Fender enters the home studio market

[pfschim]

Is it though? I haven't looked, but I see lots of "subscription" comments. Logic has no subscription fees. I paid for it back around 2010 and have never paid another cent and am on the current version.

I use Logic and Reaper. Originally was a Cakewalk guy (green screen in the 80's!) then moved to Ableton before changing to Logic and Reaper.

I thought I read somewhere in the Apple license stuff that you were good for a set of full point upgrades but it was not perpetual ??

 

[DJ Bebop]

I'm still using Cool Edit Pro

 

[silky smoove]

I thought I read somewhere in the Apple license stuff that you were good for a set of full point upgrades but it was not perpetual ??

If it's not perpetual then it must be on a term longer than 15 years in my case!

 

[TOOL460002]

Is it though? I haven't looked, but I see lots of "subscription" comments. Logic has no subscription fees. I paid for it back around 2010 and have never paid another cent and am on the current version.

Oh. Didn't check to see if the Fender thing was a subscription. If it is then nevermind it is not worth $200. Also, I used Logic in 2004 and now it's mostly what I've used last 3yrs+ and I'm a fan. I use Ableton for some things but you pay per version and Reason is a subscription. Last I used PT it was a dongle. Forget with Cubase. Probably gonna get back into that with classes this fall. And I had/uninstalled Studio One. I say that to say this: Logic rocks.

 

[silky smoove]

I say that to say this: Logic rocks.

I agree. It's my daily driver DAW. There's a short list of things I wish they'd fix but nothing I can't work around.

 

[TOOL460002]

I agree. It's my daily driver DAW. There's a short list of things I wish they'd fix but nothing I can't work around.

Oh ya. The "controller assignments" window is my personal hell and I experimented with all kinds of custom setups to get it to play nice with both unsupported hardware and "supported" hardware that honestly doesn't work and has to be customized. I wish Apple would let even small brands be "compatible." Thats my only gripe because when it changes versions you have to redo the preferences file and you have to keep reloading it but it does mostly work. Plus learning that terrible window can do some fun stuff like give you toggle control over touch/write automation etc. Frustrating but worth it. Cubase for sure and probably Ableton would be more stable but, ya... Logic does rock.

 

[JazznFunk]

Studio One doesn't need to exist. This Fender thing might be worth it for the plugins, but from the demo video it just looks like Cubase or Studio One,

What a completely uninformed statement. There are notable differences now between StudioOne and Fender Studio, and not in a good way. What Fender has done is taken the architecture of a professional level DAW and made a 'new interface' that removes a lot of the shared pro-level workflow. They're trying to make a sexy 'new' DAW for the masses and adding a bunch of unnecessary bloatware to it in the process. It throws the original intent of StudioOne under the bus. RIP to the real StudioOne.

 

[silky smoove]

It throws the original intent of StudioOne under the bus.

What was the original intent of Studio One? I'm guessing it was to be a fully-featured DAW. Is the Fender version no longer fully featured? Have they stripped out critical functions that render it less capable than its competitors? Not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious and haven't dug into it as I'm not a Studio One user and thus have no dog in the fight. From your post it sounds like things that were possible in Studio One are no longer possible in Fender's DAW. Can you clarify?

 

[JazznFunk]

What was the original intent of Studio One? I'm guessing it was to be a fully-featured DAW. Is the Fender version no longer fully featured? Have they stripped out critical functions that render it less capable than its competitors? Not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious and haven't dug into it as I'm not a Studio One user and thus have no dog in the fight. From your post it sounds like things that were possible in Studio One are no longer possible in Fender's DAW. Can you clarify?

"I'm not a StudioOne user and thus have no dog in the fight."

Then I don't expect you to understand exactly what is so vexing about Fender taking yet another perfectly fine, robust company and product and making 'changes' to it that aren't needed. Fender is a musical instrument company at its core: not a pro audio company, nor an audio engineering/recording company. So I don't expect any changes they make to be in the service of the true recording industry professional.

'What was the original intent of StudioOne?' - StudioOne was/is a fantastic alternative to ProTools that shared similar functionality in terms of workflow and design, but without the many negatives of ProTools (especially when it comes to busing/signal flow/and undo features). MIDI support within StudioOne is far better than ProTools as well. It offered 'Artist' and 'Pro' versions, much like ProTools did/does with its 'Lite' or 'LE' versions, versus its insanely expensive full-featured versions that were out of the price range of the home studio user in many cases. StudioOne kept making lots of great, practical improvements that raised the bar in terms of sound and functionality, all the way up to the last iteration of its Pro V7 software. In terms of function vs. cost, StudioOne beat ProTools handily in a lot of areas. Cost-wise, PreSonus offered major bang for the buck, without licensing/subscription fees, up until Fender bought it.

Based on how Fender is marketing it, they have changed the overall interface and workflow aspects, burying the core interface and workflow of StudioOne (which was a lot like ProTools, but better) to be more 'app-like'. They appear - via some of the 'literature' about its new feature sets - to have added features that really are of no use to a recording engineer, but certainly are useful in marketing it to more casual creators. Honestly, that's fine. People who were PreSonus devotees for over a decade or more know what the real deal is. Fender is making no bones about how they appropriated a great thing, made a few tweaks, and are acting like they invented the wheel. Fender has drawn the line and seems to be saying 'we know what StudioOne *was* and we don't care..., and now here's what we did with it.' Whether that is a good thing is to be determined by the user. For me, I have no plans to 'upgrade' to Fender Studio. YMMV.

I never said or implied that things which were 'possible' in StudioOne are not possible in Fender Studio, but as @brianrost said in a previous post, which is confirmed at this point: "Presonus Studio One and at least some of the associated hardware are gone." So, cross-compatibility and backward compatibility in some areas moving forward COULD become a problem, which means that there might be things you can do in StudioOne that you might not be able to moving forward in 'Fender Studio'. Not sure anyone can say 100% yay or nay on that yet.

Fender's new interfaces look cheap and slapped together when compared with PreSonus's own interfaces and accessories (which I use every day), so it goes beyond just the software.

Admittedly, you're asking some questions which can't be fully answered yet without making the 'upgrade' (I hesitate to call it that). And I have no plans to do that, especially not while I have multiple projects in progress in StudioOne Pro 7 as we speak.

 

[MonetBass]

After watching this video, the functionality looks pretty much the same to me. Not that I'll be upgrading since (1) I'd have to pay for it, and (2) I'm in the middle of a project and want to finish it in Studio One Pro 7.

 

[JazznFunk]

After watching this video, the functionality looks pretty much the same to me. Not that I'll be upgrading since (1) I'd have to pay for it, and (2) I'm in the middle of a project and want to finish it in Studio One Pro 7.

Fender: 'We sliced and diced apart your favorite DAW and now, we wouldn't give it to you free even if you DID want to upgrade. You're welcome, PreSonus devotees.'

It's hard to tell what exactly did/did not change under the hood without 'side-grading', and I'm not about to do that either, for the same reasons. They're certainly not going to cover all of that in a puff piece promo.

 

[trevcda]

Quick question for those of you that have deep dived into this; Is Fender's Studio One replacing Presonus' version or are they just rebranding and offering it separately? Do any future upgrades essentially make my software into a Fender product?

 

[silky smoove]

Then I don't expect you to understand exactly what is so vexing about Fender taking yet another perfectly fine, robust company and product and making 'changes' to it that aren't needed.

I've been around long enough to see Fender acquire a fair few companies. Some of these acquisitions have seemingly just been to shutter IP, whereas others have lead to great innovation within Fender's product line. I'm also a professional audio engineer with a small commercial studio and I can tell you unequivocally that all DAWs are going through a period of significant change and that this is not isolated to Presonus or Fender.

Fender is a musical instrument company at its core: not a pro audio company, nor an audio engineering/recording company. So I don't expect any changes they make to be in the service of the true recording industry professional.

This ignores their retention of Presonus as a company and its staff. It's unlikely that they bought the IP and laid off all the staff leaving only guitar-building staff to develop a DAW and series of interfaces. What's more likely is that Presonus staff are still working on all of this and their paychecks are just coming from a different company now.

It's important to remember that all DAWs do the same basic functions, and they all sound the same at export. There's nothing wrong with having preferences, I have them myself, but being flexible enough to happily work in multiple DAWs can be a real boon on some projects. I can appreciate not wanting your preferred DAW to change, but I would also suggest using it as an opportunity to learn additional DAWs as well as learning the new Fender version of Studio One.

 

[JazznFunk]

It's unlikely that they bought the IP and laid off all the staff leaving only guitar-building staff to develop a DAW and series of interfaces. What's more likely is that Presonus staff are still working on all of this and their paychecks are just coming from a different company now.

It's important to remember that all DAWs do the same basic functions, and they all sound the same at export. There's nothing wrong with having preferences, I have them myself, but being flexible enough to happily work in multiple DAWs can be a real boon on some projects. I can appreciate not wanting your preferred DAW to change, but I would also suggest using it as an opportunity to learn additional DAWs as well as learning the new Fender version of Studio One.

None of that changes my opinion of what Fender is doing with burying the bones of PreSonus, or how they are creating confusion in the existing marketplace. They've acquired and ruined a lot of things in the past. As this is the first DAW creator they've integrated and picked apart, the jury will be out for a while about exactly where the chips will fall.

I have other DAWs I do know how to use, enough to get by. I know which one I prefer. I cut my teeth on ProTools 20+ years ago. Dabbled in Ableton. Started on SoundForge before that! I'd need a refresher on a few before helming a session of any kind, but that's to be expected.

StudioOne checked off a lot of boxes for me. IMHO, burying the 'StudioOne' name is a poor move on Fender's part, and that opinion is shared across a swath of the engineering community as well, as evidenced by discussions of this matter on other forums I frequent. I'm sure I'm yelling at clouds on some level, but there's definitely rain falling.

I hope that the original PreSonus crew is still employed and allowed to do their jobs without much meddling. But we all know how things go when a company is bought by another larger firm with aims which may not match those of the original independent company. I saw it happen first hand with Moog Music here in Asheville.

IMHO again, in the recording/engineering world, perception is a huge part of professionalism. 'Fender Studio' sounds like a cheap accompaniment to a guitar starter pack in Guitar Center. 'PreSonus StudioOne' was a respected name. YMMV.

 

[JazznFunk]

Quick question for those of you that have deep dived into this; Is Fender's Studio One replacing Presonus' version or are they just rebranding and offering it separately? Do any future upgrades essentially make my software into a Fender product?

Anything branded/released as 'PreSonus StudioOne' is done, minus NOS interfaces, etc you can still buy while they last. Everything I've seen indicates that there will be no new gear branded as 'PreSonus', nor will new versions of 'PreSonus StudioOne' be released.

It's a big question mark what software you might get if you buy an NOS piece. There's a chance that you would be forced into 'Fender Studio' software from the get-go, or it might honor a legacy standalone download if it's attached to serial number and production date. I'm only guessing at this point though.

 

[Gopherbassist]

The four input interface is priced pretty reasonably, if I need to upgrade any time soon I'll be investigating it.

 

[JazznFunk]

The four input interface is priced pretty reasonably, if I need to upgrade any time soon I'll be investigating it.

Worth checking to see what preamps it has. If they are still PreSonus ones, they're good. No telling what Fender might have spec'ed in these otherwise. Most of the Fender interfaces thus far seem to be priced lower than PreSonus bespoke ones were. No clue if that's good or bad. It just 'is' at this point.

 

[TOOL460002]

What a completely uninformed statement. There are notable differences now between StudioOne and Fender Studio, and not in a good way. What Fender has done is taken the architecture of a professional level DAW and made a 'new interface' that removes a lot of the shared pro-level workflow. They're trying to make a sexy 'new' DAW for the masses and adding a bunch of unnecessary bloatware to it in the process. It throws the original intent of StudioOne under the bus. RIP to the real StudioOne.

Never used the Fender one but I've owned and taken classes in every major DAW out there over the last 20+ years so perhaps I'm uniformed about the Fender DAW, but otherwise I would categorize your statement as uniformed. Perhaps this post can inform.

 

[JazznFunk]

Never used the Fender one but I've owned and taken classes in every major DAW out there over the last 20+ years so perhaps I'm uniformed about the Fender DAW, but otherwise I would categorize your statement as uniformed. Perhaps this post can inform.

Great to hear that. Respectfully, since I (and others) have used StudioOne and its interface(s) as our *primary* DAW for the past decade-plus and have been paying attention to these changes coming down the pipe for a while, my statement(s) about the changes that Fender has made to its StudioOne mutation is/are informed by real-world use on a regular basis for my projects and for clients. If you're really here to have a substantive discussion, I'd suggest refraining from making flippant, dismissive comments about the subject matter at hand like this:

"Studio One doesn't need to exist. This Fender thing might be worth it for the plugins, but from the demo video it just looks like Cubase or Studio One."

You also said in a previous post that you 'had/uninstalled StudioOne', so it doesn't sound like you've spent any measurable amount of time with it at all to make any sort of informed perspective on it like those of us who used it regularly might have, irrespective of the new Fender Studio iteration.

 

[TOOL460002]

Great to hear that. Respectfully, since I (and others) have used StudioOne and its interface(s) as our *primary* DAW for the past decade-plus and have been paying attention to these changes coming down the pipe for a while, my statement(s) about the changes that Fender has made to its StudioOne mutation is/are informed by real-world use on a regular basis for my projects and for clients. If you're really here to have a substantive discussion, I'd suggest refraining from making flippant, dismissive comments about the subject matter at hand like this:

"Studio One doesn't need to exist. This Fender thing might be worth it for the plugins, but from the demo video it just looks like Cubase or Studio One."

You also said in a previous post that you 'had/uninstalled StudioOne', so it doesn't sound like you've spent any measurable amount of time with it at all to make any sort of informed perspective on it like those of us who used it regularly might have, irrespective of the new Fender Studio iteration.

Fair enough. I understand the original intent of a "DAW for musicians" with feedback and community being selling points. That seemed like a good idea, but I couldn't find any reason to use it over anything else I have. I felt informed enough to move on from the software but perhaps I missed something. You clearly use it for a reason.