|
Fruity Loops
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RapidFire |
| im just beginning to dabble in production and im wondering if Fruity Loops is good enough? can it produce sounds on the caliber of professional music? I know since im new to this its recommended that I start off with something simpler but I have no qualms with putting in the work and effort into learning a good program that will help me make quality stuff in the long run. so my question is, is it just a beginners program with no "professional sounding" possibilities behind it or can it still do what the other big programs can (such as cubase, reason, etc)? thanks for your input guys :) |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Fruity can definitely make great sounds and professional music.
If you're not happy with its native synths, you can always buy some additional software like Native Instruments or Korg Legacy synths. But I would recommend really exploring a program's native synths before you put down any more cash, because I think people generally tend to underestimate any program's possibilities and give up too easily. |
|
|
| derail |
Read the Music Production FAQ at the top of the music producer's forum page. Point 8 covers "which sequencer should I use"?
Great sounding songs are made in every sequencer out there. No sequencer will help you to get your songs sounding great, it's totally up to you and how you use your tools.
If FL feels good to you, use it. It's not a big deal changing from one sequencer to another down the line, if another one has features more in line with what you're producing at that point.
In short, the answer is yes - all sequencers are "good enough". |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| You can make professional sounds with any sequencer, they are more or less the same, it is what you input and how hard you work at it that creates the professional results. It takes a while to get professional results though, i'm barely getting there. Mixing and sound engineering is probably the hardest part of music making, and when it comes to electronic music a very important part. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by RapidFire
im just beginning to dabble in production and im wondering if Fruity Loops is good enough? can it produce sounds on the caliber of professional music? I know since im new to this its recommended that I start off with something simpler but I have no qualms with putting in the work and effort into learning a good program that will help me make quality stuff in the long run. so my question is, is it just a beginners program with no "professional sounding" possibilities behind it or can it still do what the other big programs can (such as cubase, reason, etc)? thanks for your input guys :) |
Fruity is an ok start, but I'd hesitate to recommend it simply because it lacks some simple stuff like multicore support. But theres plenty of professional producers who use it so its definately possible to produce a good result.
I'd probably recommend ableton, cubase, sonar or logic for the more commonly used sequencers these days. I think FL won't neccesarily be viable in the future and other options are looking better with every release. Either way, you'll want some nice VSTs, so inbuilt effects and instruments shouldn't come into it. Its more to do wit how you like to work and how efficiently the program makes use of your system resources. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
Just get FLStudio and ignore people on the forums, concentrate on learning how to make music and you will eventually come to a point where you know what does what and what is best for you.
I started on FLStudio, I tried Ableton and Reason later and both were pretty for me, so I stuck with FLStudio, recently tried Cubase, and it was bad too. The issues with switching programs had nothing to do with the sound quality you get from each, because there is no noticeable difference, period. What *was* wrong with those other programs is they do everything differently than what works for me. And they are not as easy to work with, as a producer you don't have time to around with clunky software, with complex and/or retarded methods of doing things that are quiet simply "a few clicks" in FLStudio.
A lot of people however don't like FLStudio because they didn't figure out that it doesn't have to be pattern based production. As for multicore support, the FLStudio devs haven't adapted it yet because its not that common yet. Most people are still running on 3-4 year old single core stuff. In general the majority of the population is a 3-4 years behind anyways. And that is FLs target.
Or get what ever you want, the logic still applies. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
I agree with your post mostly, although possibly the reason why you have trouble adapting to cubase or ableton is simply because your too locked into one way of working.
@ the OP, this is why you should try to switch DAWs evert few years or play with other peoples setups frequently.
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
A As for multicore support, the FLStudio devs haven't adapted it yet because its not that common yet. Most people are still running on 3-4 year old single core stuff. In general the majority of the population is a 3-4 years behind anyways. And that is FLs target.
|
Now see, thats just bull. . Most people now are running dual cores. And I think you're sort of implying that FL users are not really serious about their production as well, as they're just the consumers who are 3-4 years behind the pros... :rolleyes: |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| Do you have any statistical information that shows multicores are widely used...or just "Everyone I know uses them"? They are still relatively new. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Do you have any statistical information that shows multicores are widely used...or just "Everyone I know uses them"? They are still relatively new. |
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/
Anyone who bought a computer, or upgraded it the last 3 years will have a dual core. |
|
|
| Sinnica Hax |
Out of curiosity I checked the Steam hardware statistics, where steam analyzes and uploads each users hardware statistic, this is the april report,
1 CPU - (-0.17%) 28.56%
2 CPUs - (0.00%) 56.15%
3 CPUs - (+0.07%) 0.50%
4 CPUs - (+0.11%) 14.75%
This is statistic based on millions of gamers, I know, but if 56% of gamers use dual core and 14.75% uses four, I highly doubt musicians would use anything less then dual core. Personally I got a dual core in 2006 and just a week ago i got a triple-core (X3)
Full report HERE
EDIT: Oh hi Subtle, you thought of the same thing as me lol
| quote: | | Originally posted by Subtle Anyone who bought a computer, or upgraded it the last 3 years will have a dual core. |
Exactly. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sinnica Hax
Oh hi Subtle, you thought of the same thing as me lol |
:D |
|
|
| echosystm |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
I started on FLStudio, I tried Ableton and Reason later and both were pretty for me, so I stuck with FLStudio, recently tried Cubase, and it was bad too. The issues with switching programs had nothing to do with the sound quality you get from each, because there is no noticeable difference, period. What *was* wrong with those other programs is they do everything differently than what works for me. And they are not as easy to work with, as a producer you don't have time to around with clunky software, with complex and/or retarded methods of doing things that are quiet simply "a few clicks" in FLStudio.
|
Dude... The only reason Ableton, Reason and Cubase didn't work for you is because you wanted them to work exactly like FL. This is just stupid.
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
A lot of people however don't like FLStudio because they didn't figure out that it doesn't have to be pattern based production.
|
Uhh... I'd actually say the major flaws in FL are probably the main reason people don't like it:
Lack of multicore support
No auto PDC
Poor hardware integration
...need I go on? |
|
|
|
|
