Studio One 7.2

[stanft]

[..] That said - assuming that it should "just happen" - because "other DAWs" have it - has no bearing on anything.

Where is it stated that every DAW has to fully support every controller? There could be a half dozen reasons why things are the way they are. Only Presonus knows for certain - but I would be very surprised if it is malicious in any way.[..]

Nobody forces you to support every controller. But if you want to attract (new) customers, controller support could be an important factor. And if one of the bigger brands in the controller market supports nearly all big players in the DAW market but not S1, potential buyers may decide to not choose S1.

I don’t know the current market share of S1, but I am pretty sure that new, additional customers are not a bad thing.

Over the last decade, S1 introduced a lot of innovative features that no other DAW had before. But looking at the latest releases now, there was not a single feature that falls into this category. At least for me. Nowadays, innovation and „major updates“ are happening in the other DAWs like Cubase, Live or Bitwig.

[ozinga]

I think Fender/PreSonus knows their userbase, and I'm sure more people use the Tuner than use Kontrol scripts(?) or whatever it is that owners of NI controllers want. That's not to say Kontrol support won't get updated, but to me and most Studio One users, the Tuner is more useful and central to working in Studio One, and any refinements are welcome.

So you say having a Tuner is more important and will bring more sales than supporting widely used Keyboard Controllers?

You dis an important feature without even knowing or trying to know what it is because "you" do not understand or need it.
It is deep integration with NI Keyboard Controllers, and also while we are at it, Arturia Keyboard Controllers which currently Presonus does not provide support for neither. Not everybody is just a guitar player you know. Even they were I do not think having a Tuner will boost the sales while there are copious amount of free ones.

On the other hand for most new users decent Keyboard Controller support seems like more important to me when they decide to choose a DAW, instead of comparing the native Tuner plugins in each one of them.

[jamcat]

I just know I have to delete a bunch of unnecessary NI prefs files because lots of Mac installers don't give users the option of what to install, despite the fact that, like most people, I will never own an NI controller.

As for a tuner bringing sales, I don't know. But I do know that Fender is first and foremost a guitar company, and guitars are best when tuned.

[aMUSEd]

I think Fender/PreSonus knows their userbase, and I'm sure more people use the Tuner than use Kontrol scripts(?) or whatever it is that owners of NI controllers want. That's not to say Kontrol support won't get updated, but to me and most Studio One users, the Tuner is more useful and central to working in Studio One, and any refinements are welcome.

So you say having a Tuner is more important and will bring more sales than supporting widely used Keyboard Controllers?

You dis an important feature without even knowing or trying to know what it is because "you" do not understand or need it.
It is deep integration with NI Keyboard Controllers, and also while we are at it, Arturia Keyboard Controllers which currently Presonus does not provide support for neither. Not everybody is just a guitar player you know. Even they were I do not think having a Tuner will boost the sales while there are copious amount of free ones.

On the other hand for most new users decent Keyboard Controller support seems like more important to me when they decide to choose a DAW, instead of comparing the native Tuner plugins in each one of them.

Actually Studio One has provided support for NI keyboard “deep integration” for some time and that still works. This includes support for transport, mixer and on screen visualisation of channels. It just doesn’t yet support the new Firmware 2 integration which added support for plugins and devices without needing NKS, but which is just exclusive to MkIII Keyboards. Apparently Presonus are working on that but not able to provide NI an ETA

[Ghostwave]

Maybe I'm wrong but I think it should be the other way around. When you make new software meant to be integrated into DAWs, it's IMO up to the developer (NI in this case) to provide a way to easily integrate it. You can't come up with new tech and expect every host company to dedicate serious development time catering to your needs. If Presonus haven't done it yet, it's probably simply because they've got other priorities.

[stanft]

Maybe I'm wrong but I think it should be the other way around. When you make new software meant to be integrated into DAWs, it's IMO up to the developer (NI in this case) to provide a way to easily integrate it. You can't come up with new tech and expect every host company to dedicate serious development time catering to your needs. If Presonus haven't done it yet, it's probably simply because they've got other priorities.

Unfortunately, that's not the way interfaces work. Interfaces nearly always require work on both sides. One has implement the interface (API), the other one has to use it. And often, both sides together have to define the API first.

[Vocalpoint Studios]

Nobody forces you to support every controller. But if you want to attract (new) customers, controller support could be an important factor. And if one of the bigger brands in the controller market supports nearly all big players in the DAW market but not S1, potential buyers may decide to not choose S1.

Or potential buyers of S1 will choose a different controller. Or choose a different DAW. And I really do not think this is about attracting new customers either.

I think this is more about Presonus taking a very strict (and serious) approach to making sure whatever DOES get added to S1 - benefits S1 - first and foremost. If that means leaving a bunch of hardware on the sidelines - then so be it.

Again - not exactly sure what your issue is with Arturia controllers. Are you saying the KeyLab series simply do not work at all in S1 - or are you saying they can be used (in a basic manner) but you cannot use "deep integration" functionality - like say with the NI S-Series?

Maybe the technical requirements to enable deep integration for the KeyLab (as stipulated by Arturia) clash with the programming direction and design specifics that Presonus maintains for Studio One.

If this is the case - why would Presonus want to compromise the platform or alter it's design specfications - simply to allow this integration to be enabled?

Again - there is most likely a very good reason this is the way it is - and I would bet money it is something technical in nature that is holding it back

VP

[stanft]

In my opinion, the reason is that the development team of S1 simply has not enough resources to maintain and improve the existing features - let alone new ones. The controller support is only one indicator for me.

The new launcher is a joke compaired to the launcher of Live, Bitwig and even Logic. A lot of features seem incomplete, and now after nearly 12 months there was not a single improvement in this area. Delay compensation for external hardware has been broken for years (my confirmed bug report is more than two years old). There is no improvement for MIDI (there are a lot of reported problems with the "MIDI effects", loop recording is broken for MIDI controllers). Mix FX seems abandoned as it still not supports spatial audio. And the list goes on and on.

As I have written above: When I look at the list of new features that has been implemented in release 7.0 and the following "major updates" ... this is basically a joke in comparison to the feature list of i.e. Ableton Live or Cubase. In each(!) of the last minor version updates of Ableton Live (12.2 and upcoming 12.3), there is a bigger feature list than in all the S1 releases including 7.0 - by far. Not counting the bug fixes.

I mean ... in one of the last updates (7.1), Presonus listed "Grid and event visibility improvements" as a feature. Come on ... they screwed up the grid and event display in 7.0, and after a lot of feedback from the users, they tried to fix it and then call it a feature?

I was really enjoying S1 for a long time but since the Fender acquisition it is becoming more and more obvious to me that S1 is no longer the DAW that I am willing to support with my money.

EDIT:
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe there is a phenomenal update waiting just around the corner that is released in the next weeks. I mean ... Presonus has still a lot of developers so the "resources" are available to surprise everyone with a really big update. But ... this was my expectation for nearly a year now after Presonus changed to the new license model. And unfortunately, I am still waiting to be impressed.

[Vocalpoint Studios]

The new launcher is a joke compaired to the launcher of Live, Bitwig and even Logic. A lot of features seem incomplete, and now after nearly 12 months there was not a single improvement in this area.

Funny you focused on the Launcher - I too was VERY excited about this - until after about 6 months in - I finally realized that maybe my expectations were backward with the intent of this tool in the first place - here is where I went...

When I saw the Launcher in v7 - I was very excited of course. And I was totally OK with it's pedestrian capabilties at the start. Certainly this will get better - won't it? Then after an update or two and no real movement in any direction - I started thinking - maybe I have this all wrong?

I cannot remember where I read it - but some months ago another user somewhere made a bold (and interesting) observation that this Launcher appeared more kin to a "extra" arrangement tool rather than the "full blown" brethren we see in Bitwig etc. He postulated that maybe it was Presonus intent the whole time to simply get a clip launcher in there to supplemnt it's much bigger brother (Arrangement View)and had no intent of turning this into a Bitwig clone.

After I pondered this for a few weeks - I simply started using it that way - with no expectations of "fancy" - only as a way to whip stuff up fast. And it does work great for this.

Now - is this really what Presonus intended? Only they know for sure but if you look back at this entire year worth of updates - it's clear the Launcher got zero love whatsoever. That in itself - is telling. If this thing was really "more" than it appears - why take a year off?

So I have stopped worrying about WHY it hasn't got a massive overwork (for now) and also stopped assuming it was supposed to go "toe to toe" with Bitwug. I just use it as is.

And - not disagreeing with you at all on this last year of “updates” - Very lacklustre is all I can say.

All you can do is vote with your wallet.

VP

[jamcat]

Studio One is already near perfect. Adding more "features" runs the risk of making it worse. We don't need new features for the sake of new features. That just leads to bloat and congestion. But at least Studio One has interface customization, so you can hide whatever bloat they might add, though not completely remove it.

If I wanted Studio One to be like Bitwig or Ableton or Fruity Loops, I would just buy Bitwig or Ableton or Fruity Loops instead. I want Studio One to be Studio One. The only thing I really want from an update is revamped automation with part containers and easy reassignment of automation data to other parameters/plugins.

[Vocalpoint Studios]

Studio One is already near perfect. Adding more "features" runs the risk of making it worse. We don't need new features for the sake of new features. That just leads to bloat and congestion. But at least Studio One has interface customization, so you can hide whatever bloat they might add, though not completely remove it.

Well it is far from perfect. From a browser that does basically nothing but "browse" to templates that do not remember what they are supposed to, MIDI editing, customized export/file naming challenges at every turn - there is lot that Studio One needs to improve upon to at least be on par with other DAWs that already do all this stuff better.

Even Studio One's "customization" is half-assed. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it forgets. Sometimes (especially after an update) - I have had my customization files get duplicated, overwritten or in some cases - error out. Definitely not pro level by any means.

If one wants a lesson in how to do updates that please a crowd - one need not look any further than the 15 page manifesto of a change log that Ableton shipped out for their 12.2 release about 6 weeks ago. Took me about 10 minutes to peruse it all. That is an update my friends.

If I wanted Studio One to be like Bitwig or Ableton or Fruity Loops, I would just buy Bitwig or Ableton or Fruity Loops instead. I want Studio One to be Studio One. The only thing I really want from an update is revamped automation with part containers and easy reassignment of automation data to other parameters/plugins.

Agreed. However - I am not asking (or hoping) that S1 becomes "like" any other DAW - but it needs to compete - not feature for feature but by being the total package.

All the pieces are in place here - just need the finishing carpenters and customization crew to stop by and bump this thing up that last notch or two.

VP

[jamcat]

Even Studio One's "customization" is half-assed. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it forgets. Sometimes (especially after an update) - I have had my customization files get duplicated, overwritten or in some cases - error out. Definitely not pro level by any means.

It seems like the problem of not retaining your customization presets was fixed in a recent update.

[jamcat]

Agreed. However - I am not asking (or hoping) that S1 becomes "like" any other DAW - but it needs to compete - not feature for feature but by being the total package.

For me, Studio One is "the total package." It assists in every part of song creation—from writing, to recording, to arranging, to scoring, to mixing, to mastering. Lyrics sheets, tablature, chord charts, drum notation, track notes, alternate mixes and arrangements, live show and full album track sequencing, true mastering. It is a complete solution and all-in-one environment.

[trusampler]

Studio One's browser imo is it's weakest issue. If I want to tag favorite samples to work with, I basically can assign a favorite folder in finder/ explorer , but that's about it. Or a Splice integration that doesn't allow me to add my own content.( In a more robust way such as Steinberg allows for in Cubase.This is crippling vs Cubase's mediabay for example.

Plus the midi learn function in Studio One is weaker then Cubase's midi remote system,and doesn't allow a true back up, from machine to machine.I've had to rebuild these complex setups ,as to my shock the midi controller devices do not work upon a new install or new machine.

[thievedletter]

For me, Studio One is "the total package." It assists in every part of song creation—from writing, to recording, to arranging, to scoring, to mixing, to mastering. Lyrics sheets, tablature, chord charts, drum notation, track notes, alternate mixes and arrangements, live show and full album track sequencing, true mastering. It is a complete solution and all-in-one environment.

I'm glad you are liking it, but some of these ideas are pretty half baked. Take Tablature, for example. You can write your tablature into an event, or input staff notation and convert it. This is great and a useful feature. However, if you then want to copy a part, or duplicate, the tab numbers just reset to different strings. That is pretty unhelpful.

It's been that way since they released it. I pointed it out right away in the old forums. They ignored it and deleted the forums. They just seem to keep adding half done things, then abandoning them for something else.