On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Len Ovens <len@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If the
> reaper plus plugins plus more mixing time sounds better it says not so
> much. The mixes were pretty close.
Oddly (to me, anyway), they chose to put some "third-party mastering plugin"
in the Mixbus chain. For me, some of MB's strengths are its mastering EQ and
and the lovely compressors, which have helped me do some decent mastering on
my mixes, though I am NOT a mastering engineer. I didn't hear him say which
plugin was used, nor whether it's the same one used in Reaper.
Aside from the fact that I think the 'shootout' isn't going to show
anything, he starts with trying to compare apples to apples, then rubs
a bunch of orange flavor on apple A and a bunch of grape flavor on apple B
with the plugins, and thinks he'll still have a valid comparison.
The mixes weren't too far off from what I could tell, but a YouTube video is
not condusive to A/B testing.
> There is no mention of workflow. Experience is big, I have done all my
> work on Ardour and when I open up anything else I don't know where to
> start.
I think the biggest thing that this proves is that despite being new to
Mixbus, he was able to come up with a mix pretty quickly that rivals what
he got from Reaper, which he's been using for years. No matter which gets
chosen as "sounding better," Mixbus is already a winner.
I've been using Ardour almost exclusively since the 0.9x days. One of the
biggest things that turned me into a Mixbus user was that my workflow hardly
changed at all. The transition was really easy, plus my sessions imported
nicely!
Anyway, nice publicity for MB.
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
