Why doesn't Sound on Sound mag. have an FL Studio section?

[T-CM11]

please forgive me but I think you're missing a point here, some of us older folk have been recording in different ways forever and the thought of needing a video to explain how to record audio appears to be more complicated than it needs to be. Than you see another host where it's so straight forward you already know what to do which in turn is more comfortable. I cant speak for bluedad but myself I find when things suit my workflow and are comfortable it means less think and at least for me sometimes less think means more creativity.

Again, not saying anything against FL...it's just better at other stuff

It's not complicated, it's just different (more 'modular'). This reminds me a bit of my dad... in the 80s, he could program his VCR (small display, with a lot of button combinations, and little feedback of what you were doing). Nowadays, he just can't grasp the most simple things on a computer.
I think a lot has to do with interest & necessity (and not age). You're not that interested in learning new (or different) technology, and it's not necessary because you already have a DAW that you're comfortable with.

[Hink]

please forgive me but I think you're missing a point here, some of us older folk have been recording in different ways forever and the thought of needing a video to explain how to record audio appears to be more complicated than it needs to be. Than you see another host where it's so straight forward you already know what to do which in turn is more comfortable. I cant speak for bluedad but myself I find when things suit my workflow and are comfortable it means less think and at least for me sometimes less think means more creativity.

Again, not saying anything against FL...it's just better at other stuff

It's not complicated, it's just different (more 'modular'). This reminds me a bit of my dad... in the 80s, he could program his VCR (small display, with a lot of button combinations, and little feedback of what you were doing). Nowadays, he just can't grasp the most simple things on a computer.
I think a lot has to do with interest & necessity (and not age). You're not that interested in learning new (or different) technology, and it's not necessary because you already have a DAW that you're comfortable with.

that's absolutely not true, I started with FL and many people may remember a time when Hink was always on the FL forums helping people. I at one time had a folder with 100's of screenshots I made (video wasn't as easy then as it now) to help people with I think FL4. So I indeed did learn new technology, I went with what is more comfortable for me. I use to use AA for all my audio when I used FL not because I couldn't learn it but because it was more intuitive for me to use AA which was designed to be an audio multi-track recorder.

[sjm]

I'm a long-time FL user (first used it back in the days when it was just a drum machine), and I wouldn't recommend anyone use it for traditional multitracking purposes. FL's great for programming/editing MIDI and it's OK if you want to record the odd audio take here or there, but if you want to record a traditional band, then it's one of the worst-suited DAWs to that kind of task.

This isn't so much because setting FL up to record is so difficult, but because of how FL goes about handling audio takes and essentially making your life far more difficult than it needs to be - loop recordings/multiple takes etc. are a massive PITA to work with in FL. That doesn't mean you can't do it, simply that it's nowhere near the best choice for that kind of task. It's basically unnecessarily convoluted, and the fact that the IL recommended approach is to use a dedicated plugin (Edison) to handle the simple task of recording an audio track is indicative of how much of an afterthought audio recording in FL actually is.

---

On Topic: I couldn't care less if SOS has a FL section or not.

[T-CM11]

It's not complicated, it's just different (more 'modular'). This reminds me a bit of my dad... in the 80s, he could program his VCR (small display, with a lot of button combinations, and little feedback of what you were doing). Nowadays, he just can't grasp the most simple things on a computer.
I think a lot has to do with interest & necessity (and not age). You're not that interested in learning new (or different) technology, and it's not necessary because you already have a DAW that you're comfortable with.

that's absolutely not true, I started with FL and many people may remember a time when Hink was always on the FL forums helping people. I at one time had a folder with 100's of screenshots I made (video wasn't as easy then as it now) to help people with I think FL4. So I indeed did learn new technology, I went with what is more comfortable for me. I use to use AA for all my audio when I used FL not because I couldn't learn it but because it was more intuitive for me to use AA which was designed to be an audio multi-track recorder.

Ok, so it's only the second thing; necessity.
My first multi-track recordings were in FL Studio. It was the only thing I had, so I learned it, and it became intuitive for me. Now I record in Cubase, and it's different, but not more or less intuitive ... (but that's just me).

[LawrenceF]

Fight Club.

I've not once ever seen a single video of anyone multi tracking a live band in FL Studio. Probably largely because that's not what people buy it for.

But I can see it now, the 7 piece cover band deciding to record and mix their own album and everyone saying...

"Yeah, lets chip in and buy FL Studio for that. Yeah, great idea."

Being more serious, when Hink said "intuitive" he probably kinda meant "works like most analog recording gear"... where anyone who's used a tape deck and a small mixer would recognize most everything. But those kinds of modern electronic music production tools actually aren't supposed to be that, intentionally.

What it does it does very well though, but it's not built to replace PT. Why anyone has to defend it not being something that it's clearly not even really supposed to be is beyond me.

Like the Bitwig guys said..

"For people who do conventional recording and mixing there are already multiple great choices out there like PT & Cubase. We aren't doing that."

Like S1 or Reaper aren't currently trying to be Ableton Live, but some users just 'aint hearing that.

[Image-Line]

FWIW, I just checked DJ Mags top 100 DJs - http://www.djmag.com/top-100-djs

Think of it what you will, but these guys are making serious money in the business and so I would call them 'professionals'.

10% of the people on that list are using FL Studio as their primary DAW platform.

Arty
Avicii
Afrojack
Dyro
Porter Robinson
Madeon
Oliver Heldens
Ummet Ozcan
Martin Garrix
Heatbeat

It jumps to around 20%+ when you include people who use it as a second DAW or got their start using it.

The days are long gone when FL Studio has anything to prove about being a viable platform on which to base your music career.

Regards Scott

[LawrenceF]

Right. It's a great electronic music production tool. Not sure why that's not enough for some people.

Like PT is a great studio tool for more conventional studio work. It kinda sucks doing what FL does and vice versa.

But "auto-defense mode" is the name of the game these days.

[Rajah]

FL 12 will change everything..

[Hink]

FWIW, I just checked DJ Mags top 100 DJs - http://www.djmag.com/top-100-djs

Think of it what you will, but these guys are making serious money in the business and so I would call them 'professionals'.

10% of the people on that list are using FL Studio as their primary DAW platform.

Arty
Avicii
Afrojack
Dyro
Porter Robinson
Madeon
Oliver Heldens
Ummet Ozcan
Martin Garrix
Heatbeat

It jumps to around 20%+ when you include people who use it as a second DAW or got their start using it.

The days are long gone when FL Studio has anything to prove about being a viable platform on which to base your music career.

Regards Scott

well I for one never said anything contrary to that but I do disagree with that last statement. Change "your" to "a" and I'm right there with yah, but I think it's up to each user as what DAW is best suited to base their musical career on if indeed a career is what is important to them. It's great that these guys are making lots of money, money cannot buy me what recording music has given me over the years and FL will always be part of a major turning point for me. With that said though, it wasn't my final stop but then neither was my first 4-track in the early 80's and I suspect I have not reached the end of that journey so there will hopefully many more stops ahead.

[t3toooo]

[ShawnG]

The question of the OP is about FL studio having a regular column in SOS. Not about whether it's a good tool or not. Yes it's good for what it does, which is electronic music production, but that isn't what SOS is about. SOS is the magazine for traditional audio recording, live sound reinforcement, and audio for video work. FL studio is not the main product that people who live in that world use. as mentioned, it's a bear for audio sequencing. If FL is the tool that works for you and your music, why do you care that a stodgy old school audio recording magazine seems to be ignoring it?

Probably a better question would be the apparent lack of interest in covering it by Music Tech, FM, and CM, since those mags better serve the target market for FL.

Another weird question would be why they spend a monthly column on Reason. probably that stems from a longstanding studio practice of rewiring Reason into PT and logic from 10 years ago, I guess.

[Image-Line]

Probably a better question would be the apparent lack of interest in covering it by Music Tech, FM, and CM, since those mags better serve the target market for FL.

Another weird question would be why they spend a monthly column on Reason. probably that stems from a longstanding studio practice of rewiring Reason into PT and logic from 10 years ago, I guess.

A couple of reasons...

1. We don't spend a cent on print advertising.

2. We don't have a native Mac version (yet), and it's very hard to find a Windows PC in those places these days. Just how the print industry is.

Re reason, old favourites die hard, the guys running these mags are getting old like the rest of us and stick to what they know. They could never really get their head around 'Fruity Loops'

But don't worry, we are doing OK thanks to our very large and enthusiastic customer base + word-of-mouth/social-media presence.

Regards Scott

[Mivo]

... and the fact that the IL recommended approach is to use a dedicated plugin (Edison) to handle the simple task of recording an audio track is indicative of how much of an afterthought audio recording in FL actually is.

Edison is as good as integrated, though, since all editions, except the most inexpensive one, include it. It's also quite powerful and highly usable, so I'm not sure it's a matter of audio recording being an afterthought. It's just not the primary focus.

I agree that audio recording isn't FL Studio's strongest point (I love Tracktion's comping), but that can be said about various other DAWs too -- and those do get covered.

[arkmabat]

I use Sonar + FL Studio. Sonar for conventional recording and mixing, FL for experimental electronica loop stuff. Brian Eno once talked about how everything in your studio is one big instrument.

[Image-Line]

... and the fact that the IL recommended approach is to use a dedicated plugin (Edison) to handle the simple task of recording an audio track is indicative of how much of an afterthought audio recording in FL actually is.

Edison is as good as integrated, though, since all editions, except the most inexpensive one, include it. It's also quite powerful and highly usable, so I'm not sure it's a matter of audio recording being an afterthought. It's just not the primary focus.

I agree that audio recording isn't FL Studio's strongest point (I love Tracktion's comping), but that can be said about various other DAWs too -- and those do get covered.

The 'problems' with FL Studio Audio recording are:

1. You can't lock inputs to Playlist Tracks. A. This seems to confuse people and B. Means you can't set an affinity for a recorded input to a specific location in the Playlist. Audio can turn up on any Playlist track where there is room if you don't prepare in the right way.

2. Live incoming audio is not displayed until after it's recorded. This seems to confuse people as they are not sure its 'really' working.

3. Archaic workflows like punch in/out are not supported. So people think it's not possible. It is, you just do it differently.

Apart from that, the process is pretty much a 3 click affair. Multi-track inputs are handled with similar ease. But I can understand (due to the above) it doesn't suit some people.

FWIW: Here Seamless multi-track records 10 channels of mics on drums with FL Studio





Regards Scott