Cubas vs FL Studio

[bduffy]

Is the quality of sound really that different ? And if so, can the FL quality get better with any software or something?
I love FL, but the lack of high quality sound is pushing me towards Cubase

Anyone?

I am a noob myself and pondering the same question. for me though it isn't a matter of sound quality per se, it's the fundamental difference in structure. With FL you have a pattern sequencer for quick and dirty song construction - if you're into rhythmic repetitive music - like 90% of modern music - this seems like a good thing. Fast results.

With Cubase you are in a far more professional, "realistic" (i.e. studio-like) environment. You have HUGE flexibility in how you can construct your music. BUT...no pattern sequencer. I don't know much about Cubase, but it seems to me that this should result in a more time-consuming workflow. How do people approach this (I am asking sincerely here)? Do you tend to create your patterns, then render them out and import them back in as audio tracks (I speak of VSTi output here) and copy/paste? Copy/paste MIDI notation in the piano roll? Or is Cubase really just for those who can play most of their tracks live, either through plugged-in real instruments (bass/guitar/keyboards/mics) or a MIDI keyboard?ps:
Ras.

Yeah, I don't know..you see, for me, step-entering patterns is slow and tedious. I can slap a beat together with Kontakt, some samples and the Piano Roll in a heartbeat - it just depends what you're used to.

[Ras Upsettah I]

Is the quality of sound really that different ? And if so, can the FL quality get better with any software or something?
I love FL, but the lack of high quality sound is pushing me towards Cubase

Anyone?

I am a noob myself and pondering the same question. for me though it isn't a matter of sound quality per se, it's the fundamental difference in structure. With FL you have a pattern sequencer for quick and dirty song construction - if you're into rhythmic repetitive music - like 90% of modern music - this seems like a good thing. Fast results.

With Cubase you are in a far more professional, "realistic" (i.e. studio-like) environment. You have HUGE flexibility in how you can construct your music. BUT...no pattern sequencer. I don't know much about Cubase, but it seems to me that this should result in a more time-consuming workflow. How do people approach this (I am asking sincerely here)? Do you tend to create your patterns, then render them out and import them back in as audio tracks (I speak of VSTi output here) and copy/paste? Copy/paste MIDI notation in the piano roll? Or is Cubase really just for those who can play most of their tracks live, either through plugged-in real instruments (bass/guitar/keyboards/mics) or a MIDI keyboard?ps:
Ras.

Yeah, I don't know..you see, for me, step-entering patterns is slow and tedious. I can slap a beat together with Kontakt, some samples and the Piano Roll in a heartbeat - it just depends what you're used to.

Yeah I hear you. Searching the archives today shows me that FL Studio vs Cubase is a very emotional issue. I am all for product loyalty, but more important in the long run to find a platform I can grow into so to speak, like choosing Maya over Bryce if I can draw an analogy. If I am going to learn ONE platofrm well, it should be something that is as variable as possible. So I am leaning toward making the big jump to SX 3. I have been told before I would never regret it.

Ras.

[bduffy]

Yeah I hear you. Searching the archives today shows me that FL Studio vs Cubase is a very emotional issue. I am all for product loyalty, but more important in the long run to find a platform I can grow into so to speak, like choosing Maya over Bryce if I can draw an analogy. If I am going to learn ONE platofrm well, it should be something that is as variable as possible. So I am leaning toward making the big jump to SX 3. I have been told before I would never regret it.

Ras.

Dude, I have to agree. I progressed from messing around with ReBirth, to SAW Studio, to Soundfonts and Cakewalk, and eventually I was swayed by the flexibility and mixing-desk feel of Nuendo/Cubase. Like any new program, it's a bit of a slutbag at first, but I can't imagine using anything else now, it's such a cool environment. And I think with SX3's super-comprehensive time-beat-tempo-stretching features, it's easier than ever to get in.

Go for it, says I! (totally biased)

[Ras Upsettah I]

Heh...for me it was looping in CoolEdit, then in Acid, then giving FL a whirl, now ready for the big decision. Better hardware will be part of the scheme too, this is for life after all!

Ras.

[Ras Upsettah I]

Yeah I hear you. Searching the archives today shows me that FL Studio vs Cubase is a very emotional issue. I am all for product loyalty, but more important in the long run to find a platform I can grow into so to speak, like choosing Maya over Bryce if I can draw an analogy. If I am going to learn ONE platofrm well, it should be something that is as variable as possible. So I am leaning toward making the big jump to SX 3. I have been told before I would never regret it.

Ras.

Dude, I have to agree. I progressed from messing around with ReBirth, to SAW Studio, to Soundfonts and Cakewalk, and eventually I was swayed by the flexibility and mixing-desk feel of Nuendo/Cubase. Like any new program, it's a bit of a slutbag at first, but I can't imagine using anything else now, it's such a cool environment. And I think with SX3's super-comprehensive time-beat-tempo-stretching features, it's easier than ever to get in.

Go for it, says I! (totally biased)

One last thing if I may bduffy: does SX 3 have any ability to use the properties of an Acidized WAV? More to the point I guess, does a sample NEED to be Acidized to utilize the SX 3 timestretch etc functions?

many thanks,
Ras.

[mr.me]

Is the quality of sound really that different ? And if so, can the FL quality get better with any software or something?
I love FL, but the lack of high quality sound is pushing me towards Cubase

Anyone?

You could always compose in FL and mix in Cubase SX.

...maybe this has already been said?

[The Chase]

I am a noob myself and pondering the same question. for me though it isn't a matter of sound quality per se, it's the fundamental difference in structure. With FL you have a pattern sequencer for quick and dirty song construction - if you're into rhythmic repetitive music - like 90% of modern music - this seems like a good thing. Fast results.

I disagree a lot. The sequencer that makes things so quick allows my music to be less repetitive.



...beyatch!

[The Chase]

Also I'll bring up the point that EVERYONE agrees with:

It's not what you use but how you use it. A professional with a twinky will kill a novice with a sword.

You use what works for you.

[deggy]

just an honest question. does FL studio have a freeze function? if so, then I guess they're almost equal in terms of features then.

I had a few friends that claimed that they could hear a difference in sound quality when they switched from FL to Cubase but when I hear a lot of the great tracks around here that were done in FL, I figure it's just that they(my friends) just weren't putting enough effort in the mixing of their tracks. I've also heard about the supposed high quality audio engine in Logic 6 and 7. I assume it's all just BS. Personally, I'm switching to Logic 7/Mac next week for a variety of reasons but I pretty much assume that the sound quality will remain reasonably constant between both apps (Cubase and Logic). I've been told that the sound quality has more to do with your audio interface/sound card or A/D converters (if you're using hardware) and stuff like that (someone please correct me if i'm wrong).

if it were me, i'd just stick with FL if that's what you're used to using. I haven't used it that much but I like the gui and some of the included plugins aren't that bad (especially when compared to some of the stuff that's been bundled with cubase over the past few years).

[Ras Upsettah I]

Also I'll bring up the point that EVERYONE agrees with:

It's not what you use but how you use it. A professional with a twinky will kill a novice with a sword.

You use what works for you.

I agree in principle - but I still think there is more room for growth - musical as well as technical - in SX. I may be wrong and may find out that's the case, and I sure don't wish to ruffle any feathers...I am going on gut feeling as well as advice fronm various people.

cheers,
Ras.

[stag]

AFAIK music can be done even with a match box.
I like FL , i´m a registered user, i think it´s the best deal available , but i get my kicks on SX .

[toine6]

Also I'll bring up the point that EVERYONE agrees with:

It's not what you use but how you use it. A professional with a twinky will kill a novice with a sword.

You use what works for you.

The Hostess with the mostest.

Yup Twinkies sure have a lot of preservatives, fat, and sugar.

And just imagine the potential of the light/dark side of Ding-Dongs in the right/wrong hands.

[the_nihilist]

Well now, up until two weeks ago I was using FL exclusively to sequence tracks. Unfortunately, I unintentionally decided to make my windows installation commit seppuku, and was left with having to reformat, losing all my previous songs and samples -- let this be a lesson: Back up EVERYTHING, FREQUENTLY.

Anyways, I decided that since I've reformatted, this would be a good time to bite the bullet and try the much-heralded Cubase on a clean slate. After getting Cubase and some tutorial videos, I've come up to speed rather quickly with Cubase. To put it simply, I am very pleased with it, and the workflow it has.

First of all, Cubase and FL are vastly different applications, and have completely, utterly different workflows to eachother. They're not even on the same planet, really, when it comes to how they approach things. Totally alien enviroments to one another. Cubase is a sequencer first and foremost; recording, arranging and editing midi and audio is its major focus, with less of a concentration on using it for composition. FL Studio, on the other hand, is built for making songs quickly, with a very stripped down "virtual studio" interface, focused on building things out of individual samples and patterns.

Now, I'd like to point out right here that no one app is "better" than another, and they're both capable of making prettymuch the same song, although doing things in one program or the other can be much easier or much more difficult.

Here are the things that FL has going for it.

Patterns - By far the biggest influence on the FL workflow, everything is seperated into patterns, which can be arranged however you like in the playlist window. Their advantage is that they can be arranged and rearranged very easily.

Step Sequencer - Makes it very easy to program drumloops, and probably the second biggest influence on FL workflow.

Piano Roll - FL Studio has, hands down, the most intuitive, easy to use and best designed piano roll ever created. Every other piano roll I've ever used feels clunky compared to its perfection.

And with Cubase:

Flexibility - Cubase has a very well developed and sophisticated routing system, extremely sophisticated midi editing, great support for external devices, tons of tiny little features... in short, its a bleeding monster, and it handles even fairly esoteric functions in a logical way.

Time Signature - My biggest problem with FL was that it could only do 4/4. Technically, you can fool around with undersized and oversized patterns, but it's not very pretty or manageble. Cubase is a much better option if you're producing music that's going to be in many time signatures.

Recording - What SX is designed for. Recording audio in Cubase is much more sophisticated than FL, with things like multiple takes, track muting, etc. If you're recording alot of live instruments, Cubase has a distinct advantage to FL.

Unfortunatly, the programs are so different that FL users like myself will scream and swear at its ass-backwardsness while we attempt to learn Cubase. The plugins and effects that come with both programs are only servicable, and will need to be replaced with others if you want decent sound. And forget about trying to sit down and "figure out" Cubase. A tutorial and manual are essential for this monolithic program. FL has an instant gratification that Cubase just can't compete with.

To be perfectly honest, a program is only going to be as good as the time you invest in it, but maybe this will give you a general idea of how your musical goals will match up to the workflow of the two programs. The migration to Cubase from FL is a pretty big paradigm shift, but I've found it very rewarding, so don't let it intimidate you -- and remember, you can always use FL as a VST inside of Cubase and get the best of both worlds.

[Hink]

It's always the volume thing that makes people wonder if FL makes things sound thin - it's really just that the volume of channels defaults to a bit lower than some other apps to help people who are learning avoid clipping.

Hi smart You're right. Music manufacturers have done many tests and when they do A/B tests with lots of processing and dry (but the same volume) it comes up with a pretty close to equal response. However when they played two samples side by side and just increased the volum on one by 3db almost everyone chose the louder.

It's important to note we hear what we didn't expect sometimes and are dispointed, however John Q Public doesn't know what expect and things we hear they don't....louder is better...one of the key feature of digital over analog, more headroom (but a lot you can't hear) and a lot more floor room.

FL does default to 75% volume I believe, but that's just a generic setting (you can save a template with up all the way).....run a psp vintage meter on your tracks and on the master...mix it like old school and render, all should be fine.

I like the fact it defaults low, too me FL is a drum machine and a rhythm composer, I render by spliiting the tracks and importing them into AA, if they are at 0db I have no room on the wav itself for expanding, processing. So when I import to AA I batch normalize to 95% (use to be 98% but thar wasn't enough room)...then when I mix it and turn it into two tracks I still keep my levels down for mastering....not until the song is done do I have concern about the volume....

[Hink]

Step Sequencer - Makes it very easy to program drumloops, and probably the second biggest influence on FL workflow.

useless, goood for beginners, I wish they would remove it the PR is fine.

Time Signature - My biggest problem with FL was that it could only do 4/4. Technically, you can fool around with undersized and oversized patterns, but it's not very pretty or manageble. Cubase is a much better option if you're producing music that's going to be in many time signatures.

think you better get your manual out friend read about options

To be perfectly honest, a program is only going to be as good as the time you invest in it, but maybe this will give you a general idea of how your musical goals will match up to the workflow of the two programs. The migration to Cubase from FL is a pretty big paradigm shift, but I've found it very rewarding, so don't let it intimidate you -- and remember, you can always use FL as a VST inside of Cubase and get the best of both worlds.

agreed, but don't forget 'bout rewire...


edit: from the manual

Project General Settings
The Project General Settings page contains the general options of each project file (and they are stored locally in each file).

Time Signature:
Bar Length - Lets you set the number of beats (as defined by the next option) that make one bar. Note that this is the general setting, but you can set a custom number of beats for each pattern in the Step Sequencer.
Beat Length - Lets you set the number of steps that make one beat. Starting with FL Studio 5, tempo is synchronized (properly) with beats and not steps.