This is all too confusing - I just went and bought a Midas Venice 320 this morning and ordered a UAD Apollo 16. 
 
Time for some analog summing!
 
Who wants sound clips?! (If so, Ed needs to fly to Nebraska...) :)

msorrels
SONAR can only use one ASIO driver at a time.  You can't have two different drivers active at the same time.  So there is no way to do what he's doing in the video.  I believe you have to disable your sound card's ASIO drivers to enable the ReaRoute drivers.
 
Seems like Cakewalk should have worked on this part of the SONAR engine, you should be able to have as many different drivers (and driver types) all at the same time.  But it doesn't work that way.

The ASIO spec itself limits to a single driver...   
Some audio interfaces allow several units to operate together (adding channels of I/O)... but the combo functions under a single ASIO driver.

bapu
My work is done here.

Thanks for doing that ...

bapu
Only 2 people claimed that A was Mixbus.
More than that claimed they preferred B (SONAR).

What a surprise! I was almost certain that B is Mixbus. That would explain why people talk about its sound, summing and overall better ... "feel" for lack of a better word. Thanks for this test, Ed.

Well I have just done null test with the multi track drum session that my son played for the Cirque audition. I imported the (pristine) tracks into both Studio One and Mixbus 32C. No effects used anywhere on either. No saturation used in Mixbus either. Only relying on the so called Mixbus summing sound magic to set them apart.
 
Most the tracks actually could stay at unity gain. I just increased the snare and kick by 3 db and lowered the OHeads by 6 db. I panned the OHeads L and R and panned the three toms L C and R. All else stayed centre.
 
Interesting that I got no discernible difference in sound from either. Virtually a perfect null as well. So I agree the video that Kenny posted is pretty accurate after all. (I did notice that Mixbus actually exported everything exactly 1 db louder than Studio One. So I had to reduce the Mixbus mix by exactly 1 db in order to get the perfect null)
 
So what this really points too is that any preferences that some may have for Mixbus or another DAW is linked to everything else that the two DAW's may provide. e.g. the dynamics that Mixbus offers built in plus the EQ sounds etc plus the saturation.
 
It concludes that there is no actual improvement to be gained from just using Mixbus alone and no effects and expecting Mixbus to add some summing magic. It isn't.
 
Mixbus can still soften transients but that is obviously coming from the saturation or even dynamics but not the summing engine alone. Which is actually quite good in a way because it shows that with no effects processing used anywhere Mixbus is basically leaving the sound alone.  Unless the null test fails to show what magic Mixbus might be adding but I am not sure on that though. Because if Mixbus was even a tad brighter then it would show in the null test.
 
I am not going to rush out any buy 32C V4 either.  It is not worth it. (Unless you want that EQ of course) The bottom line is if you are good you can get a fabulous (and the same) mix on any DAW. That is something I have always believed anyway.
 
It also makes me think that I can get some pretty cool console emulation going on too with Studio One's built in CTC-1 (if you own it that is) That does sound nice. And you don't have to export or transfer stuff from one DAW to the other. There is actually more control over the console emulation process as well with the CTC-1 compared to Mixbus. e.g. Drive and Character settings.
 
For those trying real hard to route signals from your DAW over to Mixbus and back again I say forget it and just get on with what you are doing with one DAW only! (Unless you really want to use all the other stuff Mixbus has to offer because the summing part of it seems to be neutral) I think there is enough other stuff in all our DAW's that will be able to match most of what Mixbus has to offer.
 
This test that I have just done has changed my opinion of Mixbus. It basically agrees with Soundwise now.

It's been a cool thread, great experiment Bapu, thanks for taking the time to do it. I wasn't ever going to get Mixbus, so I am glad to see some of these test results confirming it can stay off my radar.
 
Prochannel's flexibility, the option to add in VST's should be enough to get the sound you are looking for. Michael Jackson's Thriller would have sounded great mixed on anything really.  Michael, Quincy and the others involved gave it the magic, not the desk.
 
I'm having fun with Klanghelm's SSDR on my busses for a changing the desk flavor. Still think cakewalk should approach Toni for his IVGI and DC1A in Prochannel form (and the VU metres) to make Sonar's Prochannel mixer even more flexible than the Mixbus's for tonal range.

Nice post Kamikaze it sums things up rather nicely. I still like Mixbus a lot for sure. It is just that it is really another DAW in many ways except the GUI is different and I really like the whole analog console feel. The summing engine with no effects or saturation is not really adding any thing magical in reality. But there are many other aspects to it that do. I like the track, buss and stereo buss EQ's. The dynamics are great and so is the saturation in moderation as well. Their plugins are excellent as well as their mastering plugins too. This is the real stuff that makes up the very final sound we hear out the other end. The M32C channel EQ is beautiful. 
 
It reinforces the concept of the earlier experiment too where I got identical mixes in the 4 DAW's I tested just testing their summing engines. That proved to me very clearly that when nothing is being applied they are all identical really. As I have said before the moment you start inserting plugins here there and everywhere then the various DAW's go down their own road and the individuality sets in. Mixbus has its own individual sound in this mode too. And it is good as well.
 
Thanks too Kamikaze as I also have SDRR too and I keep forgetting I have got it. It does sound cool. And I can use it in conjunction with the Studio One CTC-1 as well.  Separate console emulation (that you either use or not) in one way is better because you have more control. 

+1 to Kamikaze's and Jeff's post.
 
I was surprised at the results and was convinced that A was Sonar. Just goes to show what can be achieved with Sonar. 
 
Thanks Bapu for taking the time.
 
P.S. I have MB4 but haven't got around to using it much. I find myself using Studio One Pro more and more despite the improvements in Sonar. The one thing that drives me nuts in Sonar is the way I find things selected that I didn't intend to so am constantly hitting Num5 to de-select (when I remember). 

bapu
My work is done here.

this is why we can't have nice things,, you try hard, present impartial facts, and they pee in your wheaties