Mixbus : Ardour + Harrison DSP for OS X

@nickmurtagh: there’s quite a bit more going on in mixbus that you can see from the GUI. i’ve alluded to that in the news item - the harrison plugin does some unconventional things (though entirely “legal” from an API perspective) for a LADSPA plugin.

i don’t intend to do any work on the 2.X series to make it easier to have “plugin GUIs inline”, but its certainly a long term goal for the 3.X series to move toward something a bit closer to what mixbus is doing now, from a GUI perspective at least. i don’t think that regular ardour will ever get close to what mixbus is presenting, but certainly being able to present “a bit more detail” for basic plugins would be desirable.

MIXBUS 1.3 IS Out Baby!!!

New Mixbus Version 1.3 released August 11, 2010

hi paul,
if i understand your posting right, its possible to compile this branche (mixbus) under linux.
but to get it working you need something like dynamic link libraries which are not included as binary or as source code? right? if yes, is it possible to get this libraries.
e.g by buying the osx version of mixbus.

greetings wolke

edit:
i just get the mixbus branch compiled on my debian linux box. whatever it looks like that i need a file called “harrison_channelstrip.so”.

where can i official get this file?

you cannot get this file. there will be an official linux release of mixbus when we determine how to distribute it.

ok, thanks.
sounds good. i hope your involved into this project :-). this is a good place for a part of commercial closed software in this awesome daw.
greetings wolke

Any idea when Mixbus will working with SL10.6.1? I have a new MBP and see it is not compatible.

Hi Paul,

This may have been suggested before, but for something like Ardour, I don’t see what’s wrong with a static binary distrobution. I use Blender on Ubuntu and never go near the repos to get it. Tools like Blender and Ardour, are large specialist tools that I think benefit from that distrobution method.

Have you checked out the Blender packages ( http://www.blender.org/download/get-blender/ )? Are there reasons for not having statically linked binaries? I’m genuinely curious and I can’t find anything from searching the site.

Is the multichannel support gone in this Ardour/Mixbus? I only see mention of stereo. Will it be possible to do ambisonics beside stereo (meaning inserting multichannel LADSPA plugins)? If it does then I’ll be considering buying it.

Cheers,

Hector

@philip8888

We will be looking to support it after JackOSX supports Snow Leopard, but it will obviously need to be tested first.

@Max Littlemore

That is one possibility that is being looked at to my knowledge yes. There are reasons not to have them, for instance the dependency on the static linked version of specific libs means that you can have multiple versions of the libs floating around, not all of them up to date.

@Hector

Mixbus is Stereo only.

 Seablade

@Max Littlemore: Blender doesn’t use GTK. GTK can be built as a static lib but continues to use dynamic (run time) loading of various components (such as image handlers). This complicates a “static” build somewhat.

I bought Mixbus, coming from a background where I really had no idea about Ardour, and think it sounds great! I’m trying to spread the good word across all the forums I stop at.

I would really, really like to see Mixbus continue to grow, and see Harrison keep Mixbus alive along the development of Ardour. I realize that this depends on the commercial success. I have a few comments on what I’ve perceived so far, based on my own experience.

As an Ableton user, I was first exposed to Mixbus, and thus Ardour, through the Live Forum. There, I found the thread at gearslutz. Ultimately, I bought Mixbus based on: 1) the positive feedback on gearsultz; and 2) the introductory pricing. However, as a reflection on Harrison, I thought the thread was a mixed bag. In particular, I saw the same question being repeated and unanswered by Harrison representatives. These questions concerned how the Mixbus achieved its allege improved sound. While I was able to discern the reasons, it seemed that many could not, and that these took a disproportionally negative stance to what I otherwise saw as a great product.

My personal experience involved setting up Mixbus with Live, a process I am still refining. While I was able to initially figure out a work flow on my own, I easily saw how others could be extremely put off by the process. However, I must emphasize that Mixbus and Ardour have not crashed on me as of yet.

Thus, in my opinion, the two biggest obstacles I can see so far to Harrison and Ardours continued success with the Mixbus involves two issues: 1) a clear, streamlined explanation of why and how Mixbus sounds “better” than other DAWs; and 2) clear and concise explanations of the various ways to route audio and midi from one application into Mixbus.

To give an example in outline form:

  1. Why Mixbus sounds better - Harrison’s Algorithms developed from 30 years of experience
    A. At the summing level - what’s the difference between the way most DAW’s sum and Mixbus?
    B. EQ’s - exactly what are they based on?
    C. Compression/Limiting - same with EQ’s
    D. the 4 Mixbusses - clearly explain their advantages and uses

  2. Routing Audio - the Flexibility of JackOSX
    A. Setting up jack - a simplified version of what is presented in the quickstart guide
    B. Routing application outputs --> I’m still figuring this one out
    C. using the Jack audio unit / vst plugin --> the method I currently use

  3. Routing Midi
    A. MTC sync
    B. Midi Patchbay

All in 2 pages, tops. I had to search through forums to find out how to do everything needed to do, and I’m still in the process of figuring somethings out. But to attract new users the sound difference of Mixbus needs to be clearly spelled, imho, and the integration aspect needs to be presented in a way that makes people realize how powerful it really is. I’m excited now to be using Jack, and equally excited to have an app which can fully take advantage of it. But this aspect isn’t really being presented in the clearest way, in my opinion.

Like I mentioned regarding the gearslutz thread, there is so much noise that its hard to really hear what Ardour and Harrison are saying with this product. I will end with the caveat that what I am suggesting may not be needed by more season engineers and producers, as I am more of an artist. However, a lot of the negative and critical comments were being made by, it seemed to me, much more seasoned and veteran engineers.

In the end, a concise explanation highlighting the main factors contributing to the Mixbus sound and clear step by step instructions for integrating Mix Bus with the major DAWS may be able to get people to take that $80 plunge. If they’re like me and most of the other happy users, it will be well worth it!

Mixbus sounds great bought it last night and just a few hours behind the wheel well what can I say it´s good. Seems there´s no midi though but I guess there´s way around that one too via Logic or something. Playing with mac osx86 on an old Dell singlecore 3,2 Ghz just for fun and it even runs pretty ok on that one too.

Mixbus is a superb product, and I believe it really does what it says on the tin!! :slight_smile: Many thanks to all who worked on this great product.

I tested Mixbus by importing WAV format source audio files from a recent mixing project. The most noticeable thing about using Mixbus is that the audio required far less ‘tweaking’ to achieve a great sounding mix compared to the industry standard DAW I had previously used for this mixing project. I was also able to achieve this without using any additional EQ or dynamics processing plugins, only using Mixbus EQ. I also found that I did not need to use nearly as much compression to allow all the instruments to have space and presence in the mix - only using it to even out the bass guitar performance and for parallel compression on the drums.

I had the memorable pleasure of mixing and assisting on a Harrison 32 Series console in the mid-80’s for a couple of projects and Mixbus really reminds me of those times. IMO the Harrsion 32 Series was one of the most ‘musical’ consoles I mixed or assisted on. I very much hope that Mixbus is a great success.

I will be using Mixbus as much as possible for projects going forward. I was blown away by the sound, the resolution and the detail/clarity of the audio. I also very much like the ‘de-cluttered’ interface and the fact that the input channel and mix bus channel strips have only ‘essential’ features and no frills. Mixbus sounds and feels to me like a real console.

So far Mixbus itself seems stable on Mac OS X.6.1 (MBP Dual-Core Intel Xeon) using the latest version of JACK.

It’s a real pleasure to use! :slight_smile:

hey all. this looks great! i just hope that the code specific to mixbus (not the prop. libs, i mean the gpl wrapper code) can be ported to the 3.0 codebase. that way (i hope), one could purchase this version and use the libraries in the modified 3.0 version. also, if those parts are abstracted, perhaps there would be scope for plugging in other plugins (eq/comps etc) in the same way.

i have to admit i have been away from ardour a bit (still a subscriber though) as i have needed to use features with midi/loops etc for projects that ardour doesn’t do at the moment, but watching that youtube video makes me wish i could come back ‘home’. if this was made to work with 3.0’s midi stuff, i would be very close to heaven haha

i haven’t looked at the price yet, but may get it anyway, as a test. if one purchases the osx version, will they be entitled to the linux version (when it is released), or will they have to be purchased separately?

update: just purchased a copy (although i haven’t booted into osx to test it. i still use linux day to day and have no intention of changing). also can i just say i love seeing ‘real’ looking faders again? i understand the reasoning behind the ribbon-like ardour ones, but this just feels more natural to me. maybe make them an option (‘use natural faders’/‘use ribbon faders’)?

I’m using Ubuntu Studio linux and…I need mixbus for audio production in ardour. NEED.

I’m currently using JAMin with Ardour, but it’s just not the same as having a compressor/EQ plugin in Ardour. I need it.

If there’s anything i can do to help with developing an EQ/compressor plugin for Ardour, please let me know. I’ll do whatever i can to help out with this. kimsynghyun7@jinbo.net

@g-raf Have a look here:

http://www.linuxdsp.co.uk

Compressor, EQ plugins - everything you need - especially:

http://www.linuxdsp.co.uk/download/mx_series/index.html

I would also love to have ardour/mixbus on linux. Would be nice.
And those linuxdsp plugins too.

When the new laptop and the new audio interface arrives, life will be good. :slight_smile:

Please ! Tell me that youŕe working with care in a linux version of Mixbus, I will be waiting for this day.

Nifty-looking product… and highly cool for the company (i.e., Paul) to engage with the Ardour forum. Impressed!

Just a couple of questions… was this 30-year mature DSP code intended to run on… an actual DSP? I.e., on a hardware DSP processor running a softcore or else a hardcore execution environment? If so, is a virtual machine layer also part of the MixBus package… i.e., some hardware emulator for the “actual Harrison DSP code” to run on? If so, is this emulation layer Harrison-owned, or licensed from a third party? Finally, is it understood at present what level of license compatibility exists between any DSP execution environments involved, and the Linux kernel?

Sorry for such intrusive questions. But your comments about differences between distributions made me wonder whether legal rather than technical challenges may be slowing down a release compatible with open source.

Cheers,

-Henry

@hkingman

Keep in mind I don’t work for Harrison(And neither does Paul by the way)… but I think you missed something. The majority of the code for Mixbus IS open source, it is Ardour, with closed source parts in the form of LADSPA/DSP plugins that are integrated into the interface. You can check out most of the code for Mixbus in Ardour’s SVN repo in fact, but you won’t be able to do much with it as it doesn’t have the closed source DSP in it obviously.

In as far as how the DSP is implemented, having used it for some time I seriously doubt that there is any VM/emulation environment. All this code was written from scratch and compiled to run on x86, which if you look at some of Harrison’s existing product line, that shouldn’t be to surprising either.

  Seablade