Yes scripting can certainly be done in Studio One:
 
https://forums.presonus.com/viewtopic.php?f=152&t=26397
 

batsbrew
i use a daw............. any daw.....
as a glorified tape machine.

Any DAW should work for you then. So, why are you reading all these threads?

Jeff Evans
Yes scripting can certainly be done in Studio One:
https://forums.presonus.com/viewtopic.php?f=152&t=26397

Thanks.
Yes, unlike Macro that is at the CAL level.
But I am curious it has a bit more similarity with CAL then I would expect in this case, I mean:
"This is an undocumented and unofficial "feature" so please treat it as such and don't expect any official support."
So, is that official thing or just a kind of RE?

Jeff Evans
Thanks tenfoot for your response.  Yes instrument definitions come up quite often.  For me personally I don't use them or care for them.  I personally find using the same sounds in the same locations as boring and not very smart. (the great Edgar Froese from Tangerine Dream also said the same.)  In all my hardware synths I rarely use the same sounds anyway.  I have got many thousands of sounds for synths like the Roland JD800, not just the standard 64 that are in there.  So its best to audition them in my opinion and find the sounds one is after.  Or edit them, or better still make new sounds for every project that you do.  Even just finding a factory preset, maybe doing an edit on it and just using it as is.  Most synths in fact will retain the sound and edit even after switch off and back on again the next day.  Instrument definitions cannot cope with that.

Again Jeff, this comment demonstrates a very basic and unimaginative understanding of what midi can be used to control. Recalling patches is a very basic function of midi. Also, no one uses the same sounds over and over again (and is a peffect example of a straw man logical falacy). I imagine, however, that most producers who really know their hardware have sounds in mind that would make a good starting point or production would be an extraordinarily slow process. Perhaps you have very patient clients:)
 

Jeff Evans
 
Studio One can still send bank and program changes if you want to do sound switching in the middle of the music. Or though these days it is not so required.  One should also be converting midi to audio anyway at some point too.
 

 
Again, switching sounds is a very basic function. Try switching banks and scenes on a DMX controller at the rate of 16 changes per bar for a chase scene with 16 x aftertouch arcs to control each axis on 32 moving head lights, then tell me again how capable studio ones midi is:)
 
Agreed, midi should certainly be converted to Audio at some point. Again, very basic stuff.
 

Jeff Evans
 
Tha Macro abilities of Studio One are also way better than the CAL scripts in Sonar.  They are way too hard in my opinion.  Creating macros in Studio One is a breeze.  That is a really powerful feature of Studio One.  There are tons of them already done as well you can freely download from the Presonus exchange.  Another thing that is rather unique to Studio One. 

Comparing Macros in Studio One (simple and limited strings of existing commands) of to CAL programming in Sonar tells me that you have little experience with CAL. 
 
I really appreciate that you put a lot of time into helping people starting out with Studio one. Evangelical effusive praise in the absence of understanding the issue however doesn't serve anyone. Nor does dismissing a function that S1 doesnt have because ' you don't care for it', when really, your description of it merely demonstrates that you dont understand the depth of its uses.
 
 
Consider for one second that there are people in the world who use midi to a much deeper level than you do to control devices you have no familiarity with. Repeatedly saying complex midi editing is possible in  S1 then using simplistic examples is misleading, even if well intentioned and not willfully ignorant.
 
Thanks for the tips on the videos. I will certainly check them out!
 
 
 
 
 
 

chris.r
...if you care enough to dig into details, what other DAWs support those features? Please answer only if you're sure you know your new DAW and their feature equivalents good enough. Also you can specify any alternatives if it makes sense, because I understand that it's not possible to carry exactly same feature set 1 by 1 from one DAW to another...

 
Are you planning to put all the info you receive into a table and make it public? If so, that would be very useful to a lot of people.

To be clear, I certainly do not want to put anyone off Studio One. It is truly excellent, and its midi functionality will be just fine for most users. These limitations will only be an issue for a small base of users with specific midi needs.

Midi was deigned for music and best used so. To say that it lacks the midi features required to switch a complex lighting situations rather absurd. The fact it does other things is only a bonus. Studio One does not have to be concerned with other uses. 
 
Studio One offers scripting and yes I am very familiar with scripting and macros. Studio One is good at both.
 
I still don't think you have been using Studio One for long. That certainly shows. It is still much more powerful and deeper than you and most people realise. It requires a different thinking approach.  Difficult for those who have been stuck in a blinkered Sonar kind of way.
 
At the end of the day when you are doing this professionally (Which I have been doing now for 37 tears) i.e. getting paid to so what I do, its all about what the client thinks when they sit back and listen to your stereo mix. They are certainly not wondering what DAW you used. I realise that not everyone is doing it professionally either but it is interesting that last statement. It is the music that counts.
 
Studio One (and many other DAW's) can certainly achieve a very professional result and that is really all that counts. 

Jeff Evans
Midi was deigned for music and best used so. To say that it lacks the midi features required to switch a complex lighting situations rather absurd.

 
No, it is just beyond your understanding. Both Sonar and Cubase have features that make the process pretty straightforward. To blindly defend a program that does not is what's absurd. Perhaps you might want to check your own blinkers. 
 
Your tone has me more and more convinced you may well be a teacher, not quite adept at convercing with other professionals who disagree with you:)

In my 2 1/2 years or so journey with Studio One(since S13 release) since I jumped ship from SONAR Platinum, I have found that Studio One is capable of quite a bit more than the user manual would suggest, the manual is not the best, it gets you off and running if you need it, but it needs to have more depth put into it.
 
As far as Midi goes it's the same, there is more than meets the eye, not as much as some other DAWs there is no doubt. Whether it is deep enough for a persons use depends on what they use it for, what they need. For me it does everything I need and more, but I'm not deeply involved in the Midi side apart from programing drums, keyboards/synths etc (all in the box). But for others such as Tenfoot who's use goes beyond that, it may be seen as lacking, and it is no secret, most people know and will admit that while being more than sufficient for one groups use, it comes in short for others, that's just how it is at this moment in time.
 
For me and my use, there is nothing I can't do in Studio One that I want or need to do, there is nothing I miss from SONAR, but there would be a lot I would miss from Studio One, for others it may be the other way around, again that's just how it is.
 
With SONAR, the fact is it is dead, it's gone as far as it is going to go, forum member SimpleManZ made a comment which is very true and worthy of thought
 

To me what is most important, is not what Sonar does but what it cannot do.
And cannot do is the future. (SimpleManZ)

All absolutely true Matron. There is certainly no future in clinging to a sinking ship, however slowly it goes down:)