This is great stuff Jeff. I went ahead and purchased Mixbus late last evening anticipating you would be successful. Have not installed it yet as I have other things currently in the works.
 
Just curious, for your testing are you just importing a single stereo track (final mix) as a .wav file and at what bit depth?
 
It will be interesting to see if the 32bit Ozone 5 advanced, FabFilter Pro, and IK multimedia plugs work with this.
 
Kind regards,
Rick

I am using it in the mastering mode so yes just a stereo wav onto a single stereo track. The EQ on the tracks is good. The buss EQ is also good and so is the masterbuss EQ too. I love the Low Mid control on the masterbuss. It backs up my theory that a lot of mixes can build up energy in this all important area and the fact that Harrison have even put that control there reinforces that concept. It allows to clean that area up fast and just pull that area down a notch which makes a mix sound better immediately.
 
I am not using the built in compressors anywhere. I am only using the Mastering Multiband compressor. PSP Xenon is last in my chain and can do the dither if you want it from 24 bit but so can Mixbuss export a dithered track as well. I am fiddling with both 16 bit and 24 bit files.
 
The videos are good but don't cover a mastering situation but many things apply here anyway. Now as Larry has been saying you could mix an entire session on this and the way it sounds in mastering mode I bet it would sound great too doing a full mix. It is worth exporting even stems for final tweaking. But I still stand by my opinion of doing more pristine mixes with little or no console EQ that are great in something else like Studio One but then running the whole mix into the MixBus for final mastering. I dig leaving my main DAW and master in this. It feels professional and sounds it too.
 
The EQ is very broad and even when you boost say the highs full up the tops are smooth and sweet like I cannot explain it. After having used a real Harrison it takes a little time to get used to their EQ on their real desks. Once you get it though it is very cool. This software looks and feels like the Harrison console.
 
Now I am someone who is hard to please in mastering compressors. I have used a real Smart C2 and I tell you that thing sounds killer no matter what anyone says. Danny wants me to get the API2500 and I am going too. It is only $200 in a few places right now instead of $400. I have tried quite a few (VST's) and not been over happy. But the Harrison compressor sounds pretty excellent. I really like how much control you have on the downward gain reductions in each band. The knee settings changes the sound too. I can get this compressor just dancing over a mix giving it a really nice attitude and leveling things out so nice. But not sounding as if it is actually there at all! Yet if you turn it off you can definitely hear the difference. I like the way the Attack and Release effect all bands. They have simplified some areas of the mastering compressor but made others more complex and interesting. Very cool feature is a low end replacement control that puts back the bottom end that can be sucked away a little with compression.
 
The Mastering EQ is very nice too. Previously I used the LP64 from Cakewalk followed by a Pultec EQ. Still love that Pultec sound on a mix, it can sound amazing. But the Harrison mastering EQ has sort of replaced them both. I used the LP64 for trimming up the very low and high ends of the spectrum and the Pultec handled my mids a bit more. The Harrison EQ does the spectrum extremes very nice and handles the mids so it replacing both of the others now. Plus the way you can draw the EQ curve is nothing like I have experienced before. You sort of paint the curve and you can really make tiny changes to it too all while you listen on playback. Of course the Pultec can also still be used too. Most of my favourite plugs all work perfectly inside Mixbus.
 
I have had some crashing silliness but I am sure it is nothing serious. For some reason (with me here anyway) it does not like you opening a session making changes to it and trying to save that under a new name. And things to do with Snapshot seem to make it crash. You don't have to reboot your computer though just open up Mixbus again. But if I just make changes and resave under it's existing name it seems perfect. Not sure about that, might be a bug etc.. May be addressed too.
 
It is so very worth the money right now or even at it's full price it is worth it. It is a great piece of software and I highly recommend it. I think you could just see it as a mastering device too but instead of mastering say a stereo mix you might be inclined to do mixes of say 4 or 5 stereo stems from within your DAW.  Most DAW's allow you to export stems easily. Then put them inside Mixbuss and master the stems down to a final mix and use some of the tracks and busses EQ and dynamics in doing so. I think with further investigation you will find those track and buss built in compressors are going to be pretty cool to use as well as the Tape Sim stuff on some busses only perhaps. You just put your final mastering processors on the masterbuss and you have all your mastering done and sounding pretty sweet.
 
It is gapless too and has not glitched while dragging things around and tweaking settings all on the fly. It seems to handle that well. LOVE the window resize features. In mastering I can organise on a wide screen to see the track, the mixer and all the mastering plugs open at once. Very nice. I am mastering two types of music right now too. Some very acoutsic material and Mixbus loves this. But yesterday I put up a power kick ass pop track and just loved how it came out the other end! It sounded very very nice indeed so it does not mind that sort of material or sound either.
 
 

Wow, Thank You. A lot of great information in your post. I can't wait to start playing with this.
 
Kind regards,
Rick

I did get the chance to install the Harrison Mixbus last evening along with some 32bit vsts' that I wanted to try with it as a mastering platform.
 
After getting everything installed and licensed I only had a little bit of time to actually play with it but I am quite impressed by the results. I only used the built-in Eq, (which sounds very nice for 3 bands), and the track compressor and tape sat.
 
It was easy to import a single track stereo final mix or multiple separate tracks once you get the hang of it. As I recall, in the import browser, there is a nice listing of the files that gives sample rate and bit depth of the individual .wav files and whether they are mono or stereo. If the sample rate of the file is different than your sound card is currently setup for it will be listed in Bright Red. (Cool feature)
 
I wanted to see if it would work using 3rd party vsts' by FabFilter, Izotope, and IK Multimedia. The initial scan gave me warnings on the individual Ozone 5 modules but they were all there and each of the modules worked fine including the Insight metering. I did have a few graphics glitches where opening modules would come up with a black box vs. showing the GUI but if I minimized the mixer window and then opened it back up everything was visible.
 
This thing really does provide a nice/different full sound that I can't explain but it was late and I was monitoring with AKG 240S headphones. I closed the session satisfied with my initial investment. Hopefully, we will see continuous improvements to this project and if they ever go 64bit with midi/vsti support they Will have a serious contender in the DAW market.
 
Kind regards,
Rick

I'd prefer they keep it simple. Keep the emphasis on what they released 'Harrison consoles' & 'Mixbus / mixing'.
I'd be much more interested in getting the current features straightened out rather than another 
DAW with over bloated features. x64 would be welcome but hope they don't start with midi, staff & the rest that always seem to complicate otherwise great programs.

I know some poeple use multiple DAW's to achieve an end music result and I used to think that way too and gave way to just using one main DAW for all the main production work. But with Mixbus I feel the two program concept idea is good again except the second program is a mix program rather than do all the music composing stuff.
 
I agree with carl in that it would be best to make it the best mixing program it can be. I think it is an unusual approach. And a good one though. I am exporting stems from my main DAW now and just blending them and mastering at the same time in it. The built in compressors I am finding now are very good as well and the built in EQ means you don't need any EQ over the stems back in your main DAW too. I have also invested in the mastering multiband compressor and the mastering equaliser and they sound very nice indeed. Another $160 for the two but money very well spent.
 
It is nice for mastering that is a definite. I have started with only mastering stereo files mainly and now increasing the number of stems from any given mix. I may end up mixing whole sessions in it. I think in that mode you do all the work you are going to do in your main DAW and then just export all your tracks with only those effects on that are very specific and important in the main DAW but leave EQ and compression off, do that in the Harrison instead. And of course summing in the Harrison too. Things do sound great inside this program./ They have done a very good job on copying or modeling the behaviour of a high end console.
 
'Jack' does look interesting. I get the impression 'Jack' on the Mac is a little more powerful than it is on the PC. (I am heading towards a new Mac setup. Check out the new Mac Pro!!) I don't have a machine powerful enough to run the main DAW and Mixbus at the same time. That is a cool idea but I am very into the concept of leaving your DAW at some point and opening up Mixbus after. It is attractive to look at and very designed by analog console people!
 
It is worth reading the four reviews they have pointed to on the Mixbus website. I picked up quite a few things I did not know about it.
 
In terms of plugin scanning getting any messages about not getting the correct information is OK and the plugs still work fine. But the best thing to do is to create a separate folder and only copy the DLL's of the plugs you know will work and only need or want inside Mixbus into that folder. Just get it to scan in there only. It is best to prevent it from scanning your whole system. You will end up with a mess of plugs inside Mixbus and many it cannot open or it will crash with for various reasons. It also takes a long time to scan your whole system too.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Mixbuss is not going to replace Sonar.  Nor will it offer the editing or the sound quality that Sonar will give you.  What I am seeing here is the new syndrome having taken control of usually critical observers. New to them not new to me. I also had Ardour on a Linux system some time back. 
 
The notion that it sounds good is not new all DAWs sound good.  However with Sonar you have the ability to have it sound they you want. Plus it will allow full CS support. Not to mention MIDI for soft synths and hardware. 
 
What you in essence is a software modulating of a hardware console on top of a known DAW. (Where have we seen that before?) Mixbuss is based on Ardour a Linux DAW. What X2 has is the same ability except its optional. Plus X2 can use all your 64 bit VSTs and VSTis. 
 
I wonder what is going on here with all the praise for a very limited DAW that has only one feature v Sonar, that we all know well and can run rings around Mixbuss. Where is the criteria analysis that members so often use when talking about Sonar?  
 
As I have said I have had this DAW for over a year and it is not all that impressive to me. 
 
 
 
 
 

The trick is to think of it as a special DAW that does the mixing and summing phase only in a production. It is not intended in a way to replace your existing DAW. You start there as per usual create all the music the way you normally do but before mixing begins you stop there and export either tracks and busses (stems) instead. Even reverb returns can be exported and used in Mixbus. (Although they do boast a nice reverb too)
 
I am getting into stereo stems mainly at the moment. The other thing you do or don't do in your DAW is use much eq or dynamics processors on the tracks. Use them in Mixbus instead. The stems in my case and tracks in others are simply summed and mixed.
 
I had a similar attitude to you John and even had some opposition to it myself with Larry but I took Larry's advice and got it and started using it and I loved it straight away. I am totally with Larry on this now in that it is a rather unique DAW and it can work in total conjunction with your current DAW. .John has not experienced the sound of it properly (yet!) because he has not done the right thing in order to extract or experience the different sound of it that is all.  I understand, it is subtle at first. (not once you really get into it though)   John try mixing a project to completion in Sonar and also mix the final stages of the same project in Mixbus. Master your project in Mixbus. Compare the two. You might be surprised. I know it is extra work in order to do it but I think once you hear it you may realise that is the way to go.
 
The channel EQ's and dynamics are very nice processors. The whole thing sounds nice. I am mastering in it with just stereo tracks too and it sounds nice.
 
I have also invested in their mastering EQ and Multiband compressors and they are very very good too. The compressor especially. Their website explains it rather well. They are saying that actual mixing and summing can be done better in a specially built DAW for the job and that is what this is. I am a very sound oriented person too believe me. If it was not offering much in the sound I would be saying so but that is not the case. It offers a lot (EQ and dynamics and very nice tape saturation the more I use it) and it sounds bloody beautiful at the same time! It is simply an alternative to the whole Pro Channel thing and console emulator thing. I am finding it all very interesting to be honest. It has improved my total sound now and that is why I like it .
 
It is probably the closest thing to a real Harrison console you are going to get. Ask yourself this. If you had the audio interfaces and a real Harrison console lying around, would you mix your tracks on that and the answer would more than likely be yes. So that is what this is. Think if it that way. That is how you use it and it seems to sound as if you are doing just that. It's other DAW functions are in a way behind other DAW's yes I agree but what they have done is get this mixing part of it (very) right and they will slowly add the other stuff in time I suppose. Who knows it may well be the DAW you actually begin the project in. But for me right now that is not the case and I am working with my normal DAW very much so. Mixbus is also that very affordable no brainer price right now too so it is a great time to get into it.
 
I just want to add. It was mentioned in this or another similar thread on this that I rebuilt a Harrison console (32c) and I did. I taught sound engineering at an audio school that was using one with a 2" 24 track as well. Very nice. I did get used to it and the eq's are just so professional sounding. Even extreme settings don't sound harsh just a lot of whatever you are doing! That is how the desk sounds and behaves. The EQ changes its Q as well in relation to the amount of boost, very nice. The software feels very similar and I am remembering how the Harrison worked and sounded. I am starting to hear it again I think! You can still remain in the digital multitracking area but have a very smooth and analog sound at the same time.
 
 

Well, I am in agreement with points made by Carl, Jeff, and John.
 
They do need to concentrate on getting the current features straightened out rather than make another 
DAW with over bloated features. Although, I did read that they are planning to add midi support for control surfaces. I think that would be a good thing as long as they get the graphics and other little glitches worked out first.
 
Jeff is right on with the application/use of MixBus, this Is where it shines!
 
John, I could not agree more with you that it is not a replacement for Sonar X2a and I have Zero intention of leaving Sonar X2a for any other DAW. I am 99% in the box using midi/Vsti's and Sonar works out great for me. It offers so many capture and editing features I couldn't live without.
 
I still like the MixBus for what it is and am considering adding the XT-ME Mastering Equalizer and XT-MC Multiband Compressor Plugin.
 
Kind regards,
Rick

Jeff you are making stuff up as you go along. Of course it is meant as a full recording and editing DAW.  It fall short in that area too. Again no CS support. As far as it being better or even as good as say Sonar not possible. 
 
As for mixing a project in Mixbuss for a comparison to X2 that would take years.  Sonar can sound all sorts of ways. It itself has no sound but add PC or a plugin and it will sound anyway you want. A Daw like Sonar is configurable where Mixbuss is not. 
 
Jeff you should know that. All you are telling me is you have not used Sonar enough to get the sound you like.