Dubstepforum.com

abZ wrote:

victoryaloy wrote:Why is Digital Performer NEVER brought up.. I had a go at it awhile ago and it seemed alright..
I just never hear about it.

Ha no one uses it that's why. Years ago it was close to breaking through as a top DAW but it just never happened. I dunno maybe it sux?

i dug out my copy of ejay on cd and old mtv beat station the other day
time to get roni size going

nowaysj wrote:More of a film thing for some reason.

Maybe it wasn't successfully cracked? There is no better marketing than free samples, whether you like it or not.

I thought it was the Mac thing before they bought Logic... maybe that is what it was the purchase of Logic just put it under or it's also possible I am just making that all up. To lazy and don't give a fuck enough to research it.

abZ wrote: Ha no one uses it that's why. Years ago it was close to breaking through as a top DAW but it just never happened. I dunno maybe it sux?

If I remember correctly one of there promotion video's said something about how producers for JT and HSM use it..
and I also remember reading somewhere about it being the industry standard for the mainstream scene..

thats what got me questioning why I dont hear about it much..

..It does have a pretty sick EQ tho!

victoryaloy wrote:

abZ wrote: Ha no one uses it that's why. Years ago it was close to breaking through as a top DAW but it just never happened. I dunno maybe it sux?

If I remember correctly one of there promotion video's said something about how producers for JT and HSM use it..
and I also remember reading somewhere about it being the industry standard for the mainstream scene..

thats what got me questioning why I dont hear about it much..

..It does have a pretty sick EQ tho!

Well there is always Wikipedia lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Performer

Looks like I am right about the Mac thing. That is probably why I have never messed with it.

The thing I don't like about Fl studio is that when you first learn to produce on it, at least for me, I didn't actually learn much about the technical aspects of production. Instead I just ended up learning how to use all of these "fruity" effects, and didn't learn any skills or terms about production in general. When I use it I get the feeling that it sort of shortcuts the learning process and they are just putting a "fruity" cover over everything so it doesn't seem so confusing to beginners... if that makes any sense. I don't like that whole vibe of that really...
People use stuff like the 'soundgoodizer' (lol), without even knowing what it is or does. Its just clicking a button to make it 'sound good'.
Also with most of the filters that come with it you can't even see what frequency in HZ you are setting it to, you just have to guess which is kind of stupid. Of course you can always get some decent VSTs for this if you want.
Personally I don't like the whole automation/edit events set up it has, and you can't manually enter the values of automation you want (as far as I know), you have to draw it in which can get really tedious at times. Also you can't use "undo" on any knob movement or anything else apart from stuff in the sequencer/piano roll. Most of the problems I have with it are things that I wouldn't have even noticed or cared about until I tried stuff out another program.

Yeah theres just a few little annoying things like that for me but overall I think its a really decent program, although personally I don't enjoy using it that much. But its annoying when people say its a shitty program when they probably don't even know anything about it. People seem to bash it and when I ask them what they don't like about it they can't even think of anything, they just say "the whole thing sounds crap" or some bullshit like that.
Its just as capable as any other program, especially with the right vst plugins

bananafarmer wrote:The thing I don't like about Fl studio is that when you first learn to produce on it, at least for me, I didn't actually learn much about the technical aspects of production. Instead I just ended up learning how to use all of these "fruity" effects, and didn't learn any skills or terms about production in general. When I use it I get the feeling that it sort of shortcuts the learning process and they are just putting a "fruity" cover over everything so it doesn't seem so confusing to beginners... if that makes any sense. I don't like that whole vibe of that really...
People use stuff like the 'soundgoodizer' (lol), without even knowing what it is or does. Its just clicking a button to make it 'sound good'.
Also with most of the filters that come with it you can't even see what frequency in HZ you are setting it to, you just have to guess which is kind of stupid. Of course you can always get some decent VSTs for this if you want.
Personally I don't like the whole automation/edit events set up it has, and you can't manually enter the values of automation you want (as far as I know), you have to draw it in which can get really tedious at times. Also you can't use "undo" on any knob movement or anything else apart from stuff in the sequencer/piano roll. Most of the problems I have with it are things that I wouldn't have even noticed or cared about until I tried stuff out another program.

Yeah theres just a few little annoying things like that for me but overall I think its a really decent program, although personally I don't enjoy using it that much. But its annoying when people say its a shitty program when they probably don't even know anything about it. People seem to bash it and when I ask them what they don't like about it they can't even think of anything, they just say "the whole thing sounds crap" or some bullshit like that.
Its just as capable as any other program, especially with the right vst plugins

The soundgoodizer is used for minor harmonic enhancement when maximus would be too resource heavy on your pc.

You can see the parameters for your knobs, your just looking in the wrong place. You have to use the little helper windowat the top, jsut under the minimize/close/fullscreen buttons... there it displays parameters in % or freuency or w/e is most relevant...

The compressors, limiters, ect... are very universal... and you cant get mad becuase the itnerface makes things easy =/

The only flaw of FL?

No PDC during live monitoring, only upon render. Fixed in later versions of 9.

And most people, aside from m.e.s and those partial to new york compression, wouldnt notice that anyway.

bananafarmer wrote:The thing I don't like about Fl studio is that when you first learn to produce on it, at least for me, I didn't actually learn much about the technical aspects of production. Instead I just ended up learning how to use all of these "fruity" effects, and didn't learn any skills or terms about production in general. When I use it I get the feeling that it sort of shortcuts the learning process and they are just putting a "fruity" cover over everything so it doesn't seem so confusing to beginners... if that makes any sense. I don't like that whole vibe of that really...
People use stuff like the 'soundgoodizer' (lol), without even knowing what it is or does. Its just clicking a button to make it 'sound good'.
Also with most of the filters that come with it you can't even see what frequency in HZ you are setting it to, you just have to guess which is kind of stupid. Of course you can always get some decent VSTs for this if you want.
Personally I don't like the whole automation/edit events set up it has, and you can't manually enter the values of automation you want (as far as I know), you have to draw it in which can get really tedious at times. Also you can't use "undo" on any knob movement or anything else apart from stuff in the sequencer/piano roll. Most of the problems I have with it are things that I wouldn't have even noticed or cared about until I tried stuff out another program.

Yeah theres just a few little annoying things like that for me but overall I think its a really decent program, although personally I don't enjoy using it that much. But its annoying when people say its a shitty program when they probably don't even know anything about it. People seem to bash it and when I ask them what they don't like about it they can't even think of anything, they just say "the whole thing sounds crap" or some bullshit like that.
Its just as capable as any other program, especially with the right vst plugins

Yeah i think your right about this. Plus i hate with a passion how the fruity mixer acts/looks. I like to see it all, and how everything interacts. I do think fruity is slapped in its face with a beginners interface that appeals to new producers, But also has advanced features that makes it a contender with the best.

The funny thing is... on each other forum i pass by, like new skool breaks and lifted music, Nobody really mentions FL. Its like its only used by Dubstep, and hiphop krunk guys. (with exception to some dnb)

Depone wrote:I like to see it all, and how everything interacts.

What do you not see?

nowaysj wrote:

Depone wrote:I like to see it all, and how everything interacts.

What do you not see?

all the channels plugins, sends and the like...

FL just is to "out" there I think.

It has its own GUI, which looks and acts nothing like any other daw it competes against, it has slightly annoying options, such as people thinking it "only" limits you to 4 send channels, thats another reason why a lot of producers I know have slept on it.

It also does seem like a "loop builder". from the name, to the way you lay down drums and stuff.

Its FLs downfall and its beauty really. For those who know it and use it, they'll praise about it..

For those that don't, they will assume we're just loopers who don't really know how to produce and will crumble in a real studio, with say a pro-tools set up..

Thats not really the case though, the first time I used pro-tools all I needed to be taught was how to route things, the rest I already knew, I just used common sense and my initiative.

Depone wrote:

nowaysj wrote:

Depone wrote:I like to see it all, and how everything interacts.

What do you not see?

all the channels plugins, sends and the like...

I know what plugins I'm using on each channel. Can't see sends, and I do loose track sometimes cause shit can get webby real fast, but I find the benefit of actually being able to see all of my tracks on screen at once to be of greater benefit then just seeing lists of fx for each channel.

nowaysj wrote:

Depone wrote:

nowaysj wrote:

Depone wrote:I like to see it all, and how everything interacts.

What do you not see?

all the channels plugins, sends and the like...

I know what plugins I'm using on each channel. Can't see sends, and I do loose track sometimes cause shit can get webby real fast, but I find the benefit of actually being able to see all of my tracks on screen at once to be of greater benefit then just seeing lists of fx for each channel.

(when your using 5+ plugins per channel plus buss splits, only seeing one channels plugins at a time WILL become a ball ache).

but I find the benefit of actually being able to see all of my tracks on screen at once to be of greater benefit then just seeing lists of fx for each channel.

But you see. I do see all my tracks, sends, I/O, plugins and even get a thumbnail of the EQ used at the top of the channel.

I used fruity for about a month... and it just didnt gel with me.

I honestly think that before defending FL you should take some time and explore other daw's and see their benefits. Not only in sound, but workflow, like a conventional daw such as cubase, PT and Logic.
PS: not saying that you havent tried.

I recently converted brissance to a daw like reaper, or was it cubase i cant remember.

Depone wrote:But you see. I do see all my tracks.

You can see 70 plus tracks on one screen in logic at the same time?

I started with logic. I've used every major daw there is except protools and the trackers.

Other than reason, and even that to a certain extent, they're all quite similar. Fl just excels at so many little interface things that working in other daws is painful.

Based upon many of your prior statements it is clear that your understanding of fl is extremely shallow. Further I believe that you are one of those people who believes that you are more professional because you use logic. Your views on the validity of daws are irrelevant to me, but I will chime in when you make statements that could mislead a young producer into thinking that fl is inferior.

nowaysj wrote:

Depone wrote:But you see. I do see all my tracks.

You can see 70 plus tracks on one screen in logic at the same time?

I started with logic. I've used every major daw there is except protools and the trackers.

Other than reason, and even that to a certain extent, they're all quite similar. Fl just excels at so many little interface things that working in other daws is painful.

Based upon many of your prior statements it is clear that your understanding of fl is extremely shallow. Further I believe that you are one of those people who believes that you are more professional because you use logic. Your views on the validity of daws are irrelevant to me, but I will chime in when you make statements that could mislead a young producer into thinking that fl is inferior.

suck a dick

edit: eat a bag of dicks.

I have a scroll wheel on my mouse, and set up screen 'scenes' for different parts of my mixer. To call my understanding shallow is frankly an insult. *slaps with leather glove. Good day sir!

For a the majority of people that just blatantly insult FL with no real criticism are most likely insulting it just because they see everyone else do it. Chances are they probably haven't even used it. For those that have actually took the time to try it out and ended up not liking it for one reason or another, usually won't just say something dumb like "FL is for teh noobs!!". Instead they will regard it as a comprehensible tool that just didn't do it for them. This is the case for any DAW though.

Everyone has their own style and expect their own things. Some programs will fit and some won't. I've personally tried Cubase and Reason and disliked both of them. I felt cubase made things difficult that FL had made simple and ended up slowing me down. Reason was just...blah. I get it that with real equipment you have to plug shit in and route one hardware into another hardware but damnit, I didn't buy a hard synth, I bought a computer program.

I've recently been trying out Ableton and it's different compared to FL so I know it's going to take time to understand it at the same level I understand FL, but it fits me and hopefully I'll be able to get some good use out of it. It's just difficult trying to learn a new DAW cause all I want to do is make some music, but I can't do that yet cause I'm not fully capable with that particular program.

I started with FL and it's done me just fine. I don't see the problem with FL catering towards a more simplistic style that makes it easier for beginners to understand. As a matter of fact I think it's a good thing. Even though it's easier doesn't necessarily mean it sucks and isn't just as good as any other DAW. Yea, it may lack in some areas that another DAW excels at, but chances are that DAW is going to lack in areas that FL may do very well in. Which I think is how it ends up with just about any of these programs. In the end it just comes down to the user.

I'm teh Fruity Loops Soljah

grooki wrote:I'm teh Fruity Loops Soljah

'N' I'm teh FL General

**Gives Grooki a high 5**

Another reason besides the 2 main ones (name and interface) is the developer. The dev's not very dedicated to helping users or accepting user feedback and can be very condescending to the point of insulting users. Look around their forums or youtube comments and see all kinds of that stuff... not a good way to build a good reputation.

FL used to be the "go to" software for anyone starting out, but these days it has been mostly replaced by Live in that aspect for whatever reason.

For the guy who asked about why magazines/tutorials only seem to cater to Logic/Cubase/Live these days is purely because they are the most used ones, especially Live in the last few years. They need to focus on the larger demographic if they want to make money and stay in business.

wormcode wrote:Another reason besides the 2 main ones (name and interface) is the developer. The dev's not very dedicated to helping users or accepting user feedback and can be very condescending to the point of insulting users. Look around their forums or youtube comments and see all kinds of that stuff... not a good way to build a good reputation.

FL used to be the "go to" software for anyone starting out, but these days it has been mostly replaced by Live in that aspect for whatever reason.

For the guy who asked about why magazines/tutorials only seem to cater to Logic/Cubase/Live these days is purely because they are the most used ones, especially Live in the last few years. They need to focus on the larger demographic if they want to make money and stay in business.

I agree with this too, when magazines cover FL stuff, its usually really simple stuff and the features only appear in beginner-based issues hahaha!

imagineline make great products but they're bad on customer service.

wormcode wrote:For the guy who asked about why magazines/tutorials only seem to cater to Logic/Cubase/Live these days is purely because they are the most used ones, especially Live in the last few years. They need to focus on the larger demographic if they want to make money and stay in business.

I don't believe this is true.

Below is a graph of search terms for daw products. I believe the rate at which terms are searched for reflects to a large extent a products usage. If you have stats that directly show daw usage rates, I'd like to see them.


The biggie daws buy a lot of ad space in the publications, and part of those deals is to feature the products in other portions of the publication, notably tutorials.

I think Imageline wasn't playing that game. Though I think they're starting to.

Another reason is that the staff of those publications are "industry people," meaning that they see music as a business and a commodity and so behave as people do in business, chasing each other's tails, always conforming to consolidate reputation, and all the other yukkie shit business is about. And so, the staff doesn't know the first thing about flstudio because it hasn't been "professional," so can't legitimately write about it. They're not going to reveal their ignorance and jeopardize their "position" in the "industry."

Equally though, Gol, the lead dev of flstudio is a total prickosaurus. I honestly think he has some kind of clinical condition. This might have come about from the amount of contact he actually has with his customers. Can you chat with the developers of the other daws?

In all honesty though, whenever I've had a problem with fl, I get a response within a day, and usually right away because of my f'ed up schedule and time zones.

In my experience, Steinberg's customer service was WAY worse than Imageline's.