bapu

Soundwise
Mix B has more depth and is slightly more defined.
FWIW, when you sent me links, the first thought was A - for Alisa, B - for Bapu.

They were both poisoned!

Interesting, reading the comments, I've decided that my ears are indeed "battered".
The difference, to those battered ears, is not enough to run out and buy Mixbus;
that's the one thing I can say for sure.
Other than the very annoying "clicks" and hum on the guitar track, I could mix with either "console".
I'll "guess" B is SONAR; I flipped a coin, or maybe, I didn't; or maybe I watched the Princess Bride clip
one too many times
T
ps: Many thanks Ed

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.

DeeringAmps
The difference, to those battered ears, is not enough to run out and buy Mixbus;

Well, for one I think that since this was not a "mix" on both systems the difference may be minimal to some.
 
I'm working on a new BBZ song that hard driving and what I'm doing there is getting all the way to mastering stage in SONAR exported. Then I'm turning off the mastering plugs and exporting (ONLY) pre-mastered buses into tracks into Mixbus 32C and then routing those tracks into MB's buses. And o the MB Master bus I am adding in the "exact" mastering chain as it is in SOANR. Then I am exporting that to to the same Sample/Bit Rate as SONAR.
 
The song is not done yet and so I'm not ready to have a listening/guessing party yet, but I will if the guys agree to do it. And if they agree I will take Alisa's template and apply all the SONAR Console FXs to the tracks to them and create a third part of the test. An ABC blind test.
 
FWIW I hear the mojo more on the full mix than I do on this primitive test we did here.

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.

Thanks for the test - very interesting. 
 
I listened to both one after the other, twice. There were differences but not exactly night and day.


I preferred B to A - it just sounded more rounded to my ears and the guitar was a little more overpowering in A.
The drums also had more clout and the vocals were more apparent in B. 
 
I am guessing that B is Mixbus and A Sonar. 

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. 

msorrels
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. 

Looks like Ozone is not picking up all of the magic fairy dust particles though...
 
Dan

That's what makes them majic.