Presonus FaderPort 8 and 16 work great with S1. I am repeating what I have said elsewhere now. It is really tight integration and goes way beyond simple write/read automation. 
Lots of vids you can view now.

35mm not trying to sell you on S1. Very personal choice. I will say i was totally underwhelmed the first couple of times i tried demo. Thought the instruments sounded weak and i thought the hype was just that. Oddly, my shopping for DAWs for a studio made StudionOne the sensible choice and forced me to dive in. Once i did, i discovered it is deceptively more powerful than my demo sessions indicated

Midiboy

outland144k
 
O[font="'book antiqua', palatino; color: #003366"]kay, let me see if I understand you. You think this:
 
 
 
looks like this:
 

 
Really? I'm not criticizing whether you like it or not as that's an entirely personal decision, but you honestly think that these are somehow similar? You think Studio One is based on Kristal? How?
 
I can't see it at all.

While I agree that current Studio One looks nothing like Kristal, I hate to break it to you...it IS based on Kristal.  They created Studio One in collaboration with Presonus.   Yes, it's come a VERY long way. 
 

I know about the connection, I missed the point Noize was making because the OP started this thread talking about the GUI. So, I responded to Noize with this (FWIW):
 
(BOQ)
[<font]Okay, Noize, I'm sorry, I think I was thrown because this thread is about the GUI. You're talking about development.
 
Still, I'm not sure how having a joint development with KristalLabs is a show stopper. And it doesn't sound like Studio One was based on Kristal at all (FWIW). From the site:
 
Studio One, a new music creation and production application for Mac OS X and Windows XP/Vista, developed by KristalLabs in cooperation with PreSonus has been unveiled at Musikmesse Frankfurt.

After three years of development, Studio One (formerly code-named K2) is a fresh and innovative new platform....
 
From this, it sounds more like a brand new start.
 
(EOQ)
 
 

Anderton
As I've said before, I've continued to use Studio One for its mastering page for album assembly and mastering tweaks in parallel with SONAR. The idea of taking advantage of SOP's Song and Project page integration is pretty exciting to me, and something that no other DAW has. Yes, there's a learning curve...I think there's no way around that.
 
SOP is deceptively simple looking, but there's more under the hood than it might seem at first. No, I don't think it looks as good as SONAR, but nothing else does IMHO. Things like adding FX to clips is also clunkier, but then again, there are things SOP does that are clunky to do in SONAR.

 
I agree Craig and have been mentioning SO's hidden mastering section - the Project page. If you are only doing one or two songs, creating a project is probably not necessary. But if you are working on a larger number of song sets that may become independent projects then the Project page gives that added organization you never thought you needed. Additionally, if you are a studio doing multiple sessions each week the project page helps stay focused on the recording part of business and not the computer side.
 
Take care,
h
 

Can someone familiar with studio1 tell me if it can do "fit improvisation" like SONAR?  IE tap a tempo through the song to create a variable tempo map? 
 
I googled and looked on youtube and what I found was either use $$$$ melodyne full, or time consuming and insanely complicated.

Tom B
Had to edit my post since Hbarton already answered most of your questions.  I'll try to answer the remaining one:
 
7. Studio One found the Cakewalk LP EQ and it seems to work.
 I downloaded the Studio One demo last night.  I also have more questions about Studio One.  So far, the experienced Studio One folks have been very helpful.  I'm not yet sure which DAW will eventually replace SONAR.

 
Did you have to Move the Cakewalk LP EQ to get SO to "see" it?
 

Just make sure that the path is set in Studio One preferences and you are good to go.

Just like sonar, you have to go in prefernces and add paths. Needlesa to say, the cakewalk vst filepathd are not default in any DAW outside of cakewalk.

patm300e

Tom B
Had to edit my post since Hbarton already answered most of your questions.  I'll try to answer the remaining one:
 
7. Studio One found the Cakewalk LP EQ and it seems to work.
 I downloaded the Studio One demo last night.  I also have more questions about Studio One.  So far, the experienced Studio One folks have been very helpful.  I'm not yet sure which DAW will eventually replace SONAR.

 
Did you have to Move the Cakewalk LP EQ to get SO to "see" it?
 

Interestingly, Studio One found all my Waves and Cakewalk VST plugins when I first ran the demo.  It didn't find the  UAD plugins, and I had to add a VST path.
 
Like others have said, you may need to add  VST path(s) in the 'Options' window.  It's easy:
- Menu "Studio One > Options"   -or-  Ctrl,   (notice the comma)
- Under options, pick the "Locations" tab.   Navigate to "VST Plug-Ins"
- Add your VST paths.  
 
So far, these are the paths in my VST setup:
C:\Program Files\Cakewalk\Vstplugins
C:\Program Files\Universal Audio\Powered Plugins\UAD-2 Powered Plugins
 
Of course, it will depend upon where your plugins are located.  
 
Edit: reworded a sentence.

outland144k

Serious_Noize!
I tried the Demo of Studio One. It's a Joke honestly in my opinion. 
 
Here's the first problem I had with it, it is based off this freebie software from years ago that is still available for download, even though it is limited called Kristal -  http://kreatives.org/kristal/
 
And if you want to DEMO studio one you have to give them a bunch of information/email etc...... Just to download a demo. 
 
I say NO to Studio One. It's no Cakewalk that's for sure......... 
 

Okay, let me see if I understand you. You think this:
 
 
 
looks like this:
 

 
Really? I'm not criticizing whether you like it or not as that's an entirely personal decision, but you honestly think that these are somehow similar? You think Studio One is based on Kristal? How?
 
I can't see it at all.

I never said they were similar "LOOKING", I'm saying that the foundation for the daw is based on the origins of the Kristal software. Doesn't necessarily make it bad or good. But in terms of years of development from that stand point it is no Sonar. 
 
The fact that you can't try the demo without giving them a bunch of information is a big turn off for me. Secondly, I know someone who purchased one of their Audio interfaces and their audio interface didn't last no time, and they told me the software had to be connected to the internet to get it activated, which was a big problem for my friend, meaning unless something has changed, no offline activation. <----- I'm not saying that is true, that is what a friend told me, but since you can't simply download a demo and try it out because they ask for personal information I will never know. 
 
Either way, I am sticking with Cakewalk software regardless. I am not running no studio for money or nothing like that, and I don't consider myself a professional musician, and Sonar can do everything more than I will ever need. 
 
Either way, I wanted to clarify what I meant. Happy Holidays!