As seen in the below video, Studio One's implementation of Apple's Mx architecture lags well behind competing DAWs, and is even shown to sometimes leave entire cores unused (typically Efficiency, but in this video, even one Performance Core). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSqX4bt9to4 This is a serious issue, especially for professional users managing large project files, such as what is needed in contemporary pop production. I have run into this ceiling myself and have had to use workarounds such as custom fan curves (using TG Pro) and manually forcing other apps to run in my performance cores (using App Tamer), to compensate for a performance loss that I would not see if I were using a competing DAW that is well optimized for Mac. Fixing Apple Mx Implementation would result in a smoother user experience for much of your user base, and is something that people on the Answers forums have been begging for for years. It would also do a lot to show Studio One users that resolving tech debt is as important to Presonus as flashy features & third-party collaborations are (which I love, don't get me wrong!)

I got a new system last week (see below) and Studio One is not running nearly as expected.  Hearing Pops and clicks with **Device** **Block size < 64 and Process Block size of 128**.  This is below the performance I got on my former system using an i7 chip without Thunderbolt audio interface with identical files.  My best guess is that Studio One is NOT using the power of the i9 7900x chip & board effectively.  Consequently my request is to optimize Studio One so it can more fully take advantage of the i9 7900x motherboard and chipset and better show off the performance capability of audio interfaces like the Presonus Quantum. To my fellow Forum readers- is it possible I am also missing some important adjustments to Studio One to optimize it in the higher performance environment of my new system? * * * Studio One Pro i9 7900x 3.3 Ghz with native Thunderbolt support 64Gb RAM SSD Drives Presonus QuantumThunderbolt Audio Interface

**NOTE: This FR may seem similar to [this other FR](http://answers.presonus.com/3270/extended-%26-global-part-automation-automation-clips?show=3270#q3270) but it's not the same! Therefore please don't flag this as a duplicate, thank you :)** **Summary** This is a request for a container-based automation system that allows users to manipulate automation points in the same way as MIDI notes**:** * Backwards-compatible with the current linear automation system. Therefore, users can continue to enjoy the traditional "linear" automation approach if they so wish, and completely ignore this. * Consistent with the way MIDI clips work in S1, and therefore very easy to learn. Here is a mock-up of what this might look like, the same automation clip has been painted into three automation tracks to control three different parameters. One of the parameters (MF-Gain) corresponds to an FX plugin:  **Background** Theoretically, MIDI notes could be drawn individually directly onto tracks in the Arrange view, without being contained inside clips. That would work just as well, and yet all DAW in existence choose to encapsulate and group MIDI notes as clips. The reason is that it makes more sense to keep musical phrases and chords together and this is more easily accomplished by means of clips, which are more convenient to manage than a sea of independent notes. The animated screen capture below shows an example of typical MIDI clip operations in Studio One. * Typical operations include: Moving, copying, pasting, deleting, etc. * In this example clips are copied as "shared copies", so that if any one of the shared copies is modified, all other shared copies are updated automatically. * Also notice how a MIDI clip can be moved between tracks and that's OK, in other words, the same MIDI clip can be used to trigger any instrument. **Motivation** FL Studio, Reason, Logic and Reaper all implement some form of automation clips, and my experience is that automation clips are a more convenient way to manipulate automation chunks than a monolithic single envelope that spans the length of the song. To move the contents of a clip, users don't need to first select the individual points—they simply grab and drag the clip to the desired location, just like a regular MIDI clip. The same idea applies when copying clips. Basically, anything you can do to a MIDI clip, you should be able to do to an automation clip. This also includes shared copies. At the moment Studio One implements "part-based" automation. Part-based automation allows **only** automation of instrument plugin parameters. At the time of writing, part-based automation supports **neither** multi-instrument parameters **nor** FX plugin parameters, which is a severe limitation. Here is my idea of a solution to these limitations: **Specification** 1. There are two types of automation which can co-exist, simultaneously, on the same automation track: **Linear** and **Clip-based**. 2. Automation data is graphically represented as a series of Bezier curve segments, referred to as an **automation envelope**. 3. An automatable parameter may by controlled by one and only one automation track (i.e. two or more automation tracks cannot be linked to a given parameter). 4. The Paint tool paints MIDI clips on Instrument tracks (it doesn't paint individual MIDI notes). However, the Paint tool paints Automation points on automation tracks (not automation clips). To paint an automation clip, users must hold down a modifier key (for example's sake, "Ctrl"), then left-click to mark the start position, swipe sideways and release the left mouse button to mark the end position. 5. When painting over existing automation data, if the data is not already part of another automation clip, it becomes part of newly painted clip; otherwise, when painting over automation data that IS part of an existing automation clip, the data is NOT absorbed by the newly added clip. 6. Recorded automation is always inserted as Linear automation (in other words, an automation clips is not automatically created). Users may, afterwards, paint an automation clip _over_ the recorded automation data to encapsulate it in a clip. Thus, users who prefer the traditional linear automation method can simply ignore this feature and continue to work in the traditional fashion. 7. The Arrow tool works exactly as it currently does in Studio One v3.2.3. Therefore, it can be used to resize and delete as well as to paint, move and delete automation points. 8. Automation clips can be moved left and right along the automation track they are currently on. 9. Any automation clip can control any automatable parameter of any plugin, therefore an automation clip can be dragged and copied freely between different un-related automation tracks and it will just work. This is possible because, as far as plugins are concerned, automation envelopes are nothing but a series of numerical values. Therefore, an automation clip that originally was used to control a parameter in plugin "Pro EQ", can also be used to control a completely unrelated parameter in plugin "Sylenth1", etc. This aligns with the way MIDI clips work, whereby a MIDI clip can trigger any instrument. 10. An existing automation clip can be converted to linear automation by means of a key command or an option in the right-click context menu. This operation overwrites any linear automation that already exists under the clip. 11. When automation is recorded into clip, various recording modes exist so to determine whether the newly recorded automation should overwrite existing automation, whether newly recorded clips should be merged with any previously existing clips encountered during recording, or whether new clips should be created layer atop each other. 12. When an automation clip is positioned to be over existing linear automation, Studio One uses the automation data in the clip and ignores the linear automation data. In other words, automation clips have higher precedence. 13. When automation clips and part automation that control the same parameter occur simultaneously, part automation takes precedence. 14. When two or more automation clips that control the same parameter occur simultaneously, the clip that starts latest takes precedence. If the clips start at exactly the same time, Studio One will use whichever clip was created (painted) latest, so that only just one clip controls the associated parameter and there is no ambiguity. 15. Automation recording also supports takes, just like MIDI clips and audio. 16. Each automation clip contains only a single automation curve. 17. Automation clips support shared copies, just like MIDI clips. This way, changes to one automation clip propagate to all other shared copies, which can be very useful for creating and conveniently maintaining rhythmic and repeating automation envelopes (a feature EDM producers are likely to welcome). I hope everyone can see that this FR in no way interferes with the current workflow, in fact it respects and preserves the current workflow. I've tried to be as thorough as possible in the specification of this FR, but if I've missed something out your comments will be very much appreciated. If you like this please upvote. If you don't like it, please explain why. Thank you!

I'm a Studio One 3 Pro user, but I've been reading about Cubase's Control Room, and I believe it's a feature many many many Studio One users would really appreciate. The premise behind the feature is software control for monitoring. It provides a set of options for selecting monitors, creating cue mixes, and managing how it's all used. Studio One can definitely benefit from a similar feature set. Let's imagine I have an interface--any interface--that gives me four pairs of analog outputs and four pairs of digital outputs, plus some number of inputs for recording or external sound sources (iPhone, artist's laptop, etc.). I have two pairs of monitors, and a headphone amp at the mixing desk. I connect the monitors/amps to my first two pairs of outputs, I leave one pair open for things like re-amping, and I connect the final pair to my headphone amp. I also use ADAT to connect the four digital pairs to a DAC I'll use to feed headphone amps in my live room. Now, I need some way to control all of that from the computer, since my DAW _is_ my console. First, there would need to be a way to tell S1 what outputs are what. So in the Audio I/O Setup grids, you could specify that certain inputs and outputs are Aux In 1, Aux In 2, or Monitor A, B, C, or D, or Cue Outputs, or Headphones. That way the outputs are well defined and can be dedicated to their intended purposes. If you needed to route a channel directly to the monitors, instead of going through the Main Bus, you could route it to "Monitors" as opposed to "Main". And speaking of... In S1, there could be a panel the size of the Record panel below the edit, mix, or arrange views, in which you can easily fit controls for monitor switching (A, B, C, etc.), monitor source selection (Main, Aux 1, Aux 2, etc.), and **monitoring level that's _separate from the main fader_.** Next to that, buttons for dim (and its level), mute, mono, side image solo, channel swap, and even "dim solo"/"listen" mode toggling. In addition, a Talkback section, and a headphones section with its own level that uses many of the same options as the monitors. Then, as maybe a separate channel type in the console's Outputs view, there could be options on the appropriate outputs for the Cue mixes for things like PFL/AFL and Click send level, while in the main console view, Cue sends are distinguished from normal PFL/AFL sends better than just being permanently visible above the channel I/O. A pop-up menu below/next to the Track List could let you select a Cue mix for Sends On Fader. Output faders could act as output trims. And of course, what makes Cubase's Control Room so cool: **On all the outputs, an insert rack for plugins!** So EQ and limiting could be on the Cue mixes, while each of my sets of monitors could have their own instances of Sonarworks Reference loaded up, and I wouldn't need to worry about bypassing them all before exporting a mix. There's lots of engineers using digital mixing consoles as their studio interfaces. Sure, they have similar-ish routing available within, but without mapping every channel's output in the DAW to a fader on the mixer, you don't get quite the cue mix capability from the hardware you do from the software. Having these options in the box would make even AudioBox VSL-sized setups complete, 100% solutions for a recording/mixing studio. Kind of what comes to mind when I hear "Studio One." I think this feature set would go a _whole_ lot further than the features in VSL did, especially with Native Zero Latency Monitoring technology in S1.

Only a handful of often out-of-date controllers are supported with templates in Studio One Pro v3. A huge number of us already own affordable and extremely capable midi controllers that are made redundant in many ways due to your lack of support, but more importantly, you are not even giving us the option to do it ourselves, even when all the functionality is there under the surface (pun intended!). You should be reaching out to hardware companies to make sure that Studio One supports a broader range of devices, for one, but for those that aren't supported with preconfigured templates, give us the info to use the tools to get it done!. I appreciate that you want to sell your own controllers, but do you honestly think that by refusing to acknowledge the fact that we use other brands, that we'll suddenly turn around and drop £1,000 on yours? Get real Presonus! You will grow by embracing diversity, not by acting like Apple and trying to coerce people into living solely within your ecosystem. This is not the way the world is going. You need to face up to this! You breed loyalty by being open, not by being subversive. Give us the XML!!!

Dear Presonus, Many professional studios around the world consider Studio One, as I do, the best DAW on the market. I highlight its sound quality which is second to none – a sound that inspires. The sound of Studio One has soul and feeling. What stops those professionals to jump to Studio One is the comfort that they have with Avid’s S6 and now also the S4 both. The S4 has everything that the S6 has only in a more compact form, geared more towards music creation, mixing, mastering and post production including Dolby Atmos surround, etc. Six years ago, I bought an SSL Matrix simply to control Studio One. Now I bought an Avid S4. After speaking with Avid, they told me that the EUCON protocol is completely at the disposal of the manufactures of all DAWs and that I should contact Presonus and tell them that Avid is at their disposal in case they would implement the EUCON protocol. Avid stated additionally that the EUCON protocol is at the disposal in the same way it has been implemented in Pro Tools or better as much as the DAW manufacturer wants a perfect implementation. Studio One with this EUCON implementation would put it once and for all in the highest tier of the professional Music Studios! Kind regards.

If OSC support was added then NI would have the ability to offer Advanced Host Integration for Studio One with the Komplete Kontrol MK2 that no longer supports MCU.

It would be great to have an option to set the Faderport into a Timeline Scroll mode, where the scroll is set at a rate more closely tied to the Zoom level versus having the Scroll always scroll set to bars. For example, at the full Auto-Zoom of an entire 1:40 hour session, the scroll would move at a rate of the subdivisions of the timeline. In the session I have up right now, the ticks on the the timeline are set to ~129 bars per click of the encoder BUT at a zoom level where the Timeline is showing fractions of a bar, much more zoomed in, it would scroll per 1/10th of a bar, following the ticks of the timeline. This would make it incredibly precise. This would follow suit with whatever your Timebase on the timeline is set to, whether bars, frames, seconds or samples. If there was a feature like this on the Faderport, I can say that I would never need to touch my mouse.

Looks like under MacOS they can use separate Audio Input and Output Devices. Under Windows this is not usable. Technical limitation? Don't know why. But I seen it lately in Steinberg SpectraLayers 11 there I can select separate Audio Devices So it could be possible in the future? For example than I can use a USB Microphone Input and my ASIO RME Babyface as Output. Ideal would be when Windows finally made a ASIO or better like Audio Standard, that makes this all possible :) For now I can route it over my RME Babyface in TotalMixFX, so not a big deal. Don't know how do you all workaround it?

Studio One already has excellent outboard integration with PipelineXT. Many companies are creating digitally-recallable hardware that rely on a 3rd party plugin (Wes Audio, Cranborne, Bettermaker, etc.). These plugins don't process audio, they are just a hollow front-face UI with some sort of backend control. It would be really cool if instead of needing both PipelineXT + 3rd Party VST plugin, there could be a way to just use one plugin. Idea 1 - Integrate Pipeline XT into plugin toolbar: Perhaps there's a way PipelineXT could be integrated into the top toolbar for plugins. Maybe you click something next to the little gear icon and it exposes the optional PipelineXT functionality. This way you could load up your favorite outboard plugin, and integrate pipeline "behind the scenes". This might also allow default I/O routes to be saved on a per-plugin/preset basis. Idea 2 - Provide new APIs for VSTs/PipelineXT: The other option might be a new API layer that 3rd parties could tap into in order to integrate Pipeline into their own plugins. Not reall sure how this would look but I've seen Presonus do DAW specific VST "hooks" before (MixFx, MicroEdit, etc.), so it's not out of the realm of possibility. I'm sure many companies doing digital-recall would jump on the opprotunity to use the APIs if they existed. In summary: Seems like a cool area for a DAW to innovate in, which in turn might help grow the ecosystem of digitally controlled hardware. This isn't all that niche either - things like guitar amp modlers could be considered "digitally-recallable hardware". Imagine there being some "Fender Tonemaster" VST plugin and you can drop it in your session like a regular ampsim plugin, while under-the-hood it's sending the audio over your preferred interface. What are your thoughts?