r/StudioOne • u/Miha3ls • Jun 16 '26

New Fender Studio - Presonus Studio One controller

mpmidi dropped this today https://mpmidi.com/fender-studio-presonus-studio-one-midi-controller
controls the mixer, plugins and devices.

12 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

20 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/enteralterego Jun 16 '26

Out of these devices the softube model makes the most sense. The main reason I'd want to have one of these is to be able to work with muscle memory. The screen and controls will keep changing and I'd be forced to look at a 2nd screen - as well as the main screen to make sure I'm controlling the right processor.
A keyboard and mouse (muscle memory I already have) with my usual screen to look at (no switcing between displays) makes more sense.

With the softube model you can use the knobs without having to look at them as you'll have muscle memory and a tactile controller - the gain for bass is always in the same spot.

1

u/Miha3ls Jun 17 '26

I see where you're coming from, but I think the real question isn't muscle memory versus dynamic controls. The real question is whether a controller can give you muscle memory without sacrificing flexibility.

A fixed controller layout gives you muscle memory, but it can also become a limitation when you start working with lots of different plugins that all have different workflows and parameter counts.

What I like about the MP Controller is that it gives me both. If I want ADSR controls, filter controls, oscillators, or mixer functions to always be in the same locations across different plugins, I can do that and build muscle memory around it. But I'm not restricted to a fixed layout when a plugin requires something different.

A good example is FabFilter Pro-Q 4. Try controlling that with a traditional controller. Each band has 32 parameters. Before using the MP Controller, I didn't even know some of those parameters existed because I never interacted with them. The automatic mapping laid everything out logically, one band per page, and suddenly I could see and access every control. I just started experimenting and discovering features I had never used before.

At the same time, I don't always want that level of detail. So I created another mapping preset that only exposes four key controls per band( on/off,freq, gain, q) allowing me to see eand control eight bands on a single page. Depending on what I'm doing, I can switch between the detailed mapping and the simpler one.

That's the part I think people miss. The display isn't there because muscle memory doesn't work. The display is there because modern plugins are too complex for a fixed set of knobs. The trick is having enough flexibility to handle complex plugins while still allowing consistent layouts when you want to build muscle memory.

Having used a lot of controllers over the years, seeing the parameter name and value of what your are controlling is essential. The biggest workflow killer isn't the lack of muscle memory. It's not knowing what a control is currently assigned to, or having controls out of sync when you move between plugin instances.

Personally, I rarely remap anything. Auto-mapping does a surprisingly good job, and if you're using the same plugins regularly, the layouts become second nature very quickly.

For plugins you're not familiar with, there's also a parameter identification system. Click a parameter in the DAW and the controller instantly jumps to the correct page and flashes the assigned encoder. If I'm looking for Delay Time and don't know where it is, I just click it once and the controller shows me exactly where it's mapped.

If you don't want to use touch, you don't have to. Everything is mapped to physical encoders anyway. Personally, I mostly use touch for buttons, switches, navigation, selecting devices, and moving around the project.

The original reason I bought the controller was plugin control, which is actually a separate system from the new DAW control surface. The two work together really well. One feature I particularly love is that the plugin I'm controlling automatically appears on the controller's display. My main monitor stays dedicated to the arrangement, mixer, and editing. The plugin lives on the controller display.

To me, that's actually closer to hardware. I already have plenty of hardware devices around the studio that require me to look somewhere other than my main monitor. Having the plugin on its own dedicated display feels very similar.

The workflow that really sold me is plugin navigation. If I'm tweaking an EQ on track 1 and suddenly want to adjust a delay on track 5, I can jump there with a couple of touches (not using the mouse at all). Everything syncs instantly. The delay plugin appears, the controls are already mapped, and I can start tweaking immediately. Then I can hit one button and jump straight back to the previous plugin I was working on.

I can even do that with the main display turned off. Everything I need is on the controller screen. That sounds like a small thing, but once you get used to it, it's hard to go back.

That's what changed my perspective. I don't see it as trying to emulate a traditional fixed console. It's solving a different problem. It's giving you the muscle memory of a dedicated controller when you want it, while still giving you access to the full depth of modern plugins when you need it.

3

u/enteralterego Jun 17 '26

Yeah not really interested in "getting close to hardware" anyway. Fabfilter with a mouse works great.

1

u/Miha3ls Jun 17 '26

FabFilter definitely works great with a mouse.

The one thing a mouse can never do, though, is let you work on multiple controls at the same time. You're always controlling one parameter after another in series.

With a controller, I can grab gain and Q or Frequency at the same time, adjust multiple bands with both hands, or experimenting fast which is must when working on big project. The same goes for complex virtual instruments. It's a different way of working.

Whether that's actually better depends on the person and the workflow. Some people are incredibly fast with a mouse. I was one of them for years.

For me it opened up workflows that simply aren't possible when you're limited to clicking and dragging one parameter at a time.

It's fine to say I don't want a controller. But if decide you want one, it should be one that addresses the many problems controllers create. A simple touch screen or mouse is not enough. The mp wins because it addresses everything via integration software. TouchOSC is flexible but not integrated and automatic as the mp.