Waiting for SO 7 update news

[MisterE]

As far as I can recall, the only brand that Fender have actually killed off over the years was Tacoma in 2008.

And if anyone's looking for a fantastic used acoustic guitar for next to no money, look no further. They made enough of them before the plug was pulled that you can still find one easily enough. Most of them project like crazy.

 

[TimC340]

You don't find the Jan 13 rebranding of MyPresonus to MyFender - blatant enough in the "renaming" department?

It has been very clear (to me anyway) that Fender bought Presonus for their hardware - and only for the hardware and any extraneous business lines like Studio One will be promptly rebranded and the old company name retired.

This has been in the making since Nov 2021 and is finally coming to fruition. By Jan 14 - we will be in a different world.

VP

Well, we're in speculation land here, and it's fun! Fender have never (as far as I can determine) renamed any of their subsidiary brands before. The introduction of Fender Studio for mobile users does suggest that they may want to start what is effectively a new brand using the Studio One code base, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Studio One become Fender Studio Pro, for example, while the hardware remains PreSonus. Would that imply that they're gearing up to get rid of the software side? I doubt it - almost everything the company makes will be needing some form of firmware as computing in some form (think I avoided saying AI there... doh!) invades ever more of the music hardware business, and I would have thought that having your own in-house coding team is probably a good idea. And getting music recorded and into a distributable form is going to need DAWs and derivative products for the foreseeable future. So I see no profit for Fender in deprecating their flagship recording product. But we'll know soon enough.

 

[Jemusic]

None of us know what they are doing and what they are going to do. They are not going to depreciate their flagship product either. Go back to making music. Studio One in its current state can pretty well do everything you want it to do in terms of making music. The more time you are speculating here is time away from much more important things. Just wait and see what they come up with next and if you like it then you can opt for it. And if not just keep on going. The best place to be is in the present, not the future.

 

[MisterE]

None of us know what they are doing and what they are going to do. They are not going to depreciate their flagship product either. Go back to making music. Studio One in its current state can pretty well do everything you want it to do in terms of making music. The more time you are speculating here is time away from much more important things. Just wait and see what they come up with next and if you like it then you can opt for it. And if not just keep on going. The best place to be is in the present, not the future.

Pretty much all true, and good advice. Only thing I'd add is the same can be said for V6

 

[Vocalpoint]

None of us know what they are doing and what they are going to do.

Correct - but we do know what they are doing tomorrow. (specifically)

If the current brand name is solid and let alone - there is no logical reason to change the MyPresonus portal naming conventions - yet here we are.

VP

 

[TimC340]

I'm curious why people wish to suppress informed speculation - and it is informed, by years of experience and exposure to software and music business practices. The speculation harms no-one, and is a fun way of wasting some time on the interwebs. If your time is too important to be wasted, don't read a topic that is inevitably going to include such speculation!

 

[Vocalpoint]

If your time is too important to be wasted, don't read a topic that is inevitably going to include such speculation!

This.

VP

 

[Trommler]

None of us know what they are doing and what they are going to do. They are not going to depreciate their flagship product either. Go back to making music. Studio One in its current state can pretty well do everything you want it to do in terms of making music. The more time you are speculating here is time away from much more important things. Just wait and see what they come up with next and if you like it then you can opt for it. And if not just keep on going. The best place to be is in the present, not the future.

Personally, I completely disagree with this statement. It is extremely frightening to see how submissively numerous customers curry favor with the software providers. This is good for the software developers and their companies, but very bad for the customers. This permanent secrecy means nothing other than that the software manufacturers are practically allowed to play God. Not just PreSonus. True to the motto: We already know which functions customers should have and which are better not. Thank you very much for that. This is anything but professional in the interests of the clientele. Personally, I miss thousands of functions here, even with Studio One. I could write a whole book about that.


For example, automatic AI sorting, with naming, color coding, track symbols and routing options of inserted audio/midi tracks, according to your own specifications. An AI on-board synchronization of audio tracks for timing and intonation correction. A global AI function for correcting phase positions of multiple microphones of a sound source. An AI-supported global gain staging system at the touch of a button. A global AI system to detect masking of the individual tracks. And much, much more. These functions are either not available at all in Studio One or give you the feeling of being stuck in the Middle Ages. And quite a few users applaud for it. That's really very bitter. It's time for Studio One developer in particular to get out of their asses and offer customers real innovations.


For years, I personally can only smile wearily when, after a long period of secrecy, a so-called 'big' new Studio One version is presented. What a pity. Actually, PreSonus started with a fresh and innovative idea, comparable to other established manufacturers. Obviously, there is not too much left of it. A tragedy.

 

[Vocalpoint]

For example, automatic AI sorting, with naming, color coding, track symbols and routing options of inserted audio/midi tracks, according to your own specifications. An AI on-board synchronization of audio tracks for timing and intonation correction. A global AI function for correcting phase positions of multiple microphones of a sound source. An AI-supported global gain staging system at the touch of a button. A global AI system to detect masking of the individual tracks. And much, much more.

While I am all for a healthy and respectful speculation "sess" from time to time - for me personally - if there was even the slightest hint of Ai slop injected into my favorite DAW - I would be using v7.2.3 until the end of time.

"Fresh" and innovative ideas - do not equal Ai. Ai is (and always was) a solution looking for a problem.

I can handle my own color coding, track symbols and routing - and especially my own mixing.

VP

 

[TimC340]

I'm not so polemic about it. I think there is room for AI-based automation of routine tasks in almost any software, and I think it's inevitably coming to all DAWs. Labour-saving algorithms have been a feature of software development since WW2, and they ain't going away. They're also a far cry from the generative AI that is ostensibly so unpopular in the creative arts field - I say 'ostensibly' because I'm well aware that almost every major professional studio openly admits to using generative AI; indeed, I was watching a recent interview Rick Beato did with Ryan Tedder where Rick explicitly asked the question 'do you use generative AI?' and Ryan (a songwriter and producer I greatly admire) was quite open about it.

It's coming. As long as the operator can determine just how much AI the program employs, and in what aspects of the production process, I'm OK with that.

 

[Vocalpoint]

It's coming. As long as the operator can determine just how much AI the program employs, and in what aspects of the production process, I'm OK with that.

To be honest - I am all for something to occasionally help out with some heavy lifting (stuff we do not WANT to do - but sometimes have to do) - like having a smidge of Ai be able to audit (and correct) my actual plugin database when I remove a plugin instead of me having to recreate it every time.

Or have Ai clearly explain exactly WTF is going on (in plain language) with many of the oddball "only a DEV could love it" error messages that pop up in S1.

Or have Ai give very clear instructions on what to do (in the moment) when someone fires up S1 only to find out their attached keyboard is suddenly not detected - that kind of stuff.

But anything that tries to assume it can be more creative than me - that's where we part ways

And yes - options. On or (completely) off would be preferable.

But that also might be too much to ask.

VP

 

[Gerran]

Correct - but we do know what they are doing tomorrow. (specifically)

Do we? You mentioned this before, but yours is the only communication I've seen...

 

[Vocalpoint]

Do we? You mentioned this before, but yours is the only communication I've seen...

Well - this did not come directly to me - I snagged it from the S1 Facebook group area - but others HAVE received it via email:

So if this is not official - it's either an awesome fake or I cannot explain why anyone would get this.

Again - take from it what you will. What I am taking is - on Jan 13, 2026 - welcome to MyFender.

VP

 

[Trommler]

I can handle my own color coding, track symbols and routing - and especially my own mixing.

Again, I would like to personally disagree. A modern and an innovative software program has kindly relieved me of the annoying application routines - such as the manual sorting and organization of the individual tracks and much more - according to my personal specifications with a single mouse click, so that I as a user can ideally concentrate fully on my creative processes.


As I have already written above, we are sometimes still in the technological Stone Age, because the software companies will obviously not feel the necessary pressure from customers, especially in the DAW market segment. If you are satisfied with little, you will get little performance from the software manufacturers at the end of the day. That is the core problem in this matter. In my humble opinion, the pressure on software developers must be significantly increased. I stick to it. From the customer's point of view, it is a catastrophe that software manufacturers can take the right to conceal their developments from customers. This means that one can probably escape the performance-based competition against the competition with impunity. This is then clearly at the expense of a powerful and an innovative software solution. The bill is therefore always paid by the customer.


I very much hope that one day, especially the good-natured and easygoing customers, will wake up so that the software developers finally get fire under their asses. The so-called 'big' major updates of the last few years seem like a bad joke to me. Not only at PreSonus. Personally, I expect much greater innovations, which will make my life much easier when composing and mixing.

 

[Vocalpoint]

Again, I would like to personally disagree.

Well - it's fine for you to disagree. You are not me.

No DAW maker is going to chance going all in on this - only to be met with massive pushback when they find out the hard way - that no one cares.

And for S1 - as of this moment - the user base is not exactly in what I would call a "positive" vibe.

This last couple of years have impacted the overall base in ways I never thought I would ever see and I have been with S1 since 2011

The last thing Presonus needs right now - is a yet another reason to inject even more negativity into an already "semi-angular" situation.

Me - right now - I remain relieved that we do not have any Ai to speak of.

To be completely honest - I am more concerned about the actual survival of our little DAW rather than worrying about what Ai slop it might get.

VP

 

[TimC340]

At the moment I'm not concerned about its survival - cue the old 'rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated' Mark Twain quote! As I said above, and have before, Studio One has a significant proportion of the DAW market and is a good hook for Fender to bring people into its hardware domain, either through PreSonus or the wider Fender empire. It may be argued that they haven't exploited that enough, and that may be the thinking behind the MyFender changes. I have no idea if Studio One is profitable for the company, but I would be surprised if it isn't. If it is in fact not profitable, then significant changes will have to come - but I would hope that those changes would be intended to get more customers spending more on the product rather than no customers spending anything!

 

[Trommler]

To be completely honest - I am more concerned about the actual survival of our little DAW rather than worrying about what Ai slop it might get.

For me, an effective survival strategy would be for a software company to use its users to create innovative functions that were previously considered impossible, where the competitors can only marvel with envy. And we do so in cooperation with the users/customers and not against them. The world belongs to the brave. I know Fender is not a software company in the true sense of the word. This could be a special problem for the Studio One crew inside this company.

 

[Vocalpoint]

I have no idea if Studio One is profitable for the company, but I would be surprised if it isn't. If it is in fact not profitable, then significant changes will have to come - but I would hope that those changes would be intended to get more customers spending more on the product rather than no customers spending anything!

Profitability can take many paths.

To be honest - I never ever gave "profitability" a single thought back in the good old days when we plopped down $149 for each major upgrade cycle and then wallowed in the awesome updates that always showed up in our typical 2-2.5 year usage spans.

But when Fendersonus started hitting up the base with all these weird cash flow hooks (Subs, Annual update plans etc) - forgive me for starting to think maybe there is something going on here. Companies do not usually deviate from the tried and true until it is no longer tried and true.

Even more concerning (to me anyway) - is that no one really wants to take part in these cash flow schemes - especially when they reach an expiry of a sub or an update plan - and see what they actually got for their money. There are TONS of us running free and clear right now.

And then to add insult to injury - effectively charging us twice as much for what we used to get for $149.00.

If there is no cash flow issue and S1 is actually pulling in mad stacks - I am happy to be wrong - but this last 18 months does not feel that way to me.

VP

 

[Gray Wolf]

This permanent secrecy means nothing other than that the software manufacturers are practically allowed to play God. Not just PreSonus.

There is a good reason for that. Way back in the day, some companies used to announce roadmaps. However, what ruined that is the rise of Internet. With the Internet came lots of unnecessary drama. If a company let users in on their proposed roadmap, but things changed as commonly happens in the real world, then suddenly you have multiple negative threads all over the web saying they lied, broke promises, etc, etc. Nothing spreads negativity faster than the Internet.

We just have to come to grips with the fact that nobody is entitled to know the future plans of any private company and that kind of thought process is itself entitled. Not you or anyone here personally, just saying in general. AVID, Steinberg, PreSonus, Bitwig, etc, etc, don't owe us anything. They are all running a business.

When or if we disagree with their decisions, we vote with out wallets.

 

[Vocalpoint]

For me, an effective survival strategy would be for a software company to use its users to create innovative functions that were previously considered impossible, where the competitors can only marvel with envy.

Maybe so - but who's going to go in first?

Battles are never won by the first guys across the line. They actually get mowed down.

And it might be prudent to prove strength and prove that you deserve that envy.

S1 has so many other issues (some for years) that deserve attention - the kind of attention that will actually make the base go "Yeah - these guys DO have it together after all).

I mean c'mon - they gave us this new Launcher as a MAJOR new feature in v7 and haven't touched it's code once since Oct 10, 2024. This is being "innovative" or is any reason for competitor envy?

Not sure about the rest of the crew in here - but if you want "envy" - wander over the Ableton site and then block off a couple of hours just to read the Release Notes for their v12 cycle and it's last three updates.

This is how these battles can be won. I remember fondly those days when S1 was like this.

VP