 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)recycle ...and 303 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614304 Today 25 Topics 127557 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I know very very little about music making, i only fooled around with cubase once. I want to ask; is it the same kind of program as fruityloops..? i don't mean to ask whether it's better or not.. but just if it's the same idea.. thx |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's also a sequencer, yes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but everyone here prefers fruityloops ey..? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nah i don't think everyone, it's easier than cubase, cubase is the flagship sequencer, you can do soooo much things with it, to much for virtual digital producing (harddiskrecording, midihardware, appregiators, mastering, mixdown, etc.) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
NO!! I prefer Cubase SO MUCH MORE!! Cubase has much more facilities. it can get very complex, but only as complex as you want it to be. in Cubase there is more room to grow as a musician, imo. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha, i worked a long time with cubase, and i'll install it again when i have a terrible synth, i still have my big book, the drum editor still rocks, like it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I use Cubase as a sequencer of samples only - no midi or whatever. and I like to use ALL the little plug-ins!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hehe, i use fruity without any samples. midi / vsti only. maybe we should swap sequencers? hehe. cept i have no idea how to use cubase. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you cant compare....cubase does a LITTLE bit more...=)...no..i ll rephrase that..FUCKLOADS more |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ha ha.. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
remember, fruityloops cant actually record audio, so theres a big difference right there |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Cubase is great, and as far as I know you can use Fruity within Cubase as a VSTi. Haven't tried this though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i use both and perfer FL. cubase is excellent though and easily the best midi/audio sequencer out there. i work faster in FL and often port files over from there to cubase. cubase has a great engine and is solid. the only problem with cubase is on large monitors is looks crap and doesnt translate well on anything above 1024x768. thats a personal preference though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i know there must be lots of differences, but, what are they? dont wanna start a war here, just would be interested to know. what can cubase do that fruity cant? not including the audio stuff. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the thing i hate about cubase is that the drum maps are all upside down.... so stupid! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a few points... consider Cubase as a studio sequencer.. and FL as something you play arund with on your desktop.. =)) you should really make your own drum maps you say "not including the audio stuff" - well, you're discounting one hell of a big area of music production right there. saying that tho'... the midi implementation is way far better than FL... and much easier to use (once you crack the basics) sure FL can do loads these days, but its all just plugins and well, look at the sequencer! it sucks ass IMO... mastering... FL can't do that (properly) can it? Cubase is a host to a plethora of VSTi's, DX plugins, and other third party filters and effects etc etc etc. try running a project in FL with over 50 audio trcks and 50 midi tracks all of which are being controlled by the midi implementation in cubase.... you'll give up very quickly (even if it's possible at all, which I doubt) oh, and I'm slightly Cubase biased ;)) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fruity Loops for me..I tried porting loops from floops to Cubase and arranging them in there..but it was very limiting the songs all ended up sounding well..looped... arranging within floops gave me a lot more freedom and organic ability.. true you do need tons of samples and VSTs both effects and generators to make Floops come alive..but I think that is true ofanyoff the shelf package... right now I am heavily into using Buzz effects and generators with it...works a charm...as well as exporting entiretracks as WAVs and manipulating them in Cool Edit Pro..lets say..this I have far more flexibility and room to improvise then if I had limited myself to one *ahem*REAL software.. and btw I have tired floops with between 50 and 100 audio tracks...worked without a hitch..and mastering is always flawless..maybe it's time some of you got around to giving your machines some grunt and power rather than blaming it on a software hunh... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The only reason why I use Fruityloops is to prove that it can be used for professional music... some day I will figure out that it can't be done, but the idea is the drive |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Haven't Hellfish and Hecate both used Floops? Although debateabley, they're not professional :) I agree with flea: You need a lot of plugins etc. to get away from the fruityloops sound (I always laugh when people say all floops tracks sound alike- how can it when you use purely VST softsynths and no floops samples?), but when you do it can be used for meticulous loop based music as well as more irregular sounding stuff as though you'd just recorded it to a 4 track etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"right now I am heavily into using Buzz effects and generators with it...works a charm...as well as exporting entiretracks as WAVs and manipulating them in Cool Edit Pro..lets say..this I have far more flexibility and room to improvise then if I had limited myself to one *ahem*REAL software.. Exactly the same for me, and I think it's great this way. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
btw. it's just DUMP comparing floops with cubase ;) cubase is a flagship with a bunch of tools (and I think, it's not hard learning cubase) fruityloops is a very good programm with such dump prejudice like the outlook of the whole thing. the sequencer has some unique functions and it's better than Reason IMO. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Naturally, you can use all the VST FX etc. from Cubase in Floops anyway :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
try that in reason ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Cubase is more for "traditional" kind of music, you know, where you need to incorperate audio from guitars, vocals, real kit, etc etc etc that's what i think anyways i mean of course it's very useful for no-traditional music, but i think that's what it was primarily designed for |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
xactly, it's probably the only virtual you'll need in a studio recording bands and what not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
virtual tool i mean .... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
exactly :) although reason is pretty goddamned usefull too ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hmm.. opinions differ a lot.. i guess doing a poll on this wouldn't be useful ey? since some people say they can't be compared or both have their own good things Poll: should we do a cub. vs. floops poll? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
forget. it depends on what you're want doing ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
goddamn, what happen with my english today ? :P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i personally don't think you can really compare them, because cubase wasn't necessarily designed for electronic music it was designed for traditional methods of sound recording and midi whereas fruity loops is more of a programming thing |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's the right word, a programmer thing!! fruityloops is a groove-programmer-box :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i dont use any samples in fruityloops. just the native instrument vsti's, my 3 outboard synths, and the native gold bundle DX effects. how is the midi implimentation better? ive tried using cubase, damn thing just seems too complicated. lots of uneeded stuff. of course if i was into recording with audio i might find it more handy. but then again, i have a 24trak tascam at my disposal. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i look at it this way. both are good, but in different ways. fruity could be used for a track, whereas cubase would be used for an album, since it is much more extensible. fruity is much quicker and easier to use, but cubase does so much more. people with outboard gear would use cubase much more than fruity, cos fruity is crap for lots of outboard midi controlling, etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
flea: "but it was very limiting the songs all ended up sounding well..looped..." mm.. to me it sounds like just didn't know how to use it well.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Although recent versions of fruity have got better at controlling external devices, I'd have to say I agree with you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
probably.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That was the first thing I noticed when a reasonably experienced user of it demoed it to me. Although, it could just be his style of music... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
