• 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

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.)
Hi and welcome :-)

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.
That's my point exactly.

DAWs have different features and settings and sometimes different names for the same functions. When users watch your video, you have to assume that the vast majority of them are completely inexperienced in this field (there are very few true experts). Even experienced Cubase or Studio One users don't necessarily know what REAPER AFX is all about. If this is not explained accordingly and parts of the video appear to be a comparison, then I consider this very misleading. And I think that as a YouTuber with a certain number of followers, you have a certain responsibility in terms of how content is perceived and what the main message is.

A huge problem is when the video is shared on Facebook with a comment that incorrectly summarises the video (as a DAW performance comparison) and people then (due to a lack of patience or interest) don't even watch the video (or not in full), but only believe the simple statement that people reduce it to. This is not your fault at first, but unfortunately you have to expect this with such technically detailed videos.
Hence my criticism.

Thanks @jameszhan for chiming in.
 
I would imagine (not being a reaper user) that the efficiency cores are deployed as part of a look ahead process. Which with live music might not give the same return.
Just guessing here tho'
Regards
 
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.
Indeed, Harrison Mixbus. You could have a look at it but it's not cheap. I was lucky enough to be on the beta team for SSL, which now also includes Harrison plugins and so I received Mixbus for free in order to test on more platforms. I do like its workflow, even for editing. But if you tend to use many tracks you might run into issues if you need low latency. In my case, I record in Studio One, but sometimes export the tracks and see what I can do with them in Mixbus. It's just different, but to me it's about a change of environment, which prevents getting stuck in doing the same things as always. The same for Reaper, I don t know my way around that so well, so I am much more conscious about what I do.
 
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.
No, it's the other way around, USING efficiency cores requires additional coding. And using it correctly is not a matter of assigning tasks to them, it is a complicated task. For example, the way cores are now used when it comes to bus and FX routings is already a puzzle, and that same puzzle, but with different pieces, now needs to be solved for efficiency cores again. It's probably an oversimplification, but you get the idea. It is not how you assumed it is.
 
Indeed, Harrison Mixbus. You could have a look at it but it's not cheap. I was lucky enough to be on the beta team for SSL, which now also includes Harrison plugins and so I received Mixbus for free in order to test on more platforms. I do like its workflow, even for editing. But if you tend to use many tracks you might run into issues if you need low latency. In my case, I record in Studio One, but sometimes export the tracks and see what I can do with them in Mixbus. It's just different, but to me it's about a change of environment, which prevents getting stuck in doing the same things as always. The same for Reaper, I don t know my way around that so well, so I am much more conscious about what I do.
After you mentioned Mixbus I went and had a look. They have a sale on at the moment, not that I know enough about Mixbus to take the plunge.
On the surface it has a Hardware Desk look to it, which is very appealing to look at. They have a sale on now and as you have experience with Mixbus which option would you purchase?
Are those 19 XT plugins worth the extra $220 for the 10 Plus?
Thanks for the info and yes the change of environment stops you from the habitual mode of slap a compressor and or EQ the guts out of a mix
o_O

Regards
 
After you mentioned Mixbus I went and had a look. They have a sale on at the moment, not that I know enough about Mixbus to take the plunge.
On the surface it has a Hardware Desk look to it, which is very appealing to look at. They have a sale on now and as you have experience with Mixbus which option would you purchase?
Are those 19 XT plugins worth the extra $220 for the 10 Plus?
Thanks for the info and yes the change of environment stops you from the habitual mode of slap a compressor and or EQ the guts out of a mix
o_O

Regards
I just saw it as well, 15 for Mixbus 10. That is indeed great value and for that money I would personally just go ahead and get it. Do keep in mind that Mixbus is the simple version, so it has a very limited EQ. I do not think the 220 is too much for the extras, but you can load any VST so the question is what you need, not whether these are worth the money. And like I mentioned, the software in itself is already pretty CPU hungry, so your system may also be a deciding factor in this.

However, if it's the hardware console workflow you are after there is a better option: SSL has a free hosting plugin called the 360 Link, in which you can host almost any VST3. It has the typical SSL layout, so the best way to use it is to host an SSL style channel strip plugin. That can be Waves, UAD, IK Multimedia, Plugin Alliance, whatever. Mapping controls in it is really easy. That plugin is meant to use with their UC1 hardware, but it works perfectly fine without. Now, why use that plugin if you can just use the plugin you would host? Because they also have the free 360 app, which is a plugin mixer. If you have a 360 Link with loaded channel strip on every channel in Studio One you can start the 360 app and it will show you all the channels in SSL console format. If you set some more things up (I could help with that) you can control everything from that app. Level, Eq, panning, mute/solo and even sends and transport. It truly is a different experience and very addictive. Let me know if youw ant more
 
@Dave71
Cheers for the info about the 360 app.
If I need more info I will break this discussion out into a seperate thread save hijacking this one.

Kindest regards
 
Back
Top