First, to explain Mixbus a bit. Apart from the custom eq and comp per channel, you get 4 bus channels and a master channel that come with a tape saturator by default. I don't now exactly what tap reel they're modeling, but anyway, it does the usual distort a bit if it's too loud deal. The sound coming out of it sounds natural and generally produces acceptable results. Notice that tape sat is only on bus and master.
With 32C, which is positioned as their "advanced" line, you get 12 bus channels in all, so you can create more complex bus groupings and also are able to take advantage of the tape sat on each of the bus channels. The tape sat is not the coolest I've heard. It's quite nuanced, so you while you can pick up some distortion when it's driven strong, generally it's not much of an "in yo face" effect. Anyway, with 32C update, you get more bus channesl, and then a new EQ model per channel based on the 32c console.
The 32C console EQ modeling as far as I can hear is an improvement over whatever the EQ model Harrison used for Mixbus 3. It's more intuitively controllable, and also has a stronger audible effect. But in reality, can I achieve the same effect with a different EQ? With careful listening, probably. But in general, I do like the 32C eq's characteristic. It's generally good a producing well defined low end for those kicks, and can get bass lines to contribute to the harmony without mucking the low end, and maintaining good body. Not that no other EQ can achieve this. I think I can dial any EQ to do this, but it's just more intuitive with the 32C EQ.
So basically, with the whole Mixbus thing, you get tape sat and channel EQ and comp. 32C gives you a variation on the EQ, and more bus channels so you can use more tape sat. It's not a package you'd want to do tracking in. It's purely good for mixing stems. (since it's based on Ardour..) But generally, I feel like Mixbus or 32C is built by people who know mixing very well, and the product really works WITH you as you're making mixing decisions. I like the results coming out of it with me simply mixing "along" how the mixer responds. Sort of pushes you to make good decisions. It's definitely not the end all, but it's fun to mix on a desk built by people who understand mixing. That's a rare find. The tape sat won't make or break the deal, its impact on the sound is much too nuanced. Actually, coming to think about it, the mixer layout (which is great) is actually very similar to the STM1632 mixer, or whatever it's called.
- 32cmixer.JPG (416.98 KiB) Viewed 3207 times
How much of a CPU hit is there when "every resistor, capacitor, and transistor was modeled" with "DSP". 
(Sounds like a good candidate for a Scope device, or do we already have one, oh yeah, whatever it's called ...?). 
, that is to say, musicians that “dare” to get into the mixing world because they love it, but don’t have a clue about “scholastic maters” in terms of mixing! So, even if I contradict the formal orthodox school of mixing, I would say that Mixbus is not the best way for a “musician” to feel comfortable at mixing. I tried it for a while but did not like it. I don’t either like the fact that in all channels EQs are exactly the same. I think it is better to have different options for different needs. Yes, I know most real analogue consoles have exactly that! There is a goal for consistency, and as I have said, this is great to achieve reliability, but it is at the same time like eating every day the same thing... I don’t feel any more in that spot. I think “mixing tradition” itself have been modified as a paradigm for people like me, so even if I wanted to reach a while ago the “pro realm” so to say, I today prefer no official or traditional ways for tailoring sounds, making music and working in final mixes. I kind of like the crazy possibilities of mixing free from the norms of the analogue world, into the digital world.
