-
Hi and welcome to the Studio One User Forum!
Please note that this is an independent, user-driven forum and is not endorsed by, affiliated with, or maintained by PreSonus. Learn more in the Welcome thread!
Studio One Pro Update Releases?
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
- Status
lokeyfly
Well-known member
Great line.I still think the main limitation in any DAW is who's writing the music
18 pages of responses, over how and when releases were promised.
Its like we all got into a great movie debut, and theres' an enormous crowd around the popcorn machine, because the ticket stated popcorn on the ticket. Far be it, the intent was to see the movie. Instead, we get kernal counters.
Would be great having 18 pages around stimulating DAW, shop talk. Providing innovative ideas, even just to roll around.
But hey, enjoy!
When we discuss product updates or promotions, we are speaking as consumers.
As consumers, people should be able to express their opinions on the products they purchase.
However, there are always people talking about music creation itself, which is a matter for music creators, not consumers.
What tools creators use and how they use them is not something consumers need to consider.
The conflict between consumers and manufacturers should not be transferred to the abilities of musicians. Just because someone can produce good music with a simple recording app on a phone, does that mean all DAW products no longer need any updates?
Even a person who does not engage in music creation can still purchase a product like Studio One, and as a consumer, they have the right to question it.
Manufacturer updates are not some kind of charity; consumers buy them with real money, and they have the right to inquire.
Please do not divert the topic by saying "the functions are sufficient" or "the quality of music depends on the musician's ability"!
As consumers, people should be able to express their opinions on the products they purchase.
However, there are always people talking about music creation itself, which is a matter for music creators, not consumers.
What tools creators use and how they use them is not something consumers need to consider.
The conflict between consumers and manufacturers should not be transferred to the abilities of musicians. Just because someone can produce good music with a simple recording app on a phone, does that mean all DAW products no longer need any updates?
Even a person who does not engage in music creation can still purchase a product like Studio One, and as a consumer, they have the right to question it.
Manufacturer updates are not some kind of charity; consumers buy them with real money, and they have the right to inquire.
Please do not divert the topic by saying "the functions are sufficient" or "the quality of music depends on the musician's ability"!
According to semantic versioning, a major release is when the major version (before the first ".") increases.
7.0 is a major update
7.1 and 7.2 are minor updates
7.2.1 is a patch/maintenance/hotfix update
Agreed
AAV
Active member
Maybe, how about not quoting posts in quotations as though they are verbatim, even though they aren't and don't include any context. Those opinions as expressed are (IMO) as equally valid as the opinions of the consumer you are advocating for. Presumably, we are all users of Studio One, and this is a user forum.
FaRu
New member
Yes you are absolutely right and sadly this represents the typical kind of discussion culture these days. Creating straw man agruments instead of discussing the actual point. In many cases also "ad hominem", to kill the conversation directly.
But what bothers me more: This harms the development and therefor the thing that was supposed to be defended more than it helps.
Back in my university days our Professor for quality management highlighted how important it is to take complaints seriously and to always offer the possibility to complain. If someone is unhappy there are two ways to go: 1 you are disappointed and go away, or 2 you can express what you think, feeling taken seriously and give the thing another shot.
By preventing situation 2 the other thing takes effect eventually. No problem when it is just a small irrelevant portion. But if many do not communicate their problem with what they think about this, the consequences can be bigger than expected. And this also affects the fanboys in the end. The developer has to evaluate what to do and what the risks are.
I also do not get the point why someone who does not want/need any upgrades and could live without any upgrade for the rest of their life take a spot in this discussion at all. I mean it should not bother them, what the people who pay for the upgrades are complaining about.
and if they dont expect updates because everything is perfect and bug free, why to pay at all?
I however welcome every workflow improvement that increases the productivity and this has nothing to do with skill or what was manageable before without a specific feature.
Vocalpoint
Well-known member
Then this exact line from Gregor (from the infamous Sept 29, 2024 video):
"So we are targeting 3-4 "major" feature releases every year - with the first of these drops coming early next year and going forward (pause) version naming will be time based"
Means that we have had NO major "feature" releases at all - in 2025?
If we go by this "versioning" system - it is no wonder people are climbing the walls wondering what is going on at Presonus.
Surely you jest, my friend.
VP
That would be me, so let me help you out here. While I'm still on V6 (having started on V2 and skipped V3 and V4), I could see myself living with 7.2 for the duration since there is a conspicuous lack of complaints about the software itself. Why? Because even as DAWs like S1, Cubase and the rest keep adding wondrous new features, the fact remains there is no verifiable proof of parallel growth in the quality of music that's out there. And arguments can be made that overall (always some exceptions) music was better in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s before audio DAWs existed at all. That said, every so often I do upgrade, and one of the reasons I posted in this thread was to show some empathy for programmers who seemingly are forced to squeeze out those 3-4 promised (or "forecasted" if "promise" is too strong) releases when they seemed to be doing just fine releasing versions when they were ready without having to adhere to a rigid schedule.
Vocalpoint
Well-known member
Great line.
18 pages of responses, over how and when releases were promised.
Its like we all got into a great movie debut, and theres' an enormous crowd around the popcorn machine, because the ticket stated popcorn on the ticket. Far be it, the intent was to see the movie. Instead, we get kernal counters.
Would be great having 18 pages around stimulating DAW, shop talk. Providing innovative ideas, even just to roll around.
But hey, enjoy!
That is not the point.
Until V7, $150 would get you 2 plus years of maintenance and feature updates. Now it gets you 1 year with the announcement of 3-4 major updates per year to soften the response and maybe make it attractive for users. So two years cost $300
Until now it did not seem that way for a lot of users. So they question and discuss. What is wrong with that? This is not a spoiled "we want updates all the time" issue.
But you very well know this already and choose to despise users with the "cliche" if you can not make music with x version blah blah.
TimC340
Active member
I think the purpose of improvements to music software is to a) make music production easier, b) add flexibility and capability to the product and c) to ensure that your product isn't getting left behind by other companies' products. If we take the argument that music hasn't improved since any particular date to a logical conclusion, there's probably no point in any of us continuing! In fact, I'm quite certain that any of those creators we revere from the past would have dearly loved to have had the creative tools we have now.
For the most part, Studio One is the equal of any of the major players in the field. All of them have some features or workflow that work better in context than the others, but none is clearly way ahead. Absolutely there are elements of Ableton, Cubase or Logic that I'd love to see in Studio One, but the lack of those elements doesn't prevent me from making music in a way that I enjoy and, realistically, I'm never going to hit the limits of what Studio One is capable of. But there's no doubt that the devs may well in future include an improvement that, for me, transforms the experience into something even better (or, heaven forbid, wrecks it!). We all live in hope that the next new feature is that revelatory for us individually. Yes, we could stop all development (and purchases) here and now and our ability to create music would not be diminished in the slightest, but that's not how human nature works!
Studio One has definitely reached a level where its supporters feel pretty passionate about it as their goto software, and they want it to continue getting better and better - that's perfectly natural. As is the disappointment when the teased improvement schedule doesn't turn out quite as revolutionary as it might have felt on initial reception. And inevitably that disappointment gets expressed here and elsewhere - and hopefully PreSonus reads and understands it.
For the most part, Studio One is the equal of any of the major players in the field. All of them have some features or workflow that work better in context than the others, but none is clearly way ahead. Absolutely there are elements of Ableton, Cubase or Logic that I'd love to see in Studio One, but the lack of those elements doesn't prevent me from making music in a way that I enjoy and, realistically, I'm never going to hit the limits of what Studio One is capable of. But there's no doubt that the devs may well in future include an improvement that, for me, transforms the experience into something even better (or, heaven forbid, wrecks it!). We all live in hope that the next new feature is that revelatory for us individually. Yes, we could stop all development (and purchases) here and now and our ability to create music would not be diminished in the slightest, but that's not how human nature works!
Studio One has definitely reached a level where its supporters feel pretty passionate about it as their goto software, and they want it to continue getting better and better - that's perfectly natural. As is the disappointment when the teased improvement schedule doesn't turn out quite as revolutionary as it might have felt on initial reception. And inevitably that disappointment gets expressed here and elsewhere - and hopefully PreSonus reads and understands it.
Vocalpoint
Well-known member
The "old" scheme was not a "right". It was the current business model at the time and we were very fortunate to be part of that. That you bought into it at the time - does not make it a promise or an obligation or anything else.
Now the business model has changed. You are free to choose to partake in the new model or stand down.
But please don't lecture about what was and what is. This is a business - if you do not like the terms of the new model - you can always take your $150.00 somewhere else.
Bottom line - no one is forcing you to buy anything.
VP
FaRu
New member
Just to clarify : I was not referring to people like you. My statement was supposed to be related to the people that rip apart valid concerns with pseudo-valid arguemnts . Just wanted to highlight the contradiction in "not caring" but passionatly arguing against the matter.
I think (or at least hope) noone on this forum is hostile against S1. And who ever is blaming the programmers has never been working in such an environemnt at all. Weird decisions from CEOs, team leaders or what ever are made all the time. But from a customer side, this does not mean that there was no video (which still exists btw) that described a plan that purposely showed that everything is getting fancier more quickly. Many people might have bought a product on false advertisment and this is a serious issue. And I have not seen one single argument against this. If people feel ripped off, thats a problem for business in the long term. This has nothing to do with programmers, necessity of new features, quality of created music or whatever. And yes there was created exceptionally good music before DAWs. And yes there was created good music with older DAWs. But this is just not what people payed for. That were the tools many people already owned a licens for.
I think many will reconsider how they handle their purchase of the upgrade. Maybe this was part of the plan, maybe not. But when people feel burned, they feel burned and Presonus is the only one who can do something against that.
I however will step out of the topic for now. Just tired of this topic that goes on for a year now.
Fireing up the DAW and get creative seems to be the better choice.
- Status