Kalle Rantaaho
Doesn't the old consensus still reign,  that a plain/raw recording with similar equipment is the same no matter what DAW you use?

 
 

Kalle Rantaaho
Doesn't the old consensus still reign,  that a plain/raw recording with similar equipment is the same no matter what DAW you use?

Yes, unless the DAW purposefully adds distortion that the user cannot circumvent, in which case it's no longer a DAW, but an effect. Mixbus falls into that category. It adds harmonic distortion to emulate vintage mixing consoles. That increases high-frequency content which, in turn, increases the perception of width.
 
People seem to really like the result, but I agree that if SONAR sounded like that it would be a design flaw.

Kalle Rantaaho
Do I understand correctly: Mixbus automatically manipulates the project and makes it sound better ("dropping a clip in Mixbus and it sounds better")? If so, one shouldn't want SONAR to sound the same, because most DAW users want the sound to be what is recorded. Having a "mixbus-thingy" as a channel strip or VST is another thing.
Doesn't the old consensus still reign,  that a plain/raw recording with similar equipment is the same no matter what DAW you use?

Bingo. I want my recordings to be as pure as possible and not manipulated by the DAW without my doing so. At that point you may as well be using $30 Walmart speakers to mix with if you're okay with things colouring your sound coming out without knowing what is being done.
 
Yes, Sonar needs some work on it's audio engine but automatically manipulating the sound to "sound better" defeats the purpose of a DAW where you want as flat a response as possible, in my opinion.

I downloaded the demo last night. My first impressions are it seems like software from 1998.This is probably because they wanted it to look like the hardware.
 
I realize that appearance isn't everything so I watched a few videos to see what the special sauce was all about. When I listed to comparison videos I heard a very slight bit mid to high detail in the Mixbus32 samples compared to Reaper. I couldn't find a comparison to Sonar. It didn't sound like anything I couldn't make happen in Sonar with a little coloration or something like Waves Scheps 73 or a decent British channel strip in software. 
 
If it's an issue with dither, I can dither through Ozone.
 
So I guess I'm not totally sold on it.....yet. I'm willing to be convinced.

I took a punt some time ago, and again with v4. I was a bit sceptical at the price, but it wasn't a lot to lose.  
So I dropped a Sonar rough mix (as waves/track) into HMB, remixed, and was immediately smitten. Ok, it's distortion, but it works. It's a little clumsy on the workflow and interface, but so is Sonar's new PRV at the moment until I get used to it. 
 
Maybe it's the "fairy dust" that The Troggs wanted all those years ago. 
 
jdf

I do think that , if i recall well , it messes with phase alignement WITCH is what a lot of people misse in their mixes, i don't know if it's automatic or manualm ...i didn't updated yet ...

Ben at Harrison (think Noel's equivalent) likes to refer to MB's sound and workflow as a console and not a DAW per se.
 
I have to agree, with the exception it's not a HW based console.

Beagle
do you guys have all of the plugins too?
 

I just know you're not asking me that question.
 
 

Beagle
are they required for it to sound that good?

Nope.
But they are simple yet effective tools based mainly on their DSP in the larger consoles (IIRC).
 

I have the basic plug in pack from Harrison but seldom use anything but a bit of verb. I love the channel compression and tape saturation. They are the "one knob" fx that many companies try and create. I am also a big fan of the built in eq and wish that Sonar had one like it. I do find the interface a bit hard on the eyes and wouldn't want to spend hours working with it. As others have mentioned, there's a lot going on behind the curtain and it does seem more like a console plug disguised as a DAW rather than the other way around.
 
I don't spend enough time using it to really grasp all the features and I haven't begun to look at the CD creation features. I could use a 36 hour day.

Just for clarification, this is what I believe the difference is between Mixbus 4 and Mixbus 32C (maybe I read it wrong): 
 
The basic Mixbus is an emulation of Harrison's digital consoles from the early 90's. In the mid 80's they'd introduced analog consoles which were digitally controlled, then in the 90's they reproduced that sound as an all digital console with proprietary DSP. Mixbus 4 uses that same DSP. 
 
Mixbus 32C, however, models the old analog 32C consoles directly - the ones that were used on such albums as Thriller and Graceland. 
 
With both, you get the Harrison sound. But Mixbus 4 is limited to only 8 stereo buses, whereas 32C has 12. Although you can create as many aux tracks as you like in both, only the mix buses have in built in plugin delay compensation (PDC). So unlike Sonar, which offers unlimited aux tracks and buses with PDC on all of them, you have to be a little bit more organized and forward thinking about using the buses in Mixbus, unless you want to deal with setting the delay compensation manually. Maybe this is a good thing as it forces you to approach the mix with a real console mindset. I remember Harrison explaining why only the mix buses have PDC, it was something to do with technical limitations as I recall, although it still sounded like BS to me - I'm sure they could do it if they wanted to. When I first read about Mixbus and it's limitation of 8 mix buses, I remember thinking "I bet they bring out a more expensive one with more buses," which of course they did.