New: Waves CLA MiXHUB - available now for 69$

[antic604]

Not sure what you meant but I'm glad you brought the mixing aspect up. I've been so tired of mixing inside of Studio One using the full screen mixer on my second screen. I was thinking, what I really need is something that makes the screen much smaller, limits to 8 tracks per page, and makes me click on multiple tabs to see the same stuff S1 is showing me in a single screen.

[pixel85]

So I just replaced NLS (Spike) with this (on each track post-fader and first insert on Master Bus) and without any tweaking I got much better results: smoother sound especially on mid and high freqs, better stereo image separation and harshness of NLS disappeared.
Really good first impression. Now is time to see how it talks

[dionenoid]

Not sure what you meant but I'm glad you brought the mixing aspect up. I've been so tired of mixing inside of Studio One using the full screen mixer on my second screen. I was thinking, what I really need is something that makes the screen much smaller, limits to 8 tracks per page, and makes me click on multiple tabs to see the same stuff S1 is showing me in a single screen.

Like what's possible in Cubase for years and years now ? (And apparently in Reason and Mixbuss)

I really don't get why people are excited about this one. You pay 69$ for a long due update to Waves' old SSL emu, packed in a 'bucket' (which is basic daw stuff really) and branded with CLA's name.
They are good marketeers, i'll give you that...

[dblock]

So this is Cubase's alternate mixer, but restricted to Waves plug-ins ?

Waves "old" plugins at that.

[Obsolete236871]

I don't really see the big advantage with this plugin. The assumption here is that you exclusively use this plugin for mixing your tracks, since it has EQ, dynamics and volume fader all on board in a comprehensive package, with an overview of 8 mixing channels at a time.

But if I'm supposed to rely on this plugin alone for my whole mixing process, then I would expect some additional tools in there, such as visual guides (analyser - visualisation of the frequency spectrum and the channel correlation). How are fx / send channels handled? Does it offer VCA style faders?

To me mixing is not only compressor, gate and a parametric EQ. If I want to add filtering effects, modulation, reverb, delay etcetera I would have to leave the MixHUB anyway and continue the regular way (DAW mixer infrastructure), right? So, since it doesn't offer the full package anyway, then why would I restrict myself to that workflow, that only allows me to do rudimentary EQing and compression / gating 1970s SSL style?

Why would I leave the flexible, modern workflow of building my individual chain of effects in the DAW mixer (including sophisticated mixing tools such as dynamic EQs) for a more rigid and limited concept of mixing?

Maybe I'm missing something and I'm not trying to diss the product, but I'm really curious about the potential advantages of the MiXHUB concept?

[dblock]

I don't really see the big advantage with this plugin. The assumption here is that you exclusively use this plugin for mixing your tracks, since it has EQ, dynamics and volume fader all on board in a comprehensive package, with an overview of 8 mixing channels at a time.

But if I'm supposed to rely on this plugin alone for my whole mixing process, then I would expect some additional tools in there, such as visual guides (analyser - visualisation of the frequency spectrum and the channel correlation). How are fx / send channels handled? Does it offer VCA style faders?

To me mixing is not only compressor, gate and a parametric EQ. If I want to add filtering effects, modulation, reverb, delay etcetera I would have to leave the MixHUB anyway and continue the regular way (DAW mixer infrastructure), right? So, since it doesn't offer the full package anyway, then why would I restrict myself to that workflow, that only allows me to do rudimentary EQing and compression / gating 1970s SSL style?

Why would I leave the flexible, modern workflow of building my individual chain of effects in the DAW mixer (including sophisticated mixing tools such as dynamic EQs) for a more rigid and limited concept of mixing?

Maybe I'm missing something and I'm not trying to diss the product, but I'm really curious about the potential advantages of the MiXHUB concept?

My takeaway is simply this..If you want to use CLA's workflow use this. For me I don't get the impression I will have an improved workflow only a different one so it's just not for me.
On top of that I have some pretty high end and much newer plugins that I couldn't use inside this plugin only the Waves aged eq and compressors from way back when. In some ways I see it as actually going backwards but maybe that's just me.

[sleepcircle]

the Waves aged eq and compressors from way back when. In some ways I see it as actually going backwards

i have not used it myself but a couple people in this thread said that the compressors and EQ are noticeably improved, so at least they're not actually just the previous plugins.

[jochicago]

There's nothing to suggest the modeling here is anything other than completely new. Even the CLA Bluey would have gotten an update. You can always demo it if you are not sure.

[fortune teller]

I'm not sure what you're looking at, and I surely don't know what you're listening to.

So why are you even replying? MixHUB is obviously an attempt at replicating big desk console workflow in a plugin, but due to the VST restrictions you only see a part of the channel strip at once (inputs, dynamics, filters, eq) and only 8 channels at once. It's admirable, but only gets so far...

I'm just saying that how it works in Reason - and maybe in Harrison Mixbus, never tried that one - is much better, faster, more convenient.

You sure type a lot for not even demoing it or hearing it, and to truthfully compare anything at this point.

[antic604]

You sure type a lot for not even demoing it or hearing it, and to truthfully compare anything at this point.

I'm only talking about the workflow, not the sound and this I can judge from couple of videos I already saw. Also, I don't want my EQ, filters or compressor to color the sound - I want it to be as transparent as possible. I have sound design for color. Mixer is for... well, surprisingly - mixing.

Lastly, I avoid testing Waves stuff because once installed you can't uninstall single plugin - it's all or nothing. So there...

Let me know if I used too many words.

[reggie1979]

While there's a hot chance I'll end up owning this, I personally prefer more "modern" plugins that are trying to do a bit less to emulate analog and much more to provide a better workflow and set of tools.

I think the problem with this type of plugin is that it assumes we agree that the 1987 console layout is the best way to mix. I think people that mixed in 1987 would tell you now that back then you were happy to use what you get but it was by no means perfect, and a lot has happened to interfaces in 30 years. I've heard CLA himself say that he doesn't think the console sounds that great, and it is definitely a bit of a pain to use, but he loves the fact that he knows it like the back of his hand, and once the tracks are routed in his favorite configuration (by his interns) then he can mix with speed and familiarity like fish in water.

The mix layout is not very friendly. You have to cycle through 4 tabs and that's for only 8 channels max per window. No pan in the mix view.

There is only one mention of the pan in the manual. As you may know you cannot use pan in stereo or reverse, only in mono. My belief is that they felt adding that control on a smaller GUI would be too busy and did want people confused why it wouldn't pan w/o the width control as well. I don't know if it's true but it makes sense.

[fortune teller]

You sure type a lot for not even demoing it or hearing it, and to truthfully compare anything at this point.

I'm only talking about the workflow, not the sound and this I can judge from couple of videos I already saw. Also, I don't want my EQ, filters or compressor to color the sound - I want it to be as transparent as possible. I have sound design for color. Mixer is for... well, surprisingly - mixing.

Lastly, I avoid testing Waves stuff because once installed you can't uninstall single plugin - it's all or nothing. So there...

Let me know if I used too many words.

Just in case you didn't know, everyone is an expert on the Internet. You might want to backup your claims with actual experience and facts, something the younger generation has no concept of.

[jochicago]

Just in case you didn't know, everyone is an expert on the Internet. You might want to backup your claims with actual experience and facts, something the younger generation has no concept of.

I can validate that point. I play an expert on the internet.

[fortune teller]

Just in case you didn't know, everyone is an expert on the Internet. You might want to backup your claims with actual experience and facts, something the younger generation has no concept of.

I can validate that point. I play an expert on the internet.

Seriously, how can you give an honest review of anything without even using it?

Makes me wonder about one's true intentions.

[jochicago]

Who's been giving honest reviews without using it? I think most people that haven't used it are commenting on the obvious. Like the fact that there's no pan knob on the mixer. Or that you can only see 8 tracks at a time per plugin instance. I'm pretty positive we are right on those things.

In fact, I personally have gone on a limb to speak highly of the things I'm fuzzy about. I haven't tried it yet I'm ready to bet it sounds great. When it comes to this type of product I wouldn't expect any less from Waves + CLA at this point. <- Honest review