Waves CLA MixHub - a game changer?

I didn’t pay a lot of attention to this at first, but watched this video tutorial and I think it looks really interesting. I’m still not clear on where you instantiate this “plugin” (?), but you can mix up to 64 tracks in your DAW with it. There are some cool features, but it also look like it may not work seamlessly in all DAWs. The Specs have exceptions for BandLab (Cakewalk) and Studio One, just certain features that won’t work in those. I’m curious if anyone has got this (just came out a few days ago IIRC) and tried it in Reaper. I’m particularly curious how the sidechain features work … if they work inside the plugin okay with Reaper. Waves shows Reaper 5 as a Supported Host (VST3) with no caveats.

I looked at the manual, so it’s saying you have to instantiate this plugin on every track in the session that you want to control with MixHub (makes sense). Then, I guess on any channel/track with the plugin, you can navigate to the “buckets” of 8 tracks, and other buckets. That’s where you’ll assign the tracks to buckets, and use the MixHub interface.

So to prep a session, you’ll be instantiating 64 plugins (if you use all slots), you’ll be naming your DAW tracks with 6 characters or less (due to limited space in Bucket View) or renaming them in MixHub to make sense, you’ll be assigning the 64 tracks to buckets, etc. It could be quite a bit of session setup, but I guess the idea is that you can then (somewhat) mix quickly like CLA with a console bucket at your fingertips.

Yeah I am wondering about it as well. I am running studio one so it may not matter.

1 Like

The plugin world is just chasing their own tail now. This is basically an “add-on” modifier for shitty D.A.W. layout and design, why not just create “Cla DAW” ?


Hah, looks cool… and it will dovetail seemlessly with the ‘mother of all controllers’ that i’m still 'er ‘designing’ in my head. By the time its done, Waves will probably have built their own. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


I think the real big game changer could be the preamps. If they got the impedance and non linearities modeled, they could finally have a plugin that could stick it to PA and UAD. But they would have really needed to get this right to be offering much that the SSL bundle doesn’t already have included imo. If this becomes part of the mercury bundle I’ll check it out! :slight_smile:

1 Like

I imagine its because CLA uses pro tools

1 Like

“Proudly made in New Joyzee.” :slightly_smiling_face:

On their website it says it’s included in Mercury, so I guess if you already have that you would get it for free (as an update)?

It’s supposed to be modeled from his console. I thought it was a clever way to capitalize on the “CLA mania” trend. That’s why I initially didn’t even give it a glance as I thought it was kind of a gimmick. That ooh-ahh stuff about CLA and his console doesn’t really grab me, it’s the design of the plugin I’m intrigued with. Is it really usable and effective, or the new toy for NAMM? Each channel strip lets you add an extra Waves plugin, so there’s that (if you have other Waves plugins). If you’d need other plugins on your tracks, then maybe this wouldn’t make much sense as you’d be going back and forth?

This is a product aiming at console workflow. I think the end result is that you’ll be navigating between regular DAW workflow and this quasi-console sim workflow. I wouldn’t like that.

1 Like

Right, it could have the benefits of both … but the workflow of neither. :tired_face:

1 Like

The Ooh Ahh of the Brainworx and UAD were worth paying top dollar to me. Because they added something I felt was truly extraordinary - namely nailing the key sonic characteristics I always loved about real SSL boards. But if Waves did it here, then they managed to do it at a fraction of the price. Those BX and UAD are VERY expensive!! However, they were such a workflow game changer that I’m glad I had them. They’ve gotten me to a finished sound I was totally happy with in a much more timely manner.

I didn’t have time to look at it in depth… I just got back from playing a really important concert - been traveling and only had my cell phone to keep up to speed with. I’ll be back in the office and mixing again tomorrow. Can’t wait to try it out!

This is the part I’m REALLY stumped with. I haven’t had any time with this yet, but I skimmed through the promo video that Stan posted.

Dude… the whole ‘console workflow’ thing in my opinion boils down to tactile control and ergonomic management of channels. If you want to talk about a ITB console workflow, that Slate Raven is the dang closest thing you can get without actually having a console. When I watch these videos, I thought about how much I’d miss reaching up and grabbing a fader if you took my board away. I mean… you’re still clicking around with a mouse! How is that ‘console workflow’???


What if I made a modular ‘bucket’ Midi Controller that matched and controlled that plugin EXACTLY?

I keep coming back to this point in my mind…

Every time I want to make a new controller, I want it to emulate a plugin, not emulate an analog console workflow generally.

Kind of the egg and the chicken situation.

Once they make the plugin (from the hardware), then I can make the controller to match the software.

8 motorized faders is do-able, faderport 8 is currently about $500.

1 Like

It’s trying to emulate a console, and it’s certainly trying to appeal to the console mindset, but yeah it’s really missing the tactile part (Paul’s keyword “aiming”). Unless …

If you had an 8-fader DAW controller mapped to that plugin, and were using the ‘console’ plugin almost exclusively, this whole thing might make some sense. Your DAW controller would then kind of be a mini-console. It would come close, perhaps, cost much less, take up a lot less space, and use tons less electricity. :slightly_smiling_face:

The cool thing about that idea is that you can map everything once, and only have to use a mouse for some specific DAW functions.

Pretty much the same idea as the Softube Console 1 then :slight_smile:

1 Like

Looks a bit like Harrison Mixbus 32c.

I dunno, I’m sure it’ll be good. I like Waves’ stuff. But given that you’ll almost certainly be having to navigate both this plugin and your DAW’s existing layout for other plugs (one insert per track is… not impossible, but might well be a limitation in many circumstances, even more so that it has to be a waves plugin - so you can’t substitute your favourite VST from another manufacturer) it strikes me that it’s an extra, probably unnecessary, layer of complication while mixing.

I do think there’s something to having a consistent EQ & compressor circuit available across every channel in a mix, and that it’s a workflow and mental clarity bonus. It doesn’t require a specific console to be modelled to give it any mystical mojo.


Yeah, that’s one thing I liked about it too.

That’s what I meant about the ooh-ahh stuff not grabbing me. It’s interesting, and dovetails with the Waves “Signature” line of products thing, but seems to tap into the “modeling - magic” marketing hype.

Need up being slammed in a time crunch last night to finish a mix… so I resorted to a template that didn’t have the mix hub on it. By the time I remembered I was gonna try it I was almost done lol. Gonna mess with it today for sure though :slight_smile:

1 Like

Ugh!!! My Mercury bundle expired in November. I may wait a good year to renew. Sorry guys…

I was really looking forward to doing a quick review of this thing, but because I have the Brainworx and UAD versions of the SSL channel strip, that mix hub is not worth paying $225 to update and add to Mercury bundle. They’re gonna have to add more than the CLA mix hub to their Mercury bundle to entice me to renew.

1 Like

No worries. :slightly_smiling_face: I was very curious about it, but I don’t think that anyone who chimed in was drooling over acquiring it. I guess my main interest, per the thread title … is could this be some kind of game changer for mixing-in-the-box, maybe even down the road as they match a DAW controller with it or something. What are the future prospects, and could it inform what we could look forward to. Or not.