|
So I picked up FL Studio 5 today.... (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Bedlam-UK |
I do like it for what it is, I'm not looking for ways to dislike it.....DigiNut does that for me :tongue3
For every bad word (as you take them) that I have to say about FL, I have just as many for Cubase.
I use Cubase because it has the features I need and has a very useable interface. IF FL had these features straight from the box without fiddling with little buttons and countless plugins, I would be more interedted in it.
With Cubase, I have alot more control over the audio and I am able to create much more complex sounds with the FX channels and automation.
What I find surprising with FL is not a single reference to DB levels in any of the channels. FL is supposed to be an audio application. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
FFS people, I don't dislike Fruityloops, I don't have any problem with it! For the price it sells for it's an excellent production suite that can be used to make some very good music.
It just ticks me off how the hardcore Fruityloops producers seem unwilling or unable to admit that the program has shortcomings. It costs a fraction of the price that other packages cost, it's obviously going to be less sophisticated!.
What's the big deal? Cubase isn't perfect either. Neither is Logic Audio. Using a less sophisticated program doesn't say anything about your ability as a producer, and I never implied that it did. But FLS cannot do everything that Cubase can do, especially when it comes to audio editing, plain and simple! |
|
|
| IDarkISwordI |
Seriously dude, you combated almost none of my points, resorting to simply stating that other people have other ways of doing things. Good job for stating the obvious but no points for stating facts today. People have different ways of doing things. That is the ENTIRE point of my arguing for the side of FLS. Just because you like Cubase, does not mean that other people dont prefer to use FLS. The point I'm making here is that FLS is a very capable sequencer regardless of your inexpirience with it.
| quote: | Originally posted by 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: |
This is a ing gross over-generalization. Wheres Icone when I need him. He has created some pretty damn good productions using FLS and I'm not very bad myself. The I post on TA is not my best because I save to get signed. Give me 2 weeks and I'll show you how FLS can realyl sound out of the box. Forget that ty first ALLFRUIT demo I did and wait for ALLFRUIT vol2.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
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...
...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. |
You seem to miss the idea of real-time FX and in fact further prove why real-time FX are better. No, you can't go and change something you applied as an offline effect, whereas with a realtime effect, you can save the project and go back later. Being able to zoom in on the playlist does in fact allow you to do very small edits and I lots of times do. I'll agree, there are some really powerful offline FX and honestly, lots of times, I do infact use Adobe Audition to edit audio, but this does not make FLS an incapable wave editor.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
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). |
Like I said before, FLS includes full time stretching capabilities. This includes linear shifting (without constraint to time or pitch), pitch shifting (with contraint to time) and time shifting (with constraint to pitch). It has a great deal of accuracy too. Its wonderful on drums and does a great job on vocals. If you are into using drum loop samples (not my thing but whatever) then you can even have FLS automaticly detect the BPM of the sample and then resize automaticly it if you ever change the tempo.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
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? |
The 1/4th does not refer specifically to a quarter note. It instead refers to 1/4th of a block on the screen. The same goes for 1/2, 1/3 and 1/6. Zooming into the max with a snap of 1/4th allows 1/128 note edits and 1/6 zoomed all the way in allows 1/192 note edits.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
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? |
Good for you, but I find it best to expiriment with a bunch of different things. This leads to the possibility of adding in an entire different section to the music you hadnt previously though of because you found 2 effects to modulate between and or shifted around. 'Knowing' what your looking for tends to add too much of a mathematical approach to the music. Whatever works best for you though.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
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. |
Instead, you missed the point. You can sidechain because you can route the bass chanel and the kick channel into another FX channel. Then you can add your compressor and voila, rudamentory sidechaing. I find this method better to using a sidechain compressor because it tends to keep a better gain response while keeping the kick and bassline pretty bright. As for using sends, I tend not to use them. They are a good idea in principle, but I have a lot of processor cycles to use and I like to use them. I do have a lot of effects running and they all run smoothly.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
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. |
Actually, I complain plenty about FLS. Theres tons of things I would like improved about FLS but instead of bitching constantly, I deal with it. If it isnt going to change, why waste your time bitching about it when thats time you could have spent producing. I'm definitely not saying its a magical program. What I dont like is people that use Cubase or any other sequencer talking on my sequencer of choice. Just because you havent been able to produce with it does not make it a ty sequencer. It also does not make you an expert at using it either. I think you need to look more to your patience than to how 'ty' you think FLS really is. Learning it takes time and patience but in the end, it really pays off no matter what you think about it.
Cheers,
Zac. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Whatever dude, I have no intention of responding to all that. Fine, Fruityloops is the most fan-ing-tastic program in the universe. It can do anything that the professional sequencers do even though it costs 1/10th of the price! Everybody go out and buy fruityloops!
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Oh, P.S.
| quote: | Originally posted by IDarkISwordI
Instead, you missed the point. You can sidechain because you can route the bass chanel and the kick channel into another FX channel. Then you can add your compressor and voila, rudamentory sidechaing. |
THAT IS NOT A ING SIDECHAIN
THAT IS NOT A ING SIDECHAIN
THAT IS NOT A ING SIDECHAIN
THAT IS NOT A ING SIDECHAIN
THAT IS NOT A ING SIDECHAIN
THAT IS NOT A ING SIDECHAIN
THAT IS NOT A ING SIDECHAIN
THAT IS NOT A ING SIDECHAIN
THAT IS NOT A ING SIDECHAIN
THAT IS NOT A ING SIDECHAIN
Please, LOOK UP WHAT A SIDECHAIN IS! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COMPRESSION!!! AAAAARGH JIOSD*(@#*()DSHO(T&*@q3g99gYEbhsdooDSFFDSDXFZ |
|
|
| IDarkISwordI |
| The most common use of sidechaining is when you are using sidechaining compression. Which tends to also refer to ducking. If you want to link me to your definition of sidechaining, I'd be happy to read it. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by IDarkISwordI
The most common use of of sidechaining is to use sidechaining compression. You also clearly stated in your previous post about ducking, which has a lot to do with compression. A sidechain compressor does not affect the gain of the sidechain, instead it affects the threshold of the sidechain, so when speaking of ducking, it has a lot to do with a compressor. |
I stated that I was NOT talking about the bassducking effect!
A side chain is a parallel signal path from the "side" of an audio channel, as opposed to the "front" which is the channel's primary output. The term "side chain" makes NO assumptions whatsoever about what type of effect is being used.
You can't do this in FL. You just can't. FL tracks don't have a sidechain. All you have are 4 static "sends". There is no flexibility whatsoever in that routing and it's completely insufficient for a huge number of projects (I use up 5 FX tracks in Cubase just with reverb... that's not counting delay lines or side-chain group routings).
FYI, the *most* common use of the side chain is not compression, but reverb and delay. It is unfortunate and annoying that so many producers understand this concept *only* as a "send" and think that sidechaining always refers to a redirected compressor. |
|
|
| IDarkISwordI |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
A side chain is a parallel signal path from the "side" of an audio channel, as opposed to the "front" which is the channel's primary output. |
I'd really like to see where you have gotten this definition because it seems that the way you have worded it, it makes it sound as if it does stereo imaging, which it does not do. A side-chain in definition from what I have seen refers to a primary signal and a sidechain, where the primary is able to trigger a change in the sidechain, generally a chainge in volume in the case of a kick + bassline. In your definition, jsut about any send can be conidered a sidechain because sends are generally done in parallel with the generators primary FX channel. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I didn't "get" it from anywhere, it happens to be something I know as an electrical engineer. :rolleyes:
I refuse to get sucked any further into this debate. I made one lighthearted comment which was OBVIOUSLY not meant to be taken seriously since I posted a picture of a can of worms right below. You chose to take it personally, accuse me of ALWAYS bashing FL, and proceed to try to convince me that FL can do everything that Cubase does, and even more outrageously tell me that I must simply lack the skill you have if I don't want to learn the overly circuitous routes in Fruityloops to accomplishing what would be a relatively simple task in other sequencers.
Where did I EVER bash FLS, before you chimed in? Where did I ever bash you as a producer? Why the need to militantly defend your choice of sequencer to people who don't even care?
And I don't care. I give up. I don't ing care. Fine, Fruityloops is a better sequencer. Fine, you're a more skilled producer than I am and that's how you're able to do things in Fruityloops that I just couldn't "figure out" how to do. I tip my hat to you Zac, you really showed me who's boss around here.
Is that what you want to hear? Is that what it will take to end this ridiculous debate? I DON'T CARE. You use whatever damn sequencer you please but don't ing accuse me of being an idiot because I find the feature set of a particular sequencer to be limited or inadequate for my needs as a producer. What kind of attitude is that? Don't you realize how much of a hypocrite you're being? |
|
|
| IDarkISwordI |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I didn't "get" it from anywhere, it happens to be something I know as an electrical engineer. :rolleyes:
I refuse to get sucked any further into this debate. I made one lighthearted comment which was OBVIOUSLY not meant to be taken seriously since I posted a picture of a can of worms right below. You chose to take it personally, accuse me of ALWAYS bashing FL, and proceed to try to convince me that FL can do everything that Cubase does, and even more outrageously tell me that I must simply lack the skill you have if I don't want to learn the overly circuitous routes in Fruityloops to accomplishing what would be a relatively simple task in other sequencers.
Where did I EVER bash FLS, before you chimed in? Where did I ever bash you as a producer? Why the need to militantly defend your choice of sequencer to people who don't even care?
And I don't care. I give up. I don't ing care. Fine, Fruityloops is a better sequencer. Fine, you're a more skilled producer than I am and that's how you're able to do things in Fruityloops that I just couldn't "figure out" how to do. I tip my hat to you Zac, you really showed me who's boss around here.
Is that what you want to hear? Is that what it will take to end this ridiculous debate? I DON'T CARE. You use whatever damn sequencer you please but don't ing accuse me of being an idiot because I find the feature set of a particular sequencer to be limited or inadequate for my needs as a producer. What kind of attitude is that? Don't you realize how much of a hypocrite you're being? |
I honestly dont give a either dude. The only reason I started the debate is because you blatantly put down FLS. Ive seen you before, try to tell users of other sequencers to switch over to Cubase because it was 'better' and that thier sequencer was of much less sophistication. My entire arguement was that it isnt better, its equal.. Notice that I never once tried to point to a flaw in Cubase. I know its a pretty decent sequencer. I prefer to use FLS because I like the workflow better than a multitracker. And no, I dont want to hear you say I'm better or that FLS is better. I just dislike it when you put down other sequencers. Dont give me that 'you have an attitude problem' crap either dude. You were well into the debate and definitely on the offensive here. If you can understand this, then you can understand that I'm not a hypocrite. |
|
|
| TaylorR |
| wow, this has become an interesting thread..... |
|
|
| djlogik |
Yeah it's kinda pointless. Can a moderator just close this? It's turned into a flame war. Just PM each other with vicious comments about what's what or why you're wrong and the other person isn't. Don't keep posting in a thread where someone just posted "So I picked up FL Studio 5 today..." Come on I know you both are better than that.
ROFL I had to point this out. Look at what this thread has turned out to be and what the guy had posted originally...and I quote "What type of MIDI input device do the FL users here recommend so I can incorporate my synths into this project?" |
|
|
|
|
