Mixbus has certainly accelerated the way I work. The channels or channel groups can be routed to buses with tape saturation, similar to the method described above with Satin, but easier.
#Mixbus 32c linux full
Every channel has, like in a good console, a full channel strip with LP/HP, parametric EQ, and one dynamic processor switchable between Leveler, Limiter, Compressor. The advantage I take from Mixbus is that I don't need dynamic processing and filter plugins anymore. That was done in Cubase, and could have been done in any DAW. Satin has an internal link, to combine a number of channels to the same virtual tape machine.
I had similar experiences when the u-he Satin plugin was introduced. Most of the time I disable this and route to the buses, to make use of the tape saturation. When you create a session, all channels are routed to the master by default. For additional buses and more sophisticated EQ per channel I recommend Mixbus32c. The Linux rumor keeps popping up on the Cockos forums, but I've given up on that since it's been a rumor for as long as I've been using the DAW.įor recording only, without virtual synths, I can fully recommend Mixbus. I almost never make music in the box and the workflow feels like it's geared more towards beat production and studios with a lot of MIDI gear. I have a copy of Bitwig and it's not my thing. What sets each one apart is workflow, how quickly you can realize your ideas, and the freedom to choose how you produce and perform”. The Bitwit site says it pretty well: “Today it’s possible to make music with any DAW.
Something like Bitwig might be overkill for your needs but it could maybe get you thinking of how you could integrate it with your hardware setup? If you’re just recording your live inputs it may work just fine for you. If I were to keep it around I’d probably bounce stems to it for mixing but keep my regular DAW (Reaper) which isn’t an ideal situation if you’re on Linux. Sp1200 wrote:The onboard stuff sounds nice but it’s not necessarily offering anything compelling enough for me to switch to it. I don't want to drop 80 bucks to get burned, especially if it's not going to work well in Linux. I'm hesitant to buy it since it's a bit obscure and the webpage looks dated.
#Mixbus 32c linux software
How often do they issue patches/ bug fixes? Do you use the software in Linux? As far as VSTs go, the only VST I really miss after switching to Linux is Valhalla Vintage Verb, so I think I'll be ok with the included plugins since I plan on using some outboard for processing. I'm not one to jump on the "this DAW sounds better than that one" bandwagon, but that subtle saturation made an audible difference. How do you like the tape saturation added to the mixbus to simulate the old consoles? I heard an A/B of a Reaper session and the same session using HMB. For many years I was using Cubase 5.5.3 because of its MIDI and remote control options, but switched entirely to Mixbus32c. It certainly looks good, like a mixing console. Maybe Mixbus doesn't sound better than other DAWs. Routing audio and MIDI is easy, remote control via OSC is exceptional, and it sounds good. Phil999 wrote:for me (and for electronic music) it is a very good DAW.
But in general it is very stable and reliable. So if one uses VSTis a lot Mixbus might not be the best DAW. Another disadvantage is that projects with SWAM instruments can be created, recorded, saved, but they won't load because Mixbus instantly crashes. The only downside I can see in Mixbus is that it doesn't recognise all VSTi plugins when you insert a MIDI track, one has to leave that entry blank, select the plugin afterwards, create two audio outputs, connect them with the plugin outputs, until you are there what could have been accomplished with one mouse click instead of a dozen mouse clicks. For me (and for electronic music) it is a very good DAW.
0 kommentar(er)
