Bought it, used it once or twice, then went back to Logic.....
To me it's not worth the hassle..

 

That was a strange choice as a comparison as back then Metallica was not as big as they are today or even as big as they became some years later.

They where rising stars among heavy metal listerners
But many more prefered Iron Maiden,Dio,Judas Priest, Saxon back then
So the quality of the recordings the first two Metallica albums was kind of lame

I never liked them back then i thought they sounded crap and when i listen to that track it confirms what i was thinking in those days.
Where the hell is the BASS in that song?

Her is a danish band (Maybe also recorded in Rasmussens studio?) that release their debute LP the same year 1984 as Ride The Lightning and it have much better sonically quality then Ride The Lighning and that from a band that was UNKNOWN to most people..

 

Ride the lightning album from Metallica actually sounds really good, the problem is the uploader on YT used a very low bit rate mp3 and it does sound like shit.

 

Although Harrison is adding more DAW features to Mixbus, one should keep in mind that it is mainly a recording/mixing environment that works faithfully with little overhead compared to other DAWs like PT, DP, Cubase and etc...

For those who never had the opportunity to work with analog consoles live and in the studio, you will always have a different perspective working in the box .

It's comparable to using only heaphones and then having to use monitors.

 

Mixbus does have a sound of its own. If you want to reproduce it, put a sly-Fi Axis plugin on the master bus and cut around 3k, boost a bit around 100hz and add half of what you cut at 12k, add a bit of saturation (all on a single plugin). Now you have the Mixbus 'sound'. All you have done is enhance the lows a bit, make the highs less harsh and enhance the upper harmonics a tiny bit. The old 'smiley eq' trick with a digital twist.

 

it is just soft clipping with 1:2:1 compression and slight warble pitch shifting by 1 or 2 cents periodically and then more soft clipping.
(how harrison mixbuss approaches it)
those things react different depending on input signal it biases the soft clipping transfer curve based on input voltage algo

what im saying you can get same or better results with any daw

 

Even if you compare the Iron Maiden or Pantera to the modern stuff you will see a lot of improvement. I can give you a tones of examples.

 

Wow, I've actually got one of their CD's. The one with "Lethal Heros" on it. Ever hear of a band named Pink Cream 69? (if I've remembered it correctly)

 

I disagree wholeheartedly. I feel like modern records have more depth and clarity throughout the whole spectrum. A lot of 70s and 80s pop stuff is usually extremely boxy in regards to vocals and don't have nearly the depth and air that modern songs have in the 2k-15k range. I think you guys are being disingenuous because of the era you grew up listening to. Which is fine. Yet technology has took us to places that no engineers in the 70s or 80s could ever imagine, let alone create. That's a reality.

 

I'm not sure where you're hearing better depth, but what you call "air" is just brightening limiting. It's so prevalent now that it's considered the norm and what the newer crowd has become accustomed to. Anything else sounds "dull." I agree it's brighter, clearer...and more sterile--IMO, and I set no standards.

 

VS

just for fun

 

People love to say the "loudness wars" are destroying music. Yet with a simple test, any professional song recorded in a 24 bit environment will have less unwanted noise and distortion then songs recorded and produced solely on analog gear. Not only will you have a cleaner song, but the depth of the vocals and live instruments will sound MUCH better, with a wider stereo field and a louder perception of volume. There's really nothing to debate. Working in 24 bit digital DAWS, is far superior than pure analog. Thank you technology.

 

Dude go listen to some old 60s and 70s songs recorded in a pure analog environment. You'd be lucky to hear anything pass 8-9k or below 120HZ. Digital recording has created wider stereo imaging and more headroom and depth. I think it's utterly hilarious, that older people like analog because some units added a bunch of hiss, hum and distortion. That nowadays would be notched out of any recording. Anything to not let go of a sonically, inferior generation of music.

 

If engineers from the 60s and 70s had the tools and technological advances we had today. Do you really think they be like "Man I want that vintage phonograph horn turntable sound, you get so much grit out of that rusty mono sound, that's real music, etc etc.." Hell no, You'd be hearing temptations, Al Green, Queen and Nirvana in all it's powerful musical bliss.

 

LMAO at all these people saying old music sounded better/more alive/fatter/whatever. Take off your nostalgia googles.

 

You can not possibly throw 60s and 70s sound in one bag and generalize it that way.
70s sound is ten years and in those ten years there were big changes in technology, gear and production techniques.
Some of the best audiophile albums were recorded in the 70s.

 

Well I'm not going to take a pop at Harrison because it's a long time since I tried a copy of it, but will give a big thumbs up for Presonus Studio One, which has implemented a novel plugin stream, Mix FX, which introduces analog modelling into the summing engine itself. This allows channel-to-channel crosstalk (i.e. the closer two channels are, the more they cross talk), noise and drive using the default built-in, and you can pay to get a 'pro' analog/tape mix model made by Softube. This allows a far more convincing console emulation than can ever be made by per-channel plugging alone. Even the Waves NLS.

I don't use it. I don't want my tunes sounding like they were recorded fifty years ago. I use UAD and Nebula.

 

This virtual mixing console sounds clearly different from most DAWs actually...

I don't know if "analogue" is the best term to employ, but "softer" and "warmer" were clearly the adjectives we have agreed with an experienced sound engineer I've been working with recently.
He's still testing Mixbus thanks to the scene, but he remained quite disturbed by the sound last time we talked about it.

 

I won't say digital or analog gear is better or worse. They are just different.
As I experienced the skills of the artists (musicans, mixing and mastering engineers) are much more important. You can ruin every mix with 4 mio $ digital console or squeeze a mix to death with the most expensive digital mastering tools if you haven't got the skills.
Metallica for instance, though I like 'em a lot, is famous for making awful mistakes in mixing and mastering be it analog or digital.
So, choose the equipment you like best and have fun.

 

Loudness war is about MODERN loudness choice.
And limited frequencies is about OLD technology.

You are on the apple vs orange way

About Metallica :
Do you know "And justice for all" was NOT badly mixed at first ?
When the "tape export" guy messed master tape rendering (he probably disabled some buses/tracks), there was nobody else in the studio.
Release was done that way (no bass, no kick...) and it is 8x platinum copies
And more f*kin LOL : it served as a MIXING STANDARD for following metal albums (listen to Pantera Cowboys from hell...)
Meditate on this

There are old and new good albums. But at the end, production is NOT so important.
I speak about real music, not fast-food pop