Fender Studio Pro 8.2 - Discussion Thread

[Craig Anderton]

My hope here is, that the Dev's teams either H/W or Software will be able to bring the tech down to a level folk can use without a great tome of tech knowledge to wade through. It does beg the question why update the midi protocol if it's just going to complicate it's use, seems nonsensical to do that.

A huge part of the MIDI 2.0 spec revolves around Compatibility Inquiry. MIDI 1.0 had unidirectional communications. MIDI 2.0 has bi-directional communication. That's a big deal. As a simple example, consider the FaderPort. Currently, you have to tell it whether it should talk HUI, Mackie, or Studio Pro. With MIDI-CI, upon turning on the FaderPort it would simply ask what it connects to for its protocol, and configure itself accordingly - no user intervention required. Or you could use the FaderPort with a lighting controller, and it would know that its faders need to control dimmers. You wouldn't need to map the faders yourself to something different than what Studio Pro wants.

If you use a hardware synthesizer with Studio Pro, it could ask the synthesizer for a list of presets and parameters. This basically would mean the end of separate editor/librarian software; Studio Pro would display all that information on demand. Because MIDI 2.0 provides a structure for this kind of information exchange, the synthesizer company wouldn't need to support each DAW individually, it would simply support the standard. Similarly, the synthesizer would know it was working with Studio Pro. You wouldn't have to configure it as an external device. Studio Pro would already know that, based on its conversation with the synth.

Or consider something like Komplete Kontrol. It would tell Studio Pro it has eight knobs, eight switches, a ribbon controller, pitch bend wheel, mod wheel, and whether or not a footpedal and footswitch were connected. All of these would then appear in Studio Pro as named options for controllers. But Studio Pro could also tell it that you'd called up Mojito, and if you wanted, all the controls would be mapped and named because Studio Pro would give it that information. Again, because there's a structure for this kind of information exchange, Studio Pro wouldn't need to come up with multiple ways to support different controllers. You wouldn't have to sit there with Komplete Kontrol's app and create a template. Think of it as NKS, but universal and simpler due to the bi-directional communication.

Of course, it will take a long time for this to be implemented across the industry. But the more you dig into the MIDI 2.0 spec, the more your realize that much of it is designed to make interconnection among various pieces of gear easier. MIDI 2.0 was not designed to be rolled out all at once. The goal was to make sure it could survive unchanged for many decades and pick up momentum during that time, like MIDI 1.0. Meanwhile, you can simply ignore it and use what you have, and introduce MIDI 2.0 gear over time, only if it benefits what you're doing.

P.S. Fender made the right move by opening the door to MIDI 2.0. It's an investment in the future. I do think the name MIDI 2.0 was an unfortunate choice because it's really just a massive set of extensions for MIDI 1.0. Maybe a name like MIDI Xtended or MIDI 1.X would have been less scary and managed expectations better.

 

[sintil8]

A huge part of the MIDI 2.0 spec revolves around Compatibility Inquiry. MIDI 1.0 had unidirectional communications. MIDI 2.0 has bi-directional communication. That's a big deal. As a simple example, consider the FaderPort. Currently, you have to tell it whether it should talk HUI, Mackie, or Studio Pro. With MIDI-CI, upon turning on the FaderPort it would simply ask what it connects to for its protocol, and configure itself accordingly - no user intervention required. Or you could use the FaderPort with a lighting controller, and it would know that its faders need to control dimmers. You wouldn't need to map the faders yourself to something different than what Studio Pro wants.

If you use a hardware synthesizer with Studio Pro, it could ask the synthesizer for a list of presets and parameters. This basically would mean the end of separate editor/librarian software; Studio Pro would display all that information on demand. Because MIDI 2.0 provides a structure for this kind of information exchange, the synthesizer company wouldn't need to support each DAW individually, it would simply support the standard. Similarly, the synthesizer would know it was working with Studio Pro. You wouldn't have to configure it as an external device. Studio Pro would already know that, based on its conversation with the synth.

Or consider something like Komplete Kontrol. It would tell Studio Pro it has eight knobs, eight switches, a ribbon controller, pitch bend wheel, mod wheel, and whether or not a footpedal and footswitch were connected. All of these would then appear in Studio Pro as named options for controllers. But Studio Pro could also tell it that you'd called up Mojito, and if you wanted, all the controls would be mapped and named because Studio Pro would give it that information. Again, because there's a structure for this kind of information exchange, Studio Pro wouldn't need to come up with multiple ways to support different controllers. You wouldn't have to sit there with Komplete Kontrol's app and create a template. Think of it as NKS, but universal and simpler due to the bi-directional communication.

Of course, it will take a long time for this to be implemented across the industry. But the more you dig into the MIDI 2.0 spec, the more your realize that much of it is designed to make interconnection among various pieces of gear easier. MIDI 2.0 was not designed to be rolled out all at once. The goal was to make sure it could survive unchanged for many decades and pick up momentum during that time, like MIDI 1.0. Meanwhile, you can simply ignore it and use what you have, and introduce MIDI 2.0 gear over time, only if it benefits what you're doing.

P.S. Fender made the right move by opening the door to MIDI 2.0. It's an investment in the future. I do think the name MIDI 2.0 was an unfortunate choice because it's really just a massive set of extensions for MIDI 1.0. Maybe a name like MIDI Xtended or MIDI 1.X would have been less scary and managed expectations better.

I do admire your writing, says someone of few words. Thank you.

It is a well thought out description of where Midi2 is heading and some of it's suggested benefits. I might go further and suggest a greater flexibility in routing midi and also present options for 3rd party Midi inserts to be opened up.

PS. Midi2 name if AI has it's way the keyboard will run off with a couple of synths and live in sin on a deserted island.

Kindest of regards

 

[nhc]

I have not updated yet (my subscription ran out just 10 days ago), so I have a question regarding the dim solo feature: is this only accessible with the wrench-icon-menu in the mixer or is there keyboard-shortcut for it? And is there also a keyboard-shortcut for setting the dim-level?

 

[lokeyfly]

Freeze for FX Channels: FX Channels can now be frozen and rendered into Audio Tracks.

Can anybody check, if this means that "Mixdown Selection" is now possible for FX Channels (and Busses) as well?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That would be the feature that would push me over to renew my one year update plan.

I havent checked this just yet. However upon first impression, and my past experience with much stemming, this was already possible for ages, only now its just easier and more direct for those specific needs. A welcome addition, really. I only mention that it was previously available by stemming fx channels (at any desired range), and printing them right to a track. Just pointing this out. I do like this alternative process and will explore it further.

 

[Walt]

I have not updated yet (my subscription ran out just 10 days ago), so I have a question regarding the dim solo feature: is this only accessible with the wrench-icon-menu in the mixer or is there keyboard-shortcut for it? And is there also a keyboard-shortcut for setting the dim-level?

There are three user assignable keyboard shorts: Disable, Enable, and Toggle Dim Solo.

 

[tremo]

There are three user assignable keyboard shorts: Disable, Enable, and Toggle Dim Solo.

Yep, first thing I did in 8.2 was create a shortcut for "Toggle Dim Solo"!

 

[MisterE]

A huge part of the MIDI 2.0 spec revolves around Compatibility Inquiry. MIDI 1.0 had unidirectional communications. MIDI 2.0 has bi-directional communication. That's a big deal. As a simple example, consider the FaderPort. Currently, you have to tell it whether it should talk HUI, Mackie, or Studio Pro. With MIDI-CI, upon turning on the FaderPort it would simply ask what it connects to for its protocol, and configure itself accordingly - no user intervention required. Or you could use the FaderPort with a lighting controller, and it would know that its faders need to control dimmers. You wouldn't need to map the faders yourself to something different than what Studio Pro wants.

If you use a hardware synthesizer with Studio Pro, it could ask the synthesizer for a list of presets and parameters. This basically would mean the end of separate editor/librarian software; Studio Pro would display all that information on demand. Because MIDI 2.0 provides a structure for this kind of information exchange, the synthesizer company wouldn't need to support each DAW individually, it would simply support the standard. Similarly, the synthesizer would know it was working with Studio Pro. You wouldn't have to configure it as an external device. Studio Pro would already know that, based on its conversation with the synth.

Or consider something like Komplete Kontrol. It would tell Studio Pro it has eight knobs, eight switches, a ribbon controller, pitch bend wheel, mod wheel, and whether or not a footpedal and footswitch were connected. All of these would then appear in Studio Pro as named options for controllers. But Studio Pro could also tell it that you'd called up Mojito, and if you wanted, all the controls would be mapped and named because Studio Pro would give it that information. Again, because there's a structure for this kind of information exchange, Studio Pro wouldn't need to come up with multiple ways to support different controllers. You wouldn't have to sit there with Komplete Kontrol's app and create a template. Think of it as NKS, but universal and simpler due to the bi-directional communication.

Of course, it will take a long time for this to be implemented across the industry. But the more you dig into the MIDI 2.0 spec, the more your realize that much of it is designed to make interconnection among various pieces of gear easier. MIDI 2.0 was not designed to be rolled out all at once. The goal was to make sure it could survive unchanged for many decades and pick up momentum during that time, like MIDI 1.0. Meanwhile, you can simply ignore it and use what you have, and introduce MIDI 2.0 gear over time, only if it benefits what you're doing.

P.S. Fender made the right move by opening the door to MIDI 2.0. It's an investment in the future. I do think the name MIDI 2.0 was an unfortunate choice because it's really just a massive set of extensions for MIDI 1.0. Maybe a name like MIDI Xtended or MIDI 1.X would have been less scary and managed expectations better.

Admirable! Reassuring.

 

[TimC340]

While the intricacies of MIDI 2.0 and its development may be fascinating for the nerdier among us (I'm often in that number!), realistically I have no real interest in it until it has real-world benefits for me and my workflow. As I barely even touch old-style MIDI these days, I'm going to take some convincing that it will have much impact for me. As almost all my music is created ITB (apart from vocals and acoustic guitar stuff, neither of which I've yet managed to have any MIDI involvement), I suspect that date is far off. So, while I'm pleased that Fender is making preparations for it, I'll file that in the 'not yet relevant' box and get back to wondering why the bloody DAW won't shut itself down! (Ticket is progressing at Support).

 

[Teksonik]

So far no issues with 8.2. Dim Solo might get some use here.

Still wanting:

The ability to turn off the pop-ups on notes in the piano roll when moused over.

The ability to have custom display names for plugins in the database.

A minor one but the ability to set a custom color for the looped section.

 

[Teksonik]

If no hang then it points to the plugin.

Or it points to the way the DAW handles the plugin. One of the major jobs of a DAW is to load third party plugins and make sure it functions with them without issue. Kontakt in not exactly some obscure plugin from an unknown developer:

"Native Instruments has never publicly released an exact, official count of its Kontakt software users. However, industry estimates and community discussions on forums place the active user base well into the hundreds of thousands or low millions, as Kontakt serves as an industry-standard sampling platform for film, TV, and game composers worldwide"

I think that number is probably way too high but the point remains that any DAW has to function with such popular plugins. Automatically blaming the plugin when it runs without issues in other DAWs may not be appropriate and does not help explore all possible causes of such issues.

A.I. Response:

Fender Studio Pro 8.2 does not feature native plugin sandboxing. Despite the major additions introduced in the Fender Studio Pro 8.2 update (such as Trim Automation, Dim Solo Mode, and Extended Stem Separation), true native crash-isolation sandboxing has still not been added to the DAW. All third-party VST and AU plugins continue to run directly within the main audio engine process

 

[Vocalpoint]

Automatically blaming the plugin when it runs without issues in other DAWs may not be appropriate and does not help explore all possible causes of such issues.

Well - I am blaming Kontakt - specifically.

This issue is (and has been) bouncing around the NI Forums too - with reports of the same behavior occuring in others DAWs like Cubase, Gig Performer, FL Studio etc. Like this for example:

DAW process remains stuck after closing when Kontakt and Massive X are loaded - Community

I have found a reproducible issue when Kontakt 7 or Kontakt 8 and Massive X are loaded at the same time in a DAW. The issue occurs with both VST2 and VST3 versions of Massive X. Tested systems: * Windows 10 Pro * Windows 11 Pro Tested DAWs: * Cubase 15.0.30 * Gig Performer 5.3.3 Native...

community.native-instruments.com

This is not a Studio Pro specific issue by any means.

VP

 

[MisterE]

Or it points to the way the DAW handles the plugin. One of the major jobs of a DAW is to load third party plugins and make sure it functions with them without issue. Kontakt in not exactly some obscure plugin from an unknown developer:

Good point.