Presonus Studio One name change to Fender Studio Pro 8
https://audiosex.pro/threads/presonus-studio-one-name-change-to-fender-studio-pro-8.83640/

Here are some original quotes from @Kate Middleton:

1.) why. i liike studio one name more

2.) interesting.. but why this? why not just continuing improving studio one.. why separate.. and the new plugins look grey ish now

3.) i find no reason to update to 8.. it even looks worse than 7.. i stick to 7 by now

4.) the most stable DAW i ever used is FL Studio series.. it only crashed maybe once in a year or even less than that. i honestly dont remember it freezing or crashing. and also the plugins run very stable on FL Studio. third party , vst2 vst3.. fl studio is the most stable daw i ever used regarding studio one its unstable sometimes

5.)
1. they should have kept the name studio one pro 8
2. they should have kept updating the software as they PROMISED several updates minor several times a year
3. i feel kind of disgusted to use the new fender studio the name is atrocious
4. very stupid change

6.) wow just finally tried fender studio 8

what a disgrace. absolutely terrible in all ways possible. the dark, weird new theme. the design of new plugins ui.. the everything.. wow its really bad. im going to use studio one pro 7.. this is actually SHITTY update.. cant believe this.. they ruined it. especially the colors on everything.. who allowed this?

 

Yes, as mentioned, I understand when a developer tries to transfer something from the analog domain into the digital one. I also understand when they succeed, partially or mostly through visual resemblance. If a "J-8, CS-80..." does not look like a "J-8, CS-80..." the end user might not find any sonic similarity to the original, which in the analog domain they may never have seen or heard anywhere except through the window of a smart screen. Adding a shiny screw or two, or a little fan spinning on the backplate graphic when someone accidentally clicks the "about" button, helps convince the end user that the sound of the "approximation" is, of course, not identical to the original, but almost there. If digital graphics could smell, they would probably smell like old electronics. Pixels pretending to oxidize, code exhaling the faint aroma of warmed dust on a transformer. A user, perhaps especially a professional one who once physically turned the real knobs of a "Fairchild 670," knows perfectly well that what they see on the monitor is nothing but an arrangement of pixels. Yet they do not even need to look at what they are doing. Muscle memory remembers what each switch does, what happens when a knob is turned in a particular direction. As the saying goes, everyone enjoys their own little pleasure. I fully agree that each of us has the right to enjoy what we enjoy. There are obvious exceptions, such as paedophiles, serial killers, and all other human beings whose "passions" are forbidden for good reason.

When the OP writes: "They are quite great.. i wish they had better interface/ i been using them from time to time.. they really sound good.. but i dont like the equalizer.. only the EQ i dislike.. rest is good.. i wish they updated them a bit," I find myself both relating and hesitating. Before responding, I wonder whether determining what something truly is requires prolonged and continuous use, not just occasional visits. These plugins are expensive tools to use from time to time, unless one happens to be born into a family that swims in money. They may sound excellent, but perhaps the UI is what determines whether they are used often or only occasionally. If they really sound that good, but would somehow be much better with a better UI, what exactly is wrong with the equalizer? Is it the workflow, the visual feedback, the ergonomics, the UI in general, the sound, or something else entirely. I find myself wanting specificity. Me and my endless wants. Then the old-fart thought appears. "HEU-FUCKING-REKA!" Perhaps it is an abundance problem?!

Generations raised in the middle of technological expansion may struggle to frame criticism within a broader historical context. It is hard to imagine what audio software was like in the era of dial-up modems. It's hard to appreciate how advanced modern DSP tools are, and how the machines that host plugins, xyz times more powerful than those in the early days of digitalization, cost a mere fraction of what earlier hardware did, even if today's memory shortages (...) are starting to — no pun intended — equalize that gap. Is this a case of spoiled abundance, or simply personal preference? If the original poster answers with specifics, perhaps the purpose of the discussion becomes clearer. In an age of smart machines, shrinking memory margins and an internet where a significant portion of traffic consists of automated systems wandering through forums and even opening their own topics, one hopes it is not trolling for the sake of trolling. Time is too valuable for that, they say. It could always be spent more intelligently; perhaps by actually shaping sound, which remains one of the more meaningful ways to spend it.

I am definitely not a loyal FabFilter fanboy. If I looked hard enough, and even if I didn't, as a nitpicker I would probably find quite a lot of things I would like to see in the next update. No one was ever born who could please everyone, as they say. As someone who enjoys the finer things life thankfully has to offer, I am glad that there are intelligent people whose intelligence provides us, the end users, with fine tools. In larger projects where each track will likely or certainly use at least one equalizer, the ability to avoid constantly opening and closing windows and instead edit an entire project's equalizers within a single window feels like a step forward in workflow design. Perhaps this suggests that tinkering with sound, in the context of mixing in the box, is becoming more enjoyable. Or perhaps that the FabFilter equalizer is somewhat visually unappealing. The color is not particularly inspiring, the buttons do not have high quality shadows, nor do they convincingly simulate realistic reflection. What do I know. The OP will probably not enlighten me. Which is completely okay. More than completely.

Yes, yes, and yes. "Touchy, jittery, jumpy…" controls are a big no-no. In many decades of DSP development, it is not surprising, though somehow still surprising, that only a very small percentage of developers decided to include "control/drag sensitivity" as a user-adjustable preference. Perhaps only a small number of users ever complained about "touchy, jittery, jumpy…" controls, so developers never realized that this might matter to someone. A knob that moves too fast — “Please, don't be a knob. Not that kind of knob.” — can feel nervous, almost like Xanax-withdrawal-like anxiety anxious, like trying to pet a cat that keeps thinking about running away. Good control sensitivity is like good handwriting; you don’t notice it when it is good, but you definitely notice when it is bad. Regardless of whether it is on a skeuomorphic or neumorphic cluster of pixels, Parkinson's-style fiddling is not fun.

 

I agree once again: between analog nostalgia, pretty/ugly interfaces, technological abundance and jittery knobs, what really matters is whether the tool helps create real sound (and beyond that: whether it remains cutting-edge, like the fabulous FabPlugs!). Everything else is just noise… in the case of this post, entertaining noise, but still noise!

 

Yes, I agree. Whether someone achieves satisfactory results with a tool or not is crucial in determining whether they will continue using that tool. Perhaps enjoyment also comes from using the tool, or from the entire process and the set of tools used to reach a satisfactory result. Maybe I am expanding the topic too much for the wrong context, but still — the question is what actually counts as a satisfactory result. If FabFilter has reached an "industry standard" level, then what exactly is the industry? If AI is becoming entertaining, it seems that increasingly enjoyable noise is being treated as a satisfactory result. It also seems possible that, in the foreseeable future, FabFilter, and those who work with FabFilter plugins, and those who work... may become less necessary for end users who could not care less about DSP code or the "sexy" UI of audio plugins. Those users may simply want neatly "real sound" reorganized noise — which is essentially what a sound recording is — and that may be what ultimately satisfies them. Just a thought.

 

Do you remember the first Windows 95? Gray was the color that was supposed to make us happy, and even hardware like printers, scanners, etc., was all gray. Then, many years later, one manufacturer had the courage to ship their products in black, and some others followed suit. Today, there's even some white hardware that blends in with the home decor.

My conclusion: Many things have become more aesthetically pleasing, but as always, it's about appealing to a wide range of tastes, since you want to sell a lot of products. Some companies would do well to improve their design; some plugins have buttons that are too small, some are too light or too dark, or the GUI is simply too small.

 

U sure?

As PulseWave told you before, their reverb is among the best ones in the market. EQ is top notch (tell me another EQ with a range so wide as this one going from 10 Hz to 30 kHz...). Compressor and limiter are very versatile and they work really, really well. I haven't used the rest but Volcano, Saturn and Timeless, although not so much to have an accurate opinion about them.

 

i hope they update pro eq.. im not using until they update that ugly design.. also i noticed the eq has some weird coloring sound on the audio

 

Last edited: Mar 1, 2026 at 4:49 PM

Whoooot??11!1!!

I love them because of their interface. Especially the equalizer. They 'invented' the frequency plot behind the curve. They invented q on scroll wheel. Everything we fancy in eq plugins today - they did it first.
After that they showed the world how reverb guis need to be done. And they're being copied on that a lot too.

People loved the workflow, we were like "wow, awesome, finally someone came up with sliced bread!".
You got to keep in mind: After a few years the fabfilter bundle was a staple. You can bet wherever you go, you gonna find the fabfilter bundle. Today they are more staple that fcking waves.
When I'm booked to a facility I'm usually like "Yeah, I can do with stock plugin, no problem there, the only thing I'd love to have is the fabfilter bundle". And the standard answer I get is "of course we have Fabfilter, everyone has them".

I'd really like to know what kind of guis you like best, maybe I'm not up to date and there are better workflows out there today.

 

Well, I would say that this concerning possibility still has less than a 20% chance of occurring within the next 5 to 10 years. The generative music market remains focused on human-AI collaboration, not on total replacement.

Research shows that professionals still value precise control. Surveys such as this one [https://www.musicbusinessworldwide....says-but-a-majority-shows-strong-resistance/#] indicate that 68% of studios use FabFilter or similar tools as industry standards. Casual users may migrate to generative AI solutions (and you could even add this as a problematic factor, since more and more non-professional users will start relying on AI services), but I believe relevant plugins will evolve toward hybrid integrations, like auto-mix functions, for example, where the user selects patterns and then finalizes with manual adjustments (as in iZotope Ozone 11 or Plugin Alliance, where high-level pre-configured signal chains simplify mastering through intelligent processing).

It is worth recalling the radical predictions of 2023, with sensationalist videos claiming that "AI would destroy DAWs and plugins." None of that materialized by 2026: what we see instead is mediated coexistence, with the plugin market growing between 7% and 9% annually through 2035 (based on estimates).

Therefore, I still envision a near future shaped by hybrid workflows, where tools combine manual precision with intelligent automation (ultimately ensuring that creative control remains essential). I think that’s still the envisioned scenario.

But it’s worth remembering that no one here is a clairvoyant or has a crystal ball, right? In the end, those at the top of this chain are the ones who will decide what will or won’t happen. Likewise, it is up to us to accept (or not) what will be served to us.

 

Last edited: Mar 1, 2026 at 10:23 PM

I also dislike the interface of the FabFilter Pro-Q equalizer. It constantly frustrates me that the floating parameter display of a node always obscures the analyzer precisely in the areas I want to see, especially since this toolbox cannot be moved. Furthermore, it is annoying that I always have to use drag-and-drop in that toolbox to select the slope for low-pass and high-pass filters. I cannot simply click to select a value. However, in the main interface at the bottom, it is the exact opposite: I have to click to select a slope, and drag-and-drop does not work there. This is inconsistent; I get it wrong every single time and wonder why it won't switch. These are just two of the points that bother me about the interface.

 

this is much better.. if you get a BASIC idea

 

Focus on something more important than endlessly hoping that the FabFilter GUI will change in your favor.
Voxengo Marvel GEQ free - Mastering Graphic Equalizer --> www.voxengo.com/product/marvelgeq/

 

Last edited: Mar 2, 2026 at 11:57 AM

If that actually matters to you, Sonnox Claro is 10hz to 40khz.

 

Adding to... ==>

... those come to mind ==>

* Integreted in Sequoia, as used by Ted Jensen (all engineers at Sterling Sound and other funny high end places):

EQ116 => 10 Hz - 192 kHz

FFF EQ => 90 Hz - 192 kHz, 8192 bands

* Used by George Massenburg: IRCAM FLUX Epure => 20 Hz - 80 kHz

Tweaked at home by my Siberians cats only.

 

Last edited: Mar 2, 2026 at 11:47 AM

Ok, so I have a synth with VCOs that go up to 30khz, I can get EQs that cover that range and more, but my speakers don't go that high -how do I make my neighbor's dog go insane without damaging my hearing ?

 

Put a cat behind your window.
Or put that dog in front of a mirror. Better: an acoustic mirror .

 

The point of using such high center frequencies is to get very smooth curves in the hearable range (air) when using very very low Q values, not to make 30k hearable to humans.

 

That looks terribly unuseful, you can barely see the resulting curve.

 

Oh, I read your comment like you hated the workflow.
It's true, Fabfilter GUIs are ugly.
I would not mind if there were different skins. But then again I just don't care that much about the look.
But yes, they look quite cheesy.

 

LOL, same! last year I decided to get rid of my analyzer and just throw a q3 in the master bus with no bands.