MixBus 4, upcoming 5... what do you think?

[RafaelMorgan]

I used to own Mixbus and I've said this on their forum several times: They should forget about trying to make it a "real" DAW and focus on building integration with major DAWs, something that would allow the user to seamlessly send audio from their favorite DAW to Mixbus and back.

This would immediately solve all its drawbacks. People would be able to use their preferred DAW for all the usual tasks and use Mixbus exclusively as a third-party mixer, without having to waste a billion years exporting/importing stems over and over again every time a client asks for a change in the mix...Talk about a disruptive workflow...

[Psuper]

I used to own Mixbus and I've said this on their forum several times: They should forget about trying to make it a "real" DAW and focus on building integration with major DAWs, something that would allow the user to seamlessly send audio from their favorite DAW to Mixbus and back.

This would immediately solve all its drawbacks. People would be able to use their preferred DAW for all the usual tasks and use Mixbus exclusively as a third-party mixer, without having to waste a billion years exporting/importing stems over and over again every time a client asks for a change in the mix...Talk about a disruptive workflow...

When I was reading through their forum, seemed most people used Jack. I have no experience with Jack, however I'd imagine its similar to MidiLoopBack which I've used for many years, and still use due to Reasons' poor VST performance. So if those work the same, that wouldn't be an issue at least for me, I love the flexibility of Midiloopback.

[Alex_HS]

Good idea - give users MixBus multiformat plugins bundle: Channel+Bus+MasterBus strips from 32C. Maybe also Mix FX integration in Studio One. For example, I don't need another DAW just for mixing and 12 MixBuses is not enough for me (I know about auxiliary buses in MB, but absence of PDC on it may be a problem).

[RafaelMorgan]

When I was reading through their forum, seemed most people used Jack. I have no experience with Jack, however I'd imagine its similar to MidiLoopBack which I've used for many years, and still use due to Reasons' poor VST performance. So if those work the same, that wouldn't be an issue at least for me, I love the flexibility of Midiloopback.

Oh man, don't even get me started with Jack...The thing is a nightmare to setup. I swear I tried really hard to make it work, countless times, but never managed to succeed. Maybe it works on Linux, but on Windows, man, it's nuts.

If Harrison could at least make a script to automate the Jack setup on Windows, with presets for each major DAW (Something like "Mixbus Connect"), it would already be nice enough to make me give Mixbus a second shot.

It should be as simples as this > Open your DAW > Open Mixbus > Open "Mixbus Connect" > Configure routing > Click Ok > Done.

I honestly don't know why Harrison keeps trying to overcomplicate Mixbus by trying to make it a DAW, with so many great DAWs light years ahead of them...They'll never catch up. Mixbus should only be a mixing desk emulation and nothing else.

[Psuper]

When I was reading through their forum, seemed most people used Jack. I have no experience with Jack, however I'd imagine its similar to MidiLoopBack which I've used for many years, and still use due to Reasons' poor VST performance. So if those work the same, that wouldn't be an issue at least for me, I love the flexibility of Midiloopback.

Oh man, don't even get me started with Jack...The thing is a nightmare to setup. I swear I tried really hard to make it work, countless times, but never managed to succeed. Maybe it works on Linux, but on Windows, man, it's nuts.

If Harrison could at least make a script to automate the Jack setup on Windows, with presets for each major DAW (Something like "Mixbus Connect"), it would already be nice enough to make me give Mixbus a second shot.

It should be as simples as this > Open your DAW > Open Mixbus > Open "Mixbus Connect" > Configure routing > Click Ok > Done.

I honestly don't know why Harrison keeps trying to overcomplicate Mixbus by trying to make it a DAW, with so many great DAWs light years ahead of them...They'll never catch up. Mixbus should only be a mixing desk emulation and nothing else.

Is Jack supposed to work similarly to Midiloopback? Midiloopback is so simple and powerful once you come to grips with it.

[MadDogE134]

i have to agree with the others... it's a pain visually and functionally. as for support... it is a laugh at best. for instance... people wanted an actual reading for EQ settings. what did they get? a bloody 'percentage' LMFAO... when you twist an EQ knob and it tells you in a small ass box a percentage % number... of what i don't know. lol they can't even bloody give you a reading on what the frequency is which seems to me would be a very simple dump from the code. THAT is when i gave up on it and the company. i was skeptical about Harrison being such a well known and reputable company and have them piggy back on Ardour a linux based DAW? they couldn't even afford to develop their own software? the pricing structure is absurd at retail but i got it cheap in a group buy years ago and tried to stick with it to no avail. like it was said... if all you are going to do is mix stems and you can put up with the tiny graphics and really only depend on your ears then give it a try... but even at that it is quite limited and clunky. it sounds nice due to the fact all the limiters, compressors and EQs are built in but be warned they gouge you on plugins unless you are a 'supporting' member and pay $9 a month on top of what you already paid to purchase the software. then you can get SOME stuff 50% off of the overly priced addons. i have since seen it as a money grab by Harrison... not worth the time nor the money imo cheers

[glokraw]

I use the linux Mixbus version in conjunction with other linux apps.
I doubt that most linux Mixbus users use it as their only daw,
but often for mixing/mastering during a project. I have
no trouble using it for hosting linux vsts, Zebra, Discovery Pro, PianoteQ etc
And a lot of people, fully aware of the good, the bad, and the ugly,
support it as an inexpensive future investment.

I doubt the windows version will ever catch up to the linux version,
unless Paul Davis retires from the Ardour project.

There is a patchbay/config app for jackd, both linux and windows,
called qjackctl, it's whole purpose is to plainly visualize your settings
and connections.

Cheers

[kb420]

Good idea - give users MixBus multiformat plugins bundle: Channel+Bus+MasterBus strips from 32C. Maybe also Mix FX integration in Studio One. For example, I don't need another DAW just for mixing and 12 MixBuses is not enough for me (I know about auxiliary buses in MB, but absence of PDC on it may be a problem).

I really don't understand why they haven't already done this. I mean, are their effects really that much better than anything that is already available anyway? How well does Mixbus stand up against Waves Scheps Omni Channel or whatever you favorite channel strip plug in is? If we're strictly talking about eq, compression, and saturation, how well does Mixbus stand up against Fabfilter's Pro EQ2, Pro C2, and Saturn????

I've never tried Mixbus, but maybe some of you that have can answer.

[Vortifex]

..

[rocksmoot]

I own Mixbus and gave it a real shot but after mixing one song with it I moved back to Sonar. Tracking was very difficult and counterintuitive and I had a few crashes that caused me to do some rework. I stuck it out till I got the tune finished but in the end I was unhappy with the sound of it and remixed/mastered in Sonar (now Cakewalk by Bandlab). I think that's a largely because I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of Mixbus. I don't doubt that someone familiar with the setup would do a great job with it. I'm not that guy.

[trtzbass]

Every time I see a new Mixbus product coming out I get all excited because it sounds fantastic.
Then I remember I hate using Ardour because it's awkward and unreliable, so I stopped buying their products.
If they do a VST bridge with an external virtual mixing desk, I'm so going to throw quite a bit of money at them.
It sounds great but it's really not worth learning another DAW which also happens to be kinda clunky

[tunafish88]

Gave up.

[jonljacobi]

Love the mixer strip. But like a number of DAWs, the interface needs a rethink and a redesign.

[Studio Saturn]

Good idea - give users MixBus multiformat plugins bundle: Channel+Bus+MasterBus strips from 32C. Maybe also Mix FX integration in Studio One. For example, I don't need another DAW just for mixing and 12 MixBuses is not enough for me (I know about auxiliary buses in MB, but absence of PDC on it may be a problem).

I really don't understand why they haven't already done this. I mean, are their effects really that much better than anything that is already available anyway? How well does Mixbus stand up against Waves Scheps Omni Channel or whatever you favorite channel strip plug in is? If we're strictly talking about eq, compression, and saturation, how well does Mixbus stand up against Fabfilter's Pro EQ2, Pro C2, and Saturn????

I've never tried Mixbus, but maybe some of you that have can answer.

To me where mixbus shines is the workflow. Since everything is in front of you, you will be jump and running in no time. That makes mixbus shines. About Sounds better or not well.... it is subjective. I love mixbus I also a fan of REAPER and with in Reaper I use Waves Scheps Omni Channel together with NLS. They give me the result I need also. However, now this is the thing. In a simple comparison what it offers in my humble opinion Waves SOC can laugh on every channel strips that exists including Mixbus. But, it is not right in front of me. It is not like a desk that I dial in and play it like an instrument. I have to click and click pop up screen shows up and click dial again. That kills workflow but it will get you a great result considering what it offers inside. So, to me I will sum it up like this, If you enjoy the console workflow, Mixbus will give you a peace of mind. If you don't mind clicking to a plugin and adjust the parameters and get result, go for your favourite plugins. in this case, in reaper, my choice is WSOC. Peace!

[macmuse]

Well, years ago it felt awkward in those earlier versions, and I took issue with quite a lot of things that just weren't smooth or felt weird as opposed to other DAWs—the expectations and what I have become accustomed to with other seasoned DAWs not met—so I went back to my other DAW. When 5 came out, I bought it for the sound and speed or mixing (not MIDI) and to try it again, as I do think it takes me too long in my main DAW with all these plugins. Surprisingly, I do feel Mixbus v5 has come a long way since I last tried it and it is actually pretty nice now and feels like I'm working in a familiar DAW more now, instead of having WTF reactions. Mixing in is very fast and is *almost* as though you just put your tracks in there and they kind of sound already mixed with better depth.

I think it's hard to compare since other DAWs have had a lot more ground under their feet whereas Ardour seemed more like a side project, yet had to be commended on its effort to try to keep up with the competition yet not really doing that. Again, because of what we've become accustomed to, expectations are naturally high. But the new v5 feels much more stable and the things that bothered me years ago seem to have been dealt with, plus it looks a lot nicer than early iterations.

My only thing is that I'm much more used to the way my other DAWs work, so because of that alone, it's not really fair to judge and compare MB, because one DAW I know like the back of my hand, and the other (MB) I'm still coming up to speed with, so that's just not an equal assessment. I honestly had the same reaction to Reaper years ago, which has great features and is a very capable DAW, but in the year I used it, I did more tinkering than actually doing music. I think sometimes it can be typical (including myself back then) to just give up or just try one song, because it's just easier to go back to what one knows, to get on with it instead of messing around with something else. But I think if someone spends the time to learn the way it works like they learned their main DAW, it would be rewarding. I took one song that I mixed (and took a long time) in my main DAW, and then took the tracks into MB and mixed it from scratch in an hour or so, and it sounded better with much more depth and more 'like a record'.

So, to each his own. DAWs are very personal and what one person loves, another may hate. We all just have to use what works for us.