To be honest southpaw3473 I would not be doing anything like that during tracking. You are opening up yourself to create issues during tracking which is what you don't want. I would track normally and use your normal signal flow for tracking as per usual.  It is very possible to set up correct gain staging during all phases of a production,  tracking too especially using the K system as an approach. The VU meter will tell you what your correct levels are.
 
I really feel the sound of MixBus can be added later.  During Mixdown for example. That is why my exporting approach works well. It is good to import a few stems into it and experiment. If the drums for example do sound nice using their dynamics and EQ then just switch any of that off prior to any export operations. Then do it all in Mixbuss. I am not a massive fan of their built in limiters, my ears tell me that things like PSP Xenon sound better to me and they should too. But the compressors being used in a relaxed manner can work for me though, I agree on that.
 
BTW their plugins are not free and cost around $49 - $129 or so each.  I did make the investment because I do master from time to time and felt it was a good investment. Especially after working with them and hearing them.  I like the way you limit the amount of downward gain reduction that takes place in each band of their multiband comp. That way it can be set in such a way as to do its thing only up to a point.  That Multiband comp can be very very transparent too which is something else I like about it. You can slam it as well for more obvious results.
 
Here is the page that shows their plug in range:
 
http://harrisonconsoles.c...re-mixbus-plugins.html
 
They have just added some new ones too. Character bundle which is two plugs in one. A bass and vocal character set. Nice. I have both EQ's and the multiband comp. I also just got the Essentials as well. A super nice reverb in there that is amazingly simple to use.  None of their plugs open up inside anything else unless it is a host that will recognise the LV2 format.
 
I don't feel it is fully featured enough to do a complete production for me. I need midi and it does not have it yet.  It is missing heavy hitting features I have in Studio One for example but who knows. They are adding things and I think version 3 will bring on some good stuff as well.  For me at present it is an excellent way to finish off a production (and mastering) though.  Think the concept of printing all your stems and taking them down the road to a studio fitted out with an analog Harrison console and summing all your stems and processing them there. Would you do it if you could.  Well you can now and easily.

and so...this is *much better* than the console emulations in the ProChannel?  or another flavor?

mixmkr
and so...this is *much better* than the console emulations in the ProChannel?  or another flavor?

One can make that argument..... ***IF*** you want the Harrison sound.

mixmkr
and so...this is *much better* than the console emulations in the ProChannel?  or another flavor?

Yes that is right. Now would be a good time to do something like print some stems and do a final mix with those in Mixbuss and also continue on and use Pro Channel and other interesting sounding devices and doing some mixes in X3. Then getting both of those into something like ABX testing software where it is very important you do not know which mix you are listening to and see if you have a preference for one over the other.  Revealing.
 
I got Harrison Mixbus when it first came out very cheap too and have used it to great success.  But that does not mean very similar results could not be achieved in other ways using other approaches.  The main thing is to maximise the knowledge of what you have to its full potential.  Finding out what you have can really do.  And what you thought it could not do, alternate uses etc.. People like Craig Anderton are really good for that.

ins. Certainly this version of Mixbus is very little money, but it would be more a matter of more time; learning to use it, well, and perhaps I could better use my time with what I do have.
 
Maybe someone already has a shootout of a mix with Sonar and one through Mixbus.
Michael

It is not a difficult program to learn to use at all, in fact it is fast and intuitive. One reason is the way it is set and laid out. Nice and easy to see.
 
It is also important to check out the signal flow diagram in the manual so you know exactly where you are inserting plugins etc at any point in your signal chain.
 
It does have a nice sound.  I used a real Harrison console for a while working in a private sound engineering teaching institution.  The EQ's are always working very smooth especially with top end boost and lots of it if you decide to use it.  It remains silky and smooth.  Mixbuss sounds very similar in that regard.
 
But it is not perfect for everything especially in a mastering situation. Recently I mastered a Hip Hop track and I tried doing it inside Mixbuss.  To my surprise I did not like what it was doing to the mix.  I felt the tape sims and various other aspects destroyed parts of the track for me. Mushing things up a little too much perhaps.  I ended up mastering it inside Studio One and the sound was cleaner and slightly more robust for some reason.  So there you go.  Mastering wise it is not ideal fort absolutely everything.  Perhaps I needed to spend more time finding the sweet spot for that track, not sure.  I have already found something it did not like.
 
But on a recent female vocal Jazz album I mastered it sounded bloody excellent. The album has won a fairly prestigious award here which is great.  Not for mastering but at least my name is on it.
 
 

pentimentosound
ins. Certainly this version of Mixbus is very little money, but it would be more a matter of more time; learning to use it, well, and perhaps I could better use my time with what I do have.
 
Maybe someone already has a shootout of a mix with Sonar and one through Mixbus.
Michael

I did my private shootout and I was a little more pleased with Mixbus. This was simple apples to apples mix comparison.   IOW, identical stems, level and pan set as near identical as possible and NO added FXs.
 
I happen to like MixBus over SONAR in that example. YMMV.
 
Not a definitive test to be sure, but it sealed the deal for me.

Even though I'm new to Mixbus , I agree a lot with what Jeff is saying ...
 
I think it is a great addition to whatever DAW you feel the most comfortable composing , editing , tracking in ..
for me that's SONAR ….
I don't think I would want to start a new song in there unless I was playing in a full group in a real studio type environment ...
my current 2 cents ,
I think Mixbus has already demonstrated to me that it is a valuable asset for the simple reason that I have already sat down and compared various sections of tunes , loops , single tracks and stems of audio that I was very familiar with 
these are things that I have composed / recorded , and I did use some musical examples from real accreted pro's
 
I put them in Mixbus to have something to use while i learn the UI 
 
I was able to noodle around and dial sounds  while doing my little experiments that surprised me….
then I exported a few various clips from both the original files and the Mixbus exports and sat there and listened to them with my eyes closed …that was all the proof I needed , it was an ear opener….
keep in mind that , I didn't use anything additional at all , no inserted plugs …
nothing other than the mixing counsel …sp?… the onboard channel effects..eq, compressor , tape saturation ,and a little gain staging ...
 
on the other side of the coin , just to be perfectly honest …
it is possible to make some real cr&ppy sounds using Mixbus
I went there in my little experiment s unintentionally and on purpose …. 
it is very possible that me and my music might beyond any possible human help in the first place 
fwiw…I'm very excited about doing new music again ,  
SONAR X3 combined with Mixbus  plays  heavily  into my new found energy infusion 
 
Kenny

I did a quick experiment to see if I could use Mixbus as an actual mixer before I inputted to Sonar. It works like a charm! JACK apparently does work in Windows with the 2.5 update so it made this real easy. Here's what I did:
 
1-Open both Sonar and Mixbus making sure they are both using the same ASIO drivers. I have a MOTU Track 16 with a Focusrite Octo Pre Dynamic connected via ADAT so I have plenty of I/Os. 
2-In Mixbus make one or more tracks and set the inputs. Make sure you are using "Mixbus Does Monitoring".
3-Use one of the sends for each track input, i.e., if there are 2 stereo mics on an acoustic guitar arm send one for mic one and send two for mic two. Turn off the MASTER button for each track so you are monitoring the track through the busses.
4-On the corresponding busses assign via Track Direct Outputs to OUTS other than the MAIN OUT. This lets you listen PRE-Sonar from the MAIN OUT of Mixbus
5-In Sonar insert a track and set the input to one (or two if it's a stereo input) of the bus outs from Mixbus.
6-Arm for recording and you'll see the signal from Mixbus in Sonar. Now just hit RECORD and away you go. The signal that gets recorded in Sonar is the signal processed first in Mixbus. You can take advantage of its EQ and compressors on the Mixbus strips and record the signal dry while monitoring with verb from the Master OUT.
7-If you wish to monitor from within Sonar just hit Input Echo on in Sonar and mute the Master Bus in MIxbus
 
I don't have time to really get into this for a few days but the quickie tracks I recorded this way with the Harrison console vibe before it hits Sonar is cool. We'll see how many uses this has. I have not run into any clocking issues or latency problems.
 
Let me know what you think about this you guys.
 

From my *out of date* experience with these high end consoles.  I've heard, but have very limited experience on the NEVE, SSL, etc consoles.  I've had quite a bit experience with the old MCI boards, but of course pretty much before digital...ADATs even.
With that statement out of the way, it's really been too long to even make a comparison to the ProChannel emulations and the real thing...plus a *side by side* is basically impossible.  It really boils down to if you like the effect or not added to your tracks and mixes.
 
Continuing on... certainly no expert, but living near Nashville, it APPEARS the Harrison boards are popular, but again seem to see more used in broadcast situations, where the Neves, Tridents, SSL are more in the musical/audio studios.  I MAY be waaaay off base with that comment, but that's what appears to me.
 
So... although as good as the Mixbus is, it would seem the popularity of the consoles offered on the ProChannel would be greater than the Harrison.  Although the Harrison is definitely a *big boy* desk, I see it as NOT generally preferred if given the choice.  IOW, you don't go to Ocean Way because of their Harrison (which I believe they don't have, but of course the others).  BROAD GENERALIZATION....  but hopefully I'm making a point to think about.

Again, it's about the final sound, whether you like it or not, and has nothing to do with name, what it emulates, etc.
 
However for less than $20, I find it interesting something like this really adds some polish.  What a great world of computer recording we have at our disposal.