I feel like a slacker.... I listened on my ATH-M50x. I couldn't hear much, if any difference, with my 68 year old ears and tinnitus....LOL....  then I forgot to check it out on my Equator D5's.
The idea of hearing "The Streets of Juarez" as the comparison test, sounds much more interesting to me. I think a mix with more variety and some space would allow a "better" comparion IMO.
Still, I thank Bapu for the experiment!
Michael

bapu

emeraldsoul
Perhaps Roland could fund Bapu's next effort 

They can't afford me.

 
They can't afford you just for your general pricing scheme ? or is it , They can't afford you as in hazard pay for all the other Roland Staff ? 
 
Kenny

The Youtube link at the bottom of the Starise post is interesting. The differences are much more obvious here for me. Although I wish they would stop using distorted guitars in these tests. They just make it harder. But the drums are the key in this video. I agree with guy in that video too. Harrison is a little brighter but the transients are a little softer or mushy. And the Reaper mix is a little more spiky for sure. (snappy)
 
I tried mastering a Hip Hop tune for a client in Mixbus and it failed badly. It softened things a little too much for me and brightened things a little too unnecessarily as well. I ended putting it back in Studio One where the top end remained the same and it sounded snappier to me. That is what the client wanted so left it that way.
 
Mixbus will soften transients a tiny bit and if you don't want that you should not use it. I can see why the distorted sounds maybe are well liked in Mixbus because they are pushing that a little more. But not all music has distorted sounds in it.
 
That is why a track that is super clean and has NO distorted sounds in it will reveal more. Mixbus will probably sound worse in this case.  (brighter, and you don't always need the extra brightness if you have done a nice mix but softer transients)  You can control this to a certain extent with the saturation settings but even when turned fully off it still will soften transients in a little way.

Jeff did mention the VS mix could be replicated irrespective of DAW (expected answer), i.e. "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."

The outlier here is MixBus, so whether compared to a SONAR or S1 mix should be inconsequential.

Leonardo da Vinci and Albert Einstein could both come back from the grave just to do a blind test and tell me that Mixbus is the same as every other DAW Soundwise out there and it's still not gonna change my mind
 
I still have my eyesight , and because of that all my other senses haven't turned into Super Powers Yet ...
 
I Wub Mixbus
 
Anyway lets give some equal air time for the other side of the coin ..
 
Harrison Mixbus 32C VS Reaper : In The Box Summing . this vid has some rather interesting results ..
 

 
Kenny

Thanks for the vid, Kenny. It shows that all the hype about MB summing is a snake oil. Yes, it sounds a hair deeper, but you can easily use a plugin on your summing bus that adds slight depth and warmth, like BT Analog TrackBox that ships with SPlat or nay third party. I figured, PM Retro EQ just engaged and not tweaked serves as a great summing device, adding depth, warmth and texture.

kennywtelejazz
Anyway lets give some equal air time for the other side of the coin ..
 
Harrison Mixbus 32C VS Reaper : In The Box Summing . this vid has some rather interesting results ..
 

 
Kenny

 
Thanks Kenny

When is Bapu gonna post the results?

[edit] Never mind. It'll be tomorrow morning 🕗.

I think that guys process was flawed.
 
I just did an null test of the chorus of my Streets of Juarez and they def do not null. I'll be posting my results later once I absolutely make sure my process is not flawed in any way.
 
My first thought is the pan laws may not be the same.

It wasn't easy to follow but I got the impression he exported the stems from Mixbus and then loaded them into Reaper.  Which might explain why they null, since they had already had the Mixbus processing applied to them.  The only part he did (in an off screen project) is the adding/summing part.  And even that didn't completely null out, you can see in the video near the 80% mark the two waveforms aren't identical.  And his null play back did have a couple of meter blips.  Minor yes, but not zero.
 
I think it's safe to say that Mixbus does do things to tracks.  And it does sum tracks slightly differently than "normal" DAWs also (two separate things maybe).  The thing is, do you want/need what it does?  Do you want it bad enough to use Mixbus?  Can you get what you want without using Mixbus or is using Mixbus (either as an additional step or as a full replacement) the best path to what you want?
 
In my case I have yet to hear anything that makes me believe Mixbus solves a problem I personally have.  But I can completely understand people feeling differently about it.