Why did you leave Studio One?

[Bombadil]

My first sequencer for mac was Cubasis, ca. 1998. It was buggy as fk.

[syntonica]

My first sequencer for mac was Cubasis, ca. 1998. It was buggy as fk.

Did it not come with a dongle even then? It's sad that the superior programs of time have disappeared but Cubug is still with us.

[Bombadil]

Nope.

[BONES]

Are we going to ignore the amount of tools S1 comes with to manipulate samples?

Are we going to pretend we are so stupid we don't realise that recorded audio and samples are the same f**king thing and that, therefore, those tools are equally useful on either?

[Touch The Universe]

What tools does s1 have to manipulate samples?

[SeeingInMidi]

Are we going to ignore the amount of tools S1 comes with to manipulate samples?

Are we going to pretend we are so stupid we don't realise that recorded audio and samples are the same f**king thing and that, therefore, those tools are equally useful on either?

Recorded audio and samples packs in the end are just audio files. So yes, you can treat both the same. So this whole argument becomes pretty redundant.

[Trensharo]

What tools does s1 have to manipulate samples?

Studio One is pretty good at manipulating samples and loops. Honestly, most DAWs are pretty good at manipulating samples and Loops. Even DAWs like SONAR and Samplitude Pro X are pretty good at it. Samplitude, with its object editor, is actually amazing for it once you acclimate to the difference in workflow. The just aren't even attempting to cater to the producer crowd with future development... just audio peeps.

Studio One also have Clip FX (like Samplitude Pro X, SONAR and REAPER), so it's actually better set up for this than - say - Cubase, which lack Clip/Event/Object FX (whatever different DAWs call them ).

For me, the issue with Studio One is the scattershot development. Development is not laggard at all. They release huge features in their updates, but the focus of those features is relatively scattershot. They tend to focus on one issue per years, so you can go 2-3 years before they actually turn their attention to a functional enclave that you're waiting for them to address.

Cubase is already far more developed pretty much everywhere, so it didn't make sense to sit on Studio One and continue to wait for them to address things that Steinberg had already developed and polished off years ago.

I initially got Studio One to replace Cubase, but ended up backtracking completely once Steinberg announced they were going to drop the dongle. I actually ended up investing even further in them - buying almost their entire software ecosystem Cubase Pro, Dorico Pro, WaveLab Pro, SpectraLayers Pro, Absolute)... so... no going back, now!

I am at the point where I will only upgrade every other version, though, unless something amazing is released in an upgrade - though I did make sure to get everything off the dongle and Apple Silicon Native/Optimized.

I've been pretty good about reigning in the spending. I didn't spend anything over the holiday promotional periods... I barely spent anything except on some software upgrades for things I already own and actually use in 2023. 2024 will not be any different.

I'm not upgrading my PreSonus software, moving forwards. I don't use it, so... Waste of money. I may end up deleting the account when I do my yearly purge. (No, I won't give it to you ) I lose the licenses, but I save money over the long term because I don't have to worry about getting the itch to buy unnecessary software upgrades, etc.

[BONES]

I'm pretty much 100% the opposite. Cubase is way too bloated and every time they put more shit into Studio One, it goes further away from my ideal host application. I'd be more likely to upgrade if they removed features.

[concealed identity]

For me, the issue with Studio One is the scattershot development. Development is not laggard at all. They release huge features in their updates, but the focus of those features is relatively scattershot. They tend to focus on one issue per years, so you can go 2-3 years before they actually turn their attention to a functional enclave that you're waiting for them to address.

I think from a marketing perspective, this is a really smart move. It can be good for the consumer, too, but I think it depends on what kind of consumer. It can be really annoying for those who upgrade every version and don't see the improvements they want. But for those who only upgrade when they get features they're interested in, it can be great to get a really impactful update. I don't update Cubase every version because each update is usually somewhat underwhelming on its own, but if instead of incrementally improving lots of little things for everybody they just gave me a huge update with stuff I want, I'd be first in line to upgrade. But yeah, the other side of that coin is being disappointed with a new update full of stuff that's useless to you.

[pc2000]

PreSonus has now gotten rid of upgrade pricing to Artist version where you now have to pay full price.

You can upgrade Artist right here in the KVR Marketplace for $50.

Thanks for the info. I'll see if it actually works. It literally has been pulled from every source I've known it to be previously available. Might be some oversight in the KVR store.

Your choices are to get the subscription, pay full price or upgrade to pro version. I have numerous DAW's including the pro version of Cubase, Samplitude and other programs, too many to mention. I have no use for the pro version of Sudio-One since I don't exclusively use a single program.

So what? The full price of Artist is the same as the upgrade price for Pro. You're no worse off, either way. And if you don't feel you need Pro, then you probably don't need to update Artist, either. Again, nobody is worse off.

There seems to be some confusion. The Artist to pro upgrade is $299 regularly and seems to be on special for $149 in my account. Artist is $100 at regular price and seems to still be only available for the $49 upgrade price on KVR. I don't connect the dots to your claim of Artist full price being the same as the upgrade to pro! Perhaps you can clarify your statement.

You can get the EDU version at the Artist upgrade price

Are you sure? At my local music store, Edu pricing is double the price of Artist.

Yes I'm certain. This is the price listed online at all authorized sellers.

I would never feel comfortable investing the price to pro version just for them to decide at anytime to get rid of what you're paying for and replace it without notice or stop offering upgrade pricing for pro. No thanks, I'm out!

I wouldn't like to wake up with a horse's head my bed and I reckon that's just about as likely as that bullshit you just sprouted.

Seems like you regurgitates this dumb sh*t about horses heads that has nothing to do with sh*t in this thread. That's as much bullshit as anything you angrily give responses to.

I didn't see any announcements or received any emails stating their intent to cancel Artist upgrades.

Why would they, are you a shareholder?

Businesses make announcements about changes they're implementing or send info about specials. You know... the reasons companies or other entities annoyingly require or ask for folks emails all the time. And no... I'm not a shareholder, otherwise I wouldn't be addressing the issue on KVR.

[wuworld]

So is everyone more confident with Yamaha with Steinberg or Fender with Presonus long term? Remember Presonus Software are doing Fender's software as well. They have something coming out via Fender Play. So maybe development will be slower with Presonus software down the line. Also, what stood out to me via the Studio One facebook group is when users were asking for Atmos, and Preosonus staff and people who work closely with them where rejecting the idea that they should add it. Something like "Why do you need stem separation." Atmos "Do you need six speakers" "They definitely not adding that" (Studio One FB admin).

[concealed identity]

Usually the social media and forum admins are just community members with extra privileges and a communication channel to the company. In my experience, they're usually pretty awful across the board (although they deal with so much crap on a regular basis).

As for parent companies, my worry is that Studio One still has some wiggle room for it to find its target demographic and place in the industry, so there's a chance Fender decides to shape it into something less appealing to me. With Cubase, I think it's role and use it well-established enough at this point that Yamaha knows what it has and won't make any major changes

[BONES]

There seems to be some confusion. The Artist to pro upgrade is $299 regularly and seems to be on special for $149 in my account. Artist is $100 at regular price and seems to still be only available for the $49 upgrade price on KVR. I don't connect the dots to your claim of Artist full price being the same as the upgrade to pro! Perhaps you can clarify your statement.

The upgrade from Pro 5 to Pro 6 is $99, the same as the full price for Artist. So whether you update Pro or Artist, it will cost the same.

Yes I'm certain. This is the price listed online at all authorized sellers.

Not all, obviously.

That's as much bullshit as anything you angrily give responses to.

There is absolutely no reason to think that Presonus will go to a full subscription model. Nothing at all. Businesses prefer subscription, as it is a regular payment they can budget for more efficiently, so it makes sense for a company to offer subscription to those who prefer it. As those customers would tend to be professionals, it also makes sense to make that subscription-based version the top tier product. But they are not stupid, they know that a big part of their customer base won't move to subscription, they just have to look at how big their non-subscription user base is to see that, after 4 or 5 years of Sphere being available.

This isn't like the graphic art industry, where Adobe has a 90%+ monopoly, so they have absolute control over how customers pay for their product. Presonus isn't even a dominant player, they know they can't afford to dictate to their customers without setting off a mass desertion to competitor's products. Unless, of course, they decide that those customers are more trouble than they are worth, in which case going fully subscription would make sense and nothing we could say would stop them. Quite the opposite, it might encourage them.

Businesses make announcements about changes they're implementing or send info about specials.

Yes, it's called marketing and you don't market negative things, like removing a current and possibly popular product, unless you have something even better to replace it with. You do it quietly and hope nobody notices.

[Trensharo]

For me, the issue with Studio One is the scattershot development. Development is not laggard at all. They release huge features in their updates, but the focus of those features is relatively scattershot. They tend to focus on one issue per years, so you can go 2-3 years before they actually turn their attention to a functional enclave that you're waiting for them to address.

I think from a marketing perspective, this is a really smart move. It can be good for the consumer, too, but I think it depends on what kind of consumer. It can be really annoying for those who upgrade every version and don't see the improvements they want. But for those who only upgrade when they get features they're interested in, it can be great to get a really impactful update. I don't update Cubase every version because each update is usually somewhat underwhelming on its own, but if instead of incrementally improving lots of little things for everybody they just gave me a huge update with stuff I want, I'd be first in line to upgrade. But yeah, the other side of that coin is being disappointed with a new update full of stuff that's useless to you.

Depends on how you look at it, I guess.

Cubase updates are going to be less exciting because they've already spent the last 30+ years developing all the other features. All the stuff that Studio One added in the 5.x and 6.x were in Cubase years before... and in most cases decades before Studio One got them.

Cubase has less room for feature additions by virtue of its development track record. That means less exciting updates. It's the expected result of a mature product line that has been in active development for decades.

If you don't like the update, skipping is fine.

The difference is that Cubase has a kitchen sink feature set. There is very little it's missing. Most Cubase users were not waiting for them to implement stuff like a Video Track in 2022. That was there over a decade ago.

I, as a user, have 2 roads I can take:

1. Stay on Studio One and wait years for them to get around to it, or
2. Go back to Cubase and get everything I want immediately, and have very little need to consider upgrades outside of compatibility with new OS Updates, CPU Architecture Changes, etc.

And upgrading Cubase every 2 years is not much more than upgrading Studio One every 2 years. Most people do it during a promotional period, anyways. It's always been that way.

With Cubase, I think it's role and use it well-established enough at this point that Yamaha knows what it has and won't make any major changes

Cubase has evolved into a generalist DAW, so outside of the realm of live performance, it basically fits all market segments - from producers to engineers. It has 30 years of development behind it.

Most DAWs from decades back that still exist have evolved from targetting specific niches to being deep generalist solutions. They may still have a bias to certain market segments (and their degree of catering to different segments is on a spectrum), but their overall feature set is rather complete and general purpose. Cubase, Digital Performer, Samplitude Pro X, Logic Pro, etc.

The only exceptions to this are Pro Tools and some other Post-oriented DAWs (like Pyramix).

Those DAWs do have the advantage of decades of development. So, by the time Studio One became a reality they had already developed deep feature sets for their core market segments and were basically implementing features in their "weaker areas" to better compete with other solutions on the market.

It's why Samplitude Pro X ended up about as good as SONAR Platinum for MIDI Production by the time Gibson decided to abandon that ship, but SONAR never got as good as Cubase (Samplitude is a stretch) in the Audio Production Segment; because they were too scattershot with development of that DAW.

I see Ableton Live as entering the second phase of its evolution. They have done much of what they needed to do for the Live Performance and Electronic Music crowds, so now they are adding things like Comping and Beefing up the piano roll, etc. to better appeal to market segments that traditionally would only look at Live as a "Utility DAW" or "a good second DAW to have."

[BONES]

I, as a user, have 2 roads I can take:

1. Stay on Studio One and wait years for them to get around to it, or
2. Go back to Cubase and get everything I want immediately, and have very little need to consider upgrades outside of compatibility with new OS Updates, CPU Architecture Changes, etc.

My biggest reason to update either is improved stability. Studio One is more stable for me than Cubase was, so it wins on that front. It's Cubase I'd always be waiting on, not Studio One. To be fair, maybe Cubase is better now but it wasn't when I switched to Studio One, and Studio One doesn't lack anything I need, so there is no reason to even think about going back. As I said, features don't interest me and what you call "full-featured" feels like bloatware to me. What I immediately liked about S1 was that it felt like Cubase with a lot of the cruft stripped away. Switching from S1 Pro to S1 Artist felt even better that way - everything I need to get my work done and a lot less extraneous shit I don't need and will never use.

SONAR never got as good as Cubase (Samplitude is a stretch) in the Audio Production Segment; because they were too scattershot with development of that DAW.

Yet it has been around almost as long as Cubase so it tends to show that decades of development doesn't necessarily lead to a better product. Again, Studio One doesn't have to carry around all the baggage Cubase does, which most people, I imagine, would see as preferable.