Comparing two mix systems the way Bapu has done is flawed for a few reasons. Firstly setting panning in Sonar and then attempting to set the same panning in Mixbus is more difficult than you think. I compared a while ago 4 different DAW's using the same multitrack session . I found that the only way to get very close to a perfect null was to only pan L,C,R and the C position had to have the same pan law. Only doing that I was able to create nulls that produced artifacts that were very low down.
 
A better way. Set up a mix in any DAW and create say 4 or 6 buses. Assign the individual tracks to the buses and create the mix on the buses any way you want. Panning , level even effects on tracks and buses. Ensure the bus masters are at unity gain. Sum all the buses to a stereo main mix output and create the final mix that way.
 
Export the buses as stereo stems. Import the stems into Mixbus and put them onto tracks. Assign the tracks to individual Mixbus buses then combine the Mixbus buses to the main out and export from there. That way you are eliminating all possible errors due to inaccuracies that may have been introduced in Bapu's approach. (there wont be any level variations I am sure of it)
 
But that in a way is a bit of waste of the Harrison features. You are not using anything! Why bother. You may get some differences but they will probably be small. You have totally missed the point of using the Harrison software in the first place.
 
The real power of Mixbus is fully utilising the available resources available such as the channel EQ and dynamics, the bus EQ and dynamics, the final master with that lovely EQ on it. I think that is much bigger part of the Mixbus sound. The EQ's just sound nice especially when pushed hard but even so when not. I have just found it is so easy and nice to fine tune a stem on a track using the EQ and maybe a touch of dynamics. Same for the buses. Tape saturation can be used or not. The scientists are going to say but there are two many variables there in those two approaches. I say just do the best mix you can in your DAW and do the best mix you can in Mixbus and compare the two. One sounds a little sweeter to me.
 
Here is another simple test and I started this way first. Master a well mixed pre mastered stereo mix the best you can in your DAW. Then try mastering that same premastered mix in Mixbus and see what you come up with. (using available track EQ/Bus EQ, dynamics not necessary for this test) BUT you need their mastering EQ and dynamics plugins though to really give Mixbus a head start. When you do (Mixbus owners must actually make the commitment to make the purchases) you will really know. I personally prefer the Mixbus mastered sound over my DAW.

My guess is that the scientists are going to point out that a person's opinion regarding what they claim to hear is almost always influenced by much more than just hearing.
 
In the mean time, I think your ideas about making a comparison seem very practical and useful. 
 
best regards,
mike

In a way Mike I would prefer not to have to go to Mixbus for either mastering or mixing. It is quite a bit of work. And you end up with Mixbus sessions along with your own DAW sessions. In fact I have tried my hardest to be biased to my DAW for those two jobs but something just keeps on telling me the how nice the Mixbus sound is so I have decided to do the extra work and go the extra mile by using it.

Jeff,
 
Then you are really using MixBus more as a final mastering tool of stems, not basic tracks, right?
 
IOW, if I decided that I never wanted to master (small m as Danny calls it) many MEs may want stems vs a 2 bus anyway. My going to MixBus with stems is like I'm a mE (note the small "m").

Yes Bapu you are correct I tend to think of it as a half mix/mastering tool even if I am mixing many stems together. I still prefer mainly mixing on my main DAW because it has everything to offer in terms of familiarity, effects, workflow etc.
 
What I am finding though is I may not apply EQ over a bus export for example because I like the way Harrison sounds doing the EQ instead or the same for bus dynamics. And now that I have got their reverb I am figuring out ways I can create stems in such a way as to leave out some reverbs in my DAW and add them later in as well in Mixbus. So I am sort of doing a half mix there if you know what I mean.
 
Once you start using the two things you learn what you can not do or leave out in the DAW and what you can add and apply later in Mixbus. I really like mastering in it though. I was using the Cakewalk LP64 but since getting the Harrison mastering EQ I have stopped doing that. I still use PSP Xenon at the end of the line though.
 
Also I was not putting you down for your testing approach either. I have had some experience with this and I found the LCR approach to panning tends to be more accurate. I don't like leaving everything off either in this type of test because you are in a way not really testing the very thing you are trying to test!

I hear you Jeff about the testing approach. My (initial) goal was to see if out of the box MixBus sounded any different as I do not have any of the MixBus tools (yet).
 
Now I could as a next test; EQ/compress/limit the SONAR project to buses (i.e. Vox, Drums, Guitars, Keys, Bass) as if I am saying that it's a wrapped mix and then export those buses to Harrison and start by (small m)astering there. Then go back with 3rd party plugs I would use in MixBus and try and set the settings the same or near same and see what that tells me. Probably just as flawed too I'm sure.
 
But at this point I would just be comparing the summing/tape sat/comp of Harrison vs. SONAR because I would still be using my main 3rd party tools I already use.
 
I'm seeing that if I'm to commit to Harrison as a semi-mix/final mastering DAW then I probably should invest in ME/MC/EQ plugs and just dive in. I did get the Reverb and Delay for $39. Maybe they'll have a 50% year end sale of the XT-ME/MC/EQ plugs and I can go nutz then. Right now the dosh is limited. 
 
Bottom line is I see that MixBus may make more sense for me as a mastering stage to at least break up the stages of production. There was a time when Wavelab 7 was going be my go to mastering stage but I find it's workflow kind of wonky (to me).

Hahahahahahaha "wonky"


Wonky see wonky do!



Hahahahahahaha

It doesn't support stero vst on tracks only mono vst on tracks.

Man thanks a bummer

It does support stereo vst on stereo tracks, and mono on mono tracks. You can route a mono track to a newly inserted stereo track and use a stereo vst there. I like mixbus a lot, great for mixing and mastering.

Milt
It does support stereo vst on stereo tracks, and mono on mono tracks. You can route a mono track to a newly inserted stereo track and use a stereo vst there. I like mixbus a lot, great for mixing and mastering.

Oh ok. Thanks I'll try a re route