FL Studio still the top dog!

[hibidy]

TTBOMK, currently, you cannot open FL as a vst in x64 even in beta....very important for some of us

hey, it works without problems here! i just did it yesterday: i opened FL x64 beta within Studio One x64.

So they did get that one sorted?

Uggggggg, was just told the other day not yet.

[SODDI]

Never even demo'ed FL. Maybe I'm missing something.

And shouldn't that be "top DAWg"?

[no_barcode]

And shouldn't that be "top DAWg"?

Please don't get them started.

[hibidy]

Please listen to no_barcode!

[elassi]

Hey, since those of us who have owned it for years get "free" updates, there is nothing to bitch about

Worth to quote.

If I only count what I've paid for Max-for-Live and Melodyne and compare it to the fact that IL gave me Synthmaker and Newtone for free with the lifetime updates... not to mention all the other stuff I got since being a customer.

[hibidy]

Except for it's a tad out of context from my overall point. But yeah, lifetime updates, groovy.

[idfpower]

I can generally get up and running with most any sequencer within 15 minutes or so, but for whatever reason FL's design workflow defies my expectations at almost every turn, save for the initial step sequencer beat window that pops up at launch.

The only thing you need to do is to drop in the Playlist (click on the View button and select it from the drop down menu) whatever you've created in the step sequencer. Right-click any sampler channel and you get access to the piano roll and the insert/replace commands that allow you to load any VSTi. And that's pretty much it I don't want to sound mean and/or offensive in any way, but it can't get simpler than that

I know how annoying the things you're not used to can get (for ex I'm used to a separate edit section in a DAW and because of that I dislike the ones that are doing everything in one single window). But initially FL was designed to work primarely with loops and samples. Changing the blueprint in order to make it look more "traditional" would have alienated their existing users. And since it continues to cater mostly to electronic music creation, tbh I see no point in doing that. It may not be ideal for editing (although you can do that) - I'm using a different DAW for that as well - but for laying down song structures very fast is unbeatable - IMO, of course

Anyway, guys, feel free to use whatever clicks for you - there's no point in struggling to work with something that blocks your creative juices

[decalogue]

I'm using FL Studio from time to time. It's a tool among my other tools.

I'd agree that it's not a self-explaining DAW where you drag things around visually and get instant gratification. In FL Studio, data is more stacked in different layers and windows, and you'll have to figure out a particular order of doing things, otherwise you'll get stuck. It's not like some pedagogical iPad app that kids can just mess around with and figure out everything creatively on the go.

But it's certainly not TOO difficult to learn either, even for somebody who's coming from regular linear DAWs. When I first started using another pattern-based DAW - Renoise - I thought it was quite tricky. It took me a few hours to fully grasp the keyboard layout of the note pitches and such. But it was just a matter of time and effort. Once I could handle this tool, it became a very flexible one. Today I always use Renoise at some point in my projects, as it's ultrafast for composing.

FL Studio is somehow in the same category as Renoise, while not quite as fast as Renoise. Granted, it's a very powerful tool for pattern-based electronic music production. While the key to understanding Renoise was more about learning the keyboard layout and pattern commands, in FL Studio it's more about understanding the order of the workflow and how to click around in the windows and menus (this also applies to another pattern-based DAW - Orion).

[CTStump]

FL Studio is somehow in the same category as Renoise, while not quite as fast as Renoise. Granted, it's a very powerful tool for pattern-based electronic music production. While the key to understanding Renoise was more about learning the keyboard layout and pattern commands, in FL Studio it's more about understanding the order of the workflow and how to click around in the windows and menus (this also applies to another pattern-based DAW - Orion).

Okay, this has been my personal contention with having FL classified as a "Digital Audio Workstation". It's a Sequencer first and foremost.

Even their low tier Fruity version doesn't even come with any audio recording capabilities. The term "DAW" has to to be stretched and totally redefined for FL studio to be included.

It should be classified as a Sequencer, as WHAT it is.It preforms excellent in that capacity.

The gray matter only get's grayer.

[Tronam]

FL Studio is somehow in the same category as Renoise, while not quite as fast as Renoise. Granted, it's a very powerful tool for pattern-based electronic music production. While the key to understanding Renoise was more about learning the keyboard layout and pattern commands, in FL Studio it's more about understanding the order of the workflow and how to click around in the windows and menus (this also applies to another pattern-based DAW - Orion).

Okay, this has been my personal contention with having FL classified as a "Digital Audio Workstation". It's a Sequencer first and foremost.

Even their low tier Fruity version doesn't even come with any audio recording capabilities. The term "DAW" has to to be stretched and totally redefined for FL studio to be included.

It should be classified as a Sequencer, as WHAT it is.It preforms excellent in that capacity.

The gray matter only get's grayer.

Is that really true anymore? I'm pretty sure FL Studio has supported full multitrack recording for a while now. Besides, the term DAW hasn't ever really been codified in stone and is pretty open to interpretation. Back in the early 90s the first real sequencer I ever used was MOTU Performer. This was exclusively a MIDI only sequencer that drove external gear. It had no digital audio tracks or virtual effects/instruments. I could see a case made for all modern computer based music composition programs from the late 90s onward to be classified as DAWs.

[nix808]

Even their low tier Fruity version doesn't even come with any audio recording capabilities. The term "DAW" has to to be stretched and totally redefined for FL studio to be included.

I'm pretty sure you can record audio with Fruity.
Certainly there is a FL version of Edison, the plug-in audio editor. You can put that on as many tracks as u like. Just not sure if it comes bundled with all versions. It's a solid performer here in Orion.

[CTStump]

Is that really true anymore? I'm pretty sure FL Studio has supported full multitrack recording for a while now. Besides, the term DAW hasn't ever really been codified in stone and is pretty open to interpretation. Back in the early 90s the first real sequencer I ever used was MOTU Performer. This was exclusively a MIDI only sequencer that drove external gear. It had no digital audio tracks or virtual effects/instruments. I could see a case made for all modern computer based music composition programs from the late 90s onward to be classified as DAWs.

That's true to certain extent. Although it has what may considered all the functionality it isn't known as an effective forensic audio tool, nor is it known as a mastering solution either(except when you throw Edison into the equation, but that is basically a plugin).

It is known for MIDI sequencing and has been since it's inception. The same can be said of Cubase and Cakewalk which have changed drastically since their own beginnings.

To look at more pragmatically a question to ask is "How many studios and Mastering houses are FL Studio based?"... most likely less than Protools, Nuendo, Cubase, Studio One, Sonar, Logic, DP, Adobe Audition and Samplitude and it's not making headway as of yet, of course that may change in the future as the internet becomes more wide open.

A readers poll is just that, a sample of popular opinion of that closed group and "Their" interpretation not a real reason to give up on the fact's of the matter.

[idfpower]

To look at more pragmatically a question to ask is "How many studios and Mastering houses are FL Studio based?"... most likely less than Protools, Nuendo, Cubase, Studio One, Sonar, Logic, DP, Adobe Audition and Samplitude and it's not making headway as of yet, of course that may change in the future as the internet becomes more wide open.

That is not relevant as to whether FL Studio is a DAW or not. I don't think anyone said that it's a top pro solution so far, but popular? You bet

Just like with any other pro stuff: it's not required for the average user in order to get good results

[Lode_Runner]

FL Studio is somehow in the same category as Renoise, while not quite as fast as Renoise. Granted, it's a very powerful tool for pattern-based electronic music production. While the key to understanding Renoise was more about learning the keyboard layout and pattern commands, in FL Studio it's more about understanding the order of the workflow and how to click around in the windows and menus (this also applies to another pattern-based DAW - Orion).

Okay, this has been my personal contention with having FL classified as a "Digital Audio Workstation". It's a Sequencer first and foremost.

Even their low tier Fruity version doesn't even come with any audio recording capabilities. The term "DAW" has to to be stretched and totally redefined for FL studio to be included.

It should be classified as a Sequencer, as WHAT it is.It preforms excellent in that capacity.

The gray matter only get's grayer.

Is that really true anymore? I'm pretty sure FL Studio has supported full multitrack recording for a while now. Besides, the term DAW hasn't ever really been codified in stone and is pretty open to interpretation. Back in the early 90s the first real sequencer I ever used was MOTU Performer. This was exclusively a MIDI only sequencer that drove external gear. It had no digital audio tracks or virtual effects/instruments. I could see a case made for all modern computer based music composition programs from the late 90s onward to be classified as DAWs.

True regarding the meaning of the term DAW. My understanding is that a DAW includes the Computer, audio interface, Midi controller, studio monitors, and multi-track recording/Midi sequencing/audio editing software - hence the word Workstation.

Semantics aside, I do agree with CT Stump that FL Studio is much more focused on MIDI sequencing than audio recording, where I believe a lot of other host software is much more focused on recording audio like a traditional multi-track recorder would.

It's actually the reason I chose FL Studio as a tool for composition. From my admittedly extremely limited experience with Cubase and Sonar these programs seemed like they would be great for recording an already written song performed on 'real' instruments or for writing through a process of jamming and multiple takes and editing etc, but when it comes to thinking about song structure, arrangements etc, I found it difficult to see the forest from the trees. With FL Studio's playlist view I see the structure of the song in terms of beats and measures and it makes it very easy to arrange the different patterns against the overall song structure.

With other programs I see a ruler with time measured in seconds (at least that's what I think it is?), and a bunch of tracks that have clips with waveforms or midi sequences (and mute and solo buttons everywhere) - it's much less obvious where the various measures and sections begin and end. To be fair I'm guessing that Cubase and Sonar are probably versatile enough to change the ruler etc to beats and measures, and they can probably zoom out to see the bigger picture, so maybe I've got it wrong and need to spend more time with linear recording software?

[elassi]

Semantics aside, I do agree with CT Stump that FL Studio is much more focused on MIDI sequencing than audio recording...

In the beginning FLS was not MIDI friendly at all. Hence some very cool (and nowhere else to be found) tools were invented: e.g. Formula controller and Peak controller. They show their non-MIDI roots in the simple fact that they don't produce any MIDI-signals to date - but their output is available "system-wide" within FLS.

Together with the already mentioned Riff machine and other helpers it is quite obvious that FLS's roots were neither MIDI nor Audio-oriented (the discontinued Fruity Tracks is evidence here, too). In the early days it was just a very clever and handsome computer application - born and made for computers and respective users.

This has changed a LOT - like Ableton Live for instance changed a lot. There were even users that cried about Live going too much traditional thus leaving its original approach.