• 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!

Solved Studio One and Apple Silicon

I'm not a Mac user and therefore will not be affected by this. Whether or not this is a flaw in the video or in Studio One, I am in no position to make any judgements. One thing however is completely ignored: This is a benchmark test. This is to show which system performs best and which worst. It does not take into account that you as a real world user will most likely not need 96 instances of a Neuro DSP Amp sim (or other amp sim, they tend to be quite CPU hungry) in a mix. And professional mixing engineers always tell you to use your most advanced plugins only on the elements in your mix that are given the forefront. The parts that form the framework of the song, not the parts that fill the gaps. Even if the results are an actual reflection of how each of these DAWs perform, it is still impressive and most likely you will not touch the limitations. If you know what you're doing. I have mixed in Studio One since version 3.5 and for the first 2 years I did that on a first generation i7 with 4 GB of RAM. Yes, there are definitely limitations there, but it worked, even with high track counts. That system would have been on its knees with maybe only 2 instances of Neural DSP. And here we are discussing about 84 of these. That is not a situation you will likely encounter in reality. So even if other DAWs in fact perform better in that test, it still doesn't mean you should use any of the other DAWs. Because with that kind of performance it is still only about which one works best for you, and that is mainly about workflow.

I'm now on a 9th generation i7, with 16 GB RAM and that is a huge step up from my previous system, but I still choose my plugins carefully. I do have a lot of electric guitar tracks regularly and they all are always direct recording, which means I always need to have amp sims on those tracks. And yes, that can add up quickly, especially if I want to copy some of them to create a combination of amps for a wider sound, or do that in a splitter. This makes that I need to be much more deliberate in creating the tones, because I have to commit at some point. But even in a big mix it's usually no more than 20 amps and many would already say that that's ridiculous. Let alone 84.
Yes, I know you have other plugins as well. But like what? No one would put Ozone on each channel, I hope. Kush plugins can be an issue, some of the Waves Abbey Road plugins as well, but those are not tools you want on every channel either. This discussion is about being able to get 20 pancakes when you can only really eat 5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AAV
The guy posted a video addressing some of the criticisms about his tests (and most of it makes very little to no difference, it seems):

The beginning of his video still makes no sense to me. Setting DP to maximum (2048 samples) instead of high (1024 samples) is still not comparable to REAPER's AFX (~ 9000 samples buffering!?). For a fair comparison, both DAWs should be tested under comparable conditions.

I understand his point that this wasn't meant to be a performance comparison between DAWs. However, the way the video starts ("I'll test 1024 samples on each DAW" and then enabling settings that effectively use a much higher buffer size in certain DAWs) is very misleading, as is the chart. And as we've seen many viewers interpreted it as a direct comparison of the actual performance of different DAWs.
 
The beginning of his video still makes no sense to me. Setting DP to maximum (2048 samples) instead of high (1024 samples) is still not comparable to REAPER's AFX (~ 9000 samples buffering!?). For a fair comparison, both DAWs should be tested under comparable conditions.

I understand his point that this wasn't meant to be a performance comparison between DAWs. However, the way the video starts ("I'll test 1024 samples on each DAW" and then enabling settings that effectively use a much higher buffer size in certain DAWs) is very misleading, as is the chart. And as we've seen many viewers interpreted it as a direct comparison of the actual performance of different DAWs.
Hi Lukas! James from the video here. Thank you for your feedback! Just wanted to chime in and clarify a couple of things in case others come across this. (These are all in the follow-up video in a reply above, but I totally understand not everyone wants to watch a video and/or give the video a view count.)

First, the goal of the video is about how each DAW performs on 4 generations of Pro chips, and how that can affect purchasing decisions.

It's not about comparing the DAWs and which DAW is better
.

Now, I understand that I myself made comparisons of different DAWs' performances in multiple occasions in the video, and I fully acknowledge that that was not a good move. It muddies up the actual purpose of the video. Comparison is fun, and I just got carried over looking at the test data. I will strive to improve my communication in future videos :)

Second, despite the fact that all the DAWs have different processing buffers despite the device buffer being the same, it doesn't change what I wanted to show, which is—

Some DAWs's CPU overload “ceiling” is (or can be configured to be) higher than others.

Yes, those DAWs use all kind of processing tricks to achieve that, but the bottom line is, for the user, it's a difference of being able to just barely play back a huge mixing session smoothly and not, on the exact same hardware.

And that's speaking from experience. On the same computer, I simply could not mix some large projects in Logic because I kept getting the system overload pop up, whereas REAPER could handle those no problem.

Like yes, REAPER is “cheating,” but that's the thing—there is no way to get S1, Logic, Ableton Live to “cheat” like REAPER, Cubase (and maybe PT). There was a post on Reddit by an S1 user (not me) asking about this exact topic: Studio One performance - the real question

Because of this, I think it's helpful for people to know where that CPU overload “ceiling” of their DAW of choice is when buying their Mac:
  1. If it can be configured to be super high (e.g. REAPER, Cubase), they could choose a lesser chip, and allocate more of their budget to SSD/RAM etc.
  2. If not (e.g. S1, Ableton), they might want to make sure they get a more powerful chip.
Hope this makes sense!
 
IMHO,
Why didn't the review, just call them Daw 1, Daw 2, Daw 3. using brand names is by association going to bring negative reactions.
I use a daw for it's features and tools. I also use more than one daw. Is that a Daw crime these days. I do find it interesting tho' the gain in power that extra cores provide when running a Daw.
 
IMHO,
Why didn't the review, just call them Daw 1, Daw 2, Daw 3. using brand names is by association going to bring negative reactions.
I use a daw for it's features and tools. I also use more than one daw. Is that a Daw crime these days. I do find it interesting tho' the gain in power that extra cores provide when running a Daw.
Of course it's not a crime to use multiple DAWs! I have Reaper and Mixbus here as well, both great pieces of software! And it's actually unfortunate that Mixbus was not included in the video, that one would have lost the whole thing by a landslide. On my laptop I can forget about doing a 60 track song with a buffer of 128 samples with no plugins at all because the channel strips that are acfive on every channel by default use too much CPU. Still, Mixbus is use a lot, especially for mixing. And I do too, if I simply want a change of environment to keep things fresh :cool:
 
@Dave71
I wouldn't know about Mixbus, the point I was trying to make was, that if the exercise was about CPU cores and what to expect from the newer Mac chips. May I have misunderstood what the test was about.

By naming the Daws in use it was polluting the test and speaking to Daw use. Bit of a dichotomy in my mind.

The test would have been just as relevant if it was carried out as a double blind. If I have misunderstood and he was evaluating Daw efficiency with Multicore processors then I apologise unreseverdly.

Best regards
 
Last edited:
I went from a 2012 Mac Pro to a brand new Mini M2 Pro and the difference is astounding. I am currently running a full mix of a song with 140 tracks, about 35 channels of pipeline I/o, and a whole host of plugins. It is working flawlessly. Studio One handles it pretty well, but the Mac is barely breaking a sweat. I am running at 512 with multiple instances of RX10, Melodyne, and auto align and it's been great. Seriously, sign up for it.
 
Yeah, really looking forward getting my new machine - unfortunately a BTO model, so two more weeks of waiting. And I already sold my old MacBook (emergency sale to a friend who desperately needed an older model with Intel processor)
 
IMHO,
Why didn't the review, just call them Daw 1, Daw 2, Daw 3. using brand names is by association going to bring negative reactions.
Because it's supposed to be a comparison how the different DAWs perform on the Apple M4 chip...

If someone takes issue with that, then he or she is probably more than welcome to stop watching the video.

I find such videos highly informative. At least when they're well done, and, I really don't see a reasons why this wouldn't be the case here.

And, frankly, if there are DAWs which don't perform well with a certain CPU, which is probably becoming very popular for the use of a DAW, then it's back to the drawing table, instead of feeling insulted.
 
Last edited:
@chakko
Thank you for sharing. I believe the YT Vid is titled...
"M4 Pro MacBook Pro: HUGE Leap for Music Production | M4 Pro vs M3 Pro vs M2 Pro vs M1 Pro"
Which I believe was the intention of the Vid.
Also, in his own words responding on this forum "It muddies up the actual purpose of the video"!

AS far as watching the video is concerned, surely that is my choice.

As far as a video being well done that is a subjective opinion and I have no problem with you making that statemen, each to his own.
Out of interest, I am interested in the improvements that new technology can bring to the table so the information he provided was useful, but as stated above he acknowledged it could have been presented differently.

Perhaps, you might be so kind to explain why you might think I am "feeling insulted", as I don't feel insulted, but I am curious as to why you might think I am?

Best regards
 
I didn't write that you feel insulted. And why would I tell you to go back to the drawing table? Of course, I meant the developers of the software. But, I agree that nobody else should feel insulted either, of course. The things coming out of such comparisons are positive, because they reveal potential shortcomings in terms of performance, which can only be positive in my book.
 
@chakko
Thank you for kindly clarifying the "feeling insulted" in your post. As you had quoted me in that post, I naturally assumed you were talking to me and had felt insulted.
It would have helped my understanding had you actually said who you were talking about, eg. the developers.

Best regards
 
Typically, the first paragraph is in direct response to the quoting, and the rest is elaborating on the point, or addressing another topic.
 
Adressing another topic is not helpfull, If folk are to grasp and understand what is intended otherwise issues can get conflated and nebulous.
Perhaps my old brain fails to understand netiquette.
 
@Dave71
I wouldn't know about Mixbus, the point I was trying to make was, that if the exercise was about CPU cores and what to expect from the newer Mac chips. May I have misunderstood what the test was about.

By naming the Daws in use it was polluting the test and speaking to Daw use. Bit of a dichotomy in my mind.

The test would have been just as relevant if it was carried out as a double blind. If I have misunderstood and he was evaluating Daw efficiency with Multicore processors then I apologise unreseverdly.

Best regards
I was in no way criticizing your view, for the most part agreeing even in that you use more than one DAW, which I do as well. I was simply adding to what you said, nothing more. So no apologies needed, no one was offended.
 
I was in no way criticizing your view, for the most part agreeing even in that you use more than one DAW, which I do as well. I was simply adding to what you said, nothing more. So no apologies needed, no one was offended.
I never thought you were criticizing my comments or view.

IMHO The basis of the test would have been just as informative without even mentioning any Daw by name.

Perhaps if I unpack it a little further.

What I gleaned from the video was, more cores = more computing power, which I think I already knew.
My comment about doing a blind test (again IMHO) would have been better focused on the *relative* gains from the M4 generation 1 chips through to the latest generation. The relative gain being the factor under examination.

The conclusion I ended up with . Was a dichotomy as in the following.
Folk using SO1 should not purchase a new M4 machine at this time as you will not get the best out of the chip, or if they do, maybe consider moving to one of the other Daws and get a bigger bang for your buck!!!
The corollary following that large track counts stoked with heavy vst Dsp are the prime goals for music production.

Maybe this as a moot point from here on in. What's done is done it's a forum and contentious issues are part of such places.

As you mentioned the Mixbus, Harrison yeah? Do you find it good to use?
I have never looked into it my loss I imagine.
Anyway best regards.
 
As the thread starter I should perhaps add that I was less shocked by the discussion on efficiency and performance cores than by the random performance drops of individual cores during playback. Something that was not observed with the other DAWs.

IMG_3520.jpeg
 
Last edited:
All discussions aside the fact is Studio One simply does not use the efficiency cores. And other DAW's do and I am glad the other DAW's have been mentioned too that do. But as I have also said even without using the efficiency core Studio One's performance is pretty incredible anyway on a Mac. Who knows they may sort it out and get them all working in time. Other DAW's have managed to change over to using them so there is hope.

That image above is correct for the M2 Pro but the M2 Max has 8 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores The M3 Pro image is correct with 6 of each cores as shown. But the M3 Max has 10 performance cores and 4 efficiency. Quite a bit better. Max is an extension of Pro.
 
Last edited:
All discussions aside the fact is Studio One simply does not use the efficiency cores. And other DAW's do and I am glad the other DAW's have been mentioned too that do. But as I have also said even without using the efficiency core Studio One's performance is pretty incredible anyway on a Mac. Who knows they may sort it out and get them all working in time. Other DAW's have managed to change over to using them so there is hope.
Not using efficiency cores probably caused a lot of coding effort in the first place.

Chances are they should just let the OS CPU scheduler do its thing unimpeded. Just delete the bogus code.
 
Back
Top