One tip for Studio One:

It's a little different than Cubase for MIDI. I see a suggestion to setup the MIDI Receive -- which this is from Studio One's perspective, so output from the keyboard and input to your DAW -- should be setup as an external "New Keyboard" device. This should be a one-directional device with Receive set to MODX-1 and Send set to None. All channels selected (1-16) blue. Then add another external device - a "New Instrument" device. This will have the Receive set to None and Send set to MODX-1. Ignore warnings about the same device - MODX and Montage use the same port for input and output. I usually have my keyboard sending MIDI clock - but you can decide if the DAW is going to be sending this with your MODX as a slave.

So ignore what I said earlier about MODX-1 being both send and receive. Studio One doesn't work like that.

I now have MIDI and Audio recording and playing back fine in Studio One. Except for the above - Studio One is fairly similar to knobs and buttons as Cubase for the major settings.

Note - receive (from MODX) is a keyboard icon and send (to MODX) is a different icon since they're different external instrument types.

That's for MIDI tracks.

For Audio Tracks - these are "normal". No real difference from other DAWs. There's a menu to see the full audio routing where it will tell you what MODX USB digital channels are routed to what names. By default Studio One only sets up Main L/Main R. This is the stereo mix which is the same - with effects and all - as your keyboard's analog outputs. You have to manually setup USB1/2, USB3/4 (etc) if you want to use these extra digital channels from MODX. For now, don't worry about that and have all of your Parts output to Main L/R and record the Mains. Studio One names Main L/R as "Input L+R" and "Input L" and "Input R". Myself, I added a short abbreviation for my keyboard so I was sure which audio channel goes to what.

... when I look at Studio One I see lots of familiar stuff - but I know a decent amount of Cubase. So knowledge transfers. Before I loaded Studio One I didn't know it's "impossible" to have a single external instrument instance cover MIDI input and output. The building blocks were arranged a bit unexpected. This is stuff a google search cleared up pretty quick but I wasn't doubting many of the steps along the way.

I think there are more accessible DAWs out there. And there are lots of opinions out there. So have fun sorting through those.

Once you pick a horse - try to stick with it. I'm not sure if you've picked Studio One or not yet. It seems reasonably capable. However, Cubase is still "easier" for me only because I've been dealing with it (note: in a very light way ... I'm not a regular DAW user) for so many years. And even before I owned this keyboard since it came free with various other gear.

And no - the Cubase forum doesn't require you to buy anything. However, with a MODX you already are a licensed user assuming you purchased the MODX new. You do need to sign up with an account to post (but not read). I don't think the account for the forum is tied to any purchase hurdles.

https://forums.steinberg.net/c/cubase/6

Once you pick a horse - try to stick with it. I'm not sure if you've picked Studio One or not yet. It seems reasonably capable. However, Cubase is still "easier" for me only because I've been dealing with it (note: in a very light way ... I'm not a regular DAW user) for so many years.

That's the idea. I don't want to waste time jumping between different DAWs, learning more technical things than I need to, and taking away from the creative time, which is the goal after all. I do have StudioOne 5 Artist already, but I was hoping it will have been a faster learning curve than it seems to be. When I have to spend 3 days to get sound, and like you said their building blocks were unexpected. That's exactly the point, it has to make sense to be easy to learn, especially for someone who doesn't have the benefit of knowing other DAWs and applying/adapting that knowledge. For years I've been working with Tascam, (which is a physical DAW that doesn't need a computer - it has its own computer), because it is straightforward, it has a fairly clear manual that tells you how to achieve specific tasks, and lets me create right away, AND it doesn't crash and I've never lost my work with it. The only two limitations, which have become more relevant for the project I'm working on now, are the number of tracks (only 24 with only 12 mono and 6 stereo, which makes only 18 mono actually), and no USB input to tracks, so I have to use 1/4" or XLR, which when used out of MODX reduce the sound quality significantly. Hence I am reluctantly dragging my feet towards the dreaded computer DAW I've been trying to avoid all these years. Not to disqualify all the potential benefits of computer daws and the advancements that have been made in recent years, but practicality has to take priority. I just don't always have the ridiculous amounts of time required to learn, where is the button, or what do they mean by that phrase when I'm on a deadline to produce something. And for years I've found an alternative, one which now alas isn't sufficient anymore.

In this situation, all I can hope for is to find people willing to help me learn where I am, as it seems to me I've found here. Without any purposed intent to vent, - it is however a fact that when trying to ask a straightforward question at Presonus, it gives me pause that I am given a long article to read that does not even answer all the parts of my question. And when coming back for clarifications and re-stating my question, I'm re-directed to videos that again don't answer my question and then again to forums where I can't have full access. The Presonus people do this and it is not encouraging because I love my time and I respect theirs also. It would have been much faster for them to just answer my question in one shot than this back and forth.
So, it has value to me what kind of quality of response and learning I can get in a community, without putting down my beginner status in the computer DAW realm, even if the software itself might be fairily similar to others.

[quotePost id=117231]That's the idea. I don't want to waste time jumping between different DAWs, learning more technical things than I need to, and taking away from the creative time, which is the goal after all. I do have StudioOne 5 Artist already, but I was hoping it will have been a faster learning curve than it seems to be. When I have to spend 3 days to get sound, and like you said their building blocks were unexpected. That's exactly the point, it has to make sense to be easy to learn, especially for someone who doesn't have the benefit of knowing other DAWs and applying/adapting that knowledge. For years I've been working with Tascam, (which is a physical DAW that doesn't need a computer - it has its own computer), because it is straightforward, it has a fairly clear manual that tells you how to achieve specific tasks, and lets me create right away, AND it doesn't crash and I've never lost my work with it.[/quotePost]
The initial part is the hardest: understanding the concepts of the DAW workflow: audio interface, audio routing, MIDI routing etc.
To fully take advantage of the flexibility of a complex instrument like the MODX, it really helps to get the basics right.

After that it should be quite straightforward to choose whatever DAW makes most sense to you.

I know little about Studio One, can't advise on it, but in principle should be very good for what you want. Maybe search for some good tutorials on YouTube, rather than trying to get help from support?

You should have a Cubase AI license with your MODX (but for proper usage of a synth like the MODX/Montage, it makes more sense to have a more full featured version of Cubase like Artist or Pro), so you can try your hand at it.

I don't really have much of an opinion about the "best" place to find information. If I can help you get going with Studio One then I will here. I took a lot of screenshots and numbered every step then found I had an early step where I needed to change the MIDI interface (2 different external instruments instead of 1) -- so that's gumming up the documentation works.

This is related enough to this forum (MODX) because even if MODX isn't the star of the show - it's right in the middle. I'm not sure there's an existing Studio One tutorial here - so it's worth having something to reference.

I do see other threads elsewhere where there is a certain amount of help. I also see frustration without step-by-step instructions. My goal would be to have a quick writeup to setup at least where I've gotten by end of week.

Nicely put Bill! Especially this:

...the most common 'problem' I see is POOR PLANNING.
People resist spending time of the things they don't do well whether that be scales, chord progressions, reading music or DAWs.

That to me is exactly right. I would only add poor time management to the list as well. 15 minutes of solid and well planned execution is always better than a full hour of distracted and unplanned busy work.

Be aware that the corner you will be painted into with Studio One is the lack of multiple MIDI channel sends on a MIDI track. If you want to record and play back in MODX's multi-midi-channel mode then you'll need to setup a different track for each MIDI channel. And also I would probably setup a separate external instrument (keyboard instrument) for each channel too so each track is only looking at a single MIDI input channel (MIDI Receive set to a single channel instead of ALL).

This is not only problematic for MODX/Montage, but the Rise also has issues and other various instruments that use more than one channel.

As far as I am aware, despite this being a complaint since before version 3 (and maybe earlier) - this has not been addressed even with the latest release.

With Cubase you could setup a single MIDI track which would handle all channels (1-16) without too much effort.

Therefore, to me, the "best" starting workflow with Studio One is to set the instrument into single-channel mode as this seems most compatible with the current offering from Presonus.

On the MODX side, I turn off local control to avoid doubling of notes. When turning this off the fact that I still hear notes when I play piano keys means there was a doubling of notes even if I couldn't perceive it (which, honestly, I couldn't using earphones - no phasing or other sounds to clue me in). This is normal setup for any DAW - to have the tone generator always respond to what the DAW is sending rather than have local keys directly "play" the keyboard.

DAWs are a poorly designed and badly implemented genre of software tooling.

There are no exceptions.

I say this to calibrate expectations of potential users, to save them the pain of searching for one that's both well done and rare. In this case, it's simply not there.

Sadly, there are a few fields of endeavour where this is the case. IDEs are another, as are video editors, vector "illustration" apps and the stuff used for UI/GUI/UX design. This is compounding (for software in general), and making ever more recursion in a vicious cycle, unfortunately. It's why you'll hear old men yelling at clouds pining for even older software tools.

It's not inherent complexity that makes software tooling this way. That's plain from fields of endeavour that have much more complex software that's not poorly designed and badly implemented. Like 3D, a field that has some shockers and some gems, despite being multiple levels of greater complexity than both DAWs and IDEs, and literally a whole extra dimension over vector illustration.

If you've come from fields and genres of software tooling that have well designed, well implemented and user considerate options, then it can come as a shock to find that there are whole fields that simply don't have anything flow-state focused, discoverable and/or joyous to use.

And most aficionados of such a field are unaware of the deficit and/or make all sorts odd allowances for it rather than merely saying something simple like : all DAWs are differing forms of the same cruft, you gotta suffer for your art because the tooling sucks.

I don't have a reason for the software to be adequate (as in: I don't earn a living using a DAW or need it for some great purpose) - but I've been lucky not to have as many problems with DAWs. I don't particularly come from a pedigree of using similar software. I just don't find DAWs to do very many things and therefore there are less places for features to hide.

I do have software dev experience - but not much on the applications side and not much with a graphical interface. Mostly microprocessor firmware, tool chains (command line), debug environments, etc. So I don't particularly have a lot of insight from that angle.

My first DAW usage was using the freebie Cubase that came with something - maybe a field recorder. I used it for transcription to line up the beats to a tempo so I could see how accurate I was in assigning the rhythm of a transcription. I spent more time figuring out how to set that up than actually using it - I think I used it to some degree for the one tune I was analyzing at the time and then went back to a more conventional process.

Having many generations of keyboards - I never used a DAW for them. My gig is performance and that's it. Give me a location and some compensation - I'm there with bells on.

I really only started using DAWs to help answer questions about how to use them. I went mostly to Youtube university. Sometimes forum posts I would glean from. Research and curiosity. I didn't really have a plan but I did have persistence. Not all in one sitting - but over time. There's more than I've ever done to do in a DAW - but I think once you have your environment set up - the rest is Sonar ([a] Cakewalk). The only problems I tend to see are setup related.

I haven't found a DAW yet where I didn't know where to begin. From initial installation to having a valid setup didn't take that long. Having previously setup plugins to get around the free version limitations - I learned enough to know how to setup Studio One with its single MIDI out per track architecture having done something similar for other reasons in Cubase AI.

I'm not saying it's perfect or making attempts to put lipstick on a pig. I just don't see the state of affairs to be as bleak.

For a related environment, I think music notation software is worse off than DAWs. For me, there was software that got nearly everything right but they recently folded after being on life support (with no actual signs of life) for over a decade. And this is even though said software would crash if you moved an object with a mouse. You'd lose all your work. Moving an object is fairly common and losing your work is the worst outcome. Saving often was the "cure" and remembering not to move with the mouse got you through. But the rest was so good I could score up parts fast enough that it was worth it vs. dealing with the other software. Steinberg has Dorico now and those are great guys working on it. It has its moments in both peaks and valleys. Rather than get too much into it - my opinion holds that notation software is in a worse position.

I agree that there's lots that can be done. The usability videos from Martin Keary and funny and true and now he's lead of UI design for Musescore after doing a video of how bad it was(is?). Although he tends to cover notation software -- the same themes apply to other software. Last I looked Musescore didn't turn into my favorite software - but maybe big ships turn slowly.

[quotePost id=117238]DAWs are a poorly designed and badly implemented genre of software tooling.

There are no exceptions.[/quotePost]
The whole world conspires against you, and now you got DAWs thrown at you and a sacred mission to enlighten the unsuspecting victims.

[quotePost id=117240][quotePost id=117238]DAWs are a poorly designed and badly implemented genre of software tooling.

There are no exceptions.[/quotePost]
The whole world conspires against you, and now you got DAWs thrown at you and a sacred mission to enlighten the unsuspecting victims.[/quotePost]

Your humour a constant source of delight and wonder. Your insights so correct and full of wisdom. You amaze.

Thank you for gracing us with your precious time, energy and gifts.

All are better for it.

[quotePost id=117241]Your humour a constant source of delight and wonder. Your insights so correct and full of wisdom. You amaze.[/quotePost]
I know.

But yours aren't, so stop trying.

[quotePost id=117227]Ok, it's working. Thanks, Andrew for pointing out the monitor knobs. It was turned off... >_<

Thank you all very much![/quotePost]

You're most welcome.

It's an oversight I've made more often than I'd care to count/admit, and seen daughter make a few times, too. Easy to do.

Glad you've got it working!

Take a look at MPC Beats. It might be that sweet spot of just enough DAW to get your creativity on without hitting too many irritation points. And it's FREE! Like Beer!

Here's a good vid about it, that's even funnier and more insightful than the best hits of Dragos:

https://youtu.be/W0Yv_HwLMw8