3D Glass Effect Bars - 1080P To 4K - D/L

[THE INTRANCER]

No, what it is is means for users to make thigs hideously ugly and almost unusable. Again, search for screenshots to see what I mean.

Oh I can definitely agree with you 1,000,000% there. Particularly the FL-Studio atrocities floating around. I'm not looking for that. All I'm looking for, is the ability to flip the GUI from dark to light. Studio One does not allow you to do this, nor will they offer a usable light preset theme. That's my only complaint.

In Studio One 4 and above you can flip or rather inverse certain areas of the GUI using the middle slider (luminance) of the colour preferences.

[BONES]

Oh I can definitely agree with you 1,000,000% there. Particularly the FL-Studio atrocities floating around. I'm not looking for that. All I'm looking for, is the ability to flip the GUI from dark to light. Studio One does not allow you to do this, nor will they offer a usable light preset theme. That's my only complaint.

You do realise that there is no reason at all to be using a light GUI on anything? It's bad for your eyes and you should force yourself to stop doing it. I'm 62 and I don't wear (or need) glasses. I have taken very good care of my eyes my whole life, unintentionally for most of it, and it has paid off. I am the oldest person in my department at work by more than 20 years and the only one who doesn't wear glasses.

[Orbit-50]

No, what it is is means for users to make thigs hideously ugly and almost unusable. Again, search for screenshots to see what I mean.

Oh I can definitely agree with you 1,000,000% there. Particularly the FL-Studio atrocities floating around. I'm not looking for that. All I'm looking for, is the ability to flip the GUI from dark to light. Studio One does not allow you to do this, nor will they offer a usable light preset theme. That's my only complaint.

In Studio One 4 and above you can flip or rather inverse certain areas of the GUI using the middle slider (luminance) of the colour preferences.

Thanks INTRANCER. I don't have it installed right now, but I've been stalking the update release notes for a couple of years now to see if they've improved the GUI in any way, and they haven't touched any of the GUI stuff in God knows how long, so it would probably be the same as I remember it. (correct me if I'm wrong though). I just keep remembering that I zeroed in on the problem, and It was something to do with a missing control. It had to do with not being able to adjust the amount of black, or something like that. When I have the time, I'll dig back into it so I can explain it more clearly.

[Orbit-50]

Oh I can definitely agree with you 1,000,000% there. Particularly the FL-Studio atrocities floating around. I'm not looking for that. All I'm looking for, is the ability to flip the GUI from dark to light. Studio One does not allow you to do this, nor will they offer a usable light preset theme. That's my only complaint.

You do realise that there is no reason at all to be using a light GUI on anything? It's bad for your eyes and you should force yourself to stop doing it. I'm 62 and I don't wear (or need) glasses. I have taken very good care of my eyes my whole life, unintentionally for most of it, and it has paid off. I am the oldest person in my department at work by more than 20 years and the only one who doesn't wear glasses.

Thanks for the warning, but it's a little tiny bit late for me and my eyes though, and that's totally shocking that you don't wear glasses at 62. That's great. Just so it's out there though, I'm not looking for a "Macintosh II" or Ableton Live "Frost" style light theme, (even though I think those are pretty cool to some extent) I'm looking for something like...I don't know...light grey, silver, dusty rose, maybe a sandlewood Studio One theme.
(runs for cover as the flaming ceremonies begin.lol)

[BONES]

Oooh, sandalwood - fancy!

[Orbit-50]

Oooh, sandalwood - fancy!

I knew you would make fun of me.
I was somewhat kidding, but I went off into dreamland for a moment. My point is, is that these developers should take a step back for one moment, lose the technical/shareholders/timeframe/2 hour lunches/whatever bullcrap... become a little more creative, look at the program from a creative standpoint, and create different GUI's for different types of users. Make using the software an experience, not these flat, dark, bolted together with whatever we got, here you go, shove it up your arse if you don't like it because we know better than you, even though you're the one that has to stare at it for hours, GUIs. These are professionals that can make this happen. I really don't think it's impossible. I'm gonna leave this thread because...well... I'm becoming negative and I told myself not to do that.
Thank you INTRANCER for your early 2000s bubble inspired scheme. It's only flaw, is that it is missing that 50's flair like Phrasemaster Mk1 by Galleoneer. I like what you tried to do there.

[chk071]

Oh I can definitely agree with you 1,000,000% there. Particularly the FL-Studio atrocities floating around. I'm not looking for that. All I'm looking for, is the ability to flip the GUI from dark to light. Studio One does not allow you to do this, nor will they offer a usable light preset theme. That's my only complaint.

You do realise that there is no reason at all to be using a light GUI on anything? It's bad for your eyes and you should force yourself to stop doing it. I'm 62 and I don't wear (or need) glasses. I have taken very good care of my eyes my whole life, unintentionally for most of it, and it has paid off. I am the oldest person in my department at work by more than 20 years and the only one who doesn't wear glasses.

There's a lot of genetics involved, I'm afraid. Not a single person in my family, up to my grandparents, who didn't wear glasses, and who wasn't either highly short-sighted, or far-sighted.

Although... think my grandfather paternal didn't wear glasses, now that I think about it.

[THE INTRANCER]

Oooh, sandalwood - fancy!

I knew you would make fun of me.
I was somewhat kidding, but I went off into dreamland for a moment. My point is, is that these developers should take a step back for one moment, lose the technical/shareholders/timeframe/2 hour lunches/whatever bullcrap... become a little more creative, look at the program from a creative standpoint, and create different GUI's for different types of users. Make using the software an experience, not these flat, dark, bolted together with whatever we got, here you go, shove it up your arse if you don't like it because we know better than you, even though you're the one that has to stare at it for hours, GUIs. These are professionals that can make this happen. I really don't think it's impossible. I'm gonna leave this thread because...well... I'm becoming negative and I told myself not to do that.
Thank you INTRANCER for your early 2000s bubble inspired scheme. It's only flaw, is that it is missing that 50's flair like Phrasemaster Mk1 by Galleoneer. I like what you tried to do there.

There are actually many others I created, some were not finished, and there are some that looked better than others... but it was something that kept me busy in exploring GUI design of which I could do with Studio One to add some mood and feeling to what ever music I was creating. Because Studio One's interface changed over the period of new versions, it rendered the GUI's obsolete as I moved up. Right now I'm happy with version 4.6 of Studio One. There's nothing in version 5 that I really need.

[BONES]

... become a little more creative, look at the program from a creative standpoint, and create different GUI's for different types of users.

I'm a full-time, professional graphic artist and even I can't see why they would do that. I have way more respect for companies that have their own vision and pursue it, than I do for those that let their users decide what to do with their products. In general, the former are into what they do, the latter are just trying to make more money. Obviously you don't want to completely ignore your users but you don't want them to take over your product development, either. But you definitely need to have the courage of your convictions and say "this is how you use our product" because when you do that, you can then concentrate on making that experience as good as it can be, instead of spending your time doing a dozen different things for a dozen different types of users and ending up with a jack of all trades, master of none type of product.

Make using the software an experience, not these flat, dark, bolted together with whatever we got, here you go, shove it up your arse if you don't like it because we know better than you, even though you're the one that has to stare at it for hours, GUIs.

If you think you stare at it for hours, imagine how much longer the people who work on it spend staring at it. Imagine also that they are at least a little bit interested in what they do, if not all 100% as passionate about music as you or I (although they probably all are).

These are professionals that can make this happen. I really don't think it's impossible.

I don't think it's desirable. I want functionality to rule over form, 100% of the time. A change is only positive if it makes things easier, prettier should be irrelevant once you start work. e.g. I think DUNE's GUI looks great but I still hate working with it because the workflow sucks. Same with NI's Maschine, actually - I really like the way it looks but I never got comfortable with the way it works.

Of course, when it comes to Studio One, I think they got most of it spot-on. I like the way it looks and I like the level of customisation I can apply to it to facilitate my workflow without unnecessary clutter. In the one or two areas where I am less comfortable, I am happy to change the way I work to accommodate it. If I could have any changes I wanted, it would be to make the piano roll work like Orion's but I absolutely understand that doing that would piss off a lot of existing users, so I am happy to adapt to the established workflow. Making things like that customisable would be stupid.

There's a lot of genetics involved, I'm afraid. Not a single person in my family, up to my grandparents, who didn't wear glasses, and who wasn't either highly short-sighted, or far-sighted.

You say that but my father wore glasses 24/7 my entire life. My mother had reading glasses from her 40s and glasses full-time from her late 50s/early 60s. My younger brother has been using reading glasses for at least 10 years and has recently started wearing them full-time. I was getting headaches about 10-12 years ago so I got an eye test. The optometrist said I was still a few years off needing glasses then but in recent years I think my sight has actually improved - I can read things like street names at night that I couldn't a decade ago. My doctor says it does happen, your eyesight changes as you get older but it doesn't always get worse.

I think what has preserved mine is a lifelong fascination with sunglasses. I've worn them constantly since I was a teenager, pretty much never going outside without them, and I think that's reduced UV damage considerably. Of course, that means wearing reading glasses wouldn't bother me in the slightest, I just don't need them. One thing, though, is that the difference between staring at a predominately white screen all day and a predominately dark screen all day was very noticeable to me when it was a thing. Just moving from the light grey/white windows of macOS to a dark themed Windows 10 environment made a huge difference to how my eyes were at the end of a day at work.

[THE INTRANCER]

... become a little more creative, look at the program from a creative standpoint, and create different GUI's for different types of users.

I'm a full-time, professional graphic artist and even I can't see why they would do that. I have way more respect for companies that have their own vision and pursue it, than I do for those that let their users decide what to do with their products. In general, the former are into what they do, the latter are just trying to make more money.

There are DAW's which allow you to modify their interfaces to support bitmap graphics, and really... it's not so much the developers vision, it's the vision of the users you develop for and understanding their requirements for them to do what they want to do. Presonus have their very own Answers page for this.

The product you are using is largely dictated by the users requests in addition to the developers own knowledge skills and experience in knowing how well to develop an application. Studio One and how it works wasn't tested on monkeys, but through actual monitoring and feedback from users that used it.

I wasn't a huge fan of the version 3 when the GUI changed completely, so I sought a way to modify it just for fun and find a design I could work with. Creating music, doesn't come easy to me nowadays, I need something to put me in the mood for it.

[MuzikFreq]

Ehhhhh. I personally don't really like studio one but I think it looks fine the way it is.
Mainly they need some adjustments but it doesn't need much.

I guess if themes and colors are what you want, Ableton can do it. Bitwig isn't so bad either.
Or go the Reason route where it's virtual hardware.

[BONES]

There are DAW's which allow you to modify their interfaces to support bitmap graphics, and really... it's not so much the developers vision, it's the vision of the users you develop for and understanding their requirements for them to do what they want to do.

Exactly, and WTF does the average user know? A developer with a strong vision for their product will always have more important things to do, things that will improve the application for every user, not just the noisy few.

The product you are using is largely dictated by the users requests in addition to the developers own knowledge skills and experience in knowing how well to develop an application.

Of course it is, but for all anyone knows, implementing those user requests may have come at the expense of doing something wonderful for all of us. I'm not sticking up for Presonus, I have no opinion about the company, just stating my preference that a developer should know more than their users what they will do next.

[THE INTRANCER]

There are DAW's which allow you to modify their interfaces to support bitmap graphics, and really... it's not so much the developers vision, it's the vision of the users you develop for and understanding their requirements for them to do what they want to do.

Exactly, and WTF does the average user know? A developer with a strong vision for their product will always have more important things to do, things that will improve the application for every user, not just the noisy few.

The product you are using is largely dictated by the users requests in addition to the developers own knowledge skills and experience in knowing how well to develop an application.

Of course it is, but for all anyone knows, implementing those user requests may have come at the expense of doing something wonderful for all of us. I'm not sticking up for Presonus, I have no opinion about the company, just stating my preference that a developer should know more than their users what they will do next.

What's an average user though....?

"A developer with a strong vision for their product will always have more important things to do, things that will improve the application for every user, not just the noisy few."

A developer that thinks his vision is strong is one thing, but that doesn't dismiss the thoughts and wishes of each and every individual that uses the program they are developing for them. This is different from being short-sighted and not listening to everyone, who ever they are.

Not all users are the same, or indeed need the same things and there are some individuals that don't know what they need until they actually use it. That noisy few are just as important, if not more so because they know what they want whilst others say nothing and take what they are given.

Everything is planned forward in advance though or should be by a developer that hopes to keep to a schedule. Things are prioritised or should be to fall somewhere in the lines of what is manageable...so all things are considered should it fall into the section that is planned. Presonus have been successful at this as they focus on each segment of the development, what it has also meant is that, things are not fully developed as they should be in full on release so they fall over into smaller point and point 5 updates over a duration of months and possibly years. So all things are considered if viable in order to keep development active.

Presonus and many other companies like it have a plan, but the plan is relatively short, because losing sight of what is happening in a competitive market is not going to help you or the users you develop for. This is part and parcel of why many DAWs are similar today...

Knowing your competition and that of what users want, regardless of who they are. Developers will always know what's going to come next before the user, but they don't know always know what users want and when to implement things, years in advance whilst staying grounded to changes in trends and technologies which develop.

Users have long wanted to be able to change Studio One in more flexible ways. It makes their experience and expectations more fulfilled.

I know I'm diverging a bit in my own topic, but then... it keeps things interesting.

[BONES]

What's an average user though....?

I think you know the answer to this - the average user is a clueless f**king idiot.

"A developer with a strong vision for their product will always have more important things to do, things that will improve the application for every user, not just the noisy few."

A developer that thinks his vision is strong is one thing, but that doesn't dismiss the thoughts and wishes of each and every individual that uses the program they are developing for them. This is different from being short-sighted and not listening to everyone, who ever they are.

Those are commercial considerations, things that help sell a product, not always (or even often) things that will necessarily make it better.

Not all users are the same, or indeed need the same things and there are some individuals that don't know what they need until they actually use it. That noisy few are just as important, if not more so because they know what they want whilst others say nothing and take what they are given.

The problem is that every DAW tries to be all things to all people. Over time they add features that they think will make their product sell better, rather than be better. That's good for them but it's why most DAW are 90% the same.

What I'm saying is that we, as users, would be better served by products that just tried to do one thing as well as possible. That's what made Orion so good - it didn't try to add every feature known to man, Rich concentrated on what he felt was important - sound quality and a simple workflow. That's why it had the best Piano Roll I've ever used and so many great included instruments and effects, instruments and effects I still haven't found equivalents for in VSTs. Sure, it's handling of audio recording/editing was crude but I always had CoolEdit or SoundForge or Audition for that stuff, I didn't need it built into my VST host. The simple right-click link in Orion was the perfect solution for that. It allowed me to record vocals and edit the resultant files in the best possible environment for each process. But if that didn't suit your needs, there were other products to look at.

[THE INTRANCER]

I've updated page one to include a download link to make Studio One stand out a little more. It's essentially a transparent gradient in which you can use with Desktop Logo 2. The transport bar as well as the main icon menu are the only areas affected, but it helps Studio One look less flat and is a nice effect. Change the colours of Studio One to see how the transparent effect changes Studio One's look.

Also if you use a web browser like firefox, it will make the address bar 3D rather than flat as they have updated it to be.