What prevents us from using the interface (which is built on ardour) together with ladspa effects to have the same level of ITB functionality for standard ardour?
I would also buy it if available for Linux… amd64 please.
Would it continue in 3.0?
Awesome! Will buy if there’s a Linux version!
Hi Paul and the Ardour team.
Have Mixbus running on my PPC Mac.
Wow ! What a sound from my speakers. Amazing filters and dynamics, and the option for parallel compression is superb
for mastering.
Kim
qharley: theoretically, nothing. in practice, the DSP in Mixbus represents 30 years of development at Harrison. These weren’t newly written “plugins”, the DSP is the same code used in Harrison’s own consoles. The GUI part may inspire some kind of conceptually similar integration of plugins into the GUI in 3.X (something that has been planned in a very simplistic way for a while), but part of the reason this works so well is that there is one plugin and one GUI controlling it for each strip, not one for the EQ, one for the compression, etc. etc.
In terms of a Mixbus based on 3.0 … thats totally hypothetical at this point, and will depend a great deal on how the release based on 2.X is received by the world.
hey guys,
Some time ago, I had (during a dream) installed OSX86 on my old (dreamlike) intel based Dell laptop and could run Ardour OSX-X11 on it (still during the dream).
So (the theoretical question) is the MIxbus plugin compatible with IntelMac platforms or is it PPC only ?
(before I awakened from this dream) I scraped my osx86 partition since I couldn’t use it for anything (yeah, it’s a dream, remember) but I can retry (to dream the same dream) if you Paul tell me that it is also supported on intel platforms.
This is of course for educational purposes and remains a “theoretical” idea or wishful thinking. Do not install OSX86 on non certified platforms 
30 years of development… That could be good.
There are already some kind of interest from some of my buddies on The Womb. 
There are quite a few linux ardour users that would love this setup. The way I see it, is that the GUI could essentially stay the same, and that the user can choose to use an ardour defined cluster of ladspa plugs, or the Harrison module for linux (which you could buy from Harrison)
It is not that we don’t have good quality plugins for ardour, the problem is mostly that they are a bit tricky to control, and it takes time to mix. I currently use the DSP’s on my digital mixing console to do all the things Mixbus would do, because doing it in ardour just takes too long comparatively.
Another thing to chew on, is that there are quite a few capable DSP programmers out there that could write similar plugins for Linux, if the interface were known. There could, for instance, be a LinuxDSP module for linux that does the same as the Harrison one, just with different code (and different core sound of course) - and it could generate an income for that DSP programmer should he decide to sell it.
Just spit balling here, but I truly believe that this will drastically change the way ardour is perceived as a user friendly DAW interface.
Pricing looks quite reasonable at the moment. Unless the non introductory pricing is significantly higher you can pencil me in for a linux version should it be released
So (the theoretical question) is the MIxbus plugin compatible with IntelMac platforms or is it PPC only ?
IntelMac is what I tested it on for the past several months. That being said in your dream world I can’t comment on it on a OSx86 machine obviously;)
SeabladeCiao Seablade, if I (dream that I) install OSX86 on my (dreamlike) PC, should I (dream that I) buy a copy of Mixbus or can it be tested for free ?
At the moment there is no demo I know of, sorry.
This looks very exciting. I have not been mixing much stuff recently, but will keep an eye out for a version OS X 10.6 compatible as I am about to upgrade my os. I hope this continues to run parallel to Ardour development as these DSP options mixed with the features which Ardour3.0 is going to have under the hood would make a pretty rocking combination.
Thanks for the work.
Are there significant changes to the rest of the interface or would one feel at home switching between Ardour and Mixbus? Or do one really not gave to swicth between them to reach each versions advantages as they are and are working the same (except for the mixer)?
Are the onboard eq controls, bass and treble sweepable shelving filters plus a semiparametric mid?
Roger:
The Editor page is identical in both products. You won’t have any trouble going back and forth (except that the Mixbus elements are missing in Ardour, of course)
The track EQ’s are Lo Shelf, Mid Peaking, and High Shelf, all with sweepable frequencies. The buses are similar but with fixed frequencies.
The official promotional video is a hell of a great demonstration of Ardour!
looks cool. I would like to hear how it sounds though. Not on youtube obviously
Will Mixbuss be on AES next weekend?
I WILL buy. But only if the linux version comes out. Differences between distros? True, but with just a .deb and a .rpm you cover 99% of linux users… Is it such a big issue?
@vervelover-
Yes sadly. It isn’t quite as simple as that unless we do something that most distros don’t like;)
@RogerJoensson
You shouldn’t have much problem at all switching between Ardour and Mixbus. There are some differences, but the majority of it is pretty similar.
SeabladeYes and No. Ardour importing Mixbus you would lose all the processing and settings that were done in Mixbus. But the session itself should open fine, and the mixbus busses are replaced with standard busses named IIRC mixbus-1 through mixbus-4. Obviously no processing on them though.
Mixbus importing Ardour should be possible (In fact it was one of the things I tested when I was testing mixbus), though there seem to be a couple of hiccups for some people right now IIRC. They are being worked on I think.
Seabladecan mixbus import ardour projects and vice-versa?