When comparing ReNoise 3.0 vs Harrison Mixbus, the Slant community recommends Harrison Mixbus for most people. In the question“What are the best DAWs? ” Harrison Mixbus is ranked 17th while ReNoise 3.0 is ranked 20th.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Requires minimum mouse input
Shortcuts and other methods are used in order to minimize the amount of work that users must do with a mouse. This can greatly increase the efficiency of a workflow.
Pro Very stable
DAWs are notorious for crashing, especially at the peak of a workflow. ReNoise 3 is known for its outstanding stability.
Pro Optimized for dual monitors
Users who have more than one monitor can view the sampler, plugins, and MIDI controls in the instrument editor, which can be moved to a second monitor.
Pro Uses a module tracker instead of piano roll
Module trackers are preferred by some users because they help increase productivity.
Pro Sophisticated effect modulation
ReNoise 3 offers a ridiculous amount of flexibility when it comes to automation. Instead automating by sliding points around, users can choose from an array of preloaded automation patterns in order to produce more interesting sounding patterns.
Pro Highly customizeable effect chains
Effects can be applied to samples in Instrument Editor in addition to being sent through track input. This is highly useful when dealing with multi-sample instruments, as each sample can have one or more effect chains.
Pro Limitless sampler
The sampler is deeply embedded in the way the whole DAW works, and it allows the user to build complex synth sounds with ease.
Pro Unique grid based tracker
ReNoise 3 replaces the typical piano roll with a tracker, which is claimed to be "the most powerful tracker in existence". The difference between piano roll and tracker is that piano roll moves horizontally, while trackers move vertically. Users may find this confusing at first, but trackers make it simple to customize every individual note.
Pro Fast yet intricate workflow
Building basic patterns (e.g. drums) from scratch is extremely fast and easy, and built-in effects commands allow for fine grain control that is difficult, time consuming or outright impossible in conventional DAWs.
Pro Vst support
Pro Program custom tools
Users can make their own instruments and effects using Lua .
Pro Advanced pattern command
The Pattern Command called "MaYbe" guesses which note will be next in a progression based on the user's habits.
Pro Has a great overall sound
Pro Great/intuitive interface
Many parts of the interface are designed as one function per control for ease and simplicity, and are modeled after physical consoles and mixer controls to further that end
Pro Based off of Ardour
Modified version of the open source Ardour DAW, with Harrison's proprietary interface and software tweaks
Pro In-Line/Built in analog summing
tube and transistor emulation, based on physical consoles made by Harrison
Pro Proprietary software that contributes to open source
provides features and bugfixes to upstream Ardour project, and also provides a portion of sales revenue to Ardour's development and administrative maintenance.
Pro Crossplatform
has support for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, for 32 and 64 bit. Works with CoreAudio, ASIO, and ALSA, as well as integrated 3rd party/open source routing software support, I.E. jackd on Windows and Linux.
Cons
Con Cannot record multiple tracks simultaneously
Live musicians are limited by only being able to record on one tracks at a time.
Con Interface can be confusing to people who's not familiar with trackers
Trackers are different from sequencing (arrangement) view (most DAWs) and session view (Ableton, Bitwig).
Con Closed source
Con No PulseAudio support
Without JACK or ALSA set up as your Linux sound system, audio will play from Renoise or from other applications, but not both at the same time.
Con Can't fully zoom in and see those eq knobs
Con Proprietary software
This software tramples your freedom.
Con Limited/buggy MIDI support
A problem inherited from Ardour dev base.