sharke
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.  

That's why basically everybody on this forum here who uses Mixbus uses it more as a digital mix desk rather than a DAW (with all creative features involved). I've yet to hear from somebody (again in this forum) who recorded a full project using Mixbus.

Interesting! So let me get this straight - If I have a 40 or 50 track project going in Sonar, I somehow File/Export track or combos of tracks into wave files, then import those wave files into 8 (or 12) channels in Mixbus?
 
At what point would I put the eq, comp, reverb, and groovy ear candy plugins on . . . would I do that in Sonar and then render/export to Mixbus?
 
OR, would I save the eq comp and rvb and ear candy plugins for when it's all in Mixbus?
 
 

emeraldsoul
Interesting! So let me get this straight - If I have a 40 or 50 track project going in Sonar, I somehow File/Export track or combos of tracks into wave files, then import those wave files into 8 (or 12) channels in Mixbus?
 
At what point would I put the eq, comp, reverb, and groovy ear candy plugins on . . . would I do that in Sonar and then render/export to Mixbus?
 
OR, would I save the eq comp and rvb and ear candy plugins for when it's all in Mixbus?

This would depend upon your intent.  If you were looking to "mix" in Mixbus then you
would just export the raw tracks and then add whatever plugins you wanted and do your
mix in Mixbus.  

If you want to Master in Mixbus then you would export your "mixed" two track, then
import into Mixbus, and then do your "mastering work"...

This is entirely up to you!  

Here's the open challenge.  Export ONE raw track AFTER listening to it in Sonar.
Listen CLOSELY before exporting!  
Import it into Mixbus.  I guarantee you BEFORE you do ANYTHING AT ALL it WILL sound
BETTER....THAT is before you do ANYTHING to it!  Take that for what it's worth...

People can talk the "bs" all they want.  It WILL just SOUND better...I guarantee it!

emeraldsoul
Interesting! So let me get this straight - If I have a 40 or 50 track project going in Sonar, I somehow File/Export track or combos of tracks into wave files, then import those wave files into 8 (or 12) channels in Mixbus?
 
At what point would I put the eq, comp, reverb, and groovy ear candy plugins on . . . would I do that in Sonar and then render/export to Mixbus?
 
OR, would I save the eq comp and rvb and ear candy plugins for when it's all in Mixbus?
 

 
You can have as many tracks as you like in Mixbus. But if you want to sum those tracks to mix buses (e.g. drums, guitars, synths, vocals etc) then there are a limited number available. So in Mixbus there are:
 
Tracks (unlimited)
Aux tracks (unlimited)
Mix buses (limited)
 
Mix buses are where the Harrison summing magic happens. And they have PDC. Aux tracks are simply tracks that you can route regular tracks to. There's no analog summing magic going on in them, and you don't get the PDC. 
 
How you work with Mixbus is up to you. Here are 3 possibilities:
 
1) Create a whole project from scratch in Mixbus. You'll have to learn it completely as a DAW, including all of its editing functionality, MIDI functionality etc. 
2) Track and edit everything in another DAW e.g. Sonar, then import the stems into Mixbus and do all of your summing and mixing in there. 
3) Track, edit and mix everything another DAW, then import the stems into Mixbus and just use it for its analog summing. 
 
With option 3, you'd be applying all of your effects like EQ, compression and delay in Sonar and then summing everything in Mixbus. This may or may not work out - for instance, Mixbus imparts its own flavor to the sound with its proprietary analog summing and tape saturation. These may mess with your instrument balance and/or EQ making it necessary to make further adjustments in Mixbus, or maybe it won't and everything will sound awesome. 
 
With option 2, all you'd have to do is learn how to insert effects in Mixbus. However, if you use effect returns in your mixes then you may find yourself limited by the number of buses available in Mixbus - unless of course you're prepared to use aux tracks for effect returns, and manually insert PDC values yourself. The bus limitation might not bother you if your mixes are pretty simple. For instance, in terms of summing you might just need buses for instruments, drums and vocals. In Mixbus 4 that leaves you with 5 spare buses for effect returns. Let's say a couple of reverbs, a couple of delays and some parallel compression. If however you're like me and utilize stupid numbers of effect returns in your projects, you're outta luck. 
 
Which is why I do all my mixing, including effect returns, in Sonar first if I'm going to go onto Mixbus. I then print all of the stems, including effect returns, and import them to Mixbus as tracks. You can then get creative with the mix buses, for example you could route all of your reverb tracks to one bus, all of your delays to another etc. Or you could just route all of your effect return tracks to a single bus. To be honest I find all of the workflow possibilities a little daunting in terms of what they mean for your final mix, and as a result I've yet to complete a single project in Mixbus. I have a few on the go though 

I've the basic version of Mixbus and experimented with it for a while. In the end I decided I don't particularly like what it does. It certainly has a 'smooth sound' I associate with a lot of US recordings, but it happens to be a 'sound' I'm not very keen on. At least, it doesn't suit my current mood if you see what I mean. I'm more an SSL/Neve sort of person at the moment, or even a 'plain, straightforward digital' one at times.

Which isn't to say Mixbus doesn't do what it sets out to do very well, it does. Just not to my taste for my stuff. Kind of like how many, many people make a Strat through a Marshall sound good but I've never been able to dial that very common combination into something I'm consistently happy with for myself.

Mixbus' interface is a serious pain in the neck though.

Mixbus has got its own unique sound and I believe no matter of fiddling around will suddenly put you in the ball park with that sound with other DAW's.  Mixbus 4 has the inherent sound built in. 32C has the sound plus the channel strip with that great EQ and the extra busses which is also handy.  The great thing about it is the sound is just built in right from the ground up or word go. No console emulators needed because it is doing that all the time, permanently.
 
The only time I get close is using the CTC-1 console shaper (Tube emulation) in Studio One but it still is slightly different. 
 
The GUI and workflow are great and doing a whole project from start to finish in it should be a snap. 
 
When I listen to reference tracks in it even in stereo such as Steely Dan's 'Everything Must Go' I finding is all just a little brighter pointing to the extra high harmonics being generated because of the distortion perhaps. But it is super clean up in the high end that is glass like and easily controlled as well. The mastering plugins are great too. Their multi band and EQ are rather interesting. I love the way the EQ's on the channels, buses and the master buss are all different. That low mid control on the master buss is right in the 300 Hz pocket too so only a little tweak is required to completely clean up the mud in the low end of your mix. I personally feel you have to keep the tape saturation part under control and use it sparingly.

cclarry

People can talk the "bs" all they want.  It WILL just SOUND better...I guarantee it!

Larry,
 
This "better" is so subjective. I can drop Waves Pusher on a track and it sounds "better" immediately too. That doesn't make it good.
 
Regards,
Dan

dcumpian

cclarry

People can talk the "bs" all they want.  It WILL just SOUND better...I guarantee it!

Larry,
 
This "better" is so subjective. I can drop Waves Pusher on a track and it sounds "better" immediately too. That doesn't make it good.
 
Regards,
Dan

Is that NOT the purpose of all we do?  So if you can do it without using "plugins" doesn't that make 
it EASIER AND BETTER?  Doesn't that fulfill the first part of our entire intent?

Maybe I'm missing something here?

cclarry

dcumpian

cclarry

People can talk the "bs" all they want.  It WILL just SOUND better...I guarantee it!

Larry,
 
This "better" is so subjective. I can drop Waves Pusher on a track and it sounds "better" immediately too. That doesn't make it good.
 
Regards,
Dan

It that NOT the purpose of all we do?  So if you can do it without using "plugins" doesn't that make 
it EASIER AND BETTER?  Doesn't that fulfill the first part of our entire intent?

Maybe I'm missing something here?

Maybe, but in this respect, Mixbus is a plugin that adds its own character while mixing while using Mixbus. Furthermore, if I have to export a bunch of tracks to mix in Mixbus, that is not easier.
 
Everybody has their own way of working, so I'm not saying anybody is wrong here, just that Mixbus is not acting like a pure, transparent DAW.
 
Regards,
Dan

dcumpian

cclarry

dcumpian

cclarry

People can talk the "bs" all they want.  It WILL just SOUND better...I guarantee it!

Larry,
 
This "better" is so subjective. I can drop Waves Pusher on a track and it sounds "better" immediately too. That doesn't make it good.
 
Regards,
Dan

It that NOT the purpose of all we do?  So if you can do it without using "plugins" doesn't that make 
it EASIER AND BETTER?  Doesn't that fulfill the first part of our entire intent?

Maybe I'm missing something here?

... Mixbus is not acting like a pure, transparent DAW.
 
Regards,
Dan

And that is the point.  Is it for "Everyone" or "Everything"?  NO...but, some people also 
get "stuck" in "safe" land.  This is what I know...I don't want to know
anything else, this is what I do, I don't want to do anything else...and
THAT is why they "always sound the same as everyone else".  

Music is about stepping "outside the box", being creative, working a little
harder to get "that thing"...and not "living within the boundaries", because,
really, there are no boundaries!

Like you said...to each his own.  But there is no denying that what Mixbus
does is beneficial to the "ears".   And it cheaper than a plugin!