Harrison Mixbus Group Buy at Don't Crack

The goal is to get the price back to the $39 sale price by Jan 13, 2014.
 
Group Buy HERE

That was the first thing that hit my mind when I saw your first post, Hope the BC-plug is on sale.
 
Oh well, more cow bell...

I'm also hoping this is a prelude to Version 3.
 
As in maybe they want to rustle up some cash (and new customers) before they release version 3 for a $49 upgrade price.

you guyz seriously using this ? it woke up my curiousity about this ....really ...

I bought it on sale months ago and haven't even used it. Mainly because I just haven't gotten around to it and I still haven't finished the arrangement of most of my current tracks. The trouble is that my working style is that I kind of mix and track and arrange all together, and there's rarely a clear cut line between arranging and mixing with me because both processes influence each other. I really want to try Mixbus but it's going to take a change in working style, i.e. finalize the arrangement and then begin the mix as a totally separate phase. 
 
I'm interested in what Mixbus does to the sound. All I've heard talked about so far is tape saturation and possibly better stereo imaging (presumably down to the console emulation introducing left/right imperfections?)

bapu
How it (Mixbus) sounds will ALWAYS be a matter of taste I'm sure.
 
I happen to like it a little bit better than SONAR is what I believed to be a simpleton's test.
 
In another (actually my first) I took a 16 track song that I had previously mixed and started both a new Mixbus and SONAR project. I imported the 16 "raw" tracks into booth projects. Set everything to unity and then mixed the song in SONAR. Then taking note of the levels (-2db on guitar, -6db on the vox etc) I set Mixbus levels identical to SONAR.
 
Then I exported both as 24/44.1 wav files.
 
So remember, there are no EQ changes, no compression, no verb. NADA. ZIP. NONE.
 
In an A/B test I found that Mixbus "sparkled" just a tad more than SONR.
 
YMMV.

I did a similar comparison.  I, also, found that Mixbus "sparkled" more.  It sounded more "alive".
I also found it sounded somewhat "wider" in the Stereo Field when compared A/B.

I'm hoping that it get's MIDI support (which is now available in it's base application, Ardour) and
goes 64 bit.  The implementation of these, if solid, is going to put this DAW in a very good place 
IMHO.

I like the sound of Mixbus, just not digging the lack of vst plugin support. Maybe they fixed that in the latest update. I haven't installed it yet to find out. I just found that I don't enjoy working in Mixbus as much as Sonar. Maybe I need to spend more time getting familiar with it, instead of stalking, like Bapu said.

Leadfoot
I like the sound of Mixbus, just not digging the lack of vst plugin support. Maybe they fixed that in the latest update. I haven't installed it yet to find out. I just found that I don't enjoy working in Mixbus as much as Sonar. Maybe I need to spend more time getting familiar with it, instead of stalking, like Bapu said.

I am on the fence on this one.  Have read about it with interest on this forum over the last year.  I see that it is still 32bit, but that it does accept VST plugins (accorind to the specs: ( http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/mixbus/website/requirements.html.)  If the GB does well I would consider joining.
 
Anyone care to share how it sounds in comparison to the UAD Harrison EQ?

Try it, You'll Like it!  It isn't for everything but for some projects the stock lo-mid EQ band will make you say, Yeah!

Of course it can. But, the mixbus is just another (inexpensive) tool that can give certain projects/mixes a special character that would be hard/highly unlikely for me to achieve using x1/x3 and the standard plug-ins.
 
I have not actually used mixbus as a recording tool as it does not currently support midi or Vsti's but I have exported bounced tracks from x2/x3 and imported into mixbus and using the stock EQ was able to achieve mixes that were better than I am capable of using x3 alone. But that is just my personal observation.
 
I can't tell you that it will speed up your workflow because it probably will not but, it will give you an inexpensive tool that may provide you with special finished character that X3 probably would not provide alone.
 
I really believe that mixbus is just getting started and I wanted to get in on it while the costs were still low. I think it has great possibilities as long as Harrison continues to support it.
 
I also use the Mackie MCU and extender and am hoping for an update soon that will support this. I do miss using the control surface when using mixbus.

thks guyz for the feedback ;)

dubdisciple
When you see a no-brainer price like this, it makes one curious to see what all the hype is about ...but it kind of goes against my intention this year of focusing less and less on acquiring more tools and focus more on miking all I can out of what I do own. Can anyone post an A/B of a song mixed in Sonar(or any other DAW for that matter) and in Harrison?  I realize it would be difficult to get the exact equivalent settings , but I am sure something simple like applying the same eq settings and compression setting should yield an audible difference. I would just love to hear if there is this radical sparkling difference I keep hearing or if some of it is placebo effect.

I did not post my A/B but I have to say it was not a radical sparkling difference. It was just a difference that I liked a tad more than the SONAR mix.
 
I'm a hobbyist so the idea of breaking up the process separating pre-production/recording/pre-mix from actual mix is inviting to me. 
 
YMMV.

dubdisciple
Bapu..thanks.  I respect everyone has their opinions.  I just was curious to hear if there was an obvious difference.  maybe someone else has something they could share

I posted earlier that there IS a definite difference. As Bapu says, it's not radical, just seems to add an
Analog "Sheen" to the mix.  It also, to my ears, adds a bit more natural "width" to the stereo field.

At the usual no-brainer price on KVR ($49 for Mixbus & $49 for the Plugin Essentials Pack) it's
a good deal.  And it gives you the upgrade path when the 64 bit version with VSTi support comes
out.  That was my main reason for buying.  

I can definitely tell you THERE IS A DIFFERENCE in sound.

bapu
I like it. As a mixing tool.
 
I did an A/B test of the same song starting with clean slate in SONAR and Mixbus and as a final mix I liked Mixbus a little more.
 
The concept for me in 2014 is to get a general instrument EQ balance in SONAR, export based on those EQ settings and then level set in MixBus. IOW, take a 20,30, 40 or more track song and get it exported to more manageable "stems" (i.e. guiars, keys, orch, drums, individual vox etc.) and get a final mix/master in Mixbus.
 
I do not see Mixbus replacing SONAR for me.

This sounds like a usable method.  Having watched Mixbus youtube videos, I think I will purchase if the GB gets the price down.  Then, like your proposal, use Sonar for tracking and light eq.  Then export stems into Mixbus, and use it for final mixing levels and as a "mastering" environment.  My bet it that just exporting it into the Harrison eq's with provide some analogish coloration.  I am just a hobbyist; so this would be be fun.  I have used T-Racks and Ozone4 for mastering attempts in the past.  I looks like Mixbus2 will do fine for my mastering attempts and perhaps I can load T-Racks or Ozone4 on Mixbus's Masterbus (of course I would need to install the 32bit versions).
 
Again, your post has intrigued me and if the price is right, it would be worth a go at your scenario.

75% already reached?  I just checked the GB site and it says that they "have made it easier" for us and have just granted the 75%.
 
However, while the GB lists the Complete package available, the Mixbus store says that the complete is not available.  Any one know if this is the case?