garyshepherd wroteThe thing with these tests is - what is it you cannot do in Studio One 3 that you can do in Reaper? Is the alleged CPU inefficiency stopping you making music?

In many cases yes, it is preventing people from making music, especially when compared to the amount of plugins we can run on other DAWs on the same Laptop!

garyshepherd wrote No offence to Reaper lovers but it is not really a serious DAW - it is so widely used because it is cheap (and many don't pay anything) and while it is good it is not a pro DAW (in my opinion).

You're only kidding, right? Lol - FruityLoops for example, is cheap too (one time payment - lifetime license) and are you gonna tell me it's not a pro DAW? Everyone know's it's a pro DAW, it's the second biggest selling DAW in the world, and can do everything S1 can do! And it (like Reaper) outperforms S1 on every count (note: I myself don't use FruityLoops). Another DAW I use is low cost (barely over $100) and I can tell you it is pro, it does everything, there's nothing it can't do (including built-in 'bitbridge' to use 32bit plugins in the 64bit version/Melodyne integrated/VST3/submixing & bussing galore/full-blown automation etc etc) and it does it all elegantly with simplicity and intuitiveness and with a lovely looking interface, most intuitive DAW there is, and it can run 5x the amount of VSTIs/plugins that S1 can... on the same Laptop!


I need to ask... Why do a lot of users keep making excuses for S1's inefficiency? It's common knowledge that S1 has issues when it comes to loading etc. Why can't Presonus just come out and address us on this issue? < is that a fair question?

Jose7822 wrote

garyshepherd wroteAs I said I would like a test based on audio tracks as a better guide to efficiency.

But that's exactly what this Benchmark uses (multiple sine wave tracks each loaded with plugins).

I meant without loads of plugins but hey it doesn't matter - I am probably more old school and can't imagine a song with over 50 tracks loaded with plugins. I tend to think in terms of guitar, keyboards, bass, drums, and vocals - and before mixing I would tend to bounce audio tracks to cut down plugins to just the mixing board/mix ones. And up to now I have been happy with Studio One 3 - but if Reaper is more efficient fine - it probably doesn't affect me too much - when it does I will complain!

I recently moved over to Studio One 3 from Digital Performer and Reason rewired, so being able to dispense with Reason for most of the sounds, has cut down the strain on my CPU anyway. I am sure Reaper is a great program built from the ground up without years of surplus code baggage and with a lot of user customisation. I will check it out again of course but I am happy I made the move to Studio One 3 with all the instruments and Melodyne.

Nokatus wrote

garyshepherd wrote Is the alleged CPU inefficiency stopping you making music?

Yes. One of the reasons I stopped using Studio One was its inability to cope with large low latency projects with many VI instances. It literally stopped me from making music, in situations where competing products didn't exhibit any problems on the same system and same latency.

So you stopped using Studio One, but you spend your time in the Presonus forums?

sirmonkey wrote

Nokatus wrote

garyshepherd wrote Is the alleged CPU inefficiency stopping you making music?

So you stopped using Studio One, but you spend your time in the Presonus forums?

I presume you mean Nokatus? I have recently started using Studio One 3 having switched from other DAW's which is why I am now on this forum.

sirmonkey wroteSo you stopped using Studio One, but you spend your time in the Presonus forums?

Yes.

I'm still a customer, and still interested in Studio One (which I think is a great DAW in many respects), so I check this place out from time to time, that is to say, infrequently.

I haven't used Studio One for any actual production duties for well over a year, as I find it lacking in some critical areas important to me; nevertheless I like to keep up on its state, especially as I have about three years' worth of commercial projects done with it and I might want to revisit them at some point.

Nokatus wrote

sirmonkey wroteSo you stopped using Studio One, but you spend your time in the Presonus forums?

Yes.

I'm still a customer, and still interested in Studio One (which I think is a great DAW in many respects), so I check this place out from time to time, that is to say, infrequently.

I haven't used Studio One for any actual production duties for well over a year, as I find it lacking in some critical areas important to me; nevertheless I like to keep up on its state, especially as I have about three years' worth of commercial projects done with it and I might want to revisit them at some point.

That does make sense. Now I can relate: I have software by AIR Music Technology, but don't plan on buying any more (I really like the instruments, but I have too many toys). Anyway, I've been hoping for certain bugs to be fixed, and functionalities to be implemented. So I do still head over to their forums sometimes.

garyshepherd wrote

Jose7822 wrote
I meant without loads of plugins but hey it doesn't matter - I am probably more old school and can't imagine a song with over 50 tracks loaded with plugins. I tend to think in terms of guitar, keyboards, bass, drums, and vocals - and before mixing I would tend to bounce audio tracks to cut down plugins to just the mixing board/mix ones. And up to now I have been happy with Studio One 3 - but if Reaper is more efficient fine - it probably doesn't affect me too much - when it does I will complain!

I recently moved over to Studio One 3 from Digital Performer and Reason rewired, so being able to dispense with Reason for most of the sounds, has cut down the strain on my CPU anyway. I am sure Reaper is a great program built from the ground up without years of surplus code baggage and with a lot of user customisation. I will check it out again of course but I am happy I made the move to Studio One 3 with all the instruments and Melodyne.

Again, a test like what you're suggesting is not gonna push any current system at all, which is the point of having loads of plugins in the first place. People have been able to do 50+ audio tracks since the Pentium 4 days. What's that? Like 15 years ago? And even that Benchmark test is kinda old. I could be wrong, but the last time I saw it updated was around 2011 or so. It is still a great DAW Benchmark test though.

BTW, I too recently moved to Studio One from Cubase. I still haven't completely abandoned Cubase though, since I think it's still the best DAW for Film Scoring. But, like you, I am happy to use Studio One for my music. Personally, I haven't been able to get into Reaper. Too messy for my taste and the way I like to work. But there's no doubt that Reaper usually outperforms most, if not every, DAW currently in the market. It's an outstanding piece of software (just not for me). The point is, that Presonus should always strive for better. CPU performance seems to be an area where they need to improve. Nothing wrong with pointing that out, especially when it's being done constructively. In the end it'll only benefit all of us .

Take care!

multifederal wrote

garyshepherd wrote No offence to Reaper lovers but it is not really a serious DAW - it is so widely used because it is cheap (and many don't pay anything) and while it is good it is not a pro DAW (in my opinion).

You're only kidding, right? Lol - FruityLoops for example, is cheap too (one time payment - lifetime license) and are you gonna tell me it's not a pro DAW? Everyone know's it's a pro DAW, it's the second biggest selling DAW in the world, and can do everything S1 can do! And it (like Reaper) outperforms S1 on every count (note: I myself don't use FruityLoops)

I did retract the term "serious" in a subsequent post and qualified my remarks - so no need to quote this.

multifederal wroteI need to ask... Why do a lot of users keep making excuses for S1's inefficiency? It's common knowledge that S1 has issues when it comes to loading etc. Why can't Presonus just come out and address us on this issue? < is that a fair question?

I addressed this also in subsequent posts - for my working methods it's all good - but then I have got used to working in a way without 50+ tracks with plugins at the same time, by editing, bouncing, cleaning up, comping, and merging - and have always been mindful of the CPU drain on every home system I have ever had (with my original computer system of Apple Mac Classic and Opcode Vision).

But then I trained as an engineer in a top London studio in the 1970's which was 16 track and we learned to be tidy and creative in use of tracks. Some of the greatest music ever made was done on 16 tracks or less - you have to make decisions sooner . I have found Studio One a massive aid to the creative process and therefore haven't noticed CPU efficiency problems because my modus operandi seeks to mitigate that (on any system/DAW). Studio One has enabled me to work quicker and creatively and has been a seamless changeover. It's lack of CPU efficiency hasn't been an issue for me. Maybe Reaper suits a different working method and I am sure it's fine for that.

garyshepherd wrote
But then I trained as an engineer in a top London studio in the 1970's which was 16 track and we learned to be tidy and creative in use of tracks. Some of the greatest music ever made was done on 16 tracks or less - you have to make decisions sooner.

My modus operandi is different than yours. FYI I run VSTIs only, no hardware, and these I like to run in real-time on the fly throughout the entire project right to the end until I'm ready to bounce the project to a stereo file. I avoid all merging and bounce-downs, everything runs direct from the VSTIs in real-time until I'm ready to print the whole track. All effects (including the master bus mastering chain) and samples and VSTIs never get bounced, ever, and the whole project is set at 24bit 96kHz.

The i7 cpus these days can handle it EASY, actually 5 years ago an Intel i7 Sandybridge cpu could handle it easily, and with room to spare! Unless of course the DAW engine is handicapped/inefficient (as is the case with S1); in any other DAW my way of working is accomplished with ease, never an issue, approx 50 'simultaneous' effects, 20 VSTIs, several audio tracks, all running in real-time without a hitch, and under this scenario in all DAWs (except S1) the Laptop yawns at me with boredom and asks me for a real challenge, but S1 seizes-up long before I can finish, thus currently S1 is a no go for me, it's unusable unless I'm willing to completely bastardise my preferred way of working and defile my songs with constant non-desirable bounce-downs.

Garyshepherd,

As you can see, not everyone uses the same "Modus Operandi" as you. I personally am somewhere in between you and Multifederal (actually, I'm MUCH closer to him than you) when it comes to workflow, so you can't expect everyone to be as pleased as you are with S1's CPU performance. So far I haven't had any issues with it. This could be because I recently built a very powerful system for my studio, and/or because I'm not using as many Instrument tracks as I do when working on a score. But just because I don't experience the issue doesn't mean I shouldn't sympathize with others who are having it. This, and other threads on the subject, are a testimony that Studio One does need to be improved in this area. Contrary to popular belief, Sympathy is actually a good quality to have .

Jose7822 wroteGaryshepherd,

As you can see, not everyone uses the same "Modus Operandi" as you. I personally am somewhere in between you and Multifederal (actually, I'm MUCH closer to him than you) when it comes to workflow, so you can't expect everyone to be as pleased as you are with S1's CPU performance. So far I haven't had any issues with it. This could be because I recently built a very powerful system for my studio, and/or because I'm not using as many Instrument tracks as I do when working on a score. But just because I don't experience the issue doesn't mean I shouldn't sympathize with others who are having it. This, and other threads on the subject, are a testimony that Studio One does need to be improved in this area. Contrary to popular belief, Sympathy is actually a good quality to have .

I am not sure where I said everyone should have the same modus operandi as me - why would I think that? I was saying that with my setup and the way I work I am not experiencing any issues. What do you want me to say then? I sympathise with all those having problems with this software which I am not experiencing myself - does that cover it?

garyshepherd wroteI am not sure where I said everyone should have the same modus operandi as me - why would I think that? I was saying that with my setup and the way I work I am not experiencing any issues. What do you want me to say then? I sympathise with all those having problems with this software which I am not experiencing myself - does that cover it?

I can actually appreciate that you're old school, and I can identify with the way you had to work in the 70s, when you had to improvise. I actually feel privileged that I had no choice but to work that way in my earlier music-making days, in the mid nineties, doing music on computer was not common, and computers couldn't handle it anyway, thus the Pro tools DSP cards were born, and even the Ensoniq PARIS system < a DSP card PC system, which were too expensive for me, so I had to use a Yamaha 4track mixer with built-in Tape machine Lol, and then a Roland VS880 digital 8track mixer was the go for me, alongside my Roland JX305 and Kurzweil K2000 synth workstations, hell even a lowly DigiTech stereo hardware effects unit cost $1200 on its own.

But these days I'm glad we are totally unhindered now (except in S1s case - ahem *cough*)

multifederal wrote

garyshepherd wroteI am not sure where I said everyone should have the same modus operandi as me - why would I think that? I was saying that with my setup and the way I work I am not experiencing any issues. What do you want me to say then? I sympathise with all those having problems with this software which I am not experiencing myself - does that cover it?

I can actually appreciate that you're old school, and I can identify with the way you had to work in the 70s, when you had to improvise. I actually feel privileged that I had no choice but to work that way in my earlier music-making days, in the mid nineties, doing music on computer was not common, and computers couldn't handle it anyway, thus the Pro tools DSP cards were born, and even the Ensoniq PARIS system < a DSP card PC system, which were too expensive for me, so I had to use a Yamaha 4track mixer with built-in Tape machine Lol, and then a Roland VS880 digital 8track mixer was the go for me, alongside my Roland JX305 and Kurzweil K2000 synth workstations, hell even a lowly DigiTech stereo hardware effects unit cost $1200 on its own.

But these days I'm glad we are totally unhindered now (except in S1s case - ahem *cough*)

Producing music on computers in the 1980's through to the mid 1990's was actually very common, Atari ST, Commodore Amiga are key example's and following quickly with the rise in PC/Mac based composing software. Computer manufacturers such as Atari & Commodore struggled and fell into liquidation and also went through buyouts and subsequent / eventual production closures. That didn't mean that people stopped producing on machines such as Atari's and Amiga's right up to the year 2000. Octamed and various other Soundtracker systems allowed for 4 hardware channels to be played in unison or even up to 8 or more through clever mixing and bit depth manipulation techniques, besides midi compatibility to external gear.

But today to say you are un-hiddered now in terms of computer processing power is, quite simply not true and it doesn't matter what daw you have, or even what 3D graphics program you use. You will always have to make sacrifices and optimisations when it comes to the software you use and what you create with it. The fundamental principals remain the same just as they did 30 years ago.

In the Disnay film Tron Legacy they had to fake much of the reflective 3D glass like effects and use mirrored pre rendered 2D planes because the computational resources were just too high and impractical to try and do it the other way.

If you don't understand the margins of the processing power you have in order to achieve a task, understand that there are settings which are completely non essential and to be audible to the human ear, and so on... you will forever be frustrated because your expectations are way beyond what is practically possible.

scottmoncrieff wrote
Producing music on computers in the 1980's through to the mid 1990's was actually very common, Atari ST, Commodore Amiga are key example's and following quickly with the rise in PC/Mac based composing software. Computer manufacturers such as Atari & Commodore struggled and fell into liquidationand also went through buyouts and subsequent / eventual production closures.

Maybe you need to reconsider your understanding of what *common* means, because I don't agree with you. Making music on computers in the 80s and 90s definitely was not common. Today making music with computers is common, but in the 80s and 90s it definitely was not. Just because a few trailblazers were doing it, that doesn't mean it was common. Even outboard digital hardware mixers were in their infancy in the late nineties, so your synopsis doesn't ring a bell with me.

scottmoncrieff wroteThat didn't mean that people stopped producing on machines such as Atari's and Amiga's right up to the year 2000.

Exactly, and such producers were rare as hen's teeth.

scottmoncrieff wroteBut today to say you are un-hiddered now in terms of computer processing power is, quite simply not true and it doesn't matter what daw you have. The fundamental principals remain the same just as they did 30 years ago.

With todays computing power I most definitely am unhindered, and you can't speak for me mind you.

scottmoncrieff wroteIf you don't understand the margins of the processing power you have in order to achieve a task, understand that there are settings which are completely non essential and to be audible to the human ear, and so on... you will forever be frustrated because your expectations are way beyond what is practically possible.

Thing is I'm never frustrated, and the expectations for my projects have been met for the last 7 years. I never do bounce-downs these days, so what is "practically possible" in my case has been the norm for me for the last decade, unhindered, it's a non-issue; in every DAW except S1 my projects are completed with room to spare on the CPU, and that's what I call unhindered, especially when compared to ten years ago..

multifederal wroteI can actually appreciate that you're old school, and I can identify with the way you had to work in the 70s, when you had to improvise. I actually feel privileged that I had no choice but to work that way in my earlier music-making days, in the mid nineties, doing music on computer was not common, and computers couldn't handle it anyway, thus the Pro tools DSP cards were born, and even the Ensoniq PARIS system < a DSP card PC system, which were too expensive for me, so I had to use a Yamaha 4track mixer with built-in Tape machine Lol, and then a Roland VS880 digital 8track mixer was the go for me, alongside my Roland JX305 and Kurzweil K2000 synth workstations, hell even a lowly DigiTech stereo hardware effects unit cost $1200 on its own.

But these days I'm glad we are totally unhindered now (except in S1s case - ahem *cough*)

I don't want to lengthen this thread in areas away from the main theme (and it's not all about me) but I have worked the other way with loads of VI's and plugins loaded and loads of tracks with fx running. But I found that bouncing down and tidying up freed the creative process to concentrate on performance and arrangement, and eventually mixing. The beauty of the current systems is you can always go back and change things - its the secret of finding what works for you - and that will be different for different people. Some people find a more "chaotic" (to me anyway) approach is more creative to making music.

I haven't found Studio One 3 CPU drain to be an issue but others obviously have - I can only say that my experience having recently switched DAWs has been really positive and therefore I wanted to let that be known. But it seems an update may be required for those with more issues - and that would benefit everyone.

garyshepherd wrote The beauty of the current systems is you can always go back and change things

Exactly, and that is priceless! As you know, once we bounce something down, we've crossed the rubicon, and the song might then go down a path which we had not originally intended, and 'Freezing' tracks has never been my cup of tea.

Being able to revisit or open a project with everything in place track-by-track, with the ability to amend or modify them (for whatever reason) is ideal, the pinnacle of liberty. Having a stereo master file is no where near as good as having a master file with each-&-every track able to be accessed again.

garyshepherd wrote I haven't found Studio One 3 CPU drain to be an issue but others obviously have

It wouldn't be such a big deal if it was just a matter of give-or-take 25% difference between S1 and other DAWs, but we notice that other DAWs often give 200% better performance, which is hard to overlook, because S1 is essentially relegating a cutting-edge CPU to half it's true power... not good!

The bottom line is that there are good / expert producers/engineers that know how to use any music creation (tool 'Y') they lay their hands on to the maximum and there are those who simply do not, and blame their tools, because another product 'X 'does things differently. If product 'X' is so good and your skills are not as good in using product 'Y' to achieve the same end goal, i.e produce a god damn great piece of music whilst still retaining all the data required that you would do in product 'X', well then you are simply your own worst enemy. There are also lazy producers who expect to have their cake and eat it, this isn't a category that I'd put myself in..

Last year I created a track with around 170 tracks of audio and vst instruments which I could play back on my system fine once optimised. My latest track which is also over on the Made in Studio One forum uses a layer technique. This effectively provides me with what is accumulatively a computer that is around 7.12 Ghz in power. Maximising the amount of power and freedom I have and ability to change and edit any midi note data / instruments and effects + actually process the entirety of that data in any way I like from that previous layer. I posted screenshots showing how this was achieved right here viewtopic.php?f=206&t=24450

garyshepherd wroteI am not sure where I said everyone should have the same modus operandi as me - why would I think that? I was saying that with my setup and the way I work I am not experiencing any issues. What do you want me to say then? I sympathise with all those having problems with this software which I am not experiencing myself - does that cover it?

It covers it, yeah -- it's just that saying things like this...

garyshepherd wroteBut then I trained as an engineer in a top London studio in the 1970's which was 16 track and we learned to be tidy and creative in use of tracks. Some of the greatest music ever made was done on 16 tracks or less - you have to make decisions sooner.

...can easily be interpreted as if you're saying that someone who is having the kinds of problems outlined in this thread isn't as "tidy and creative in use of tracks" and should "make decisions sooner." It's good to know you weren't implying that.

Different genres and scenarios call for different approaches, and what works for a case like yours may not be a comfortable way of working if you're doing a piece for a game soundtrack using upwards of 50 Kontakt instances and a bunch of Zebras, for example. It's not about whose process is better, or whose chosen music style is better, they are just different use cases. But yeah, nice that you're on the same page already.

scottmoncrieff wroteThe bottom line is that there are good / expert producers/engineers that know how to use any music creation (tool 'Y') they lay their hands on to the maximum and there are those who simply do not, and blame their tools, because another product 'X 'does things differently.

There are also good / expert producers/engineers who know how to use any music creation tool (tool 'Y') they lay their hands on to the "maximum", and at the same time evaluate said tool Y in relation to other products X1, X2, X3 ... Xn, sometimes coming to the conclusion that some of those products yield a better "maximum" for that particular use case. At times, this can be very noticeable, and if the case happens to reflect tasks that the user is doing frequently, it can be a valid basis for switching products or at the very least commenting on the issue.

As pointed out, there are all kinds of users and use cases, and if you want to look at it objectively, it's not every time someone says "this can be better achieved in X" that it also means the person commenting isn't capable of using their tools (or is incompetent in some other way). In case you were implying that (I don't think you were?), let me just say, that would be just biased banter.

I'm sure there are users of every level around here, fitting all of the... categories (hah) loosely described in this thread. Personally, I started out on those early computer systems in the 80s and 90s. Manually installing DRAM chips onto a circuit board to go from 256 kilobytes of sample memory to one full megabyte (!), doing all manual edits, slicing and bouncing and making single channels fill multiple purposes at the same time, finding ways to take it to the so-called maximum. Since then, I have sometimes participated in challenges subscribing to a constrained writing ethos, that is, occasionally producing something within strictly set limits, either on some old hardware or perhaps just using one synthesizer to craft all sounds, or some other limitation in the overall recording/mixing process. I think things like that are neat and creative.

All in all, it's nice to see people commenting on the Studio One CPU thing. In low latency projects, using many VIs and effects, it could be so much better, and currently it can really restrict your work. So again, if considering Studio One for uses like that, don't take my or anyone else's word for it, simply take the comments as a warning and test it in your use case, yourself, and see if it's a pain or not.