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
Bass heavy phones for mixing make you go for sloppy mids. And focus on treble too much. Also Quality of bass instruments will suffer greatly in character, as you cannot really work on the upper bass/lower mid content of the instruments, the fundamental will overshadow too much due to the boost. But “too little bass” only comes from newbies not referencing stuff against other pro mixes, with bass heavy cans you can also dial in the “right” amount, it is just it will sound very strong on them.
I have bass heavy cans and I use them for seeing if there is too much bass in the mix and how it impacts and which color the lowest end has… on them all other sound will drown behind the bass if it is too much. Also these cans are useful as they have shit resolution sounding veiled, so you can see what is appearant on the surface in focus of the listener. They have weak treble, so dialing in so I can hear it will make sure the very top end has enough presence.
for all other tasks I use dt880, they are the exact opposite of the bass cans. yes please mix and master on neutral cans with high resolution and certian brightness, it is like a magnifier. But they make me have a very bold mix with too much bass and mids if I solely use them without reference.
But point is any reproduction gear can be useful, just for the task the headphones are tuned to, also bass cans can have their good purpose. For mixing please use neutral cans with good stereo imaging.
Also: you know you can just develop an eq preset that will make you tune things right if you mix through it? with any cans…then it is only about resolution and stereo imaging and impulse quality of the phones.
Sounds as if my interpretation of Open Source must be fucked-up then, I’ll have to take some time to look into that.
There are some clues here: https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=274&t=481070#p6731637
Also a bit more here: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/product-alerts-older-than-2-months/1018066-harrison-releases-mix-bus-3-a-6.html
So maybe there’s some technical thing happening where their proprietary bits are getting loaded as plugins. Regardless, if the copyright holders (the contributors) are happy then that’s all that matters. The copyright holders are free to offer their software under multiple different licenses to different parties if they want.
Ironic thing is, despite the title of the thread and the discussion within it, what really makes things sound good is a talent for mixing and mastering. It’s also my opinion that most people into making music at home these days, fall flat on their faces because of one really stupid thing …
They monitor on completely unsuitable headphones.
that’s the reason these monitor speakers are still around in hq studio’s.
The NS-10s is also Alien - Technology; same as the Technics 1210s. All sent here in a big ass Space Ship! Thats why people keep seeing UFO.
If you take a sample and play it without effects then it should sound identical no matter which DAW it is.
If any DAW was doing something “special” at this level which coloured/alterered the sound, you can bet your ass that their customers would be complaining non-stop, asking why the hell their sounds were being fucked with.
When you start introducing DSP effects to the project like EQs and filters, re-pitching sounds, and so on… this is where the differences in the native processing between DAWs will start to reveal themselves.
This is true. The Renoise ‘anti-click’ release routine. Is that altering the audio? Debatable. Maybe there are situations where you want the sample to cut as clean as possible clicks and all. The general rule I suppose is if you write algorithms that modify the audio waveform (even if it is mathematically one atom) then the program must give the user control of that routine.