PreSonus Studio One FREE??!

[Tricky-Loops]

Interesting in which direction the debate has gone...

Obviously the PreSonic Studio One Free is a marketing product, I've never doubted that. This is no charity action for the financially challenged or even poor people.

But there are possibilities to make DAW's affordable for people with less income - REAPER is one example of them. If you earn less than 20,000 $ a year (with the music production with REAPER), then you get REAPER at a more favorable price.

That could be a model for other companies, too.

If you want a DAW without money, there are alternatives, too, for example LMMS.

What angers me, is that suggestions are apparently not welcomed. I've criticized the lack of VST support and got no intelligent answer from PreSonus WHY they don't want to support it (in the free and the artist's version). I just got a harsh reply.

That's why I will not test or buy PreSonus Studio One.

But to think - as some do - that companies should give away free pro versions of their DAW for the less privileged people, that would never come up to my mind. Every one wants to survive (even if we die in the end, anyway) and everybody needs money. Unless you live in the Amazonas jungle and live from natural produce...

And BTW, a DAW, is it really necessary for surviving??

[AstralExistence]

But your assuming it was altruism, I assumed it was marketing, and I think I'm more likely correct and it really wasn't a witch but your bitch that we were burning I have nothing against witches, nor female dogs either, but in my opinion your complaint has little merit. we are all entitled to our opinions.

well, theirs an old saying, "majority wins" so if the majority feel im being shortsighted, and im wrong, then im wrong. thats right i said it. w-r-o-n-g. i can admit i was wrong, so thats that. i was wrong. the sun still comes up the next day and the kids come out to play. it wouldn't be the frist time i was wrong and it certainly wont be the last.

[AstralExistence]

Interesting in which direction the debate has gone...

Obviously the PreSonic Studio One Free is a marketing product, I've never doubted that. This is no charity action for the financially challenged or even poor people.

But there are possibilities to make DAW's affordable for people with less income - REAPER is one example of them. If you earn less than 20,000 $ a year (with the music production with REAPER), then you get REAPER at a more favorable price.

That could be a model for other companies, too.

its actually an idea suggested many times. the closes is reaper under 20,000 or podium single core. that said, there is yet, no single free powerful daw. it would be awsome is there was a big boy free daw. the ink scape of illustrator, the gimp of photoshop. maybe one day it will happen.

[koolkeys]

im freely entitled to my opinion. i said what i said, its how i feel, it is not directed to presonus but rather company altruism. which does not exist. lets not burn the witch. end of story. move on.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but you presented it as "truth". Your word, not mine. And you essentially made it a point to pretend the company is screwing over the "less fortunate" by not giving enough away for free, likening it to almost being "spam".

I'm entitled to my opinion as well, and I think that's pretty ridiculous in every way.

Brent

[AstralExistence]

im freely entitled to my opinion. i said what i said, its how i feel, it is not directed to presonus but rather company altruism. which does not exist. lets not burn the witch. end of story. move on.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but you presented it as "truth". Your word, not mine. And you essentially made it a point to pretend the company is screwing over the "less fortunate" by not giving enough away for free, likening it to almost being "spam".

I'm entitled to my opinion as well, and I think that's pretty ridiculous in every way.

Brent

yeah, i think that would go along with, i was 'wrong' yep, pretty sure...

[koolkeys]

What angers me, is that suggestions are apparently not welcomed. I've criticized the lack of VST support and got no intelligent answer from PreSonus WHY they don't want to support it (in the free and the artist's version). I just got a harsh reply.

That's why I will not test or buy PreSonus Studio One.

But nobody here is talking about the criticism itself of the no VST limitation really. It's being assumed that there is something fishy going on when in fact, there isn't.

Why don't they want to support it? Because that's the limitation they chose. If they limited the track count, but allowed VSTs, somebody would complain that they need more tracks. If they made it unable to handle multi-core, but allowed VSTs and unlimited tracks, somebody would complain that they can't work with just a single core.

The point is, they are giving something away for free, take it or leave it. They chose the limitation, and if it's too much for a person, they are not out a single dime. And if they do want more features, they can support the company by purchasing the software. Right?

Brent

[AstralExistence]

It's being assumed that there is something fishy going on when in fact, there isn't.

or you could let it drop, i mean you could do that too... i already said i was wrong

[Tricky-Loops]

Interesting in which direction the debate has gone...

Obviously the PreSonic Studio One Free is a marketing product, I've never doubted that. This is no charity action for the financially challenged or even poor people.

But there are possibilities to make DAW's affordable for people with less income - REAPER is one example of them. If you earn less than 20,000 $ a year (with the music production with REAPER), then you get REAPER at a more favorable price.

That could be a model for other companies, too.

its actually an idea suggested many times. the closes is reaper under 20,000 or podium single core. that said, there is yet, no single free powerful daw. it would be awsome is there was a big boy free daw. the ink scape of illustrator, the gimp of photoshop. maybe one day it will happen.

There is LMMS which is powerful, too. It's no big boy DAW yet but maybe some time it will be. I don't need it, but so far as I've heard it's a powerful DAW.

[AstralExistence]

Interesting in which direction the debate has gone...

Obviously the PreSonic Studio One Free is a marketing product, I've never doubted that. This is no charity action for the financially challenged or even poor people.

But there are possibilities to make DAW's affordable for people with less income - REAPER is one example of them. If you earn less than 20,000 $ a year (with the music production with REAPER), then you get REAPER at a more favorable price.

That could be a model for other companies, too.

its actually an idea suggested many times. the closes is reaper under 20,000 or podium single core. that said, there is yet, no single free powerful daw. it would be awsome is there was a big boy free daw. the ink scape of illustrator, the gimp of photoshop. maybe one day it will happen.

There is LMMS which is powerful, too. It's no big boy DAW yet but maybe sometimes it will be. I don't need it, but so far as I've heard it's a powerful DAW.

but no asio

[koolkeys]

Interesting in which direction the debate has gone...

Obviously the PreSonic Studio One Free is a marketing product, I've never doubted that. This is no charity action for the financially challenged or even poor people.

But there are possibilities to make DAW's affordable for people with less income - REAPER is one example of them. If you earn less than 20,000 $ a year (with the music production with REAPER), then you get REAPER at a more favorable price.

That could be a model for other companies, too.

its actually an idea suggested many times. the closes is reaper under 20,000 or podium single core. that said, there is yet, no single free powerful daw. it would be awsome is there was a big boy free daw. the ink scape of illustrator, the gimp of photoshop. maybe one day it will happen.

Well, I think you will find that software development teams are not anywhere near the scale of somebody like Adobe, and don't make nearly as much. So they won't be releasing something comparable themselves, obviously. So that leaves third parties to do so. But most of the time, including with GIMP and Inkscape, the free software isn't actually as good as the commercial software. In addition, it doesn't receive the support that the commercial software does. There is a reason for this, as you know. It takes a lot of time and money to maintain a complex application.

And what's ironic is that technically, no 100% free GPL program will legally be able to support VSTs out of the box because of the license restrictions in the VST developer agreement.

Personally, GIMP and Inkscape drive me nuts. I love that they are there, but I just can't work with them after using the Adobe suites for so long. And this leads to the main problem. People who use that software, in so many cases, keep asking for it to become like the "big boy" software, without realizing just how much of a time and money investment it is to create and maintain.

All this rambling just to say this; it doesn't happen because it's harder than people realize.

Brent

[koolkeys]

It's being assumed that there is something fishy going on when in fact, there isn't.

or you could let it drop, i mean you could do that too... i already said i was wrong

I did not see your post before I posted this, fwiw.

It's no harm done regardless.

Brent

[Tricky-Loops]

What angers me, is that suggestions are apparently not welcomed. I've criticized the lack of VST support and got no intelligent answer from PreSonus WHY they don't want to support it (in the free and the artist's version). I just got a harsh reply.

That's why I will not test or buy PreSonus Studio One.

But nobody here is talking about the criticism itself of the no VST limitation really. It's being assumed that there is something fishy going on when in fact, there isn't.

Why don't they want to support it? Because that's the limitation they chose. If they limited the track count, but allowed VSTs, somebody would complain that they need more tracks. If they made it unable to handle multi-core, but allowed VSTs and unlimited tracks, somebody would complain that they can't work with just a single core.

The point is, they are giving something away for free, take it or leave it. They chose the limitation, and if it's too much for a person, they are not out a single dime. And if they do want more features, they can support the company by purchasing the software. Right?

Brent

But THAT would be an interesting debate: Is the VST limitation really necessary or would an other limitation be better? Who is for it, who is against it? I don't believe in the number of 99,99 % of people which allegedly don't use plugins...

If PreSonus gives the free version away for the poor people, is that really the question? Is PreSonus the Red Cross?? - I don't think so.

[AstralExistence]

Interesting in which direction the debate has gone...

Obviously the PreSonic Studio One Free is a marketing product, I've never doubted that. This is no charity action for the financially challenged or even poor people.

But there are possibilities to make DAW's affordable for people with less income - REAPER is one example of them. If you earn less than 20,000 $ a year (with the music production with REAPER), then you get REAPER at a more favorable price.

That could be a model for other companies, too.

its actually an idea suggested many times. the closes is reaper under 20,000 or podium single core. that said, there is yet, no single free powerful daw. it would be awsome is there was a big boy free daw. the ink scape of illustrator, the gimp of photoshop. maybe one day it will happen.

Well, I think you will find that software development teams are not anywhere near the scale of somebody like Adobe, and don't make nearly as much. So they won't be releasing something comparable themselves, obviously. So that leaves third parties to do so. But most of the time, including with GIMP and Inkscape, the free software isn't actually as good as the commercial software. In addition, it doesn't receive the support that the commercial software does. There is a reason for this, as you know. It takes a lot of time and money to maintain a complex application.

And what's ironic is that technically, no 100% free GPL program will legally be able to support VSTs out of the box because of the license restrictions in the VST developer agreement.

Personally, GIMP and Inkscape drive me nuts. I love that they are there, but I just can't work with them after using the Adobe suites for so long. And this leads to the main problem. People who use that software, in so many cases, keep asking for it to become like the "big boy" software, without realizing just how much of a time and money investment it is to create and maintain.

All this rambling just to say this; it doesn't happen because it's harder than people realize.

Brent

i own xara, and your right, inkscape pretty much blows. its so slow, clunky, and gimp stinks too, but the point is, its there for those who want a option where theres no other alternative. open source is for people that have less money and more time. and you know what, opoen source usualy stink! i knows ita a good idea of a free daw, but in reality, i think we see 'amazing super awsome daw' at o.1 for a long ass time. i mean inkscape development is slow as molasses.

[AstralExistence]

What angers me, is that suggestions are apparently not welcomed. I've criticized the lack of VST support and got no intelligent answer from PreSonus WHY they don't want to support it (in the free and the artist's version). I just got a harsh reply.

That's why I will not test or buy PreSonus Studio One.

But nobody here is talking about the criticism itself of the no VST limitation really. It's being assumed that there is something fishy going on when in fact, there isn't.

Why don't they want to support it? Because that's the limitation they chose. If they limited the track count, but allowed VSTs, somebody would complain that they need more tracks. If they made it unable to handle multi-core, but allowed VSTs and unlimited tracks, somebody would complain that they can't work with just a single core.

The point is, they are giving something away for free, take it or leave it. They chose the limitation, and if it's too much for a person, they are not out a single dime. And if they do want more features, they can support the company by purchasing the software. Right?

Brent

But THAT would be an interesting debate: Is the VST limitation really necessary or would an other limitation be better? Who is for it, who is against it? I don't believe in the number of 99,99 % of people which allegedly don't use plugins...

If PreSonus gives the free version away for the poor people, is that really the question? Is PreSonus the Red Cross?? - I don't think so.

i think lack of multicore like podium does it is the best idea to come to the free version daw. i mean single core use is pretty awful in itself. but pop in a low cpu synth like synth1 or charlatan and your off! see, but the pro daw user wont be using charlatan or synth1 well some pros, but the majority will be using massive, or some other seriously powerful vsti. and see, thats the point, its limiting to those who would really need it, but not limiting for those that just want to have fun and dabble.

[Tricky-Loops]

Interesting in which direction the debate has gone...

Obviously the PreSonic Studio One Free is a marketing product, I've never doubted that. This is no charity action for the financially challenged or even poor people.

But there are possibilities to make DAW's affordable for people with less income - REAPER is one example of them. If you earn less than 20,000 $ a year (with the music production with REAPER), then you get REAPER at a more favorable price.

That could be a model for other companies, too.

its actually an idea suggested many times. the closes is reaper under 20,000 or podium single core. that said, there is yet, no single free powerful daw. it would be awsome is there was a big boy free daw. the ink scape of illustrator, the gimp of photoshop. maybe one day it will happen.

Well, I think you will find that software development teams are not anywhere near the scale of somebody like Adobe, and don't make nearly as much. So they won't be releasing something comparable themselves, obviously. So that leaves third parties to do so. But most of the time, including with GIMP and Inkscape, the free software isn't actually as good as the commercial software. In addition, it doesn't receive the support that the commercial software does. There is a reason for this, as you know. It takes a lot of time and money to maintain a complex application.

And what's ironic is that technically, no 100% free GPL program will legally be able to support VSTs out of the box because of the license restrictions in the VST developer agreement.

Personally, GIMP and Inkscape drive me nuts. I love that they are there, but I just can't work with them after using the Adobe suites for so long. And this leads to the main problem. People who use that software, in so many cases, keep asking for it to become like the "big boy" software, without realizing just how much of a time and money investment it is to create and maintain.

All this rambling just to say this; it doesn't happen because it's harder than people realize.

Brent

I think there are so much inexpensive DAW's out there, that it is even possible for the less financially privileged to make good music. If it is Podium or EnergyXT or Mixcraft or Nuendo or etc. - you don't need Logic Pro to make good music.