Predictions for 2018 DAW Market

[Russell Grand]

I predict that after Image Like publishes FL Studio 20, its user base will grow by at least 2 %

FL Studio is jumping from 12 to 20?

I know. It is as if they really want the version number change to signify a major point release, just like it would if the version number were moving from 1.2 to 2.0 (just move the decimal point ).

It’s for a few reasons actually.
Primarily to celebrate FLs Birthday.
Also to avoid the superstitious reputation of the number 13.

It does sound so weird however...FL 20. Meeugh. Gonna take a bit of time getting used to.

I expect all the features we would have had with 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19... otherwise we've been ripped off!!

[SparkySpark]

What impression is given that PreSonus are having financial problems?

None. And I think they are fine. But IF they would run into problems, they would most likely cut their losses, whatever they might be. S1 is not central to their concept, like CW wasn't to Gibson.

While I can't imagine Steinberg without Cubase, I can imagine Presonus without S1.

[beatmangler443]

What impression is given that PreSonus are having financial problems?

None. And I think they are fine. But IF they would run into problems, they would most likely cut their losses, whatever they might be. S1 is not central to their concept, like CW wasn't to Gibson.

While I can't imagine Steinberg without Cubase, I can imagine Presonus without S1.

They are a hardware company, but Studio One wlll/is becoming at the forefront of what they do. They have the best selling ipad ipad with Notion, and the integration with their hardware/S1 is getting better and better.
-Faderport 16/8, Studio Live iii DAW integration, Quantumn interface

Their doing more and better than what Gibson and Steinberg is doing. What they are doing is what Steinberg and Gibson/Roland should have been doing. Plus actually listening to customers. I'm assuming your a sonar or steinberg user.

[SparkySpark]

Hmmm... no I use MuLab.

Good to hear their software division is doing so well. If one thinks the DAW market is tough, it's nothing against the notation software market, so I liked to hear about the success for Notion. I sent some Sonar users to S1 since it's really a good DAW.

And I hate the Gibson management. I can't believe they're getting paid for their so-called work.

But I think we're off-topic now...

[THE INTRANCER]

Studio One is developed in Germany, their hardware section is US led, so it's a two pronged approach. German companies have a strong reputation for sticking around for a long time and grabbing big segments of the software market. Maxon, the developers of Cinema 4D is one such software company to demonstrate this, and has strong connections with the US. Presonus also has had ex-employees from Steinberg such as 'Kundrus who was one of the developers of the early versions of Cubase and was the software architect of the first version of Nuendo for Steinberg', others include Maik Oppermann and Eike Jonaswhich.

So this is most probably why Studio One has that sort of development feel from using it. Studio One like Cinema 4D, does what I need it to do without complicating the experience to learn it, and hence why these products hold their own in this competitive market. Studio One is young compared to say Sonar and Cubase, by around 20 years or so.

[Guenon]

While I can't imagine Steinberg without Cubase

It's actually Yamaha without Cubase you need to imagine for this comparison . From the point of view of being a subsidiary, Steinberg/Cubase is to Yamaha what Cakewalk/Sonar was to Roland, for example. But yeah, I can't imagine that either.

[Guenon]

Studio One is young compared to say Sonar and Cubase, by around 20 years or so.

The age difference between the grand old ones (Cubase, Cakewalk etc.) and this current generation of (relatively) new DAWs is often cited, yeah. First things first, though, I must say I'm not looking for a debate on this , just thinking out loud. The history of each of these and the platforms they come from are interesting.

So, for example when it's said that Cubase is "20 years older" than DAW [X], the history of Cubase is usually calculated from way back on the Atari platform, then the Mac, etc. The long history contains the full venerable path of rewrites and platform changes and redesigns and so on, and deservedly so. For some reason the history of Studio One is usually calculated as starting from 2009, even though - if similarly calculating rewrites and redesigns and so on - it started already ten years before that, as the KRISTAL Audio Engine multitracker. The current Studio One version lists the class library the DAW is based on as (C)1999-2017, and the topmost developer in the credits is still the same as in 1999.

Summing up: https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php? ... type=topic

So Studio One has quite a long history already, full 20 years next year. In my mind it's a respectable and high quality DAW that reaches quite far back into the "virtual studio software" boom.

[Guenon]

As for predictions, I predict predictive processing of instrument/effect plugins is slowly but surely becoming more prevalent. During 2018, there will be at least one more major DAW that sees such functionality being implemented, to a degree, optimizing DAW performance by rendering DSP and/or disk streaming heavy processes dynamically behind the scenes into secondary (signal chain specific) buffers, longer than the actual main output buffer. The ways this is implemented and the positive impact it has on overall performance will vary from host to host, but in the best cases it will lead to quite magnificent results when using intensive Kontakt layouts, for example.

[THE INTRANCER]

Summing up: https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php? ... type=topic

So Studio One has quite a long history already, full 20 years next year. In my mind it's a respectable and high quality DAW that reaches quite far back into the "virtual studio software" boom.

Yeah, that's interesting... I think that's where there's a division of something cumulative versus comparative in developmental timelines. Similarly, one can judge and add the time in which you've gained enough knowledge to code something, before you do actually create anything and only from then you have the understanding in which to do so, to the next point in time of measure. Or in short, you only have enough knowledge to do something before you do

It took me 10 months to even begin starting to think about building instruments in Reaktor 5 than simply using ensembles routed into Reason 7 back in 2013, and another 6 months where I was really comfortable with it.

"Native Instruments comes out with their own proper DAW, in 2018", now that would be a shock.

[Guenon]

"Native Instruments comes out with their own proper DAW, in 2018", now that would be a shock.

True, that would be quite something... And possibly even disrupting, in the market sense. The Komplete DAW, if you will , with strong built-in integration with their existing products. Hmmmh. Would be especially intriguing for (for example) electronic music heads who are just starting out, "just get Komplete", heh.

[beatmangler443]

Native Instruments isn't doing a DAW.

[Guenon]

Native Instruments isn't doing a DAW.

Ever?

[donkey tugger]

People will revert back to using the word 'sequencer' hopefully - one less pretentious acronym.

[Spencer Maddox]

NI haven’t made a daw to this point. I don’t know why’d they change.
UNLESS that massive investment they got involves the creation of such (like the propellerhead investment and vst). But that would absolutely stun me.

[starflakeprj]

I would consider Maschine being a proper DAW already.