OneFingerSnap wroteDo you know the best way for something like this, requiring downloading a large file, to reach someone that can actually investigate the problem?

Sorry, I'm not a PreSonus employee, so I don't know the best route to take other than opening up a support ticket. My general experience with any company's support is if you can submit something they can run to experience the same problem, the odds of it getting fixed are much improved.

I do notice you're using a Mac, and it seems there have been some issues in general with the update. So, the problem may disappear magically with the next Studio One or macOS update.

Maybe open the project, remove any instances of a specific plugin, save as, then test the results. If the problem persists, open the original project, remove any instances of a different plug in, save as, then test the results. Rinse, lather, repeat. Perhaps one specific plugin is an outlier that messes thing up...but that's just a guess, of course.

viccapota wroteHi does anyone know why i may be having all these major delay compensation issues?

When I send he track to an FX channel with the analog delay the first issue is that when also have the same track going to a bus, the Bus is not compensating for the delay on the FX channel and so I am getting extra hits that are fluttering.

In other words when there is a send to an FX channel but the output of the track also goes to a bus this is fluttering back an extra unwanted delay in addition to the analog delay's single delay. I cannot have this thing not compensating for all my stuff automatically.

And even when i dont have the simultaneous bus, I am not getting any delay compensation at all even when having tghe send go to the FX bus while the output of the track go to the main output just like the FX output goes to the main output.

And on top of this the issue is even worse when I have the metronome going at the same time. All of it is delayed after the metronome even the instrument track. This is unacceptable for any DAW to be doing this. Can anyone please tell me if there is a fix? because the manual says all delay compensation is automatic. Not even close on many levels here. I dont get any of these issues in pro tools.

Is this just about Analog Delay? Your default preset file may be corrupted.

On my end I have noticed that both Analog Delay and Beat Delay were giving me double repeats in half time (feedback at 0 should provide only one repeat).

With more repeats, it really seemed like there was a processing delay error, but Analog delay is a 0 latency plugin and it does not involve PDC.

The sound was also similar to a ping pong delay with the width parameter at 0% and I think this is what the whole issue is (as if ping pong was enabled even if it wasn't on the GUI).

If you are not using Analog Delay with ping pong enabled (with the channels set to SUM and a 0% width), try to redial your current preset and make sure to overwrite the previous version of it, that has fixed it for me.p It was just a preset quirk here.

Anderton wrote

OneFingerSnap wroteDo you know the best way for something like this, requiring downloading a large file, to reach someone that can actually investigate the problem?

Sorry, I'm not a PreSonus employee, so I don't know the best route to take other than opening up a support ticket. My general experience with any company's support is if you can submit something they can run to experience the same problem, the odds of it getting fixed are much improved.

I do notice you're using a Mac, and it seems there have been some issues in general with the update. So, the problem may disappear magically with the next Studio One or macOS update.

Maybe open the project, remove any instances of a specific plugin, save as, then test the results. If the problem persists, open the original project, remove any instances of a different plug in, save as, then test the results. Rinse, lather, repeat. Perhaps one specific plugin is an outlier that messes thing up...but that's just a guess, of course.

Ok Anderson, thanks. I’ll try rolling back a version to see if it happens.

Anderton wrote

NoiseCoalition wroteDisappointing to see that the pan bug when exporting stems still exists. Stems still do not export with panning information when exporting in "track" mode. Support confirmed it as a bug in November.

Are you sure you don't have the modes mixed up? I can export stems in Track mode that retain panning information, whether as Balance, Dual Pan, or Binaural.

However, exporting stems in Channel mode doesn't retain panning information from any of these. If it's essential to retain panning while exporting in Channel mode, the workaround is to use the Dual Pan as an insert. Then, stems exported in Channel mode will retain the Dual Pan panning information.

I'm pretty sure I got this right, but please feel free to confirm or point out why you might think I'm getting different results.

Hey Yeah, I double checked and I dont have the modes mixed up, I wish I did. Definitely exporting in "Tracks" not "Channels" mode.

NoiseCoalition wrote

Anderton wrote

NoiseCoalition wroteDisappointing to see that the pan bug when exporting stems still exists. Stems still do not export with panning information when exporting in "track" mode. Support confirmed it as a bug in November.

Are you sure you don't have the modes mixed up? I can export stems in Track mode that retain panning information, whether as Balance, Dual Pan, or Binaural.

However, exporting stems in Channel mode doesn't retain panning information from any of these. If it's essential to retain panning while exporting in Channel mode, the workaround is to use the Dual Pan as an insert. Then, stems exported in Channel mode will retain the Dual Pan panning information.

I'm pretty sure I got this right, but please feel free to confirm or point out why you might think I'm getting different results.

Hey Yeah, I double checked and I dont have the modes mixed up, I wish I did. Definitely exporting in "Tracks" not "Channels" mode.

My experience was that exporting stems in either track more or stem mode does NOT include the panning information. The panning could be static or based on automation lanes; in either case my resulting stereo wav file does not have the panning information.

The only way I've been able to export with the panning information is to export a mixdown, soloing one track/bus at a time.
What is going on here?

Try using Studio One version 6.2 or below and panning information will be printed when exporting stems in "Track" mode. It stopped working after they released 6.5 I believe.

Big expectations for next release (next week?).
Fingers crossed that a bumper list of long overdue fixes are delivered.

PreAl wroteBig expectations for next release (next week?).
Fingers crossed that a bumper list of long overdue fixes are delivered.

Did I miss something!? Is SO7 coming out??!?!?! Or are you referring to another big point update?? Or just wildly speculating?

Wild speculation.

PreAl wroteWild speculation.

Whew! Been away from the forum for a little while, this was one of the first posts I saw and you are usually very helpful, and so I thought I missed some news somewhere. I have been assuming Studio One 7 won't come out until later this year...

As for wild speculation, I also don't think Presonus will release anything major before v7. (Maybe just a minor 6.5.3 bugfix if we're lucky.) That 6.5 update was a monster release, I couldn't ask for more from 6.0 through 6.5, it's been a phenomenal series of releases, they set a very high bar for themselves. I hope they already fully transitioned over to v7 development for a while now....

Anyway, cheers!

Right now I feel far from lucky with the bug fixes and they are certainly needed. Not that anybody cares in the grand scheme of things but I'm close to jumping ship. This will be the closest I get to throwing my toys out of the pram with this issue (and there are quite a few bugs elsewhere that should have been dealt with) on this thread so over and out. I wait with baited breath.

viewtopic.php?p=312875#p312875

PreAl wroteRight now I feel far from lucky with the bug fixes and they are certainly needed. Not that anybody cares in the grand scheme of things but I'm close to jumping ship. This will be the closest I get to throwing my toys out of the pram with this issue (and there are quite a few bugs elsewhere that should have been dealt with) on this thread so over and out. I wait with baited breath.

viewtopic.php?p=312875#p312875

If you stopped using StudioOne, what would you use.

Most DAW developers currently seem to be stuck in the mindset of "let's add some NEW FEATURES!" instead of wanting to fix bugs.

Any DAW that doesn't suffer this basic bug with controllers that hook their DAW workflow (and it is specifically a studio one bug). Any DAW that takes controllers more seriously (one of the reasons I went with Presonus was that they manufacture hardware with their software). Any DAW that cares about supporting hardware properly and how it integrates with their software (especially the hardware they manufacture), rather than drop support and firmware updates when it's 90% working (Atoms come to mind). Perhaps I should give Ableton another go, perhaps I need to use more than one DAW.
viewtopic.php?f=408&t=51158

PreAl wroteperhaps I need to use more than one DAW.

It's a good strategy. I use more than one DAW... in fact I use a bunch of DAWs. I love Studio One, and am very optimistic about Studio One, especially with the announcement of Linux support (thank you again to the mad genius in Hamburg who convinced Presonus/Fender to do this!).

However, I still use a bunch of DAWs, in part because I have to so I can deal with certain client projects. But also in part because I appreciate the many differences and cool stuff about each DAW. Now with the DAWproject file format, it's even easier to work with Bitwig, for example.

As for Studio One devs not taking care of bugs that impact you, I think it won't come as a surprise to you that pretty much every DAW developer has issues with that... and the direct competitors of Studio One are no exceptions. I also own licenses for Cubase and Nuendo, for example, and they have just had another round of issues with v13, including some real interface issues that impacted many people, and only just recently released a decent patch... but there are many other longstanding bugs that plague some users as you can imagine.

It's just the reality, and there is never going to be a perfect DAW with perfect updates. So it's really a matter of deciding to work with what you have and focusing on your music. And maybe diversifying by using more than one DAW (which I would do anyway, even if it weren't for clients). Sure, make the bug reports, but sadly, don't expect much back. It's pathetic, and maybe insane that we have to deal with stuff like this, but if you are pinning your hopes on everything getting resolved, you will be disappointed with every DAW from every developer. Even Reaper. (Although with Reaper you can sometimes get the dev's attention in the forum and if you're lucky you might get an issue resolved pretty quickly... but that's an exception IMO)

As for ATOM devices, I sold mine. They were just not getting the use that I was hoping for, coupled with the fact I use a bunch of DAWs, but also I did notice a lack of passion for them in terms of updates, so that's another reason why I jumped ship. The ATOM SQ, in particular, was potentially a brilliant device BTW, but it's long gone from my studio. I'm not suggesting doom and gloom about Presonus BTW, I just think *parhaps* certain priorities got lost or shifted in the translation to Fender.

However, what keeps me optimistic about Studio One was the phenomenal 6.5 update. What a killer update. But I am sorry to hear your issues haven't been addressed.

The competition is very stiff, the market is shifting, consolidations and buy-outs are hitting the industry since the pandemic, and we're seeing some big industry changes going on, not just with the whole NI thing (and Presonus, and Avid and....). Even the iconic Moog's US operation in Asheville is shutting down after their recent acquisition, if I recall recent news properly. I expect there will be more changes in the industry before the dust settles.

Studio One seems like it's (mostly) on solid ground though, and IMO, it appears Fender hasn't materially negatively impacted it, at least the software itself, judging by the great 6.5 update. Maybe you feel differently.

But as for bugs, bugs, bugs, the grass is not really greener on the other side of the hill.

If you want to work with Atmos, your options are currently quite limited.

Regarding controllers, at every seminar and workshop I ask how many people use a control surface. It's a minuscule percentage. Companies have high hopes about offering controllers but they never seem to translate into significant sales. Since customers don't care, companies lose interest. I do have high hopes for Nektar's C12, though. They seem to have thought it through. Fingers crossed.

I think part of the problem, if not the main part, is because from a consumer standpoint, controllers are a PITA to assign, integrate, and learn ("to control the metronome level, hold down F4 and tap Q5 while turning the Send 1 control and spinning around"). From a manufacturer standpoint, they take a lot of effort for little return.

MIDI 2.0 addresses the issue of simplifying integration, because communication is bi-directional. A controller queries your device and adopts the correct identity/scribble strip labels, whether it's a DAW, DJ mixer, or a lighting controller. For example, you could have a synth controller the size of an OB8 that would map the controls in a standardized way to any virtual instrument...in theory. It will probably take a few (several?) years before this kind of integration becomes commonplace.

Anderton wroteIf you want to work with Atmos, your options are currently quite limited.

Regarding controllers, at every seminar and workshop I ask how many people use a control surface. It's a minuscule percentage. Companies have high hopes about offering controllers but they never seem to translate into significant sales. Since customers don't care, companies lose interest. I do have high hopes for Nektar's C12, though. They seem to have thought it through. Fingers crossed.

I think part of the problem, if not the main part, is because from a consumer standpoint, controllers are a PITA to assign, integrate, and learn ("to control the metronome level, hold down F4 and tap Q5 while turning the Send 1 control and spinning around"). From a manufacturer standpoint, they take a lot of effort for little return.

MIDI 2.0 addresses the issue of simplifying integration, because communication is bi-directional. A controller queries your device and adopts the correct identity/scribble strip labels, whether it's a DAW, DJ mixer, or a lighting controller. For example, you could have a synth controller the size of an OB8 that would map the controls in a standardized way to any virtual instrument...in theory. It will probably take a few (several?) years before this kind of integration becomes commonplace.

You make some good points about the difficulty of designing and selling controllers though you lost me on the Nektar "C12" which I believe is the CS12 and is clearly "purpose built" (to quote the company's own hype) for Logic. Unless I'm missing something, it also obviously lacks DAW control (other than the ability to control DAW plugins) and whaddya call those things, oh yeah, keys True, there are different types of controllers, and not everyone wants keys in a controller, but that helps make your initial point since it's hard for manufacturers to pinpoint what the most people want since so many people want so many different things.

Ultimately the issue is extremely basic which screws up most controllers if not all, and effectively you can overwrite tracks (if it isn't a serious issue I don't know what is), and it is basic functionality too. I'd explain but I've linked earlier.

MisterE wroteYou make some good points about the difficulty of designing and selling controllers though you lost me on the Nektar "C12" which I believe is the CS12 and is clearly "purpose built" (to quote the company's own hype) for Logic. Unless I'm missing something, it also obviously lacks DAW control (other than the ability to control DAW plugins) and whaddya call those things, oh yeah, keys

Correct, it's the CS12. It does have transport controls, as well as the ability to set loop points and such. I was told at NAMM that the initial product is Logic-centric, but they plan to support other DAWs as well. What that means in terms of mapping, I don't really know.

I see its intent as more about giving hands-on control over processors, along with some extras. But, I haven't played with it so I don't know if my high hopes have been realized or not.