Studio One Pro 4.5

[LawrenceF]

It's only on Windows and It'll be fixed pretty quickly according to them so I wouldn't personally be swapping dll's. The current workaround is easy enough.

I (and I suspect some others) didn't run into it because I keep Scan at Startup turned off, and scan new plugs I may have installed from the Update Plugins button. I suppose if I was offline and had done that I'd have run into it.

[Trancit]

It's only on Windows and It'll be fixed pretty quickly according to them so I wouldn't personally be swapping dll's. The current workaround is easy enough.

I (and I suspect some others) didn't run into it because I keep Scan at Startup turned off, and scan new plugs I may have installed from the Update Plugins button. I suppose if I was offline and had done that I'd have run into it.

Thx for the info...

[dellboy]

Has anyone else got the problem of the "transfer" box about available packages pop up upon opening the app every time ?

I have signed out, un-ticked every box , un-ticked "scan at startup", but nothing will make the box with all installed packages disappear.

[LawrenceF]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkmHqZAJFCc

[oneway]

How are you adjusting to today's market. The market that is hitting is users who are one man bands who are looking for something simple. Like FL, Native Instruments controllers, live and Push. What are you gonna do when Logic add a chord track (I think they will) or Native Instruments and Ableton drop cool controllers with software enhancements. Where does the Atom fit? 70 new features and no new atom features? But hey let's get DJ ATB or get other producer/songwriters to say they user our software but just give a release to Pro Tool users. I'm confused....

This is a very good point. It looks like they're working from the bottom up on the Feature Request list. I can't pick out any individual feature in 4.5 that shouldn't be there, but I will agree with you that as a whole the list is not geared towards relevance and current production approaches. Some of these Feature Requests they're working on were originally requested in 2013. A LOT has changed in six years in terms of the approaches people are taking when making music and the diverse landscape of competitive features that other DAWs offer. Automation items, reusable patterns/blocks that don't break the linear DAW format, hardware integration in a CREATIVELY useful sense, not just transport and quantize/snap controls.

A huge portion of their customers are not in the Pop, R&B, Dance market but if they're going to advertise the Pattern Editor, the Chord Track, the Atom, these new MIDI Tools, they can't just leave them as a prototype for another 2 years while they work from the latest Feature Request back to the newest. Those parts of the program have basically caught up to Reason 4 and the Atom is barely comparable to Maschine v1. Great. Reasons at v10 and Maschine has evolved signifcantly. In terms of competition, rmacattack is correct, that is not very enticing when you can have real time previews of operations in the FL piano roll and re-use automation items without range selecting and duplicating/copying every time you want to transfer it. It's almost like they might get more benefit with these emergent markets and workflows if they split their feature additions 50/50 between newer requests and "legacy" requests. The program has been around long enough where you have to take that into consideration.

[andypryce]

As I said before, although a very fine DAW with mostly great and fast workflow, it is having an identity crisis. both with advertising and added functions. Mimicking Protools, Cubase, Ableton, FL all at the same time will not help in the long run.

[LawrenceF]

All of that makes sense to me. But what makes it maybe not so important to some though is that market is so huge (and new daw user are born daily) that a good music software developer can eat well doing just about anything these days.

Short of something being just a totally and demonstrably crappy product ... "If you build it they will come."

A lot of the other stuff (imo, mmv) , users talking about "market share" and other things, may have no bearing at all on many developers goals, whether a single developer or a team somewhere else is eating well. It's most likely true that most people initially go into business for themselves to not have to work for someone else, just to have more control over their lives, not really to conquer the world or a given market.

That is to say, if I'm Julian over at Tracktion or whatever and the product is putting $750k + a year after taxes in my personal pocket, I wouldn't obsess about the Internet competition thing or if a certain demographic doesn't like the product because it doesn't do a certain thing

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I see it as: the product managers care about making a Pro Tools competitor. This is why most of the real work starting with version 3 has been geared towards checking boxes off the "Pro Tools has this" feature list. But the marketing folks know the money is in the more creative market and are trying to push more and more composition related features that the development team and product managers begrudgingly agree to in order to still licenses, even though that's not where their heart is. That would explain the Arranger Track with no playlist, the half baked Scratch Pad, Drum Editor and Pattern Editors, new MIDI functions, etc. I really get the sense that these aren't people who really care about competing with Cubase, Live, Bitwig, or Fruity Loops, but really have a passion for mixing and recording audio augmented with traditional composition for virtual Instruments. How else do you build a Pattern Editor and forget to include a transpose function unless you really don't use the feature much and were just trying to check a box?

Note: this is all my opinion of course, but that's how their recent feature additions have come across to me.

[ictools]

As I said before, although a very fine DAW with mostly great and fast workflow, it is having an identity crisis. both with advertising and added functions. Mimicking Protools, Cubase, Ableton, FL all at the same time will not help in the long run.

Actually, quite the opposite. They've established themselves as the musicians DAW. From software to hardware and everything in between, they cater towards live, recording and editing. They have cornered the market and destroyed the "industry standard". They are the one stop shop for everything you could possible want and need.

The real kicker is, they are run by musicians that listen to other musicians for feedback, suggestions and feature requests. Which always makes their products better, faster and stronger, along with it comes their user community.

The market is pretty saturated these days, but they are sitting at the top of the pyramid, which can't be said for the rest of them. Each of the other mentioned DAWs have a small piece or a niche in the current marketplace. Studio One is the only DAW capable of giving each of them a run for their money, and continues to improve and grow, instead of staying stagnant and past tense.

[EnGee]

I don't have any problem with S1 identity! Actually, I'm happy for the direction it takes.

I like also Bitwig, but still prefer S1 as it's easy to load Battery 4 maps (from Exchange server) and working with drums patterns and midi files is easier.

S1 pricing is much better than Bitwig and Cubase. It also has the best friendly protection (except FLS and Reaper).

Anyway, I don't see any obligation in keep using S1 if you like FL Studio or Live more! You can also use all of them! No breaking any law, guarantee!

For mixing and mastering in Windows, I'm impressed with Samplitude, and I'm intending to use it as a second stage after S1 Make your own workflow with or without S1 and other DAWs and take advantage of each one's strengths

[andypryce]

I don't have any problem with S1 identity! Actually, I'm happy for the direction it takes.

I like also Bitwig, but still prefer S1 as it's easy to load Battery 4 maps (from Exchange server) and working with drums patterns and midi files is easier.

S1 pricing is much better than Bitwig and Cubase. It also has the best friendly protection (except FLS and Reaper).

Anyway, I don't see any obligation in keep using S1 if you like FL Studio or Live more! You can also use all of them! No breaking any law, guarantee!

For mixing and mastering in Windows, I'm impressed with Samplitude, and I'm intending to use it as a second stage after S1 Make your own workflow with or without S1 and other DAWs and take advantage of each one's strengths

That is what I do I use whatever inspires me at the moment but everything ends up in S1 for finalizing

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I think if you sat down and did a SWOT analysis on Studio One, you'd see that its strengths are workflow, audio editing, and mixing. The biggest weaknesses are lack of basic MIDI and compositional tools (if only that was as good as the audio side). There are a lot of opportunities in that area, and they have threats around how entrenched pro studios are with Pro Tools* and how Cubase, with a much more robust feature set, has been trying to makeup ground by borrowing some of the workflow enhancements of Studio One.

*Seriously, you ever look at ads or websites for studios when trying to book time? Pro Tools is still very much the standard and there will usually be one or two or more DAWs available. And based on what I see: those additional DAWs are usually Logic and/or Cubase. So while Presonus may be doing a pretty good job in cornering the live sound market with their mixers and S1 integration (I see Presonus mixers pop up regular at A/V conferences at work), I just don't see them making the same traction in recording studios. Part of that is because Pro Tools is entrenched in people's minds as the standard. Part of it I'm sure is because studio PC's also tend to be Macs and S1 clearly isn't as rock solid on Mac as Windows based on the things I see and read in forums, but part of it is because if I need Pro Tools features, I'm gonna use Pro Tools. If I need MIDI, I'll use Cubase or Logic. If I'm doing electronic work, I'll use DAWs like Live or Bitwig or Fruity. This is where the lack of identity for S1 comes in. It seems to exist, in big part, to integrate with Presonus hardware, and Presonus hardware is geared, in big part, towards live sound.

[andypryce]

I think if you sat down and did a SWOT analysis on Studio One, you'd see that its strengths are workflow, audio editing, and mixing. The biggest weaknesses are lack of basic MIDI and compositional tools (if only that was as good as the audio side). There are a lot of opportunities in that area, and they have threats around how entrenched pro studios are with Pro Tools* and how Cubase, with a much more robust feature set, has been trying to makeup ground by borrowing some of the workflow enhancements of Studio One.

*Seriously, you ever look at ads or websites for studios when trying to book time? Pro Tools is still very much the standard and there will usually be one or two or more DAWs available. And based on what I see: those additional DAWs are usually Logic and/or Cubase. So while Presonus may be doing a pretty good job in cornering the live sound market with their mixers and S1 integration (I see Presonus mixers pop up regular at A/V conferences at work), I just don't see them making the same traction in recording studios. Part of that is because Pro Tools is entrenched in people's minds as the standard. Part of it I'm sure is because studio PC's also tend to be Macs and S1 clearly isn't as rock solid on Mac as Windows based on the things I see and read in forums, but part of it is because if I need Pro Tools features, I'm gonna use Pro Tools. If I need MIDI, I'll use Cubase or Logic. If I'm doing electronic work, I'll use DAWs like Live or Bitwig or Fruity. This is where the lack of identity for S1 comes in. It seems to exist, in big part, to integrate with Presonus hardware, and Presonus hardware is geared, in big part, towards live sound.

+1
This is what I meant with identity

[ictools]

It basically breaks down to three types of "musicians/producers".

1. Those who play music and record it.
2. Those who paint music and edit it.
3. And the combination of the two.

Studio One is currently geared more towards the musicality side of things, such as recording live. While some DAWs are more midi centric and geared towards sequencer type programming. Both can be used to create music, but both are very different approaches.

The problem is trying to balance both approaches into a cohesive work flow that works for everyone.

[chk071]

As I said before, although a very fine DAW with mostly great and fast workflow, it is having an identity crisis. both with advertising and added functions. Mimicking Protools, Cubase, Ableton, FL all at the same time will not help in the long run.

It's tough... first you have all those users who claim that the DAW companies don't listen to their customers, when they want "essential" feature XY which DAW AB has since decades, and, when the developers implement all those features, there are other people who say that their DAW has a identity crisis, because it wants to be everything. I compared it to the "Frankenstein of DAW's" in another thread. Tough crowd. Not really the developers fault (even though... when i think about, it actually IS their fault. They should stick to their vision of how their software is supposed to be, and not listen the squallers on the internet, who know everything better).

Steinberg also "copied" loads of stuff from Studio One, by the way. If anything, then the "problem" is apparent in every DAW.