Hi there! Here are some (minor and major, if you’ll forgive the pun!) improvements I would love to see Studio One incorporate in the near or distant future; call them “feature requests,” if you will. With a long-view perspective.
First of all, the Interface. I know that Studio One Pro likes to do its own thing and prefers its own windowing widgets to others (like the hideous ones that Microsoft Windows supplies us with as developers!), and, that being the case, I have a vision of Studio One that is quite different—and extremely skeuomorphic—(which is okay because skeuomorphism is the king of interface paradigms in the audio plug in world). I propose that the Interface not be so utilitarian; let it be fun. Make the faders on the Console made of brushed metal, with the knobs made of photorealistic plastic, and the track or instrument name below look like it was stuck there after being written on a piece of tape. Let the transport window have a living, true-to-life, photorealistic “reel to reel recorder” as part of it – and if you drag on the little playhead, it scrubs back and forth—complete with reversed-LP-record-sounds—over the current cursor position. Let each lane in the Arrange window be made of photorealistic recording tape; a deep, somewhat reflective brown that implies solidity; a less ethic feel, and with more thereness to the equally photoreal (but obviously 3D rendered using PBR textures) knobs, sliders, buttons, switches, gauges, meters, speakers, headphones, a metal rack that pops up to hold your current track’s plugin chain, represented by the plugin’s own interface, but augmented with 3-Dimensionality to look like, well, rackmounted equipment. Let us drag patch cables between devices in an Audio-MIDI Environment window (similar to Logic Pro’s). Let us have typewritten-and-stickered-on labels for things, and even the tiniest, most obscure control gets the “total skeuomorphic” overhaul. So what you have in the end is a DAW that is not only superior in function to other DAWS, but . . . one that practically invites a grin to your face, and, due to its “mechanical, photoreal” look to its “parts” (and don’t leave out the glowing vacuum tubes or bouncing needle gauges, please), compels the user to just dive in head first, and start working in an environment that is not only playful, but where the playfulness serves a purpose. Making things look like their real-world counterparts implies that they function like those things . . . but ah you see, here, the metaphor would have to take a break. Because really, what Amplifier lets you select its case color and then actually takes on that color and texture while you’re working with it. So are we bending the rules of reality a little in favor of aesthetics? Sure we are. But, does that not consequently mean that we are blurring the line between form and function, and therefore, musician and DAW.
I would love to have all the same editing options in the Notation editor as I have in the Arrange window or the Audio Editor or MIDI editor (in fact, were it me, I would just duplicate most of the MIDI editors functions, and a few new ones [discussed below] into Notation view. Also for the Notation window, I’d like to see all articulations, etcetera, playback-able and programmable. The chord track’s functionality should be expanded to allow for Studio One Pro to generate its own chord track (along with appropriately chosen backing tracks with a Wizard stepping the user through their creation (choosing VSTis, and so forth), and winding up sounding like a one-man-band.
Also, in the Notation view – if the track is set to follow the Chord track, doing so should automatically transpose the score to be in the key that that chord is written in. Also: We have a Tempo, Chord, Arrangement, etc. bar, so why not be able to define a “Robot Bar” as an Automating track, where we can easily see all our Automation information without having to superimpose it on Track View.
Also I would like to see an improved Transpose function, more like the one that notation programs often offer. For instance, instead of specifying a number of semitones (which you could still do in this paradigm), you tell the program you want to transpose the track, say, up a chromatic third, or down an enharmonic fifth, or up a modal fourth. That would bring a great deal of MIDI editing flexibility for composers, right there. Another thing you could do would be to, in the Notation view (or heck, even in the tracks view), is offer the option to: (1) Retrograde the entire selected MIDI section, (2) Take the present length of selected notes (i.e., half note, quarter note), and alter them all either by (a) a fixed percentage each, (b) a relative percentage each, (c) double the lengths of all the notes, or halve them, or quarterize them, or make them into sixteenth notes, 32nd notes, etc., and, (d) a way to do this to every other note in the currently selected “voice.” Similarly, you could give composers the ability to invert the selected chords in a passage (including, possibly, if they wanted, the corresponding chords on the chord track), to first, second, or third inversions. Then there’s the simple ability to transpose up or down an octave all at once. (But with the option of chromatic, or enharmonic, transposition, and harmonic, melodic, or chromatic minor). And, make Transposition and Swing both “Automatable” parameters!
You could offer functionality that can (currently) only be found in expensive add-on programs like RapidComposer 4.3 or the Orb Producer Suite 3.0.1. (Neither of which is very cheap; one is $200, one is $359). This would mean the program would be capable, for the first time, of “generative composition” utilizing machine learning and A.I. rules (related to music theory and various compositional styles), to analyze either (a) existing music in the score (partial or whole) or (b) a musical “suggestion” by a composer, and then “suggest” or “extrapolate” from that a series or several layers of generative Melodies, Harmonies, Riffs, Phrases, Chord Progressions, Arpeggios, Motifs, Crescendos, Decrescendos, Accelerandos, and Decelerandos, as well as Themes and Glissandi, and the ability to use all the composing functions I just described on any of these, no matter their length or complexity, even over several staves. To add to this, you could say, pick the top 50 songwriters of the past fifty years, and add the option to adopt their melodic or chordal or rhythmic (all or some or none) “styles” to the current generative selection or process.
Also, because this process uses Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence, no two generated pieces would ever sound quite the same, and the aspiring composer would, when it came to their creation, find themselves with a cornucopia of different parameters they could specify to the composition engine, so that the final piece created winds up being perfectly in tune with their creative process and mindset, rather than just a “flat, computer generated” random entity. Finally, for the Notation view, I would introduce paper styles, colors, hole-punch indicators, and give us a choice between which notation fonts we want to use. Also make it all SMurF and MusicXML (in all its formats) compatible.
These functions, just by themselves alone, in addition to the things Studio One currently offers producers, would set your software very, very, very far ahead—one might even say, “way, way, way ahead of the leader of the pack”—from anything else that any other music software manufacturer is currently doing with their sequencers—or notation programs.
I would also suggest that PreSonus take a further cue from notation software currently on the market, and incorporate an “Idea Bin.” This would be a special little clipboard like window, available in all Views, where the aspiring MIDI composer—or audio editor/DJ—could store their . . . well . . . ideas. Audio recordings, samples, MIDI passages and compositions, whole pieces, single bars, chord progressions for the chord track or for a piece of written music, anything they like, using as many staves (tracks) as they like, and have Studio One dynamically adjust the number of tracks/staves/samples of various kinds when one of these is dragged and dropped onto the Editor. (Ideas could combine multiple media, like even synchronized video events, MIDI events, and Audio.)
I would further suggest that Studio One’s playback functionality be expanded a little, and by that I of course mean its options for how to make MIDI passages “sound more human.” The “Humanize” function that we currently have is very nice, but it should have many more controllable parameters than it currently does, including parameters that affect things like not just velocity, but aftertouch and sustain, and dampening, as well. Swing should be specifiable by either a percentage or a certain note length value. The Playback Engine could support “look ahead” technologies (like in NotePerformer, a plugin available for Avid’s Sibelius) that allow the sequencer to see what’s coming up next, and to prepare to play it back a certain way, with extremely nuanced and balanced playback parameters so that everything isn’t done exactly at run-time, but sounds like it is being truly performed at the moment, on the spot, improved by a master pianist or other musician. A lot of this is meant to “blur the lines” again, but this time, blurring multiple (and in the past, unbreachable) barriers—the world of man and machine and the tasks and purpose of either; the line between MIDI and Rendered Audio; or any other Audio, for that matter. The line between stave and track, between notation and sequencing, and the line between A.I. . . . and that which is purely “I.”
Next, let’s talk “Note FX”. Or as any other DAW calls them, “MIDI effects.” These ought to be draggable and droppable onto the Console as effects, and put into a specific sequence or chain, that way making them twice as useful and versatile. Plus, the MIDI Editor should have functions especially for creating your own Note FX. Note FX could include: Glissandi, Crescendos and Accelerandos and their inverse, velocity randomization, “strumming” of stacked notes, and more advanced settings – or possibly more than just one of – the Arpeggiator. In fact, I’m going to make an even bolder statement: One of the best ideas that E-Magic (and later Apple) had was to have a special “MIDI Environment” Window, where the user could “wire” various MIDI plugins to each other in sequence, before outputting the final wiring diagram’s signal out-point to the “Sequencer” module.
Also, and, I acknowledge that this wouldn’t be easy, I know, but: You could add the ability to directly import other MIDI programs project, song, and piece formats—including notation software like Finale or Sibelius; and best of all, in this fantasy of mine, Studio One can (correctly) interpret every articulation, nuance, expression, and symbol used by the originating software . . . so the piece sounds precisely as it was written to be performed, and performed exactly in that way (by making more Notation symbols playable and programmable). This little feature by itself would be a Godsend, a holy grail, for us composers who prefer a more extensive notation package with greater flexibility than Notion currently offers.
Other smaller improvements I would like to see are:
Finally, as a closing argument, I’d like to add that Studio One is—next to Apple’s Logic Pro (sorry, Logic will always have a special, kingly place in my heart as far as software can)—the best, most affordable, and most feature-rich DAWs I’ve ever used. Even as it is just now. Nothing can ever be as good for me as Logic Pro, except programs that take their cue from it, and Studio One does that very nicely. \I’m really glad I discovered Studio One Professional when I migrated my music production studio to PC instead of Mac (so many more options!). I’m also very glad I’m a PreSonus Sphere member, and I’m glad I have it there to play with and invent with. Studio One may not (YET!) have all the bells and whistles and fancy trimmings that something like Logic or Cubase or Nuendo offers, but it does what it does really, really well, and allows the user a great deal of creative flexibility, freedom, control, and options and ways to do things, which the most important thing any software package can offer.
So keep up the good work, guys. You’re doing great. Studio One Professional 5.51 is the best DAW on the market for Windows, as far as I’m concerned, and believe me, I’ve tried them all (with Digital Performer leaving a bad taste in my mouth; it didn’t like the “taste” of MOST of my plugins, whereas Studio One on the other hand has zero problems with any of my plugins or instruments!).
So please, think about these ideas and even if you can’t incorporate all of them, just seeing some of these features available in my DAW, and fully integrated too, not just as plugins, would REALLY make my day as a composer and songwriter. I’ve worked with many DAWs and Notation Programs over many years. In fact if there’s one thing I could do, it would be to take Studio One—whole and intact, as it is—and directly (and magically, somehow!) MERGE it with Sibelius, AudioScore, PhotoScore, and RapidComposer. (Though this letter does describe a way to do almost exactly that—or to at least take a decent stab at it.)
Please have a nice day, gentlemen, sir, good lady, or whomever you are -- and please consider what I’ve said here seriously and if you would, consider it prudent. Please don’t hesitate to send my ideas to the engineers themselves. Because these ideas could take Studio One to the next level. And beyond.
Yours truly,
William A. Hainline