• Hi and welcome to the Studio One User Forum!

    Please note that this is an independent, user-driven forum and is not endorsed by, affiliated with, or maintained by PreSonus. Learn more in the Welcome thread!

New releases (any). A discussion and self reflection

lokeyfly

Active member
Just got to thinking.....
I was just down south visiting a friend. He's a loyal Logic user, looking to pick up a M4 Pro Mac Mini. I brought my laptop with me, and showed him some of my music as they were developed in Studio One. I showed him much of the bundled advantages such as chord track, channel splitting with the ability to parallel track via crossover frequency and other ways to split channels, the new clip launch, and streamlined....well.... everything most of you know and enjoy as well.
Of course, I added some of my third party goodies adding to some of the finesse of what is possible, and tricks of the trade. I will tell you, he looked on, being very impressed and asking if Studio One was cross-platform. Always an interesting and telling indicator of what could happen.

So here we are with Studio One 7.0.2. Whenever, I load a new DAW release, Im walking off the ground remebering the systems I worked with before the inception of DAW's and MIDI. Point being Studio One 2 would still be a very functional tool in my case. Ok, truth be told, version 4 would still be hot poop for my functional needs, even now.

Yet, I hear some for lack of a better word sniffling over such things as transient detection in the wrong place at peaks instead of the begining, and other utterly impossible injustices thrown at them. "The horror." The hundredths of a millisecond between the timing of a transient peak, and its begining are little to quibble about. I've not encountered one issue yet, and moved thousands around. Both percussion, finger-picking, vocals, bass, etc. The only one significant place, it's a potential issue is at the start of an event, and that is easily remedied by extending the event forward. Additional items include a few milliseconds latency, and other .... uhem.... points.

I won't touch on every gripe, nor should I. I realize others have an equal stake in whatever it is they do. But I honestly have to consider if we were once kids on the block who went to the baseball field (with Sammy, the labrador retreiver), that perhaps a few of the kids here would have missed the game winning fly ball, because a rock got in their way or the Sun was in their eyes. Or the......
You get the idea. Before anyone gets huffy, or righteous about what should happen with these appalling release shortcomings with Studio One v7, my point is to create a bit of introspection about what might be more important than the "oops" of quite a complex piece of software. If you feel the need to blast me for being wrong, or on the insatiable "other side" these days, know that I know you can for the most part, get around your beef with some latest version. Make that, any version. Fire away at how absurd I'm being, and make it good. Smile.
(and preferably friendly).
 
Last edited:
Some people consider workarounds a bad thing. Yet ultimately, a workaround is a solution. For example, I use tempo changes in my songs because they allow music to "breathe." Yet time-stretching is an extraordinarily difficult technical challenge. From time to time, during playback I hear artifacts due to stretching. I found that by moving a tempo reference point even slightly, the glitch would go away. Or, adding more tempo reference points was another way to solve the problem.

The bottom line is you can choose either to complain about Studio One's algorithm (which doesn't have ears) for not getting the stretching perfect on the first try, or praise Studio One for doing most of the work for you, while also providing the tools needed to do any finishing touches.
 
Hiya both,
is it time for the first feature update under this new system, or is it comming at the end of the 1st quarter ?

I remember reading somewhere that the distance betwwen most folks ears is about 8 milli seconds, I've never tried to measure tho,
and there have always been challenging issues in recording audio, taking it back in time Tape and analogue, the Azimuth correction of tape heads was fun.

Best regards
 
Last edited:
Great post as always, Lokeyfly.

I'm gonna add my thoughts on this.

I think a big problem is the overall lack of trust that is fostered when things like Transient Detection or Strip Silence don't act the way they are expected to. Does Pro Tools get Transient Detection right every time? No. Does Logic? Nope. But Studio One gets it incorrect far more often than either of those two. If I have to make 25 corrections while editing the song, that's what, two minutes off my life? Not an issue. If I have to make 100 corrections over the course of a day, that's maybe eight minutes. Who cares about that type of time loss? Not me. But if I can't trust the software to accurately automatically detect my transients, what else can't it do that it says it can?

Like many of you, I get paid with the decisions I make inside of this software. And I switched from Pro Tools a decade ago because during that release cycle, I didn't trust Pro Tools to consistently run, costing me money and jobs. There are things I do not trust Studio One to do on its own. I can look back at my beginnings and say yeah, there were things I didn't expect the ADAT and the Studer to do on their own, but they were marketed (generally) within their limitations. It's not Transient Detection* or Transient Search Pro+. It's industry accepted and understood terminology.

If enough people don't trust enough processes in an application, they'll move on. And while things like Transient Detection quality don't really matter to me (I use a different DAW to edit,) I can understand why people want it to function in a more predictive manner. If the Undo keyboard command didn't work as expected four times out of 50 (early PC based Pro Tools LE 6 systems actually did this), but the workaround was to manually click an undo function button, what actual detriment would it have? Some people hold the baseline expectation of a DAW to do the fundamental features that they believe a DAW should have. For some people, it's a non-destructive undo, for others it's Transient Detection. While I don't necessarily believe anything is *wrong* with Studio One's implementation, I do understand why people are wary of it.
 
Some people consider workarounds a bad thing. Yet ultimately, a workaround is a solution. For example, I use tempo changes in my songs because they allow music to "breathe." Yet time-stretching is an extraordinarily difficult technical challenge. From time to time, during playback I hear artifacts due to stretching. I found that by moving a tempo reference point even slightly, the glitch would go away. Or, adding more tempo reference points was another way to solve the problem.

The bottom line is you can choose either to complain about Studio One's algorithm (which doesn't have ears) for not getting the stretching perfect on the first try, or praise Studio One for doing most of the work for you, while also providing the tools needed to do any finishing touches.
Good remedies, Craig.

Pretty amazing how pitch and stretch is handled and can even re-adjust, still further. We live in amazing and creative times!

I have to remember when assisting someone with a snag using Studio One, to suggest "why not try...." instead of "As a workaround.....".
There are numerous ways to go about tasks with most any DAW. Often, people tend to treat some other possibility as a workaround. The word tends to paint the wrong picture for some. Fact is, a workaround is often a solution around. ; )
 
My man, you are all good.
 
Hiya both,
is it time for the first feature update under this new system, or is it comming at the end of the 1st quarter ?

I remember reading somewhere that the distance betwwen most folks ears is about 8 milli seconds, I've never tried to measure tho,
and there have always been challenging issues in recording audio, taking it back in time Tape and analogue, the Azimuth correction of tape heads was fun.

Best regards
You (or they) likely interpreted 8 milliseconds as some reverberent reflection or some other audio decay. Ear to ear distance would not take 8 milliseconds. It would be less than 1 millisecond.

A basic rule to follow when discussing the distance it takes to travel in milliseconds is;
Sound travels at a speed of approximately 1130 feet per second. In milliseconds that is 1.13 feet per millisecond (a millisecond is 0.001 seconds). In milliseconds per foot this becomes 0.885 or roughly 0.9 milliseconds per foot.

For our needs here, it's basically 1 foot per millisecond.
A speaker about 5 feet away from you would produce about a 5 millisecond delay. Not horrible at all, if you were playing a guitar, struck a note and then heard the sound. Struck a piano key, snare drum, etc. Hardly discernable.
However,
Hearing 1 millisecond delay (latency) from both the original attack, and delay of a note can be heard. It's sort of a phasing difference.

So my point about the peak of a transient marker positioning still stands. The apex of a transient where a bend marker resides, and the occasional points made by others of placing that marker position at the so called start of a sound being produced (somewhere between silent and infinite, lets say in the thousandths) is just silly. Again, if that sound is cut off as in the begining of an event (Studio One terms for a section of audio or MIDI section), then the cutoff can be noticed. This can be cured be either extending the begining of the event, or allowing the snap feature to do that for you.

As to the next update, I forgot the intervals, but someone can chime in there. I think it is at the first quarter.

As to tape azimuth, yep, many hurdles then as well.
 
0.885 or roughly 0.9 milliseconds per foot.

Hearing 1 millisecond delay (latency) from both the original attack, and delay of a note can be heard. It's sort of a phasing difference.
Yup. my memory is failing, or I may not have interpreted what I was reading correctly at that time, your clarification stands on it's merit.

I s'pose the bottom line is folk need or want a daw to work the way they want or expect it too and the corollary that exist following whether it is the right tool for their needs.

About the update, let's hope it comes when it's fully cooked and not rushed out based on an arbitrary or guillotine date.

Kindest regards
 
Thanks ianaeillo, I always appreciate what you bring to any conversation, including this one. I apologize for the lengthy delay in responding.

Great post as always, Lokeyfly.

I'm gonna add my thoughts on this.

I think a big problem is the overall lack of trust that is fostered when things like Transient Detection or Strip Silence don't act the way they are expected to. Does Pro Tools get Transient Detection right every time? No. Does Logic? Nope. But Studio One gets it incorrect far more often than either of those two. If I have to make 25 corrections while editing the song, that's what, two minutes off my life? Not an issue. If I have to make 100 corrections over the course of a day, that's maybe eight minutes. Who cares about that type of time loss? Not me. But if I can't trust the software to accurately automatically detect my transients, what else can't it do that it says it can?

I can't lend anything on how Studio One has less consistency detecting transients compared to PT or Logic. Even though I have a long relationship with PT.
Sure, transient detection can vary depending on the dynamics, and surrounding material that inhibits transients from being detected. Let's take even one instrument as simple as a ride cymbal. If it's heavily an active sixteenth notes, between the bell and bow (middle), that might always be heard and detected. Add multiple edge hits which add to an enormous crescendo and overtones, and transient detect can easily get lost.
What about ghost notes? Let's take Steely Dan's "Aja" as an example. Notes would be difficult to simply fix based on a grid.
A human voice will be even more difficult to set markers to automatically. Algorithms spot what they're capable of detecting, assign a bend marker, and repeat based on settings. That can be a tall order. Users likely won't get what they want, or always expect.

There is on the other hand what I consider to be a rather easy fix, and it has to do with first auto detect, then manually adjust after.

While I agree with your consistency concerns, for the bulk of many situations, (I believe) it's not so critical to worry about one's DAW always finding a transient detect at every turn. It wont always happen due to the many variables required for peak detection. Transient detection will improve no doubt as ARA2 and other improvements get better. On the bright side, the time it takes to perform basic manual detection, remove or add markers one by one take as long as (hold on)..... a double click of the mouse. One might move a bend marker only to find, a neighboring section wants to also move or worse, stretch because it never received a bend marker. That's not catastrophic. First, double click where there should be a marker. Then that position is anchored. Now move the previous marker without issue. I dont consider being paid to perform such tasks, any more relevant, when having the already laborious or sensitive task of getting a performance really spot on (feel). Which any one of us who delve in the art of a good performance know, that a proper fix from a poor one can amount to milliseconds with timing. Sometimes, even a whole lot of fixes. That might not account for all musical genres (or narration repair), but I'd likely question broad stroke dependancy of detection, versus manual adjustment. It's been my experience, there will always be some manual bend marker repair. It's rather quick and easy.

Is it then up to consumers/hobbyists to claim Studio One doesn't have the same hit rate finding transients as PT, or Logic? Well, some are concerned, but I don't think I've heard all that many complaints. And to my point, the alternative manual double click repair process is very quick, if we're talking about completing a project, valued over others complaining about it. Fortunately, you've found an alternative workflow. It would be recommended, others find the same, or understand the importance of alternate stratagies. Such as Craig Anderton's many tips and tricks which do exactly that. Add to ones knowledge, and skill set. Right within the DAW itself. I'm admittedly coming from a place of 90% perspiration. My take is if someone wants to report that transient detect seems worse in Studio One, than X or Y, fine. But I'd add the devil is in the details, and they shouldnt expect it to all just work.
It's all clay.

Also, when repairing such lengthy regions, if that is the case.....
Fixing every note of a song isn't always necessary, when a verse, or parts, are all that is needed to fix, then repeat. Varying the performance can be altered with automation later, for a buildup, whatever. I'd leave adjustments to the users own discretion. Vocals are an exception and should get the undivided attention necessary.
Like many of you, I get paid with the decisions I make inside of this software. And I switched from Pro Tools a decade ago because during that release cycle, I didn't trust Pro Tools to consistently run, costing me money and jobs. There are things I do not trust Studio One to do on its own. I can look back at my beginnings and say yeah, there were things I didn't expect the ADAT and the Studer to do on their own, but they were marketed (generally) within their limitations. It's not Transient Detection* or Transient Search Pro+. It's industry accepted and understood terminology.

If enough people don't trust enough processes in an application, they'll move on. And while things like Transient Detection quality don't really matter to me (I use a different DAW to edit,) I can understand why people want it to function in a more predictive manner. If the Undo keyboard command didn't work as expected four times out of 50 (early PC based Pro Tools LE 6 systems actually did this), but the workaround was to manually click an undo function button, what actual detriment would it have? Some people hold the baseline expectation of a DAW to do the fundamental features that they believe a DAW should have. For some people, it's a non-destructive undo, for others it's Transient Detection. While I don't necessarily believe anything is *wrong* with Studio One's implementation, I do understand why people are wary of it.
If people are getting on with completing a project, and they feel something like imperfect transient detection slowed them down, than I'd suspect they certainly have a beef. Lengthy edits can even drain being in the creatuve moment. That can be salvaged by stepping away, or proceeding around the bump in the road, and edit later. What I can't give the benefit of the doubt is that people often complain way too easily. The fact that something doesn't just "work", is profoundly easy to claim when it comes to something with many variables. I'd offer an olive branch and say that if took someone 3 hours longer to adjust..... well, they'd press on because their passion for completing the project would far outweigh ragging on the DAW, or its developers. Results win every time.


Lastly, about the many complaints of Studio One, on a number of fronts.
Remember, we're somewhere between the place of artists, musicians, or producers engaging in an end game (usually a song, or album), or having to suggest they remove the games, and non related musical paraphernalia off their computer. So complaints to a consumer/prosumer-like DAW as Studio One will often happen with users' little understanding about the true flexibility, or care of the beast.

Good speak my friend! If I over stated or over simplified any process, let me know, and I'd be glad to adjust.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top