Cubas vs FL Studio

[Hink]

This wasn't directed at me, but I'd just like to say that this box is anything but "precise". With the piano roll, there is only a finite level that i can zoom out to, and it is nowhere near acceptable for my purposes. Strangely, you can zoom so far in as to make the piano roll impossible to use.... *sigh*

sounds like you're mixing up in and out there just a bit. You can zoom out until the point of uselessness, you can zoom in fine...and you should read what I write...I never said it was prescise I said "far more precise" and it is...when you read something you must comprehend what you've read too...

[the_nihilist]

Using Cubase increases your talent 20-40%.

[Jesse J]

Sorry about the typos as I had a few beers..

I own both FL Studio 5 and Cubase (ver 1) and I have had FL 2 years longer than cubase.

I have produced material for 2 albums on FL and material for 18 albums with Cubase. That would tell you which one I prefer myself.

Certain things are much easier to do in FL and some things more natural on Cubase. It's is more natural to play music in a traditional real-time way (record guitars, keyboards, record vocals, mix and master etc) in Cubase, and then for 'programming' stuff and syncing LFOs to tempo etc there's FL.

So If i do techy stuff, I would start FL and do my thing, then export tracks to Cubase and mix it there and add analoguish realtime controller movements and so on.

Both apps are great once you really get to know them. I would recommend anyone to take and extra 4-5 hours when you just go trough every parameter and find out what your sequencer and it's features can do. I believe that people usually use 10-20% of the features of the tools they use for making music, including hardware syths and so on...

Also note that you dont even have to know all the features to make good music. You need imagination, intuition and good taste, and then foremost you have to be a nice intersting person for people to like you ... life isn't just music, It's life too. !)

Generally I would say Cubase would push you towards working in a more 'professional' way, the way you are possibly going to work in a 'major studio' when you progress. FL has it's own mindset and you would have to rediscover everything if you would start working at a major studio with common tools. Also Cubase indicates all parameters in traditional way, in decibels and standard notelenghts, wou will learn music and audio theory without knowing of it (seen it happen )... FL teaches you FL.

No I don't hate FL. I love it.
I also love my Cubase.

But my Akai MPC2000XL no doubt still is the best sequencer in my studio

[Jesse J]

..and now I got interested in upgrading to Cubase SX 3. it there any nice videos/reviews of the new features? I guess I have missed out since ver 2 and 3 whilst making music... I see there's some brief videos on the steinberg site, but thats poor. Something more in depth maybe?

[Debutante]

..apparently these two programs are good enough against each other to spark this heated sort of debate. I've read so many forums that have had this argument before. My take is that both have their strengths and weakneses, but either one only gives you an environment to work in...quite literally a room which you fill with your own sounds.

Now, as far the REAL "better than thou" argument is concerned, what I would like to know is this: If you took a single synth, say Absynth, and used the same presets in either program, is one of them going to sound better than the other? And if so, how is it better and why? Is one program rendering to wav better than the other, or providing more depth with the same reverb plugin or giving a wider stereo or a richer, thicker chorus with the same plugin, and IS THIS OCCURENCE CONSTANT?...Those are the questions I think would really define a "better" program; their ability to crunch numbers. But, if you can use the same instrument and get the same quality sound from both applications, then everything else is moot. The rest would just be personal preferences; based on everything from the technicalities of workflow all the way down to something as petty as cosmetics.

....so would someone familiar with both applications please be kind and patient enough to, using the same instruments, samples and presets, produce the same short little something in Cubase and FL Studio and post it for us to hear. Maybe some tests, like ani-aliasing could be done. Let everyone judge the difference if there is any, and decide what is "better", and how so. There would quite likely be some minor differnces, but would it mean that you were able to achieve specific effects, or combinations in one application that you couldn't in the other?

My feeling is that creativity lies with the writer. Don't blame your tools - if you can't sound good in one program, using the same instruments, I really doubt it will sound better in the other application.

[mr.me]

Using Cubase increases your talent 20-40%.

I thought it was 110%?

[the_nihilist]

..apparently these two programs are good enough against each other to spark this heated sort of debate. I've read so many forums that have had this argument before. My take is that both have their strengths and weakneses, but either one only gives you an environment to work in...quite literally a room which you fill with your own sounds.

Now, as far the REAL "better than thou" argument is concerned, what I would like to know is this: If you took a single synth, say Absynth, and used the same presets in either program, is one of them going to sound better than the other? And if so, how is it better and why? Is one program rendering to wav better than the other, or providing more depth with the same reverb plugin or giving a wider stereo or a richer, thicker chorus with the same plugin, and IS THIS OCCURENCE CONSTANT?...Those are the questions I think would really define a "better" program; their ability to crunch numbers. But, if you can use the same instrument and get the same quality sound from both applications, then everything else is moot. The rest would just be personal preferences; based on everything from the technicalities of workflow all the way down to something as petty as cosmetics.

....so would someone familiar with both applications please be kind and patient enough to, using the same instruments, samples and presets, produce the same short little something in Cubase and FL Studio and post it for us to hear. Maybe some tests, like ani-aliasing could be done. Let everyone judge the difference if there is any, and decide what is "better", and how so. There would quite likely be some minor differnces, but would it mean that you were able to achieve specific effects, or combinations in one application that you couldn't in the other?

My feeling is that creativity lies with the writer. Don't blame your tools - if you can't sound good in one program, using the same instruments, I really doubt it will sound better in the other application.

There is NO difference in sound between the two programs if you use the same plugins and bit/samplerate. PERIOD. None. Zero. This isn't even an issue.

Honestly, I still don't know why there is that "FL Sound". Its just something that I can tell almost instantly about a song -- this piece was made in FL Studio. I have a few theories about this:

1) The FL Playlist subconciously lulls you into using small patterns for everything, and repeating them. This results in a song that is built up from repeating, identical pieces.

2) Having the volume and panning controls in the mixer subconciously makes you just set volume and panning as static parameters. Also, its a bit annoying to try and make smooth volume changes over a few bars, so things are generally left without much changes in volume or balance.

3) "People will probably bitch about presets if I use them on the synths, but they can't possibly notice that I'm using the Cathedral setting on the FL Verb."

4) FL's piano roll and playlist will make you quantize EVERYTHING. Even if you're playing is really close to being in time, it gives you an unnatural urge to quantize that cannot be resisted.

Thats my best guess to why we have the whole "FL Sound" argument, based on my experiences with FL.

[advaya]

or...

5) The waaayyyy over-used 'fruity kick'...

that one gives it away all the time...

[Debutante]

Oh, the volume thing is the only difference in sound

software and hardware have the same problems as tvs for example. If they all have the same "specs" they should all look the same right?

But they don't, and software and ESPECIALLY hardware are no different. There are differences. If they were all the same, we'd all buy they same product right? NOT!

The key is the mix. Take the same products, make sure they same patches/VOLUME and all match. Then listen how everything sets......you'll be surprised at the differences.

Or, keep spouting off the specs and be ingorant......it's up to you.

Rude? Me....naw I'm just tired of this debate. There are diffences and it's high time that this was made clear.

Would you please make a feasible presentation backing your claim to the differences, preferably with audio examples or some kind of testing. Just saying its so isn't enough. I get your analogy, but its a bit harder to transpose on something as subjective as hearing. You sound vrey convniced; maybe you can show us something concrete...

[original flipper]

HI

I see little point in asking people to substantiate their opinions (thats all they are) by doing a presentation based on a portfolio of evidence - blimey we come here for fun - to give 'our' opinions, what your asking would make every opinion turn into hours of work!!!

Its all just opinion, unless you ask for something specific IE 'how much does product X cost'.

Just go try both programs and 'hear' for yourself.

Flipper.

[Hink]

Oh, the volume thing is the only difference in sound

software and hardware have the same problems as tvs for example. If they all have the same "specs" they should all look the same right?

But they don't, and software and ESPECIALLY hardware are no different. There are differences. If they were all the same, we'd all buy they same product right? NOT!

The key is the mix. Take the same products, make sure they same patches/VOLUME and all match. Then listen how everything sets......you'll be surprised at the differences.

Or, keep spouting off the specs and be ingorant......it's up to you.

Rude? Me....naw I'm just tired of this debate. There are diffences and it's high time that this was made clear.

Would you please make a feasible presentation backing your claim to the differences, preferably with audio examples or some kind of testing. Just saying its so isn't enough. I get your analogy, but its a bit harder to transpose on something as subjective as hearing. You sound vrey convniced; maybe you can show us something concrete...

I too asked him to prove it

TBH I think the biggest problem and why so many people bash FL is the price. I think the bashers saw the price wrote it off as being junk. As it is clear that it is not junk,those people have to keep defending to themselves why they paid much more. I think that probably 75% of the attacks on FL is because of just this...they're mad at themselves for not going with it.

I think also the price puts FL it a tough spot right now. See no matter what, as long as it costs 150 bux some idiots will call it a toy (go back a page or two) so when competing with the high price software that is a disadvantage. Meanwhile they have the advantage of the "surprise" factor when dealing with those companies. So chasing those companies is what will keep them from becoming complacent.

However with the stigma of the low price it quickly get's lumped in with the more consumer grade price range, hence asswipes calling it a toy. However the yearly poll surely showed it was quite popular and this is probably one of the main reasons...lots of features good price. But it get's stuck in with other lower priced supposedly non-professional software (I believe there is no non professional software, just non professional engineers, producers and such)

So now instead of chasing the pack and keeping them (so-called pro apps) on their toes because their eyes must always be in the rearview watching how fast FL is gaining on them. They are the head of the pack watching their rearview concerned about other apps catching them.

I say it's a mighty tough spot for them right now...like most software companies they can explode or implode at anytime. I figure the best thing to do is make music with I have today, and worry what I'll be making music with down the road if and when the need arrises.

[jsd]

I am a noob myself and pondering the same question. for me though it isn't a matter of sound quality per se, it's the fundamental difference in structure. With FL you have a pattern sequencer for quick and dirty song construction - if you're into rhythmic repetitive music - like 90% of modern music - this seems like a good thing. Fast results.

With Cubase you are in a far more professional, "realistic" (i.e. studio-like) environment. You have HUGE flexibility in how you can construct your music. BUT...no pattern sequencer. I don't know much about Cubase, but it seems to me that this should result in a more time-consuming workflow. How do people approach this (I am asking sincerely here)?

I write dance music (loop based, repetitive) and mostly use Cubase SX 3 for it. As far as "patterns" are concerned, say I'm playing a drum sampler like Battery. Generally I'll set up a loop and play some sort of rough take with a metronome. I don't like programming patterns by clicking buttons on a grid. I like to close my eyes and hit the keys with my fingers (or a drum pad with sticks). Anyway after I've got the rough part sketched out I might open the Cubase drum editor and tune it up. Once this part is done you can create "shared copies" in Cubase just by ctrl-dragging. If I decide later on that I need to change a note in the pattern, I can edit it once and all the shared copies update instantly. Alternatively, if I think I just need a variation I can turn the shared copy into a real copy with a click. I tend to leave MIDI parts as MIDI unless they are using up a ton of CPU (reaktor patches are the usual culprit).

With the new "play order" track it's easy to create combos of parts and have them repeat and switch between verse/chorus a-section/b-section/whatever.

Hope this helps.

[Debutante]

HI

I see little point in asking people to substantiate their opinions (thats all they are) by doing a presentation based on a portfolio of evidence - blimey we come here for fun - to give 'our' opinions, what your asking would make every opinion turn into hours of work!!!

Its all just opinion, unless you ask for something specific IE 'how much does product X cost'.

Just go try both programs and 'hear' for yourself.

Flipper.

I understand what you're saying, and yes I believe this is a venue for opinion. However there are arguments that are being stated AS FACT, and all I'm asking for verification, otherwise its just misleading based on some kind of personal preferance or even a bias. I think of KVR as a pretty serious place for amature discussion, so when such a strong claim is made, it would be great to get some hard backing facts. A forum for opinion, yes, but that doesn't mean we can't learn anything in the process. Maybe someone has, or knows something that could REALLY change minds. That's all I'm asking. Change my mind with evidence.

[Debutante]

...and a little work never hurt anyone!

[experimental.crow]

..apparently these two programs are good enough against each other to spark this heated sort of debate. I've read so many forums that have had this argument before. My take is that both have their strengths and weakneses, but either one only gives you an environment to work in...quite literally a room which you fill with your own sounds.

Now, as far the REAL "better than thou" argument is concerned, what I would like to know is this: If you took a single synth, say Absynth, and used the same presets in either program, is one of them going to sound better than the other? And if so, how is it better and why? Is one program rendering to wav better than the other, or providing more depth with the same reverb plugin or giving a wider stereo or a richer, thicker chorus with the same plugin, and IS THIS OCCURENCE CONSTANT?...Those are the questions I think would really define a "better" program; their ability to crunch numbers. But, if you can use the same instrument and get the same quality sound from both applications, then everything else is moot. The rest would just be personal preferences; based on everything from the technicalities of workflow all the way down to something as petty as cosmetics.

....so would someone familiar with both applications please be kind and patient enough to, using the same instruments, samples and presets, produce the same short little something in Cubase and FL Studio and post it for us to hear. Maybe some tests, like ani-aliasing could be done. Let everyone judge the difference if there is any, and decide what is "better", and how so. There would quite likely be some minor differnces, but would it mean that you were able to achieve specific effects, or combinations in one application that you couldn't in the other?

My feeling is that creativity lies with the writer. Don't blame your tools - if you can't sound good in one program, using the same instruments, I really doubt it will sound better in the other application.

There is NO difference in sound between the two programs if you use the same plugins and bit/samplerate. PERIOD. None. Zero. This isn't even an issue.

Honestly, I still don't know why there is that "FL Sound". Its just something that I can tell almost instantly about a song -- this piece was made in FL Studio. I have a few theories about this:

1) The FL Playlist subconciously lulls you into using small patterns for everything, and repeating them. This results in a song that is built up from repeating, identical pieces.

2) Having the volume and panning controls in the mixer subconciously makes you just set volume and panning as static parameters. Also, its a bit annoying to try and make smooth volume changes over a few bars, so things are generally left without much changes in volume or balance.

3) "People will probably bitch about presets if I use them on the synths, but they can't possibly notice that I'm using the Cathedral setting on the FL Verb."

4) FL's piano roll and playlist will make you quantize EVERYTHING. Even if you're playing is really close to being in time, it gives you an unnatural urge to quantize that cannot be resisted.

Thats my best guess to why we have the whole "FL Sound" argument, based on my experiences with FL.

oh , yes ...
i have often been accused of having that 'FL' sound ...