Regarding loop points being independent from punch points, of course if you're just punching, it doesn't matter. But for comping+punching, years ago I got into the habit of comping+punching on a new, empty track. I didn't do this just as a workaround for Studio One, because I also did it with Cakewalk, which does allow independent loop/punch points. What I found was that having the recording "live" before the punch point sometimes led to better transitions and/or crossfades with sections before and after the punch. This doesn't negate that having independent loop/punch points would be convenient. However, even if that feature was implemented, I would probably still continue to comp+punch on an empty track.

SkylineUK wroteI believe S1 made a strategic mistake way back, assuming that MIDI was not going to be around in the future.

In general, the DAWs with comprehensive MIDI implementations (Digital Performer, Cakewalk, Cubase, Logic) started as MIDI sequencers, and added audio later. When digital audio became affordable, interest in MIDI started to wane. I think Studio One, Acid, Ableton Live, etc. reflected that.

However, it will be interesting to see what happens with MIDI 2.0. I think Studio One's MIDI engine is already designed for higher resolution, so it could probably adapt to higher-resolution messages without much trouble. The Sound Variations could easily mutate into being a part of MIDI 2.0's Capability Inquiry functionality. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. I think once Apple and Microsoft announce drivers that work with MIDI 2.0, we'll see a lot of changes with respect to MIDI, especially in terms of integrating hardware with software.

bartbalint wrote

DrummaMan wrote

tommikujala wroteAppreciate the update, but personally not too keen about it.. how about some mixing, mastering and editing improvements? 6.0 I guess, oh well..

Yes - STILL waiting for separate loop points when using auto punch.
(The loop points are outside the punch in and punch out points.)

Cakewalk had that feature since it's early days (Pro Audio, maybe?) and Harrison Mixbus has it as well...

It still baffles me as to why Studio One does not have that very basic, but useful feature.

Perhaps this is the FR you are asking about:

https://answers.presonus.com/2804/featu ... le-preroll

Currently, it has +225 YES votes and zero negative votes. It was first asked for in 2015, and it appears (without looking through every single answer), DrummaMan first asked about it in 2018.

I probably voted + for this back in 2019 when I switched from Cakewalk and was surprised this option was NOT available.

Maybe not enough + Votes, but probably Presonus thinks that if just a bit more time goes by, everyone will totally forget about ......... Sorry, something on this site made me forget what I was writing about.

Thank you Bart, for digging that up.
I knew I had voted on that feature quite a long time ago...
(Long ago...in a galaxy far, far away...)

And a shout out to Mr. Anderton -
Thank you Sir, for always bringing in the best, proven, work-around solution!

True science always prevails, eh?

I'm not one for any of the "Show" features, almost thinking that should be a separate program,
but very cool that, like the "Project"/mastering module, it is fully integrated into Studio One.

No other DAW does stuff like that. Cool and forward looking, indeed.

That said - I do like the newly added MIDI editing tool features, so THANK YOU Presonus for continuing to add to Studio One's recording/mixing/editing feature set!

Respectfully,
MG

And still not solved:

Send drops in to nowhere when inserting instrument using simple template with 2 preinserted channels.

Dont get it..... is this ment to be feature? : D

It is a complete fresh installation of S1. happens on my notebook and desktop.

Is this the problem you are talking about?

This unfortunately is part of a whole bunch of things that are not saved/recalled properly with a song template.
Best to write a ticket with a simple easy to follow instruction, like:
- open new empty song
- add a few audio tracks
- open mixer, give sends tab more real estate
- save as template
- open template as new song
- open mixer
--> send tabs are minimized

Also feel free to link to the video.

Oh interesting, but no, thats not what i experience.

I just create a empty new song, change the mixer setting to small, save it as template, and next time when i use this template, and throw a instrument in, the send from this instrument is as seen in the screenshot.

I spoke to the support about this ages ago already, and also not long ago again.

Support annoys me for every ticket with this "please send us every detail of your computer" stalking poop, otherwise we whont to anything

lfo2k wroteSupport annoys me for every ticket with this "please send us every detail of your computer" stalking poop, otherwise we whont to anything

It’s not for stalking, but it has become a prerequisite for Support apparently, no matter how simple the issue. You can either provide it or not get Support. Unfortunately that seems to be their policy.

lfo2k wroteSupport annoys me for every ticket with this "please send us every detail of your computer" stalking poop, otherwise we whont to anything

Please update your signature with your specs.

robertgray3 wrote

lfo2k wroteSupport annoys me for every ticket with this "please send us every detail of your computer" stalking poop, otherwise we whont to anything

It’s not for stalking, but it has become a prerequisite for Support apparently, no matter how simple the issue. You can either provide it or not get Support. Unfortunately that seems to be their policy.

Mhm. I would understand if it would be a hard to solve case. But if the support did not even tries to first check for themself on a testsystem, and does demand very private and delicate informations of MY whole system including my drives/NIC adresses/and much more, everytime, thats not ok for me.

To ask for such private details should be the last resort, and is quite rude thing to demand before even doing something.

My PC does has nothing to do with issues that are implemented in S1.

lfo2k wroteif the support did not even tries to first check for themself on a testsystem

Hey, I’m not arguing with this point, just telling you what I’ve observed. If you want Support they ask for a System Profile before continuing. In some cases it helps them identify hard-to-diagnose problems.

I don’t think it’s always necessary either, and feel it often leads to closing tickets without testing, but that’s the way it is.

lfo2k wrote

robertgray3 wrote

lfo2k wroteSupport annoys me for every ticket with this "please send us every detail of your computer" stalking poop, otherwise we whont to anything

It’s not for stalking, but it has become a prerequisite for Support apparently, no matter how simple the issue. You can either provide it or not get Support. Unfortunately that seems to be their policy.

Mhm. I would understand if it would be a hard to solve case. But if the support did not even tries to first check for themself on a testsystem, and does demand very private and delicate informations of MY whole system including my drives/NIC adresses/and much more, everytime, thats not ok for me.

To ask for such private details should be the last resort, and is quite rude thing to demand before even doing something.

My PC does has nothing to do with issues that are implemented in S1.

There's nothing private here, it's just config information and nobody can reach your NIC (unless you happen to be on the same network, chances of that are zero), and then all they could it invoke wake up on LAN (maybe). They aren't uploading your porn either. Studio one probably uploads your NIC every time you register a serial anyway, it's more often used for copy protection.

And if support took customers on face value that their PC (or Mac - who knows?) is nothing to do with the problem they don't know the solution for, they would probably never solve anything.

Er.. signature?

robertgray3 wrote

lfo2k wroteif the support did not even tries to first check for themself on a testsystem

Hey, I’m not arguing with this point, just telling you what I’ve observed. If you want Support they ask for a System Profile before continuing. In some cases it helps them identify hard-to-diagnose problems.

I don’t think it’s always necessary either, and feel it often leads to closing tickets without testing, but that’s the way it is.

Yes, agreed in every point : )

A benefit of providing system information is that it can help the support people discover patterns. If someone says they're having a problem, support might have no idea what's causing it. But if several people report the same problem and they all have the same older graphics card driver, that's meaningful information. Providing system information benefits the greater community over time, and as PreAI points out, doesn't impact individual users negatively.

I'm not saying support is perfect. I'm just saying anything we can do to contribute to their "database" of info can't hurt, and could help.

robertgray3 wrote

lfo2k wroteSupport annoys me for every ticket with this "please send us every detail of your computer" stalking poop, otherwise we whont to anything

It’s not for stalking, but it has become a prerequisite for Support apparently, no matter how simple the issue. You can either provide it or not get Support. Unfortunately that seems to be their policy.

He's got a point, the last thing you want to hear from someone when reporting something is that some software that is actually perfectly fine, is on their list.

It's kinda a double-edged sword to me.

Ifo2k wrote: Mhm. I would understand if it would be a hard to solve case. But if the support did not even tries to first check for themself on a testsystem, and does demand very private and delicate informations of MY whole system including my drives/NIC adresses/and much more, everytime, thats not ok for me.

To ask for such private details should be the last resort, and is quite rude thing to demand before even doing something.

My PC does has nothing to do with issues that are implemented in S1.

It's not a last resort. Giving them your NIC address is no big deal.

Most any technical support assistance want to know what you're using. From Avid, to Ableton, to Waves.... it's simply a logical approach in case the problem can't be resolved in one session. It avoids redundant questions thereafter. As stated, if you don't like that policy, find some other way of getting assistance. They'll likely ask as well.

Lokeyfly wroteAs stated, if you don't like that policy, find some other way of getting assistance. They'll likely ask as well.

I've had very good luck with Obedia.com/PC Audio Labs, when I had some intractable Windows problem that needed an immediate solution so I could hit a deadline. Obedia has pretty reasonable one-off rates. However, if anyone gets freaked out about someone peering inside your computer, note that they do use a remote desktop to make the fixes. However they just get in, fix whatever is wrong, and get out. I don't recall them stealing my music in the process

I did that with both waves and steven slate drums. It's weird!

Greetings all!
I was looking forward to 5.3 only to find it has some kind of problem on my system.

After installing, I opened up a recent project I was working on in 5.2.1, when I hit play everything started out normal for a few seconds and then certain midi notes failed to play while others in the same event played, and some events didn't playback at all.

When I stopped the transport and moved the cursor to see if playing the second time would be the same, and pressed play, the transport paused for several seconds, the disk activity indicator showing zero as usual but the peak indicator triggered. then when it started playing the same notes that didn't trigger before still wouldn't trigger, while other notes do.

The pausing behavior got worse as I tried to restart playback. I checked the disk cache activity indicator in the performance window and it showed nothing, none of the plugins had unusual performance readings.

I closed the project without saving, shut down v5.3 and opened 5.2.1 and the song plays back perfectly and everything works as expected.

After rebooting and re-trying 5.3 the dysfunction is the same.

Submitted a Ticket so hope it gets solved soon - but curious that I've not seen anyone posting here about similar issues.