Anyone trying out Harrison Mixbus ?

[Klaus]

Since Harrison Mixbus 3 doesn't need anymore the Jack layer to be installed separately, I upgraded from ver 1 and am testing...
Harrison claims it's sound is derived from their analog consoles.
Anyone else testing Harrison Mixbus 3 ?
I'm planing on using it on a separate Mac via optical connections as outboard device, keeping DP as main editor ...

Best

Klaus

[sonus]

I tried it for a while during a mixing session in a friend's studio some days ago. At first it took me a while to get used to its workflow and GUI. I liked some things about it, like the mixer window and the way the included plugins are immediately accessible on the window itself or the informative metering but the only thing that I really envied was the ability to use (patch) external processors in the mixer inserts. This is a function I really miss when for some reason I have to mix ITB in DP. That would be a game changing capability for me (and I'm sure for many others) since I have lots of outboard that I can only use when I mix using my analog desk at the moment. Sound wise I have the feeling (I didn't have the chance to compare it with any other DAW) that its sound was sweet and "open" but after all these would be the expressions I would use for DP as well !

Even though I didn't have the chance to try it extensively (I used no MIDI at all) I think DP is by far a more deep and mature DAW. If DP didn't exist (k.o.w. knock on wood that is ), I would surely consider Mixbuss as a candidate for being my DAW of choice. It not only looks but it feels as being a pro piece of software too. And it surely has potential.

[bayswater]

Sonus, there is nothing stopping you from using external processors with any DAW, as long as you have sufficient connections on your audio interface, a condition that Mixbus depends on as well. Just route signal to pairs of outputs, and aux channels to inputs, and connect these to the processors.

I have Mixbus 3. I got V2 cheap and the upgrade was cheap too. V2 dependency on JackOS was a PITA, and V3 is lot easier to get moving. The initial release was too buggy to use, but there were some quick updates that cleared up most of the problems. A lot of functions are not obvious or intuitive, and the documentation is spotty, so you are likely to have to make use of the support forum, which has a lot of enthusiastic users.

It sounds different, and for some mixes, it sounds very nice. As a mixer, it's fine, but it is not a suitable replacement for a full DAW, but appears to be heading in that direction. You can use regular native plugins with it, odd because Mixbus2 appeared to be a trojan horse for Harrison's plugins.

I wish they'd just start selling the basic channel strip and summing algorithm as plugins you can use with any DAW. I can't see the point of all the effort to develop a DAW when the only thing it really offers is the Harrison emulation. Otherwise, it's just a limited version of Ardour which it is based on (and can be had for $1)

You can set it up as an outboard mixer for DP by using the 64 channel version of Soundflower to route audio to and from. It should be possible to slave DP transport to Mixbus so you can work in Mixbus on a sequence sitting in DP, but with V2 the sync was inconsistent. I haven't tried this with V3.

[sonus]

Sonus, there is nothing stopping you from using external processors with any DAW, as long as you have sufficient connections on your audio interface, a condition that Mixbus depends on as well. Just route signal to pairs of outputs, and aux channels to inputs, and connect these to the processors.

Yes, of course you can route any audio via the inserts to an external processor and return it through an AUX track in DP but the main problem is that there is no way to measure the latency and then compensate.
The way Mixbus or PT accomplishes this routing is very elegant in that it actually makes a single in/out connection within a single insert slot and at the same time it measures and compensates for the resulting latency !

With the advent of this plethora of 500 series units and taking into account the fact that they are relatively affordable, more and more musicians and home studios choose to go towards the hybrid DAW/external analog processing route. Pro and semi pro studios are already there a long time ago. I hope MOTU realizes this and will give priority in implementing "external inserts" in their next DP update.

You can set it up as an outboard mixer for DP by using the 64 channel version of Soundflower to route audio to and from. It should be possible to slave DP transport to Mixbus so you can work in Mixbus on a sequence sitting in DP, but with V2 the sync was inconsistent. I haven't tried this with V3.

That's a nice tip bayswater, thanks. I'll download the demo version of Mixbus (there is one I hope) and I'll give it a try !

[bayswater]

Sonus, there is nothing stopping you from using external processors with any DAW, as long as you have sufficient connections on your audio interface, a condition that Mixbus depends on as well. Just route signal to pairs of outputs, and aux channels to inputs, and connect these to the processors.

Yes, of course you can route any audio via the inserts to an external processor and return it through an AUX track in DP but the main problem is that there is no way to measure the latency and then compensate.

I would be nice if DP has a delay detector, but it's really pretty simple to do the same thing manually. Record a MIDI note if the external unit is a sound generator or audio signal if its a processor. Play it and record what comes back. Set the DP timeline to measure in samples, and zoom in so you can see one sample. Measure the delay. Use AUSampleDelay or one of the delay comp utilities on the channels in question.

You only have to do this once for a specific piece of hardware. You can put the channel with the compensation in your template in a V-Rack which you leave turned off until needed, or in a clipping so it's available whenever you want it.

I've done this to use my UAD-1 card in a G5 with DP on an iMac using ADAT to route audio between the two machines. I have a V-Rack with a bus for each effect with the appropriate compensation. It also works using slaved EXS24 instruments running in Logic routed back to DP for mixing.

[monkey man]

I wish they'd just start selling the basic channel strip and summing algorithm as plugins you can use with any DAW. I can't see the point of all the effort to develop a DAW when the only thing it really offers is the Harrison emulation. Otherwise, it's just a limited version of Ardour which it is based on (and can be had for $1)

Exactly, Stoivo.

[bongo_x]

Version 3 is much improved and might be the point where I dig in and learn to use it properly. I've always liked things about it, but never invested in it because it just wasn't all I needed.

I think it's still very much focused on mixing, and it's pretty good at it. I'm always surprised when I pull up a bunch of tracks and start playing around how quickly it starts to sound good without even using any plugins, just the fx in the console.

I don't think it's ready to be my main DAW, but I really like where it's headed.

I believe I read a statement from them that they started off trying to make plugins for console emulation, but could not get the result they wanted. It seems to me if they could make plugins to do it, they would. It would seem to be much easier, especially from a support standpoint, and they could sell it for the same price as they do Mixbuss.

[monkey man]

Perhaps it's because of the proprietary mix engines unique to each DAW that they weren't able to guarantee the "quality" of results where plug-ins were concerned, Bongo.

[bayswater]

Version 3.1 is available. It appears to be more stable and responsive than earlier versions, although screen updates are still wonky during playback. That "sound" is there, and it is nice, but it otherwise difficult to see why you'd use this as as a DAW over any other. Can't understand why Harrison doesn't just release channel and bus strip plugins along with their usual plugins instead of trying to produce a complete DAW.

[David Polich]

I tried it for a while during a mixing session in a friend's studio some days ago. At first it took me a while to get used to its workflow and GUI. I liked some things about it, like the mixer window and the way the included plugins are immediately accessible on the window itself or the informative metering but the only thing that I really envied was the ability to use (patch) external processors in the mixer inserts. This is a function I really miss when for some reason I have to mix ITB in DP. That would be a game changing capability for me (and I'm sure for many others) since I have lots of outboard that I can only use when I mix using my analog desk at the moment. Sound wise I have the feeling (I didn't have the chance to compare it with any other DAW) that its sound was sweet and "open" but after all these would be the expressions I would use for DP as well !

Even though I didn't have the chance to try it extensively (I used no MIDI at all) I think DP is by far a more deep and mature DAW. If DP didn't exist (k.o.w. knock on wood that is ), I would surely consider Mixbuss as a candidate for being my DAW of choice. It not only looks but it feels as being a pro piece of software too. And it surely has potential.

The next version of DP9 (9.03, which isn't available yet) will have the feature you asked for - direct routing to external hardware. MOTU demonstrated it at the NAMM show.

I agree, just give me a Harrison channel strip plug-in. That said, Harrison boards are "mid-level" consoles, not in the same league as Neve or SSL or even API desks, and they never were. Personally I liked the sound of Harrison consoles enough, but never thought it was better than the high-end consoles. API, Neve, and SSL channel strips are already available as plugins from UA and others. Slate's Virtual Console Collection sounds pretty good, and you can slap one on every track in your project if you want. Brainworx just released a virtual channel strip which reportedly
sounds excellent too.

[Basstrup]

With all due respect I beg to differ the Harrison boards are not in the same league as SSL, Neve et al. The Harrison MR4 was a great console which helped make some awarded recordings, and I have a feeling that some would even think the records Bruce Swedien made on the Harrison 32C are of decent quality?

I have used MixBus since v2. I have never used it as DAW per se. Just exporting stems from DP, imported in to MixBus for final balance or more like fake summing. And for that alone it's worth the money.

What I would like to see in DP would be a similar layout on the mixerchannels in regards to the level/limiter/compressor and have the K meter + phase on the master channels - better yet be able to right click on the meter to change meter options/scales

And being able to set the mixer strip scale in MB is pretty cool.



just my 0.02 euros

[bayswater]

I have used MixBus since v2. I have never used it as DAW per se. Just exporting stems from DP, imported in to MixBus for final balance or more like fake summing. And for that alone it's worth the money.

I tried using V2 as an external mixer by bussing channels back and forth between DP and MB which more or less lets you use MB as a plugin. It was awkward because the master slave link for the transport kept failing.

[bayswater]

The most recent update to Mixbus (3.3) has some interesting features. They have added "pin management" to the channel strip inserts which adds a lot of flexibility in how signals can be routed through plugins, routing of VI outputs, etc. For those who want very flexible routing in a channel strip, this could be helpful. While it is no longer necessary to link Mixbus to a DAW, it still can be done using JackOS, making these channel strip features available from DP. I'm still hoping Harrison will make its channel strip and bus summing available as a plugin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCTGs2p ... e=youtu.be

[Armageddon]

I had v2 with the intention of using it as a front end for DP. Between Jack OSX and some weird bugginess with the application itself (at one point, there was no way to change the sample rate of your new project), I gave up on it and decided to do all my audio work in Pro Tools instead.

Slate's Virtual Console Collection sounds pretty good, and you can slap one on every track in your project if you want. Brainworx just released a virtual channel strip which reportedly sounds excellent too.

Slate's VCC isn't really so much a "console emulation" as it's supposed to emulate analog summing with the ability to mimic the sound of different consoles doing so. You have to put a track plug on every track in your mix, which encodes said track, and the "mix bus" plug at the head of your master fader chain, which decodes the channel plugs and does all the "summing" work. Airwindows and (I didn't know this until recently, and I've actually had the plug for a while) Waves also have similar "summing emulator" plugs that can also mimic different high-end consoles' sounds.

The Brainworx plug, on the other hand, actually is a full-fledged console emulation. They modeled each individual channel of a modded 74-channel Neve VXS console from Skywalker Sound -- the mindset being that each channel of an analog console is slightly different, due to variations in components, wear and tear, etc. -- and you can theoretically use all 74 channels, or just the channels you like the sound of, plus, you get models of each channel's EQ and dynamics controls. I've been dying to try that one out ever since they announced it. https://www.plugin-alliance.com/en/prod ... nsole.html

[kassonica]

you want a console sound, mix through a console, same with gtr amps...

my 5c