by Stefan Wyeth | Approximate reading time: 2 Minutes
Fender has acquired PreSonus

What does Fender's acquisition of PreSonus mean for the rest of the industry?  ·  Source: Gearnews


In today’s top story in music tech, Fender acquires Presonus in a move that could have a huge impact on the recording industry world. Fender Musical Instruments Corporation (FMIC) is currently the largest manufacturer of musical instruments worldwide and as a household name in music for over 75 years, it seems this acquisition will offer diversification and specialization in new areas. Based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, PreSonus Audio Electronics, Inc. has been a steady innovator in recording and live music solutions since the mid-90s.


Fender acquires Presonus in a game-changing power play, the question is why?

Although PreSonus has always been a producer of consistent quality hardware, it’s their software development division that has created more waves than many in the industry since the introduction of Studio One in late 2009. This is a massive expansion for Fender, as the Studio One user base is a dynamic and steadily growing community this provides the perfect platform for the development of new virtual instruments and audio processing tools as well as hardware peripherals. Fender’s extensive history provides all the market data necessary to turn this merger with PreSonus into a launching pad for exciting new developments in the future.

Were it not for the overwhelming success of the Studio One DAW software system, it seems unlikely that an acquisition of this nature would have taken place. The move is certainly an exciting prospect for Studio One users, as there will be interesting developments on the horizon, but this could also be the first of many acquisitions for Fender, as they continue to diversify into the world of music production software and DSP solutions. Nevertheless, it is an interesting shift in the market, and we’ll keep an eye on the Fender newsroom feed in the next few months.

What’s your take on the acquisition? What direction do you think Fender is going to take PreSonus in the future? Let us know in the comments below.

More from Fender and PreSonus


32 responses to “Fender acquires Presonus: What does the future hold for musicians?”

  1. Diki Ross says:

    Help me here. I’m struggling to remember the last corporate buyout of a successful software and hardware company by a large company with little success in this field that turned out well…

    • Stefan Wyeth says:

      You’re right, historically, acquisitions have very seldom preserved the integrity of the original brand. Every company is different though, thankfully Fender has quite a different approach to Music Tribe or Harman(Samsung).

      • William Paxson says:

        Yeah, Fender did really “well” (sarcasm intended) by Sunn, Tobias, SWR, and Guild. Luckily, Fender sold Guild to someone who valued the brand and has at least worked hard to rebuild it instead of just killing it like they did the others.

        • James says:

          So Fender chose to absorb Sunn and SWR into its own operations. And?
          Their product lines evolved to produce similar products, whereas that other company just stuffed everything up and never compensated for it. Well, now it’s trying to in some cases, with little success.
          Do tell us what Fender did to Tobias, William, since you’re obviously an expert in music industry matters. Start with when Fender bought Tobias, see how much further you get. (This will be interesting … and super-ironic.)
          And curious to know why you chose to omit Charvel, Jackson, and Gretsch Guitars from your list of Fender acquisitions. Any reason in particular?

          • James says:

            (For those of you who aren’t internet blowhards who rush to post before checking you’ve got the first clue what you are talking about, Tobias was bought and ruined by Gibson, and Fender have sent Charvel, Jackson and Gretsch Guitars sales to the moon.)

          • William Paxson says:

            Tobias was an unintended error on my part, I meant to say Tacoma. Sorry you got all ruffled by my small mistake. As for Sunn and SWR, both were successful lines and both made better an better selling bass amps than anything Fender developed from them and tried to sell on their own (and yes I sold all three lines at the time). And fender has never made anthing remotely comparable to the Sunn Model T.

          • James says:

            Oh for an edit button, right?
            An “unintended error”? You make intended errors? Did you mean to let us know that? Freudian slip?
            It’s never ruffling to point out someone is posting nonsense. A small mistake? You didn’t spell it incorrectly, you raised an entirely different company, bought by the other company which funnily enough has the lousiest track record of them all! The irony of it. But moving on …
            Your reason for leaving out Charvel, Jackson, and Gretsch Guitars? Check your reply before rushing to hit the post comment button this time, lest you make another “unintended error”.

          • William Paxson says:

            As a simple explanation of a simple error (and the fact that there is no “edit button” here unlike the comments sections on most websites to correct something that was inadvertently posted) is beyond your tolerance (and playing psychologist is unbecoming for you) you’ll just have to take my explanation or not. As far as the other companies you mentioned, Fender did not buy Gretsch (they just handle the “nuts and bolts” of marketing, production, and distribution with Fred Gretsch still owning the company) and Gretsch’s comeback and reestablishment as a professional grade guitar company was conceived and executed by Fred Gretsch when he relaunched the top tier Gretsch guitar line made in Japan by Terada before any involvement with Fender. As for Charvel/Jackson, they were as successful and professionally accepted (especially in the “metal community”) before Fender bought them and all that shows is that Fender has managed not to screw them up (which is fortunate for Fender as they have never been able to make a “metal’ guitar that anybody for the most part has wanted). All those two examples show is that Fender, like the proverbial blind pig, can find an acorn or two once in awhile and not manage to mess up.

    • Cooper says:

      It’s generally not a great prospect, but Yamaha’s done really well turning around some of the brands they bought like Line 6, and more on the hardware side than software with Ampeg.

      They’re pretty selective with who they acquire though because they can do so much in-house already. I guess the thing here is whether Fender bought them with a strategy in mind already or just thought “let’s go buy a console/daw company” and played pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey about which one.

    • W says:


      • Cooper says:

        The only reason line 6 is more than the beginner practice gear it used to be is because Yamaha bought them.

        Say what you will, but from pianos to motorcycles to industrial helium leak detectors Yamaha doesn’t put their name on crap gear.

  2. Jetboy says:

    Who could forget the Gibson/Cakewalk fiasco? A template for what not to do.

  3. Ben says:

    May end up like Cakewalk and Gibson.

  4. TC Thomas says:

    Excited! Fender guy for over 5o years! Presonus user also! Can’t wait. Maybe some fender amp plugins?

    • Kris says:

      That’s great for you and only for guys like you : Fender fans. And a reason for anyone else to look for a different DAW.

  5. Steven B Benson says:

    As a Studio1 user, I hope Fender doesn’t do what Gibson did to Cakewalk SONAR, which I used for twenty years.

  6. Kip says:

    Studio one will become subscription only, they are following Microsoft example, the lesson platform failed to generate revenue due to youtube.

  7. Frank says:

    This is not a good thing at all for home recording musicians, sorry if that offends anyone but it’s true.

  8. William rice says:

    Fender does not own gretsch they have a production and marketing agreement…as far as production not really convinced there better products but they can sure crank out more of them for a lower cost to consumers.

  9. James Walker says:

    I am glad I did not take the job offer from Presonus in June. This blows. I remember what Gibson did to OPCODE. This is REALLY bad!

    • kevmac says:

      Uh oh, guess what DAW this noob is using? I have bought a few add ons and the V5 which is a hundred bucks.Im just starting to get a grasp on it and now this.It figures.

    • OG Wiz says:

      I was looking for this comment because I was going to say the same thing. Almost 23 years later and I’m still salty about that. Gibson took the best DAW available for Macintosh and drive it into the ground. It did lead me to the Digi001 and Pro Tools but it was still a major blow.

  10. Klemen Kotar says:

    I was about to subscribe to Sphere (well, when v6 comes out if not before) but I’m not so eager now.

    Presonus did fine on their own. As much as I like Fender guitars and basses (JMJ bass and a mex Telecaster here) I don’t see this as good news.

  11. JB says:

    Fender has about the worst track record with supporting software that I can think of. They were still selling Mustang amps directly when the Fuse software for them was already out of support and without a replacement planned. Same with the Cyber line prior to that.

    As a Studio One user I will likely go back to Ableton unless Fender largely remains hands off or defers to Presonus as the experts in the relationship.

    Fender seems to be headed down the same path Gibson went down. Just replace overpriced sunburst studio monitors with the Gibson logo on them with overpriced sunburst turntables with the Fender logo on them.

  12. Kris says:

    Can’t see how guitar making company can have thrilling development prospects for Studio One development. This is rather sad news. But then I’m happy that I didn’t purchase Studio One but used Sphere subscription. Makes it easier to switch to a different DAW.

  13. Kevin Lofton says:


  14. Patrick Viens says:

    What a bad choice of picture to support to convey this news. This is not it. Why not a handshake?

  15. Sarah Jane says:

    Maybe Fender just wants to own a DAW and figured Studio One was the best horse to put their money on. If any DAW manages to knock ProTools off of its “industry standard” perch, I think Studio One might be it. Regardless, there’s no reason to freak out and catastrophize. It could as easily be a good thing as a bad thing, or a neutral thing. Presonus could ruin Studio One without Fender’s help, like if they decide to focus too much on the copy-and-paste hobbyists and forget about the needs of professional users. Anyway, I’m not going to worry about it ’til Fender and/or Presonus gives me a good reason to.

  16. Q says:

    Fender, the world’s largest musical instrument manufacturer worldwide? Really?

    When Yamaha manufactures guitars, basses, synths, keyboards, pianos and pretty much every type of orchestral instrument there is?

  17. M A Turpen says:

    This may prove poor or great judgement wise.. yet it allows smaller new or innovative companies with better software and execution to jump in to the fray if Fender gibsons this merger… Just a thought… Competition rules innovation..

  18. jjjjj says:

    let’s see…
    not sure about fender
    but gibson fucked-up everything last years, even themselves
    that’s life of business anyway
    just keep your copies of studio one and licences in multiple place, DAW with so much power can still be used in years even without upgrades

  19. Guitar Monkey says:

    Well, let’s just see where this goes. I been playing Fender Guitars for 41 years. I do own other guitars also. But, the software should be hands off. When Cakewalk, Gibson, screwed that up, went down the Tubes. Hopefully there is more Intelligence at the Fender Headquarters. So, keep the fingers crossed… Guitar Monkey

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.