jb101
 
 
Maybe he doesn't have a computer, and just posts from his mum's phone..

That's pretty hilarious! 

Jeff Evans


I have Studio Ones 2.5 and don't use it. Not because it is difficult to learn because its easy to learn. But because I like X2 better a lot better. I like the way X2 works. I like the options I have in setting it up. I like the depth it has. Most of all it supports my hardware synths.   To me S1 is a nice simple audio program with severe limitations. I'm also a Pro Channel devotee. S1 is not in the same league as Sonar X2.    


All opinion not fact. John has not spent enough time with Studio One to make any valid observations about it. I have been using it for two and half years every day. Once you get into it on that level you have a completely different opinion. It is not simple it is very deep. It handles midi very well. I have a serious hardware synth setup and it all works a treat. In terms of stability and reliability it is king. It is not dependant on drivers, OS or anything else, it just works, simple as that. It is bullet proof and has been designed from the ground up, something most other DAW's cannot say. Audio engine is amazing and still way ahead of Sonar. It can also do things that Sonar cannot such as jumping midi tracks while loop recording. It is super creative and you spend no time and I mean no time fiddling around with getting it to work. It already works, you just focus on your music period.

But that is OK John I am happy to agree to disagree.   I also admit that I have been a long term 8.5 user and don't know much about X1 or X2 either. But reading the X1/X2 problems that do come up I am just so glad I have made the right choice because many of the problems that people complain about in Sonar I am not experiencing at all in Studio One.  Oh BTW not one crash since I installed it two and half years ago. Can you say that?

I think the Sonar forum is great though. One of the best. Very informative and very helpful people here. That is why there are many non Sonar users still here I guess.

Jeff you should know by now that X1/X2 are very solid DAWs. The fact that you don't have them is very surprising to me.  I thought you could see through the nay sayers and recognize the evolution of Sonar for what it is. A better DAW. S1 has bugs too and they are being posted on their forum. Take a look.  

When did S1 offer the equivalent of instrument definitions? That is what I mean by support.  

X2a is very stable here and on most users computers. Its sad you have bought into the myth that the X series is unstable. 

   

John


To me S1 is a nice simple audio program with severe limitations.     

Agreed. But it's growing fast and soon it might clear those limitations. When that happens, S1 might really be a fantastic daw. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next versions (both X3 and S1v3).

Why have both S1 and X2 ? At 300+$ each, they look awfully similar.

Paul P


Why have both S1 and X2 ? At 300+$ each, they look awfully similar.

Sometimes you hit the wall with frustration and want to have plan B in place. I'm starting to learn S1 as my plan B. I wish I didn't have to but Cakewalk has been different lately and I want a backup.

Its funny that GP isn't here and is still causing problems. Why is this thread devolving into the merits of DAWs?  Its everything GP could ask for!

Hi John. Yes I don't have a decent enough computer to run X1/X2 but when I do get such a system I might give it a try. Another good thing about Studio One is that it runs on any computer and any OS as well.

This Instrument definitions argument is weak actually. It implies you are using presets all the time which I don't that much. If you edit a patch and store it somewhere else how does Sonar know of it's location anyway.

I find that the more pro work I seem to do the more I am editing patches and also bringing in other sounds from sound libraries etc into Kurzweil and EMU machines. Inst defs don't know anything about that.

I am of the opinion you should know exactly what preset any synth may be using at any instant. You need to find it, select it, maybe edit and use it. Th synth itself is the best thing to use to find sounds, not your software. That is how I work. And once happy I turn that into audio usually. And if I don't I simply either store it somewhere so the next day it loads back anyway. Or I make a note inside Studio One as to what the preset is and where it came from etc. For me lack of Inst definitions is not a game changer.

For something like a Kurzweil for example the Inst defs may be great for the 200 or so internal presets that are there but what about the million other sounds that are on my CD ROMS and hard drives. They are useless for those. They won't know about them. You have to physically search libraries and bring them in and use them then.

Gee, Studio One runs on any computer using any operating system. Oh, Jeff said that- it's probably not true.

Jeff clearly we have very different requirements . The DR 770 has about 200 presets. The SC 8850 has about 1500 patches. My XV 5080 is customized with all the patches from the Fantom as well as add on cards all of which are listed in Sonar. I have about 6000 patches total. And I can search these patches with ease within Sonar. Not having this ability is a complete show stopper for me. 

I have been working with these synths for years and have created my own custom ins def files for them. I have also done so for others for their XVs.

 

John well I can completely understand your situation and I certainly agree Ins defs are very cool in your case. We do work very differently for sure. Many of my synths have internal memories too but nowhere as large as yours. I find I can hunt down sounds pretty fast in the synths internal memories but a larger number of sounds for me are not in the synths themselves but elsewhere.
Have you considered the Integra 7. Apparently it has got every patch Roland has ever made! That module sounds killer. I would love to have it and it is not expensive either.

backwoods Studio One works on XP/Win7/Win8 and on Mac OS 10.6 and all others after. This is rather good because you are not forced to go out and spend yet more money on later OS systems etc. It is rather smart actually. I have got a brilliant XP machine just chugging along perfectly here so why do I need to rush out and get the latest thing. I don't you see, the program works just as well on XP as it does Win 7/8. One of my machines is a single core 3Ghz processor as well and it runs perfectly on that too. That is cool. While not overly fast you don't have to go out and buy a whole new computer either. 

Not so with Pro Tools though. My son's girlfriend bought PT 8 at the time and she just upgraded her Mac OS one notch up and PT8 just stopped. Turns out you need PT 10 now on the version Mac OS she has. That is just rude IMO. There is no upgrade path either she has to spend the full $700 or so now on PT 10/11 just to get a working DAW again.