Soundgoodizer sounds like every n00b bedroom producer's wet dream.

___________________

www.jexmusic.com - My website

I thought you where joking.
But its actually called Soungoodizer.

I can't see anything about multi cpu support?
They have to support it by now...

Only certain multithread generators. If you have an fx hungry track and an average computer, basically you're doomed

___________________
*** Sig edited -> no banner advertising in sigs
http://promote.beatport.com/images/labels/1253/12531-blue-468_60.jpg

quote:

Originally posted by T-Soma I can't see anything about multi cpu support? They have to support it by now...

from that massive thread that i started (http://forum.image-line.com/viewtopic.php?t=7367) it doesn't look to me that they will ever do it. 77% of the votes demanding it asap, with no positive response from the devs, makes it pretty obvious.

reality is, FL has now fallen very far behind the market, due to poor planning. it was written in the wrong language (delphi, wtf?) and written the wrong way. you just have to accept that you probably will never have:
automatic pdc
sidechaining
full multicore support

for me, that has been enough for me to switch to cubase. others are resisting, but with multicore cpus being the future, i see it as inevitable. personally, i think imageline will develop an entirely new daw and learn from their mistakes.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox I've never had a problem with FLs tech support till this day. (I've actually never used it till this day)

quote:

Originally posted by floyd741 i think echosystm is a pretty cool guy. eh pwns robby rox and doesn't afraid of anything.

Yeah.. I dont get why he cant even assign 32 mixer tracks to 1 core, and 32 to the other.. at least.. i mean shite.

___________________
Recently released:
Aesthetic - Twilight Sky [Primal-Recordings]

http://www.wtfnews.org

quote:

Originally posted by Aesthetic Yeah.. I dont get why he cant even assign 32 mixer tracks to 1 core, and 32 to the other.. at least.. i mean shite.

i'm sure if it was that simple, he would have done it already

apparently a workaround is to use fxteleport to localhost. pretty shit workaround though, imo. i would also be interested in seeing what one can do with energyxt as a VSTi or rewired...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox I've never had a problem with FLs tech support till this day. (I've actually never used it till this day)

quote:

Originally posted by floyd741 i think echosystm is a pretty cool guy. eh pwns robby rox and doesn't afraid of anything.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm reality is, FL has now fallen very far behind the market, due to poor planning. it was written in the wrong language (delphi, wtf?) and written the wrong way. you just have to accept that you probably will never have: automatic pdc sidechaining full multicore support for me, that has been enough for me to switch to cubase. others are resisting, but with multicore cpus being the future, i see it as inevitable. personally, i think imageline will develop an entirely new daw and learn from their mistakes.

I beg to differ on this one sir. I for one believe that FLStudio has not fallen behind and does not need full multi-core support. If you stop to think about it, the majority of FL users create some type of EDM or hip hop beats. Trance is probably the most FX heavy genre of music created in FL Studio.

That being said, I run a 2.6ghz AMD Athlon 64 x2 with 2GB of ram along with an M-Audio Firewire Solo audio interface clocking 5ms latency in FL Studio running 32bit depth interger and 44.1khz sampling rates. I open some of my biggest projects with many generators and tons of FX left and right and i still have not managed to even peak far above 50% cpu being used. Ry Thomas said with an average computer you'd be doomed ifyour track was fx heavy. This may be true but you must also remember that the "average" computer only has a single core processor running around 2.4ghz-3.0ghz and 512MB-1GB of ram as a standard right now. That being said, multi-core would be no use to them at all. Any computer running a dual-core with 2.0ghz and at least 1GB of ram should be able to tackle even the biggest trance projects under 80% of cpu used in FL Studio with multithread generator support on and smart disable on all plugins.

So my question is why put in the time and effort and money for full multi-core support when 99.9% of the time users wont even NEED it. Not to mention that the money that they spend integrating this feature will show up in the the retail price. Why charge people for something they don't even need and most likely wont ever have complete use for?

The only reason i can see people wanting to have full multi-core support is if they are trying to run 96khz or 192khz sampling rates along with a higher sampling interpolations.

I just think Image-line is just thinking logically because, again, 99% of the users arent going to be using ultra high sampling rates or interpolations in live playback of the sequencer. More than often people save that for the final wav render.

As for sidechaining, FL does support it. They even have a Sidechaining template in File -> New from template -> Utility (in FLStudio 7+). Sidechaning in FL Studio is a lil different than in other DAWs but it gets the job done just as good as any other. Any Maor Levi or Breakfast track is a fine example of FLStudio sidechaining.

As for automatic pdc im not sure what that is. would you care to explain?

when i was still using FL, i used roughly 3 generators per track, on average. everything else was samples and so forth. so, obviously, FX vastly outweighed generators on cpu load. with fl, i have maxed out a 1.8ghz core2 easily. in cubase, i get nowhere near it. fl also has very bad low latency performance, but that is an entirely separate problem...

fl does not support sidechain compression. the peak limiter method is gain ducking, not sidechain compression.

auto pdc = automatic plugin delay compensation. fl studio doesn't have it. you obviously don't use very complex fx plugins, as this problem would have bitten you on the ass already... (hint: try vintage warmer or a good linear phase eq).

imo, you beg to differ because your projects are still in their infancy. many of us have outgrown fl and these are some of the reasons why. the facts are, FL is lacking some very fundamental things that are just EXPECTED of a daw these days. they may not affect you yet (which they obviously don't), but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

i am entirely aware that many of these things will probably not be fixed for logical reasons, like you say. fruity noobs don't know the difference, so they are probably better off just making more shit house inbuilt plugins to capture new customers (new money). hell, if i was them, i would do it too. but that doesn't mean that more experienced users aren't allowed to be pissed off by it.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox I've never had a problem with FLs tech support till this day. (I've actually never used it till this day)

quote:

Originally posted by floyd741 i think echosystm is a pretty cool guy. eh pwns robby rox and doesn't afraid of anything.

Im thinking the VSTi version of FL will be valuable to those who still want to use it, inside ANOTHER multi-threaded host. Can anyone confirm multiple FL VSTi instances distributing over multiple cores?

___________________
http://www.myspace.com/dreamsiegemusic

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm when i was still using FL, i used roughly 3 generators per track, on average. everything else was samples and so forth. so, obviously, FX vastly outweighed generators on cpu load. with fl, i have maxed out a 1.8ghz core2 easily. in cubase, i get nowhere near it. fl also has very bad low latency performance, but that is an entirely separate problem... fl does not support sidechain compression. the peak limiter method is gain ducking, not sidechain compression. auto pdc = automatic plugin delay compensation. fl studio doesn't have it. you obviously don't use very complex fx plugins, as this problem would have bitten you on the ass already... (hint: try vintage warmer or a good linear phase eq). imo, you beg to differ because your projects are still in their infancy. many of us have outgrown fl and these are some of the reasons why. the facts are, FL is lacking some very fundamental things that are just EXPECTED of a daw these days. they may not affect you yet (which they obviously don't), but that doesn't mean they aren't there. i am entirely aware that many of these things will probably not be fixed for logical reasons, like you say. fruity noobs don't know the difference, so they are probably better off just making more shit house inbuilt plugins to capture new customers (new money). hell, if i was them, i would do it too. but that doesn't mean that more experienced users aren't allowed to be pissed off by it.

Yes but what i argue is that two of the three points you are making puting down flstudio can be dealt with.

The multicore support is not needed. I believe that you really dont need to go all out and use a high tech fx plugin for everything you need to EQ, compress, reverb, delay, phase, flange, distort or filter. In a 16bit 44.1khz world it is extremely hard to notice whether you are using a good linear phase EQ vs. Fruity Parametic EQ 2. Sure you might have to work a lil harder with the Fruity one but its worth it to save CPU. Same goes for all other FX plugins. Seriously, take a fruity plugin, then get a more "high end" plugin, then give them the same settings or close to the same settings and run a generator with a few notes playing then render each two different mp3s. A to B them I guarantee there wont be much difference, if any, at all. The only difference you will here is when using higher sampling rates. Save the high tech stuff for the master channel and you shouldnt have a problem at all.

As for sidechain compression, sure FLStudio might not have a sidechain compression plugin dedicated to sidechain compression, but if you think about it, in the world of electronic dance music what do we use sidechaining for? Ducking. And this is exactly what the Peak Controller allows you to do. It sounds just like sidechain compression. And if you want to get really technical about it and don't like the idea of level/gain ducking then you can in fact take a Peak Controller, link some parameters to a Fruity Compressor on the desired channel and wala, sidechain compression. Not to mention fully customizable sidechain compression via peak controllers base, volume, and decay rates and the compressors attack/release rates.

I find that the only real valid point you have against FLStudio is Auto PDC, which i think what was writtin in my first paragraph probably could takes care of why FLStudio really wouldnt need that.

Hitting the limits of your CPU?

Bounce.

If you are organised about it, it isn't even an inconvenience.