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

Audio Plugin Hosts and other audio software applications discussion
Locked New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS
Studio One Professional

Post

ATS wrote:
jonljacobi wrote:A new, simpler look would definitely be in order. More focused context menus. No tiny icons.

We don't need a whole 4.0 update for just that!
True. The word I get when I talk to them is that they like the interface the way it is.

Post

jonljacobi wrote:
ATS wrote:
jonljacobi wrote:A new, simpler look would definitely be in order. More focused context menus. No tiny icons.

We don't need a whole 4.0 update for just that!
True. The word I get when I talk to them is that they like the interface the way it is so don't expect much.

Post

antic604 wrote:
Riansky wrote:
Why don't you use "Duplicate Shared" (Shift+D) function, it does exactly that: duplicates a clip linking it to the original so that any changes made to it are refected in duplicate(s).
Because you are still duplicating. Its way easier to just grab a clip and drag it.
Sure, but I'm talking about Shift+D and not Ctrl+D. The latter duplicated, but the former also links the clips, so changing the source updates all the duplicates. That's something that Ableton doesn't have - you can loop clips there, but if you need to have empty spaces or other clips the loop won't help.
Excellent; I look forward to using that feature.

Within Studio One, I still would like to be able to roll out a clip for an indefinite number of consecutive loops.

Tracktion Waveform gives you both clip-looping and clip-linking (albeit the implementation was initially buggy when both looping and linking of a clip were in effect; it was fixed in the latest update of Waveform).
[Core i7 8700 | 32GB DDR4 | Win11 x64 | Studio One 6 Pro | FL Studio ASIO/WASAPI ]

Post

Id like to be able to use midi vsts in line with other vsts on the same channel as with the built in Notefx, rather than having to use separate channels routed to each other. I was expecting the Multi Instrument to do this when it was introduced, sadly not.

Preferably Id like the Extended FX chain and Multi Instrument to function as a modular router like all the others e.g. EnergyXT, Bidule, Bidule, Mux etc

Was strange they separated and limited the concept in this age
Amazon: why not use an alternative

Post

VariKusBrainZ wrote:Id like to be able to use midi vsts in line with other vsts on the same channel as with the built in Notefx, rather than having to use separate channels routed to each other. I was expecting the Multi Instrument to do this when it was introduced, sadly not.

Preferably Id like the Extended FX chain and Multi Instrument to function as a modular router like all the others e.g. EnergyXT, Bidule, Bidule, Mux etc

Was strange they separated and limited the concept in this age
Yeah, just what I was thinking when it came out. Also the busses are limited regarding the new automation mapping with macro knobs. Try automating the macro knob itself on an audio bus. Not working! It always automates the individual params. For a multi-instruments however it's possible to directly automate these knobs. So - strange differences here!

Btw, you can support my idea regarding the chainer thingy here:

http://answers.presonus.com/5410/extend ... 5410#q5410

Did not get too much love so far...

Post

VariKusBrainZ wrote:Was strange they separated and limited the concept in this age
Yes, I think in Studio One 3 there are quite some missed opportunities, like:
  • Creating a web manual...:
    ...without a decent search function.
    ...that is not available online.
  • Not creating and maintaining an easy to access and up-to-date PDF manual.
  • Creating a Multi Instrument that is not able to...:
    ...Utilize multiple cores.
    ...Process MIDI to childs serially.
    ...Use other channels than MIDI channel 1 internally.
  • Creating console Macro knobs/buttons but not being able to use an automation track for the Macro knob/button itself (as mentioned by masterjoe).
  • Create a "smarter" tool but still use an inconsistent tool order between arrangement and editor tools.
  • Create a Range Tool in upper event Area and the Trim tool for automation but forget to incorporate the Transform tool in the Range selection to really speed things up.
  • Creating Transform tool for note velocities that can not process a selection of notes.
  • Creating a Step editing feature and an edit cursor, but not combining them so you can see what step you edit while playing back.
  • Creating an arranger track without an arranger track playlist, so you still need to drag around parts of the arrangement.
  • Creating an all undo, but don't separate Arrangement edit tasks from Console/Insert/Instrument edit tasks.
  • Create a Select Muted Events function, but limit it to the arrangement.
  • Removing the option to freely move around VST output channels without an Instrument Track attached.
  • Replacing the first double click command on a part for zoom out to full content instead of just open in Editor (like it was in all previous versions).
  • Creating an editor for Presence that does not accept drag and drop of audio events from the arrangement.
  • Creating a new Appearance functionality but forget about custom pallet colors.
  • Creating a new Fat Channel with different EQ/Comp models, but not being able to switch them for comparison without losing their settings.
And the list goes on....

To me it almost looks like a part of the expertise and sophisticated philosophy that gave birth to the previous versions of Studio One left the company together with some former employees. Together with an over-sensitive and conservative user forum mod clique and a highly defensive and rude product specialist, it's a nice cocktail for stagnation.

A shame because chances are the actual product developers are able to embrace and value critical feedback and do have the balls to let customers express their opinion about their product without censoring or offending them.

In other words, my hopes and expectations aren't very high. :lol:

Post

Yeah. Studio One 3.x feels like an unfinished and not well-balanced product. They have added many interesting ideas and concepts - but they did not reach the point where you would say: wow, that fits! All new features are half-baked and the most stunning part for me is: instead of completing these missing parts with 3.1 ... 3.5 they added other new stuff?!? Well some of it may be useful. But there are so many places in the software now where you think: and now? Where's the rest?

My hopes aren't high either. The problem might in fact be that some of the forethinkers left the company. But still it should be obvious what has to be done for 4.0: finish that incomplete product! Fill the gaps, make it consistent, remove limitations and make the concepts which were introduced a philosophy and not a pure marketing gag.

I left Cubase because of the same problems. They were constantly adding marketing features instead of making the product a harmony. And with a million bells and whistles where you never have a feature which is thought to the end you can only get frustrated. Workaround follows workaround and it simply feels wrong.

This is why I am still not satisfied with *any* DAW. They never finish what they begin. It's really sad. Capitalism makes things bad. In the beginning with some enthusiasts wishing to create something better the start often is a success. But later when the thing is settled it's not getting the love it deserves any more. This is a common disease when profit dominates!

So we'll see... I constantly have an eye on other DAWs. Bitwig is not there yet but has great potential and I hope they can go where no other product has gone before... But maybe Presonus is listening and they do the right thing. Well... hope always is nice =)

Have a Merry Christmas all :)

Post

masterjoe wrote:Yeah. Studio One 3.x feels like an unfinished and not well-balanced product.
To be fair, I don't think that's really the case...to say it's not balanced, yes there is legacy of some older instrument devices not being updated and improved but for the new features that have been added like the node system, they are really the foundations I think. I don't think they want to over complicate things in the same way Cubase did...and I'm fine with that. More developing, less time bug fixing. I believe a few of the programmers for Cubase now work at Presonus.

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..

Image

Image
But maybe Presonus is listening and they do the right thing. Well... hope always is nice =)
I think they do listen, and I think that's why in recent years that Studio One has been brought forward into the foreground more, rather than quietly sitting back in the background as they did before. The only time software development is finished is when they close up shop and stop developing, aka Sonar.
KVR S1-Thread | The Intrancersonic-Design Source > Program Resource | Studio One Resource | Music Gallery | 2D / 3D Sci-fi Art | GUI Projects | Animations | Photography | Film Docs | 80's Cartoons | Games | Music Hardware |

Post

THE INTRANCER wrote:
masterjoe wrote:Yeah. Studio One 3.x feels like an unfinished and not well-balanced product.
To be fair, I don't think that's really the case...to say it's not balanced, yes there is legacy of some older instrument devices not being updated and improved but for the new features that have been added like the node system, they are really the foundations I think. I don't think they want to over complicate things in the same way Cubase did...
It has nothing to do with over complicating things. It's a matter of not finishing features so they are actually useful or even better become indispensable.
As an example think about the Macro knobs for a second. They would have been much more powerful and creative if they had their own automation lane. This way you can assign, remove or alter parameters to and from an existing macro automation envelope (similar to a . It's a no-brainer, low hanging fruit, one of the main reasons to implement a macro knob in the first place.

Post

masterjoe wrote:Yeah. Studio One 3.x feels like an unfinished and not well-balanced product. They have added many interesting ideas and concepts - but they did not reach the point where you would say: wow, that fits! All new features are half-baked and the most stunning part for me is: instead of completing these missing parts with 3.1 ... 3.5 they added other new stuff?!? Well some of it may be useful. But there are so many places in the software now where you think: and now? Where's the rest?

My hopes aren't high either. The problem might in fact be that some of the forethinkers left the company. But still it should be obvious what has to be done for 4.0: finish that incomplete product! Fill the gaps, make it consistent, remove limitations and make the concepts which were introduced a philosophy and not a pure marketing gag.

I left Cubase because of the same problems. They were constantly adding marketing features instead of making the product a harmony. And with a million bells and whistles where you never have a feature which is thought to the end you can only get frustrated. Workaround follows workaround and it simply feels wrong.

This is why I am still not satisfied with *any* DAW. They never finish what they begin. It's really sad. Capitalism makes things bad. In the beginning with some enthusiasts wishing to create something better the start often is a success. But later when the thing is settled it's not getting the love it deserves any more. This is a common disease when profit dominates!

So we'll see... I constantly have an eye on other DAWs. Bitwig is not there yet but has great potential and I hope they can go where no other product has gone before... But maybe Presonus is listening and they do the right thing. Well... hope always is nice =)

Have a Merry Christmas all :)
Sounds like you need to figure out a DAW first, and stop bouncing around.

Post

daw.one wrote:
THE INTRANCER wrote:
masterjoe wrote:Yeah. Studio One 3.x feels like an unfinished and not well-balanced product.
To be fair, I don't think that's really the case...to say it's not balanced, yes there is legacy of some older instrument devices not being updated and improved but for the new features that have been added like the node system, they are really the foundations I think. I don't think they want to over complicate things in the same way Cubase did...
It has nothing to do with over complicating things. It's a matter of not finishing features so they are actually useful or even better become indispensable.
As an example think about the Macro knobs for a second. They would have been much more powerful and creative if they had their own automation lane. This way you can assign, remove or alter parameters to and from an existing macro automation envelope (similar to a . It's a no-brainer, low hanging fruit, one of the main reasons to implement a macro knob in the first place.
I agree. That's such an obvious one it's hard to believe they missed it in development or at least get it out in one of the point releases to follow.It was within a few hours of the release that it was being discussed on the forums, so it's not like it was such an esoteric thing that it took some time to realize the full potential.

On the other hand, you correctly point out that no DAW gets this stuff right. It takes a team and lots of money to put out a DAW, and they need to prioritize new features [sales] with fixing what's already there. That said, I think Studio One gets more things right than it gets wrong and does a good job overall with putting out features that are intuitive to use and generally [but not always] fully baked. Let's also keep in mind that we all have different priorities. I think the macro thing is obvious, but would I have traded VCA Faders for it? Nope. Would I rather see the development team focus on overhauling MIDI or fixing the tempo ranges, or creating separate loop and punch ranges? Absolutely. I'd take any of those things over better Macro automation.

Post

daw.one wrote: It has nothing to do with over complicating things. It's a matter of not finishing features so they are actually useful or even better become indispensable.
As an example think about the Macro knobs for a second. They would have been much more powerful and creative if they had their own automation lane. This way you can assign, remove or alter parameters to and from an existing macro automation envelope (similar to a . It's a no-brainer, low hanging fruit, one of the main reasons to implement a macro knob in the first place.
I can see why they did it the way they did though. Imagine you have 70 - 200 tracks, if you had automation on 60 of them, that's an additional 60 automation tracks in addition to tracks you already have. That would be unnecessary waste of track space, automation wouldn't be aligned with the actual track also, making it potentially visually confusing when zooming in and out of the track stack and may be unintentionally lost. Reason does automation by adding additional automation lanes that take up additional track space, one aspect I always felt quite wasteful space wise. In any case, a toggle on where to show automation on another lane below the assigned track or on the assigned track isn't something that I'd be opposed to given the option.
KVR S1-Thread | The Intrancersonic-Design Source > Program Resource | Studio One Resource | Music Gallery | 2D / 3D Sci-fi Art | GUI Projects | Animations | Photography | Film Docs | 80's Cartoons | Games | Music Hardware |

Post

THE INTRANCER wrote:I can see why they did it the way they did though. Imagine you have 70 - 200 tracks, if you had automation on 60 of them, that's an additional 60 automation tracks in addition to tracks you already have. That would be unnecessary waste of track space, automation wouldn't be aligned with the actual track also, making it potentially visually confusing when zooming in and out of the track stack and may be unintentionally lost. Reason does automation by adding additional automation lanes that take up additional track space, one aspect I always felt quite wasteful space wise. In any case, a toggle on where to show automation on another lane below the assigned track or on the assigned track isn't something that I'd be opposed to given the option.
I'm afraid you missed the point. It has nothing to do with how many automation track/lanes are available. In fact the possibility to tie several automation parameters to one lane reduces the amount of automation lanes/tracks in comparison to how it works now. Take look at the Macro knobs of the Multi Instrument for example, these are implemented as expected. You can tie multiple automation parameters to one automation lane there (and add, remove, change transition of parameters afterwards).

Image

Then take a look at the channel Macro knob. That one always writes a Macro lane/track for each connected parameter, rendering it useless and far from being Macro.
Funkybot's Evil Twin wrote:I think the macro thing is obvious, but would I have traded VCA Faders for it? Nope. Would I rather see the development team focus on overhauling MIDI or fixing the tempo ranges, or creating separate loop and punch ranges? Absolutely. I'd take any of those things over better Macro automation.
The channel Macro knob was an example. I don't really care if it's A or B. What matters is that stuff that is implemented isn't thought trough, whether it are Mix-FX, Low Latency Monitoring or any of things mentioned in the list above.

I could give a dozen other examples, not much on the MIDI front because nothing really happened on the MIDI front. And the things that happened aren't impressive either. Take the Note-FX, there is so much potential there but the modules are still very weak. All the current Note-FX are missing crucial little function to make them actually usable in a creative way. For instance an Arp without a different Restart Modes or an input filter that can't transform let alone use CC data. If that's the standard I don't expect well thought out MIDI features in the future.

Post

Yeah, the thing with macros was one of those super weird things I shook my head at :) ... And now it's been this way for years. It was so peculiar how the macro knob controls the parameters only when you manually moved the actual knob, and you couldn't draw an automation envelope for that knob/macro. Asked about it, and it was by design. Hehh.

So if you wanted to automate the parameters that were hooked to a macro control, you needed to record the individual parameters to individual envelopes by moving the knob while the project was playing, from there onwards rendering the macro itself void from the automation perspective. You just end up with numerous individual lanes. From my point of view, it was just missing the most important point of multi-parameter macros. This is something for version 4.0 definitely, then.

Post

daw.one wrote:I could give a dozen other examples, not much on the MIDI front because nothing really happened on the MIDI front.
Quite literally this, for me as well: there are about a dozen central things I listed back when I moved out of Studio One 3, and have been keeping an eye on it without relying on it as my main DAW ever since (as I still own a license and have a lot of legacy stuff from the commissions I might need to access from the years I used Studio One, of course). 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.

Locked

Return to “Hosts & Applications (Sequencers, DAWs, Audio Editors, etc.)”