English français

Mixbus 32C vs UAD-2 Harrison 32C

Écrit par MixCorner le 15 février 2017, dans - Audio - Plugins - Test. | 1389 visites pour cet article.

Harrison has released a special version of its software Mixbus, renamed Mixbus 32C. The main difference (the only one ?) found consists in the emulation of the famous channel-strip of the Harrison mythical console. 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 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. King, Michael Jackson).

INTERFACES

The 2 versions represent both the original hardware console. Nowadays, the larger size of the Universal Audio’s Plugin constitutes an asset. The layout is displayed horizontally and show a lot more details.
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. Those features make a real difference between the two.

Mixbus 32C (EQ only)

UAD-2 Harrison 32C

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.

The fact that both MixBus 32C and UAD do not display neither the frequency selected nor the gain represents a « evident disadvantage ». 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.

SOUND SAMPLES

Let’s now jump of the most relevant aspect to be considered : the sound.
Hereafter are 2 different sound samples on which identical values have been applied using the MixBus’s EQ and the Universal Audio version.

IMPORTANT
Treatment with MixBus has been performed without the compressor.
The comparison performed is not strictly speaking « scientifically based ». Indeed, the settings can’t be perfectly matched due to the fact that the « window’s size » differs from one to the other. However, I’ve tried to get the settings as closed as possible.

To perform a double-blind test, names of the files are not given in order to guarantee an « impartiality » of the listener !
Which is the best sounding sample ? Can you really hear a difference ? Please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and comments. The reader will know (of course) the identity at a later stage in the comments.


Don’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.

Drums / Jazzy keyboard

Full mix

MixCorner




Vous voulez réagir ?

Ce forum est modéré a priori : votre contribution n’apparaîtra qu’après avoir été validée par un administrateur.

modération a priori

Ce forum est modéré a priori : votre contribution n’apparaîtra qu’après avoir été validée par un administrateur du site.

Qui êtes-vous ?
Votre message

Pour créer des paragraphes, laissez simplement des lignes vides.

4 commentaire(s)

Lorne Le 27/11/2017 à 03h36.

Both tracks sound good. I like the sound of 1 better. It has a defined gain stage which creates a more blended sound to my ears. Track 2 has more top end through the whole frequency rage. I would imagine this is from more dynamic range.

Répondre à ce message

Leon Le 8/11/2017 à 23h52.

Drums / Jazzy keyboard
1st track - UAD Harrison 32C
2nd track - Harrison Mixbus 3C

Full Mix
1st track - Harrison Mixbus 3C
2nd track - UAD Harrison 32C

Répondre à ce message

Anonyme Le 2/09/2017 à 20h50.

The 2nd one sounds better, cleaner and more robust

Répondre à ce message

richie Le 1er/09/2017 à 00h13.

So which is UAD, B ?

Répondre à ce message





Suivez nous !