Just got another update fro Mixbus...to 2.3.1
 
Here's the Windows link...
 
http://www.harrisonconsol...Mixbus_2.3.1_Setup.exe

Can someone explain thge logic to me of having to port everything over to an obviously inferior application just to get the effect of the Harrison console. It seems like a very dumb thing to me. Has anyone asked Harrison this?
 
Why cannot it be just a simple VST that inserts on channels and busses (in your chosen DAW) to provide the effect like the plethora of other amazing console emulators out there.
 
I would not even consider it otherwise.

Could be they are trying to sell an additional $265 of options along with the $39 DAW

You can buy the UAD Harrison Emulation...

This is the only other Harrison Product, and it originates from the Company itself...
it's not a "licensed" emulation....

The logic is that it offers the Harrison "sound"

NO, it's not the be all and end all of DAW applications...
But for $39, to me, it's a worthy investment...

My logic is this

I paid $49 and the normal price is $219...
 
It has been on sale for less but I didn't have the money at the time...
I bought it as an "investment" in the future of MIXBUS, in the hopes that it
develops into a "full featured" DAW...and I get in on the ground floor and 
get the reduced upgrade pricing...

Harrison definitely has a "Pedigree" in the audio industry.
Their consoles in are in MAJOR HIGH END STUDIOS (i.e. Sony Motion Pictures, etc...)
Micheal Jackson's ALL TIME best selling album "Thriller" was recorded on a Harrison Console
(incidentally, the same console that Mixbus emulates I believe)

Their consoles are VERY EXPENSIVE and have a VERY signature sound...
their summing and stereo field are also quite well "defined". 

So, my logic is twofold.  If I want "that sound" then I can export my stems and mix them in Mixbuss
(my preferred method) AND I now have a path to upgrade when the product "matures" (IF) and
I'm sure it will...at least, that is the gamble I'm willing to take...

It's also a nice piece of kit for the money....if you just want to record audio, and not midi, and get a "big console" sound...

So, it's purely a choice...each person decides for themselves...but THOSE are my reasons and THAT is my "LOGIC"
(and I don't feel that it is "inferior" per se...just not yet "matured")

Thanks Larry. I appreciate your information. I am a UAD lover so that is the way I would go. I am sure the actual Harrison console emulation sounds great.
 
Harrison are not in the business of creating DAW's and I doubt they will ever reach the level of say Sonar or Studio One or any of the current crop of DAW's for that matter. It is silly in my opinion to have to involve another inferior DAW just to get the sound of something. Also it wastes time when you are under pressure. Something many forget here.
 
PS: 'Thriller' sounds the way it does because of Michael Jackson himself and Quincy Jones for that matter. It would have sounded the same on any console.

The product is by no means "inferior"...especially in sound quality...
it that aspect it is "superior" in many ways and MANY here will agree...

While MJ was the ARTIST ( and an INCREDIBLE talent ) the sound
created was from a Harrison Console, and would not have sounded the same on
an SSL, Neve, API, etc...console....any Mix Engineer or Producer would tell you that...
 
Signature sounds are the product of MANY factors...Console and outboard gear ( now emulations )

It also has to do with the "Mix Engineer" and the way he "hears" the song and the
KNOWLEDGE he brings in getting the "sound" with the outboard equipment ( or plugins)
at his disposal...in conjunction with the Artist himself...

So, would Thriller have been a hit still?  Most definitely...would it have sounded the
same?  Most definitely not.  Would the General Public notice?  Probably not.
Would a good Mix Engineer or Producer notice?  Most likely...
It's like saying the SSL, Neve, API, REDD, Helios, and Harrison consoles would
all sound the same.....EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH......WRONG ANSWER...

Many years ago I would not have been able to tell the difference in the "sound" of various "consoles"
NOW, I can....I've learned to "listen", which is no easy task.  As with ANY talent, some get it
naturally, and some have to "work" at it...

You are correct in your assertion that Harrison is NOT a DAW company, they are a SOUND
CONSOLE company, and hence, the IDEAL candidate to produce a DAW, as they KNOW what it is
supposed to "sound" like...

Mixbus is built on top of Ardour, an OPEN SOURCE DAW....
and the fact that updates come on a REGULAR basis tells me that it's NOT going away,
but being further developed and will become a "mature" DAW, and their
Plugin offerings are quite Professional also...

Does it have all the "bells & whistles" that others have...no, but it has enough to make it VIABLE.
If you are in the business of recording "AUDIO" and not MIDI, then it also is a STELLAR choice.

Don't get me wrong, I use X2a as my main DAW, but am not limited in "scope" as I also use Cubase 7,
Studio One, Mixcraft Pro Studio (also a highly under rated DAW), and have used Pro Tools, Ableton, FL Studio,
Digital Performer, Reaper, Ohm Studio Beta, MuLab, Orion, etc...etc....so I'm not coming from a position of "not knowing" and being
a BIASED FANBOI....

As I stated, each has a "choice", and I chose to be "objective" not "subjective", and to call something
"inferior" (which you've done twice now) when you've never used it, or, for that matter, never "heard" it, to me is being a bit harsh
and a bit "unrealistic" and "biased"..IJS...

Most who have used it have "heard" the difference, and appreciated it for its strong points...
while it isn't as "full featured" as X2a or others, it by no means is "inferior" especially in the "Sound Quality" department...
in that aspect, in my opinion, it is "superior"...in fact, it is probably one of the best "sounding" DAW's out there...
and for $39, even if you NEVER used it, you may find that, one day down the road, it becomes THE DAW to have,
as we don't know the future...I've spent far more on USELESS plugins then that...so it seems like a worthwhile investment,
to ME...

I have already done a very controlled experiment sometime ago where I created the exact same mix in four DAW's  (Logic, Pro Tools, Sonar and Studio One) I used very precise fader settings in all four and pan wise I used only L,C,R. There were no plug-ins involved only the mix engines in those four.
 
The results were absolutely identical and in fact I did null tests and got pretty perfect nulls. If I were to include the Harrison DAW in that and not used any of their console emulation the result would be exactly the same. ie all 5 of them would sound identical. That would mean the Harrison DAW is no superior in sound to any other.
 
Which brings us back to the plug-ins. So you insert those into the Harrison DAW and yes they might make things sound nicer. But then again you could also do that with say the UAD plugs in any of the other four DAW's too. There would not be any significant difference.
 
The music in Jackson's 'Thriller' far out shines any technology used to create it. They did not go around looking for a Harrison console either. It would have been what was there at the time. The final sound is something that was in Michael and Quincy's head and they would have arrived at it in any studio on any console. Yes of course fine differences for sure due to hardware but definitely not significant. The mix would have been the same and the impact of the music emotionally to the listener exactly the same too. Isn't that what really counts.
 
What is the bet Harrison will realise they are not selling any of their console emulators because people don't want to buy their DAW. They will then release them as plugins I am sure of it.
 
 
 
 

I agree with Jeff %100.
 
Plus, it's a digital DAW not a million dollar Harrison desk.Come on.  I don't like watching people drinking the kool-aid.

Your assumptions are incorrect...
and there IS a difference...

Mixbux is NOT a plugin...it is a CONSOLE built on top of a DAW,
unlike a plugin that EMULATES a console.  While it is STILL an
emulation, it is "built-in"

I'm not going to argue the fact that, all things being equal, the sound you
get will be the "same" as that is highly "subjective" and I guarantee that 
there IS a difference, as the "Audio Engine" used by each DAW is different,
and, therefore, has to have an impact on the sound.  Whether or not
it would be significant here is the question.

We're not talking about the DAW per se, but the SOUND of the DAW...so your
comparison point is not valid in this case either.

All the other DAW's you mentioned are (or should be) null when nothing else is brought
in to play...but MixBus is NOT NULL...it has the Harrison Sound (not "licensed" but from 
the Company itself) built in...so your "test" is automatically rendered VOID!

There is no kool-aid here boys...and you don't have to take my word for it...
Ask Rain, ask the many others who HAVE used the program....

It's ludicrous to argue about something WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN TRIED IT...
THAT is my point

Just a few more things about MixBus..
 
It has compression BUILT IN on every channel...(VERY GOOD COMPRESSION)
It has Tape Saturation on the Master Bus (also VERY GOOD)
 
It just amazes me how people will render a "verdict" about a product based on
NOTHING really.  Oh, it's 32 bit, it's INFERIOR.  Oh , no MIDI, it's INFERIOR.  Oh
it's NOT what I'm using...it's INFERIOR...that's basically what it being said...

Pro Tools, used in EVERY MAJOR STUDIO, has been 32 bit up until the past few months..
did that render it "inferior"?

Audio production is about SOUND...not the DAW per se...the DAW is merely a TOOL to
get to THE SOUND.  You may have the "latest" TOOL, while I may have an OLDER TOOL..
but the results will vary based on the person "behind the brush"!!!
 
Render verdicts based on "objective" use and testing...not on your "thoughts" about it....IJS