Hello, is this normal for studio one on mac?

[Zexila]

Studio One on the windows machine my husband built for me, performs better than Logic on my new mac,

Obviously, because you are comparing two totally different machines, OS-es and DAW's.

[jens]

Studio One on the windows machine my husband built for me, performs better than Logic on my new mac, as in, it feels faster and I seem to get more plugins on it. All my bought plugins are for both mac and windows, therefore I am able to directly compare.

if I want to compare Studio One to other "DAW"s, I do that on the SAME machine. Here is performs extremely poorly compared to:

- Sonar

- Reaper

- Tracktion

- Harrison Mixbus / Ardour


Its performance is ridiculously bad. I could use it, just not while using the same plugins and the same low latency I am used to and my system is otherwise well capable of.

[chk071]

if I want to compare Studio One to other "DAW"s, I do that on the SAME machine.

How are you supposed to compare a DAW on a Mac, or a PC, unless you want to go the Bootcamp way, or build a Hackintosh?

At the very least, i see a clear case of YMMV here, regarding S1's performance on PC's (can't comment on Mac in the lack of one).

[Zexila]

if I want to compare Studio One to other "DAW"s, I do that on the SAME machine.

How are you supposed to compare a DAW on a Mac, and a PC, unless you want to go the Bootcamp way, or build a Hackintosh?

At the very least, i see a clear case of YMMV here, regarding S1's performance on PC's (can't comment on Mac's in the lack of one).

He compared different DAW's on same machine and than named all the DAW's that had better performance than S1 on the same machine with same setup, think you didn't understand his response.

To answer the actual question, yes, Bootcamp or Hackinttosh.

It's really not rocket science, you try to do fair stress test on same machine with different DAW's (same OS in this case) using same plugins and buffers, than start overloading and taking the notes, more efficient ones will last longer and will hold up better, easy as that, some DAW's behave horrible close to overload, some are such an good champs, but you can see difference very quickly.

Again this just proves one thing, which DAW is more efficient, personal preferences and everything else, some don't care, some do, both are valid and should be considerate to each other, but one thing is sure, if one DAW is using more resources than other, that's how it is.

[chk071]

if I want to compare Studio One to other "DAW"s, I do that on the SAME machine.

How are you supposed to compare a DAW on a Mac, and a PC, unless you want to go the Bootcamp way, or build a Hackintosh?

At the very least, i see a clear case of YMMV here, regarding S1's performance on PC's (can't comment on Mac's in the lack of one).

He compared different DAW's on same machine and than named all the DAW's that had better performance than S1 on the same machine with same setup, think you didn't understand his response.

You both claimed that comparisons tests, to be valid, have to be performed on the same machine. Which isn't possible without running Bootcamp, or building a Mac, which will be something the typical Mac or PC user won't do. So how is the OP supposed to make a statement if she doesn't do that? Saying that Studio One doesn't perform bad on another PC she has, is totally valid in my eyes. The issue with this thing is that people think there is a general problem, because a couple of people have the problem. It's like a bug which occurs on my computer, and i automatically say it is a buggy piece of software, because a bug occured on my computer. I could be the only one with the bug. I could be among a few people who happen to have the bug. I could be among a lot of people who happen to have the bug. Or i could be among literally everybody, who happen to have the bug. See where this leads to?

Frankly, the way i see it, Studio One wouldn't be as popular as it is, and used by people in the industry, if it was generally a POS in terms of performance. I don't know whether that is true or not, it's just my common sense telling me so. I'm sorry for the people who are having performance issues with it, but, i fail to convince myself that EVERYONE has performance issues. I don't see much of a difference here, comparing it to Cubase, on the same machine, for example. Granted, i didn't try massively big projects with it, but i have my doubts that it completely breaks down doing so. IMO, it depends on the used hardware, and, ESPECIALLY, on the used instruments.

Reminds me a bit of what i just read in another thread BTW: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 1#p6722691

Someone recommending not to go with Ableton on PC, because it's "very unstable". First time i read that TBH, and it surely doesn't seem to hold true for other people posting in that thread.

[Zexila]

if I want to compare Studio One to other "DAW"s, I do that on the SAME machine.

How are you supposed to compare a DAW on a Mac, and a PC, unless you want to go the Bootcamp way, or build a Hackintosh?

At the very least, i see a clear case of YMMV here, regarding S1's performance on PC's (can't comment on Mac's in the lack of one).

He compared different DAW's on same machine and than named all the DAW's that had better performance than S1 on the same machine with same setup, think you didn't understand his response.

You both claimed that comparisons tests, to be valid, have to be performed on the same machine. Which isn't possible without running Bootcamp, or building a Mac, which will be something the typical Mac or PC user won't do. So how is the OP supposed to make a statement if she doesn't do that? Saying that Studio One doesn't perform bad on another PC she has, is totally valid in my eyes. The issue with this thing is that people think there is a general problem, because a couple of people have the problem. It's like a bug which occurs on my computer, and i automatically say it is a buggy piece of software, because a bug occured on my computer. I could be the only one with the bug. I could be among a few people who happen to have the bug. I could be among a lot of people who happen to have the bug. Or i could be among literally everybody, who happen to have the bug. See where this leads to?

She comapred S1 on desktop PC running Windows to Logic on MacBook running OS X, we pointed out possible flaw in that test and how to approach it to make it more fair.

If one wants to find out how different DAW's behave on same machine with same OS, than he needs to proceed like jens did, that's all that is said, only way to find out how different DAW's behave on your system really.

Well, you do know that Apple makes same computers for everyone and system is pretty much there for end user, so quickly arguments on user error become non valid and we should face the ugly truth, which is happening by now, plenty of folks got problems, so it's not coincidence.

Thread title is clear and answer is clear, yes it's normal for S1 on OS X and other folks are reporting their findings on Windows, including you, don't know what is all fuss about suddenly, this place is really over the top sometimes.

[Amelia70]

Hi again everyone, thank you for your help. New day, new results.

I'll touch first on the "latent plugin" topic if that's ok. All I ask is that I am corrected if I am misunderstanding it. I ended up spending two hours researching it after I logged off here last night, rather than go to bed. Someone was unhappy with me

The way I understand it, is that certain plugins add an actual delay to the audio signal path, but the DAWs I use have a function that automatically compensates for this on playback. If i were to put these plugins in a "live stream", they would add that delay to the monitoring delay, but on playback, the DAW does all the work. Is this correct so far?
So I am presuming, what is happening in Logic is that the automation is not being compensated for along with the plug in latency.
Am I on the right track?

That seems to be a pretty serious problem, as I did some digging, and many plugins have latency. Rita has been pushing me to get something called a UAD card as she uses one heavily, but I discovered on their website that these plugins cause massive latency! I asked her how she does with automation timing when using those plugins, and she said she hasn't noticed many issues. So either I am hearing things, or her ears just aren't as in tune as mine. However, I literally visually watched the automaton parameters on the plugin interface, moving late.. Not only do I hear it, i can see it with my eyes, So I can't be imagining it, can I?

As far as the machine testing. My windows machine is less powerful than Rita's Mac, and about on par with my macbook. So yes, even though they are different OSES, my macbook pro is using as my husband puts it, "the latest generation of intel processor", where my windows machine is a much older generation. I just don't have performance issues with S1 on Windows, and I downloaded a demo of Sonar to load on the same PC as my Studio One, and Studio one is beating it ever so slightly for plugin count. So Jens, you said Sonar beats S1, but on my machine, it doesn't. I used only the same vst plugins on both Sonar and Studio One when I tested that this morning.

Macs should have less of a variance, I would presume, as they are all manufactured from the same place. I have no choice but to use an operating system called Sierra on mine, and I don't know if that's supposed to be a good one for DAW performance.

[jens]

https://documentation.apple.com/en/logi ... tasks=true

[jens]

As far as the machine testing. My windows machine is less powerful than Rita's Mac, and about on par with my macbook. So yes, even though they are different OSES, my macbook pro is using as my husband puts it, "the latest generation of intel processor", where my windows machine is a much older generation.

but it's not just about the CPU - there's a whole lot of other factors which affect a computer's audio-performance.

Besides, CPU performance is not at all just about what generation the chip belongs to - and also not just about whether it is i3, i5 or i7 (or whatever else). There are i5 CPUs that outperform some i7 CPUs even of the same Generation. Without actually looking into benchmarks and stuff you can't know how your CPU performs compared to any other - and what your husband apparently has told you does not AT ALL sound like he ever did that (or even would have much of an idea where and how to look) - just because he is a guy it doesn't automatically mean he knows more about computers than you do - don't trust him!

edit: and are both machines even set to the same latency?

[Zexila]

Besides, CPU performance is not at all just about what generation the chip belongs to - and also not just about whether it is i3, i5 or i7 (or whatever else). There are i5 CPUs that outperform some i7 CPUs even of the same Generation. Without actually looking into benchmarks and stuff you can't know how your CPU performs compared to any other

Exactly, because most of the Macbooks/laptops i5/i7's are actually dual cores, there's quad cores too, but price is up there too, so yeah, most of the tests are flawed from the root and just proves personal preference, but test's like this shouldn't be about that, but about actual performance and numbers and some variables should be satisfied to have fair one, so that could have any merit whatsoever.

Macs should have less of a variance, I would presume, as they are all manufactured from the same place. I have no choice but to use an operating system called Sierra on mine, and I don't know if that's supposed to be a good one for DAW performance.

Exactly, it's hard to blame user or other sides hardware/software if you coded stuff to work on that same hardware supported by appropriate software (OS), that's why any company just doesn't have much of an argument for OS X failures, they are coding for actual OS that fully supports actual hardware, there's not much variables there, OS X works on that hardware and plenty of good coded software also, if all software failed, sure, but if not, than it's you really, other guys did it.

Well, if some OS X version isn't good for DAW performance, than all DAW's will suffer, but that numbers aren't that big, as are numbers between one software that is coded good and one that isn't, like it's case now with S1 on OS X, Logic, Cubase and Reaper outperforms it, so it's not OS X fault.

[incubus]

Comparing performance on the same machine? What kinda crack are you on?

Wait, probably the same crack that people that can't figure out S1 is flawed in CPU use for a great many people

[jens]

Incredible - they did it!

They listened and finally managed to dramatically improve the audio engine for the new 3.5 update. At least on my (Win 10) machine Studio One can now almost compete with Reaper in this regard. It's a day and night difference - and then some.

[jancivil]

if I want to compare Studio One to other "DAW"s, I do that on the SAME machine.

How are you supposed to compare a DAW on a Mac, and a PC, unless you want to go the Bootcamp way, or build a Hackintosh?

At the very least, i see a clear case of YMMV here, regarding S1's performance on PC's (can't comment on Mac's in the lack of one).

He compared different DAW's on same machine and than named all the DAW's that had better performance than S1 on the same machine with same setup, think you didn't understand his response.

You both claimed that comparisons tests, to be valid, have to be performed on the same machine.

She comapred S1 on desktop PC running Windows to Logic on MacBook running OS X, we pointed out possible flaw in that test and how to approach it to make it more fair.

If one wants to find out how different DAW's behave on same machine with same OS, than he needs to proceed like jens did, that's all that is said, only way to find out how different DAW's behave on your system really.

Well, you do know that Apple makes same computers for everyone and system is pretty much there for end user, so quickly arguments on user error become non valid and we should face the ugly truth, which is happening by now, plenty of folks got problems, so it's not coincidence.

She compared a computer her husband had built with a factory machine, additionally. And the former may be just very well optimized for the job while her Mac may have a lot of garbage on it. No, as a *test*, that has no credibility. Logic is reported by too many people as being more efficient than everything else, so Logic on a Mac being particularly poor is a little suspect to me.

[incubus]

That's not quite fair.

a) it's been improved and kudos.

b) the op/etc had a reason to bitch.

So not sure, what that is about. Jens bumped this stating the obvious update, it is what it is at this point.

Again, kudos. I'm not going to use it, but FFS, it's terrific that they listened and got 'er done so to speak.