ampfixer
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5508
- Joined: 2010/12/12 20:11:50
- Location: Ontario
- Status: offline
Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
I've been playing with Mixbus 4 again today and I'm floored by how good it sounds. Simply dropping a clip into Mixbus is an improvement over Sonar and it drives me crazy. It's the only DAW I've used where adding plugs can actually make things worse. The built in effects and EQ are amazing. Sonar has the work flow I'm used to and Mixbus has the sound I want. Frustration abounds. 
Regards, John I want to make it clear that I am an Eedjit. I have no direct, or indirect, knowledge of business, the music industry, forum threads or the meaning of life. I know about amps. WIN 10 Pro X64, I7-3770k 16 gigs, ASUS Z77 pro, AMD 7950 3 gig, Steinberg UR44, A-Pro 500, Sonar Platinum, KRK Rokit 6
|
cclarry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 20964
- Joined: 2012/02/07 09:42:07
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/23 19:04:32
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby Soundwise 2017/04/23 19:36:14
It's their saturation for one (Mixbus) and I feel it even widens the stereo field doing nothing but dropping the clip in...I can hear a noticeable "widening" the very second the clip is dropped in (but that may just be me  ) The Sonar Console Emulators are supposed to have somewhat the same effect, but not anywhere near as "foolproof", or as easy, as Mixbus. I remember when I first touted Mixbus here in the forum, and everyone was "nah...can't be...it's just a DAW...etc..." I said "There is absolutely a noticeable difference and the sound is vastly improved by doing nothing more than dropping your clips in to it - there is definitely some MOJO going on here..." After they tried it....the rest is history... It is, IMO, by far, the best "sounding" DAW out there...whatever their MOJO is...it works...and I like it...
|
Mosvalve
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1194
- Joined: 2009/11/20 20:49:33
- Location: New Jersey
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 00:02:59
(permalink)
ampfixer
I've been playing with Mixbus 4 again today and I'm floored by how good it sounds. Simply dropping a clip into Mixbus is an improvement over Sonar and it drives me crazy. It's the only DAW I've used where adding plugs can actually make things worse. The built in effects and EQ are amazing. Sonar has the work flow I'm used to and Mixbus has the sound I want. Frustration abounds.
I agree and feel your frustration. I've been using Mixbus 32C and loving it. The Harrison 32 channel eq is great. I'm tempted to buy the real thing. I am looking forward to version 4 of 32C. I have Mixbus 4 as well and it's the same nice sound. I find myself recording, editing etc. in Sonar and mixing in Mixbus though I have recorded tracks in Mixbus and they sound great. I haven't ventured into editing in Mixbus and most likely won't.
BobV ASUS Prime Z370-P - Intel Core i7+ 8700K 3.7GHZ 16GB Memory, Intel HD Graphics 630 GPU, Windows 10 Pro 64bit, , Sonar Platinum 64bit, Motu 828MK3 Hybrid, Warm Audio TB12 Pre, Warm Audio WA273 Pre, AEA RPQ 500 Pre, Warm Audio WA76 Compressor, Presonus D8 Pre, Tonelux EQ5P 500 Eq, Kush Electra 500 Eq, Lindell PEX 500 Eq, Yamaha 80M monitors with HS10W Sub, and a bunch of other good stuff. I have a Roland Juno-106 that's looking for a new home. PM me.
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 00:57:18
(permalink)
Interesting- it's really that good? even the $80 version? or do you need the $300 version for it to sound that good?
do you guys have all of the plugins too? are they required for it to sound that good?
does mixbus use VST plugins or something proprietary?
|
cclarry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 20964
- Joined: 2012/02/07 09:42:07
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 01:03:19
(permalink)
Beagle
Interesting- it's really that good? even the $80 version? or do you need the $300 version for it to sound that good?
do you guys have all of the plugins too? are they required for it to sound that good?
does mixbus use VST plugins or something proprietary?
It just sounds good Beags...you don't need the plugins...it uses VST's, and, as of V3 it will do VSTi's also...which it did not do in V2... You can catch in sale for $39 quite often...
|
smallstonefan
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2724
- Joined: 2003/11/20 11:41:35
- Location: Papillion, Nebraska
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 01:39:39
(permalink)
I'm surprised Slate hasn't (but wish UAD did) model a non-linear summing bus with cross-talk. I see it working like Ozone Insight - where you have a small routing plug that you put on tracks and they all go to one VST that does the magic.
I am seriously considering out of the box analog summing. Depends on weather or not I hit the jackpot in the next few weeks... ;)
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 01:59:42
(permalink)
cclarry
Beagle
Interesting- it's really that good? even the $80 version? or do you need the $300 version for it to sound that good?
do you guys have all of the plugins too? are they required for it to sound that good?
does mixbus use VST plugins or something proprietary?
It just sounds good Beags...you don't need the plugins...it uses VST's,
and, as of V3 it will do VSTi's also...which it did not do in V2...
You can catch in sale for $39 quite often...
sweet! guess I need to watch your threads for the sale!
|
Rob[at]Sound-Rehab
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2819
- Joined: 2011/02/03 04:31:35
- Location: Sound-Rehab, Austria
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 04:12:12
(permalink)
One way to come close in Sonar (yet it is not the same) is to throw WAVED NLS at your Sonar project. This also works similar magic in terms of instantly getting more separation between tracks. They modelled I believe 32 different channels of 3 desks and it works fine if you dont want to reset your mix and start over in Mixbus ... yet it is not the same as mixbus since you don't get the custom optimised EQ and the mixbus saturation ... which again you can get something likeit with stuff like J37 and adding certain EQ plugs ...
But you can consider it as a fact that in Mixbus you get that sound much quicker with far less knob twisting...
(and the Sonar console emu is nowhere near NLS and ways from mixbus)
GOOD TUNES LAST FOREVER +++ Visit the Rehab +++ DAW: Platinum/X3e, win10 64 bit, i7-3930K (6x3.2GHz), Asus Sabertooth X79, 32 GB DDR3 1600MHz, ATI HD 5450, 120 GB SSD OCZ Agility3, 2x 1TB WD HDD SATA 600 Audio-Interface: 2x MOTU 1248 AVB, Focusrite OctoPre, (Roland Octa-Capture) Control-Surface: VS-700C VSTi: WAVES, NI K10u, FabFilter, IK, ... (too many really)
|
Soundwise
Max Output Level: -62 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1419
- Joined: 2015/01/25 17:11:34
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 10:20:40
(permalink)
Sonar doesn't have to "sound" exactly like Mixbus, though you can go as analogue as you wish/need. Plenty of tools to sculpt the sound with either precision or "secret mojo". Besides a gamut of excellent PC modules, NF BT bundle can go a long way in that direction. Then you have dedicated Vocal and Percussion strips, Tube Leveler and some cool FX Chains.
I demoed Mixbus. See no reason to learn another DAW workflow (with a pretty steep learning curve), waste time on bouncing stems between two DAWs just to get saturation/EQ/compression similar to what is readily available in my primary DAW.
|
Kalle Rantaaho
Max Output Level: -5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7005
- Joined: 2006/01/09 13:07:59
- Location: Finland
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 11:05:19
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby TerraSin 2017/04/24 14:02:06
Do I understand correctly: Mixbus automatically manipulates the project and makes it sound better ("dropping a clip in Mixbus and it sounds better")? If so, one shouldn't want SONAR to sound the same, because most DAW users want the sound to be what is recorded. Having a "mixbus-thingy" as a channel strip or VST is another thing.
Doesn't the old consensus still reign, that a plain/raw recording with similar equipment is the same no matter what DAW you use?
SONAR PE 8.5.3, Asus P5B, 2,4 Ghz Dual Core, 4 Gb RAM, GF 7300, EMU 1820, Bluetube Pre - Kontakt4, Ozone, Addictive Drums, PSP Mixpack2, Melda Creative Pack, Melodyne Plugin etc. The benefit of being a middle aged amateur is the low number of years of frustration ahead of you.
|
Soundwise
Max Output Level: -62 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1419
- Joined: 2015/01/25 17:11:34
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 11:19:09
(permalink)
Kalle Rantaaho
Doesn't the old consensus still reign, that a plain/raw recording with similar equipment is the same no matter what DAW you use?
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 13:24:03
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby Soundwise 2017/04/24 13:31:19
Kalle Rantaaho
Doesn't the old consensus still reign, that a plain/raw recording with similar equipment is the same no matter what DAW you use?
Yes, unless the DAW purposefully adds distortion that the user cannot circumvent, in which case it's no longer a DAW, but an effect. Mixbus falls into that category. It adds harmonic distortion to emulate vintage mixing consoles. That increases high-frequency content which, in turn, increases the perception of width. People seem to really like the result, but I agree that if SONAR sounded like that it would be a design flaw.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
TerraSin
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1975
- Joined: 2005/08/05 00:27:13
- Location: USA
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 14:05:18
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby tlw 2017/04/25 04:19:38
Kalle Rantaaho
Do I understand correctly: Mixbus automatically manipulates the project and makes it sound better ("dropping a clip in Mixbus and it sounds better")? If so, one shouldn't want SONAR to sound the same, because most DAW users want the sound to be what is recorded. Having a "mixbus-thingy" as a channel strip or VST is another thing.
Doesn't the old consensus still reign, that a plain/raw recording with similar equipment is the same no matter what DAW you use?
Bingo. I want my recordings to be as pure as possible and not manipulated by the DAW without my doing so. At that point you may as well be using $30 Walmart speakers to mix with if you're okay with things colouring your sound coming out without knowing what is being done. Yes, Sonar needs some work on it's audio engine but automatically manipulating the sound to "sound better" defeats the purpose of a DAW where you want as flat a response as possible, in my opinion.
|
Starise
Max Output Level: -0.3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7563
- Joined: 2007/04/07 17:23:02
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 15:02:33
(permalink)
I downloaded the demo last night. My first impressions are it seems like software from 1998.This is probably because they wanted it to look like the hardware.
I realize that appearance isn't everything so I watched a few videos to see what the special sauce was all about. When I listed to comparison videos I heard a very slight bit mid to high detail in the Mixbus32 samples compared to Reaper. I couldn't find a comparison to Sonar. It didn't sound like anything I couldn't make happen in Sonar with a little coloration or something like Waves Scheps 73 or a decent British channel strip in software.
If it's an issue with dither, I can dither through Ozone.
So I guess I'm not totally sold on it.....yet. I'm willing to be convinced.
Intel 5820K O.C. 4.4ghz, ASRock Extreme 4 LGA 2011-v3, 16 gig DDR4, , 3 x Samsung SATA III 500gb SSD, 2X 1 Samsung 1tb 7200rpm outboard, Win 10 64bit, Laptop HP Omen i7 16gb 2/sdd with Focusrite interface. CbB, Studio One 4 Pro, Mixcraft 8, Ableton Live 10 www.soundcloud.com/starise Twitter @Rodein
|
jerrydf
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 280
- Joined: 2007/03/24 19:27:45
- Location: Warwickshire, UK
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 17:21:09
(permalink)
I took a punt some time ago, and again with v4. I was a bit sceptical at the price, but it wasn't a lot to lose.
So I dropped a Sonar rough mix (as waves/track) into HMB, remixed, and was immediately smitten. Ok, it's distortion, but it works. It's a little clumsy on the workflow and interface, but so is Sonar's new PRV at the moment until I get used to it.
Maybe it's the "fairy dust" that The Troggs wanted all those years ago.
jdf
i5 6500 3.2GHz; 16GB; Win10 on SSD1; recording and samples on SSD2; + 3 other HDDs; 2 monitors in landscape; back with CbB and also Cubase 10 Pro, Komplete 11, Steinberg UR22. Instruments: Various fretboards and amplifiers. Listen to ... Cosmic Two-Step (2017)
|
Zo
Max Output Level: -25 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5036
- Joined: 2008/01/25 20:49:55
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 20:37:25
(permalink)
I do think that , if i recall well , it messes with phase alignement WITCH is what a lot of people misse in their mixes, i don't know if it's automatic or manualm ...i didn't updated yet ...
For sale (PM me) : transfert ilok includedEventide Ultrachannel make offersSoftube Summit EQIK Neve 1081 , Neve precision Comp/LimEastWest GoshtwriterSoundforge Pro 12
|
bapu
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86000
- Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 21:55:41
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby cclarry 2017/04/25 01:02:45
Ben at Harrison (think Noel's equivalent) likes to refer to MB's sound and workflow as a console and not a DAW per se.
I have to agree, with the exception it's not a HW based console.
|
bapu
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86000
- Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 22:06:08
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby cclarry 2017/04/25 01:03:06
Beagle
do you guys have all of the plugins too?
I just know you're not asking me that question. Beagle
are they required for it to sound that good?
Nope. But they are simple yet effective tools based mainly on their DSP in the larger consoles (IIRC).
|
ampfixer
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5508
- Joined: 2010/12/12 20:11:50
- Location: Ontario
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/24 23:17:31
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby bapu 2017/04/25 01:52:07
I have the basic plug in pack from Harrison but seldom use anything but a bit of verb. I love the channel compression and tape saturation. They are the "one knob" fx that many companies try and create. I am also a big fan of the built in eq and wish that Sonar had one like it. I do find the interface a bit hard on the eyes and wouldn't want to spend hours working with it. As others have mentioned, there's a lot going on behind the curtain and it does seem more like a console plug disguised as a DAW rather than the other way around.
I don't spend enough time using it to really grasp all the features and I haven't begun to look at the CD creation features. I could use a 36 hour day.
Regards, John I want to make it clear that I am an Eedjit. I have no direct, or indirect, knowledge of business, the music industry, forum threads or the meaning of life. I know about amps. WIN 10 Pro X64, I7-3770k 16 gigs, ASUS Z77 pro, AMD 7950 3 gig, Steinberg UR44, A-Pro 500, Sonar Platinum, KRK Rokit 6
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/25 02:46:05
(permalink)
Just for clarification, this is what I believe the difference is between Mixbus 4 and Mixbus 32C (maybe I read it wrong):
The basic Mixbus is an emulation of Harrison's digital consoles from the early 90's. In the mid 80's they'd introduced analog consoles which were digitally controlled, then in the 90's they reproduced that sound as an all digital console with proprietary DSP. Mixbus 4 uses that same DSP.
Mixbus 32C, however, models the old analog 32C consoles directly - the ones that were used on such albums as Thriller and Graceland.
With both, you get the Harrison sound. But Mixbus 4 is limited to only 8 stereo buses, whereas 32C has 12. Although you can create as many aux tracks as you like in both, only the mix buses have in built in plugin delay compensation (PDC). So unlike Sonar, which offers unlimited aux tracks and buses with PDC on all of them, you have to be a little bit more organized and forward thinking about using the buses in Mixbus, unless you want to deal with setting the delay compensation manually. Maybe this is a good thing as it forces you to approach the mix with a real console mindset. I remember Harrison explaining why only the mix buses have PDC, it was something to do with technical limitations as I recall, although it still sounded like BS to me - I'm sure they could do it if they wanted to. When I first read about Mixbus and it's limitation of 8 mix buses, I remember thinking "I bet they bring out a more expensive one with more buses," which of course they did.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
Rob[at]Sound-Rehab
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2819
- Joined: 2011/02/03 04:31:35
- Location: Sound-Rehab, Austria
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/25 03:51:56
(permalink)
sharke
Just for clarification, this is what I believe the difference is between Mixbus 4 and Mixbus 32C (maybe I read it wrong):
The basic Mixbus is an emulation of Harrison's digital consoles from the early 90's. In the mid 80's they'd introduced analog consoles which were digitally controlled, then in the 90's they reproduced that sound as an all digital console with proprietary DSP. Mixbus 4 uses that same DSP.
Mixbus 32C, however, models the old analog 32C consoles directly - the ones that were used on such albums as Thriller and Graceland.
With both, you get the Harrison sound. But Mixbus 4 is limited to only 8 stereo buses, whereas 32C has 12. Although you can create as many aux tracks as you like in both, only the mix buses have in built in plugin delay compensation (PDC). So unlike Sonar, which offers unlimited aux tracks and buses with PDC on all of them, you have to be a little bit more organized and forward thinking about using the buses in Mixbus, unless you want to deal with setting the delay compensation manually. Maybe this is a good thing as it forces you to approach the mix with a real console mindset. I remember Harrison explaining why only the mix buses have PDC, it was something to do with technical limitations as I recall, although it still sounded like BS to me - I'm sure they could do it if they wanted to. When I first read about Mixbus and it's limitation of 8 mix buses, I remember thinking "I bet they bring out a more expensive one with more buses," which of course they did.
That's why basically everybody on this forum here who uses Mixbus uses it more as a digital mix desk rather than a DAW (with all creative features involved). I've yet to hear from somebody (again in this forum) who recorded a full project using Mixbus.
GOOD TUNES LAST FOREVER +++ Visit the Rehab +++ DAW: Platinum/X3e, win10 64 bit, i7-3930K (6x3.2GHz), Asus Sabertooth X79, 32 GB DDR3 1600MHz, ATI HD 5450, 120 GB SSD OCZ Agility3, 2x 1TB WD HDD SATA 600 Audio-Interface: 2x MOTU 1248 AVB, Focusrite OctoPre, (Roland Octa-Capture) Control-Surface: VS-700C VSTi: WAVES, NI K10u, FabFilter, IK, ... (too many really)
|
emeraldsoul
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1858
- Joined: 2009/01/02 23:16:43
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/25 04:00:24
(permalink)
Interesting! So let me get this straight - If I have a 40 or 50 track project going in Sonar, I somehow File/Export track or combos of tracks into wave files, then import those wave files into 8 (or 12) channels in Mixbus?
At what point would I put the eq, comp, reverb, and groovy ear candy plugins on . . . would I do that in Sonar and then render/export to Mixbus?
OR, would I save the eq comp and rvb and ear candy plugins for when it's all in Mixbus?
|
cclarry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 20964
- Joined: 2012/02/07 09:42:07
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/25 04:11:40
(permalink)
emeraldsoul
Interesting! So let me get this straight - If I have a 40 or 50 track project going in Sonar, I somehow File/Export track or combos of tracks into wave files, then import those wave files into 8 (or 12) channels in Mixbus?
At what point would I put the eq, comp, reverb, and groovy ear candy plugins on . . . would I do that in Sonar and then render/export to Mixbus?
OR, would I save the eq comp and rvb and ear candy plugins for when it's all in Mixbus?
This would depend upon your intent. If you were looking to "mix" in Mixbus then you would just export the raw tracks and then add whatever plugins you wanted and do your mix in Mixbus. If you want to Master in Mixbus then you would export your "mixed" two track, then import into Mixbus, and then do your "mastering work"... This is entirely up to you! Here's the open challenge. Export ONE raw track AFTER listening to it in Sonar. Listen CLOSELY before exporting! Import it into Mixbus. I guarantee you BEFORE you do ANYTHING AT ALL it WILL sound BETTER....THAT is before you do ANYTHING to it! Take that for what it's worth... People can talk the "bs" all they want. It WILL just SOUND better...I guarantee it!
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/25 04:28:45
(permalink)
emeraldsoul
Interesting! So let me get this straight - If I have a 40 or 50 track project going in Sonar, I somehow File/Export track or combos of tracks into wave files, then import those wave files into 8 (or 12) channels in Mixbus?
At what point would I put the eq, comp, reverb, and groovy ear candy plugins on . . . would I do that in Sonar and then render/export to Mixbus?
OR, would I save the eq comp and rvb and ear candy plugins for when it's all in Mixbus?
You can have as many tracks as you like in Mixbus. But if you want to sum those tracks to mix buses (e.g. drums, guitars, synths, vocals etc) then there are a limited number available. So in Mixbus there are: Tracks (unlimited) Aux tracks (unlimited) Mix buses (limited) Mix buses are where the Harrison summing magic happens. And they have PDC. Aux tracks are simply tracks that you can route regular tracks to. There's no analog summing magic going on in them, and you don't get the PDC. How you work with Mixbus is up to you. Here are 3 possibilities: 1) Create a whole project from scratch in Mixbus. You'll have to learn it completely as a DAW, including all of its editing functionality, MIDI functionality etc. 2) Track and edit everything in another DAW e.g. Sonar, then import the stems into Mixbus and do all of your summing and mixing in there. 3) Track, edit and mix everything another DAW, then import the stems into Mixbus and just use it for its analog summing. With option 3, you'd be applying all of your effects like EQ, compression and delay in Sonar and then summing everything in Mixbus. This may or may not work out - for instance, Mixbus imparts its own flavor to the sound with its proprietary analog summing and tape saturation. These may mess with your instrument balance and/or EQ making it necessary to make further adjustments in Mixbus, or maybe it won't and everything will sound awesome. With option 2, all you'd have to do is learn how to insert effects in Mixbus. However, if you use effect returns in your mixes then you may find yourself limited by the number of buses available in Mixbus - unless of course you're prepared to use aux tracks for effect returns, and manually insert PDC values yourself. The bus limitation might not bother you if your mixes are pretty simple. For instance, in terms of summing you might just need buses for instruments, drums and vocals. In Mixbus 4 that leaves you with 5 spare buses for effect returns. Let's say a couple of reverbs, a couple of delays and some parallel compression. If however you're like me and utilize stupid numbers of effect returns in your projects, you're outta luck. Which is why I do all my mixing, including effect returns, in Sonar first if I'm going to go onto Mixbus. I then print all of the stems, including effect returns, and import them to Mixbus as tracks. You can then get creative with the mix buses, for example you could route all of your reverb tracks to one bus, all of your delays to another etc. Or you could just route all of your effect return tracks to a single bus. To be honest I find all of the workflow possibilities a little daunting in terms of what they mean for your final mix, and as a result I've yet to complete a single project in Mixbus. I have a few on the go though
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
tlw
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2567
- Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
- Location: West Midlands, UK
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/25 04:32:19
(permalink)
I've the basic version of Mixbus and experimented with it for a while. In the end I decided I don't particularly like what it does. It certainly has a 'smooth sound' I associate with a lot of US recordings, but it happens to be a 'sound' I'm not very keen on. At least, it doesn't suit my current mood if you see what I mean. I'm more an SSL/Neve sort of person at the moment, or even a 'plain, straightforward digital' one at times.
Which isn't to say Mixbus doesn't do what it sets out to do very well, it does. Just not to my taste for my stuff. Kind of like how many, many people make a Strat through a Marshall sound good but I've never been able to dial that very common combination into something I'm consistently happy with for myself.
Mixbus' interface is a serious pain in the neck though.
Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board, ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre. Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/25 06:27:56
(permalink)
Mixbus has got its own unique sound and I believe no matter of fiddling around will suddenly put you in the ball park with that sound with other DAW's. Mixbus 4 has the inherent sound built in. 32C has the sound plus the channel strip with that great EQ and the extra busses which is also handy. The great thing about it is the sound is just built in right from the ground up or word go. No console emulators needed because it is doing that all the time, permanently.
The only time I get close is using the CTC-1 console shaper (Tube emulation) in Studio One but it still is slightly different.
The GUI and workflow are great and doing a whole project from start to finish in it should be a snap.
When I listen to reference tracks in it even in stereo such as Steely Dan's 'Everything Must Go' I finding is all just a little brighter pointing to the extra high harmonics being generated because of the distortion perhaps. But it is super clean up in the high end that is glass like and easily controlled as well. The mastering plugins are great too. Their multi band and EQ are rather interesting. I love the way the EQ's on the channels, buses and the master buss are all different. That low mid control on the master buss is right in the 300 Hz pocket too so only a little tweak is required to completely clean up the mud in the low end of your mix. I personally feel you have to keep the tape saturation part under control and use it sparingly.
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
dcumpian
Max Output Level: -34 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4124
- Joined: 2005/11/03 15:50:51
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/25 12:26:29
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby bapu 2017/04/25 12:58:02
cclarry
People can talk the "bs" all they want. It WILL just SOUND better...I guarantee it!
Larry, This "better" is so subjective. I can drop Waves Pusher on a track and it sounds "better" immediately too. That doesn't make it good. Regards, Dan
Mixing is all about control. My music: http://dancumpian.bandcamp.com/ or https://soundcloud.com/dcumpian Studiocat Advanced Studio DAW (Intel i5 3550 @ 3.7GHz, Z77 motherboard, 16GB Ram, lots of HDDs), Sonar Plat, Mackie 1604, PreSonus Audiobox 44VSL, ESI 4x4 Midi Interface, Ibanez Bass, Custom Fender Mexi-Strat, NI S88, Roland JV-2080 & MDB-1, Komplete, Omnisphere, Lots o' plugins.
|
cclarry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 20964
- Joined: 2012/02/07 09:42:07
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/25 14:25:25
(permalink)
dcumpian
cclarry
People can talk the "bs" all they want. It WILL just SOUND better...I guarantee it!
Larry,
This "better" is so subjective. I can drop Waves Pusher on a track and it sounds "better" immediately too. That doesn't make it good.
Regards,
Dan
Is that NOT the purpose of all we do? So if you can do it without using "plugins" doesn't that make it EASIER AND BETTER? Doesn't that fulfill the first part of our entire intent? Maybe I'm missing something here?
post edited by cclarry - 2017/04/25 15:11:13
|
dcumpian
Max Output Level: -34 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4124
- Joined: 2005/11/03 15:50:51
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/25 14:59:41
(permalink)
cclarry
dcumpian
cclarry
People can talk the "bs" all they want. It WILL just SOUND better...I guarantee it!
Larry,
This "better" is so subjective. I can drop Waves Pusher on a track and it sounds "better" immediately too. That doesn't make it good.
Regards,
Dan
It that NOT the purpose of all we do? So if you can do it without using "plugins" doesn't that make
it EASIER AND BETTER? Doesn't that fulfill the first part of our entire intent?
Maybe I'm missing something here?
Maybe, but in this respect, Mixbus is a plugin that adds its own character while mixing while using Mixbus. Furthermore, if I have to export a bunch of tracks to mix in Mixbus, that is not easier. Everybody has their own way of working, so I'm not saying anybody is wrong here, just that Mixbus is not acting like a pure, transparent DAW. Regards, Dan
Mixing is all about control. My music: http://dancumpian.bandcamp.com/ or https://soundcloud.com/dcumpian Studiocat Advanced Studio DAW (Intel i5 3550 @ 3.7GHz, Z77 motherboard, 16GB Ram, lots of HDDs), Sonar Plat, Mackie 1604, PreSonus Audiobox 44VSL, ESI 4x4 Midi Interface, Ibanez Bass, Custom Fender Mexi-Strat, NI S88, Roland JV-2080 & MDB-1, Komplete, Omnisphere, Lots o' plugins.
|
cclarry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 20964
- Joined: 2012/02/07 09:42:07
- Status: offline
Re: Why can't Sonar "sound" like Mixbus
2017/04/25 15:17:46
(permalink)
dcumpian
cclarry
dcumpian
cclarry
People can talk the "bs" all they want. It WILL just SOUND better...I guarantee it!
Larry,
This "better" is so subjective. I can drop Waves Pusher on a track and it sounds "better" immediately too. That doesn't make it good.
Regards,
Dan
It that NOT the purpose of all we do? So if you can do it without using "plugins" doesn't that make
it EASIER AND BETTER? Doesn't that fulfill the first part of our entire intent?
Maybe I'm missing something here?
... Mixbus is not acting like a pure, transparent DAW.
Regards,
Dan
And that is the point. Is it for "Everyone" or "Everything"? NO...but, some people also get "stuck" in "safe" land. This is what I know...I don't want to know anything else, this is what I do, I don't want to do anything else...and THAT is why they "always sound the same as everyone else". Music is about stepping "outside the box", being creative, working a little harder to get "that thing"...and not "living within the boundaries", because, really, there are no boundaries! Like you said...to each his own. But there is no denying that what Mixbus does is beneficial to the "ears". And it cheaper than a plugin!
|