sequencer vs virtual studio...differences?

[BONES]

eXT doesn't do patterns as such - you can copy and paste a phrase but if you decide to change anything you have to change them all individually, unless you use a more complex set-up to make it work differently. FL and ORION allow you to create a really long pattern to do more linear composition but its probably not as slick as using something with a more linear approach. In FL and ORION you can lay out your patterns in the playlist in any arrangement you like.

[quincy]

eXT doesn't do patterns as such - you can copy and paste a phrase but if you decide to change anything you have to change them all individually, unless you use a more complex set-up to make it work differently. FL and ORION allow you to create a really long pattern to do more linear composition but its probably not as slick as using something with a more linear approach. In FL and ORION you can lay out your patterns in the playlist in any arrangement you like.

You can use ghost parts in eXT i think, that way you don't have to update every part if you want a load all the same.

Not quite the same as patterns in orion i know, but an alternative.

[ceenda]

Yeah, what you'd call regular patterns in FL and Orion appear in eXT as clips with round corners. This means that an edit to one of them will edit all of them. Good for drum sequencing. You can also name them arbitrarily as well (e.g., "Fill 1", "Riff 2" etc.). You can un-ghost a clip at any time, or even glue a series of patterns into one bigger pattern. If you have a pattern you'd like to repeat, just hold down CTRL to drag a ghost copy onto the timeline. You can do this to multiple selections as well.

[R'yleh]

Can you repeat a 6 bar pattern over a 4 bar one?

Dunno about fruity, but in ORION and Energy XT you can have Patterns or Parts with different length running together in Sync.

[SonicBreeze]

in what aspects would you consider I should use Cubase SL instead of FL? just curious

Cubase is far better for Audio handling,automation,live recording(Audio),using external midi controller or hardware synths like stuffs. And FLS is versatile and able to execute quickly your musical ideas.
But I think ideally you should be able to do anything and everything if you planned to work in conjuntion with both FLS and Cubase using Rewire. So you need both of them. Mostly they compliment each other well.

[nightspan]

Raaghav, thanks for your feedback. What you're saying is what I expected to hear, but I'm trying to get a sense of whether I could be happy with FLS or eXT and without Cubase. I know I should try theml I just haven't had time to give them a good shot, and I'm trying to gather as much info as I can before diving in.

Could you be a little more specific about a couple of the things you mentioned:

- In what way is Cubase better for audio handling and recording? Are you talking about mixing sound quality? Ease of use? Edit capabilities? I don't need to record many tracks at a time, probably 4 max, if that matters.

- In FLS, can external midi controllers play one or more VSTIs live and have the incoming midi get recorded? If so, what's better about how cubase does it?

Thanks

[SonicBreeze]

Could you be a little more specific about a couple of the things you mentioned:

- In what way is Cubase better for audio handling and recording? Are you talking about mixing sound quality? Ease of use? Edit capabilities? I don't need to record many tracks at a time, probably 4 max, if that matters.

- In FLS, can external midi controllers play one or more VSTIs live and have the incoming midi get recorded? If so, what's better about how cubase does it?

Thanks

Yes I am talking about all these things about audio in Cubase SX you mentioned i.e; mixing sound quality, ease of use, editing capabilities. Since we understand that it is easier editing in linear fashion when you are dealing with longer audio files even you use 2 or 4 tracks for that matter. Cubase SX provides excellent work flow than FLS for audio, comparatively. It also gives option for 24bit/96khz sampling which is missing in FLS, as a result you have inferior audio quality mixdown finally. I never used much of ORION so I cant say about that.

FLS is pattern based sequencer and it is known for great midi editing. That means,you just manage to create your songs with your mouse or QWERTY in step sequencer.The basic design of FL is such that it is doesn't expect you to have a hardware controller. That doesnot mean that it is incapable of handling those.Also FLS handle most of the plugins as good as Cubase SX( ofcourse it is only my opinion).playing or recording more than one VSTi in FLS should not be a problem. Midi data gets recorded in step sequencer (ofcourse you can quantize, if not perfect).
On the contrary Cubase's design expects you to have a midi controller, and work flow is great if you are planning to use one of them ( ASIO works great in Steinberg products)

Moreover,FLS is worst as rewire host where Cubase SX is way ahead.

[whiteboycomputernoise]

To me it depnds how serious you are about your music and how rich you are. If money is not a problem, get the most expensive thing and hire someone to train you personally at your house for a few weeks. That's easy.

But if you are on a really tight budget, orion and fruity loops are probably your cheapest bet. And yes what they were saying about there being little difference between virtual studios and sequencers is true. It's kind of like asking the difference between the family edition and the sports or luxury edition of a car. Not much, they all get you there. Some dont record audio, which a big deal cause people like to record someone singing or playing live, but you can use another program to do so if that program doesn't have one.

Keeping in mind always that we are on a forum that features a buttload of free or affordable plug ins.

Some programs dont have any native plug ins or things to make your sound, they just act as a host to let other sound making software(plug ins) work together in sync in one song when you press play.


Other programs, such as the mentioned cubase sx have it all-plug ins to make sounds, to edit/enhance sounds, editing windows and tools to slice and dice sounds and music, and also the ability to host other plug in software to make more sounds and edit more sounds and effect more sounds.

Usually the more expensive a software, the higher the potential sound quality and features. Usually better workflow as well. But when you are first beginning to make music then workflow is not an issue, learning should be the foremost thing. If you are a seasoned musician, then of course you may be more serious about your virtual studio and would want to get something that you wont have to throw away in a year or so. But for a lot of people, they start off with cheap like fruity loops and move on to things like Cubase sx3.

Some medium-priced programs include orion platinum and reason 3

By definition i believe a "virtual studio" is a software that emulates a real live music studio, and a "sequencer" is a piece of software or hardware that triggers sounds.

[whiteboycomputernoise]

oh and by the way there are free sequencers and hosts as well.

[Brother Greenmoon]

That "potential sound quality and features/usually better workflow" comment is just the sort of thing that encites the KVR masses to defend their virtual studio of choice for the next ten pages! It's all subjective anyway - I tried the Tracktion 2 demo the other day and hated it. Other people out there must love it though.

I always think it's funny to think of FL Studio as cheap - it's true, it is cheap, but not once you add a number of commercial VST instruments and effects and maybe a hardware synth or two. I bet pretty well every single regular user has spent $100s more on extra gear! I know I have...

[wrench45us]

Whereas i know of people who come from a more 'traditional' music backgrounnd, like playing instruments in bands and writing songs that absolutely can't work with patterns and thus prefer more of a 'linear' sequencing as in cubase for example.

This has definitely been my experience as well within the Cakewalk community. Sonar users tend to think end-to-end and want to record live audio and maybe edit it a little and maybe back it a little with some synths or a drum synth. But the Sonar users I know are into recording and microphones and capturing live performance.

P5 users are much more into midi editing and layering synths and a certain level of unplayable drum breakdowns -- that sort of thing. A few people I know will create a set of patterns they want in a song and then piece them together and try out different things as the structure gets created. The Sonar users I know have a pretty fixed structure in mind from beginning to end.

The tool boundaries are getting blurred, but composition wise, I think it's still a valid distinction.

[grutko]

FL and ORION allow you to create a really long pattern to do more linear composition but its probably not as slick as using something with a more linear approach. In FL and ORION you can lay out your patterns in the playlist in any arrangement you like.

Quick note: FL can be just as linear as the rest of the pack by using the piano roll in conjunction with the "layers" option. It's comparable to using Battery, but with even more control over the sounds.