![]() Still I like Cubase more for the functionality, though as some others said, Mixbus 'feels' more as a analog console. ![]() Not sure how the channel-strip holds up against new releases of channel-strips. I think the power of Mixbus lies in the workflow. It seems the processing makes the difference, not summing the engine itself. I find the difference not to as subtle I suspected. Thanks for sharing the audio files, I appreciate it. In the question What are the best DAWs Ableton Live is ranked 7th while Harrison Mixbus is ranked 17th. Harrison, get the damned QCon devices working and we are best friends. Same as you would compose a different melody if you use a guitar or a banjo.Ĭonclusion: Dear Mr. In Mixbus, I do and hear different thinks. ![]() With Mixbus I used also the Tools in the Demo mode (But functional). In both DAW's I just used the On-Board Tools. ![]() (04-10-2020, 08:32 AM)Till Wrote: I picked some nice stems from the Telefunken studio. (04-16-2020, 07:08 PM)bayswater Wrote: Anyone done an "invert and sum" comparison between Mixbus and any other audio app? Or between MB and MB 32C? Latency problems are obviously solved in V6 but I have to get more recording experience to come to a final conclusion. I never got such a good sound out of the box as with Mixbus. But if it comes to music, the destination is to get the best sound. I use Nuendo 10 as I'm working in the dubbing industry here in Germany. (04-14-2020, 05:39 AM)Absolutely Last Efx Wrote: Hi Till, I confirm every word that you said, but for some work, example arrangement of soundtrack for video games or film, the editing in Cubase 10.5.x via VST Expression is to another world. Both offer unlimited numbers of audio tracks and MIDI tracks, and plug-in support constrained only by your host computer’s resources. Mixbus provides a 3band EQ with high-pass filter, and 8 mixbuses. I forgot, the pan control WORKS into Space, amazing feeling. MixBus 4 comes in two versions: MixBus and MixBus 32C. jonetsu wrote: That main advanatge of 32C is the EQ I find, not the number of mixbusses. From Filter section to dynamic section torus section to master section. Only using the entire path of Mixbus you can hear the differences. button gives you access to both VSTs and the onboard eq and compression. I remastered my last soundtrack and for make this I put the stereo mix into one channel for use the Filter section, routed into a mixbus for use the tape saturation drive, routed into masterbus section. Trying it on mixbus 4.1 and plugging into my pcs USB 3 port seems to have. I love Mixbus32c, It is the thing that comes closest to the sound of a console, but only if you MIX with this. In past, few years ago, I did it with Logic X but how to Steinberg use Core Audio it's a bit different because they have a small layer abstraction to put VST ASIO into Core Audio. Now that I have the 32c-v6 from previous version v3, the next step is put Cubase&MixBus together. Hi Till, I confirm every word that you said, but for some work, example arrangement of soundtrack for video games or film, the editing in Cubase 10.5.x via VST Expression is to another world. If you spend as an Audio Engineer half of your life behind an analog console (in my case 3 DDA AMR24 desks) you will love Mixbus 32C. For example, if you wanted a Studer deck and a Harrison 32C console. I can record vst instruments directly as a wave file. In the era of the analog studio, purchasing recording equipment was done la carte. Just wondering what those of you who've had a chance to compare both have found.Quote:The On-Board Tools of Mixbus and optional Plug-Ins give me all I need. I could see myself missing the LP filter a little and the extra options for peaking vs shelving on the HF and LF. Without considering the sonic difference of the 32c EQ vs the 3-band in Mixbus standard, do you find that the 32c covers significantly more of your workflow before needing to insert a specific EQ plugin? EG does that extra sweepable midrange control regularly come in handy for you? Or do you find yourself reaching for a specific EQ plugin when you need more EQ control, regardless of whether you work with 32c or standard? I'm primarily on a laptop, so my inclination is to stick with standard, but I'm willing to work with 32c if it means staying away from plugin EQs a bit longer. So we make the mixer portion of Mixbus32C work just like a hardware console, applying precision & proprietary algorithms to provide Harrison’s great sounding 32C analog conole EQ, HP and LP Filters, and Dynamics on every channel without the need for additional plug-ins. Question for Mixbus users who are familiar with both standard and 32c: I would love to know which one you prefer to work with: 32c or standard? Why? I know that 32c is modeled after the 4 band processing elements - the 32C EQ, the 32C filters, and the Mixbus channel. I know that Standard fits better on smaller screens by default and has a more generic 3 band para. The Solo feature with the ear is brilliant for each section, as well for the.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |