Waiting for SO 7 update news

[Mick]

I'm German, and complaining is our job
What exactly can't you do with the current version? What's missing?
Do you want an overloaded and opaque piece of software like Cubase?
I don't even need 50% of what Studio One offers; luckily, I can hide some of it.
MIDI 2.0? I work with seven hardware synthesizers and have never missed it.
I'd prefer a stable DAW and maybe an upgrade to their VST Instruments and FX

 

[Jemusic]

What do you mean by that? I'm not sure to understand.

It’s a weird program and geared towards certain styles of music. Bitwig and Logic are certainly more in line with the type of DAW I like to use. Logic is already Midi 2.0 I have got a bunch of hardware synths and MIDI 1.0 is doing fine.

 

[TimC340]

I'm German, and complaining is our job
What exactly can't you do with the current version? What's missing?
Do you want an overloaded and opaque piece of software like Cubase?
I don't even need 50% of what Studio One offers; luckily, I can hide some of it.
MIDI 2.0? I work with seven hardware synthesizers and have never missed it.
I'd prefer a stable DAW and maybe an upgrade to their VST Instruments and FX

Arguing that everything is fine as it is implies that that's it, no more development need occur and 7.2.3 is and should be the final version of Studio One, which, frankly, is daft! It's analogous to saying the Ford Model T was perfectly able to get its occupants from A to B, so car development should have stopped there.

A look around this forum shows that there are several issues that people would like resolved, or at least given clearer workflows, and the MIDI 2 conversation shows just one aspect of how Studio One might improve in future. The concern is that as other DAWs continue to improve, Studio One may be left behind and we may be forced to change our DAW in order to keep up and gain capabilities that others already enjoy.

On MIDI 2.0, one aspect I'm looking forward to immensely is the ability to include more data in note information, allowing articulation data to be sent within the note. This will be fairly revolutionary for orchestral composers. The greater data resolution (up to 32-bit vs 7-bit) will allow far more subtle modulations within a piece as well, which is something I'm keen to exploit. Logic apparently can already do this, so feature rollout won't be far away for other DAWs - and we've already discussed which hardware is MIDI 2.0 capable.

 

[Crossinger]

A look around this forum shows that there are several issues that people would like resolved, or at least given clearer workflows, and the MIDI 2 conversation shows just one aspect of how Studio One might improve in future.

I wasn’t fast enough to reply, but this is exactly the point: Do I want brand-new features crammed into S1? Not so much. But I could easily fill a sheet of paper with optimization requests for, e.g., the pattern mode.

 

[Sombreuil]

It’s a weird program and geared towards certain styles of music. Bitwig and Logic are certainly more in line with the type of DAW I like to use. Logic is already Midi 2.0 I have got a bunch of hardware synths and MIDI 1.0 is doing fine.

Well maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that they do what other companies don't.

 

[Crossinger]

Don’t agree There was a major Logic update in May this year and another in Sept. (4 significant updates in the last two years) For Mac users it’s actually a very attractive option. It’s an amazing program with a one time payment and free updates for life.

Ha! That's the same discussion we have for S1. The last feature update for Logic was back in May (six months ago). So, the community expected a new feature update (11.3) by the end of November, but that didn't happen. I admit: in the meantime, there were two small bug-fixing releases (11.2.1 and 11.2.2), but the overall picture (and the discussion in the forums) is quite similar.

 

[Davey]

The other point to remember is that MIDI 1.0 didn't just appear. It rolled out over decades. MIDI 2.0 will be the same. Anyone who's waiting for it to be "finished" will have a long wait .

Absolutely this. And I expect there will be a few companies that "cheat" a little by supporting the higher resolution MIDI 2 messages but converting them internally to the old 7 bit values in their synth engine, just like some VST3s are just VST2s in a wrapper. You can also expect companies to do the bare minimum to be able to add a MIDI 2.0 bullet point, in the same way that there are a few partial MPE implementations out there.

 

[Vocalpoint]

You can also expect companies to do the bare minimum to be able to add a MIDI 2.0 bullet point, in the same way that there are a few partial MPE implementations out there.

Or how every mobile phone provider somehow manages to offer 5G - when no "real" 5G (by the exact spec) infrastructure actually exists anywhere in North America that I know of.

For me - the new Windows MIDI Services package will need to be available in production installations of Win 11/12 for at least a year - with multiple fixes and tweaks applied - before I would be ready to try it.

VP

 

[MisterE]

There is one key difference re: discussion/disclosure of future plans. M$ doesn't exactly have to worry much about market share while any/all DAW vendors do. DAW software is a niche market. IMO, it is perfectly valid for us to debate the pros/cons of the effectiveness of a secrecy approach by a DAW vendor. OTOH, there is not a direct correlation between DAW software and OS software.

Then what if I told you that the likes of Ableton, Access Music (Virus synth & Fractal), Antares, Arturia, Focusrite, IK Multimedia, Korg, Kurzweil, Moog, Native Instruments, Nektar, Roland, Spectrasonics, Steinberg, Teenage Engineering, and Yamaha (I picked more familiar companies, there are hundreds of others) are all partners in the MIDI Association (MIDI.org) which is 100% supportive of the MIDI 2 protocol? None of them sell operating systems. Why aren't any of them worried about losing market share for revealing their interest and support? One could infer the opposite is true—they feel partnering with each other (deep-pocketed funders like Microsoft, Google, and Apple are partners, too btw) will boost market share for all involved.

I believe Presonus' continued email solicitation attempts are proof positive the company cares about market share. No skin off my back if they want to remain on the outside looking in.

Of course, BobF, discussing this with you gets a little cagey since you and the other mods already know which way Presonus is going on this

 

[MisterE]

As for MIDI 2.0, it's still too far out as a working technology that we can all experience to be a priority for any DAW.

Ableton and Cubase are any DAWs, are they not?

 

[BobF]

Then what if I told you that the likes of Ableton, Access Music (Virus synth & Fractal), Antares, Arturia, Focusrite, IK Multimedia, Korg, Kurzweil, Moog, Native Instruments, Nektar, Roland, Spectrasonics, Steinberg, Teenage Engineering, and Yamaha (I picked more familiar companies, there are hundreds of others) are all partners in the MIDI Association (MIDI.org) which is 100% supportive of the MIDI 2 protocol? None of them sell operating systems. Why aren't any of them worried about losing market share for revealing their interest and support? One could infer the opposite is true—they feel partnering with each other (deep-pocketed funders like Microsoft, Google, and Apple are partners, too btw) will boost market share for all involved.

I believe Presonus' continued email solicitation attempts are proof positive the company cares about market share. No skin off my back if they want to remain on the outside looking in.

Of course, BobF, discussing this with you gets a little cagey since you and the other mods already know which way Presonus is going on this

I assure you that I am 100% OUT of the loop on the PSL roadmap.

 

[MisterE]

I assure you that I am 100% OUT of the loop on the PSL roadmap.

I stand corrected on that. I'll take no comment on my other point as no further corrections are required.

 

[BobF]

I stand corrected on that. I'll take no comment on my other point as no further corrections are required.

I don't believe there is a correct and incorrect point to this. It's just different perspectives. Some of us get frustrated by the lack of a visible roadmap, some of us not so much. Having used SO since V2, I guess I'm used to and accepting of the process PSL uses. This seems similar to ATMOS to me. Nothing ... nothing ... lotsa user complaints about no advance ATMOS commitment ... nothing .... nothing. Then out of nowhere SO does ATMOS.

 

[TimC340]

Ableton and Cubase are any DAWs, are they not?

Indeed, but my point was that MIDI 2.0 is still in its infancy and there will be more pressing priorities for most software developers. That's not to say anyone's not putting effort into getting ready for MIDI 2.0, and of course (as I mentioned above) some devices and software already claim compatibility - though it's difficult to assess just how much compatibility as, as far as I'm aware, there isn't really a way for most end users to actually exploit this compatibility. I'm looking forward to there being practical uses for it and there are some aspects of it that I'm very keen to see being made available as soon as possible, but I recognise that there are many things that could more profitably (in both monetary and semantic senses) be tackled in the meantime.

 

[Vocalpoint]

This seems similar to ATMOS to me. Nothing ... nothing ... lotsa user complaints about no advance ATMOS commitment ... nothing .... nothing. Then out of nowhere SO does ATMOS.

I still think that ATMOS was being built out well before that whole period of complaints, no commitment etc etc.

Development at that level with that kind of fit and polish was not whipped up in a weekend.

But ironically (and oddly) - I rarely (and I do mean rarely) come across a single S1 user (who may or may not have been a part of that whole complaint bandwagon) - that actually uses ATMOS these days.

It was like this global groundswell of overblown complaint hype and angularity and then - silence.

VP

 

[Crossinger]

Development at that level with that kind of fit and polish was not whipped up in a weekend.

Indeed, this implementation and attention to detail was a piece of art!

But I admit: Besides trying out the demo files I have never used it.

 

[MisterE]

I don't believe there is a correct and incorrect point to this. It's just different perspectives. Some of us get frustrated by the lack of a visible roadmap, some of us not so much. Having used SO since V2, I guess I'm used to and accepting of the process PSL uses. This seems similar to ATMOS to me. Nothing ... nothing ... lotsa user complaints about no advance ATMOS commitment ... nothing .... nothing. Then out of nowhere SO does ATMOS.

First, I really shouldn't have stated that all mods already know about MIDI 2 plans or non-plans. I'd like to think the vast majority of my opinions are informed by facts; but I slipped up this time and went with pure conjecture. I hope you'll accept my apology.

I'd like to bow out of the company discussions, leaving with these thoughts regarding ATMOS and accepting or rejecting the process PSL uses. Regarding ATMOS, that's still a feature that affects a small percentage of S1 users when compared with MIDI2, which affects basically every electronic musician. I can see why they'd keep that under wraps till release, though, because it was a relatively innovative addition. But going beyond keeping everything under wraps, the discovery that Presonus isn't a member of the MIDI Association is like a country not being a member of the United Nations. That tells me all I need to know about Presonus' commitment to anything MIDI and the company's attitude toward cooperating with other industry players. So I'll vote with my pocketbook and let it go.

 

[Vocalpoint]

But going beyond keeping everything under wraps, the discovery that Presonus isn't a member of the MIDI Association is like a country not being a member of the United Nations. That tells me all I need to know about Presonus' commitment to anything MIDI and the company's attitude toward cooperating with other industry players. So I'll vote with my pocketbook and let it go.

Being a "corporate" member of the MIDI association is not (and never was) a requirement to support MIDI related tech in any DAW.

I mean Google is listed - what the heck do they have to do with anything MIDI related?

I would not read anything into the fact that just because Presonus is not listed with the rest of those "corporate" members - they suddenly do not care about MIDI 2.0. Or that they (or Fender) are not already corporate members - just not listed out there.


VP

 

[Crossinger]

I mean Google is listed - what the heck do they have to do with anything MIDI related?

Webmidi for example: https://midi.org/about-web-midi

 

[Vocalpoint]

Webmidi for example: https://midi.org/about-web-midi

Fair enough.

But that last thing I want to do is to give Google anymore ammo (or data).

VP