jdurham wroteYour installation sounds a lot like mine. But based on this massive install, you're most likely in a situation where there is a unique combo of hardware/software/driver/plugin that is causing an issue. I can force glitches in ANY DAW program depending on the combo.
Yes, there is good wisdom in what you say. I have realised that my system has become over-bloated with plugins and instruments, and I only install about 70% of what I own too, lol.
Certainly there are too many factors and combinations with my setup: plugins, DAW, Windows, hardware. Too much to deal with.
I also have found that my creativity seems to be less the more plugins and instruments I own.Too many choices. Sure, that new instrument fires up some new creativity at the start, but then I spend far too much time browsing presets rather than making music.
For me, my golden years were my first DAW: Cakewalk with 8 tracks, that came bundled with my first semi-pro soundcard. I just had guitars and bass and vocals, and fruity loops when it was just a drum machine. Just used built in eq's etc. I had the most fun back then because it was just creating music with a very limited set of tools.
The other problem we face today is with everyone constantly needing to update. I mean everything is chasing everything else in an "update-fix-break-update-fix" cycle, and with Windows 10 and its forced updates, a system that is rock solid today, tomorrow may be broken.
But my first step is to strip my system down to bare essentials.
Totally agree with Jdurham!
Cubase was at its best in version 6.5. The new interface changes and yearly cycle ruined it, for sure. I didn't even bother upgrading to version 9 for this reason. While I will miss some of its cool features, like VST Expression Maps, Chord Assistant, Retrologue 2 and Padshop synths (which are great!) and other MIDI functions, Cubase is now what Sonar became to me years ago (a bloated piece of software).
Studio One, while missing some of the features previously mentioned, has the best workflow I've ever experienced in a DAW. It's very stable in my system, and feels streamlined. When Presonus adds a new feature to Studio One, you can tell they have put a lot of thought into it. Steinberg, on the other hand, just slaps new (incomplete) features to sell their software. The features added to Cubase are always a work-in-progress. A good example, as Jdurham mentioned, is the new Console. It took Steinberg 4 or 5 versions to get it right (though some may argue that the Console in version 6.5 was still better). It was a mess when they introduced it in version 7 (missing features, clunky design, glitchy graphics, etc). Now they have a new video engine with similar problems, and it will take them several versions (that they'll want you to pay for) to get it right. I'm done paying for unfinished software.
You guys are in the better place with Studio One. Trust me! But, even then, I'll add YMMV
@ sljustin: yeah, at 3% levels, it's likely something in the way of a driver, potentially, or something less obvious. As jdurham noted, start small and see what may be problematic and test as you go. Hope it works out for you.
Thanks for the info on Cubase. I've sort of watched their progress from a distance, but can't be too concerned as I just no longer use it.
Well, I hope Stenberg figure it out. I was a user of their sequencers durung, and even before Cubase came along. There were many milestones and "first's" they made, and I have a soft spot for that DAW. But keeping it short as I'm not going to get into DAW comparisons . No need
jdurham wrote: If we go by features alone, Reaper should be a slow bloated pig by now in some areas, but it's not. It just has an inferior interface (IMO) and lacks the intuitive elegance of Studio One. For me, the intuitive elegance makes working in Studio One much more of a pleasure, while Reaper -- while very powerful in its special areas -- gets in the way for me.
Reaper is efficiently coded. I used it for about three months prior to using Studio One. Reaper is very stable indeed. I love it's many ways to dock sections of the mixer, and I also drool over the Imperial skin. Beautifully done skin at that! But that's where it's usefulness for me ended. It most certainly wasn't Reapers features! 12.63MB is certainly lean, start out of the gate code. However, describing Reaper even as feature rich has no bearing on anything. Its usefulness for my needs are a dead end.
Along with Reapers many attributes from slick code (much of it, also js) are gaping problems in its user interface. Using Reaper, I'm not sure I could have done any more manual patching unless I were a Bell Telephone operator from the 1940's. Setting up even 8 indivually patched tracks Rewired from Reason, meant setting up 8 MIDI tracks all individually routed to another set of 8 ALL individually assigned instrument tracks to actually hear And pipe Reason in, and then another Rewire set for transferring (yep, all individual channels) to Audio. It was such a ridiculously sizable and convoluted path, and took a step by step video instruction, where I was warned the process of patching would take over approx. two hours by a very capable instructor. My God, I dreaded patching every situation in that program. One doesnt remember that patching scenario even two days later. Not exactly something a musician, and engineer needs when inspiration comes knocking. So describing Reaper as having speed, and being feature rich comparitavely to ANY DAW is not very telling of the full picture. That's why I never buy into discussions about comparing DAW performance, with their plugins. Yeah, right the water runs faster out of the well out back. So good Timmy, you and Lassie go draw the water from the well, then.
Reapers lack of ARA integration, drag & drop ease, and WAY less useful bundled effects processing shows its pretty much a bucket of nuts and bolts. Cockos' many effects are not comparable to Studio Ones, Period. Not going into those reasons, but it's more than obvious, cockos plugins mostly are largely antiquated spin offs.
Next is Reaper's wonderful world of skins, and complete color construction had me drooling. ................Up until three months of not writing anything, but man, I had a lot of skins, themes, colors. With Reaper, I played with it, not too it, every time I sat down I doodled with that DAW. My creative side of the brain, was over taken by the technical, "you need this color, skin, positioning, and motif side.
For me, it's not about the features (or lack thereof). It's about getting music done. Reaper does not fit that bill. Perhaps as a stable but simple live sequencer, it might have a place for some. A look at much of Cockos' doodle forums by users tells the tale. Little on productivity. 90% on skinning, and theming.
S1 still being relatively young, will develop as necessary, with fresh code, typically an elegant front end GUI, and perhaps to some levels incorporating both more audio, and "some" video enhancements. Adding video features can be slippery slope as it is typically demanding. Not so much on its own, but with all of the multiple syncing, editing, conversion processes. You feel S1 has a lot of room for added features and enhancements. I'd agree as well, but those items have to be met with care, attention to performance for the already many users. So we'll just have to leave that to the dev's, and staff to see. Place your FR in, sit back, and do what you currently do, utilizing whatever tools you have available, because it will likely take a while to see change incorporated. We'd probably see video enhancements in a major release.
The areas I'm looking for improvements have almost nothing to do with video enhancement, but some of the requests looks plausible. Hope it works out.
Latest song releases on Bandcamp -
Latest albums on iTunes
LP's "Amber & Blue", and "Reasonable Approach" available on all major distribution music services.
Simply search "James Conrad Tucker".
All songs copyright. Be safe.
Lokeyfly wrotejsljustin qrote: I've been really happy with S1 for the past number of years, but since upgrading to S1 V3.5 I am getting crackling on all virtual instruments, that wasn't there before. I am not 100% sure it is not a hardware issue (it is possible I have a faulty motherboard and/or bad usb), but I got the trial of Cubase 9 Pro and have had no problems as yet.
And in the "light a candle category"...two different widely separated times over the years I had similar problems mysteriously pop up. They were immune to diagnoses and drove me mad. Turns out they were both related to my graphics card(!). In one case, my drivers needed to be updated. In the other, my card was so clogged with dust that it overheated easily when any load was placed on it (in this case VST GUIs) and I got weird pops and cracks.
I know, bleep, right?
But I swear it happened.
nk_e wroteAnd in the "light a candle category"...two different widely separated times over the years I had similar problems mysteriously pop up. They were immune to diagnoses and drove me mad. Turns out they were both related to my graphics card(!). In one case, my drivers needed to be updated. In the other, my card was so clogged with dust that it overheated easily when any load was placed on it (in this case VST GUIs) and I got weird pops and cracks.
That's good info. I know how hard it can be to diagnose these issues, what with driver, OS, hardware, plugin, DAW changes.
Could be anything that is causing my crackles and pops (my "rice bubble" problem ).
At the moment, my money is on the butler having done it, in the living room with a candlestick
Anyway, thanks to everyone here for the useful discussion about S1 vs Cubase. I've decided I won't go down the road of changing DAWs, and try to figure out what is actually causing my problem.
jsljustin wrote: I know, bleep, right?
Lol. Yeah, it happens at times Justin, it's a video card, or some weak link somewhere in the process. I really understand when someone comes in fuming, over such things. It not the right thing to do, and we can all sound logical now. However there's that element when trying to write something, and Murphy lurks around the corner. When pops occur, one can get pretty hot, and fast. But it's really a matter of staying ahead of it all, try to quickly get past it, be positive, and just make it happen. Sometimes, I'd even say frig it, record the track, just to capture the idea. Worry about the snags later. Just hang in there and weigh the importance of it all.
Anyway, fun thread. I hope we all benefit from worthy new features.
I read the initial 5 points by jdurham. I'm good with them, and don't see any watering down of workflow.
This weekend I'll get in on voting for some FR's. I make it a point to create first, and converse second.
Have fun all.
Latest song releases on Bandcamp -
Latest albums on iTunes
LP's "Amber & Blue", and "Reasonable Approach" available on all major distribution music services.
Simply search "James Conrad Tucker".
All songs copyright. Be safe.
Well I'm back into recording again today, and the good news is that I've had no pops or crackle at all today..
But the bad news is I forgot all the other problems I have with it, such as Kontakt Instruments crashing S1, my midi controller stopped working today in the middle of recording (had to restart S1), and a few times S1 decided to "do its own thing" with my volume automation, it was like handing control to a cat on amphetamines!
I've had a long-standing battle with getting S1 to behave with Kontakt and Omnisphere. If you guys say Cubase is less stable then I'd hate to be using Cubase. S1 only crashes outright for me with Kontakt at the moment.
I wouldn't be so grumpy about this if Presonus support actually took support requests seriously. I spent a month or so last time trying to work with them with the issue with Omnisphere 2 and it went nowhere. Now, 2 releases later and I still have the same problems.
I'm getting stuff done, so I guess I shouldn't whinge. But it took about 15 minutes to undo the strange automation that the cat on drugs did for me (the Studio One cat probably was so high he thought the automation was a masterpiece ).
Lokeyfly wroteFor me, it's not about the features (or lack thereof). It's about getting music done. Reaper does not fit that bill. Perhaps as a stable but simple live sequencer, it might have a place for some.
My experience has been the total opposite. In Reaper, I get to concentrate on the musical side of things, very fast, instead of mucking about setting up channels and their inserts every single time I do a different commission and find myself wanting to load a construct when I'm in the middle of working on it. I use a lot of multichannel Kontakt layouts, for example, and the way Studio One didn't have anything resembling track templates was getting on my nerves. In Reaper, you patch something once and save it for later. In practice, I haven't had to patch anything in it manually for months now. Heck, my most used constructs are behind hotkeys so I can call them up in a project by pressing one single key command. All outputs routed, all levels and EQ and appropriate inserts already in place. Mix and match.
In addition to project templates (Studio One style), "empty" routing templates ready to load instruments in, and routing track templates... Need that orchestral string section in the middle of working on a project? Okay, press that shortcut and there you have it, Spitfire strings, Cinematic Strings and LASS at your fingertips with appropriate section routing, custom inserts and the like, level matched and pre-configured to blend with each other. Need to call up a particular combination from your arsenal of synths, ready to go, with specific downstream routing for creative effects that suit a hybrid production with the above? Bam. And so on. Just configure it all once, and your workflow is extremely fast from that point forward. In Studio One, all you had was project templates, not any way of recalling constructs like that when actually working on a project.
I can also have preview/draft routings for MIDI inputs that, again by pressing just one single record arm button, send my current real-world MIDI controller actions simultaneously to all the sections I desire, through the appropriate pre-configured draft input track I choose. So if I, for example, want to improvise a passage in realtime using staccatos that have all section colors following the MIDI signal, playing staccati from strings, woodwinds and brass, and maybe a synth or two underneath -- I have already configured a routing for that specific drafting color combination beforehand in the template, and I can activate it just like that. A fraction of a second, when the thought hits, and then just start improvising. In Studio One, I would need to activate all destinations one by one every single time I wanted to do something like that, from among hundreds of tracks, navigating where all the elements for that particular combination reside. In Reaper I could try different combinations in a rapid succession, alternating those layered sound colors on the fly while improvising and recording an idea, whereas in Studio One even the simple act of arming one single such combination, then repeating that for each and every one, would prevent such flow.
Even if I used a workaround for arming multiple tracks (I imagine you can script such a tool, or do a controller layout), I wouldn't be able to record just one draft MIDI item that sends the appropriate note and CC data to all those destinations also when playing it back, while neatly editing it, as there is no actual MIDI routing from just that one track/item to the destinations. So in an actual working situation, that would be needlessly complicated in Studio One, and very simple, quick and reflex-like in Reaper.
It doesn't hurt that Reaper's CPU use is so staggeringly efficient, either.
Yeah, I know this is totally different from your experience and opinion, but that is because use cases and approaches are different as well. There was a load of other stuff like this for me as well, like Studio One's inability to do feedback routing, and the track position management bugs (tracks "jumping around") for years, and so on and so on, all taking the attention away from the immediate creative process. So... I don't think there's much point debating it, just wanted to chime in with a balancing comment and say: ymmv. In one direction or another. Take care.
Love the 'If DAWs were people' post ... I wonder who Digital Performer would be ?
In any case re. the original post: while DP9 may have its 'issues', in my experience this platform has more than any other in terms of operational formats for film composition; have worked on a few of these with other composers who will use nothing else.
Possibly, the Studio One team might have a look at some of those features: too many to list here (in terms of music-to-picture, but the most obvious and useful is DP9's concept of Chunks. Brilliant. Chunks are independent sequences that are all hosted in a single DP9 session and each of which can be independently edited and composed according to timecode points, tempi, time signatures etc.
Each chuck then can be freely editing according to that lock timecode point, or altered later if and when film cues change over time etc. Finally, all of the Chunks [cues] can be flattened into a single timeline sequence that then works according to conventional DAWs.
Possibly a future rev of Studio One might consider similar, perhaps as an extension of the arrange feature?
PC1: Dell T7910 workstation, Win10 x64 Pro; 64GB Ram; dual 12 core 3.0Ghz Xeons; Samsung SSDs; Nvidia 1080Ti; LG 34UM95 & BenQ SW2700PT; BM DeckLink Mini Monitor 4k. PC2: 2015 13" MacBook Pro, 16G Ram. Audio: RME Fireface UFX+, UAD-2 Quad PCIe. DAWs: Nuendo, ProTools HD, Ableton Live, Studio One, DP9. NLEs: DaVinci Resolve Studio, Adobe Premier.
Your analogies of each DAW were seriously the very best thing I've read on any audio forum. Ever!
jdurham wroteFor me, Logic is like an ex-wife -- there was a reason why I married her, and a reason why I divorced her. Definitely not going back.
Thanks, craigallen2! Just saw this thread again and made me realize I should drop back in and post an update to my whole journey on this topic! Been over a year since I posted the first post and a lot has happened in that time!
So I also do sound design and post production (and a bunch of other stuff not relevant to this forum... who doesn't wear a lot of hats these days?), and I've now spent a lot of *intense* time with Studio One in the trenches with paid work since my first post about film stuff in this thread.
Since the first post, the DAW world keeps on turning, and all the major DAW developers have released big updates. Studio One 4 has been released, and there were some key improvements (and key fixes) to features that I use with film/tv/video work that I am very grateful for, but also as many of you well know, admittedly there was no progress in some other key areas as of yet. Still, Studio One 4 made some progress, and I've also had some really nice exchanges with some of the Studio One team in Germany. They are *outstanding*, and from my little contact with them, I feel that Studio One couldn't be in better hands. They really seem to want to make Studio One the best DAW on the planet, including supporting areas that matter to me, personally. They just seem to have to channel their resources in more or less one general direction at a time, and the "dot ZERO" release of 4.0 didn't address some of the things I hoped for.
BUT if you're worried that Studio One 4 was chasing a certain kind of NON-film production workflow, and in general neglecting film people, I personally have no worries, and I think they want to work on this category of features as well in a point update. STILL, even a non-film/video update like Studio One 4.0 had some nice bits and pieces for us too -- including small, but critical improvements that I was hoping for in my earlier posts, like improvements to tempo accuracy (they increased available decimal places of accuracy), fixing video engine frame accuracy on Windows, AAF, ripple editing, etc... those are really nice improvements for a non-film upgrade that we can use. Not to mention some creative tools for sound design. When they inevitably get around to spending more time on specific film composer and/or film post and general sound design features, I believe they'll put to rest any lingering doubts. Just my opinion of course.
Since the first post, I've wrapped up some pretty stressful projects in Studio One and I can say with conviction that Studio One can definitely stand toe-to-toe with any DAW for many film project needs, including post and sound design, with a few caveats.
Of course, the biggest shortcoming of Studio One for film/video post is obviously the lack of surround support, but there are *many* kinds of sound design, corporate, video, indie film kinds of projects that *never* need to touch surround, and the many benefits and workflow elegance of Studio One are super helpful and can crunch through those kinds of projects just fine. It handled sound design for a feature film I worked on really well overall, despite a handful of issues/shortcomings, some of which I've already reported to Germany. None of those issues were outright show-stoppers though, so I can categorically state that Studio One is an extremely powerful, creative DAW for a lot of film-oriented post and sound design tasks. Again, if you don't need surround.
As for composing tasks, most notably, Studio One 4.0 still does not have native articulation management support, etc., but I'm very optimistic that Studio One's general tools in that category will continue to mature during the Studio One 4 lifespan. I'm betting you'll see features like that in a point update in the not-so-distant future. Crossing fingers. And I should mention that Studio One 4 obviously added some other welcome improvements that composers can use too, such as the chord track, drum editor improvements, etc.. And I will admit I like the step sequencer and patterns implementation, although I didn't need or want it. I'd much, much rather integrated articulation management, etc.. But progress is being made.
All in all, I've really pushed Studio One to the limits of what I need in terms of the kinds of film and video projects I do, and with the exception of some smaller snags here and there, and a couple of desired or missing features, the rest of Studio One's feature set and great workflow made up for those items, and I've become a huge fan of Studio One.
Most importantly, Studio One 4 saved my @!#$ on a tough deadline, and my client was thrilled, and had no idea I used Studio One.
In the past, I used Cubase and Pro Tools (and others) for exactly those same tasks, and Studio One did beautifully overall.
In my desire to continue to move away from Cubase and Pro Tools this last year, I also spent a huge amount of time pushing Reaper too, overlapping some projects in both Reaper and Studio One, to see which one could handle my kind of tasks better. Since this is a Studio One forum, I won't go into much detail on the Reaper side, but I ended up hitting a very painful showstopper in Reaper that caused a huge amount of stress. While the Reaper forum was frankly fantastic (gotta give them credit where credit is due), I was unable to resolve my Reaper issues and it ended up costing me a lot of time and was very disappointing. I won't get into it more here, but suffice it to say that notwithstanding some hiccups I also had with Studio One pushing it hard on a feature-length project, Studio One delivered in the end and didn't let me down, whereas Reaper left me in a very stressful situation.
Ultimately, I learned so much the last year, I couldn't even begin to share it all. Overall, I'm blown away by the state of the tools we all have access to. It's sort of miraculous.
While I've been trying like crazy to completely move away from Steinberg and Avid, I've also learned once again that in the end you have to use the tools that you have to use to make a living, and so for surround work, I also recently decided to move certain kinds of projects to Nuendo, since I can't bear to work in Pro Tools unless I absolutely have to by client requirement. While I am no fan of Steinberg as a company, there is one company I try to avoid even more, and that is Avid. I still have Pro Tools 11HD, but I will NOT upgrade to "PT 2018 Ultimate" (the new name/version of HD) unless hell freezes over or I have a client breathing over my shoulder requiring it for a huge project (also for which I will need to be well paid. )
Reaper is now off the table for me (best of luck to all of you who go for it, but I lost too much confidence in it to count on it when the going gets tough -- YMMV), but Studio One is definitely a totally capable DAW for these kinds of projects, and that might come as a surprise to some people who swear by Cubendo/PT. While it is still missing a few things here and there that I really want (and some that I need), it also has some really great things that other DAWs (including Cubase/Nuendo/Pro Tools/etc.) DON'T have that *absolutely* benefit film/video projects and it is *absolutely* a serious contender. In fact, for pure sound design (which has really surprised me), I'd rank Studio One as one of the most powerful DAWs on the planet, even if they never intended it to be for sound design. It just so happens that all that work they put into Studio One in creative features and workflow lends itself VERY well to sound design tasks. And it's very fun to use too IMO.
While I'm going to be spending a lot of time with Nuendo now as well, I am very optimistic about the point releases in the future for Studio One 4 and I'm confident that when they decide to turn their considerable talents over to this area of work, the Studio One team will create something very special indeed.
Overall, it's been a very educational, inspirational, and even humbling experience this past year, and I've had to adjust my own expectations, swallow a bit of pride sometimes, pick up the pieces to some stressful situations, and keep on ticking. Of course that's just life.
That's it for my update! Cheers to all!
_Stevie_ wroteI'm curious what the showstopper in Reaper was. Can you briefly elaborate?
Don't want to elaborate here in the Studio One forum at the risk of taking this way, way off topic. And it was actually more than one showstopper. It was a near train wreck for me. But I'll just say that the Reaper forum is probably one of the best -- if not THE best -- DAW forum IMO, so I'm very grateful to the folks over there. Good people, and very knowledgeable, and good developers. But in the end, under a tight deadline, Reaper didn't get the job done for me despite a lot of effort. Perhaps with more time and not so much pressure we would have been able to resolve the issues. Again, YMMV, and best of luck to any Reaper user in a similar circumstance. And I'll just leave it there with all respect. Hope you understand!
What a fantastic post. Thanks for taking the time!
But you can get articulation mapping
Last edited by phillipdixon on Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
phillipdixon wroteBut you can get articulation mapping for
Technically, Reaper does NOT have articulation management built-in. This is a common misconception, even among some Reaper users. Again, I don't want to get too off topic in this thread, and I don't mean to give you a hard time, but I want to make sure there's at least correct info here. And as far as relevancy to film composers in Studio One goes, I guess it's useful to understand what's really out there.
What Reaper has is an extremely powerful scripting environment -- the most powerful of any DAW -- and it has a large number of user-contributed scripts that people can freely download and install. These scripts range in quality and complexity greatly, from being very simplistic to much more elaborate. Some are really impressive. In the case of one promising user-created and user-supported script called Reaticulate, you have a Lua script that helps manage articulations for Reaper. So if by that you mean that "you can get articulation mapping for Reaper" then that's fine, but it's really a stretch IMO, since such a blanket statement implies a lot, and I think someone reading that in a thread should have a better picture and should realistically be aware that it is NOT developed or supported by the Reaper developers, and it is in alpha status right now, and it relies entirely on the good will and skills of the kind folks who are currently writing it. It is currently version 0.2.0 and definitely has not reached beta status, let alone final release status.
Having said that, and like I mentioned in a previous post, the Reaper forum is probably the best DAW forum around, and if you want to get up and running with Reaticulate and be an alpha/beta tester for it, you can reach out to the forum and ask them for help. I'm sure someone really nice will help get you going. Also having said that, if you go for it, just please be aware that you are using alpha user-written and user-supported add-on scripts. If that works for you, then go for it. I know a number of people who are happy using it that way, and I know many people that would run away very quickly from it.
In any case, and to bring it back to the focus of this thread, Studio One definitely needs fully integrated, fully-featured, fully-supported articulation management. And I'm convinced this is going to come in the 4.x lifespan. It's about time IMO. But it is definitely a shortcoming of Studio One as compared to, say, Cubase, which has had an initial version of this functionality all the way back with Cubase 5, which was 9-10 years ago! So Studio One is definitely due for some love in this department.
To support this feature request for Studio One, you can vote for it here:
https://answers.presonus.com/3240/artic ... ?show=8136
Right now, it's near the top of the feature requests by user votes, which if we look at previous feature request votes, there's a good chance it will be implemented in the near future. Crossing fingers.
jdurham wroteTo support this feature request for Studio One, you can vote for it here:
Also, here is the FR list posted earlier in the thread. Many of these are still outstanding. If you are new to the thread or didn’t vote previously, please do so now!
I think this is my favorite thread on the forum!
I'am logged in but whenever i try and vote up somthing i get ...' you must log in or register to vote''
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests