An alternative to FL Studio

[neokoo]

I'm sure I'm not the only FL user annoyed by the few shortcomings in this otherwise great host. I'm talking about the inflexibility of the pattern sequencer (each new pattern takes up vertical space, different parts on same sequencer track not possible, automation in separate window, no folder tracks, no note preview), lack of proper freeze function, etc.

There are however some features I use extensively, and they are the ones keeping me from switching to another host. So, I'd like to know if any other host has features like these:

1. Peak Controller and LFOs which can be easily linked to any VST parameter
2. Flexible mixer routing (send from any channel to any channel(s) at user-controllable volume)
3. Easy way of rearranging effects in effect chain
4. Automatable Dry/Wet and On/Off (not bypass) for each effect in effect chain
5. Easy sample/preset browsing and ability to drag-n-drop them to the project

Is there a host that can do all those and has a track/part-based sequencer?

[kovacs]

Well, I switched from FL to Live two years ago because I really dislike FL's playlist view, especially when working with audioclips. You probably won't find a program than can fully replace FL so maybe consider using it in conjuction with another DAW?

[neokoo]

You probably won't find a program than can fully replace FL so maybe consider using it in conjuction with another DAW?

Tried that with Cubase some time ago, using Cubase as sequencer for some FL tracks, mixing them in FL and sending audio to Cubase. The workflow became somewhat complicated, and there were some limitations in how many tracks were controllable from Cubase. Also there was a significant CPU hit.

I'll probably try that again when I upgrade to Core 2 Duo, but the problems with workflow (having the project split between two sequencers) will still remain.

[Shane Sanders]

I used to feel the same way about the way patterns function in FLS since I initially got into the VST world using Orion. But after a while I came to realize that the way FLS handles it can be very helpful. It also really helps to have a second monitor. I have a very nice 19" flat panel and a cheapo 15" flat panel. I keep the Playlist editor on the small monitor and nothing else.

I can invoke or dismiss all the other important panels in FLS using 3 or 4 function keys. So space or screen real estate is never an issue except for the occasional giant VST GUI that obscures my Channel Settings panel. But I just scoot the big GUI out of the way for a moment, knowing that my Channel Setting panel is exactly in the same spot for all instruments.

By having the entire left-hand side of my large screen available for an ever-growing stack of VST instruments (in what is known as the Step Sequencer), I can get a very good idea of what is going on in a pattern just by glancing at it--it's very rare that I would have more than I can see because CPU would be an issue at that point (and my machine is a P4 3.4). I think the name "Step Sequencer" isn't the best name for what that panel really is. I've never even used it as such except to find out what it does. It is a step sequencer for sure, but really it's your orchestra for a given segment of music that goes by the name Pattern. But I'm not at all into working with tiny patterns, preferring everything to take place in the Piano Roll where both the note length and velocity bars are more like an actual score that I can read with my eye and ears. Longer sections of music make it much more like songwriting to me. Not half a song, mind you, but just a verse or a chorus or even sometimes half a verse or chorus.

Do you see where I'm coming from? If you begin to think more in terms of "here's a segment of my song with all that is playing during a set of bars" it's much better than looking at it from "here's a tiny little bar of something that has no context". You merely need to look at the Step Sequencer as the overview of what you're editing at a particular moment rather than trying to do it in the Playlist. It's hard to explain, but once you get this, you may find that you like FLS much better again. But I realize that some folks want to have a bar of drums and only that in a pattern (and you can work the way I do and still do that as well. I do it often when I make an intro or an outro note. You're not limited at all) But even when I do start with a smaller pattern, it has some slight variation in it in terms of velocity settings once I start cloning it, a ghost note, or something. So little patterns just don't work for me as I just prefer to append them as a unit. In the end, a complex song may end up having only a dozen or so patterns in the playlist, some of which 'were' clones of each other but then I have made small alterations to them to make them work musically.

[Shane Sanders]

You probably won't find a program than can fully replace FL so maybe consider using it in conjuction with another DAW?

Tried that with Cubase some time ago, using Cubase as sequencer for some FL tracks, mixing them in FL and sending audio to Cubase. The workflow became somewhat complicated, and there were some limitations in how many tracks were controllable from Cubase. Also there was a significant CPU hit.

I'll probably try that again when I upgrade to Core 2 Duo, but the problems with workflow (having the project split between two sequencers) will still remain.

I tried this for a while, too, using Sonar and FLS. But in the end, it became a nightmare to make music. Having looked at the FLS beta, the Edison recorder is going to make some things a lot more fun in FLS. You'll be able to record live instruments and quickly trim away what you don't need from a take, then quickly save it and import it back into a Sampler generator (which gives a lot of power in that little panel). And as many folks know, the tempo and pitch shifting in FLS is quite good. So a drum loop can easily be sped up or slowed down without a noticeable loss of quality as long as you're not going from 170 bpm to 50 all the sudden.

[neokoo]

I have a very nice 19" flat panel and a cheapo 15" flat panel. I keep the Playlist editor on the small monitor and nothing else.

I've got 2 19" CRTs @ 1320x1020px, also with Playlist on the other one, and that is not nearly enough. Here's an example of my typical Playlist view:

http://www.neokoo.net/misc_files/patterns.gif

...and that is 50% of its original 2014x2490px size. The Playlist window was at unusable zoom level to take a screenshot of that, so at actual, usable level it would take about 8000x4000 pixels. That could be reduced to half with proper track/part sequencing, and it would be far more comprehensible.

Do you see where I'm coming from? If you begin to think more in terms of "here's a segment of my song with all that is playing during a set of bars" it's much better than looking at it from "here's a tiny little bar of something that has no context".

Yeah, I get that, but for me it just doesn't work, as you can see from the screenshot I posted. For my sequencing style and music I make (techno/trance/breakbeat/etc.) it is much easier to use single, "one-instrument-and-one-part-per-pattern"-style patterns. I like to keep things so that every element of the track is easily changeable without affecting other elements.

[speccyteccy]

Wait for the new playlist in FL? I've a feeling it's going to allow multiple patterns per row.

[neokoo]

Wait for the new playlist in FL? I've a feeling it's going to allow multiple patterns per row.

Wait yet again It's been like this for the last four years. FL lacks a feature, I search for a new host, I do not find a good enough replacement and wait some months for the next FL version to have the features I need.

I thought this time some other host could finally free me from this cycle... maybe the next version will indeed have all I need, maybe it won't. I'm getting tired of this, to be honest, because other sequencers have had the features I need for ages. Then again, at least previously most of them have not had the features that keep me using FL, so I'm back to square one.

[kmonkey]

Or maybe playlist with tabs?

[Shane Sanders]

I think people should work the way they want, so my 2 cents is only that, but I really feel your approach here doesn't gain you anything in terms of visualizing your arrangement. It's too microscopic if you zoom in at all; and it would be nearly as hairy if you could put all those similar patterns on one lane, imo.

From looking at your Playlist graphic, I think you could make the same song with less than ten patterns (taking care to name them well) and be able to see just as much of an overview of your work (per section) using the Pattern Sequencer as the iconographic representation. Those little windows in the Pattern Sequencer tell a lot about a line or section of music in terms of overview and general shape/activity at a given point in time. The approach you've posted seems overly detailed in terms of looking at an arrangement. Yours is almost a 'score' whereas it might be more fun if it was more like a 'cue sheet'.

Plus, doing it the way you do, you don't get the benefit of being able to use the 'ghosting' or 'onion-skinning' feature. If you aren't familiar with that, it allows you to see how various instruments in a pattern relate to one another with only one of them being active in terms of editing. Very handy for making counterpoint lines or just making sure that you're getting things to line up that you want to line up.

[Lagrange]

Not to denigrate... Keep trying different combinations maybe?? The funny thing about FL IMO is that it's a very structured (I call it selfish).. And I mean you still cant rule out the possibilities with rewire and other plugs to enhance (unspoiled) it like Live Slice, Vsampler and the like.. The session keyboardist we use sits down with FL and cranks out 10 tracks and hour my 15 yr old brother in law somehow makes a bunch of hiphop loops into full length songs like nothing.. Then I get in there and need offline effects processing, spectral/frequency domain editing, modular routing, process (not parameter) automation, labels hounding us for tracks and it all falls apart and becomes cumbersome..

Its a war between convenience and complexity I thinks and I don't see a solution anytime soon (Until XT2 of course)..

[neokoo]

I think people should work the way they want, so my 2 cents is only that, but I really feel your approach here doesn't gain you anything in terms of visualizing your arrangement. It's too microscopic if you zoom in at all; and it would be nearly as hairy if you could put all those similar patterns on one lane, imo.

..but it would help to keep one instrument on one lane, and its automation right under that lane. In the current FL approach I might have up to 20 variations of some pattern, and that takes a lot of vertical space. Also, the automation clips being in different window doesn't help - I'd rather have them under the instrument they are automating and/or in a folder track with it.

From looking at your Playlist graphic, I think you could make the same song with less than ten patterns (taking care to name them well) and be able to see just as much of an overview of your work (per section) using the Pattern Sequencer as the iconographic representation. Those little windows in the Pattern Sequencer tell a lot about a line or section of music in terms of overview and general shape/activity at a given point in time. The approach you've posted seems overly detailed in terms of looking at an arrangement. Yours is almost a 'score' whereas it might be more fun if it was more like a 'cue sheet'.

I actually need that detail. I want to know exactly when every pattern/part begins and ends, which variation of it is it, what other patterns play at the same time etc. The section-based approach doesn't really work for my music - for example, some elements continue between sections while their parameters are automated, and it is just easier to do that the way I'm doing it now. To make the long explanation short, for me it would take more time and make the workflow more complex to use your sequencing style.

Plus, doing it the way you do, you don't get the benefit of being able to use the 'ghosting' or 'onion-skinning' feature. If you aren't familiar with that, it allows you to see how various instruments in a pattern relate to one another with only one of them being active in terms of editing. Very handy for making counterpoint lines or just making sure that you're getting things to line up that you want to line up.

I do not need those counterpoint-making benefits, and lining up is handled by the Playlist. I very rarely play anything live, and even then I manually quantize it to perfect sync, so lining up is not a problem for me.

Thanks for your replies anyway!

[Rabid]

I much prefer the Orion and Reason method of letting one instrument have multiple patterns drawn on a single line. This along with lack of core duo support has bumped FLS back to just an idea machine for me. Hopefully both will be addressed someday.

[mahtazz]

Try Orion. Sure you'll like it!
http://synapse-audio.com

[grillo]

I personally like it to have different variations displayed vertically, this gives me the chance to see the structure visually, like having fills every 4 bars or things like that. Regarding your problem, i find it easier sometimes to bounce some tracks, like, all the drums, to make it easier on the cpu and the playlist window,

or also i just scroll them up out of the way, out of the window, after all i don't need to constantly 'see' the patterns to understand where i am in a song, i'll just play it while i move and and paint in the other patterns, as the basic structure of a piece is not gonna change very much when i already laid down the basics.

And if i'm changing something at the last moment i can still scroll those other stuff back in the window and make my edits.