KVR Audio

rbet · Post by **rbet** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:05 am

Why do people some people keep saying this? I read this in another forum. In FL, you can send audio from ANY channel to ANY channel (except in a loop, of course, but that is common sense), what can possibly be better than this? I don't have Cubase so I can't find out for myself.

EDIT: Title edit. Sorry, no sleep for 38 hours now.

Lagrange · Post by **Lagrange** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:26 am

What would be better? Well 1st off pre fader post effect sends would make a huge difference to routing. Cubase has this.. 2nd (not that its neccesary) FL effect sends are one way. Cubase is the same (group tracks can only be routed to group tracks) it's mixer is still better cause you get sooo many more and you have an option to split group sends to mono... I've kinda wished that Cubase's mixer was in FL many a session..

Jbravo · Post by **Jbravo** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:27 am

I don't have Cubase either but your logic seems to have answered your own question

Lagrange · Post by **Lagrange** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:31 am

Oh and how could I forget.. The Cubase channel strip's parametric eq is WAAAAAAYYYYY better sounding and functional than FL's built in parametric... Basically you dont really need external parametric FX with Cubase, FL's is another story entirely..

rbet · Post by **rbet** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:01 pm

Lagrange wrote:What would be better? Well 1st off pre fader post effect sends would make a huge difference to routing. Cubase has this..

Can you achieve what you want using the Fruity Send plugin?

2nd (not that its neccesary) FL effect sends are one way. Cubase is the same (group tracks can only be routed to group tracks) it's mixer is still better cause you get sooo many more and you have an option to split group sends to mono... I've kinda wished that Cubase's mixer was in FL many a session..

Sorry, so many more of what?

I've never needed a signal splitted. However, I guess you could do it by sending it to two empty FX tracks and hardpanning them to the left and right respectively. We already can use any channel as a send channel by using its mix control knob, correct me if I'm wrong. I know it's kinda roundabout, but you could do it in FL.

Oh and how could I forget.. The Cubase channel strip's parametric eq is WAAAAAAYYYYY better sounding and functional than FL's built in parametric... Basically you dont really need external parametric FX with Cubase, FL's is another story entirely..

Possibly. I can't say if it is better sounding, but I'll say that the 3-band EQ on the mixer channel is basic, but can be very functional. But then I don't use it very often, because I have the Fruity Parametric EQ on every track as a rule.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:06 pm

FL's routing is no better at all. It just comes from the fact that FL studio had NO proper routing at all before the new mixer. Now FL Studio is nearly on par with other hosts (I'd say it is inferior due to lack proper delay compensation. It has manual but it's not working properly as the final delay is not compensated on the master bus).

Lagrange: About the EQ, you must be joking, right? The basic cubase EQ is about as bad as an EQ can get. They simply have not been able to update it since the cubase sx1 times because of lack of compatibility with old projects. 99% of the freeware EQ's around are superior to the cubase eq. I also think that the FL studio channel EQ is superior (it is the Ultrafunk EQ after all, it's not very good but it is superior to the cubase built in one).

Cheers!
bManic

tonework · Post by **tonework** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:03 am

The Cubase EQ is very bad indeed, but the FLStudio EQ is even worse. So in both cases i use Eqium or so.

The big difference is that you have better multichannel control of your channels and groups in Cubase. You can use Quadro channels to address Sidechain inputs or create groups that "crossfade" between stereo channels. Also spitting track to mono groups is very useful.. No way you can archieve this in FLStudio.

On the other hand.. One stupid thing in Cubase is that you cannot route new groups to previously created groups,.. very annoying. This is possible in FLStudio, so in this single case the routing in FLStudio is more flexible..

2 things I REALLY mis in both routings is the possibility to route a FX Return to a groupchannel and creating feedbackloops!! I hope this will be possible in the comming SX..

Anyway the summing and nummeric control of the Cubase mixer is Way better than the FL Studio mixer but still not good enough to me.. Right now I use the Creamware SCOPE mixer just for summing the SX busses, this sounds MUCH better..

edit:typo

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:30 am

Anyway the summing

this adds a lot of credit to anything you've said..

kmonkey · Post by **kmonkey** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:44 am

tony tony chopper wrote:
Anyway the summing
this adds a lot of credit to anything you've said..

(you should not be so nasty. Sit back)

And i have to agree with bmanic too about Cubase built in eq. Just try to "correct" cymbals or...or anything. Worst eq i ever tryed. But i can't complain since i am little noone

I often find that for me routing in cubase is hardtime compared to FL. These days i am using FL more and more but i keep jumping to cubase when i am using hardware. In great hope this will change with time

Regarding FL channel eq.... Well maybe tony should put somewhere in manual that they built Orfanidis filters in eq. I bet that then everyone will cramp a shit out of own ego even if that's not true

tonework · Post by **tonework** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:20 pm

tony tony chopper wrote:
Anyway the summing
this adds a lot of credit to anything you've said..

Are you really nagging about a comma ???

correct if i'm wrong..

fandango · Post by **fandango** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:26 pm

No, it's because we're back onto the summing debate again...

Get ready for 18+ pages worth of people slagging each other off.

the_nihilist · Post by **the_nihilist** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:34 pm

So how do you sidechain in FL again?

tonework · Post by **tonework** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:37 pm

Ah ok, In that case i'm not trying to elicit any discussion.. I'm just reflecting what I hear

rbet · Post by **rbet** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:40 pm

the_nihilist wrote:So how do you sidechain in FL again?

Using the peak controller is one way. Easy Easy.

fretwizz · Post by **fretwizz** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:48 pm

the_nihilist wrote:So how do you sidechain in FL again?

You mean to tell us you don't know?

"Cubase's routing is better than FL's"