Rob- Thanks for that info. I seen someone did it using Reaper. I'm not sure what interface they used.
 
I mean no slight to anyone using Mixbus. I'm trying to determine if it would work for me personally.
 
I use other Daws on occasion, so I don't have an issue with that. 
 
The Waves plug I linked looks to be almost identical in concept. The thing I liked about it was you can sum through it. This should yield the same or a similar result, would it not? It is based on actual consoles too. One of them Neve. Sonar already has both bus and channel emulation.
 
I think a test sounds like a great Idea. Uploading to Soundcloud only gives us a 128 mp3  though. Not sure if that's good enough to tell.
 

Starise
The Waves plug I linked looks to be almost identical in concept. The thing I liked about it was you can sum through it. This should yield the same or a similar result, would it not? It is based on actual consoles too. One of them Neve. Sonar already has both bus and channel emulation.

 
 
Mixbus has more than just console summing. It's dynamics processing and EQ. But all these modules are available for the Pro Channel and then some. The closest third party plugin would be Waves' SSL 4000 Collection, IK British Channel & White Channel, and channel strips by other manufacturers, such as TheStrip by DDMF, etc.
 

Starise
I think a test sounds like a great Idea. Uploading to Soundcloud only gives us a 128 mp3  though. Not sure if that's good enough to tell.

I've used a multitrack from David Glenn's website. Not sure if any of us have the right to redistribute it via forums, otherwise I would post the link to the .CWB project in this thread.
But you can do this test on your own.
To see wht plugins add to the mix it doesn't have to be finished and polished mix. I set the levels and panning roughly to -12 db, then routed groups to corresponding busses, like Drums, Guitars and Vox. Then made some coarse adjustments in 3 dB increments and then made a couple of fine adjustments, e.g., set the lead vocal to be slightly above the rest, dilaled tambourine lower. That's it.
The final step was to enable PC Tube, Console and Tape and pick the console type, tape bias per group of channels (swap select channels, then Control + click/drag to change settings simultaniously).
Once it's done you can audition the mix turning effects on/off (by hitting "E" key) on the fly.

Soundwise,I see your point and thank you.
 
All of those things add to the signal. I could almost swear that the tube emulation has a sound in PC even when off. If I remove it the channel sounds cleaner. Our ears can play tricks on us so I'm not certain this is happening.
 
I've played around with coloration in a bunch of plug ins. I like it overall. I don't think it's really a night and day kind of difference, or at least, it hasn't been with me. Tape saturation also has a huge influence on a master. We can get coloration in Sonar. I guess it isn't as interesting as the coloration in Mixbus to some people. Emphasis on to some people.
 
 I find it interesting that what was once viewed as a liability is now seen as an asset, even emulated.
 
People have raised the same arguments when comparing Studio One to Sonar. Maybe not this extent. Some swear there is a difference. There shouldn't really be a difference  if all things are equal. This might be the difference. At some point all things aren't equal.

sharke
Mixerman, who many are probably aware is a huge spokesman for the benefit of analog summing, recommends the use of Steven Slate's Virtual Console Collection as an alternative for people who don't have access to a console. 

Every time I've tried to embrace NLS I feel like I get a more narrow stereo field, not wider, and just a bunch of saturation.
 
I'm really hoping to implement an analog summing situation at some point...

Starise
I think a test sounds like a great Idea. Uploading to Soundcloud only gives us a 128 mp3  though. Not sure if that's good enough to tell.

 
I'm happy to post lossless versions on my dropbox for awhile...
 

James. This is a great idea. This is also a can of worms we are opening. The lines are already drawn. The only things telling us what we like are the things on the side of our heads. This is further influenced by what we like.
 
I predict a split with some swearing Mixbus sounded the best and others who either couldn't tell the difference, thought it was an equal call or maybe even liked the alternatives better.
 
The results will also likely be influenced by program material and the methods used to get a sound similar to Mixbus. 
 
If it worked for everyone. Any engineer of note would be running everything through Mixbus. It seems to me that Mixbus is an effect that you can load tracks into. A genius approach by some measures.  I wouldn't compare it as a daw to anything like Platinum.
 
I could be fun though! Just be forewarned...once we open Pandoras box anything can happen.
 
I appreciate that Ampfixer shared his thoughts, although the connotations are that Sonar doesn't sound as good. I think this made some take a second look. If the idea is that you simply load in your tracks to get the "personality" of Mixbus. That's great. To say Sonar doesn't sound as good is highly conditional on a bunch of other stuff IMHO.
 
 
 
 
 

Soundwise
I've used a multitrack from David Glenn's website. Not sure if any of us have the right to redistribute it via forums, otherwise I would post the link to the .CWB project in this thread.
 

I think you can post a mix as long as you reference where the tracks came from.
 
You could post a link to the multi-tracks on DG's site, ya?

bapu

Soundwise
I've used a multitrack from David Glenn's website. Not sure if any of us have the right to redistribute it via forums, otherwise I would post the link to the .CWB project in this thread.
 

I think you can post a mix as long as you reference where the tracks came from.
 
You could post a link to the multi-tracks on DG's site, ya?

I can't, but you can!

Soundwise

bapu

Soundwise
I've used a multitrack from David Glenn's website. Not sure if any of us have the right to redistribute it via forums, otherwise I would post the link to the .CWB project in this thread.
 

I think you can post a mix as long as you reference where the tracks came from.
 
You could post a link to the multi-tracks on DG's site, ya?

I can't, but you can!

I see what you did there.

How about a blind test? First, my apologies if I'm misreading something.....but is it possible for those with a dog in this hunt to post items without saying which is which?😃

Like was mentioned earlier in the thread... once the "deliverable" / song is processed in a DAW past the industry standard tweaks and beyond...., then the concept per each sound engineer or other, that
"mine is better than yours"
comes from the gray matter between our ears. Or our heart. Or both. (me)

Like folks who say streaming audio past a 320kbs standard doesn't make a difference because no one can tell the difference between that and higher quality streaming. (but there really is an audible difference) on certain songs.

The best of some things becomes an opinion at some point. And you know how many people have opinions.

*If for some reason this won't apply here, again please forgive me. But I just had this discussion lasts weekend with a peer.
We were both right 😃.