s not much new that any upgrade can't install either.

Most of the differences between DAW's are in the GUI's and key assignments, etc.

My first experience was with another program from the 90's. Here is an example of the screen shot... yes, still using it on occasion -- and many of those settings could be generated by the user. -h