|
So I picked up FL Studio 5 today.... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Bedlam-UK |
I'd recommend an m-audio 2496 as the ultimate proaudio-startup asio card. I started with this card and I still use it along with a TC-Powercore.
I find FL is much harder and eye straining to work on (especially at 4.am trance hours). Also, no advance channel mixing capabilities and fx routing is limited. Although it does have some great soft synths.
My views on Reason are very similar to FL although they are both capable sequencers. I find the sound output quality, especially the fx sounds too sqeaky and digital.
Cubase is they way to go for pro mixing, FX, midi, audio and Ableton live is excellent audio tool too. |
|
|
| IDarkISwordI |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bedlam-UK
Also, no advance channel mixing capabilities and fx routing is limited. |
Care to justify this statement with some examples and give Cubase alternatives? Atleast in FLS you can move the FX up and down, unlike some other hosts *cough* Cubase *cough*. |
|
|
| Bedlam-UK |
| quote: | Originally posted by IDarkISwordI
Care to justify this statement with some examples and give Cubase alternatives? Atleast in FLS you can move the FX up and down, unlike some other hosts *cough* Cubase *cough*. |
Justify ??? are you on the defense or something ???
It's just my experience when using FL comapred to cubase. The FL mixer and fx panels are little boxes with tiny buttons and sliders all packed together. Also, the eq which is only 3 bands and 4 sends compared to 5 bands and 8 sends in cubase.
In cubase the mixer panel is large with all the eq, fx etc.. clearly visible and looking much more like a real mixer panel. VU meters clearly visible and readable with accurate DB labels and not percent values which are totally meaningless in pro audio work.
MIDI editing in cubase is what cubase was designed for and FL just can't compete at this level.
I don't realy understand what you mean by the *cough* move fx comment, but I certainly have no problem with FX in cubase by any means. The FX in cubase is awesome................unlike some other hosts *cough* FL *cough*. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by IDarkISwordI
FLS has full wav editing functionality as Cubase does. |
Oh no it doesn't. I'm sorry, but I have to put my foot down on that one. FLS can cut and arrange, but it has absolutely NO offline processing capability and doesn't have a proper pool like Cubase does. Timestretching leaves much to be desired, and the clunky audio editor that's integrated with the playlist and automation editor makes it very hard to do precise editing (i.e. quantized to 1/128th of a note).
Sure, you can take it offline into Sound Forge or Wavelab, but even those programs do not have the same level of sophistication as Cubase (i.e. the Offline Process History). And you lose the ability to quantize and snap to other pieces of the music.
I will grant you that FLS is more than capable of producing quality tracks, but its audio manipulation capability is, to say the least, primitive. Take it from someone who does A LOT of audio editing - FLS is still living in the Jurassic era when it comes to audio.
I really don't want to start a flame war, and like I said, FLS is a very capable sequencer on its own, but anyone who says it can handle audio as well as Cubase obviously doesn't work with audio too much.
| quote: | Originally posted by IDarkISwordI
Care to justify this statement with some examples and give Cubase alternatives? Atleast in FLS you can move the FX up and down, unlike some other hosts *cough* Cubase *cough*. |
Right... and it takes all of 3 extra seconds to click on "store preset", open up the effect in another slot, and pick the corresponding preset from the drop-down list. A capability which, I might add, FLS does not have. ;) I'll agree that Steinberg ought to get on the ball and implement that, since it seems ridiculously simple to do, but how often do you really need to move effects anyway? I think I've needed to that maybe twice.
Don't even try to compare the routing on FLS to Cubase... FLS has no sidechain capabilities whatsoever! (And I'm NOT talking about the bassducking effect people ramble on about in this forum, I'm talking about the ability to route a track to more than one output). |
|
|
| IDarkISwordI |
Hey. You are so wrong on almost every single point you tried to make lol. Too late on that, not trying to start a flame war cause you got one :P.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
FLS can cut and arrange, but it has absolutely NO offline processing capability. |
Interesting. I thought that it was pretty easy to drop in a wav file into the playlist and then drop in FX, automate them and then render the wav to a new one. Guess thats absolutely nothing like Cubase. True enough, offline FX dont work as well as they should when rendering tracks but honestly, how many offline FX do you need that cant be supplemented by a just as worthy real-time effect.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Timestretching leaves much to be desired... |
Another foolish statement. The Fruity Sampler allows full time stretching capabilities and they are quite nice. The lack of formant preserve is a dissapointment to me but thats not a common effect except when I'm doing vocals.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
...the clunky audio editor that's integrated with the playlist and automation editor makes it very hard to do precise editing (i.e. quantized to 1/128th of a note). |
Another misconception. You can even turn snapping off in FLS and have a resolution as acurate as your screen resolution is. Although, getting down to 128th notes is as easy as zooming in on the playlist and setting the snapping rules to 1/4th. You can even go down to 192nd notes in snapping.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Right... and it takes all of 3 extra seconds to click on "store preset", open up the effect in another slot, and pick the corresponding preset from the drop-down list. A capability which, I might add, FLS does not have. ;) I'll agree that Steinberg ought to get on the ball and implement that, since it seems ridiculously simple to do, but how often do you really need to move effects anyway? I think I've needed to that maybe twice. |
You might be shocked to learn, FLS can save presets for any plugin there is. Interestingly enough, not only can you do that, but you can also save entire FX channels as presets and load them up into another FX channel. And about the you not needing to move FX around a lot, I think youre not expirimenting enough with your music then because you can get a completely different sound by swapping say... a phaser and a delay so that the delay comes after the phaser.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Don't even try to compare the routing on FLS to Cubase... FLS has no sidechain capabilities whatsoever! (And I'm NOT talking about the bassducking effect people ramble on about in this forum, I'm talking about the ability to route a track to more than one output). |
*shakes head* I'm beginning to think you have never even used FLS5. You can do this in FLS fully. If you want to run a sound through 64 FX channels, then you can do that. As for routing it to more than one output, this is not really going to be needed, but if you do, its easy enough to use a send.
Next time, before bashing FLS, make sure you know what your talking about because I believe I've hit jsut about every point you brought up, and surprisingly, FLS has everything you said it didnt. Interesting...
Cheers,
Zac |
|
|
| Bedlam-UK |
Can I join in :crazy:
| quote: | Originally posted by IDarkISwordI
If you want to run a sound through 64 FX channels, then you can do that. As for routing it to more than one output, this is not really going to be needed, but if you do, its easy enough to use a send.
|
Why wouldn't this be needed ????? :haha:
I think youre not experimenting enough with your music or choice of sequencer......
I use Pre-Post Fader Send FX and FL does not have this.
I use Pre-Post EQ Inserts and FL does not have this.
I use Group Channels for FX and Audio and FL does not have this.
I use Mixer maps for controlling outboard gear, not in FL.
I use channel linking alot which enable me to mute/solo groups of
channels which FL is seriouly lacking.
Through my use of FL it does not have any professional mixing capablitlites and is simply a tool for creating loops and quick melodies.
I'm not saying FL is useless by any means, i'm just saying it does not have the mixing capablilties that I would expect from a sequencer. |
|
|
| IDarkISwordI |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bedlam-UK
Can I join in :crazy:
Why wouldn't this be needed ????? :haha:
I think youre not experimenting enough with your music or choice of sequencer......
I use Pre-Post Fader Send FX and FL does not have this.
I use Pre-Post EQ Inserts and FL does not have this.
I use Group Channels for FX and Audio and FL does not have this.
I use Mixer maps for controlling outboard gear, not in FL.
I use channel linking alot which enable me to mute/solo groups of
channels which FL is seriouly lacking.
Through my use of FL it does not have any professional mixing capablitlites and is simply a tool for creating loops and quick melodies.
I'm not saying FL is useless by any means, i'm just saying it does not have the mixing capablilties that I would expect from a sequencer. |
You are also wrong my friend. The first two cover essentially the same issue and true enough that FLS does not have a direct capability to do this, but that does not mean I couldnt jerry rig something together to do the exact same thing. Just because youre too lazy to try and invent ways, and instead try to take the shortest possible way, does not mean its impossible to do it.
For the 'group channels' that Cubase has. This is also very easy to do with the dashboard plugin with FLS. With the dashboard plugin, you can even design your own interface layout, including knobs, sliders and and output indicators to control a bunch of FX channels simultaneously. This is a small task of right clicking the volume control or whatever control you want to control, and then linking it to a slider you have made on the dashboard. I find mixing this way, no matter the sequencer, a little more restrictive than actually listening over and over again to a mix and actually engineering it but to each his own.
A similar case is seen with the 'mixer maps'. As I understand they are used to control MIDI gear with either a lookalike interface or somethign more intuitive so that you can control the parameters from within cubase. This can be done using the same dashboard plugin. The dashboard allows you to assign the sliders/knobs/indicators to any controller of your choice. I havent expirimented a lot with its capability but I'm decently sure it is capable of sending sysex data.
The last one is the one you get me on. I would really like to be able to mute a bunch of FX channels at once but this is not as easy as pressing a button. Definitely should and msot likely will be in FLS6 although, 1 out of 5 is not quite justification to consider it an unequal sequencer. Seriously, try it out and know what youre talking about before you jump in.
Cheers,
Zac |
|
|
| Bedlam-UK |
| I have tried it out and I do know what I'm talking about, how do you think I know all this. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| IDarkISwordI |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bedlam-UK
I have tried it out and I do know what I'm talking about, how do you think I know all this. :rolleyes: |
Obviously you dont know everything about it then ;). |
|
|
| Bedlam-UK |
| quote: | Originally posted by IDarkISwordI
Obviously you dont know everything about it then ;). |
True, apart from it's fiddly nature and disregard for human eyes.
I only use it for a soft synth via VST. |
|
|
| IDarkISwordI |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bedlam-UK
True, apart from it's fiddly nature and disregard for human eyes.
I only use it for a soft synth via VST. |
LOL. Quit scrounging for reasons to dislike FLS. I find its skin to be quite easy on the eyes. I hate staring at a brightly colored for a long time. High contrast is best for me and trust me when I say that is by far a very preferential and opinion based thing. Look how many skins are available for WinAmp and hell even Windows and Linux. Seriously... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Oh for 's sake. This is why I hate FL users - they all assume that because THEY haven't experienced a particular limitation, then the limitation doesn't physically exist. Because your productions are the most complex productions in existence, right? :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by IDarkISwordI
I thought that it was pretty easy to drop in a wav file into the playlist and then drop in FX, automate them and then render the wav to a new one. Guess thats absolutely nothing like Cubase. True enough, offline FX dont work as well as they should when rendering tracks but honestly, how many offline FX do you need that cant be supplemented by a just as worthy real-time effect. |
You've got to be kidding me on this one. When I'm editing audio I'll take a half-second clip and perform about 10 different effect processes on it, then 10 completely different ones on another half-second clip. I have the feeling that you imagine the most complex scenario to be a sweeping filter or phaser on a big chunk of audio - it's not. Many producers use tons of different effects on little slices of audio that can't be modelled by a couple of FX and automation tracks.
How many offline FX do I need? You'd be surprised. What you don't seem to understand is that the whole reason Steinberg implemented this functionality in Cubase SX was because the users wanted it! You yourself may not have a need for it, but other users do.
Plus you seem to be missing the obvious issue of CPU constraints, coupled with the fact that rendering offline means you lose all the information about how you modified the audio, and if you ever need to tweak or recreate it, you're screwed. Okay, yes, you can save all your effect presets and automation curves - you then have to remember which order you put them in, and if you do this hundreds of times in a single track, then your project file is quickly going to become a complete jumbled mess - that is, if you don't run out of track/fx-slot space before then.
| quote: | | Another foolish statement. The Fruity Sampler allows full time stretching capabilities and they are quite nice. The lack of formant preserve is a dissapointment to me but thats not a common effect except when I'm doing vocals. |
Vocals are precisely what I'm talking about. I can timestretch nearly 15-20 BPM while almost perfectly preserving rhythmic AND pitch accuracy - can you do that in FLS? The timestretchers/samplers in that program preserve neither pitch nor rhythm (unless you're working in a scope of just a few bpm).
| quote: | | Another misconception. You can even turn snapping off in FLS and have a resolution as acurate as your screen resolution is. Although, getting down to 128th notes is as easy as zooming in on the playlist and setting the snapping rules to 1/4th. You can even go down to 192nd notes in snapping. |
Turning snapping off completely defeats the purpose. :rolleyes: You want audio tracks to line up with other audio tracks and MIDI data; personally, I'd prefer to be able to do that without manually editing the clipping information for each audio slice. And how is snapping to the quarter-note giving you 1/192 accuracy?
| quote: | | You might be shocked to learn, FLS can save presets for any plugin there is. Interestingly enough, not only can you do that, but you can also save entire FX channels as presets and load them up into another FX channel. |
Cubase organizes them by plugin and puts them in the drop-down menu for that plugin. One click, no searching for files. True, it's not a necessity, but it's a huge convenience when you have a ton of patches. That was really a minor, off-the-cuff remark that I'm not going to argue about. The preset system in FL is fine for most people, just inconvenient for me personally.
| quote: | | And about the you not needing to move FX around a lot, I think youre not expirimenting enough with your music then because you can get a completely different sound by swapping say... a phaser and a delay so that the delay comes after the phaser. |
Ha. Ha. Maybe I just know what type of effect I'm looking for from the get-go, and don't need to fart around trying to get the right order/combination? Or, maybe I'm smart about it, and if I have just one effect then I'll stick it in slot 3 or 4 so I can easily add effects before or after?
| quote: | | *shakes head* I'm beginning to think you have never even used FLS5. You can do this in FLS fully. If you want to run a sound through 64 FX channels, then you can do that. As for routing it to more than one output, this is not really going to be needed, but if you do, its easy enough to use a send. |
Okay, you've completely missed the point here. Yes, IT IS NEEDED to route a channel to more than one output, that is EXACTLY WHAT THE SIDECHAIN IS. And I'm sorry, but the 4 send tracks that FLS offers are completely inadequate - even in my simplest tracks I invariably use at least double that. Maybe you don't use sends much, but that doesn't mean nobody does! It's not uncommon to have several different delays, reverbs, and other "wet-only" effects and to want to selectively add those effects to individual dry tracks. Without a proper sidechain and only 4 sends, this isn't even possible, let alone convenient. Even if you've got 4 state-of-the-art PCs all networked together, good luck squeezing out enough CPU power to run all those effects as inserts.
| quote: | | Next time, before bashing FLS, make sure you know what your talking about because I believe I've hit jsut about every point you brought up, and surprisingly, FLS has everything you said it didnt. Interesting... |
It has absolutely none of what I stated. You believe it does because your understanding of certain terms and processes is incorrect or incomplete.
Christ... why do FL junkies all have this attitude? I bitch about Cubase all the time and how ty a program it is, but with the FLoopers, it's like their magical program can do no wrong. It does everything and it does it perfectly.
And you know what? I had the same crummy attitude when I was doing my productions in FLS. Thank god I grew up. |
|
|
|
|
