The old forum was headed by a funny picture with a bunch of hopeless-looking engineers, singers, musicians, etc, trying to solve technical issues. As soon as I saw that image, I knew I was going to like the vibe of the forum. The new forum looks too plain, just like any other forum out there.
The new forum background is white. I think it's fair to say that most of us like to work in dim light conditions, which is why a lot of music production software has a dark UI. The new forum hurts my eyes that way.
I recently played with Traktion and basically the mouse is packed with functionality depending on where you click. Each event has a number of handles which allow you to do everything without ever using modifiers or changing tools. In S1 an "intelligent" (context-sensitive) tool could be added alongside the existing tools.
I can't help being excited about the forum update on July the 1st. It's unfounded, but who knows, out with the old in with the new? Maybe they'll throw in v3
No replies since 2012 doesn't mean the thread is no longer relevant, so the 'bump' is perfectly justified. I find it odd that the track field is auto-filled with a track name used in a previous song, even after closing S1. I had noticed it many times before but chose to ignore it was hardly an issue, however, seeing that someone else had also noticed this, I thought I'd add to the rumble.
You guys are smart and should be able to see that I am not out to offend anybody, just trying to help improve the product. If you don't like the way I come across that's fine and I am truly glad you tell me so I can be a better man, but for the sake of keeping the thread on-topic I'd be happier if you would just PM any personal thoughts.
LMike, thanks for your reply, I wasn't aware of Tone Generator, which is indeed a very handy tool. It would help me a lot if you would kindly explain to me how a mono signal is obtained from a stereo signal? Is it just a matter of (VL, VR) --> (VL+VR, VL+VR) where V stands for voltage?
OK, I thought I understood it but after testing with Tone Generator I am more confused. Please download the attached project files.
I have placed an instance of Tone Generator on an audio track named "Tone Gen" and set it to generate a 440 Hz sinewave at a level of exactly 0 dB. I set this track to output to a bus channel named "Bus 2" (tracks colored yellow).
I also have a second audio track named "Recorded" which contains a recorded version of the same tone generated by the Tone Gen plugin above. This track is set to output to a bus channel named "Bus 1" (tracks colored pink).
I set both tracks to Stereo initially, then to Mono. Here is what my meters look like:
This graphic summarizes all the issues I am experiencing. Whether or not mono results in a level increase/decrease is immaterial, the point is: shouldn't all the channels on the right-hand side of the picture look the same as one another?
I promise to be conservative in my use of the word 'bug' in the future. Also, I've spent several hours today reading about metering and various other related topics.
I understand why mono-ing a stereo signal results in a 6 dB increase if both L and R channels are identical. But I still don't understand why this only happens with audio tracks and not with the master track. Why are they different?
Also, the mono switch on audio tracks causes an audible glitch in the sound, while the master track mono switch does not.
Lokeyfly wrote:Can you elaborate on what's the same with tracks from song to song. I'm missing the "bug".
Agree. A good bug report should probably include some steps to recreate, if it's not all that obvious.
As to tech support ignoring tickets related to bugs, I think part of that is because some of them are FR's.
The line between some bugs and FRs can be blurry. Many apparent bugs and quirks are so by design, at least according to tech support, and yet they are not documented in the manual, so basically you can call it whatever you please, in the end it's an FR. However, having a bug reports section would make sense IMO. Bug reports could be marked as [solved]. Bugs that are not bugs can too be marked as solved and the reports still be informative to other users who also believed they were bugs.
Regarding the "bug" reported by the OP, what he means is that when you add tracks via Track > Add Tracks, the Track Name field in the Add Tracks window is pre-filled with the last entered name, and this name is remembered across projects, therefore if you start fresh with an empty song and add a track, you will find that the name field will contain the string "Saxophone" even though you don't plan to have any saxophones. However, if you add tracks by right-clicking the tracks column in the arrange view and then selecting, say, Add Instrument Track from the context menu, the track will be given a generic name, precisely "Track <number>" (the number being the track count after adding the track), which makes more sense because generic names are never out of context.
I mentioned this elsewhere in passing but I think it deserves a thread of its own, please download attached project file for testing.
Windows 7 64-bit
Intel Core i7 920 CPU, 12 GB RAM
Presonus Studio One 2 v2.6.2 64-bit
1) The original audio and the bounced audio are not identical. The first track contains an instance of Mixtool with both L and R channels inverted to compare the two tracks. You might have to turn up the volume as the two tracks nearly cancel out (but not quite completely).
2) The result of adding one track to the inverted other track is not always the same. Play a few iterations of the looped area and you'll notice each time sounds different.
If you load two identical instances of Mojito on two separate instrument tracks, and invert one, when you play the same notes on both tracks simultaneously they don't cancel out completely.
NickWeiland wrote:since there doesnt seem to be a forum on reporting bus or little glitches i thought maybe ill start a thread for devs to see.
ive noticed that when you start a new project and you start a new track it has the same names the last track youve created in a different song. so i believe this to be a bug. can you change the default to New track please.
I also noticed this and agree.
Regarding bug reports, I am still not sure where I should post them. I sent several reports to Tech Support but they seem unable to help most of the time. We really need a whole forum section for reporting bugs.
Windows 7 64-bit
Intel Core i7 920 CPU, 12 GB RAM
Presonus Studio One 2 v2.6.2 64-bit
Steps to reproduce problem:
Step 1: I start off with a simple instrument track with Mojito loaded in it and an instrument part with a couple of notes playing in a loop for testing. This is the track named T0: Mojito Step 2: I apply the Transform to Audio Track command to the instrument track in Step 1, which creates a new track: T1: Mojito (transformed to audio track) Step 3: I right-click the instrument part in Step 1 and select Bounce Selection from the context menu. The resulting bounced audio is placed in a new track named T2: Bounced Stereo.
Step 4: I duplicate the track created at Step 3 with events, then click the Channel Mode button to switch it to Mono. This track is named T3: Bounced Mono.
You should be able to reproduce the following problems:
1) All four tracks sound different. You can easily verify this using phase inversion with Mixtool (I've already inserted Mixtool in each track (disabled)). Particularly noticeable are audio clicks in the bounced audio events.
2) T0, T1 and T2 all peak below 0dB on the master meter when soloed.
3) T3 peaks at +2.6dB (clipping!) on the master meter when soloed. This is the Mono track. If you switch it back to stereo, levels drop back to below 0dB. Switch between Mono and Stereo to quickly check the obvious level difference.
4) Switching the Master to Mono does not cause levels to go above 0dB, in fact levels stay the same. I mention this in case anyone mentions pan law.
Is this the right place to post bugs? I have posted several reports before and got no acknowledgement whatsoever. I put great effort in writing concise bug reports but I often get the feeling I ain't reaching.
I do get what your'e saying. Not an issue for me personally since I use Touch and it kinda doesn't matter. Touch is Reading when you're not touching anything and it's Writing when you are, so for me personally, it doesn't matter.
Not dismissing your FR, but you asked "anyone?". I don't personally need it.
Unless we get automation clips (requested elsewhere several times), in which case this feature might become very necessary, as writing one item would write all shared copies thereof, which may be on other automation lanes.
![[Search]](/templates/default/images/header_dot.png)
