Blind A/B Test of SONAR PC CONSOLE vs MIXBUS 32C V3 - SEE RESULTS in OP

Thank you guys for doing that. This is very interesting. Really looking forward to the results.

I looped 36 seconds in to 1:03 in.
 
There is a very real difference on my system.
 
The part at 36 seconds: at first it appeared that A was slightly lower in volume, but it sounds more like there is a muffled sound to it - like the old "blanket over a speaker". Interesting that the guitar in the right speaker sounds the same for both A and B. The snare seems to be a bit loader in B. Same with the vocals - like there is a bit of a bump in the mid-range in the center channel.
 
When I get to the harder part at about 44 seconds the difference is a bit more subtle, but it's still there.
 
The only way I can describe it is there appears to be a bit of a mid-range hump in the center channel on B, but the amount of bump seems to be volume dependent and therefore less noticeable when there is more signal.
 
PS: Thanks for doing these Ed! :)

why you so pushy?

:P
 
At this point I have no idea what's the mixbus version I just know they are different. As for preference, if I had to choose I would choose B, because the midrange pops more, but at the same time I feel that you lose the vocals behind that pop...
 
Since this seems more affected I would guess that mixbus is B.
 

A few things I have  observed so far.
 
As Mix B is the obvious upper mids and highs increase over Mix A, it stands to reason it might be a fraction louder. I found by adding 0.75 dB to Mix A then it actually compares a little more closely on my hardware VU's to Mix B. It is vital to get rms readings between both waveforms within a fraction of a dB if possible.
 
This is a comparison only between Mixbus and Sonar console emulation.  Studio One has a very interesting console shaper now and the tube setting can really push those upper mids and highs very easily. In fact stronger than Mixbus in that mode. So it might be interesting to see how that would compare. 
 
If Mix A is Sonar with a raft of console emulations then it does not sound like it. All for what? Mix A is just a bit dull. Whereas Mix B just has the extra upper mids and highs. (without effort) But then I could be wrong too!
 
Mix B would be a great starting point to mix from that is for sure in terms of raw tracks. 
 
 
 
 
 

synkrotron
 
... as my ears (and skills) are crap.

As are mine. But I'm going to give it a shot anyway. I got a 50/50 chance!
 
 
As most have siad, B seems to be a little brighter/louder. So I did like Jeff and adjusted the volume on B down 0.6db. Even then I could still tell B had a little more "openess" to it. But only in the more subdued parts. When it got loud and going, I couldn't tell any difference.
 
Disclosure: I have Mixbus but have never installed it. So I have never used it.
 
And here is my answer: I think B is Sonar!

Rob[atSound-Rehab]
Just listened, but not yet read the other's comments above ... I got a clear preference. Will see if it turns out to be Mixbus or if I can save the money on upgrading to v4 (and invest in an hearing aid instead) ;-)

Why not go ahead and post your preference. 
 
It's not a bad/good or right/wrong thing.

well my post keeps disappearing
 
haven't joined in the listening test myself, i own mixbus 3 and 4 so have a good idea first hand. there is definitely something going on there though, somewhat subtle and a little hard to grasp at first, that is until it clicks, until you do hear it and then you can hear it for ever more. myself i much prefer the sound i can get via studio one 3 and mix engine fx via the console shapers, especially ctc-1 pro. mix engine fx and thus the console shapers are not just like other 'normal' plugins, if i understand correctly they are special plugins applied deep inside the audio/summing engine of studio one before anything gets near the tracks/buss's etc, and just not sitting on top like other 'normal' plugins such as sonars console emulators and things like waves nls (which i would put in a whole 'nother level than the console emulations in sonar) then you also have the benefit of a much more polished and capable daw with great features, abilities and work flow without all the annoying stuff that can come with mixbus, vst/vsti issues, midi, stability(improved), performance and general flakiness(improved). i don't particularly care much for the mixbus gui, and it's midi editing is certainly not optimal, would much prefer a dedicated prv like studio one, sonar and many others. although for me there is nothing calling me to get into the 32c version of mixbus, i probably will get it at sometime just to see for myself, but i doubt it will change my mind as it is pretty much the same as mixbus with more mixbuss'e and different eq etc, and because they are so similar internally will also have the shortcomings of the original mixbus, but you never know.
 
mixbus is just not up to the same level, and as 'rounded' out as other fully fledged daws in features and abilities, imo anyway, and that is why most people just use it for mixing of stems/mastering etc. Try doing a complete project from start to finish in mixbus including midi. editing, the plugins you 'want' to use etc etc, and you will likely find yourself quickly longing for whatever it is you use as your main daw.

bapu

FWIW I hear the mojo more on the full mix than I do on this primitive test we did here.

I could see that. Because there was more if a difference in the "less crowded" parts. Once everything got loud, nothing was really clear.

Not really sure which I like more.  But I did take the two tracks and feed them into Ozone 7's matching equalizer, just the first 30 seconds or so.  Here's the results:
 

 
The Blue Reference Audio is the A-track, The Orange is the B-Track.  The white curve is the EQ needed to turn B into A (at 51%).
 
B has a bit more low end and a slight low&high shelf.  It's also very slightly louder.  Neither track's differences seem unreachable using normal effects (compression/eq) though. 

That's what makes them majic.