| Author
|
Studio One 3.2 release
|
smoker
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
115
Posts :
873
Posted : Feb 26, 2016 19:01:37
|
|
frisbeehead
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
1352
Posted : Feb 26, 2016 20:40
|
curious about the "console summing" plug-in. I presume it's got to be akin to Wave's NLS and other such plug-ins, which are very interesting. Not sure I fully understood what they mean here with "audio level", but I guess it's to do with the DAW modules themselves, in which some plug-ins may engage in a part of the signal path directly, while none of this is done with more traditional routines like most plug-ins do.
one thing that's a bit obvious here is that they're blatantly copying Cubase in many ways. one of the new copy-cat things is akin to Cubase's "note expression", the ability to specify different controller meta data for each note, which is a function that's exclusive do Cubase and requires VST3 plug-ins to function. is the same also true for this new feature in Studio One?
Copy cat or not, I've demoed it some time ago (not this update, but some previous version of version 3) and I felt it's one of the best DAWs in terms of features and workflow, similar to Cubase and Logic in many ways. And the Scratch Pad thing should be Steinberg's way of saying "payback". A wonderful idea that all others should copy! Like they tend to anyways. Let's call it Sketch Canvas? |
|
|
smoker
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
115
Posts :
873
Posted : Feb 26, 2016 22:03
|
that's great that they copy many stuff from Cubase Logic Pro X and now Pro Tools 
they want to add new VST plugin such as
slate digital vsti , which will be amazing .
Studio One is going to the right directions.
i wish that cubase start doing the same
i hate cubase mixer , just wasting ton of time on simple task .
 -------------------------------------------------
https://soundcloud.com/user-537936268 |
|
|
|
frisbeehead
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
1352
Posted : Feb 27, 2016 05:51
|
I think it's fair to say that Studio One is catching up with the big guys in terms of its feature set, to this day.
The way they've marketed this update shows that they're BIG into building momentum for them. To my mind, their strategy was simply wrong and can back turn on them. Because for many people (besides those already sailing the boat) it can even feel like a disappointment. I mean, they've only just added console emulation to their daw. You have Slate Digital and Waves plug-ins that can do that already and it would be presumptuous at best to presume that this new thing, no matter how deeply it's integrated into the code, sounds any better or worse. Comparisons and reviews still have to be made.
So saying that the bar has been raised is perhaps a bit too much of a statement to make, to say the least.
As far as the feature set goes, I think Cubase is still some miles ahead of it. I've demoed both at the same time and ended up going with Cubase due to its workflow and fairly more advanced features - and more of them!
The mixer nowadays (at least, currently 8.5.1) allows you to show or hide everything, you can adjust the width as you see fit, can show the waveforms for audio, display the eq curves or not and all its functionality can be accessed quite easily even with the computer's keyboard. I think you have two views in Studio One (last time I checked), similar to Logic's with either thin or large. Plus you have direct routing on the mixer now if you need to change anything, route stuff to buses, or different outputs, or whatever. I think it's one of its stronger points actually. On top of that, Control Room has some very handy Loudness analysis meters and real time statistics and integrates nicely to the right of the mixer. You can turn things on and off just by hovering the mouse on the extremes and clicking stuff on or off.
Another thing that I've noticed was that Cubase handles resources better then any of the other DAWs I've tested and in more then one system. While Studio One, despite not being the worse of them, can't handle nearly as much load.
The implementation of rendering on pieces of audio, like on an event-basis, offline kind of processing of plug-ins, is much better on Cubase then it is in Studio One both in terms of accessibility and how it's thought out. It's a much more seamless process in Cubase. It could still go further like allowing automation within that and even to process a whole chain at once - but I bet that I'm just dreaming here (I do that sometimes).
I don't think many people appreciate the scope of what Cubase has and doesn't do. It's even hard to come up with a feature that's present in any of the rivals that it doesn't have. It's even got more then one way to do the same thing, which is something I find nice - 'cause you can choose this kind of thing based on your workflow rather then having the software pretty much dictate how you go about your business - that's a feeling we Cubase nuts tend to get when using Ableton.
Cubase's editing can be deeply enhanced with costume key shortcuts and it can get insanely fast. More then that, you can get very precise with the editing and even though critics say that the interface feels bloated (and this may be coming from Ipad Garage Band users, you just never know for sure these days XD) the thing you need seems to be in the right place when you need it, giving the impression of careful fine tuning of its interface. Studio one kind of looks like Cubase 5 on steroids. The way they've drawn the inspector does kinda ring a bell.
|
|
|
|
ansolas
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
108
Posts :
977
Posted : Feb 27, 2016 13:33
|
The new feature might be nice if you do alot with AudioEditing.
You still cant save Folder Tracks as preset which really suck.
If they would at least let use store multi output settings as preset. (only possible with impact)
Heck in Logic you can even save a foldertrack with midi sends and multiout mapping as apple loop or preset.
Bar raised ? their own bar maybe.
No relative automation mode.
Impact still buggy. (velocuity to pitch has no effect, velocity to cutoff creates clicks)
CPU consumption still suxx  (One instance of Impact can create 25% cpu under some circumstances on my 4770k)
If you enable automatic hide/show for channels in the mixer (collapse folder tracks),
Multiouts will still get shown unless you manually create tracks in the arrangement and map them by hand
(in and out) http://facebook.com/ansolas
http://ansolas.bandcamp.com/music
http://myspace.com/ansolas
http://soundcloud.com/ansolas
http://ansolas.de |
|
|
|
frisbeehead
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
1352
Posted : Feb 28, 2016 03:16
|
That's my impression as well. Studio One can't handle the same kind of load as programs like Cubase, Logic or Ableton.
There's a lot of debate about this subject on the net. But if we're to see things for what they are, the reasons for this claims are easy to dig.
One of the things that Studio One has is that it still deals with fades (in audio regions) as most programs did a few years ago. Let's take Logic (that I know well) as an example here. Logic 9 handled that the same way Studio One does. That is, instead of making some form of pre-render of the file and leave it alone, this task is processed in real time and has impact on everything, like plug-ins delay. In other words, if you don't bounce down your files after your editing is done, then your system gets slower quite fast. In Logic this was handled with a Logic X update, some months ago.
When saying this, you can realize that this is something that Apple has known for a long time and they had to take their time and see how to implement this changes - 'cause many times there's a lot of interdependencies on the code. It's not as direct as it may seem. The older programs have been ironed out plenty of times, the features have been added in a longer time span, corrected with suggestions from users based on real world scenarios and so I think it's fair to say that there's only so much you can do in a much shorter time span.
I'm not trying to undermine their efforts or claiming that Studio One is bad here. I actually think that once it matures a bit more, it's going to be a heavy contender for the most powerful music creating programs out there. You can tell that they don't shy away from integrating many features from others in a way that's a bit more obvious then usual. This is all fine.
What I don't like is that there seems to be a tendency with the way they market their stuff to proclaim that they've somehow surpassed everyone.
They suggested it with Version 3, with the 64 bit audio engine of theirs. They made it look like it's supposed to sound better or clearer. Anyone that knows anything will know what to make of such claims.
As I see it, they still have a long way ahead of them. And they need to find something of their own if they mean to put themselves between the major DAWs, like Ableton. Ableton is its own thing. Same deal with Reason. Those are truly original programs, both of them.
However, I think they did a real good job with the Scratch Pad thing. Their Arranger Track is a bit better then Cubase's in functionality and ease of use. They've long added fullscreen support for mac os, multi-monitor, high dpi support, while some of the big guys are still trying to cope with that. This shows they're serious.
But someone ought to tell those marketing guys to drink a coup of tea and relax. And there's something funny about the obviousness of their copy-cat methods that I fail to see elsewhere, but maybe it's got to do with some of them having worked for Steinberg previously.
|
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Jun 17, 2016 23:51
|
Quote:
|
Because for many people (besides those already sailing the boat) it can even feel like a disappointment.
|
|
Well, actually Studio One 3 was a bit dissapointing even for some of those already sailing the boat. Generally version 3 consists mostly of UX "improvements" that often disrupt the previous workflow. Okey there is some really cool new stuff but personally I like version 2 much more and continue using it.
Quote:
|
Another thing that I've noticed was that Cubase handles resources better then any of the other DAWs
|
|
My first impression was exactly the same about Studio One. I had the feeling that I can navigate through plugins, libraries and all resources of music files and then immediately import them per drag 5 times faster than in any other DAW that I have seen. Scaled on hundreds of import workflows this means hours to lose or win... But about the load you might be right. Actually you might be right about everything, this is just my perspective of perception.
Quote:
|
I don't think many people appreciate the scope of what Cubase has and doesn't do.
|
|
As a matter of fact, I do. For me cubase is sometimes the holy grail - another league of knowledge...It is like, if you understand Cubase to the full, you'd have eaten the fruit of knowledge.
But before I swich to a tool that takes so much more of my precious time because it is simply more complex, sophisticated and unclear, I would really like to know what are these features exactly, that Studio One is lacking of, and are they worth moving to exploration of Cubase...
1. rendering event based audio, processing plug-ins?
Never noticed that problem on studio one. Not really. Well okey, I'd like to test it with automatically generated music xml and be pleased to see how good it deals with processing it live but until I do this, studio one seems to be totally okey with rendering.
2.
Quote:
|
More then that, you can get very precise with the editing [... ] the thing you need seems to be in the right place when you need it
|
|
Okey. But what is it.
Quote:
|
Studio one kind of looks like Cubase 5 on steroids.
|
|
Hm no. Like the fruit of knowledge in form of a polished diamond.
|
|
|
|
|
