FL Studio & Rack Gear

[roiikkata]

Hey, guys. Not very active on these forums just yet. Was out of the loop for some 10 years.

Anyways; I'm here to ask advice on FL Studio and rack gear.

I'm looking forward to getting a few reverb modules as send effects (preferably a few Lexicon MX200), a Behringer FX2000, etc. To ease the CPU load.

I know FL Studio is "capable" of it, but, is it going to "work" is my question. And if so, any tips ?
I've been using FL since version approximately Fruity Loops 2 back when it was just a sequencer, before computer music. So FL is a constant variable in this setup.

I'm not so much worried about I/O latency. More along the lines of over-all efficiency and will it actually keep down the CPU processing as I add more tracks.

I work in Chillout and Ambient genres by the way, so, reverb and long tail ends are usually a must .. per se.

Thanks in advance .. .. .. - Roi'ikka -

[Trancit]

Not a direct answer to your question but I personally would never go into this heck of outboard gear for the reasons you named...

Don´t forget.... with hardware you´ve got just one instance of the device whilst with plugins you can load as many as you like...
In terms of saving CPU... with 1 or 2 hardware devices you would have to use a send/return system anyway...
If you would use plugins instead a modern CPU wouldn´t even recognize 1 or 2 instances of a decent reverb plugin so where do you want to save CPU???

The real CPU hogs are the Instruments/Generators to stay with FLS slang...

Instead of spending money on hardware devices I would invest the same amount into a decent CPU/MoBo/RAM and forget about this routing and latency hassle...

Of course this is up to you but I don´t see any sense in what you are aiming for!

[roiikkata]

Not a direct answer to your question but I personally would never go into this heck of outboard gear for the reasons you named...

Don´t forget.... with hardware you´ve got just one instance of the device whilst with plugins you can load as many as you like...
In terms of saving CPU... with 1 or 2 hardware devices you would have to use a send/return system anyway...
If you would use plugins instead a modern CPU wouldn´t even recognize 1 or 2 instances of a decent reverb plugin so where do you want to save CPU???

The real CPU hogs are the Instruments/Generators to stay with FLS slang...

Instead of spending money on hardware devices I would invest the same amount into a decent CPU/MoBo/RAM and forget about this routing and latency hassle...

Of course this is up to you but I don´t see any sense in what you are aiming for!

Makes sense. I mean, I see the logic in it being pointless to add more than necessary. I was just wondering exactly just that, actually. "Is it over the top" to save CPU with external effects or not". In which you explained quite well.

Unless anyone else has anything else to say about that ?

I mean this is KVR Forums, so any musician go out of their way to say something is senseless I'd not only take with a grain of salt, but, respect the logic in it as well if you know what I'm saying.

Makes sense that it's pointless. I'd just wait a bit longer for more replies too, maybe. Personally. Just in case.

Thanks by the way for the swift response. Much appreciated

[JockMcRonan]

outta here

[BertKoor]

Using hardware effects gives you the same (or worse) workflow as freezing these tracks, since they turn into audio. Any small change you want in the music track forces you to re-render it with effects again.
I don't know how much you'd enjoy that...

[Unaspected]

Committing to settings can be a good leaning curve which can speed up decision making down the line. And whilst roiikkata will have to wait for online bounces, the different workflow might encourage creativity.

Getting out of the box can be good but as already stated, I would be doing so for reasons other than limited CPU: As your workflow will still involve bouncing - only with hardware, it has to be online/realtime.

It might be of benefit to demo some other DAWs prior to going down the hardware route if the core reason is to lighten the processing load.

[roiikkata]

Committing to settings can be a good leaning curve which can speed up decision making down the line. And whilst roiikkata will have to wait for online bounces, the different workflow might encourage creativity.

Getting out of the box can be good but as already stated, I would be doing so for reasons other than limited CPU: As your workflow will still involve bouncing - only with hardware, it has to be online/realtime.

It might be of benefit to demo some other DAWs prior to going down the hardware route if the core reason is to lighten the processing load.

Was thinking along these lines, too. Could possibly be a thing, as, it is not, currently. Ya

[roiikkata]

And ya, I believe freezing the tracks would be optimal as well because Analog to digital is all going to digital anyways. I'm sure an analog enthusiast might chime in having said that on here, but, I have no hierarchy of either.

That being said, I think I might begin with freezing them, trying keeping effects in the wavs or not. Seeing what happens either or. I also think freezing them from hardware might have a better latency timing output.

Not too fond of freezing tracks, but, if I'm working on minimal income I may as well at least try to see how it adapts to my flow.

Been using FL Studio since I was 13 years old. Now 30 something, so .. .. ..

[roiikkata]

And furthermore, thanks a bunch for the constructive replies, people. That's what's up!

"Wonder happens when you try" no lie. Cool **stuff**

[vurt]

And ya, I believe freezing the tracks would be optimal as well because Analog to digital is all going to digital anyways. I'm sure an analog enthusiast might chime in having said that on here, but, I have no hierarchy of either.

That being said, I think I might begin with freezing them, trying keeping effects in the wavs or not. Seeing what happens either or. I also think freezing them from hardware might have a better latency timing output.

Not too fond of freezing tracks, but, if I'm working on minimal income I may as well at least try to see how it adapts to my flow.

Been using FL Studio since I was 13 years old. Now 30 something, so .. .. ..

not an expert or anything, merely a hobbyist, who does like analogue gear (but also digital)
first, those reverbs youre looking at, are digital. same as the algorithm in the computer, your just paying for the dac and ability to use them in a time before computers were so ubiquitous in music production. (nice though they are).

if you're using internal synths, i see no real point in going out to go back in for digital fx. i "might" do this for a particular character analogue fx if it's going to be up front and center, for anything hidden in the mix, id use a vst with a similar sound.

if you were recording external synths in, it might be something id do if i had the reverbs already, but itb reverbs are often a lot more creative, which for your genre might be more advantageous anyway.

if you are having to freeze and don't like this, upgrading the computer is something id consider before hardware fx.

and i say this as someone who uses mostly hardware. although aside from a couple of guitar pedals and modules in the modular, the majority of my reverbs happen in the box.

hope this gives another perspective.

[kritikon]

I'll come at this from a hardware die-hard angle. I use mostly hw synths and have no intention of going ITB for various reasons. BUT for practical reasons I obvs use a DAW for the recording/sequencing etc. I still have a few of my old hw FX units too, but TBH don't use them. Impractical for a number of reasons, not least that actual quality of FX is often better in sw nowadays. Also hw FX impose difficulties unless you have a big setup with multi in/out interface and/or a hw mixer. I use a patchbay for my synths, and to some extent can still use my comps that way but it gets messy without a mixer and sends.

So, even for a basic setup you're going to need to get an interface with at least 8 in/out if you have even only 3 FX units and patchbay is a must. Easier with a mixer (so you can avoid the patchbay), but more than 2 in/out is still useful for that method. Which probably means outlay, and I got the impression budget is not unlimited?

Just for FX price, you can get Valhalla Delay & Vintage verb for total $100, which will outperform that Lexicon and easily anything like the Behringer quality FX that tbh blow my old hw units out of the water (Valhalla make a freebie long reverb perfect for ambient too...very similar to that Eventide BlackHole, you should check it out as it's right up your street). Other choices are huge and similar prices or even cheaper.

CPU savings. Yes you ARE right, if you're using an older and low powered PC/laptop. Long reverb/delays are going to affect that. But for the expense of buying your hw fx units, new multi in/out interface, patchbay or mixer, then you can buy a new midrange pc/laptop for that, which will not struggle with shitloads of long ambient fx. You can use outboard with limitedin/outs (I've done that in the past) and render them. A - it's extremely limiting, B - it's inflexible. But it is doable. And it takes forever.

I'm not a sw evangelist, opposite in fact, but hw is good/easier/practical etc in almost all other ways than FX, which is the one area sw makes the most sense. To get your system running and workable you need to spend money, but similar outlay will get you a computer that does it all easier. I don't think you can do it cheaply without compromises that aren't worth it. If your pc is that old that it can't handle ambient FX then hw isn't going to save you. Also...if you're thinking of rendering FX to save CPU - you can do that with you current setup without buying new stuff. It takes getting used to a different way of working bit is doable with no expense.

I don't know FL as I use Cubase...which has improved no end, but I would find using hw fx a PITA even with Cubase. I suspect FL is not geared towards that kind of thing in terms of ease of use. I just can't see any angle where you save money by going this route and CPU savings etc will not be as big as you hope. Either work differently ITB with what you have, or use that money to upgrade your pc power, not FX. I suggest this as someone who spends silly amount of money on hw synths...I get where you're coming from (been there, done it) but it's either impractical or doesn't save you money. If you have to spend, spend it sensibly on the pc. I've worked in the past on a real old crappy underpowered pc and managed to use a lot of fx but really had to relearn how I worked and it can be done ITB.

[vurt]

also as has been mentioned, each of those units can be used once.
ok on sends this is less important, but what if you want a hall on one send and a slapback on another? then you need two units.
a soft verb, you just open another instance, no extra expenses.

[kritikon]

By the way...I know Lexicons, so I'm not one of those sw know-nothings who dismiss it out of hand because they literally don't know what they're talking about. I used to have regular access to a PCM80 for recording back in the day, bought myself an Alex when they came out (also had access to a Reflex which I really should have bought and regret not doing). One of my mates regularly brought round his LX when we did stuff together. I dabbled with an MX but tbh preferred even the sound of the Alex over that range of Lexis. I very nearly bought that sw Lex bundle when it came out (pleased I didn't now). I have a full set of good IRs of Lexicons that I used for years. I love the Lexicon sound. Valhalla gives me exactly that big in-yer-face character that can be used very high in the mix without overpowering or mushing it up (one of the lovely things about Lexicon IMO). I could buy Lexicon, but Valhalla really keeps me happy and it's a silly cheap price for that quality...dial certain Valhalla delay diffusions up to about 50% so it's half way between delay and reverb and it screams out "Lexicon". You'll seriously wonder why you wasted money on an MX. I still occasionally fire up the Alex but usually end up turning it off after realizing outside of huge nostalgia that it doesn't actually give me anything that's not easier/better from Valhalla (and a damned sight easier to use). Yet I do this on hw synths. You are not going to gain quality with a Lex MX, trust me on this.

[kritikon]

And exactly wot vurt said, only he says it far more succinctly.

[sjm]

I'd agree with everything vurt and ktirikon say. The benefit to hardware FX to me is if you have hardware instruments and you like to jam on them without having to fire up the DAW. It's nice to be able to run a synth or guitar through an FX unit while you jam around. The way everything is set up, I just need to flick a switch on my mixer, and I can send any signal to the FX and blend the return signal in to taste.

Now, in theory, I can also do this with my soft synths, with my mixer doubling as an audio interface. But I pretty much never do that. I can only think of one track that I've made that used a hardware FX unit. It's just so much more clunky than doing it in the box. Now, if you already have the gear (hardware mixer, audio interface with multiple ins/outs, hardware instruments), then the outlay is just the FX unit, and you might get an actual benefit. It just won't (IMO) be beneficial when you are tinkering in the DAW. If that's your use case, I'd agree that upgrading your CPU is going to be a much better investment than a hardware rack unit.