LinuxMusicians

tavasti wrote:

sysrqer wrote:I can't mix with it, it's needlessly crippled. Creating your own aux track means that that aux can only play in mono because the send on the track is pre pan. That kills it for me, no sub or stereo pair groups, mono fx sends.

Is that send mono, so that if I have seriously different L+R channels, are they in send mixed together, and in that another bus L and R are same?

Sorry, I should have been more accurate. The output on the bus is set to whatever pan information the original audio file has, so if it was recorded in dead centre then the bus will play it like that regardless of what panning you have set on the audio file's track.

In your example, the L+R will play the same as if the pan pot is in the centre.


I just remembered another issue with trying to use the mixbus buses instead, (unless I am missing something) you cannot send from one mixbus to another.

sysrqer wrote: Sorry, I should have been more accurate. The output on the bus is set to whatever pan information the original audio file has, so if it was recorded in dead centre then the bus will play it like that regardless of what panning you have set on the audio file's track.

Ok, then it doesn't sound too bad for me.

sysrqer wrote:That's not much use though when you have lost the original panning, no wide reverbs or stereo slaps, mono parallel processing.

I only described the way I mix so far, it was not meant to be a solution. I see what you mean by wide reverbs. If I would want that, I would duplicate the utility buss that has the reverb. Yes, more processing. But then, wide reverbs and stereo slaps are not things I use and I would certainly not say, from my point of view and the mixes I'm doing, that a DAW is broken for not supporting that natively. I do not recall this big Canadian guy with the long hair, what's his name (1), the bass player that runs a studio, mentioning this in his Mixbus review as a show stopper. So it depends largely as far as perhaps common uses.


(1) A youtube search with "big canadian long hair bass player studio" returned the proper link in the first few hits

Spectre Sound Mixbus32C review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Omd3pMOok

Well it's certainly a show stopper for me.

Mixbus for 19!! bucks today

https://mailchi.mp/harrisonconsoles/mix ... 64155ca74c

sysrqer wrote:Well it's certainly a show stopper for me.

I'm curious - do you have examples of what this technique/capability can achieve ?

jonetsu wrote:
I'm curious - do you have examples of what this technique/capability can achieve ?

I thought I already had.

sysrqer wrote:

jonetsu wrote:
I'm curious - do you have examples of what this technique/capability can achieve ?

I thought I already had.

By "achievement" I mean the results. In sound. A tune, something.

Mixbus for 19!! bucks today

(just to brag) could not resist and ordered it ))

Sign up for the emails. I have had two free plugins with their 'what's in the box' offers

Now there would be discount (9.81$) on XT-MC (Multi-band compressor), considering if getting it. But not sure if I ever will need it?
If I take care of compression (mostly) before final mastering, is multi-band compression really needed?

Sure, marketing video looks and sounds great https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL99xDmKoDU

tavasti wrote: If I take care of compression (mostly) before final mastering, is multi-band compression really needed?

Multiband compression can help you pinpoint things a bit more, but then if your mix is already satisfying, it's not a game-changer. In fact I use it mostly for mixing, for example on distorted guitars and drum busses, you can control the sub-mids and lows so that fast palm-muted guitars or fast double-kick drums can get clearer using a slow attack.

Also the XT-MC lacks per-band makeup, which is a no-go for me. Despite having only three bands, I think zaMulticomp does a very great job.

tavasti wrote: If I take care of compression (mostly) before final mastering, is multi-band compression really needed?

It's like having a tool. Might not use it always, but it's there for its own purpose. Everyone can say something about multi-band compression. There are good articles about it on the web. Sometimes there's a need to compress only some frequencies. It might or might not depend on the complexity of the mix. And then there are creative uses. As a tool it's a tradeoff, although at $10, much of a no-brainer. At $100 it would be otherwise. Sometimes having a tool opens door to some uses.

Now if Harrison puts their spectral compressor on such a sale ... that's quite a tool.

omer666 wrote: In fact I use it mostly for mixing, for example on distorted guitars and drum busses, you can control the sub-mids and lows so that fast palm-muted guitars or fast double-kick drums can get clearer using a slow attack.

Also the XT-MC lacks per-band makeup, which is a no-go for me. Despite having only three bands, I think zaMulticomp does a very great job.

Ok, that was helping for 'why would I need multiband compression'. And the other thing, could it be those others than Harrison, maybe?

jonetsu wrote: It's like having a tool. Might not use it always, but it's there for its own purpose. Everyone can say something about multi-band compression.

It is a tool, but on investing any money, question is 'will I ever learn so much that I could have any use for it?' Compairing to situation where I have excavator on my yard, but can't even drive a basic tractor

tavasti wrote:And the other thing, could it be those others than Harrison, maybe?

It's part of the excellent zam-plugins by Damien Zammit, which are available both as source code and binaries:
https://github.com/zamaudio/zam-plugins
http://zamaudio.com/ (down at the time of writing)
You may also get them in your repos, depending on your distro. Personally, I bought those directly from Damien's website. It's got everything you need for mastering, including 31-band EQ and Maximizer.