FL Studio is amazing. Why is it so cheap?

[Sickle]

I grasp the length, that's why I think you're all sexy.

[John Vulich]

Thanks. Now that image is permanently burned into my retinas!

[BONES]

You don't understand what makes a usable GUI.

Of course not, I'm just the guy that has to work with them.

You think I decided to split it in tabs to make it less usable on purpose? Did I invent tabs? A non-tabbed plugin is only important if you want to sacrifice features for a more direct access, for synths that behave like hardware.

Interesting persepctive. The major attraction for moving to hardware was to get away from 10 or so years of paged GUI's in hardware. even with Trinity's touch-screen and uber-logical organisation, it was a total nightmare.

But I didn't want to sacrifice anything, and the few things you need to tweak live are in the main page. The rest is splitted in pages to be more understandable. Same in FM7 or Rhino btw.

Which is why I have a similar level of interest in them. Again you assume that more features equals a better product wheras, like I said, I look for the mmost usable products as I can invariably be more productive.

Of course, someone who wrote something like 'keyboard shortcuts are a proof of bad GUI design' may not understand
tabs neither.

Could you spell that, please?

In this regard, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it is good to be clear about what is opinion/speculation and what is fact/logic.

And yet you repeatedly choose not to do so.

Because I have not presented opinions as facts. Seriously. Go find an example of me doing as much. If I'm giving you my opinion, I will make it very clear.

OK, from this reply only [and the quoted bits it contains]:
- "Well, in terms of use and intent, Crystal and 3xOSC are in entirely different departments"
- "it was designed to suit a different need than Sytrus" which you then supplement with "this is fact" and then go on to assert "If Rich wanted Toxic to be an uber-tweaker (for my definition of 'tweak'), he would have given it more LFOs, envelopes, filters, etc" when the developer of Toxic is Maxx Claster. So not only is that presented as a fact but it is incorrect in its content and requires significant subjective conclsuions to be drawn. I know Rich really well and I know that his prime concern with anything is sound quality. He believes that Toxic sounds significantly better than Sytrus. If a product had no user interaction beyond choosing presets it would be reasonable to conclude that it was not intended for "tweaking". However the existence of more than 100 user-changable parameters would indeed suggest that "tweakability" was high on the developers list of goals, wouldn't it? Especially when you look at the half-dozen or so banks of patches and notice that very few [perhaps less than 20%] utilise more than half the availabbe features. i.e He actually seems to understand that most people won't need 63 LFO so he put in what he felt was a reasonable number of each. I find he has still overestimated but he probably figures its better safe than sorry [but realises there are limits].

Ergo, it is not designed to to solve the same problem.

That doesn't follow. It could easily be that the two simply have different views on how much is enough.

But we're agreed that it does, in fact, offer multi-sampled instrument ability?

No. How f**king stupid can you be. You're using a totally inappropriate term. The amount of work required to restrict each layers key range and velocity response, none of which can be saved with the sounds themselves, makes it pathetic compared to even the simplest soundfont. I can make my PC act like a stone by throwing it from a 5th floor balcony but that doesn't make it a stone. you're talking about orders of magnitude more work and significantly higher CPU load to achieve something that can be done for almost no processing overhead in a soundfont player.

You said what you said, which was that the $348 dollar XXL edition saves you $105

Actually whoever I was quoting [and I'm pretty sure it was you] was asserting that $105 was how much you saved specifically on Sytrus, no ton the whole bundle and that fit with the context of my original comment.

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?

That's pure opinion, and I don't agree with it.

Yet when it comes to using free plugins with eXT you feel that it is perfectly acceptable to discount plugins. interesting. And it capabilities are laughable. Set any instrument in any host to the same MIDI channel and you get exactly the same behaviour. It is such a basic feature that I doubt anyone else would even perceive it as a feature at all, just part of the basic structure.

Features comparisons are reasonably objective, though. You can just say Sytrus sounds like crap and nobody can really tell you you're wrong --- but that's your opinion. And I take it this means my point that it is not in the same price range goes unchallenged.

You're f**king kidding, right? How many times do I have to disagree with you before it sinks in?

And obviously the OP was talking about FL vis-a-vis stuff like pro-tools. Do you really think he was comparing the $348 XXL edition of FL to the $199 edition of Orion and concluding that the former was cheap relative to the latter?

No, I figure like most FL users he has no f**king idea what alternatives are out there, let alone what the f**k makes something good or bad.

LOL! I busted gol's balls directly in LoopTalk about a couple of aspects of the program's design --- to no ill consequence, I might add.

Looptalk is not in public. Christ, its barely out of kindergarten.

But yes, it looks like you've got the motive to grind an axe with IL, which certainly appears to be what you're doing here.

No, what I have an axe to grind about is stupid, ignorant c**ts like you who know f**k-all about any of this and carp on like Fruityloops is every musician's dream. Fruityloops is full of unacceptable compromises forced onto it by its origins as a drum sequencer. It is mostly done by a guy who freely confesses he has absolutely no background in the industry and shows it constantly in his work and his comments. It may be full to overflowing with bells and whistles but, as is often the case, this can easily be seen to be covering for its lack of fundamentally good workflow.
And just in case you have any doubts as to why I think you're an ignorant c**t, here's a list:
- you have no understanding of the term multi-sampled instrument
- you think that layering is something worth mentioning over and over and over again
- you equate the number of features with the worth of a musical instrument [Would that make a guitar better than a bass and a drum-kit orders of magnitude better than either?]
- you use FL Studio and appear happy to do so [not such a biggie on its own but coupled with the points above it defintiely goes against you as you likely do so for the wrong reasons]

[John Vulich]

Jeez, all this debate over programs, like FL Studio and Orion, that are really just a toys anyway.

[John Vulich]

Excuse me while I slip into something a little more comfortable...

[The Chase]

Oven Mitts are for sillies.

[John Vulich]

And trolls.

[BONES]

Excuse me while I slip into something a little more comfortable...

I have a 5 hour stop-over there next week so I wouldn't be in a hurry to take it off, pal.

[basic channel]

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.

BONES, you're an entertaining and intelligent chap. But also a bit of a plum-end...

[diverdee]

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

Now that's irony, soaked in a bit of irony - with a toppping of........ irony, followed by just a waaaafer thin slice of
indeed

[John Vulich]

I have a 5 hour stop-over there next week so I wouldn't be in a hurry to take it off, pal.

Hmmm... just enough time for me to extract you from LAX, get you drunk and then put you on a plane. The only way to fly!

[Kriminal]

And there is a lot of wasted surface area on each page.


Wasted surface area marked in yellow:

Yep, thats a lot of watse.

[DavenH]

wasted webspace in red:

http://www.modestapparelchristianclothi ... ewing.com/
http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan/
http://www.toysafety.org/index.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kriminal.uk/
http://kriminal.presetbank.com/
http://www.myspace.com/kriminaluk
http://anonymouse.org/

[ninjadroid]

In this regard, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it is good to be clear about what is opinion/speculation and what is fact/logic.

And yet you repeatedly choose not to do so.

By repeatedly, you mean twice? And you're wrong about those instances, anyway. See below.

Because I have not presented opinions as facts. Seriously. Go find an example of me doing as much. If I'm giving you my opinion, I will make it very clear.

OK, from this reply only [and the quoted bits it contains]:
- "Well, in terms of use and intent, Crystal and 3xOSC are in entirely different departments"

This statement is well and truly fact. Crystal is a semi-modular synth[1], whereas 3xOSC is not[2]. To say that a semi-modular synth and a non-modular synth are used the same way is similar in nature to saying that FL's step sequencer and piano roll are used in the same way --- i.e., it's total bunk.

[1] http://www.greenoak.com/crystal/about.html
[2] http://www.flstudio.com/help/html/plugins/3x%20OSC.htm

- "it was designed to suit a different need than Sytrus" which you then supplement with "this is fact" and then go on to assert "If Rich wanted Toxic to be an uber-tweaker (for my definition of 'tweak'), he would have given it more LFOs, envelopes, filters, etc" when the developer of Toxic is Maxx Claster.

Whoops, mea culpa --- I even went to the right place to determine the price. Yes, the developer is Maxx Claster and isn't Sir Rich of Orion. The point still stands, however, that it offers far fewer modulation options than Sytrus, Rhino, or FM7, with the corollary being that modulation to that degree is not the goal of that synth. How, pray tell, do you deduce that Toxic is designed to offer more or equal modulatability/tweakability/parameter-manipulation (you know what I mean, I hope) than it's contemporaries, and yet, actually offer significantly fewer methods to do as much?

So not only is that presented as a fact but it is incorrect in its content and requires significant subjective conclsuions to be drawn.

There is nothing subjective about the above. Sytrus has 85 LFOs --- Toxic has 2. Sytrus has 87 arbitrary multi-point envelopes --- Toxic has 6 fixed-point envelopes. Sytrus has 3 filters --- Toxic has 1. Sytrus has 4 effects banks --- Toxic has 2. Etc. I'm not pulling this out of my ass. It is the simple, unvarnished truth. Once again, if you somehow deduce that Toxic is designed to offer as much capability for sonic manipulation as Sytrus, you have to explain the simple fact that it offers significantly less methods of manipulation.

If a product had no user interaction beyond choosing presets it would be reasonable to conclude that it was not intended for "tweaking". However the existence of more than 100 user-changable parameters would indeed suggest that "tweakability" was high on the developers list of goals, wouldn't it?

Right, see, this is the semantic hairsplitting I didn't want to get into. Since you have your own definition of "tweakable," and you read it into whatever I write (even when I add "for my definition of tweakable"), could you suggest an alternate term to describe what I'm getting at? Or do you still not know what I'm getting at? Or do you know what I'm getting at, but refuse to acknowledge that there is, in fact, a difference between a synth with 85 LFOs and a synth with 2 LFOs?

Ergo, it is not designed to to solve the same problem.

That doesn't follow. It could easily be that the two simply have different views on how much is enough.

Producing an application that is not designed to solve the same problem. Seriously --- 2 LFOs vs 85 LFOs, and you conclude that the latter is just as flexible as the former?

But we're agreed that it does, in fact, offer multi-sampled instrument ability?

No. How f**king stupid can you be. You're using a totally inappropriate term. The amount of work required to restrict each layers key range and velocity response, none of which can be saved with the sounds themselves, makes it pathetic compared to even the simplest soundfont.

Right, so by your own admission, it does offer multisampled ability --- you just don't like the user experience.

You said what you said, which was that the $348 dollar XXL edition saves you $105

Actually whoever I was quoting [and I'm pretty sure it was you] was asserting that $105 was how much you saved specifically on Sytrus, no ton the whole bundle and that fit with the context of my original comment.

You could do the math any old way, but if you assumed that you were getting an equal percentage discount on every plugin, you would be getting about 42% off. So Sytrus would be $75, the soundfont player wold be $8, etc. What, exactly, is your point?

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?

That's pure opinion, and I don't agree with it.

Yet when it comes to using free plugins with eXT you feel that it is perfectly acceptable to discount plugins.

What? Where did I say that? Are you so dense that you still don't see what I'm getting at? If you consider free plugins to be just as good as commercial alternatives, you devalue the integrated plugins in all commercial alternatives. From that you deduce the above? Pathetic.

And it capabilities are laughable. Set any instrument in any host to the same MIDI channel and you get exactly the same behaviour. It is such a basic feature that I doubt anyone else would even perceive it as a feature at all, just part of the basic structure.

So because something is done a different way, it is inferior. More opinion --- why don't you just write a review or something? I happen to like the way it works, and the fact that IL isn't exactly filing for the Belgian equivalent of Chapter 11 would tend to indicate that many other people feel the same way. So are we to determine superiority through userbase sizes? Because that's a crappy epistemology --- consensus science isn't.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech ... ote04.html

Features comparisons are reasonably objective, though. You can just say Sytrus sounds like crap and nobody can really tell you you're wrong --- but that's your opinion. And I take it this means my point that it is not in the same price range goes unchallenged.

You're f**king kidding, right? How many times do I have to disagree with you before it sinks in?

You have to disprove that it is 38% cheaper, or make a substantive case why something which is 38% cheaper than it's alternative is still similar in price. That really is quite an insane position to hold, so good luck with that. Although if you see $289 and $179 as being essentially the same value, that could explain your abysmal track record with numbers thus far.

And obviously the OP was talking about FL vis-a-vis stuff like pro-tools. Do you really think he was comparing the $348 XXL edition of FL to the $199 edition of Orion and concluding that the former was cheap relative to the latter?

No, I figure like most FL users he has no f**king idea what alternatives are out there, let alone what the f**k makes something good or bad.

I take it, then, that you know what makes something good or bad, and that there is no room for disagreement? Anybody who doesn't see things your way is wrong? See, this is why I accused you of foisting off opinion as fact.

LOL! I busted gol's balls directly in LoopTalk about a couple of aspects of the program's design --- to no ill consequence, I might add.

Looptalk is not in public. Christ, its barely out of kindergarten.

ATTENTION GOL:

Programming in Delphi is for pussies. Kernighan has already explained why Pascal is to be avoided. [1] The gist of it is that a language designed for instructional use is not inclined to production use. It has been said that getting C++ from C is like nailing 8 planks on a dog and calling it an octopus. Delphi, however, is like nailing 8 planks on a nanny and calling her a genetic engineer.

Pascal was designed to coddle the programmer, to gently guide them into the terrifying world of Real Programming. Like a mother, it would nurture developing talent, and make asinine requirements like using := for assignment. That someone would still use a form of Pascal for serious programming makes me wonder if said individual has moved out of mummy's flat yet.

So do the right thing. Rewrite FL in C++. I command it.

[1] http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html


ATTENTION BONER:

Good enough?

But yes, it looks like you've got the motive to grind an axe with IL, which certainly appears to be what you're doing here.

No, what I have an axe to grind about is stupid, ignorant c**ts like you who know f**k-all about any of this and carp on like Fruityloops is every musician's dream. Fruityloops is full of unacceptable compromises forced onto it by its origins as a drum sequencer. It is mostly done by a guy who freely confesses he has absolutely no background in the industry and shows it constantly in his work and his comments. It may be full to overflowing with bells and whistles but, as is often the case, this can easily be seen to be covering for its lack of fundamentally good workflow.

Ah, and it all comes out. By simply arguing the FL is on the same level as Orion, I'm arguing that it's every musicians dream? And it's full of unacceptable compromises --- yet Mike Oldfield and 9th Wonder use it? And worse, some guy who is not a member of the audio intelligentsia --- and has the audacity to be frank about it --- is the mastermind behind it? Man, that must really boil your blood. Obviously. This looks like a serious case of cognitive dissonance. You've got your perception of good and bad, and shock shock, horror horror, people disagree with you! Can you believe those jackasses? When will the unwashed proletariat masses get a clue, buy Orion, and flood your inbox with PMs thanking you for showing them the path to true enlightenment?

How pitiful, to have such a vested hatred for a piece of software that makes bloops and bleeps.

And just in case you have any doubts as to why I think you're an ignorant c**t, here's a list:
- you have no understanding of the term multi-sampled instrument

Ah, but it would seem to be you who was confused, since your L337 FL beta-testing ass didn't actually know how the layer plugin worked. Go ahead, back-pedal harder --- tell me the ability to build an instrument out of multiple-samples doesn't count if you have to use the layer plugin to do it.

- you think that layering is something worth mentioning over and over and over again

Well, y'see, I had to get you to understand how the tool actually works, otherwise you'd continue to think I was spouting nonsense. You do realize what a jackass you've made yourself look like, right? I mean, consider the irony --- you indicting me of ignorance, when it was simply your own ignorance that made it seem to you that I didn't know what I was talking about.

- you equate the number of features with the worth of a musical instrument [Would that make a guitar better than a bass and a drum-kit orders of magnitude better than either?]

I would love to see you cite me saying that. I think this is just another indicator of the cognitive dissonance you experience from the whole Sytrus vs. Toxic thing. Which is, again, ironic because I was trying to point out that Toxic and Sytrus are different tools for different jobs --- apparently, the fact that I didn't acknowledge Toxic's eminent superiority was tantamount to indicting it of inferiority.

- you use FL Studio and appear happy to do so [not such a biggie on its own but coupled with the points above it defintiely goes against you as you likely do so for the wrong reasons]

Oh heaven forbid! I'M AN FL USER! Now BONES will never like me. I use FL for the wrong reasons --- with BONES knowing the right reasons, of course.

[stag]

I bougth the FLS6 XXL upgrade because of the plugs, it's the damn best bargain available.
However i'm a little tired of waiting for Direct Wave VSTi... i'm a little more than a little,i'm kind of tired of being teased.