Recording - December 2016 - 54

great solution for dedicated mixing machines with large
computer displays. Compared to Mixbus 3, it is ideal for
larger projects, or for smaller projects where that amazing
32C sound is desired.
Price: $299

same area. Whew! That's a lot of screen real estate! But it's such
a useful layout, particularly for engineers comfortable with an
analog console.
In addition to these tweakable mixer parameters, the gain structure of the setup seems to be optimized for engineers used to an
analog console. The features of the channel strip shown in Figure
2 are important, and a big part of the sound of the 32C console.
We must not forget that these are not just "EQ plug-in emulations;" the sound of the entire 32C console is at play in this DAW.
There is definitely a certain style of mixing
that will benefit from this sort of workflow. For
instance, some engineers like to use various
chains of processors to create different tonal
aspects of the mix, using different reverbs or
compressors (for instance) working together to
create layers of space and dynamic tonality.
Michael Brauer and Andrew Scheps are two
engineers that have discussed working in this
way. This style of mixing will translate quite
well to Mixbus 32C.
Criticisms
The biggest criticism, by far, is that
Mixbus 32C is not ideal for a small
screen. I do most of my work these days
on a 17" laptop, with a screen resolution
of 1600x900, and I had difficulty seeing
Figure 2. The Mixbus 32C channel strip, compacted
down to the EQ and buses (2a) and opened up to
show all features (2b).
details of the mixer when the display was scaled back
enough to fit the entire mixer vertically on one screen. I
had the Mixer Strip Scale in the preferences set at 70%
to achieve this, which is clearly suboptimal. Therefore,
Mixbus 32C will be best on dedicated computers with
plenty of screen real estate. Anything smaller will
require only being able to see part of the console at
any given time, though you can move the console easily enough with an alt-click and drag.
There are some aspects of the DAW that are a bit
inconvenient, but I must qualify this statement by saying
that I would almost certainly encounter these inconveniences by using any DAW that isn't the one I'm used
to working with. I've gotten quite used to PreSonus Studio One in
the past few years of heavy use, to the point where I rarely use
other DAWs. One of Studio One's biggest strengths is its streamlined interface and ease of use, and I am quite used to its workflow. On the other hand, editing audio in Mixbus is quite capable, and will feel familiar to those used to a Pro Tools interface.
They aren't quite the same, but the Mixbus "Smart mode" came
out of popular demand... much of which was "make the editing
more like Pro Tools." Once I familiarized myself more with the
Mixbus workflow, I was certainly able to work efficiently.
Conclusions
Mixbus 32C is a welcome addition to the Mixbus world, and to
the world of audio production in general. For me, the two biggest
strengths are (a) the overall sound quality of the 32C console; and
(b) the fact that it runs on Linux (see Linux sidebar). While it can be
run on a laptop (with some compromises and adaptations), it is a
54

RECORDING DECEMBER 2016

More from: Harrison Consoles, www.harrisonconsoles.com
James Lindenschmidt (lindenschmidt@recordingmag.com) is
an unabashed audiogeek. He records music, designs studios
and listening rooms, and consults with clients to make better
audio. He also writes and makes mead, at least until the revolution comes. Learn more at www.craftedrecordings.com.
Mixbus on Linux
The fact that Mixbus runs on Linux, in addition to Mac
and Windows, is a game-changer for me. I have a thing
for Linux, having used it for everyday computer applications since 1999. But I've always kept a Windows partition around for my audio production work.
Linux is an open source operating system. It's not controlled by a single company (e.g. Apple or Microsoft);
anyone who follows certain licensing rules can develop a
version of Linux for free or commercial distribution. These
distros are often optimized for various tasks, like enterprise robustness, user-friendly interface... or use in
audio/media production.
Linux isn't without risks. Open source software is constantly being modified, and users have to be aware that
a tweak intended to help some users can hurt others,
especially where audio hardware and software drivers
are concerned. One famous example: Ubuntu Studio
(described by Darrell Burgan in Recording, August
2010), which crashed and burned after a disastrous
reconfiguration that broke basically everything, and
scared off a lot of potential Linux audio users (myself
included). But where there are failures, there is recovery;
Ubuntu Studio has recovered nicely from its stumble, and
it's one of several audio-friendly distros out there.
These days, I am running AVLinux 2016, which maximizes audio capability for me and works seamlessly with
Mixbus. I have been using this setup both for audio production and everyday computing tasks. It works well, but
is not as user-friendly or polished as something like Linux
Mint, my preferred non-audio distro.
When I starting playing with AVLinux 2016, I was
astonished at how far things had come. There are plug-in
suites (look up Calf plug-ins for a great example), drivers
for audio hardware, everything one needs to do professional work, albeit with far fewer choices than in the Mac
or Windows worlds.
In addition, the proprietary plug-ins from Harrison run
in Mixbus under Linux and sound wonderful. The Mixbus
platform itself, in both iterations, has outstanding sound
and will not be a shortcoming to a skilled engineer.
In short, I believe it is possible to use Mixbus 32C, running on Linux, to provide top-quality mixes, if a knowledgeable mix engineer is willing to dive in and get familiar with the Harrison/Ardour paradigm.
The future of Linux audio is bright-so bright, if I may
say so, that it's quite possible we'll get burned again at
some point if we stay on the cutting edge. Luckily we
don't have to. It's easy to revert to older, more stable versions if need be, without worrying that the software company will stop supporting them.-JL

http://www.harrisonconsoles.com http://www.craftedrecordings.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Recording - December 2016