FL Studio is amazing. Why is it so cheap?

[The Chase]

Oh silly I used the wrong "there". Oh well.

[Hink]

hey chase...someone pissed all over your pics...

[ninjadroid]

Why does it not matter that FL includes this feature? How can you make a case for the importance of *any* feature if you just arbitrarily denote certain major features as unimportant? Your case against FL is not compelling due to logic like this.

Precisely. Why does it matter when I can get the same or better functionality for free?

First, there's the matter of how well Audacity actually stacks up to FL's offering. Second, there's the matter of how beneficial integration is. Third, whatever you say in this regard applies to Orion as well. You deem Orion's audio recording worthless if you deem FL's recording worthless courtesy of Audacity's existence.

Well, in terms of use and intent, Crystal and 3xOSC are in entirely different departments, but you say that doesn't concern you. What I don't get, then, if we're to judge by sound, is what the standard of proof of superiority is? How can I tell, for instance, that free plugins are better than FL built ins, but not better than Orion built ins? What metric are you using?

Which is why I was deliberately vague on that aspect of the comparisons I made. Its a total waste of time but you can't argue that the freebies I mentioned are valid alternatives and, by your own admission actually offer a far greater range of possibilities.

My own admission? Cite that. And I'm not arguing that the freebies you mentioned are valid alternatives. If you believe I am, cite the corresponding passage.

If you are so certain of the general superiority of free plugins, you've argued Orion out of usefulness.

Not really, it includes plenty of stuff there is no free alternative for like the IRP, Sampler or UltranWMS. And its only recently there has been a freebie equivalent to WaveFusion.

But we're going by sounds, not features. So by what epistemology can you objectively say Orion's plugins give you sounds you can't get anywhere else, but FL's plugins can all be replaced by free alternatives? This isn't to mention things like the WaveTraveller, which are legitimately without freebie replacements.

I'm certainly not arguing about a $1 price difference.

nor am I, I was just using it to illustrate that "lifetime free updates" doesn't mean anything and used that to head off "but you had to pay $50 for version 5" arguments. You can't read these things out of context without blowing them out of proportion. I think its perfectly reasonable for ImageLine to want to make a living, I just think their marketing approach is somewhat deceptive [but clearly very effective].

I fail to comprehend how pointing out that Orion users had to pay to get audio recording proves that IL doesn't offer lifetime free updates. For the benefit of the debate, could you please restate in a concise and clear manner what criteria must a company not violate if they are to rightfully claim to offer lifetime free updates?

Correct, I meant Sytrus --- my apologies. And I don't comprehend your argument. Spreading parameters across multiple pages does not remove them. And the basic UI design rule of 7 +/- 4 is in favor of the Sytrus approach.

Well I equate tweakable with usable and multi-page GUI's are the opposite of usable.

By what epistemology? I happen to love multi-page GUI's, rather than having a bazillion choices shoved up in my face all at once. It would seem this is another matter of opinion, and yet you proffer your position as fact, without a concomitant supply of evidence. I'm not buying it.

This is simultaneously myopic and mendacious, and self-evidently so.

Why, because you are unable to grasp that what suits you may not suit everyone? I'm sure that Toxic 2 is more than capable of doing more than I could ever ask of it, it jsut doesn't have the same marketing push behind it that Sytrus has had so if you rely on using other people's work [which is perfectly valid] then sytrus may have more appeal. After all, you're the guy who pointed out how subjective comparisons are so it seems odd that 5 lines later youwould attempt to make one.

Actually, the crux of my argument is degustibus non desputandem est --- in matters of taste there is no argument --- and that you are simply attempting to foist your tastes off as fact. I well and truly believe that Toxic is a wonderful synth, but there is objectively less tweakability in it than Sytrus. However, it was designed to suit a different need than Sytrus, so that's not a point against it.

This is important, so it bears reiteration: I assert that your claim against the high VFFM of FL has no basis in fact. Rather, your subjective evaluation of the quality of FL's capabilities, divided by it's price, produces a number orders of magnitude less than its analogs for Orion and eXT.

Being a multisampler has nothing to do with the ability to load samplebank formats. I don't believe it is my understanding of the subject which requires edification, considering that I wrote a sampler of my own (no synthedit):

Clearly this is not the case or you would realise that soundfont is a format developed for Creative soundblaster cards and that AKAI have been around just a little bit longer than Sampletank. Multi-sampled instruments are those which map multiple samples across a keyboard to achieve a realistic timbre across several octaves. The terminology has been fairly standard since I bought my first sampler in 1986. What you're talking about is layering which has been around since multi-tracking in the late 50's or so.

I would tend to think that stacking up my assertion next to your response would prove that the latter bears no relation to the former, but given your responsibility for the content of one half of this dialogue, such would be naive. That program I developed allows you to load up to 64 samples. You can assign each sample to an arbitrary range of keys. You can save this arrangement to a bank and load it later. However, you cannot load other formats, such as SoundFonts. That does not mean it is not a multisampler --- it means it cannot load non-native banks. Do you deny this?

Likewise, using the FL layer tool, you could control an arbitrary number of individual samplers from one plugin. You can assign each child sampler to a single key, or to a range of keys. However, you cannot load soundfonts et al. This does not mean it is not functionally equivalent to a multisampler.

As I said before, it is the combination of the FL Sampler and Layer plugin which creates a sampling experience similar to Orion's sampler.

No its not. You are still using single samples being played back at every frequency.

I'm beginning to get the impression that you do not fully understand how the FL layer tool works. It merely sends whatever pattern input it gets to its children. If you hit a C4, it will send a C4 to all of its children. Any children listening on a C4 will activate. Do you still deny that this is multisampler functionality?

RE adult language and personal insults: this does you no good when trying to make yourself look reasonable, and myself not so. And you might want to consider your track record on factual accuracy before implicating me of rash ignorance.

please point me to a single instance of factual inaccuracy? Any thread, anywhere will do.

This is a request that I am surprised you made. As you wish it.

In this thread, you incorrectly reported the cost of Orion Platinum as $149. The correct price is $199.

"ORION costs $149 [download] and is not in any way, shape or form aimed at pleasing composers doing film score work, just as I'm sure that whatever dodgy video player FL has would in no way, shape or form please someone who really does film score work. For a start, they would proably get it in HD res minimum. Can your PC play back HD in real-time? I doubt it could play back NTSC in real-time without dropping frames."

In this thread, you incorrectly reported that Sytrus is in the price range of NI offerings. In actuality, the NI alternative to Sytrus, being FM7, costs $289, whereas Sytrus costs $179 --- making Sytrus 38% cheaper than its NI competition.

"Well its nice that you can interpret it that way, although the price of Sytrus is certainly in NI territory, but that is certainly not what he wrote."

In this thread, you incorrectly reported that the standalone cost of Toxic is $70. It is actually $89.11.

"Yes but FM7 comes in a box with a printed manual so they are definitely making less money per unit sold. Its probably closer to the $75 IL get with the XXL bundle. TOXIC 2 is very damned good for $70 [or free if you are an ORION Platinum user]."

In this thread, you incorrectly reported that the savings over individual plugin purchasing that the XXL bundle offers you is $105. It is actually $275.

"So I can spend $349 in order to save $105. Brilliant!"

Also, you have been in the process of misrepresenting the capabilities of the FL layer plugin, as this post addresses.

You might object that this is pedantic --- at most, I could accuse you of being bad with dollars. However, given that we are debating VFFM, the ability to correctly ascertain the money side of things is critical.

That is certainly not what I argue. And if it is what you argue, then as I've said before, you argue Orion out of usefulness. I argue that FL offers good VFFM, and regarding this point in particular, I am arguing that Sytrus is not in the same price range as FM7. Have I not proven the latter to your satisfaction yet?

Not if your price range was $150-$250, you haven't. And again, its the Mercedes vs Ford argument that only works in a vaccuum.

Sytrus is 38% cheaper than FM7. Do you argue that it is missing a proportional number of features? Once again, if you actually do a side by side, you'll see that there is actually stuff sytrus does that FM7 doesn't. And you can't squash this argument by divining an arbitrary price range from the heavens. Otherwise, I can simply set price ranges in $1 increments and be just as right.

It's still there, and I still use it.

I wonder why its no longer listed anywhere that I could find on their site? It certainly isn't in their list of included generators.

Actually, it's right here:

http://flstudio.com/help/html/chansettings_ts404.htm

For f**k's sake, I'm not saying FL is a rip-off but no reasonable comparison could conclude that is was "cheap" when you look at all the competition. No reasonable person could argue that you couldn't get damned close to all its power with eXT and freeware. And yes, exactly the same is true of ORION. So what? I've never asserted that ORION is cheap either. You can carry on about all the excrutiating minutae you like but its the big picture that determines the validity of this thread's title.

It is cheap when compared against Pro Tools + the NI product line. As I said very early on, Orion, FL, and eXT all occupy a very similar market space, so calling one better than the other in the VFFM department is counting angels on pinheads at best, and foisting subjective opinion as objective knowledge at worst.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that, whether you know it or not (and you'll never admit it), you felt slighted that FL was the object of attention, and not Orion. I certainly wouldn't expect you to complain that Orion is not cheap, and you can get quite nearly the same thing with eXT plus freeware.

[Jeebs Fat]

I feel you on the waste of GUI.

Man, this thread took quite a turn.

[DavenH]

Math: pretty basic arithmetic like multiplying dividing and adding.

The majority of the 'wasted space' you have there isn't. You seem to be insulting your intelligence with comments like 'with the fruity window this is not necessary', when it's completely obvious that it's for a different purpose than a hint bar. Also, if you've ever programmed your own presets, you would know that having a (sizable) keyboard is necessary to continually test the sound you're working on (if you don't have a physical keyboard).

On the main page there are a few areas that are blank, true. But you said all pages, that's one of 11.

As for the LFOs, yes they are larger than warranted - but since that size is warranted for the envelopes, that's how they have to be with the paging design. You wouldn't need them that large with a single page gui, but as I said that would only make a 3% decrease in the overall size if all 62 LFOs were quartered in size.

And the envelopes aren't so big. They're the right size to edit. That size lets you make precise edits to sensitive parameters like pitch and cutoff, that wouldn't be doable if they were small.

About the knobs... this has nothing to do with the paging argument. A slightly larger knob isn't going to change anything.

What I meant was you hadn't given much thought to the statement that it could be compressed into a reasonably sized single page gui - Toxic's is 480,000 pixels vs 46 million for Sytrus, 44.5 million with the smaller LFOs and less a few hundred without those yellow areas.

[The Chase]

Math: pretty basic arithmetic like multiplying dividing and adding.

The majority of the 'wasted space' you have there isn't. You seem to be insulting your intelligence with comments like 'with the fruity window this is not necessary', when it's completely obvious that it's for a different purpose than a hint bar. Also, if you've ever programmed your own presets, you would know that having a (sizable) keyboard is necessary to continually test the sound you're working on (if you don't have a physical keyboard).

The window in the Sytrus main page is for preset notes. Who ever would need that? What other synth needs a text box to explain the presets? And if you need an on-screen keyboard then use the one in the channel window.

On the main page there are a few areas that are blank, true. But you said all pages, that's one of 11.

except of only 4 different kinds. And i showed the space on 3 of them (the 4th doesnt actually waste much space).

As for the LFOs, yes they are larger than warranted - but since that size is warranted for the envelopes, that's how they have to be with the paging design. You wouldn't need them that large with a single page gui

what did you think all of my rant was about? It was about how, yes, it could be a single pages gui.

but as I said that would only make a 3% decrease in the overall size if all 62 LFOs were quartered in size.

And the envelopes aren't so big. They're the right size to edit. That size lets you make precise edits to sensitive parameters like pitch and cutoff, that wouldn't be doable if they were small.

Which I agree with to an extent, but the systrus envelopes brought that sentiment a bit too far. No one needs to be THAT presice. The absynth envelope windows allow you to be as precise as you could ever want and they arent nearly that size.

About the knobs... this has nothing to do with the paging argument. A slightly larger knob isn't going to change anything.

But making the hundreds of big knobs smaller is what could help fit sytrus into one page.

I feel like bones or whytty from quoting this way. Sorry if it makes me sound a bit like an ass as that's not my intention.

[DavenH]

You're still not getting the point. A multi-paged gui allows for luxuries like more than adequately sized graphic tools whereas a single paged one means everything would be cramped and crowded. That's why Toxic doesn't have envelopes or graphic aids, and that really put me off after being treated to Sytrus' decadent interface.

[The Chase]

hat's why Toxic doesn't have envelopes or graphic aids, and that really put me off after being treated to Sytrus' decadent interface.

No it's not. A decent graphic envelope could easily be fit where the current envelopes are. Things would be more compact but not necessarilly crowded if they did it right.

I see what you mean though. Im not just trying to be argumentative here, believe me. Agree to disagree?

[tony tony chopper]

why do soft synths have KB's on them?.

is it just me or toxic has a fixed one, while the one in sytrus can be hidden (in hosts that support it)? So what's your point? That it's so much better that there's nothing else to argue than the GUI?

[The Chase]

why do soft synths have KB's on them?.

is it just me or toxic has a fixed one, while the one in sytrus can be hidden (in hosts that support it)? So what's your point? That it's so much better that there's nothing else to argue than the GUI?

not knocking sytrus on the KB part, but toxic is already a single paged GUI and has room to spare on it.

(P.S. call me silly because i didnt know the sytrus KB was retractable)

P.P.S. Toxic and Sytrus are 2 different beasts and cant really be compared too much. Neither is better than the other. Sytrus has many more parameters/features and is capable of a wider palette of sounds than toxic, but I think Toxic's core sound (I.E., osc's and filters) sounds better ("warmer", "fatter", etc).

[John Vulich]

[Hink]

I still laugh

[The Chase]

so do I. Any clips of that skit on the net?

[BONES]

First, there's the matter of how well Audacity actually stacks up to FL's offering. Second, there's the matter of how beneficial integration is. Third, whatever you say in this regard applies to Orion as well. You deem Orion's audio recording worthless if you deem FL's recording worthless courtesy of Audacity's existence.

Correct. I would never record in ORION, I always do it in Cool Edit because it has all the tools I need. Yes, I could use it inside ORION but I don't. For me its horses for courses and sequencing and recording audio are two very different animals.

My own admission? Cite that.

Crystal and 3xOSC are in entirely different departments - there you go. Its not direct but that is certainly the inference.

But we're going by sounds, not features. So by what epistemology can you objectively say Orion's plugins give you sounds you can't get anywhere else, but FL's plugins can all be replaced by free alternatives?

IRP?

I fail to comprehend how pointing out that Orion users had to pay to get audio recording proves that IL doesn't offer lifetime free updates.

They do offer lifetime free updates, its just that its not the big value factor that it might seem to be, as my example illustrates.

For the benefit of the debate, could you please restate in a concise and clear manner what criteria must a company not violate if they are to rightfully claim to offer lifetime free updates?

What might help considerably is if they didn't launch upgrades and the paid new features at the same time. Then it might seem more like they were diversifying their product range rather than trying to cash in on the hype of a new version to boost impulse buying. Again, its a valid claim, it just isn't as good a deal as other applications which don't use that kind of marketing and offer more in their free updates, which makes it seem deceptive to more informed consumers.

yet you proffer your position as fact, without a concomitant supply of evidence.

I am often flattered that my words are taken as fact but it should not be necessary for everyone to include "in my opinion" in every single sentence. I could read exactly the same into your posts if I gave any weight to you opinion and wanted to be a pendantic dickhead.

Actually, the crux of my argument is degustibus non desputandem est --- in matters of taste there is no argument --- and that you are simply attempting to foist your tastes off as fact.

And you aren't? Its getting very close to the time I should just tell you to f**k off but in the meantime, why should I have to present my views in any less forceful manner than you? One reason will do.

I well and truly believe that Toxic is a wonderful synth, but there is objectively less tweakability in it than Sytrus.

Opinion or fact? Or just a different understanding of the term "tweakable"? I thought I explained what I mean by it and as your interpretation differs, it stands to reason that this statement is easily disputable.

However, it was designed to suit a different need than Sytrus, so that's not a point against it.

How do you know this? Have you asked each developer or gleaned this knowledge from anywhere? Or is it just your opinion being stated as fact?

This is important, so it bears reiteration: I assert that your claim against the high VFFM of FL has no basis in fact.

Where did I assert this? All I did was point out that there were alternatives which offer similar or greater value? You see, its all relative. BTW, does the extra "F" stand for "fuckin'", as in "Value for Fuckin' Money"?

Rather, your subjective evaluation of the quality of FL's capabilities, divided by it's price, produces a number orders of magnitude less than its analogs for Orion and eXT.

Not really, they are all in the same ball-park, which kind of answers the question posed in the title of the thread, don't you think?

That program I developed allows you to load up to 64 samples.

I think you're the only one talking about that horrid looking thing.

As I said before, it is the combination of the FL Sampler and Layer plugin which creates a sampling experience similar to Orion's sampler.

No its not. You are still using single samples being played back at every frequency.

I'm beginning to get the impression that you do not fully understand how the FL layer tool works. It merely sends whatever pattern input it gets to its children. If you hit a C4, it will send a C4 to all of its children. Any children listening on a C4 will activate. Do you still deny that this is multisampler functionality?

I'll go further and deny the existence of such a thing as a "multisampler". Its a word you made up. What you're talking about is something you can easily do in anything and could have done with CV + Gate 30 years ago. Hardly earth-shattering.

In this thread, you incorrectly reported the cost of Orion Platinum as $149. The correct price is $199.

Cool, that makes us one-all as you incorrectly asserted [and did as if it were a fact!] that eXT couldn't record audio.

In this thread, you incorrectly reported that Sytrus is in the price range of NI offerings. In actuality, the NI alternative to Sytrus, being FM7, costs $289, whereas Sytrus costs $179 --- making Sytrus 38% cheaper than its NI competition.

But you don't have to pay retail for NI products which puts them both in the $150-$250 price range, or we could say the $150-$300 range and be done with it. Personally I only have sub-$100 and over-$100 categories so it right there as well.

In this thread, you incorrectly reported that the standalone cost of Toxic is $70. It is actually $89.11.

No, its free. Or around $100 for the VSTi. Of course exchange rates will have changed since yesterday so being as precise as you are is invalid and stupid [but hardly surprising].

In this thread, you incorrectly reported that the savings over individual plugin purchasing that the XXL bundle offers you is $105. It is actually $275.

No, I didn't. I was quoting someone other idiot. Nice try though.

Also, you have been in the process of misrepresenting the capabilities of the FL layer plugin, as this post addresses.

Capabilities aside, the fact that it requires a plug-in and is not built-in to the host should be evidence enough that its not terribly well implemented, shouldn't it?

Sytrus is 38% cheaper than FM7. Do you argue that it is missing a proportional number of features? Once again, if you actually do a side by side, you'll see that there is actually stuff sytrus does that FM7 doesn't. And you can't squash this argument by divining an arbitrary price range from the heavens.

Why would I equate features with value? Seems very arbitrary to me. It completely ignores so many critical factors like sound quality and usability, both of which I would rank above features.

Otherwise, I can simply set price ranges in $1 increments and be just as right.

See, now you're starting to get the hang of it.

It is cheap when compared against Pro Tools + the NI product line.

So f**king what? Its not competeing with those products and the simple fact, which still seems to elude you, is that the products with which it does compete offer similar value. Therefore, "It is so cheap" because it needs to remain competetive. Your arguments are all but totally irrelevant to the topic.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that, whether you know it or not (and you'll never admit it), you felt slighted that FL was the object of attention, and not Orion.

Not even close. It may surprise you to learn that I was once a Fruityloops beta tester. So unlike you I have a fairly extensive understanding of both products and a long association with each. In fact I would probably still be using both if those complete c**ts hadn't arbitrarily decided that free speech did not impinge on their right to decide who should and should not be their customers and removed me from their registration list. So remember, if you really do like FL, never, ever, ever be critical of it in public or you may get the same treatment I did.

Also, if you've ever programmed your own presets, you would know that having a (sizable) keyboard is necessary to continually test the sound you're working on (if you don't have a physical keyboard).

I actually prefer to use a bank of paterns that I can easily call up for different types of sounds. Way better than stupid virtual keyboards.

You're still not getting the point. A multi-paged gui allows for luxuries like more than adequately sized graphic tools whereas a single paged one means everything would be cramped and crowded. That's why Toxic doesn't have envelopes or graphic aids, and that really put me off after being treated to Sytrus' decadent interface.

But the trade-off is not being able to see what is going on and that is a very big trade-off. It is the equivalent of a hardware synth with separate knobs/sliders/buttons for everything and one with an LCD screen and 3 or 4 dedicated controls. In the end both are equally usable bu tthe former gives you that overview of the signal path that the latter doesn't. It makes taking a preset and making changes to suit your needs much faster and far more intuitive.

is it just me or toxic has a fixed one, while the one in sytrus can be hidden (in hosts that support it)? So what's your point? That it's so much better that there's nothing else to argue than the GUI?

It speaks volumes that you underestimate the importance of a good, usable GUI. Beyond certain basic requirements in terms of features and sound quality it is defintiely the most important thing when it comes to getting any work done.

[bluedad]

Why, because you are unable to grasp that what suits you may not suit everyone?