This debate follows the same circular path accross multiple threads. It is plainly obvious to anyone that has used them all (and has no bias) that S1 is not as midi capable as Sonar or Cubase, but it is an excellent DAW. As soon as anyone points this out, someone comes along and erroneously claims that anything that you can't do in S1 is not worth doing, therefore studio one is equally as good, or even better since in the absence of all of those extra features you can concentrate on your music.
 
Madness. I blame alternative facts:) 

I blame Gibson, those bastards hee hee

The facts are simple.  If you have external synth hardware you can use Studio One with it very well. You don't need instrument definitions to do so.  Anything to the contrary is simply rubbish.
 
And as I said earlier, if you are really good at what you do, Studio One's midi implementation won't get in your way either.

It does not matter how good you are at what you do, the external midi device implementation of S1 is burdensome. You can spin it all you want, it's a fact. But it's workable.

soens

rbrodbec
So to summarize:
If you have external multitimbral midi devices and you want to layout tracks using those devices you need to per track:

Have the MSB, LSB and Program Change:
To use the patch bank # it is MSB*128 + LSB, this is entered per track along with the program change #

To switch program change using midi automation in the track you need:
100/128 * MSB for the MSB parameter
LSB Value
Program Change Value

This is not the process (that's another thread ha) but just the data you need for every bank/program change.

I believe I am correct else I just wasted a week.

Depends on your device. My SQ1 doesn't use MSB/LSB. It has 2 internal banks and 2 card banks, 124-127.
In SO3 I have to check Program and set Bank to 0, Prog. to 124, and insert a controller node in the PRV to set the voice#.
 
Or I can set Bank to 0 and Prog. to the voice# and change the SQ1's bank (124-127) manually from the SQ1. Sonar can change all of these settings on it's own.

So transmitting program changes to physical hardware synths that include a bank+patch is the issue? Before I got rid of my Roland SC880 dual Sound Canvas, and Roland M-VS1 Vintage Synth modules, I was able to use my old Sonar instrument definitions in REAPER's "ReaControlMIDI" plugin (it can read Sonar .ins files directly), and I could access every patch in every bank in both those units by the patch names.

Jeff Evans
The facts are simple.  If you have external synth hardware you can use Studio One with it very well. You don't need instrument definitions to do so.  Anything to the contrary is simply rubbish.
 
And as I said earlier, if you are really good at what you do, Studio One's midi implementation won't get in your way either.

See. Happened again:)

Talking negatively about specific individual people means one is of poor mind.  As opposed to challenging narrow thinking of some. They are two very different things. I see myself as someone in the later category. It is a positive thing to do. There others that agree I am sure.

Lets talk ideas instead.  If you have got great ideas and the determination to realise them, then you will arrive at that point.  With any DAW in fact.  They are all quite incredible these days.  There are not so many differences between them.  Sure some have a few features that some don't.  Big deal.  The reality is that they all will enable great ideas to be realised. There are more ways to skin a cat too.  There will always be a way to get done what you need done. e.g. If you can't change your external synth patches with instrument definitions then maybe you might have to use the front panel!
 
Ideas far transcend the features that are provided in any DAW.  Way above.  No DAW is really going to get in the way of the realisation process.  What is sometimes being implied here is some DAW's just will not work and won't allow you to make your ideas materialise.  That is the problem of the individual driving that DAW, poor thought process.
 
What we have today compared to say what was around in 1980 is mind blowing.  Studio One is one of many DAW's that will transform your great ideas and make them heard and appreciated.  Back to the OP, the midi implementation in Studio One will also get you there too.  I don't think it has stopped progressing either from what I can see.

Jeff Evans
Talking about people means one is of poor mind.  Lets talk ideas instead...  
 
And as I said earlier, if you are really good at what you do...

So rubbishing people because they have a different idea on how they want to work is OK?
 
 

Jeff Evans
Talking about people means one is of poor mind........
 
That is the problem of the individual driving that DAW, poor thought process........
 
Anything to the contrary is simply rubbish.......
 
But to choose another DAW purely based in Studio One's lack of instrument definitions is just plain dumb........

 
Jeff, I have in various threads seen you describe other peoples ideas as absurd, rubbish and stupid, all in defence of midi functionality that S1 does not have and that you do not seem to fully understand.  Perhaps they just have a more complex workflow than you do.
 
Let me try and explain just once more with what appears to be your favourite pronoun: one needs to be very careful when looking down from one's high horse and blindly defending one's cause, lest one comes off as arrogant, ignorant or just a bit of a knob.

Jeff's attitude towards this reminds me of a line in one of my favorite Moody Blue's song - "There is none so blind as those who will not see"