Renoise sound so nice because you crazy mad ass motherf*cker can make such good noise with it!
When playing a sample/recording through the DAW at its original frequency, original gain, without any effects or EQ being applied, then it should sound completely transparent and identical to the original sound.
Ideally, the output should be bit-for-bit identical to the original recording and should pass a null test, though this is not always necessarily required, or may not be possible due to (very minor and boring) low-level technical reasons.
Regardless, if the output is being altered or coloured in any way that makes it sound noticeably different vs the original recording, then something is seriously wrong with that software.
I don’t care who you are, or how much history and “prestige” you have in the audio business… if your software can’t output exactly what I put into it at that basic level, then your software is not worth my time.
But when your sound is going through analog mixing console (this is what mixbus is simulating) it has to be changed, no?
If you apply the same dsp to a sound in Renoise (using a vst processor for example) and do the same in Ableton Live, again the results will be identical.
If the dsp differs then the results will be different.
Ableton doesn’t have ‘a sound’. If you use Reaper, for example, and start stretching your audio with elastique then you will get a certain quality to the sounds because of that. It has nothing at all to do with Reapers inherent ‘sound’.
But when your sound is going through analog mixing console (this is what mixbus is simulating) it has to be changed, no?
Ok, sure…
Mixbus is obviously intended to somehow emulate/recreate the characteristic “sound” of a big analogue mixing console (whatever that is), so they are presumably (?) applying some kind of extra processing that colours or “enhances” the mix when sending tracks through the channel strips, applying EQ, applying compression, etc.
According to Wikipedia Mixbus is/was based on the open source Ardour DAW, but I sure can’t recall Ardour ever hyping up such “analogue” features… I think it’s always just been a pretty typical DAW, no?
Mixbus has obviously tweaked the code to fit their needs, but I have no idea if they actually attempt to simulate the flow of electrons through an accurate model of the original hardware circuits, or if it’s just a few cheap tricks to give things a bit of grit/fuzz and a slightly analogue-ish sound, or who the heck knows really…
Anyway…
Even if Mixbus is attempting to do some special audio voodoo magic and produce an “authentic” analogue mixing console sound, I would still expect it to give me clean/transparent output which sounds identical to my input, assuming that I did not touch any channel strip features or other DSP processing. What I put in should be what I get out, assuming no additional processing is applied.
Otherwise, are they claiming that simply playing my dumb samples through Mixbus “unaffected” will somehow produce amazing “analogue” results that will instantly sound better than everything else on the market? I don’t think they are claiming anything quite like that, since that’s a bit too much like snake oil bullshit imho.
I’m not even sure what such a claim would sound like… My sample + the magic “character” of their fancy analogue circuits and some pseudo-electronics massaging my frequencies into a better shape? 
I dunno… Silly stuff. People are easily distracted by a pretty GUI and some fancy buzzwords
( Edit: Just to be clear, I’m not talking shit about Mixbus here, I have no personal experience with it but I’m sure it’s a fine tool… I’m just having a bit of fun on the topic of the typical marketing hype that tends to surround audio software, haha. )
Mixbus is exception here
nope, mixbus just adds tape saturation at the master chanel “by default”, it can be easly turned off as it is effect
What would be the difference then, to letz say juz put a VintageWarmer or similar on the Masterbus of Renoise?
nope, mixbus just adds tape saturation at the master chanel “by default”, it can be easly turned off as it is effect
Harri contributes a lot to the Ardour’s source code usually, you can even read that in Ardour’s changelog. So it is a win-win situation, maybe ardour would be already dead without Harri. It is good for Linux software to get a leading hand from a commercial company, so it does not sink into total chaos. Since there is barely any lead in Linux world.
Actually the Thriller Album was mixed on an old harrison console, so its not all made up; yet reads a bit cheesy & like the best days long gone.
This is a vintage Harrison 4032 Console. The Console’s rise to fame began with Michael Jackson’s seminal record Thriller, which was made on a Harrison 4032 desk (as well as his Bad album) and which remains the best selling album of all time. Numerous other hit records were made with the Harrison Console, including titles from Abba, Blondie, Beach Boys, Sade and many others. Even today, the Harrison 4032 Console is highly sought after among collectors and recording studios due to its uniquely pristine, “warm” and distinctly vintage sound signature from the “golden age” of album recordings.
Wow, it gets even more amusing if you visit their analogue gear website too, cause they claim Harrison to be “Manufacturer of the World’s Finest Consoles”.
I must assume they’re completely unaware of NEVE and SSL then :lol:LMFAO - I actually laughed-out proper loud when I read that
Quoted from Wikipedia:
"Mixbus is based on Ardour, the open source DAW, but is sold and marketed commercially by Harrison Audio Consoles"
Oh really, then perhaps “Harrison” (if they have not already done so), had better make the source-code available to the public, to include a release of all improvements they have made to the code. If I’m understand the licence Ardour uses correctly, and Mixbus itself is based on Ardour, then surely Harrison would need to comply with the licence agreement Ardour was released under. As far as I’m aware, no one is allowed to impose additional licence restrictions above that on which the original code was licenced under.
-
open source - https://community.ardour.org/node/3011?page=1
-
finest console - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Audio_Consoles#Selected_Users
- open source
Included: The general application tweaks that Mixbus brings to Ardour.
Not included: The proprietary Harrison channel strip DSP algorithms. (Totally understandable that they want to protect their work here.)
Seems like a cool partnership anyway, and one which is beneficial for all involved.
The #hardware on that site looks pretty legit, though. Could be a nice analog touch, adding to Renoise 
Open Source apps are not viral, if you use open source library inside your property app it doesnt mean you have to release source of your code. You just have to realase changes made to OS library that you made.
Same goes for mixbus - they are using ardour source code for building mixbus and include channelstrip.so ladspa plugin in building process to inject DSP.
On the other hand ardour team could just release ardour code on MIT/BSD licence for harrison and they could just simply made whatever they want and give / not giveback whatever they wanted.
But from the sounds of it, Mixbus is a DAW, not a plugin for Ardour!
Sounds as if my interpretation of Open Source must be fucked-up then, I’ll have to take some time to look into that.
Read post on ardour page ive linked above:
For those who are familiar with Ardour’s existing design, Mixbus was implemented using a single closed source LADSPA plugin to provide Harrison’s channel strip DSP, along with a set of extensive but non-intrusive changes to Ardour’s core. The source code for everything except the plugin is available as usual via the svn repository at ardour.org.
Just upload that #plug & let me see, if it does sum magic to my #renoise mix bus. 
Well then, that would mean that Mixbus is not a DAW based upon Ardour, it’s a plugin.
As far as I’m aware, no one is allowed to impose additional licence restrictions above that on which the original code was licenced under
So this is the key misinterpretation (an easy one to make). There is one party that can; the copyright holder has total flexibility. They are able to also distribute the same software under a different license. Many projects deliberately ask for a “copyright assignment” to a single person/organisation when you contribute, making it easy to re-license like this.
The alternative is that all copyright holders have to agree, and in some cases (eg. Linux kernel) this is infeasible; which can be a positive or negative depending on your viewpoint.
it was programmed during a time of peak universal resonance …?
Renoise sounds so good because its based on Alien - Technology …!
nope, mixbus just adds tape saturation at the master chanel “by default”, it can be easly turned off as it is effect
I think that There are things you can not turn off like crosstalk between channels…
I think that There are things you can not turn off like crosstalk between channels…
im not sure if it is implemented (didnt find any info, also didnt noticed it while using mb), but if so, then yes
…this common discussion of one DAW having better/worse “sound quality” than another DAW is total bullshit.
Amen.
I hate it when I watch a masterclass and the Artist says “I use logic because i just like the sound of it a lot more”
closes vlc, watch some other masterclasses
1 Like