The reader will know (of course) the identity at a later stage in the comments.ĭon’t forget to listen to these samples through good sounding monitors or a good pair of headphones to be able to hear differences between samples. Which is the best sounding sample ? Can you really hear a difference ? Please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and comments. To perform a double-blind test, names of the files are not given in order to guarantee an « impartiality » of the listener ! However, I’ve tried to get the settings as closed as possible. Indeed, the settings can’t be perfectly matched due to the fact that the « window’s size » differs from one to the other. The comparison performed is not strictly speaking « scientifically based ». Treatment with MixBus has been performed without the compressor. Hereafter are 2 different sound samples on which identical values have been applied using the MixBus’s EQ and the Universal Audio version. Let’s now jump of the most relevant aspect to be considered : the sound. One may argue that an audio engineer should not perform an equalization based on numbers, however, it seems obvious that having the numerical values displayed would be of large interest especially when ones deals with the MixBus that have very small pots. It provides professional-level features to. The fact that both MixBus 32C and UAD do not display neither the frequency selected nor the gain represents a « evident disadvantage ». This is a full-featured workstation with a recreation of the Harrison 32C mixer. Mixbus itself is thus not opensource, as the mixer uses proprietary code developed by Harrison. Broadly speaking, it combines the existing Ardour recording and mixing functionality with a custom mixer. The pictures above represent the "real" size of the plugins window as they appear on a 24 inches display with a resolution of 1920 x 1080. Mixbus is a customised Mac OS X version of the opensource program Ardour (which, unlike Mixbus, is also available for the Linux platform). Those features make a real difference between the two. Compare price, features, and reviews of the software side-by-side to make the best choice for your. Obviously, MixBus consists of the whole channel-strip in a full software (and is not restricted to the EQ), while the UAD-2 plugin offers a simple EQ. The layout is displayed horizontally and show a lot more details. Nowadays, the larger size of the Universal Audio’s Plugin constitutes an asset. The 2 versions represent both the original hardware console. The Universal Audio version of this specific EQ is based on the technical specifications of the personal console owned by the famous Bruce Swedien himself ! (Mick Jagger, Duke Ellington, Donna Summer, B.B. This post describes the EQ only since Universal Audio has not released an emulation of the originally associated compressor present on the console’s channel-strip. The main difference (the only one ?) found consists in the emulation of the famous channel-strip of the Harrison mythical console. Harrison has released a special version of its software Mixbus, renamed Mixbus 32C.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |