31 postsPage 1 of 2
1, 2
Here is another big issue I stumbled over in another forum which could explain my still ongoing bouncing issues with Studio One 3.3.1.

The issue:
Automation timing depends on the buffer size you use for exporting your mix.
This means your automation timing differs every time in relation to your buffer size. In other words your mix can sound very(!) different every time you use another buffer size for your export.
This should not be the case, as the computer has plenty of time (regardless of the buffer size) for an offline(!) bounce.
The worse thing is that I can't get the automation "on time" no matter what buffer size I use for. The automation is either too early or too late but never on time. Tested from 2048 samples down to 32 samples. The most accurate seems to be 64 samples in my case.

This is on Mac OS X 10.11.6 (El Capitan) with Studio one 3.3.1 (newest version) and different audio interfaces (so it's not a hardware / driver related issue). This seems to happen on Windows based systems as well.

This does not happen with with Ableton Live on the same system with the same settings. The automation is pretty much down to the point, no matter what buffer size I use for exporting in these programs (I know this wasn't always the case in earlier versions but today it is).

In the following screenshots you see a snare sample with a Mixverb inserted. There is a bypass automation at the end of the first 16th note. So the reverb tail should be end exactly on the end of the 16th note.
Watch what happens when exporting with different buffer sizes (see track name for buffer size).
The automation is completely unreliable. I am not talking about a few ticks or samples here. There is a shift up to 64th note (at 120 BPM) when exporting with 2048 samples:

Image

Image

Attachments
Automation VS Buffer Size.zip
Feel free to try it yourself!
(215.3 KiB) Downloaded 355 times
Last edited by tedannemann on Sun Nov 20, 2016 3:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Studio One 3 (always the latest version) | Mac OS X (always the latest version) | UAD Apollo | Endless list of plug-ins and samples

Please vote for the integration of the Elastique Tape Algorithm: http://answers.presonus.com/7607/tape-r%20...%20stretching
User avatar
by tedannemann on Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:36 am
In Studio One Windows you can change the "internal block size" to 32 samples. This seems to better the automation timing. On the Mac version I don't have this option. Any thoughts on this?

Studio One 3 (always the latest version) | Mac OS X (always the latest version) | UAD Apollo | Endless list of plug-ins and samples

Please vote for the integration of the Elastique Tape Algorithm: http://answers.presonus.com/7607/tape-r%20...%20stretching
User avatar
by Janko Kezar on Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:56 am
Im not sure this is a bug. (but please someone correct me if it is)

As far as I remember VST3 protocol added support for sample accurate automation. But It has to be implemented (Not sure that S1 has this). VST2 is doing automation in blocks- therefore its buffer size dependent. AU the same. (There is sample accurate option in Logic, but only for internal volume and other stuff- also when i used L9 it never worked properly)

HP z230 i7/16gb , HP Elitebook 8470 i7/12gb ,Win 10, 64 bit, S1 3.3.1, 2.6.5 64bit Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, AllenHeath Qu-24, Steinberg UR22-mkII
User avatar
by Skaperverket on Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:46 am
I feel you. I've never thought of this when using Studio One, but I remember being really annoyed by it when working with a particular album in Ableton Live a few years ago. Totally useless if you depend on f.i. rhythmical automation.
User avatar
by tedannemann on Mon Nov 21, 2016 5:02 am
This seems to be one of the things from the past which hasn't adapted to the new world yet. Talking cascaded UAD Octo processors and projects with up to 200 automated latency heavy plugins.
And yet again I am so sorry for all those people who constantly stop progress (alls this hate against VST3, why?).

Here is the bummer: Logic and Live at least got their volume automation right (sample accurate!). Look what Studio One is doing when I automate just the volume fader and export in different buffer sizes (here 1024 vs 32). This is hilarious and pretty much useless - because I can't even create automation by ear (can't work in 32 in realtime)...

Image

Ableton Live also seems to automate its stock plugins right on time. In Studio One all the stock plugins behave like lame old plugins from the 90s. :thumb down:

Finally one of the rare moments, where I wish I would work with Pro Tools again...

Studio One 3 (always the latest version) | Mac OS X (always the latest version) | UAD Apollo | Endless list of plug-ins and samples

Please vote for the integration of the Elastique Tape Algorithm: http://answers.presonus.com/7607/tape-r%20...%20stretching
User avatar
by Skaperverket on Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:27 am
Have you contacted Presonus about this? Any word from them?
User avatar
by Skaperverket on Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:32 am
Any news?

I'll see if I can find some time and check this out today.
User avatar
by Skaperverket on Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:23 am
I did a little test and my system (Studio One 3.2.3 on Mac) shows similar behavior. Automation of both stock plugins and VSTs changes timing when changing buffer settings. This implementation is in my opinion not satisfactory and ought to be fixed.
User avatar
by Skaperverket on Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:13 am
Actually, I even get different results with different plugins. Usually the results appear to be ahead of the automation point, but also, when using certain buffer settings, some of the plugins are behind the automation point. Anyway, regardless of plugin vendor and format there appears to be some similarities between them: three different ranges of buffer settings result in three different timings of automation.

For the VST3 version of a Waves reverb I got the following results:

32 samples, 64 samples and 128 samples all give the exact same timing and are pretty much on point. Less than a millisecond ahead of the automation point.

256 samples has a value of its own. Slightly more than 3 milliseconds ahead of the automation point.

512 samples, 1024 samples, 2048 samples and 4096 samples all give the exact same timing and are slightly less than 8 milliseconds ahead of the automation point.


Other reverb plugins (including Mixverb) actually ended up being behind the automation point when using 32, 64 or 128 samples, and by varying degree ahead of the automation point when using the other settings (again 512, 1024, 2048 and 4096 all being similar and further ahead than 256).
User avatar
by Skaperverket on Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:11 am
I did a quick test of this in the recently released version 3.3.2, and the situation appears to be unchanged.
User avatar
by gavinsteiner on Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:47 am
Is Presonus aware of this?
User avatar
by jso on Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:45 am
Holy smokes.

Studio One Pro 3.3.1
Windows 8.1
User avatar
by wdkbeats on Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:08 am
Wow, this is BAD...

PC: AMD Ryzen 3900X, 32GB RAM DDR4 3600MHz CL16, ASUS ROG Strix X570-F, Gigabyte Radeon RX 570 8GB, SSD CORSAIR SSD MP510 960GB M.2 NVMe (OS)
OS: Windows 10 Pro x64
DAW: Studio One Professional x64
Gear: RME Fireface 802 + RME Advanced Remote, Prometheus Acoustics monitors, Avantone Mixcubes, JBL 305p, Softube Console 1, Presonus Faderport, AKAI Advance 61, Presonus Faderport, Beyerdynamic DT-990 Pro
User avatar
by wdkbeats on Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:40 am
Bumpety bump :) This needs to be fixed ASAP!

PC: AMD Ryzen 3900X, 32GB RAM DDR4 3600MHz CL16, ASUS ROG Strix X570-F, Gigabyte Radeon RX 570 8GB, SSD CORSAIR SSD MP510 960GB M.2 NVMe (OS)
OS: Windows 10 Pro x64
DAW: Studio One Professional x64
Gear: RME Fireface 802 + RME Advanced Remote, Prometheus Acoustics monitors, Avantone Mixcubes, JBL 305p, Softube Console 1, Presonus Faderport, AKAI Advance 61, Presonus Faderport, Beyerdynamic DT-990 Pro
User avatar
by Skaperverket on Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:21 am
Ran into a situation today and discovered that changing sample rate also affects the automation timing.

I did a test with an audio file of a 1 kHz square wave and made two automation points for volume, one point for 0dB volume and one point for bringing the fader all the way down. I changed sample rate in the settings and I used the bounce to new track command six times, one for each available sample rate. I used a buffer setting of 512 for all bounces.

Previously I've tested different buffer settings and seen how different buffer settings give different automation results. Today I used the same buffer, but different sample rates, and still got different automation results.

Now when I think about it, I guess it makes sense that since buffer size affects automation timing, sample rate also affects it.

Here is a picture of the results with the original and the automation lane on top and the bounced files in different sample rates below:

Image

The differences are not huge, but they are big enough to be audible. The time between the playhead and the bar of the original automation point in the above picture is around 7 ms.

The differences are not very predictable, either, as the results are not showing a linear correlation with the increase in sample rate, with a couple of them (especially 48 kHz) being quite surprising.

Also notice the big difference between 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz (5 ms), probably the two most used formats. I can think of plenty of realistic scenarios where this could be an issue.

One final observation: The higher the sample rate, the more true to the intended shape of the automation the results appear to be.
User avatar
by chrisperry1 on Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:33 am
Yeah it's not good. I've found it depends on the plugins on the particular channel. Some are tight some suck. Presonus blames the 3rd party, 3rd party blames Presonus.
User avatar
by Jemusic on Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:51 pm
I ran exactly the same test. On my iMac machine so far. Have not tested my Windows machine but will and get back to you.

For me the automation responds within 0.1mS! And I tried at various buffers and got exactly the same result. 64 samples and 512 samples. Identical timing. Its early like yours too. But well under 1mS

At 96K it was 0.1ms

Now this was with no reverb added at first and then I added the room reverb and with the room reverb it actually extended past the automation point but only by 1mS

Can you explain that. Sounds like it could be something related to your setup. I am not seeing it as a bug. In terms of mixing I am not hearing anything wrong when the automation kicks in either. It is pretty darn tight on my Mac machine anyway.

Also in my test I use the automation to cutoff the reverb tail after the tone stopped. I hope you are not comparing how accurately reverb tails die to zero because reverbs may not repeat themselves to that much accuracy either.

I will check some very large buffer sizes later and report back.
Last edited by Jemusic on Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz-8 Gb RAM-Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME HDSP9632 - Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 2/8 - Atom Pad/Atom SQ - HP Laptop Win 10 - Studio 24c interface -iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - High Sierra 10.13.6 - Focusrite Clarett 2 Pre & Scarlett 18i20. Studio One V5.5 (Mac and V6.5 Win 10 laptop), Notion 6.8, Ableton Live 11 Suite, LaunchPad Pro
User avatar
by TheDonnerParty on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:15 pm
This was my biggest complaint about Studio One and I have done tests with the same plug ins in the three DAWs I own, on the same tracks.

Reaper was perfect
Pro Tools was so close you would literally never know the difference, EVER
S1 was completely reliant on the buffer size.

From what I understand, this is a problem in Cubase, as well.

It bothers the hell out of me, but most of the time, it's not doing anything I can honestly tell the difference in, but I keep my buffer low.

I also have to wonder how fast to react hardware mixers were, as I'd bet their automation was probably slower than our average buffer size, and they made tons of great music.

Regardless, when it's 2017, I want my DAW to be accurate. Especially with VST3, this should not be difficult.

Studio One Pro 5.4
2018 Mac Mini
i7 3.2gz 6 Core
20GB RAM
MacOS 11.6.1 Big Sur
SSL2 Interface (Home)
Presonus Quantum Interface (Studio)

www.sound-authentic.com
User avatar
by Jemusic on Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:05 am
Yes I am seeing the problem at 2048 samples for sure. The rendered automation actually happens earlier here and by 20mS or more at times. Also if you create an automation curve that slams off instantly the final rendered one actually takes a little time to shut off. It is not clean and instant. It has a release time which is also not great too.

But at 512 I am seeing very tight performance. I rarely have to go up higher, so far it has been good. But for a very heavy mix needing a rather large buffer then the automation is compromised for sure. It has to be a balance I guess

The work around might be to delay the automation or move it to the right at 2018 buffer setting to compensate.

Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz-8 Gb RAM-Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME HDSP9632 - Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 2/8 - Atom Pad/Atom SQ - HP Laptop Win 10 - Studio 24c interface -iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - High Sierra 10.13.6 - Focusrite Clarett 2 Pre & Scarlett 18i20. Studio One V5.5 (Mac and V6.5 Win 10 laptop), Notion 6.8, Ableton Live 11 Suite, LaunchPad Pro
User avatar
by Funkybot on Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:09 am
I think we all agree that the expectation is that the automation timing would not be dependent on the buffer size, so has anyone formally reported this to Presonus. I know some testers frequent this forum and can report thing in their own beta forum, and tech support is another option. Has either occurred?

AMD Ryzen 3950X, ASUS Creator x570 Mobo, 32GB HyperX Predator RAM (3600mhz), Radeon™ RX 5500 XT 4GB GDDR6 graphics card, RME Fireface 800, Windows 10 Pro, Studio One 5, Reaper 6, Cubase 10.5, Avid Artist Mix (EuCon please), Behringer X-Touch One, MIDI Fighter Twister, various other MIDI control surfaces and hardware instruments

31 postsPage 1 of 2
1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests