Studio One 3.5.5 Update Released - 30 Jan 2018

[THE INTRANCER]

Here's something interesting for those looking to enhance the Midi features in Studio One which has just been linked to, today in a thread I posted 2 years ago about being able to invert notes in Studio One's piano roll editor over on the presonus forum. Quite an interesting topic / discussion on it here.

Anyway, here's the Note Utility VST to check out...
Thepiz.org / Plugins |Note Midi Utility Plugin

I haven't downloaded and tested this yet, but it's free and available for PC / Mac and cough...Linux

As for midi editing, other than being able to invert / flip notes, my own needs for anything exotic and dare I say over complex, isn't of great importance to me when it comes to midi editing unless it can be implemented with simplicity in ease of use.

There is really only one other aspect and this is something I've highlighted on many occasions over the past 3 years, and that's the ability to 'Set Predefined Rest Periods', or gaps between notes whilst using the step time recording feature. Basically what tracker programs have allowed since the 1990's. The existing rest button Studio One 3 / 3.5 has is just really tedious and interruptive to creative flow and speed in which to program fixed length rests, macro key mapped or not. I've had many tracks or portions of full track productions completely inspired by the use of the step time/recording feature, and just having that one little thing would make a huge difference in programming and producing music in the program...Anyway..time to test out the VST note utility I linked to above....in fact it's not just one plugin, it's a whole suite of plugins as it turns out....48 of them...

[daw.one]

I think one really can't compare Presonus with Steinberg. There will be many more developers working on Cubase than on Studio One, hence the development speed will be a entirely different one.

For me the version number, nor life cycle, nor development speed, determines if a product is good in its current state. That's all subjective to time. What I find more important is the implementation of new features. And that's where PreSonus really is failing to their own standards lately. Surprisingly, because their track record for well thought out solution actually was pretty good in the past.

I could give dozens of examples. The latest is the poor implementation of the double buffer system (dropout protection and low latency monitoring), but it might be a little complex to grasp. I could also rave about the combined console and arrangement history list, but users seem to want that kind of behavior, so it would be unfair to direct that to PreSonus (although I instantly think: Henry Ford and that “Faster Horse” quote). To keep it simple I'll stick to something straight forward, a selling point for version 3, the Arranger Track. A track specifically made to rapidly rearrange your arrangement by dragging around entire sections of your songs.... destructively.

I really don't understand why the PreSonus software team did not implement a playlist for the arrangement sections from the start. So it's non destructive, possible to easily save multiple arrangement of the same song, possible to repeat sections etc. etc.
If that was finished with an option to export an arranger playlist as (stem) mixdown, new song or new section, it would actually be something useful and on par with today's standard and a real asset for users. Currently it's just a folder track with predefined ranges in a list. A MIDI user would actually be better of to use a folder track + range tool and arrange with that. This is because unlike the Arranger Track sections, the range tool does respect Note on and Note off messages and therefor does not create new Note on and Note off messages by itself.

How was it again!?
The next standard. Instantly familiar—yet nothing feels like it.
I have to say, they lived up to that expectation with version 3.x. Studio One felt familiar—but then again nothing like it.

[THE INTRANCER]

Studio One's development is pretty much a 'vast but thinly spread approach', built upon layers like a cake, like icing between the layers. They know the ingredients of what's required, but they want to make it universally edible across different area's. Unfortunately, being thinly spread also means there's legacy in some area's that needs addressed. Impact, Sample One, and Mojito', being notable examples.

[kevvvvv]

One thing that is pretty damn good about S1 midi these days is the automation.

The Little Box with the Hand in the top left corner always sees what you're touching.

And then Hand drag the knob to be controlled, and hey voila, automation is ready to be recorded!

I know others daws do good midi control stuff, but S1's is so reliable, quick and accurate to use.

Markus Huyskens does a good tutorial on Hand automation for automating mix levels "on the fly". He suggested sending volume changes to Mixtool instead of a main console level slider. It's tidier and still leaves the console slider free for overall level adjustments, without "breaking" the automation sequence.

[kevvvvv]

THE INTRANCER

there's legacy in some area's that needs addressed. Impact, Sample One, and Mojito', being notable examples.

I don't think I'd be using any of those plugs no matter what Presonus did for them. Own synths are always the favourite.

But not so with many of the presonus effects plugs which are really good.

[Resonant- Serpent]

Markus Huyskens does a good tutorial on Hand automation for automating mix levels "on the fly". He suggested sending volume changes to Mixtool instead of a main console level slider. It's tidier and still leaves the console slider free for overall level adjustments, without "breaking" the automation sequence.

That's actually a great idea...

Going to give it a shot.

[THE INTRANCER]

THE INTRANCER

there's legacy in some area's that needs addressed. Impact, Sample One, and Mojito', being notable examples.

I don't think I'd be using any of those plugs no matter what Presonus did for them. Own synths are always the favourite.

But not so with many of the presonus effects plugs which are really good.

Well, I revealed some come concept designs of a few of them in the past six months, which they will know about, both here on KVR and their forum so they do have a reference in how they can possibly progress with them. Whether you use them or not, doesn't really matter but they do need to be updated. The same can be said of the effect devices, at least in terms of scaling is concerned and perhaps colour so there is more unity across the board.

[kevvvvv]

THE INTRANCER

at least in terms of scaling is concerned

That would be cool

I use S1 eq a lot. It'd nice to see it big.

Same with the delay unit or the multiband.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I understand why DAW makers have to do it, and that there are probably a lot of people coming into audio production for the first time, buying a DAW, and expecting lots of great built-in effects, synths, and samplers, but the idea of "look at all the new effects/instruments we added in the latest update" always irks me. These things are usually usable, but not fantastic, and they're almost always locked to that particular DAW. Anyone who has ever changed DAW's in their lifetime should recognize the value in cross-platform plugins (can I recreate this project created in DAW X in DAW Y if I ever switch).

Development resources are already limited and I'm much more inclined to upgrade for audio/MIDI/workflow features I'd actually use over the addition of a bunch of whiz-bang instruments and effects. Now, if they were to say, "hey, we got a licensing deal with U-he and we're including a copy of Hive with every instance of Studio One 4" or "we've included VocAlign in this update" I'd be all for that. However, I don't want to see limited development resources going to effects and instruments. Studio One already has a pretty comprehensive set of instruments and effects for beginners and if you need more, you should be looking at third-party plugins anyway.

Last thing, resizable UI's I'd be fine with. I believe the built-in effects will already scale up on 4k monitors, but again, I'd rather see the S1 team figure out how to get non-4k compatible plugins to scale up on UHD monitors/resolutions.

[THE INTRANCER]

I understand why DAW makers have to do it, and that there are probably a lot of people coming into audio production for the first time, buying a DAW, and expecting lots of great built-in effects, synths, and samplers, but the idea of "look at all the new effects/instruments we added in the latest update" always irks me. These things are usually usable, but not fantastic, and they're almost always locked to that particular DAW. Anyone who has ever changed DAW's in their lifetime should recognize the value in cross-platform plugins (can I recreate this project created in DAW X in DAW Y if I ever switch).

Development resources are already limited and I'm much more inclined to upgrade for audio/MIDI/workflow features I'd actually use over the addition of a bunch of whiz-bang instruments and effects. Now, if they were to say, "hey, we got a licensing deal with U-he and we're including a copy of Hive with every instance of Studio One 4" or "we've included VocAlign in this update" I'd be all for that. However, I don't want to see limited development resources going to effects and instruments. Studio One already has a pretty comprehensive set of instruments and effects for beginners and if you need more, you should be looking at third-party plugins anyway.

Last thing, resizable UI's I'd be fine with. I believe the built-in effects will already scale up on 4k monitors, but again, I'd rather see the S1 team figure out how to get non-4k compatible plugins to scale up on UHD monitors/resolutions.

I've probably got over 350 plugins by now, but I probably only use 10% of them out of that many which I consider the best for what I produce. Most of the native plugin's I don't use, because they fall short of my needs, because they are just too fiddly and small to work with, lack certain features or just old and need a total revamp. If they were given a revamp, I'd actually use them regularly... In 3 years I've only bought 3 commercial VST's, Native Instruments Rounds and Replika XT, and UHE's Hive. The updated Presence and Mai Tai is used on everything...despite all the plugin's and external synthesizers I have in my small studio setup.

The ideology that one needs to keep cross compatibility with daws that you might use in the future be that vie plugins to preserve a song is a nonsense in my eye's. Daws and the features they have are there to be made the most of to produce music at the time you produced it, preserved in a time and space of it's own. As you get older, the music you create will change and evolve with you..., so if you are constantly recycling your material, you're not really progressing, more regurgitating in effect.

I spent over 13 years with Propellerheads Reason and probably produced around 65 tracks with it.. and switched to another daw..not once did I ever feel the need to take my music from one daw to another. What's the point when I can load it in the daw I produced it in....

Most good third part VST instrument plugin's have patch library presets, they don't change when you move to another daw. If you're making a track based on one before, isn't it better to improve the track in the new daw you're using with better tools....

The plugin's in Studio One don't have a experience tag stamped on them, it doesn't matter if you are just 12 or 61. They are functional tools at the end of the day....for experienced producer or beginner alike.

All the midi editing and audio editing aspects are just another slice of the cake a daw provides, or just one part of the whole picture. It's just like a see-saw in a park, retaining a balance in the middle....So if it's lop sided, it's lop sided and there's no getting away from that.

[chk071]

THE INTRANCER

there's legacy in some area's that needs addressed. Impact, Sample One, and Mojito', being notable examples.

I don't think I'd be using any of those plugs no matter what Presonus did for them. Own synths are always the favourite.

I don't care much about the synths, but, i'd really like to have an update for Impact, which brings it at least remotely up to par with Groove Agent SE in Cubase.

[Guenon]

Daws and the features they have are there to be made the most of to produce music at the time you produced it, preserved in a time and space of it's own. As you get older, the music you create will change and evolve with you..., so if you are constantly recycling your material, you're not really progressing, more regurgitating in effect.

A point of view from someone who has a differing opinion : if you're doing music and/or sound design for a living, there's a good chance you will end up with a lot of custom instrument/fx patches for specific situations and for specific signal chains, and so on. You will most likely be called upon to produce material for related projects, or stylistically associated projects that might call for "your sound" from a previous work.

When that happens, it's often a case of what the client might want, and especially in those situations it's understandable to view all that custom stuff, ready to go, as a true asset, accumulated during several years of work. If most of that was locked into a particular DAW environment, it will discourage moving from the current environment to something else, even if the application happened to be constantly going to the wrong direction nowadays, or backfires in some other way. In my opinion it's nice to be able to migrate your main toolset just in case such a scenario arises, that is, a turn of events or a gradual development that ultimately makes you want to switch DAWs.

There's no right or wrong there, and I repeat, it's completely understandable from a professional point of view if a back catalog of patches/multis/whatever is a concrete asset to someone. Instead of, you know, "regurgitating" . I also think it would be quite a binary view if avoiding "recycling" and "regurgitating" meant you shouldn't use any of your previously built assets. The musical/aural end result is dependent on many more factors than whether you might have also pulled from your extensive bank of custom reverbs or delays or orchestral instrument multis or modular synth constructs or hundreds of custom made sampler instruments during the production. And so on and so on.

It's equally understandable if someone wants to stay as close as possible to the built-in tools of a particular DAW, never going 3rd party or doing so only when absolutely needed. There are some great electronic artists doing wild stuff with close to default installations of Live, for example. As always, preferences and needs differ.

[kevvvvv]

chk071

i'd really like to have an update for Impact, which brings it at least remotely up to par with Groove Agent SE in Cubase.

Actually that's not a bad idea. I use Presonus plugs for quickly mocking up ideas because they load fast, no fuss, no wait. So a better spec'd drum machine fits that bill nicely

[mauroiul]

4 mixed thought for the thread:

The only truth is tha this release was done for Sonar people and not S1 users.

I would love to have a daw with no whatsoever plug-in and softsynth. They should concentrate in workflow which is already an hard job.

In my opinion the propulsive spin to innovation has ended its cycle in S1 with 3.0

And finally, I want say that Ari is just an horrible person. Yesterday he kick me out from the fb presonus studio one group, where I gave my critic point of view in a civil and polite way. But he could not stand it, while all other people who keep insulting each other are free to do it...as long as you love S1

[ls1xxx]

Hoping for lots and I mean LOTS of Midi Editor improvements!