Interesting stuff Bapu. 
 
One thing I don't think people are pointing out about Mixbus is that if I understand correctly the 2bus tapesat can't be turned off.
 
How do you account for the significant level differences between DAWs? Maybe some of the Mixbus fanboys can explain why one export had peaks at -1 and the second actually had over/s.

Same pan laws?

 

Double post...forum software delay....
 

Hey cc. Any IDEAS ABOUT the discrepancy between FILE volumes?

I was a bit anti the whole Mixbus concept until Larry got me to try it. I love it. I personally feel it definitely sounds better than Studio One doing the same job eg mastering or mixing. (And Studio One sounds good!)  When you mix stems it can sound stellar. The top end is just very very nice and smooth. They say they have built in summing stuff going on and you won't get the same thing from a standard DAW. (even with console emulators, Harrison propaganda now!) Quite a few engineers and using it to mix on.
 
The idea behind it is, rather than do a whole project in it, you do that on your normal DAW and export either a stereo file for mastering or a bunch of stereo stems for the final mix process.
 
Tape saturation can be completely removed by turning its control fully anticlockwise. I don't always like what it does either but you really have to smash it before the mix starts falling apart. You can use very small amounts of it too. (or none)
 
It is very intuitive because of the way the channels strips are laid out and you see so much of what is going on.
 
That Low/Mid control on the masterbuss is amazing for clearing up mud in a mix. Does it with one slight turn of a pot. The EQ on the buses is nice and so is the EQ on the channel strip. Built in dynamics processors are nice too. (not for everything, for mastering I don't use them so much, third party instead here)
 
I have got all the plugins now for it. The mastering multiband comp is very cool to use and so is the EQ. That reverb sounds bloody nice too. Fastest tweaking in any reverb on the planet.
 
I get no differences exporting anything out of Studio One or Mixbus level wise. They are identical as far as I am concerned.
 
It sounds much better than the UAD Harrison EQ. That is only a model of one small part of the Harrison signal flow. This is much different and it sounds like it.
 
Before all you scientific types start on about why it couldn't be any better, buy it and test it thoroughly first. I use my ears and my ears tell me it sounds sweet.
 

backwoods
How do you account for the significant level differences between DAWs? Maybe some of the Mixbus fanboys can explain why one export had peaks at -1 and the second actually had over/s.

I'm not sure of why yet. I'll have to study it closer tomorrow night.

It does make sense that if it sound different the levels will differ. I had a look at the tape sat question (can it be turned off) and apparently the latest version allows the drive to be turned down a further 20 db which according to Ben Loftis at Harrison means that at "sensible levels" tape sat is below the dither level but not bypassed completely.

backwoods I am not sure that there necessarily is a level change with a sound change and we are talking subtle differences here in sound, not huge. I use K system metering and if I mix a bunch of stems in Studio One say I get a certain level from the master buss. eg the overall mix will be at the K ref level. My VU meters are after my DAW.
 
When I do the same thing in Mixbus I am seeing exactly the same final level on a mix eg the K ref level. So the VU's are showing exactly the same thing for me. (that is why VU's are so good, they MAKE you keep everything at the right level just by their nature) When I open either the Studio One mix or Harrison mix in an editor and do even more precision metering I am still seeing exactly same thing from both.
 
What I do find though is the buses inside MixBus seem to have good headroom and they never seem to clip easily. They do seem to behave a little differently to the same buses inside my DAW. Not sure what is going on there. A reviewer said the same thing in one of his Mixbus reviews as well. (I don't use any buss compressors even though they are there either)
 
Saturation is minimal especially when turned right off. I really doubt you would hear the difference between that and no saturation at all in another DAW for example. Even when I get the saturation meter to peak either slightly or up to the ref level I can barely hear it anyway. I find it very very subtle if used.
 
I have not spent enough time tweaking the channel or buss compressors either but I will over time. I don't think the limiter on the masterbuss is anything to write home about either. PSP Xenon kills that by far. I am not runing many plugs inside it either from outside, only a few choice ones and the Harrison plugins. They are rather nice sounding though.  The mastering EQ has a rather unusual method of drawing the curves too. Takes a little getting used to but once you get it though it is really cool.
 
What I really like about the mastering comp is you can limit the gain reduction (in all bands) to any value so even if you slam it, you never actually hear it.

I suggested pan laws as a possible reason that the same settings had different outputs.
 
Consider that we do not know where the peaks on example A were going to end up, nor do we know what the results of an average should have been because it can only sample up to the clipping or over point and make an average of the data it has presented to it.
 
Comparing material that has differences in level makes it very difficult to determine why an impression is made and it makes it nearly impossible to have confidence that a preference is based on something more subtle than the difference in level.
 
For example; Version B may have simply been louder (the clipping at 0dBFS prevents us from knowing how much louder an instantaneous example when the averages sampled the whole.) and it may be that the bass was discernibly different simply because it was louder. Stuff like that.
 
Knowing that the Harrison Bus Mix does have the addition of saturation etc. it seems easy to accept that it may have a unique character that people enjoy. Ironically that is not cited as a benefit for mix bus when Harrison describes the atrocities that occur within the other DAW mix engines.
 
My thought is that the console layout brings a familiarity to the mix process and many people can enjoy that. I imagine that Harrison did a good job with their engine to.
 
If it was so especially good, I think they could raise the price in response to over whelming demand. This deep discount stuff seems to be a new paradigm for acknowledging excellence.
 
best regards,
mike
 
 
 

 
Footnote: TT-DR reported both exports at a DR of 13, however there was a discrepancy in the peak values:
 
-----------------------------------------------
Statistics for: BTB-VER-A.wav
Number of Samples: 8158848
-----------------------------------------------
                         left            right
Peak value: -1.00 dB ---   -1.00 dB
Avg RMS: -14.75 dB ---  -15.13 dB
DR channel: 12.45 dB ---  12.94 dB
-----------------------------------------------
Official DR value: DR13 
===============================================
 
 
-----------------------------------------------
Statistics for: BTB-VER-B.wav
Number of Samples: 7938048
-----------------------------------------------
                        left                right
Peak value:        over ---     0.00 dB
Avg RMS:  -14.22 dB ---  -14.37 dB
DR channel: 13.10 dB ---  12.49 dB
-----------------------------------------------
Official DR value: DR13 
===============================================