You happy with Studio One 3?

[nIGhT-SoN]

Here we go again...
It was a decent discussion, hope remains the same.

[nostradamoose]

As for CPU efficiency ... if it's a problem that they need to address it's (imo) likely very low level and architectural or they'd have addressed it already, if it really needs fixing, which it may.

Hahahahaha, that post sums you up completely
If its a problem
If it really needs fixing
Which it may

It is a problem, it does need fixing, and no amount of shillary will stop that, it is more prevalent on OSX, but if you can't see the Resource issues, well it says way more about your ability to test than anything else !!

I read the same issues with users of Reason a while ago. I believe people were trying to use laptops as if they are desktops and expecting the same results. Mac systems have integrated graphics and memory in most of their older systems.

What are the system specs of the users reporting CPU efficiency?

Because there are plenty of Mac users using Studio One without the struggle. It does come down to CPU/RAM management and track/file bouncing. While having a good sense of plug-in latency and audio buffer management.

I believe most of these "reports" are coming from uninformed and improper expectations. I don't think a lot of people understand the extreme amount of high level calculations going on in real time and how to fully manage it.

[Guenon]

the extreme amount of high level calculations going on in real time and how to fully manage it.

You hit the nail on the head on that one. Apart from actual glitches (the sudden peaks some users have reported), a big part of the overall inefficiency is exactly that there is an extreme amount of high level calculations going on in real time in Studio One, all the time. More efficient hosts employ methods like precalculating much more things on the fly, alleviating the actual real time load of constantly calculating everything into the primary audio buffer (Reaper and Digital Performer, for example). The difference in performance is rather pronounced.

In my opinion, there are also issues in the way the routing architecture works and distributes the load: from the routing perspective, some things are designed so that they are only conveniently achieved using a Multi in Studio One, but everything inside a particular Multi is calculated on the same CPU core, maxing it prematurely. If they have updated that recently, that's news to me . If you don't need to make heavy routing constructs that need Multis, then it's not a problem, of course. That's why it's more of an "opinion".

Not that constructive to repeatedly argue that these things stem from "uninformed and improper expectations" and a general lack of understanding. Instead of debating it, anyone who is on the lookout for an efficient host for huge projects can just test it themselves. Being well-versed in working with such projects, you can build a large and heavy template, similar in functionality and content, in multiple DAWs and see which ones perform adequately to your own needs. Hey, chances are, they all do.

[SeeingInMidi]

All I need added is internal midi routing so I can ditch loopbe.

[nostradamoose]

the extreme amount of high level calculations going on in real time and how to fully manage it.

You hit the nail on the head on that one. Apart from actual glitches (the sudden peaks some users have reported), a big part of the overall inefficiency is exactly that there is an extreme amount of high level calculations going on in real time in Studio One, all the time. More efficient hosts employ methods like precalculating much more things on the fly, alleviating the actual real time load of constantly calculating everything into the primary audio buffer (Reaper and Digital Performer, for example). The difference in performance is rather pronounced.

In my opinion, there are also issues in the way the routing architecture works and distributes the load: from the routing perspective, some things are designed so that they are only conveniently achieved using a Multi in Studio One, but everything inside a particular Multi is calculated on the same CPU core, maxing it prematurely. If they have updated that recently, that's news to me . If you don't need to make heavy routing constructs that need Multis, then it's not a problem, of course. That's why it's more of an "opinion".

Not that constructive to repeatedly argue that these things stem from "uninformed and improper expectations" and a general lack of understanding. Instead of debating it, anyone who is on the lookout for an efficient host for huge projects can just test it themselves. Being well-versed in working with such projects, you can build a large and heavy template, similar in functionality and content, in multiple DAWs and see which ones perform adequately to your own needs. Hey, chances are, they all do.

There's only a small percentage of Mac users experiencing these so called "CPU spikes", which is probably 3rd party plug-in related anyway. It could also be their management of the tracks, cpu, memory, plug-ins and countless other things, such as the audio interface, drivers, buffer, system settings, etc. Which all stems from their system specs.

If you took a poll of the Mac users experiencing these so called "CPU issues", you'll probably find out that they are most likely using laptops or Mac minis. I'm going to guess that the systems also have integrated graphics with 4 gigs of shared memory. And the list goes on...

[LawrenceF]

As for CPU efficiency ... if it's a problem that they need to address it's (imo) likely very low level and architectural or they'd have addressed it already, if it really needs fixing, which it may.

Hahahahaha, that post sums you up completely
If its a problem
If it really needs fixing
Which it may

It is a problem, it does need fixing, and no amount of shillary will stop that, it is more prevalent on OSX, but if you can't see the Resource issues, well it says way more about your ability to test than anything else !!

And... there's Bungle right on cue, dredging up unnecessary drama. Your reply sums - you - up completely... including the obligatory hahahahaha's you sprinkle everywhere.

What I said is if - they - view it as a big problem, and they may or may not, I suppose they'll fix it. What you seem to completely miss is that these companies are businesses, not Internet chat rooms, and - sales - speaks more than forum arguments, about anything.

If their sales would decline because of any particular issue, I'd assume they'd look closer at it because the point of business is to make money, not to win an Internet popularity contest. If not, if sales are good, maybe not?

That goes for all of them btw... all the daw companies. The point is to sell product and make money and they all seem to be doing that.

[LawrenceF]

Not that constructive to repeatedly argue that these things stem from "uninformed and improper expectations" and a general lack of understanding. Instead of debating it, anyone who is on the lookout for an efficient host for huge projects can just test it themselves..

Exactly. When I say ... erhm... to paraphrase... "The thing has a literal 'on release day' demo. If you demo it and find that it's CPU efficiency is not what you require, don't buy it?" ... people jump on me for stating the clearly obvious.

I know it sucks for some, comparably speaking. There is no real doubt about that. What confuses me is why would anyone buy it if they know it will cause them to moan about it for 3 years... instead of buying something that performs better for an individuals need, from the multitude of other great choices out there?

Beats me. GAS I suppose. I demoed (for example) Bitwig. It didn't perform the way I needed it to in certain ways, so I didn't buy it so I have nothing to complain about in that regard. It's just one of quite a few apps out there that didn't do what I needed it to do. But I also get CPU spikes here with large sample sets. I live with it by regularly freezing and clearing up CPU. Life is often a compromise.

Honestly guys, if your daily thing is running tons of live VI's and you need a DAW to perform well for you on your system and the thing you demoed doesn't, just walk away, put it in your rear view.

[Guenon]

Honestly guys, if your daily thing is running tons of live VI's and you need a DAW to perform well for you on your system and the thing you demoed doesn't, just walk away, put it in your rear view.

+1

Strongly agree . In my own case, it wasn't exactly GAS, but a need to do some work in a more traditional DAW with a swift workflow. I had used Live for eight years, and still continue to use it to this day (in my opinion it's superb for a lot of creative audio/music stuff), but I wanted a composition/production platform for more trad work, in tandem with that. I liked Studio One a lot, and happily did quite a bit of commissions with it. The overall design and user experience mojo it had going for it, it has even more today. It's undoubtedly exactly the right DAW for many.

It's just that, in my own situation I was viewing it through those "it's still developing, give it some more time" glasses, all the while I was getting, slowly but surely, involved with projects I would have needed somewhat different features for. And, you know, exactly the ability to run those large VI rigs efficiently, and constantly growing Kontakt templates. I also wanted to be able to do even a bit more experimental routing also in my trad environment, and so on, and when v3 hit I was just "huh, okay so we have Multi now, that's Presonus' answer to these particular things", and stuff like that -- and it felt like the list of things I wasn't that cool with was growing longer and longer.

Then, after those years, I demoed alternatives and was shocked at how much better mileage I was getting, in my daily use. Being able to test for all the right things, so to speak, for what my current day use case had developed into, was a big part of that .

So that's my personal viewpoint on it, echoing Lawrence there. Take your time to demo, and really consider what you are getting right now, and if possible, what you are going to be using it for down the road. I emphasize, give Studio One a good long look also, it's definitely a great DAW!

[Guenon]

Especially if your specialty is singer songwriter type of material, or recording and mixing bands, and so on, needing solid and effortless take comping for those, juggling different ideas and drafts for song sections, things like that. In my opinion Studio One is at the top of the list of "must try" environments, then. It can be used for all sorts of material, but it shines for those types of workflows.

[.jon]

I'm happy with Studio One 3, thanks for asking!

I think it's a DAW of sorts, I've never even seen a video of it, but still it makes me very happy. Studio One forever!

[Guenon]

[billcarroll]

I keep running into CPU hungry plugins that I really love, and Studio One's track transform is such a killer feature to help mitigate CPU overload. So, yeah, pretty happy with Studio One for this reason alone. Lot's of other killer features there too.

However, if Cubase 9 introduces track transform, all bets are off.

[bungle]

Absolutely brilliant, typical Studio One fanbois thread
Bungle you suck
CPU spikes are caused by uninformed users

Get in there, you couldn't have pre planned this thread better if you had tried, oh wait, you did !!

Oh and Lawrence, i would rather sprinkle hahahahas, than that excuse for knowledge passive aggressive crap you sprawl everywhere you go, there is a reason your name is a joke over at the Reaper forum......hahahahahaha (There ya go, your day is complete)

[Guenon]

Bungle, as frustrating it is to read stuff like that ("uninformed users" etc -- my pet peeve as well, when ever hinted at being one, having lectured on these subjects, built and used audio workstations and tweaked plugins all the way from the very first VST plugin ever released, haha), I think it's better to respond appropriately instead of getting personal.

I know I'm not considering going back to Studio One, too many negatives for my uses. Personally, I would feel restricted and not getting my money's worth if I kept using it. Still, 1) objectively it's very capable, and used to its strengths it's great, so everyone should try and evaluate it for themselves, and 2) this doesn't mean my use case is somehow superior, as in "ohh I'm not touching that DAW, but maybe it's enough for your puny needs." It's easy to interpret stuff in that manner, especially in a thread with somewhat heated discussion sprinkled in ^ like above. Instead, just different needs, nothing more.

I think that quite covers it on my part, back to work

[nIGhT-SoN]

Bungle, the problem is not what you say but how you say it. No one says you are wrong, but still you hit them as hard as you can. Some users are having problems with cpu spikes and Studio One clearly has some problems with managing more cores in comparison with Bitwig cause that I was able to test. I've already stated this so many times. But I still use it because of workflow. You have to take into account that some people don't have the same problems as you and you can't expect them to say they have a problem if they don't have one.

I don't have anything personal with you, but everywhere there is a thread about Studio One you join and say the same things in the same way, it feels a little like you are frustrated with Studio One and you try to bash it as much as possible. I would love to have a more decent discussion where you express your opinion without including "Studio One fanboism" or things like that. I don't think there are people that have a lot of problems and can't use Studio One but still they praise it and PreSonus.