bapu
That's what makes them majic.

Lol...the effects of saturation and harmonics are hard to see in a graph of a mix, as opposed to a single track. I was joking, more or less...
 
Dan
 

dcumpian
I was joking, more or less...
 

Me too Dan.

I have to say I started out listening on headphones but now have just switched to speakers.  Firstly this is poor choice of music for a comparison like this.  It is just a boring hard edged rough sounding driving rock tune and just does not lend itself to any useful comparisons.
 
When I was working for Roland a little while back selling their now defunct V Studio they gave me a stellar recording in multitrack format.  A really skilled and beautiful band playing (with lead vocals too) live with tons of delicate detail. Tons of space so you could hear everything rather than this track where everybody is just slamming at once.  Boring! The Roland track was a masterclass in mic technique.  Perfect for something like this.  With no plugins used anywhere a beautiful perfect pristine mix is possible just by balancing and some panning.  Due to the raw tracks just sounding so beautiful. 
 
(Out of interest I mixed this Roland track down in 4 DAW's and got the same sound from all of them but that was with no console emulation in place though. They were Sonar, Studio One, Logic and Pro Tools. I could get near perfect nulls with any of them added and one polarity reversed and they all sounded the same. I set the faders exactly for each DAW (to whole number of dB) and only used Pan L, C and R as well with same pan laws all in place too)
 
This is how you do something like this, not the current track. The current track is very poor.  Or it just makes too hard to get any real objective comparison. That  is why something like Steely Dan's tunes and mixes can sort things out like instantly as opposed to listen back and forth etc..
 
I would do the same test with the Roland recordings in Studio One vs Mixbus except I am not allowed to post these recordings though which is a bit of a shame.  I could do it and report back.  I may be able to post the stereo mixes though just not the multi track sessions. 
 
One of my tracks was accidentally switched into mono so that explains what I was hearing. They are the same now stereo wise which is good. I am checking with Span over the mixes too. Seems like Mix A looks brighter on the graph. Only by a small amount though. Sounds the other way around at times.
 
 
 

Jeff Evans
I have to say I started out listening on headphones but now have just switched to speakers.  Firstly this is poor choice of music for a comparison like this.  It is just a boring hard edged rough sounding driving rock tune and just does not lend itself to any useful comparisons.
 
When I was working for Roland a little while back selling their now defunct V Studio they gave me a stellar recording in multitrack format.  A really skilled and beautiful band playing (with head vocals too) live with tons of delicate detail. Tons of space so you could hear everything rather than this track where everybody is just slamming at once.  Boring! The Roland track was a masterclass in mic technique.  Perfect for something like this.  With no plugins used anywhere a beautiful perfect pristine mix is possible just by balancing and some panning.  Due to the raw tracks just sounding so beautiful. 
 
(Out of interest I mixed this Roland track down in 4 DAW's and got the same sound from all of them but that was with no console emulation in place though. They were Sonar, Studio One, Logic and Pro Tools. I could get near perfect nulls with any of them added and one polarity reversed and they all sounded the same. I set the faders exactly for each DAW (to whole number of dB) and only used Pan L, C and R as well with same pan laws all in place too)
 
This is how you do something like, this not the current track. The current track is very poor.  Why because now I am hearing almost the same top end on both and the stereo is wider in Mix A for some reason so what has happened there.  Mix B is almost mono.  Are they meant to be both mono?  More info needed please.  These tracks have not been matched very well for level and stereo placement.  And if they have then it does not sound like it to me.  They are not the same in loudness either, it is even more obvious on speakers. 
 
I would do the same test with the Roland recordings in Studio One vs Mixbus except I am not allowed to use these recordings though which is a bit of a shame.  I could do it and report back.
 
 

Soundwise (Alisa) did the first pass of this in SONAR of some David Glenn multitracks she had.
 
She gave me her .cwb. IIRC there was only one track that was sent to the master bus and so I sent that to a pre-master bus and then I exported all the buses after killing FXs (which was only SONAR console and tape) retaining "everything" in terms of level and panning from SONAR.
 
Then I took those non-fx stereo bus exports and laid those into a MB 32C channel. Then, on all MB channels I turned off all sends to the Main bus and sent each track to it's own bus (which in turn were sent to the main bus). In 32C I set everything to unity gain. Again, hoping to not alter the SONAR raw bus levels or pan.
 
 
Then I exported both (in stereo) to the A & B files after making some level adjustments on both tracks (in both directions). Admittedly I may not have level matched them perfectly but someone said here they only had to adjust one by .6db. So it seems to me that I was "pretty close" 
 
I'm sorry you don''t like the approach but in the OP I clearly stated:
"Important to note both versions are devoid of any extra FXs such as compression, eq & reverb. IOW it's not a mix but a comparison of the two "console" versions attempting to be close to equal as possible."
 
Although your complaint is valid it was not the intent to find that perfect mix (please all of the people all of the time) for a A-Level grade comparison.
 
So in the end, you may have pointed out some flaws and it may not have given everyone the best A/B test, so please, whenever you can, feel free to best me by providing a better A/B example. 

Yes I understand that a mix was not the go here.  For sure.  But even when you put all the Roland multitrack channels to say unity, the mix is almost perfect!
 
The problem is all the smashing the drummer is doing crashing to blazes and just not shutting up.  Can you see what I mean compared to super clean playing with tons of space, some gentle and precision and delicate percussion going on.  The difference between two tracks like this will be much more obvious or assuming so of course.
 
What it points out to me is the delicate beautiful sort of thing Mixbus is doing could just be wasted on a track like this and as many here are into that type of thing, one possible solution is simply don't waste your time trying to mix a track like this in Mixbus. You may not even hear it!
 
But something else such a real delicate acoustic Jazz recording or the band mentioned above or even a pristine electronic music track a la Tangerine dream might say sound very different on the two systems. 
 
When I was doing a lot of A/B testing in the 70's and 80's with Hi Fi as the objective, the thing we found was the music material had to be carefully chosen. Very carefully. We had a range of things. They all had one thing in common, differences were immediate!
 
For me now there are now grand differences here going on between Mix A and Mix B therefore it is not a slam dunk at all.  This music stands on its own with or without Mixbus console emulation.  That is what I think I am trying to say here.  I feel different material may have quite a different result.  I will either post the Roland tracks or go through my own multis and see what I can find here.  I should do three mixes.  One in Studio One with no console emulation of any sort, another in Mixbus and a third in Studio One with all its console emulation thrown at it.  That will be interesting.

bapu
That's what makes them majic.

Shirley ewe mean Mojique.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HEluoeMLTCI

The graphs that dcumpian posted are also a bit ambiguous as well.  I have two instances Span going here and even after the level difference is accounted for, I am finding both responses incredibly similar.  I have frozen Span in the exact place musically as well for both tracks. Something I bet the Ozone graph is not showing you.
 
I am seeing Mix B as having only a tiny bit more high end but only tiny e.g. fractions of a dB.

The key imho is the road ...

You can have the same treatment , different interface and you will end up with 2 sonicaly different stuff ...

Mixbuss will sound diff ( in a good way) when you will strat equing with one of the most musical eq i use , when you gonna start copressing and move on with the built in comp , instead of ABeing 5 comp from your vst folder , when you will limit yourself in buses , when you will drive throught their built in drive ect ...

All this makes mix biss unique

Jeff Evans
The graphs that dcumpian posted are also a bit ambiguous as well.  I have two instances Span going here and even after the level difference is accounted for, I am finding both responses incredibly similar.  I have frozen Span in the exact place musically as well for both tracks. Something I bet the Ozone graph is not showing you.
 
I am seeing Mix B as having only a tiny bit more high end but only tiny e.g. fractions of a dB.

That was msorrels. I just commented that the magic isn't really going to be something visible in a graph like this. The harmonics and effects of saturation would only be visible in an artificial signal, or a track with a very simple plot.
 
Dan

EQ matching isn't everything, but it is a tool that can help compare audio.  Perhaps there are better tools?  At least for me, my ears said the difference was negligible and could easily be bridged with some mixing.  I didn't hear anything that would warrant adding yet another DAW to my workflow.  So for me this test was perfect.