Here's the VIDEO of the song (which I assume is the tracks we were given).
 
I only just now listened to it. I did not want to be influenced by what was.

Two drastically different mixes of the same song and from the same engineer... Do you use reference tracks when mixing?

The two mixes are way too different to be able to tell. eg Sonar mix has very different snare sound and level.
What would be good is try to pull two identical mixes, one in Sonar and the other in Mixbus and then compare.
 
I would do the Sonar mix say first then reference that inside the Mixbus mix and match everything as closely as you can. EQ's, panning and levels etc..
 
Then we can switch back and forth and try to listen to what is making Mixbus sound the way it does compared to Sonar.
 
And to those who are non believers, Sonar's Pro Channel is definitely not like Mixbus.
 
 

Interessting bapu ...i have exactly the same fun mixing in mixbuss ... Basically the plugin layout is so bad that i stick wirh defautl comp and eq most of the time exept for reverb and buss comp ...

Starting to really dig it ...i plan on showing it at the SAE because i found it exellent for pedagogical approch of routing ... And mixing

This eq is just exellent ... I mean really ...don t expect chirugical stuff but what i call a Tone Shaper for real ... Hard to kill a sound
I m a cut boy usually when i eq but i found mysel boosting the beauty when i spot it with this eq. ... And it s great also

Customisation of the gui would be a pure joy ... I really miss also the ability on each p,ugin to solo it via the plugin window ...i miss that also in studio one that i m trying now ...

Soundwise
Do you use reference tracks when mixing?

Nope. The goal was NOT to make a comparison of the DAWs but more of how I would use them without regard to each other, if that makes sense.

Hey Jeff,
 
This time I was not going for "compare" just seeing where the DAW workflow took me.
 
In the case of Mixbus I set out to use only the Harrison plugs and I accomplished that.
 
In SOMAR I set out to use what are mostly my go to plugs.
 
So to reiterate, this was not about what DAW is best/better sounding but how their respective workflows affected me.
 

Zo
Interessting bapu ...i have exactly the same fun mixing in mixbuss ... Basically the plugin layout is so bad that i stick wirh defautl comp and eq most of the time exept for reverb and buss comp ...

I used their delay and vocal character plugs on the voice. I used bass character on the bass. I used drum character on the kick and snare. I only used the 32C EQ's on the guitars. I bused 4 separate instances of their Reverb. And of course I used compression on either tracks or buses.
 
No mastering was done in Mixbus.

bapu
Nope. The goal was NOT to make a comparison of the DAWs but more of how I would use them without regard to each other, if that makes sense.

bapu
So to reiterate, this was not about what DAW is best/better sounding but how their respective workflows affected me.

That's what I thought. Brighter GUI of Sonar = brighter sounding mix. Easily accessible CompEQ of MixBus = more delicate EQ and compression applied to the mix.

bapu
Hey Jeff,
This time I was not going for "compare" just seeing where the DAW workflow took me.
 
In the case of Mixbus I set out to use only the Harrison plugs and I accomplished that.
 
In SOMAR I set out to use what are mostly my go to plugs.
 
So to reiterate, this was not about what DAW is best/better sounding but how their respective workflows affected me.

 
Yes Bapu  I get it from a different point of view.  In fact it is interesting.  Same raw materials, two different DAW's and work flows and two quite different mixes result.  Maybe workflow effects the end result more than we realise.
 
Theoretically though you should be able to pull an identical mix from two different DAW"s.  What would separate them would be more like console emulation, certain eq sounds, tape saturation and the dynamics that Harrison gives you built in and everywhere.
 
I like the fact in Mixbus there are three EQ's.  One for tracks, another for buses and that final eq on the masterbuss is setup for clearing mud away and adding a little clarity here and there.  The eq's are all a little different.  You can sort out 80% or more of your eq requirements with just the built in eq. I have got all the mastering plugs, they are great and their reverb too, it is nice to use for sure.  The EQ in the 32C would be nice. To have that amount of eq control plus a slightly different sound added again. I can see the advantage.
 
I have worked with a real Harrison 32C and the fact is you can get involved with that nice channel eq.  It is very adjustable.  That Harrison had a huge bottom end at the back of the control room.  It was floor shaking. They sold it for a song and put a Control 24 in the same space and it sounded much worse.  A not so nice middle register with no bottom end! It had just disappeared.
 
 
 

When I listen, it's like the one version is on AM radio and the other on FM. I find the Sonar version is more defined but I like the arpeggiated guitar better on the Mixbus version.