[PreSonus Studio One] Music | Design | Film | VFX Production Resource

[daw.one]

MIDI functionality was one of those big ones, foremost the way you can't route one midi source to multiple destinations. That's one of those surprising limitations in a modern DAW that I would imagine 4.0 will address, along with a couple of other similar routing barriers.

They've tried to address it with Direct Inputs for Instruments in version 3.3. Basically it gives you the opportunity to send MIDI from one VST or External device directly to other (VST) Instruments without the need of an armed Instrument track in between. Direct Input alone is much more powerful than the Multi Instrument when it comes to MIDI because it can transmit data over all available MIDI output channels. But in the tradition of we-build-nice-ideas-but-forget-to-finish-or-thoroughly-test them, they forgot to make Direct Input available to Inserts that are able to send and receive MIDI and there's no PDC applied to MIDI data from plugin to plugin.

[Kalamata Kid]

MIDI functionality was one of those big ones, foremost the way you can't route one midi source to multiple destinations. That's one of those surprising limitations in a modern DAW that I would imagine 4.0 will address, along with a couple of other similar routing barriers.

They've tried to address it with Direct Inputs for Instruments in version 3.3. Basically it gives you the opportunity to send MIDI from one VST or External device directly to other (VST) Instruments without the need of an armed Instrument track in between. Direct Input alone is much more powerful than the Multi Instrument when it comes to MIDI because it can transmit data over all available MIDI output channels. But in the tradition of we-build-nice-ideas-but-forget-to-finish-or-thoroughly-test them, they forgot to make Direct Input available to Inserts that are able to send and receive MIDI and there's no PDC applied to MIDI data from plugin to plugin.

I agree.
There are many VST midi fx available so we need a better way to integrate them in S1 like you said without "an armed Instrument track in between".

As for Multi-Instruments I will like to see it to be more like Bidule or FL Studio Patcher. I currently use Bidule as an In which allows me to do all kinds of midi routing.
Biduel
https://www.plogue.com/products/bidule/
FL Studio Patcher
https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... atcher.htm

[Kalamata Kid]

For me, I hope 4.0 is just as much about catching up to Cubase on the MIDI side of the house as 3.0-3.5 was about catching up to Pro Tools on the audio side.

So specifically, MIDI features like:

1. Sending receiving multiple MIDI channels on 1 instrument track (Omni or All channel mode, basic MPE compatibility)
2. Drum Editor
3. Smart tool for MIDI
4. Coloring notes in the PRV by velocity
5. A basic Staff editor (even if it's a paid add-on or requires a Notion license, but no Rewire)
6. MIDI Input Transformer/Logical Editor
7. MIDI Event List
8. An Articulation Editor
9. Polyphonic aftertouch

Great list!!!
My slightly modified list
1. Sending receiving multiple MIDI channels on 1 instrument track (Omni or All channel mode, basic MPE compatibility)
2. Drum Editor
3. Smart tool for MIDI
4. Coloring notes in the PRV by velocity
5. A basic Staff editor (even if it's a paid add-on or requires a Notion license, but no Rewire)
6. MIDI Input Transformer/Logical Editor and TRANSFORMER. BUT EASIER TO USE THAN IN CUBASE.
7. MIDI Event List WITH GRAPHS, EDITABLE
8. An Articulation Editor
9. Polyphonic aftertouch
10 CREATIVE MIDI FX
11 TO BE ABLE TO USE THIRD PARTY VST MIDI FX WITH OUT HAVING TO USE AN ADDITIONAL TRACK

[tapiodmitriyevich]

Studio One user. I want excellent modulation as in Bitwig. It is not existing in S1 at all. This opens up for unmatched possibilities in sound design. You can add LFOs etc. to any vsts setting, which is exposed to the DAW.

[jonljacobi]

Studio One user. I want excellent modulation as in Bitwig. It is not existing in S1 at all. This opens up for unmatched possibilities in sound design. You can add LFOs etc. to any vsts setting, which is exposed to the DAW.

I'd be shocked if they went anywhere near something like that. As far as I know, only Bitwig and Mulab have the modular framework to support something like that. Perhaps Live. I'm sure someone will chime in if there are others.

[THE INTRANCER]

Studio One user. I want excellent modulation as in Bitwig. It is not existing in S1 at all. This opens up for unmatched possibilities in sound design. You can add LFOs etc. to any vsts setting, which is exposed to the DAW.

Interesting to see Bitwig approaches the modulation aspect, although modulation isn't really an aspect that Studio One has overlooked with their own instruments. Having a modulation device would probably follow on from the Instrument FX devices if it were to go that route.

The modulation control aspect in Studio One is something I integrated with in my own idea I put together, it's from a different angle and based upon a Nodal System. There's details of it here where I originally posted it.




__
The Nodal System

The advantages of a node approach over the conventional workspace system we are use to in Studio One 3 / 3.5, is that tracks can be both controlled on a horizontal and vertical basis within a node environment system, independently or in conjunction with the normal sequencing arrangement.

On a vertical basis, it allows tracks within the main sequencer to be organised simply and quickly without having to dive into the sequencer, zooming in and out, and dragging up and down. With the node system, tracks can be re-configured and include an ID which is assigned to them.

The single or grouped tracks within a container node can be reorganised by colour, alphabetically or data-type - eg wave data, note data, automation data etc at track level. This organisation happens in a non destructive way inside the node environment and allows the user complete freedom in how they want to present the track at node level which you typically have with node based systems.

Nodes themselves can be re-configured themselves when selected, presented in different patterns and be save as a user preset. The track node organisation parts can then be then transferred to the main sequencer. The node environment is really split into two parts of which either one or both can be displayed..vie a click of a button. 'The Nodal Track Manager' or 'NTM' and the 'NSM' the Nodal Sequence Manager, the latter of which, I'll come to next.

__

The nodal sequence manager, or 'NSM', works on a horizontal plane but of course can be viewed in any way you wish to display it. When tracks are copied over to the node environment, the clips / events on those tracks are then represented as individual nodes connected by lines and I/O points.
The type of data a clip/event contains is identified on each and every node vie a pictorial image and represented colour.

As you can imagine, configuring and managing how these clip/events nodes can be organised to playback, provides more flexibility for the composer. You are also able to access the data contained within the node which you can then edit as you normally would but in the safety of the node framework environment.


The difference between the node system and that of the scratch pad system which follows the similar non-destructive editing process is that you have an overview and complete connectivity system in which to connect and playback parts or sections of track in any way which you desire. Split and set up different playback timings for each node to play back, and to trigger other nodes to stop or play, change the volume, speed up or down, apply volume curves and any other possible parameters which are difficult, time consuming or impossible to do conventionally.

The node system would contain a panel with sliders for controlling how these each of nodes would function as well as vector curve and line displays.

The play position mark of a node or connected nodes is indicated by a descending bar to indicate the time left, (or point in time it is currently) and optionally a numerical value and total time.

A Node Control Track would be transferred to the main sequencer track if nodes are copied from the node environment, with various options such as overriding any other similar sequence data.


The node system provides a different but familiar framework to manage and compose in for a user in essence and new ways to work if they so desire, in perhaps a quicker and more flexible way.

[tapiodmitriyevich]

Intrancer, will read your ideas later.
Modulation for any instruments,
that is the benefit. Also, Bitwig has more modulation sources than the ones which instruments typically have.

I'd be shocked if they went anywhere near something like that.

Why? It opens for more possibilities in this rather traditional DAW. Options are good.
I think, like traditional automation, modulation is something very natural. Something I am surprised not any DAW to have.
I always thought there are strong limitations on the MIDI side, but then saw what Bitwig is capable of.

[EnochLight]

I have redesigned 3 of the instruments and presented them on their forum and their facebook pages over the past couple of years to give them idea's in how they could adapt similar idea's. They have included Impact XT, Sample One XT, & Mojito XT..

ScottyM!!! Holy crap, I had no idea that was you (The Intrancer). The ideas you had above look pretty good. A marked improvement over this gem, for sure:

[chk071]

I'd be shocked if they went anywhere near something like that.

Why? It opens for more possibilities in this rather traditional DAW. Options are good.

On the other hand, a DAW should have a consequent concept, because that's what people buy it for (and what originally attracted them to it). I couldn't imagine Cubase being like Live or Bitwig, for example. And many people, professionals, and studios, would probably be like "Wut??" if they implemented Live- or Bitwig-esque stuff like the modulation system you posted. And vice versa.

[tapiodmitriyevich]

chk071 I see what you mean. But from my pov a modulation system offered from DAW side does do no harm to an existing concept. I do not see a concept change at all.

- Modulation is in their instruments, it already happens
- Automatic knob and slider movement vs manual one (automation lanes) - the automatic one is still operated by me.

[THE INTRANCER]

ScottyM!!! Holy crap, I had no idea that was you (The Intrancer). The ideas you had above look pretty good. A marked improvement over this gem, for sure:

I'm never far away EnochLight ,the image you posted was an early 3D concept idea with base colours...as you'll remember the model did develop in quite a big way back in 2013. CYCLORAZER 3D Instrument Concept

[bundoo]

ive had s13 for ages but only just got into it...very nice program

id really like the frequency analyser to be embedded in the pro-eq

yep make presence open to edit...although nobody asks the same for halion so really thats a bit cheeky

duplicate using selected area rather than intelligent duplicate...

pitch manipulation is a must...timestretch tape algorhythm....resizing...

and MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO HIDE THE TRANSPORT!!! takes up unnecessary space...

drum editor

draw on waveform

its quite amazing to see the development of s1 over the last 10 years though...come a long long way

[GrabtharsHammer]

+1 for Drum Editor

Also I don‘t like that the freeze mode resets the faders to zero. Would be better to have the option to freeze pre-fader.

[daw.one]

yep make presence open to edit...although nobody asks the same for halion so really thats a bit cheeky

People asked for it continuously since the release of Halion 4. Steinberg stated it has to do with copyrights.

[bundoo]

yep make presence open to edit...although nobody asks the same for halion so really thats a bit cheeky

People asked for it continuously since the release of Halion 4. Steinberg stated it has to do with copyrights.

I mean that Halion CAN be edited in terms of sounds etc but Halion SE can't be

Presence is like Halion SE as far as I can see.