Baps had nothing to gain or loose here. I appreciate that he did the test. Those who commented I think did so in hopes of helping or offering opinions. Baps could have switched the files and we would never know. Clearly he didn't do that since he likes MB and the findings seem to make a good argument for the console emulation in Sonar.
Jeff had some good approaches in how he determined his conclusions I think. No matter what anyone thinks they hear, I think we still need a good conclusive analytical approach.
 
I think SO is a decent daw. Does some things better and some not as well. To start comparing Reaper/SO/Sonar gets into a whole different subject.All daws should null the same. Do all daws use the same techniques at the master bus? We can see from Mixbus that they don't all necessarily stay the same. Anything they do that's different from basic A/D conversion and digital summing is a form of coloration. I personally want the option to add my own coloration. If there are major daw's adding  magic dust to the mix I would at the very least , like to know what they did so I have the option to reverse or change it.
 
This is a tough nut to crack since the differences are so very small and as many have said they are cumulative.
 
Not much has changed. If you liked Mixbus...keep on using it. If you didn't care either way I doubt this has changed your mind.

Maybe what should be compared between DAW's are their features. Pick three DAW's that have the same feature and see which one is best. This is probably much easier to do than comparing how each sounds and will probably be more helpful.

FWIW , at this late stage of the game ,
 
I happen to think a lot of the confusion that surrounds Mixbus stems from comments from some Mixbus users that are saying things along the lines of ,
 
"I threw a Mix of a song I was working on that came from my main DAW into Mixbus and it instantly sounded much better than what I had before .WOW This is great . I didn't even have to do a thing to get that result "
 
 
Sound familiar ?  I don't recall Harrison ever making such a claim  
 
When confronted with bapus A B test over at the Mixbus Forum ,
 x42 an Ardour / Mixbus developer said this to bapu ...
 
RE: Interesting Blind A/B Test Between SONAR PC modules and Mixbus 32C

(Yesterday 12:39 PM)bapu Wrote:  Also, I did not "mix" the raw material (i.e. no FX, compression limiting etc) I just kept both systems raw data at unity gain.

What was the research question? What did you expect to learn from that?
 
...................................................................................................................................................................
 
IIRC , Harrison has always said Mixbus just sounds better ..Where's the crime in that ?
 
How is that statement any different than some of the promotional BS Gibson and Cakewalk has put out there ? 
 
IMHO, Folks should be happy that the SONAR VS Mixbus A B test  nulled ..
 
You work your butt off in your main DAW " lets say SONAR " for untold hours with the hopes of taking your music to the next level (what ever that may be for you ).
Wouldn't it make perfect sense that if you were going to take your hard work into another DAW that adds as much sonic coloration as Mixbus can add that you could at least start at a place in your mix that is verifiable ? Not only is it verifiable as per the null test , you can always get back to where you first began to be able to start all over again if need be  
 
Regarding Harrison's claim , " Mixbus does sound better " 
In certain cases with certain styles of music , Yes ! I happen to think that Mixbus sounds better ...
 
Mixbus is an alternative to a neutral sounding DAW once you start pushing it in the area's it was meant to be pushed in 
 
For that to actually happen .I have to start turning some knobs and moving around some sliders

Kenny
 

Just out of interest the original two mixes that Bapu posted definitely do not null.  No way known.  Well I tried real hard the other day and could not get them to null anyway.  The waveforms even look different.  I tried shifting them back and forth in time in tiny increments and various volume levels etc..
 
But that is because the Sonar mix was put through various stages of console emulation, saturation etc...And that was the idea was well.
 
My test was different with the pristine drum tracks.  In both DAW's I used no processing anywhere.  I turned the Mixbus saturation off.  I was just comparing the summing engines to see if Mixbus in its pure form still did add something to the sound compared to Studio One and it did not.  I got (very very close) to a perfect null.  Which means in its pure form Mixbus basically does not do anything to the sound.
 
But I totally agree with Kenny though in his last sentence in order to get the sounds out of Mixbus you have to actually turn some knobs and move some sliders and to take it further start inserting some of their plugins.  Use the built in dynamics/EQ on tracks, buses and the stereo buss.  That is where the sound comes from.
 
Dropping files into Mixbus and not using anything at all (Saturation OFF) does not achieve anything much.   It is just another DAW.   I don't believe it has this big Harrison 32C console sound built in that is always there.  If it did then my pristine drum test would never have nulled.

Edit in my last post I meant the null that took place in The Reaper VS Mixbus video ..not SONAR ..my bad...
I would go back and change that but I won't only because the forum may trash my post ...and place it in the trash .
 
Another Mixbus thing I also have in common with Jeff is we both went out and bought a few of The Harrison Mastering Plugs . They were expensive , yet I do feel they were worth the money
 
Kenny
 
 

I bought all the mastering plugins and many of the standard track ones too.  I do like the mastering multi band compressor.  One of the features that I really like about this is you can limit how far down the gain reduction actually goes in any of the bands.  This is not achievable in many multi band compressors.  It means even if the signal within a band really slams the compressor in that band you can set it so there will only be a certain amount of gain reduction.  So it is easier to make it transparent in operation and not drop way down for a really loud section etc...
 
The mastering EQ has a rather nice method of drawing the response curve you are after and also the way you can redraw or remove that said response.
 
The reverb is simple to use and also sounds very nice too. 
 
The built in dynamics on the tracks too are rather nice.  They can be severe but once you learn to massage them a bit so they are not destroying the sound they can be subtle and powerful too. 
 
The EQ on the main stereo buss is also nice and that lower mid control is set right around 300 Hz which is ideal for removing mud.  You only have to tweak that knob a bit to the left and most of the mud is gone!
 
The M32C channel EQ is also real nice and sounds very much like the real thing too with those lovely glassy highs. 
 
It is things like this that really contribute to the Harrison sound in my opinion.  

Results did not shock me.  i have been asking for years for someone to show me that mixbus had actually made their music any better. I like mixbus, but I just have never been able to find anything that made porting everything to it worthwhile.  blind tests seem to indicate that a good chunk of the praise is somewhat due to placebo effect.