welcome to the world of FL...

[Mikko]

Actually I stayed with FL 3.5 cuz I didn't like the sound in FLS4. Too clean, well produced and Logic-like. YUK!

I hope (for you) you are kidding.

See ya,

jmc (FL Studio)

...but deep down inside you know that I'm not . I want a 60ies psyche pop/70ies kraut rock-type sound, not a contemporary electronic sound (or whatever you wanna call it). A wild vintage sound with ripping midrange, "eccentric" production - the works! I guess that's what the FLS R&D department had least in mind with FLS4 .
Anyway, thanks for a kick ass host.

[xander]

Actually I stayed with FL 3.5 cuz I didn't like the sound in FLS4. Too clean, well produced and Logic-like. YUK!

I hope (for you) you are kidding.

See ya,

jmc (FL Studio)

...but deep down inside you know that I'm not . I want a 60ies psyche pop/70ies kraut rock-type sound, not a contemporary electronic sound (or whatever you wanna call it). A wild vintage sound with ripping midrange, "eccentric" production - the works! I guess that's what the FLS R&D department had least in mind with FLS4 .
Anyway, thanks for a kick ass host.

What are you talking about? The *sound* has nothing to do with the version of the host software, the sound is up to you and what instruments you use in the host... Songs I wrote in version 3.5 sound exactly the same as they do now in version 4.5.2. Do you understand that? It has nothing to do with the *60ies psyche pop/70ies kraut rock-type sound* you are talking about... The sound and the way the audio is reproduced is up to you and your talent to make it sound the way you want it...
\
Geez... I need a beer...

[Stupid American Pig]

If you really want that 60s pop psyche kraut sound you better find some 4 track recorders/mix desks/efx from the 60s. digital will never get you there..

[Silent223]

Mikko wrote:
Actually I stayed with FL 3.5 cuz I didn't like the sound in FLS4. Too clean, well produced and Logic-like. YUK!

what are you smoking???

its the same exact sound!!!

[Mikko]

The *sound* has nothing to do with the version of the host software, the sound is up to you and what instruments you use in the host... Songs I wrote in version 3.5 sound exactly the same as they do now in version 4.5.2. Do you understand that?

I'm sorry to get you all worked up like this, but my tracks just DO come across in v3.5 with a abit more analog-ish roundness than v4. It's not the *ripping mids* I'm talking about here. It takes alot of tweak and abuse to make that, believe me! Maybe I should add that my tracks tend to max out the meter. I don't think you can hear any difference (as you all say) if you produce things nicely with alot of, or at least, some headroom. I know I'm not supposed to max out the meter, but I have been naugty during the hunt for the *true* rock sound.

Also the 3xOsc sounds differently too in v4 and I swapped it with the one from v3.5 to atleast get some of the sound *right*. By the way, the occasional insider at shows is always sure that I use Native Instuments B4 for my full-on hammond leads, but it's just 3xOsc and VintageBox VST. Thumbs up to the FLS-Team once again!

digital will never get you there..

Never say never. During the couple of years I've been doing this, I've been getting closer than most people would think. I enjoy the challange of going against the general perception of what you can do with a laptop. When I play rock venues people are amazed how far I've pushed the sound, eventho' it's not quite perfect....YET

-mikko

[ambe]

What are you talking about? The *sound* has nothing to do with the version of the host software, the sound is up to you and what instruments you use in the host... Songs I wrote in version 3.5 sound exactly the same as they do now in version 4.5.2. Do you understand that? It has nothing to do with the *60ies psyche pop/70ies kraut rock-type sound* you are talking about... The sound and the way the audio is reproduced is up to you and your talent to make it sound the way you want it...

Actually, given that the sound output from hosts is different i would say it could change between versions too. I know you are prolly gonna flame me for this but my ears can tell the difference between sound output of FL, Orion, and Cubase (Use FL to see what all fuss is about, Orion is my main sequencing environment, Use Cubase at college for last two years).

For me Orion has the best sound, in that it is the sound that i like. FL sounds flat and boring. Cubase is too clean for me.

I'm not gonna go down the road of straight audio comparisons because the thread will get closed and there is no way it can be fairly done. Plus exporting audio also sounds slightly different to the way audio is rendered on the fly.

Whenever i try the FL demo (which i do to see why it is apparently so great) it just sounds flat and horrible to me. I don't mean to flame FL, this is just my opinion.

[digitalstasis]

I'm not gonna go down the road of straight audio comparisons because

[ambe]

i'm not making excuses. i'm just saying it's near impossible to do properly. people have different soundcards, monitors etc. etc. plus...who can define which is best? i never stated that one was better than the other, just that i prefer one sound over the others. the thread would get closed because there is no right or wrong answer and people would argue over which is best and it would all turn nasty.

its all subjective and pointless...i only made my post to point out that there could be differences in sound from version numbers.

[peejunk]

All this about sequencers having a characteristic sound is utter bullshit (and we all know it).

However, there is something specific about them. Do they clip in mixer channels or just the master channel? How do the "faders" and other things react? People are usually too stupid and too ignorant in the fields of psychoacoustics and subjective perception of sound to notice that even things they see, let alone things they actually do (like move "faders" etc.), affect greatly how they percieve sounds from their environment (to me, Cubase gives impression of much lesser headroom than FL -- off course, it's just about the range and the curve of the "faders").

And then there are more prosaic things like different filters, EQs, native plugins...

On the other hand, this guy actually compares Cubase AT TOTALLY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT (soundcard, monitors, room) to anything on it's home setup, so maybe this is just another case of "audio voodoo".

[tony tony chopper]

the thread would get closed because there is no right or wrong answer

There is a right answer, only thing is that there are supersticious people like you who will never believe in it.

And no, it's not subjective. Are maths subjective?

[nuffink]

There is a right answer, only thing is that there are supersticious people like you who will never believe in it.

And no, it's not subjective. Are maths subjective?

Pffft. You recompiled it in delphi 7. Everyone knows Delphi 6 sounds better.

[peejunk]

And no, it's not subjective. Are maths subjective?

A I said, it IS subjective, maths aren't, perception is. We don't hear what we actually hear, we hear what we think we hear. Play a fairly bussy techno loop for five minutes, listen with concentration, and you'll hear things changing in the sound (even tho it's the same damn repetitive loop).

Now, try this. Play a sound in two different sequencers and move some faders, the fact that your body has to make a slightly different movement (screen height of fader), and the differences in pixel-decibel mapping will give impression of two different characters of sound (add a drop of Fletcher-Munson here).

Anyone making music knows how stuff apears totally different when you're previewing your arrangement without looking at how it's laid out.

Now add superstition. Wanting to beleive something can play great tricks on one's perception (I've seen people proving themselves wrong with phase cancelation and what not when it comes to topics like these). This all only shows how all this "trust your ears", used alot amongs audio wizards, mostly comes from being sadly uninformed about psychosomatics behind perception. You really cannot trust your ears.

Our perception (i.e. our psychological senses, the logical layer so to speak) was designed to analyze and emphasize the really important information from reality that our senses interact with. And even our senses (somatic side of them, the physical layer), aren't that objective because a lot of things that colour their "readouts" (most of our senses are very non-linear and biased at the very physical level).

So it IS subjective, but you're right, there are no OBJECTIVE differences.

[tony tony chopper]

so, to sum it all up, it's the fact that you think that sequencers sound different that makes them sound different?

[ambe]

thanks for that peejunk, now i know why it sounds different...although i suspected as much anyway.

i'm curious though gol are you saying there are no differences in the quality of hosts audio output. this is then contrary to what the developer of orion has suggested that there are differences in audio quality between hosts.

strange how i prefer orions sound?

probably just preception again, rich says he pays attention to audio quality so i think it's better

[smart]