Jackol Senior Member
United States
443 posts Joined: Nov, 2008
Posted - 2010/01/13 : 04:13:53
quote:Originally posted by Trimms:
The thing is most professionals use Cubase so if you want to really hit it out, you need to be careful what you use. It's way easier for someone to remix your stuff if they can grip up a Cubase project file rather than fiddle about with lots of MIDI files.
But the other posts are right, it's really about the skill of the producer. For example this song was made with FL Studio's DEMO and it was easily the biggest song of its time when it came out in America:
Your skill will ultimately decide your outcome, not your software.
WOW WAY TO USE AN AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT.
It COMPLETELY depends upon your skill level and preference. All the DAWs essentially have the same functions.
Future_Shock Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts Joined: Apr, 2007
Posted - 2010/01/13 : 11:07:31
quote:Originally posted by Trimms:
quote:Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
Also, i'd like to know what you're basing your "it certainly isn't the best" argument on.
Personal experience.
okay. So, what led you to believe it wasn't the best?
have you spent extensive time on every single sequencer? Have you analysed the algorithms each sequencer uses during an export? Have you had a look at their internal sound engine in every sequencer? (by the way, you'll find that all of them are of almost exact quality).
so really, what criteria are you basing this on? Obviously you don't have too much experience otherwise you'd know that sound-wise, they aren't very different.
surely you should have said "it's my opinion that.." when giving advice you don't have experience on? Rather than "CERTAINLY is not the best..."
quote:That's LARGELY debatable. With the introduction of Logic, a LOT of "Professionals" are moving to Logic because they have Macs. Also, sending a project file for a remix is basically unheard of. I've never heard of it, and i've never heard anyone ever mention it before. Not really how it happens.
Sorry I meant collaborating.
That being said, you also say you've never heard anyone mention it before, however, I know plenty of producers that do this. And if you don't want to believe me then just watch the Styles & Breeze computer music vid or whatever it is. They transfer project files.
quote:
Yeah collaborating is a different story, that can get hard. But it's still very do-able. Professional collabs are done on one computer anyway...
FYI, what breeze and styles do isn't the rules for production... in fact watching their production "help" video they do some useless things...
People in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks.
No, you may disagree with my other statements but that doesn't change the fact that you CAN export .wav's or .mp3's in FL Studio and that the person who quoted me, being rather brash and rude, was wrong.
I disagreed with the statements that were wrong. That is all.
Dain-Ja Advanced Member
Canada
1,983 posts Joined: Oct, 2004
Posted - 2010/01/13 : 15:32:22
You can produce a good track on any sequencer. That's undeniable. However, some sequencers ARE limited (they lack certain functions) and some sequencers are better suited to certain applications (their features and/or layout/workflow/tools allow you to do certain things more easily).
It's just plain stupid to say they're all the same. They aren't. It is definitely a matter of preference and depends largely on what you're doing.
I went from FL to Cubase over a year ago and I'm so glad I did. FL kinda encourages bad habits and all the built in plugins are complete garbage. You can use VSTs but generally those are more CPU intensive than built in stuff.
I miss how easy it was to put percussion together in FL. The built in sampler was really quick and easy.
However, Cubase's workflow/layout in much better to get the 'big picture' view. It's also much more fully featured in terms of piano roll/midi control and audio recording. Editing and chopping up audio in Cubase is MUCH easier. There's many more features I prefer but I won't bother mentioning them.
My point is that sequencers are a matter of preference but denying any differences is ridiculous.
__________________________________
Producer/DJ/Label owner
Rush Delivery Records
Visit makemeRUSH.com for music from the ONLY North American hardcore label pressing vinyl!
Future_Shock Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts Joined: Apr, 2007
Posted - 2010/01/13 : 15:40:09
quote:Originally posted by Dain-Ja:
You can produce a good track on any sequencer. That's undeniable. However, some sequencers ARE limited (they lack certain functions) and some sequencers are better suited to certain applications (their features and/or layout/workflow/tools allow you to do certain things more easily).
It's just plain stupid to say they're all the same. They aren't. It is definitely a matter of preference and depends largely on what you're doing.
I went from FL to Cubase over a year ago and I'm so glad I did. FL kinda encourages bad habits and all the built in plugins are complete garbage. You can use VSTs but generally those are more CPU intensive than built in stuff.
I miss how easy it was to put percussion together in FL. The built in sampler was really quick and easy.
However, Cubase's workflow/layout in much better to get the 'big picture' view. It's also much more fully featured in terms of piano roll/midi control and audio recording. Editing and chopping up audio in Cubase is MUCH easier. There's many more features I prefer but I won't bother mentioning them.
My point is that sequencers are a matter of preference but denying any differences is ridiculous.
I'm guessing this was in response to my post. If not just ignore.
The workflow is completely different in every sequencer (albeit FL's obvious move towards Cubase's) But bar a few, the sound quality is identical. They are different, yeah, of course they are or they wouldn't exist, but what is better for someone depends - like you said - on preference rather than fact. Which is what i was trying to highlight.
Flat out saying "this is better than that" when they are both capable of the same thing, in all honesty, shows inexperience and/or fanboyism.
I can appreciate cubase for what it is, i used it in school, but i much prefer fl. Does that mean FL is better? No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean Cubase is either.
They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Let's all not forget this isn't just about FL/Cubase (will it ever end?). I put it to everyone here not to forget logic, which is a strong contender, and imo, it's built in plug ins blow both fl AND cubase out of the water.
Again, it isn't strictly better as a sequencer, though.
Hard2Get Advanced Member
United Kingdom
12,837 posts Joined: Jun, 2001
Posted - 2010/01/13 : 16:08:03
quote:Originally posted by Dain-Ja:
You can produce a good track on any sequencer. That's undeniable. However, some sequencers ARE limited (they lack certain functions) and some sequencers are better suited to certain applications (their features and/or layout/workflow/tools allow you to do certain things more easily).
It's just plain stupid to say they're all the same. They aren't. It is definitely a matter of preference and depends largely on what you're doing.
I went from FL to Cubase over a year ago and I'm so glad I did. FL kinda encourages bad habits and all the built in plugins are complete garbage. You can use VSTs but generally those are more CPU intensive than built in stuff.
I miss how easy it was to put percussion together in FL. The built in sampler was really quick and easy.
However, Cubase's workflow/layout in much better to get the 'big picture' view. It's also much more fully featured in terms of piano roll/midi control and audio recording. Editing and chopping up audio in Cubase is MUCH easier. There's many more features I prefer but I won't bother mentioning them.
My point is that sequencers are a matter of preference but denying any differences is ridiculous.
I agree and i movd from FL to Cubase years ago. In terms of what i said i never meant they are literally the same, obviously they are not and i happen to think technically speaking that Cubase is far better than FL. However what i meant was that if you have any level of skill then those differences aren't going to be the difference between you making a good track and not. If you can make good music then you can do it on any of the mentioned sequencers, but no, that does not mean they are all the same.
Project-Industrial Advanced Member
Netherlands
2,481 posts Joined: Nov, 2005
33 hardcore releases
Posted - 2010/01/13 : 16:46:44
quote:Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:Originally posted by Dain-Ja:
You can produce a good track on any sequencer. That's undeniable. However, some sequencers ARE limited (they lack certain functions) and some sequencers are better suited to certain applications (their features and/or layout/workflow/tools allow you to do certain things more easily).
It's just plain stupid to say they're all the same. They aren't. It is definitely a matter of preference and depends largely on what you're doing.
I went from FL to Cubase over a year ago and I'm so glad I did. FL kinda encourages bad habits and all the built in plugins are complete garbage. You can use VSTs but generally those are more CPU intensive than built in stuff.
I miss how easy it was to put percussion together in FL. The built in sampler was really quick and easy.
However, Cubase's workflow/layout in much better to get the 'big picture' view. It's also much more fully featured in terms of piano roll/midi control and audio recording. Editing and chopping up audio in Cubase is MUCH easier. There's many more features I prefer but I won't bother mentioning them.
My point is that sequencers are a matter of preference but denying any differences is ridiculous.
I'm guessing this was in response to my post. If not just ignore.
The workflow is completely different in every sequencer (albeit FL's obvious move towards Cubase's) But bar a few, the sound quality is identical. They are different, yeah, of course they are or they wouldn't exist, but what is better for someone depends - like you said - on preference rather than fact. Which is what i was trying to highlight.
Flat out saying "this is better than that" when they are both capable of the same thing, in all honesty, shows inexperience and/or fanboyism.
I can appreciate cubase for what it is, i used it in school, but i much prefer fl. Does that mean FL is better? No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean Cubase is either.
They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Let's all not forget this isn't just about FL/Cubase (will it ever end?). I put it to everyone here not to forget logic, which is a strong contender, and imo, it's built in plug ins blow both fl AND cubase out of the water.
Again, it isn't strictly better as a sequencer, though.
totally agree wif ya andy.. avnt checked logic really, wonder if theres a windows version (gnna check after i posted). Ive seen sander van doorn work with logic nd i gotta say its rather attractive to use. Seen a lot of things i reconize from FL.
what I personally prefer on FL is that you can do a lot of things quite easely with it. A major advantage is that you can load practicly everything into FL. Which isnt always availble on other DAW's. FL can do whatever cubase can do really. You just need to find out how :)
doesnt matter what DAW im using im always rendering things seperated nd paste em back together with sony soundforge to get a better overal quality :) (doing that as im not using a proper mixer while producing)
Getting pretty tired of these discussions though. Each their own i guess :) Hell i know guys who make better productions with a tracker then the most above avarage producers around here do!
Dain-Ja Advanced Member
Canada
1,983 posts Joined: Oct, 2004
Posted - 2010/01/13 : 17:37:30
quote:Originally posted by Project-Industrial:
what I personally prefer on FL is that you can do a lot of things quite easely with it. A major advantage is that you can load practicly everything into FL. Which isnt always availble on other DAW's. FL can do whatever cubase can do really. You just need to find out how :)
What do you mean you can load practically anything? Cubase can open video files on its timeline. I think it's actually compatible with more formats. Unless you're talking about VST support, which is actually better in Cubase since VSTs are a Steinberg thing.
I think it's a myth that FL is easier to use than Cubase. I think the fact that it has a built in sampler makes it easier to use at first, but once you've set a sampler up in Cubase they're pretty even in terms of learning curve.
quote:Originally posted by Project-Industrial:
doesnt matter what DAW im using im always rendering things seperated nd paste em back together with sony soundforge to get a better overal quality :) (doing that as im not using a proper mixer while producing)
I don't understand how exporting and re-tracking in soundforge would increase the sound quality. If anything, it would contribute to quantize errors and such...?
__________________________________
Producer/DJ/Label owner
Rush Delivery Records
Visit makemeRUSH.com for music from the ONLY North American hardcore label pressing vinyl!
Shades Advanced Member
United Kingdom
1,189 posts Joined: Dec, 2006
Posted - 2010/01/13 : 17:53:02
quote:Originally posted by Dain-Ja:
I think it's a myth that FL is easier to use than Cubase. I think the fact that it has a built in sampler makes it easier to use at first
Hard2Get Advanced Member
United Kingdom
12,837 posts Joined: Jun, 2001
Posted - 2010/01/13 : 18:00:15
quote:Originally posted by Shades_of_Grey:
quote:Originally posted by Dain-Ja:
I think it's a myth that FL is easier to use than Cubase. I think the fact that it has a built in sampler makes it easier to use at first
Project-Industrial Advanced Member
Netherlands
2,481 posts Joined: Nov, 2005
33 hardcore releases
Posted - 2010/01/13 : 18:15:35
quote:Originally posted by Dain-Ja:
quote:Originally posted by Project-Industrial:
what I personally prefer on FL is that you can do a lot of things quite easely with it. A major advantage is that you can load practicly everything into FL. Which isnt always availble on other DAW's. FL can do whatever cubase can do really. You just need to find out how :)
What do you mean you can load practically anything? Cubase can open video files on its timeline. I think it's actually compatible with more formats. Unless you're talking about VST support, which is actually better in Cubase since VSTs are a Steinberg thing.
I think it's a myth that FL is easier to use than Cubase. I think the fact that it has a built in sampler makes it easier to use at first, but once you've set a sampler up in Cubase they're pretty even in terms of learning curve.
quote:Originally posted by Project-Industrial:
doesnt matter what DAW im using im always rendering things seperated nd paste em back together with sony soundforge to get a better overal quality :) (doing that as im not using a proper mixer while producing)
I don't understand how exporting and re-tracking in soundforge would increase the sound quality. If anything, it would contribute to quantize errors and such...?
exporting and re-tracking it helps (for example) to go against sucking effects from a distorted kick over a synth. for what i know you produce pretty clean music am i right? i dont. the way you produce is a bit linked to what style your after.
you can compare the way i work with producing through a hardware mixer. placing every sound on a diff channel. wether i work with cubase or fl sometimes these channels mix into eachother nd the one sucks the sound out of another. thats why im using soundforge.
Future_Shock Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts Joined: Apr, 2007
Posted - 2010/01/14 : 00:18:32
quote:Originally posted by Hard2Get:
quote:Originally posted by Dain-Ja:
You can produce a good track on any sequencer. That's undeniable. However, some sequencers ARE limited (they lack certain functions) and some sequencers are better suited to certain applications (their features and/or layout/workflow/tools allow you to do certain things more easily).
It's just plain stupid to say they're all the same. They aren't. It is definitely a matter of preference and depends largely on what you're doing.
I went from FL to Cubase over a year ago and I'm so glad I did. FL kinda encourages bad habits and all the built in plugins are complete garbage. You can use VSTs but generally those are more CPU intensive than built in stuff.
I miss how easy it was to put percussion together in FL. The built in sampler was really quick and easy.
However, Cubase's workflow/layout in much better to get the 'big picture' view. It's also much more fully featured in terms of piano roll/midi control and audio recording. Editing and chopping up audio in Cubase is MUCH easier. There's many more features I prefer but I won't bother mentioning them.
My point is that sequencers are a matter of preference but denying any differences is ridiculous.
and i happen to think technically speaking that Cubase is far better than FL.
Explain why you think, speaking in technical terms, why you think cubase is better than FL. Just curious.
Hard2Get Advanced Member
United Kingdom
12,837 posts Joined: Jun, 2001
Posted - 2010/01/14 : 00:29:11
Better routing possibilities. Far more straight forward midi implementation. With FL if you want to use a hardware synth or whatever you have to create a specific midi out channel where in Cubase a midi channel is a midi channel, same for all synths, you just assign the midi instrument to it instead of creating a midi instrument that routs itself.
Much better channel faders. Better mixer. Overall the whole setup is true to that of a traditional setup and much simpler to use accordingly. FL kind of reinvents stuff which i guess is good if you want ease of use but that ease of use comes at the expense of being limited to that design and not being able to do things traditionaly in terms of things like routing.
Using audio in FL is really slow and difficult. With cubase you press record, press stop and then the audio is already there, in place, couldn't be simpler.
Cubase has controller lanes in a much simpler view, and are easier to edit.
You could still argue that this is still just my opinion, it probably is if you really want to to see it that way. Bare in mind though that i'm not biased, i used FL for a long time before moving to Cubase.
Future_Shock Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts Joined: Apr, 2007
Posted - 2010/01/14 : 00:39:27
quote:Originally posted by Hard2Get:
Better routing possibilities. Far more straight forward midi implementation. With FL if you want to use a hardware synth or whatever you have to create a specific midi out channel where in Cubase a midi channel is a midi channel, same for all synths, you just assign the midi instrument to it instead of creating a midi instrument that routs itself.
Much better channel faders. Better mixer. Overall the whole setup is true to that of a traditional setup and much simpler to use accordingly. FL kind of reinvents stuff which i guess is good if you want ease of use but that ease of use comes at the expense of being limited to that design and not being able to do things traditionaly in terms of things like routing.
Using audio in FL is really slow and difficult. With cubase you press record, press stop and then the audio is already there, in place, couldn't be simpler.
Cubase has controller lanes in a much simpler view, and are easier to edit.
You could still argue that this is still just my opinion, it probably is if you really want to to see it that way. Bare in mind though that i'm not biased, i used FL for a long time before moving to Cubase.
I will argue that most of that is your opinion, but i will agree with you on the audio front. Cubase is much better at handling audio.
But for things like routing, for some people (ie; me for one) think that fl routing makes sense. Which kind of makes it opinion, hey?
I'll stand by my point though, there is no difference in sound quality, and really, that's what it comes down to.
The routing doesn't bother me, and let's be honest, the majority of producers these days don't even use hardware. Not that it's a moot point or anything, but it doesn't hold as significant value as it once would have.
Also channel faders and mixers is better > why? Same quality, different layout. You may as well have said you like them better.
Printer friendly
Posted - 2010/01/13 : 04:13:53
