FL Studio is amazing. Why is it so cheap?

[arke]

Excuse me while I slip into something a little more comfortable...

I have a 5 hour stop-over there next week so I wouldn't be in a hurry to take it off, pal.

I have a 5 hour stop-over there next week so I wouldn't be in a hurry to take it off, pal.

Hmmm... just enough time for me to extract you from LAX, get you drunk and then put you on a plane. The only way to fly!

!!!

wasted webspace in red:

http://www.modestapparelchristianclothi ... ewing.com/
http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan/
http://www.toysafety.org/index.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kriminal.uk/
http://kriminal.presetbank.com/
http://www.myspace.com/kriminaluk
http://anonymouse.org/

Ergo, it is not designed to to solve the same problem.

That doesn't follow. It could easily be that the two simply have different views on how much is enough.

Producing an application that is not designed to solve the same problem. Seriously --- 2 LFOs vs 85 LFOs, and you conclude that the latter is just as flexible as the former?

Argh!!1

What he is saying is that its good FOR HIM. He doesn'T need the 85LFOs or whatever because he won't ever make a sound that complex, because he'd rather make the melody itself more complex than the sound. Its that easy.

I don't need 85 LFOs either. And for the record, I find a modulation matrix with fewer LFOs a million times easier and better than an LFO for everything, because then I can control many things with the same LFO without a big ass hassle of making sure everything is the same.

But we're agreed that it does, in fact, offer multi-sampled instrument ability?

No. How f**king stupid can you be. You're using a totally inappropriate term. The amount of work required to restrict each layers key range and velocity response, none of which can be saved with the sounds themselves, makes it pathetic compared to even the simplest soundfont.

Right, so by your own admission, it does offer multisampled ability --- you just don't like the user experience.

No, it doesn'T. Using just the Layer channel, you cannot ... and I repeat, cannot use different samples for different velocities. Not to mention that I do not see the f**king point behind it when you have something like Battery, Kontakt, Directwave, or hell one of those f**ked SE freebies that does it a million times easier anyway.

LOL! I busted gol's balls directly in LoopTalk about a couple of aspects of the program's design --- to no ill consequence, I might add.

Looptalk is not in public. Christ, its barely out of kindergarten.

ATTENTION GOL:

Programming in Delphi is for pussies. Kernighan has already explained why Pascal is to be avoided. [1] The gist of it is that a language designed for instructional use is not inclined to production use. It has been said that getting C++ from C is like nailing 8 planks on a dog and calling it an octopus. Delphi, however, is like nailing 8 planks on a nanny and calling her a genetic engineer.

Pascal was designed to coddle the programmer, to gently guide them into the terrifying world of Real Programming. Like a mother, it would nurture developing talent, and make asinine requirements like using := for assignment. That someone would still use a form of Pascal for serious programming makes me wonder if said individual has moved out of mummy's flat yet.

So do the right thing. Rewrite FL in C++. I command it.

[1] http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html

.... wow.

First of all, Delphi is not comparable at all to the old version of Pascal. About 95% of the reasons Kernigham (of C fame) mentions that suck about Pascal have been fixed in Delphi.

Secondly, FL runs faster than most other Audio apps. And its pretty damn stable too, at least here.

Thirdly, how much f**king effort do you tink it would be to rewrite a complete commercial application, in a different programming language to boot? Have you done any other coding than preschool QBASIC? You probably haven't, so please f**k off and come back when you have a scale for the amount of code you're looking at. Especially considering that this is only two guys, one of which also works on another application at the same time.

And just in case you have any doubts as to why I think you're an ignorant c**t, here's a list:
- you have no understanding of the term multi-sampled instrument

Ah, but it would seem to be you who was confused, since your L337 FL beta-testing ass didn't actually know how the layer plugin worked. Go ahead, back-pedal harder --- tell me the ability to build an instrument out of multiple-samples doesn't count if you have to use the layer plugin to do it.

Read what I wrote above.

- you equate the number of features with the worth of a musical instrument [Would that make a guitar better than a bass and a drum-kit orders of magnitude better than either?]

I would love to see you cite me saying that. I think this is just another indicator of the cognitive dissonance you experience from the whole Sytrus vs. Toxic thing. Which is, again, ironic because I was trying to point out that Toxic and Sytrus are different tools for different jobs --- apparently, the fact that I didn't acknowledge Toxic's eminent superiority was tantamount to indicting it of inferiority.

LOL!!11 TOXIC HAS ONLY 2 LFOS!111 LOL!! SYTRUS HAS 85 LFOs, LOLL!!! IT MUST BE BETTER THAN TOXIC!!11 LOL!!11

Producing an application that is not designed to solve the same problem. Seriously --- 2 LFOs vs 85 LFOs, and you conclude that the latter is just as flexible as the former?

Come on.

[John Vulich]

I don't need 85 LFOs either. And for the record, I find a modulation matrix with fewer LFOs a million times easier and better than an LFO for everything, because then I can control many things with the same LFO without a big ass hassle of making sure everything is the same.

Pussy.

[arke]

I don't need 85 LFOs either. And for the record, I find a modulation matrix with fewer LFOs a million times easier and better than an LFO for everything, because then I can control many things with the same LFO without a big ass hassle of making sure everything is the same.

Pussy.

acid user

[John Vulich]

Ableton Live actually.

You should try it sometime when you're done playing with your toy host.

[arke]

Ableton Live actually.

You should try it sometime when you're done playing with your toy host.

I used to make music with a guitar, a crappy toy casio keyboard, a few guitar pedals, and two tape decks

[John Vulich]

Yeah, I started on a Casio CZ101 and a Fostex X15.

[ninjadroid]

Producing an application that is not designed to solve the same problem. Seriously --- 2 LFOs vs 85 LFOs, and you conclude that the latter is just as flexible as the former?

Argh!!1

What he is saying is that its good FOR HIM.

And I never once said that it wasn't. The argument is whether or not they are in the same product space. While they are both FM synthesizers, my thesis has been that Toxic is geared toward doing the bread and butter really well, whereas Sytrus is geared towards manipulating the hell out of the sound. I have never once, in this entire thread, nor in my life, attempted to tell somebody that they are wrong for liking a program --- I certainly have never said that BONES should use Sytrus, or that Sytrus is better than Toxic. This is because that would be subjective, not objective, and I'm not of that opinion, anyway. In fact, I happen to think Toxic is quite a nice synth. [2]

[1] "Toxic is geared much more to 'bread and butter' FM, whereas FL [sic] is designed for maximum tweakability."

[2] "I reiterate, Toxic is a wonderful synth --- I certainly wouldn't kick it out of bed."

No, it doesn'T. Using just the Layer channel, you cannot ... and I repeat, cannot use different samples for different velocities.

That is not a requirement of a multi-sampled instrument. If that were the case, then any instrument composed of multiple samples which did not assign different samples to different velocities would not be a multi-sampled instrument. However, there is an ineffable number of such instrument banks around, and it is widely acknowledged that such constitutes a multi-sampled instrument.

While the ability to map samples to velocities is indeed a very useful ability, it is not a requirement of a multi-sampled instrument (I'd say "multisampler," but apparently that's taboo). In fact, consider an instrument which allowed you to map samples to velocities, but not to keys. That would not solve the problem of aliasing, the very gremlin which multi-sampled technology set out to kill at its inception.

You are free to regard a multi-sampled instrument which does not support mapping samples to velocities as a toy. I certainly appreciate the feature, and it's one of the reasons I'm a registered DirectWave user. But velocity mapping is a feature, and lacking it does not disqualify an instrument from multi-sampled status any more than missing an LFO would.

If you feel like getting into real semantic hair-splitting, and arguing over linguistic determinants and such, then perhaps it would be appropriate to start a separate thread on language theory. The topic is deep, and I don't believe we could do it justice as a tangential debate.

First of all, Delphi is not comparable at all to the old version of Pascal. About 95% of the reasons Kernigham (of C fame) mentions that suck about Pascal have been fixed in Delphi.

Secondly, FL runs faster than most other Audio apps. And its pretty damn stable too, at least here.

Thirdly, how much f**king effort do you tink it would be to rewrite a complete commercial application, in a different programming language to boot? Have you done any other coding than preschool QBASIC? You probably haven't, so please f**k off and come back when you have a scale for the amount of code you're looking at. Especially considering that this is only two guys, one of which also works on another application at the same time.

LOL!!11 TOXIC HAS ONLY 2 LFOS!111 LOL!! SYTRUS HAS 85 LFOs, LOLL!!! IT MUST BE BETTER THAN TOXIC!!11 LOL!!11

I see...

Producing an application that is not designed to solve the same problem. Seriously --- 2 LFOs vs 85 LFOs, and you conclude that the latter is just as flexible as the former?

Do you equate flexibility with quality? I refute that. It is certainly a factor, but it does not come at zero cost. Otherwise, we'd all be using PD, or just programming everything --- literally. A language with 1,000 words is more expressive than a language with 10 words, but the former has a greater learning curve than the latter. Likewise, ceteris paribus, a synth with 100 envelopes is more flexible than a synth with 10 envelopes, but the former is more complex than the latter.

Sytrus is more flexible than Toxic --- but it's more complicated. And the Fruity DX10 is the simplest of the three --- but it's also the least flexible. They are different tools for different jobs. Saying one is better than the other is about as sensible as saying a sledgehammer is better than a ball peen hammer. Which is why you won't find me saying it.

[BONES]

That is not a requirement of a multi-sampled instrument. If that were the case, then any instrument composed of multiple samples which did not assign different samples to different velocities would not be a multi-sampled instrument. However, there is an ineffable number of such instrument banks around, and it is widely acknowledged that such constitutes a multi-sampled instrument.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LISTEN DIPSHIT<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

A MULTI-SAMPLED INSTRUMENT IS A FILE YOU LOAD INTO A SAMPLER. IT IS NOT AN INSTRUMENT IN THE WAY THAT SYTRUS IS BUT A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES MAPPED ACROSS A KEYBOARD AND SAVED IN A SINGLE FILE. SINCE THE LATE 80's/EARLY 90's IT HAS BEEN POSSIBLE, IN EVEN BUDGET SAMPLERS, TO USE MULTIPLE LAYERS AND MAP THEM TO DIFFERENT VELOCITY RANGES.
YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO f**king IDEA WHAT YOU ARE BANGING ON ABOUT SO FOR CHRIST'S f**king SAKE WILL YOU SHUT THE f**k UP!?!

[dhanjit]

That is not a requirement of a multi-sampled instrument. If that were the case, then any instrument composed of multiple samples which did not assign different samples to different velocities would not be a multi-sampled instrument. However, there is an ineffable number of such instrument banks around, and it is widely acknowledged that such constitutes a multi-sampled instrument.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LISTEN DIPSHIT<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

A MULTI-SAMPLED INSTRUMENT IS A FILE YOU LOAD INTO A SAMPLER. IT IS NOT AN INSTRUMENT IN THE WAY THAT SYTRUS IS BUT A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES MAPPED ACROSS A KEYBOARD AND SAVED IN A SINGLE FILE. SINCE THE LATE 80's/EARLY 90's IT HAS BEEN POSSIBLE, IN EVEN BUDGET SAMPLERS, TO USE MULTIPLE LAYERS AND MAP THEM TO DIFFERENT VELOCITY RANGES.
YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO f**king IDEA WHAT YOU ARE BANGING ON ABOUT SO FOR CHRIST'S f**king SAKE WILL YOU SHUT THE f**k UP!?!

[Michael Winner voice] Calm down dear, it's only an internet forum. [/Michael Winner voice]

[pHz]

sorry warren ... didnt quite hear you ???

slainte rob

[ninjadroid]

That is not a requirement of a multi-sampled instrument. If that were the case, then any instrument composed of multiple samples which did not assign different samples to different velocities would not be a multi-sampled instrument. However, there is an ineffable number of such instrument banks around, and it is widely acknowledged that such constitutes a multi-sampled instrument.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LISTEN DIPSHIT<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

A MULTI-SAMPLED INSTRUMENT IS A FILE YOU LOAD INTO A SAMPLER. IT IS NOT AN INSTRUMENT IN THE WAY THAT SYTRUS IS BUT A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES MAPPED ACROSS A KEYBOARD AND SAVED IN A SINGLE FILE. SINCE THE LATE 80's/EARLY 90's IT HAS BEEN POSSIBLE, IN EVEN BUDGET SAMPLERS, TO USE MULTIPLE LAYERS AND MAP THEM TO DIFFERENT VELOCITY RANGES.
YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO f**king IDEA WHAT YOU ARE BANGING ON ABOUT SO FOR CHRIST'S f**king SAKE WILL YOU SHUT THE f**k UP!?!

Uh... I think you need to read a bit more carefully. In that passage you quoted, where did I talk about a multi-sampled instrument as if it were a sampler? I didn't. The point I was making was that a multi-sampled instrument is just a collection of samples that are mapped out across the keyboard --- and therefore, velocity mapping is optional. Which means that you can use the FL layer tool and FL sampler to play a multi-sampled instrument. Which was my original point. Which you've just proven for me, and quite dramatically.

Once again, kudos to you, captain ironic, for making a tool of yourself without any outside assistance. Not to mention you've given up any pretense of reason, and totally abandoned the original debate. Brilliant.



So what shocking revelations have we come to after around 15 pages of debate? Are you ready kids? Brace yourselves --- anything that takes this long to figure out is guaranteed to be deep.

Last warning --- make sure you're sitting down:

Orion and FruityLoops both offer good value for money.

Truly, a monument should be erected to celebrate this epiphany.

[arke]

That is not a requirement of a multi-sampled instrument. If that were the case, then any instrument composed of multiple samples which did not assign different samples to different velocities would not be a multi-sampled instrument. However, there is an ineffable number of such instrument banks around, and it is widely acknowledged that such constitutes a multi-sampled instrument.

YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO f**king IDEA WHAT YOU ARE BANGING ON ABOUT SO FOR CHRIST'S f**king SAKE WILL YOU SHUT THE f**k UP!?![/b][/size]

You know, ninjadroid, if you manage to make BONES use a larger size font, something which not even I have managed to do, i think its time to stfu and accept defeat

Oh, and those pictures don't help. You can't be any older than I am ... which would pretty much prove my point regarding the whole QBASIC thing, eh?

[basic channel]

That is not a requirement of a multi-sampled instrument. If that were the case, then any instrument composed of multiple samples which did not assign different samples to different velocities would not be a multi-sampled instrument. However, there is an ineffable number of such instrument banks around, and it is widely acknowledged that such constitutes a multi-sampled instrument.

YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO f**king IDEA WHAT YOU ARE BANGING ON ABOUT SO FOR CHRIST'S f**king SAKE WILL YOU SHUT THE f**k UP!?![/b][/size]

You know, ninjadroid, if you manage to make BONES use a larger size font, something which not even I have managed to do, i think its time to stfu and accept defeat

Oh, and those pictures don't help. You can't be any older than I am ... which would pretty much prove my point regarding the whole QBASIC thing, eh?

I dunno - I think he's doing pretty well

BC

[ninjadroid]

You know, ninjadroid, if you manage to make BONES use a larger size font, something which not even I have managed to do, i think its time to stfu and accept defeat

Because that makes a whole lot of sense. As in, none at all.

Oh, and those pictures don't help. You can't be any older than I am ... which would pretty much prove my point regarding the whole QBASIC thing, eh?

Dude... I program for a living. I also do it for fun. If you couldn't figure out the joke, that's a personal problem. In actuality, I've written plenty of code in Lazarus and find it to be very enjoyable, and I'm pretty sure any real programmer (like gol) will get the reference := makes to the eons old flamewar between algol-descended syntaxes and everyone else. Really, you're the one who's blatantly ignorant for not picking up on this obvious cultural reference.

Further, not once did I say that pascal was slow, yet you seized on that --- even though everyone with some modicum of familiarity with languages knows that Pascal has always been blazingly fast. Not only that, but because the early incarnations had a context free grammar, it could compile much faster than C. In fact, the difference in compile times for equivalent C++ and Turbo Pascal programs --- which compiled the Object Pascal language that Borland developed jointly with Wirth --- was often an order of magnitude in favor of Pascal.

But if you don't think I know what I'm talking about, there's plenty of open source code on my website (http://gazuga.net) to back me up. Really, of all the things you could accuse me of being, ignorant of matters programming is not one of them.

[sQeetz]

Layerstates in FL can be saved. When reloading them afterwards all the samples within the layer get loaded with all keyassignments etc for each sample used in the layer.
I think this can count as a single file. Only restriction is that only FL can load this filetype.