what about fruityloops and reason ?

[Time_Trap]

This kind of discussion is pointless. all the programs sound the same. i agree that fruity´s synth arent good , i dont use them at all ,

224159[/snapback]

That's my point. You can't create a good track with ONLY FL. Fl rewired to Reason, YES.

Btw you say they all sound the same... i ask: 1) what are the compression/equalising capabilities of FL? of Reason ? of Cubase or Logic ?

 

Also, i'd be glad to listen to some of your tracks...

[AmithabaBuddha]

i didnt say fruity & reason. i said fruity only.

i am aware of the fact the you can create very kewl songs even with FL, but with Reason 3 it will be almost sure.

As far as the stoneage thing is concerned: It's true that software is getting more and more popular but more guyz use hardware, even some new artists[e.g visit Filteria's studio @ www.filteria.com  He combines hardware synthesizers with Logic on his mac]

224161[/snapback]

ok mate sorry heh. even reason 2.5 is killer , so 3 will be even more killer with that mastering tools

to me software is much better than hardware.why?

1st-more fast and easy to program

2nd-no need to be rich to buy real machinery (that applies to me)

3rd-more room space

4th-its digital , it never loses quality whatever are the circunstances.

5th-no cable wires confusing

6th- and so on.......

 

I´m sure Filteria haves his methods but im another person , so by Nature im different .

 

Virtual Analog synths (yes VST´s are virtual analog , at least Synth1 is.) can sound a little bit different of real analogue , can sound more crispy and clean , but digital is about quality isnt it? it takes a lot of time to get the sound a producer wants , but thats what producing is about , taking lots and lots of time in front of the computer trying to figure it out whats good and whats not good.

I just have a Pentium 4 at 2.4 Ghz , my midi controller quite old but good (Evolution MK-149) , Audiorealim bassline (this VST is authentic to the real TB-303 , the sound is authentic , nothing can beats it) , Synth1 , a great freeware synth , FL (Sequencer) and Reason. Im working in my new project and maybe it will be released soon. Style is Goa-Trance as always and keep checking SunTriprecords.com for more further info.

[AmithabaBuddha]

That's my point. You can't create a good track with ONLY FL. Fl rewired to Reason, YES.

Btw you say they all sound the same... i ask: 1) what are the compression/equalising capabilities of FL? of Reason ? of Cubase or Logic ?

 

Also, i'd be glad to listen to some of your tracks...

224164[/snapback]

yes i admit at least for me its impossible to make Goa only with FL , the sampler is no good , nothing compared with the Reason´s samplers. In Reason i use pads , choirs , real sounds so that you can feel it Real. FL isnt good in multisampling , unless you just want to use a single note on the note sampled sample.But there other cons in Reason , for example Fruity 5 haves a extremely good granulizer. Like i told before , FL its almost just the tool. I just throw it some VST and thats it.

well cubase and logic are very good , most of the people likes the way of its sequencing and work methods. Cubase and Logic are programs developed specially for hardware (not software studios like Reason and Fruity).Thats why i dont use them , and besides the soundquality is the same i can assure you.

Well for EQuing/compression i´d say FL is much better than Reason since you have more freedom on the chain Fx section. Reason is kinda limited in that way , but if you tweak Reason the right way with those parametric EQ and compression im sure youll get a good sound.

Since i just use my computer as DAW (digital workstation) the proper programs to work with is FL and Reason.

[benf52]

yes i admit at least for me its impossible to make Goa only with FL , the sampler is no good , nothing compared with the Reason´s samplers. In Reason i use pads , choirs , real sounds so that you can feel it Real. FL isnt good in multisampling , unless you just want to use a single note on the note sampled sample.But there other cons in Reason , for example Fruity 5  haves a extremely good granulizer. Like i told before , FL its almost just the tool. I just throw it some VST and thats it.

well cubase and logic are very good , most of the people likes the way of its sequencing and work methods. Cubase and Logic are programs developed specially for hardware (not software studios like Reason and Fruity).Thats why i dont use them , and besides the soundquality is the same i can assure you.

Well for EQuing/compression i´d say FL is much better than Reason since you have more freedom on the chain Fx section. Reason is kinda limited in that way , but if you tweak Reason the right way with those parametric EQ and compression im sure youll get a good sound.

Since i just use my computer as DAW (digital workstation) the proper programs to work with is FL and Reason.

224188[/snapback]

have u ever used logic or cubase?

if not how can u say that the sound quality is the same?

u have to try both before u can assure that the sound quality is the same..

i did a test with a some friends of mine who wanted to get into music...

i showed them reason and then logic, and they told me that now they understand what the difference is, it's mostly in fatness of sound and more accurate reproduction of what is going on...

and btw u don't have to use logic or cubase with hardware, u can use vsts only and the logic's synths for ex... more than enough to make good music...

[AmithabaBuddha]

have u ever used logic or cubase?

if not how can u say that the sound quality is the same?

u have to try both before u can assure that the sound quality is the same..

i did a test with a some friends of mine who wanted to get into music...

i showed them reason and then logic, and they told me that now they understand what the difference is, it's mostly in fatness of sound and more accurate reproduction of what is going on...

and btw u don't have to use logic or cubase with hardware, u can use vsts only and the logic's synths for ex... more than enough to make good music...

224196[/snapback]

No.

listening to records that were made on it.

Using huge program just to use software isnt reliable for me and those programs eat lots of cpu sources.

i dont say those programs arent good , ou contraire my friend are very good , but i dont i need them cause i the tools i use are enough.

thats all.

[Daniël]

Hey i'm a fruity die-hard too.

But i didn't know it could use reason as a vst.

that's very interesting though

Gonna check it out!

How can i plug it?

[AmithabaBuddha]

Hey i'm a fruity die-hard too. 

But i didn't know it could use reason as a vst.

that's very interesting though 

Gonna check it out!

How can i plug it?

224218[/snapback]

hi daniel ,

FL 5 haves Rewire , so you can rewire Reason into Fruity. Not as a VST

Take care.

[Daniël]

euhm, i just tried it and i must say to you:

 

WOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT

 

 

thanks, it's like the opening of a new era in my musicmaking.

Me so happy now.

[AmithabaBuddha]

euhm, i just tried it and i must say to you:

 

WOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT     

thanks, it's like the opening of a new era in my musicmaking. 

Me so happy now. 

224243[/snapback]

i want to prove you guys you dont need cubase to make pro music

check this thread http://www.psynews.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22913

[Prio Alea]

Fruity Loops is very weak and limits your freedom significantly.

Reason is much better and gives many more choices[especially the upcoming Reason 3] then again you need a sequencer such as Cubase for the final cut/mastering of the track..

223743[/snapback]

Bullshit.

 

The internal synths in FL aren't good, but get VST synths and FL kicks ass.

[Spindrift]

i want to prove you guys you dont need cubase to make pro music

check this thread http://www.psynews.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22913

224254[/snapback]

Sorry, but frankly I think you could do with trying to do a track or two in Logic or Cubase.

That track could sure be both be more distinct in the kick and bass and less messy in the mids and top.

 

What are you using for monitoring?

[AmithabaBuddha]

Sorry, but frankly I think you could do with trying to do a track or two in Logic or Cubase.

That track could sure be both be more distinct in the kick and bass and less messy in the mids and top.

 

What are you using for monitoring?

224265[/snapback]

monitor headphones. the track needs some proper mastering too , ive mastered it a bit but im not so good at mastering so thats your answer

thanks for the warning spin , im grateful for it , maybe you could give me an hand on preproduction...

[Strifer]

If you're just beginning to make music then pick FRUITY.

It is the best way to understand everything abot music-making.

Later on you still jump over to cubase or reason.

 

Fruity is the easiest & most creative program of them all.

If you start cubase from beginning you will get frustrated by all the technical details & end up with that "KILLAAAR" bassline with some stupid melodies.

In the begin you need to explore one part after another.

Stay away from every commercial synth or complicated program the first 2 years.

get yourself fruity 5 & start experimenting.

Learn every little detail about TS404 & osc3, & find as much totorials as possible.

Ts404 & osc3 were made by fruity, they are very easy, the sound sucks  BUT if you don't understand these 2 you will never ever learn how to use complicated synths in a decent way.  Before you can make good electronic music you should understand electronic sound.  So learn synth after synth after synth, every detail.  And test yourself often:

can i remake the sound of a 303? for example.

If you can't do it, you're not ready for new synths yet.  people who don't appreciate simplistic or mediocre sound will never know how to create good sounds without using a preset. 

First you need to know the basics, this takes about 1 or 2 years experimenting & learning.

So luckely we have fruity, very basic, very easy, you'll learn alot & real quick.

The sound sucks compared to cubase. best sound in fruity sounds like a baby playing with cubase.  So it can be good enough, if you're a fruity-pro.

But if you start making music in cubase you'll be jumping like a little kid if you can figure out how to let a preset run in the first week. 

 

but I don't know if you're beginning, maybe you're a pro 

fruity: positive: easy to learn your instrumental skillz, entertaining, quick, lots of creative freedom,

          negative: sound sucks, but is that important for beginners? no!

cubase: positive: kick ass sound

            negative: slow creation=>simplistic creation, frustrating for beginners. Only for pro musicians

224057[/snapback]

Exactly man, great words of advice right there. Cept for me I started with jeskola buzz and then reason, and I'm still using reason after almost 2 years, for the simple fact Cubase and the other pro programs are still too complicated.

The problem is, you gotta know the concept, and if u don't know the concept for progs like Cubase ur screwed. That's why I like reason, very simple, easy to get into. YOu just open it and start making sound, like an instrument. But that's where it's weakness lies too...soon ur gonna want the stuff that every other producer is using, plug in capabilites, recording...etc..etc. Also, the sound on reason may be very simple and puny compared to other progs out there, but....you can still achieve the same level of sound, it just requires more work (like hooking two malstroms and a scream to make a layered synth sound that The problem I have with reason, and it's a major problem, is that the choice of sounds are very narrow. You only have two synths, and while they're good, eventually u'll get tired of the same sound coming out. Reason seems to have a distinct sound, one that you can easily hear when you listen to a song made purely in it. I think that's why the big producers stay away from it.

[AmithabaBuddha]

Reason seems to have a distinct sound, one that you can easily hear when you listen to a song made purely in it.  I think that's why the big producers stay away from it.

224282[/snapback]

cmon man , gimme a break and stop beeing "piki".

whats the matter of reason´s distinct sound?

if you used a tb303 ,a juno106 and a TR808 and 909 , every would knew you were using them! and so what? what it matters is the music you make with it! subtractor is awesome , subtractor have every kind of synthesis and just in one synth! if you think it limited , then you´re calling to the all synths "limited". i think you´d better explorer reason´s capacity cause it simply rox , and if it sounds reason , whats the problem? what it matters is the music you make on it.

take care.

[Subsonik]

AmithabaBuddha, no offence, but you seem very unwilling to face the facts here. Why is it that you are denying these claims about the software when you don't even know. It's a FACT that both Logic and Cubase have far better audio processing engines than fruity loops or reason. Everyone here is giving you sound advice, especially Daniël and yet you are just arguing.

 

You say that Cubase is developed for hardware and not VSTs. Where on earth did you originate this idea from? Steinberg pioneered VSTs. Nobody here is saying that you can't produce professional music with Fruity Loops. If they are then they're just giving up too soon. However, if you want to get the most from your music then you'll switch over to Cubase and begin the whole painful learning sequence again as a sacrifice for better sounding music and to keep up with todays seriously high expectations. I use Fruity 5, and I have Cubase SX too, but I still haven't made the changeover completely because Cubase is very complex and takes a lot of dedicated time to learn. But it does sound better - I PROMISE YOU!

 

It's not about being 'piki' as you say, it's a matter of preference. Sure you can get good sound out of FL nowadays - FL5 is even better, but it's still far behind the capabilities of Logic or Cubase.

 

And about this hardware/software issue, how can you fool yourself into believing that software synthesisers give a 'cleaner' sound than hardware!!! Do you have any idea what hardware is cabable of nowadays???

Audiorealim is a good synth, but it's nothing like a real 303. Software synths are unstable and don't have anywhere near as fat-a-sound as some hardware out there. Why is it you think that hardware synths still sell like hotcakes when they cost up to 20X the price of emulated software? I've worked extensively with many software vst's and it doesn't even come close. If you're concerned about the control of your synth and automation and you wanna get serious about your music, then make a good investment and find yourself a Virus Ti http://www.access-music.de You won't even need anything else to complete a studio besides some monitors (you should really make that investment too).

 

Basically I'm not saying you cant sell music or make good music from FL or reason, but if you wanna finally come to terms with the fact that you might some day want to take a step up, then Cubase, Logic or Protools (which is very expensive) will make that change for you.

 

[Daniël]

Just take this test:

 

open fruity, make track, render, close fruity

open cubase, add fruity as vst.

open fruitytrack you just made, rerender with cubase.

close cubase

 

And then just listen to the difference.

If you want better sound you don't even need to change to cubase, all you need is the audio engine actually & you can still compose in fruity.

Importing Fruity in cubase also gives you 20% extra CPU.

[AmithabaBuddha]

Just take this test:

 

open fruity, make track, render, close fruity

open cubase, add fruity as vst.

open  fruitytrack you just made, rerender with cubase.

close cubase

 

And then just listen to the difference.

If you want better sound you don't even need to change to cubase, all you need is the audio engine actually & you can still compose in fruity.

Importing Fruity in cubase also gives you 20% extra CPU.

229628[/snapback]

which cubase you use?

[Daniël]

cubase SX.

A friend told me that neundo also has a good engine but didn't tested it yet myself.

 

But i never compose in cubase. Only render.

I rewire fruity to cubase like you do with reason to fruity.

[AmithabaBuddha]

cubase SX.

A friend told me that neundo also has a good engine but didn't tested it yet myself.

 

But i never compose in cubase.  Only render.

I rewire fruity to cubase like you do with reason to fruity.

229649[/snapback]

Daniel some days ago i found an article about some research people that made some tests testing if cubase and fruity have different ways to sound , they just said purely that both sound the same. I´ll see if i can find that page again so that it can convince you.

[Xamanist]

cubase SX.

A friend told me that neundo also has a good engine but didn't tested it yet myself.

 

But i never compose in cubase.  Only render.

I rewire fruity to cubase like you do with reason to fruity.

229649[/snapback]

Nuendo has a great sound engine (maybe better than Cubase SX IMO)

From my experience, either with Fruity or with Reason for composition, everything sounds better if you export audio tracks to Cubase/Nuendo and do the final Mix there. if you need some mastering, do it in another session (Nuendo/Wavelab) over the mix audio file

[Spindrift]

Daniel some days ago i found an article about some research people that made some tests testing if cubase and fruity have different ways to sound , they just said purely that both sound the same. I´ll see if i can find that page again so that it can convince you.

229657[/snapback]

I hope you don't mean:

http://audiotests.batcave.net/article0001.htm

 

Four tracks of dithered 16 bit files is not much of a test really.

 

But the same people did another test that they unfortunally did not publish.

This was the conclusion from that test though:

FL Producer signal got -70dB noise with offset. When Cubase still clean.

FL output noise increase with channel addition since we got -90dB with one sample, -70dB with 12 and seen by eye and heard by ear on 30 channels meaning FL Producer mixer is "broken".

Please stop going on about it all being about production skills.

First compare for yourself on a quality monitoring system.

Since you have not done that please don't bother to comment and try to establish your loose presumptions as fact.

 

Sure one can make good music with fruity and decent sounding productions if you are a skilled producer.

But the sound is inferior, there is really no point arguing about that, especially without actually having tried properly for yourself.

[Subsonik]

Exactly.

 

 

[AmithabaBuddha]

I hope you don't mean:

http://audiotests.batcave.net/article0001.htm

 

Four tracks of dithered 16 bit files is not much of a test really.

 

But the same people did another test that they unfortunally did not publish.

This was the conclusion from that test though:

Please stop going on about it all being about production skills.

First compare for yourself on a quality monitoring system.

Since you have not done that please don't bother to comment and try to establish your loose presumptions as fact.

 

Sure one can make good music with fruity and decent sounding productions if you are a skilled producer.

But the sound is inferior, there is really no point arguing about that, especially without actually having tried properly for yourself.

229727[/snapback]

yes it was that site thanks.

[benf52]

I hope you don't mean:

http://audiotests.batcave.net/article0001.htm

 

Four tracks of dithered 16 bit files is not much of a test really.

 

But the same people did another test that they unfortunally did not publish.

This was the conclusion from that test though:

Please stop going on about it all being about production skills.

First compare for yourself on a quality monitoring system.

Since you have not done that please don't bother to comment and try to establish your loose presumptions as fact.

 

Sure one can make good music with fruity and decent sounding productions if you are a skilled producer.

But the sound is inferior, there is really no point arguing about that, especially without actually having tried properly for yourself.

229727[/snapback]

AMEN to that...