Hit X to crossfade.

Lawrence wroteHit X to crossfade.

I don't want anything on the right so i just used a normal fade of 22ms on the end of the top track and that fixed the pop
I don't get this behaviour in Reaper at all ,its only in Studio one it happens , so annoying having to put a fade on every single split

Do you mean how Reaper adds automatic short fades on every split?

I believe Lawrence actually made a really helpful macro to split in this way, it’s somewhere in the forum.

I have it on a key command and use it when I’m splitting in the middle of audio to save myself a click or two.

I don't get this behavior in Reaper at all ,its only in Studio one it happens , so annoying having to put a fade on every single split

Reaper and some other audio editors automatically / optionally fade audio clips on split by default to avoid that, and also automatically / optionally crossfades overlaps. Hitting X or Shift + X (Create Autofades) does the same here manually.. There are also handy Fade To and Fade From Cursor actions to use if you only want a fade in or out.

Unsolicited Advice: Try not to let small things like this get under your skin. For every second you lose doing A thing in app A that's automatic somewhere else in app B, you'll make it up doing something else where the other thing in app B is slower. It all balances out. Use the best current approach, just edit, and vote up the FR's..

I had this same problem, having to put fades in every single piece of cut audio to ensure there was no pops in the bounced file. I found the pops don't always show up in just playing the split audio pieces and neither do they necessarily show up when you merge the files but they appear in the bounced file.

Jemusic showed me a good time saver by selecting all the audio chunks in a track and then using the inspector to set a fade in and out for all of them (fader settings at the bottom of inspector).

What I was doing was cutting my little guitar chords and leaving a 1/64th overlap and then moving them up to a finished track above, I assumed the overlapping audio between each audio chunk would generate a crossfade as I come from a video editing background where all video editors generate automatic crossfades for both video and audio if you manage the individual files in this way. This however didn't happen, there was popping.

So I got rid of the overlaps and just had them sitting right next to each other where I discovered popping was still there and then Jemusic's solution.

I am not sure how other audio editors handle this behavior but having the option of generating automatic fades on split seems a logical thing to do for an audio editor. Especially, if it is already known that fades must be put on all audio slices manually to avoid popping.

In relation to generating automatic crossfades for overlapping audio, I cannot think of a situation where you would not want this to happen, so it does surprise me that there is also no option to have studio one perform this duty. Especially when studio one has the ability to cut audio to a video track.

Also, I am not sure that generalized feature request method is the best way to develop a DAW. If for example other DAW's have the discussed functions then it would seem good from a competitive standpoint, to just implement them if a good logical argument can be made.

At a guess, there are probably 6 or so different users of studio one, Loopsters (EDM, beatmaking), Engineers (recording others), Midi producers (using Virtual instruments), Singer/songwriters (recording own songs), Audio recorders (recording straight audio) and film music producers (creating audio to a video track). Many might use a combination of these.

If one particular group predominates, then their features get implemented because they get more votes on the feature request, but then studio one starts to move towards that groups wishes at the expense of the other groups. For example, there may be 2000 loopsters for every film composer using studio one. So film composers are never going to get what they want because they represent a small market and will never get enough votes for feature requests. However, If a major feature film"s audio was found to be cut with studio one, that would be a fantastic status symbol and marketing opportunity.

I suppose it is whether you want to make a well rounded DAW that attracts a diverse community or whether you want to chase the major market. Personally, I think that all groups should have some of their features implemented, to make studio one a well rounded DAW with diverse appeal. There should be a way that all groups can be represented.

Also there should be a feature "Dequest" function where unnecessary features can be voted down to prevent studio one getting too complex. Not everything, once implemented, is going to be a success, if it is found it isn't, why leave it there?

You know, it seems like the popular requests get all the attention when you look at the Answers page but a bunch of the Sample One / Impact related requests that were added in the last round of upgrades were not very high up on the FR list. Some of them had like 5 votes. But they were very relevant in terms of the goal that they were going for with the SO, Impact, Pattern Editor, Drum Editor combination and what it meant for certain types of content creators. No idea how their process works, just observing, but there is definitely some thought given to it outside of top votes.

It is something like this

Studio One roadmap -------------------------------- \
Presonus Hardware roadmap ----------------------+ ----- Studio One Releases
Answers FRs that align to roadmap --------------/
Answers FR s that show they are listening ----/