Just Intrigued
 
I've never heard of the Product, when I looked it up it says its a DAW right??
 
What would you get from this DAW that Sonar or any of the other more expensive DAW's don't' give you(hope i'm not opening a can of worms here)
 
Just askin!!
 
 

godino
 
What would you get from this DAW that Sonar or any of the other more expensive DAW's don't' give you(hope i'm not opening a can of worms here)
 

If look back a few months there was a long thread discussing that very question.

Not that this has much to do with the discussion but Harrison has some very specific noise reduction plugins that seem to be just the tool for some jobs.
 
best regards,
mike

I've not participated in any of the previous Harrison Mixbus discussions because I don't want to the be first one to shout "but he's not wearing any clothes!". 
 
Maybe somebody can convince me that this ain't snake oil, but there are certainly some questionable claims in the vendor's product description.
 
Case in point:
 

Mixbus sounds better.  Other DAW mixers are designed by companies with experience in computer sound, but no pedigree in world-class recording facilities.

 
Now, if you're mixing on a computer, wouldn't you prefer your software vendor to have "experience in computer sound"? 
 

Some may perceive it as achieving better mixes maybe because you'll use a different workflow or approach when using it but you're still using ITB saturation, eq, compression.
 
You certainly can do the same quality of mixes with any other DAW & combination of plugins.

bitflipper
I've not participated in any of the previous Harrison Mixbus discussions because I don't want to the be first one to shout "but he's not wearing any clothes!". 
 
Maybe somebody can convince me that this ain't snake oil, but there are certainly some questionable claims in the vendor's product description.
 
Case in point:
 

Mixbus sounds better.  Other DAW mixers are designed by companies with experience in computer sound, but no pedigree in world-class recording facilities.

 
Now, if you're mixing on a computer, wouldn't you prefer your software vendor to have "experience in computer sound"? 
 

Jeff Evans claims it sounds better than SONAR for mixing (paraphrased). Caveat, according to Jeff, you should have their Mastering EQ and Multiband compressor to have the product really shine.

bitflipper
I've not participated in any of the previous Harrison Mixbus discussions because I don't want to the be first one to shout "but he's not wearing any clothes!". 
 
Maybe somebody can convince me that this ain't snake oil, but there are certainly some questionable claims in the vendor's product description.
 
Case in point:
 

Mixbus sounds better.  Other DAW mixers are designed by companies with experience in computer sound, but no pedigree in world-class recording facilities.

 
Now, if you're mixing on a computer, wouldn't you prefer your software vendor to have "experience in computer sound"? 
 

Harrison High End Consoles use computer technology.  The X-Tools plugins are built into many of the consoles...
Michael Jackson's all time best selling album "Thriller" was recorded on a Harrison Console.  Sony Motion Pictures
uses Harrison Consoles.  Many High End Production companies use Harrison Consoles.  Some of their consoles 
cost over a million dollars...they are no stranger to the DAW world.  Mixbus is built on top of Ardour.

I can tell you for a fact it's NOT Snake Oil....there IS a definite difference...in sound, and it is REALLY good, sound-wise.
biggest problem is ...it's still 32 bit and it doesn't support VSTi's.  I'm looking forward to the 64 bit version, and hopefully
get the VSTi support along with it.  My upgrade path is set.  But, as far as I am concerned, this is THE DAW if you are
looking for the "Harrison Console" sound.  It delivers.  In Spades...

What have you got to lose Bit, for $39?  (besides $39?)  

I also bought into the Harrison Mixbus and all the plugins. I agree with everything cclarry says above as it does add a different flavor to your mixes or master.  No midi yet but they are talking of implementing it for control surfaces in the near future. For audio, the fact it is only 32bit does not concern me.
 
It can act a little flaky when scanning for 3rd party plugs and may say they didn't scan properly but, in fact, they do. It brought in my Waves, Izotope, FabFilter, Ik Multimedia, PSP, etc. and they work fine, if I really want to use them vs. the Harrison stuff.
 
I do like the Mastering Eq and Mulitband Compressor they sell and I believe Harrison has all plugs currently on sale for 25% off. See their Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/HarrisonMixbus
 
If you just want to play with the Mixbus only the entry fee is totally worth it.

I'm quite sure it is different... I'll leave the snake oil debate for other threads<G>, but I will agree that Dave Harrison, who founded the company after leaving MCI, would probably blush at some of the ad copy.
 
I did, finally, buy it at $39 last time around - mostly because one of my early mentors swears by Harrison consoles, and because I got to meet Mr. Harrison at a couple of AES shows years ago, and he was a very cool guy. I also really like both MCI and Harrison consoles, although in full disclosure, if I won the lottery I'd probably buy an API.
 
I like the workflow, I don't like the Windoze implementation a lot, but I got it to work, which is worth something I guess<G>.
 
I sounds nothing like the Harrison EQ plug-in that UA developed, but I don't think that's a fair comparison - the EQ is just an EQ, this thing is the entire console.
 
It does sound different than either Sonar or Studio One, the only two tools I can compare it to - and as mentioned in another thread, my current listening environment does not inspire confidence - I expect I'd hear a bigger different in a well controlled listening space, but I'm not sure I'd have a favorite...
 

bitflipper
Now, if you're mixing on a computer, wouldn't you prefer your software vendor to have "experience in computer sound"? 

 
A RESOUNDING NO!!!
 
One of the biggest problems with the audio for computer space is that very few people developing hardware and software for audio applications have any real experience in professional audio. I will not mention names, but I have seen cases where hardware and software engineers had no clue:

• while certainly due to market pressure, there are no A/D or D/A chips that run off anything higher than +5V, and these are being replaced by chips running off +3V, and even +1V. While the mathematical arguments about scaling are lovely, they do not hold up in the real world.

• there are so many poorly designed input and output stages that the AES had to create a standard to explain how it should be done. For the record, these are things that Bell Labs, the BBC, RCA, Neve, and a host of other companies figured out and understood 50 years ago.

• I worked on a project recently where I spent a good part of my time explaining how dB related to rms and peak voltages and how analog signal levels corresponded to bits. I think anyone working in audio ought to understand the decibel.

• More than a couple audio software developers have made such a mess of metering that their implementations are completely useless.
• I worked on an early A/D and D/A converter, I focused on headroom, signal levels, and other "trivial" features... I was fortunate enough to work with a really talented digital engineer, and the product turned out really well. 

So to answer your question, I want a software developer that understands AUDIO first, and computers second. (on the plus side, I've made a nice living teaching folks about audio<G>) I do not know who is left at Harrson - but so far I am willing to bet that some of the analog audio guys are still there.

Mixbus may not fit into everyone's workflow, but at $39 I think it is worth a try...

bapu
But, JRRShop is offering Harrison MixBus for $39 (thru 14 Sept).
 
Am I missing out on the next best thing to sliced bread here?

 Well, I'm confused...
Thinking you have this backwards.
 
I've seen your partial list of plugs.
 
If plugmakers aren't sending you betas AND release versions, on the house, they are committing a marketing felony.
 
Seriously, how's it going to look if I'm trying to peddle the only plugin on earth that Bapu doesn't own?
 
Maybe THEY missed out, huh?
 
In fact...I'm havin a vision here..."Approved by Bapu (with a little copyright dealio)"...and of course you aren't going to have time to test myriad plugs for FREE, now are you?
 
After all, revenue streams are where you find them.