Is it "possible" to do all mix in Flstudio5

[yaroo]

Hi all,

 

I am producing a trance music a few years but now I am trying to do psytrance music. I am doing in flstudio. Now I get FL studio 5. I'm trying to do some psytracks in this software but the sound is not like the profesional tracks I am heared. I am using lot of vsti and equaling but I can not do this quality. Is it possible to do final mix in flstudio?

Thanx

[Spindrift]

Opinions differ on the subject.

 

Of course it's possible, and there is a few releasing artists that do.

None really renowned for their great sound quality AFAIK, but many making very inspired music.

 

I do think it's really hard to get anything decent sound wise out of fruity and many producers that use fruity do the actual mixing in other applications.

Especially when mixing many tracks they have a tendency to get quite muddy, loose stero image and kick and bass starts dissappering.

 

What you should keep in mind with fruity, contradictory to the information provided by Image Line, is that there is actually no 24 bit support.

The help file say's that it supports 24 bit, but apperently Image Lines definition of "supporting" is that it will dither down your audio to 16 bit.

If you use many channels thats quite a bit of noise added to your output, and a highly questionable practice.

So it seems best to stick with 32 bit files if you want to get the best out of the software.

 

It might improve things a bit, but from my experience with various software neither orion, Abelton Live, reason or fruity can unfortunally not compare in sound quality to the major players.

Why seems to be a bit of a mystery when you speak to developers who many times say it should be an easy task to mix the signals. But if the developers of Logic or DP for example know otherwise I guess they keep it a secret how they achive the sound they do.

 

But the best thing to do is to try out for yourself.

Get hold of somekind of "demo" for Logic, Cubase, DP or Sonar and try to mix a track in them to see if you find there to be enough improvement in sound quality to justify the switch.

[Towelie]

i dunno but if you listen that demo song in fl5 you can hear its not just a amateur toy program as some people claim .. well imo

[Spindrift]

Im not saying it is a toy, but it sounds different than Logic for sure.

 

You can make a fine sounding track with a really cheap analogue mixer as well.

It takes more skill and more attention to EQ and gain structure though and it will never sound as good as something coming out of a neve or ssl.

But of course it can still sound good.

[gruzina]

mix= balancing all the sounds in the track in order to create harmony of sounds

you need to balance all the sounds together ......

 

 

well it doesn't matter with which program you using you can make good mix

as time goes by you learning how to mix better

[Spindrift]

mix= balancing all the sounds in the track in order to create harmony of sounds

you need to balance all the sounds togethe

In mainstream music production that was the idea in the 80's.

 

Nowadays at least pop producers have realized that it's actually more about putting together the sounds in a way that sounds interesting.

Total harmony between the sounds don't catch many peoples attention.

 

I just wish more trance producers could come to that insight sometime as well.

IMO opinion madionna many times have a lot more interesting and wild production than GMS.

 

And since trance is combining production and performing instruments people seem to forget one thing, use good sounds to start with and you need to do very little mixing work.

[yaroo]

Hi,

 

thanks for your advices.

Genneraly,

you mean that the output of one channel in Fl studio is in the same quality e.c. Cubase?

But when you mixup more channels the output is muddy, yes?

 

And, which Audio monitors are you suppose to be good for Psytrance?

 

Which known producers are making on Fl studio. Can you give me any contacts?

 

Thanx

[spaceboogie]

And, which Audio monitors are you suppose to be good for Psytrance?

 

Which known producers are making on Fl studio. Can you give me any contacts?

 

Thanx

213364[/snapback]

 

 

Audio monitors genelecs of course man, they are from Finland.

Fl producers to name few texas faggot and squaremet

[OffBeat]

And, which Audio monitors are you suppose to be good for Psytrance?

 

Which known producers are making on Fl studio. Can you give me any contacts?

 

Thanx

213364[/snapback]

Audio monitors genelecs of course man, they are from Finland.

Fl producers to name few texas faggot and squaremet

213656[/snapback]

so......

fruity loops is a nice software and im not underestimating it but its for amatures!!!

when i started making music i also fell on this software and i tried my best to produce a good equalized volume final master,but............

the answer is "u have to find another software" if u r meaning to reach another level of music !!!!!

i sujest for u is to install (Q-base) on ur hardware its not an easy one. u have to get used to it and to know how to control all its functions

but this program is the best ,u just simply can do everything with that

so i hope u will manage and continue making good music

yossi - israel

[dreamworld]

Yes.

FL uses 32 bit processing. In my opinion it has a better audio engine and sound than Protools, or Cubase and I use all of them (cept logic). However the way to do it is export the entire song length waves as seperate wavs (split mixer tracks in export section of FL) then import them into a wave editor like Pro tools, cubase, logic or acipro4 for the final mixdown and then you can cut and paste, sort out the EQ, add more effects ect. Acidpro4 works well for this.

[AmithabaBuddha]

i used to use FLstudio 4. the program is good for beginners but it is very cheezy (in my opinion.) i became tired of its sequencer cause it isnt good for your mind .if later you want to change sequencer youll miss those patterns. if the same happens to you use Reason like i did. Reason sounds good , its just a matter of skills.but stick on FL if you like it. you can make all the mix on fl if you know how to do it , its just a matter of using good mastering tools for the case.

[Guest Schallusion]

Hi,

we just changed from fl4 to cubase sx2 some time ago. it was a hard step to give up work we have done before, because it is not realy possible to get a track from fl to cubase.

it just sounds different even if you use the same settings. you have to develope the track on that software that you want to use later!

 

so even if fl is an easy entry and very intuitive software, make some sounds with every sofware and compare them !

maybee listen to the some sounds on both softwares and make a good decision !

 

well lets see what differences we have discovered:

 

fl:

- very intuitive

- you can very fast make some good sounding tracks, but its very hard to make them final

- later you will loose the overview over your automations because you cant see directly what is happening in the pattern

- the fruity wrappe is not done very well .. so when you use vsts its circular to use them

- but the realy bad thing about fl is the midi suport ! you can only use one midi controler !!! so you will need a hardware expander or somethink linke that. and also the two-way comunication is only possible with special tools. and they are so circular that you will loose the leisure of using them!

 

cubase:

- there are no limitations in any way!

- the sound is very clean, clear and harmonic! its youst amazing !

- sometimes its not as stable as fruity loops, but wen think its the kx audio driver we use!

- if you do some work and learn the shortcuts and many (all is impossible ) of the funktions you can do very efficient work !!!

- if you having performance problems using good vsts -> you can freeze channels that you do not need. so the channel is converted to an audio channel and you have more performace for other vsts!

- very good suport for asio2 cards and very good control over their funktions !

 

 

 

 

for our opinion .. use cubase if you are persistant and not fast frustrated .. otherwise use fl for the beginning and change to cubase when you think that your musik is getting professional and you would keep the work you are currently doing for time being !

if you use fl do not use the standart effects! they are no real vsts and so you cant use them when you change to cubase !

 

Schallusion

 

sorry for the bad english;)

[dreamworld]

Some people mention that they have swapped from Fruity loops to Cubasesx as if they were competing programs. Theyre not ! Fruity loops is now a VST plugin and can be run as a cubase plugin usin the rewire section just like reason or rebirth can, so you can get the best of all worlds.

[realisation]

you know, pretty much at the end of the day they are all using similar algorithms.

 

if you want to get into details go here:

 

http://www.simonv.com/music/quality/

 

its got a comparison of anti-aliasing in all the programs. logic's Emagic EXS24 MKII comes off pretty badly in this department.

 

v5 looks impressive, i have to try it sometime - i've not used fruityloops for ages :-)

 

just looking at the eq from the pictures on the website, it looks more than good enough to produce a good mix. all you have to do is get to grips with mixing.

 

there are some tricks around like removing the mids in your hats, but one of the main uses of it is to remove too much treble or bass in a sound, and tune it in so that it fits well in the mix. a lot of psy-trance has bass lines without any bass in them, so its a creative tool. also, you can have hats without any treble as well, maybe just one type.

 

breakbeat sounds dull? put some mid eq boost in there.

 

fx plays a big part as well in getting a professional mix. reverb,chorus,phaser, delay and flanger almost always used many times on different sounds in a psy-trance track.

 

as with using cubase, just use what works for you. its what i do - i personally hate cubase, i think its interface is like playing one of those games where you have to remove all the pieces in the correct order.

[Spindrift]

@realisation

I think the question was about the sound of the mixing in FL, not the quality of the pitch shifting algorythm in samplers.

I hardly ever use pitch shifted samles myself, so I would not have a clue what sampler that have the best algorythm really.

 

I'm surpised though that there is so many people that cannot hear the difference of the mixing in FL. Most producers I know that make good souding mixes testify that they do hear a massive difference.

How human hearing can be so varied is a mystery.

 

It would be very interesting to get to have a listen to some fruity mixes from some of the people claiming you can get the same quality of sound with FL as with logic or cubase.

[ukiro]

It would be very interesting to get to have a listen to some fruity mixes from some of the people claiming you can get the same quality of sound with FL as with logic or cubase.

215081[/snapback]

I'd be very curious too. I use FL just to toy around - I've never been very serious about producing music, but I do enjoy messing around with sounds.

 

It's just a theory, but I think many people using FL have cheaper sound cards and monitors. This could be to their disadvantage in such a mixdown comparison. Is the mixing affected by the bit depth capability of the sound card, or is it all done in the theoretical 32 bits and then mixed down to whatever the maximum output of the sound card is?

 

I have a crummy old 16/44.1 card and would like the added dynamics of a 24 bits... also, creating screaming analog-esque sounds in software with a mere 44.1kHz seems futile, as the sounds become harsh and unpleasant too easily. I would like some additional sample points to help with overtones and controlling the waveforms in the upper frequencies, but then again a track with good old analog howlin' synths (like old 96-ish etnica stuff) still sounds great mixed down to 44.1, so I'm not sure what the problem is - are the VSTi's simply not good enough or what? (sorry to include this slightly offtopic paragraph but I've been wondering about this for quite some time.)

 

Regarding the pitch shift algoritms, the realtime ones in FL are horrible - I sometimes get very noticeable and uncomfortable treble overtones when pitching a kick drum just a note or two. But once you export it to WAV using the best setting (which wasn't even listed in the comparison table linked above) it does indeed sound great. But to remedy this and avoid having to export and re-import samples, I make all my kick drums very deep - in fact, much too deep for using as-is, so that I can shape them individually for the track later without having to ever pitch down, so I can avoid losing the already limited 44.1kHz resolution.

[Spindrift]

Maybe you are right that some fruity users might have worse monitoring and that's why they do not hear the difference.

But I tend to trust people if they say they have experience that it sounds just as good, and I don't see why anyone that only compared other sequencers with it using a bad soundcard and crap monitors would bother to defend the sound quality.

 

And according to my experience you have to have very bad monitoring indeed to not notice the difference.

Fruity can still render in 32 bit even if you use a 16 bit card and a soundblaster does not sound so bad and should not really be a serious problem to monitor on.

I have worked a bit on standard consumer soundcards sometimes, and I can't say there was an obvious disturbing difference compared to the output of the Pulsar i use normally.

It might not be ideal to monitor on a soundblaster, but you can hear quite well what is going on if you have ok speakers.

If you would record many channels thru cheap converters or a bad mixer you can hear a clear difference in the mix though.

 

I'm not really fuzzy about sound in general.

I can't tell the difference between a 320k mp3 and a wav myself for example.

But I hear a clear difference between different mixers and software when using many channels

Although I used Logic for a long time and can work very fast and smooth in it the way it's designed is not ideal, so I would be happy to change sequencer.

But I just can't get satisfactory sound from the one's I do enjoy the workflow in.

 

Talking about quality of VSTi's, I can agree I also have a hard time to find one's with enough depth in the sound.

That has much to with that they user lower resolution when calculating then VA's and DSP based synths, and therefore sound more digital.

That's fine by me for many sounds, but I like the bass and a lead or two from my pulsar instead since I feel that adds a bit of depth to the production.

The favourite VSTi's for me when it comes to sounding deep and analogue is z3+a, Oddity, impOSCar and pentagon.

A bit of PSP vintage warmer can help as well.

[ukiro]

Talking about quality of VSTi's, I can agree I also have a hard time to find one's with enough depth in the sound.

That has much to with that they user lower resolution when calculating then VA's and DSP based synths, and therefore sound more digital.

That's fine by me for many sounds, but I like the bass and a lead or two from my pulsar instead since I feel that adds a bit of depth to the production.

The favourite VSTi's for me when it comes to sounding deep and analogue is z3+a, Oddity, impOSCar and pentagon.

A bit of PSP vintage warmer can help as well.

215104[/snapback]

Yeah I've used the PSP plugin for a lot of basses and even kicks (although in moderation, naturally). Generally, tape or tube warmth simulator plugins seem to be fairly convincing and useful for low and mid frequencies, but the jagged sharpness of high synth sounds is more difficult to remedy. I'll have to check out the VSTi's you mentioned though.

 

Oh, and speaking of bass... Dig out some really analog old bassline stuff (like the Organic Noise 12"'s on TIP) and compare with VSTi's... Digital still has a long way to go, in my opinion.

[Spindrift]

I have struggled a lot with analogue synths for basslines and find it very difficult to get a really good bass with them.

And it's mostly in the bass department I find old tracks seem to lack many times, and there seem to be quite a few that agree on that.

Some digital synths just have a lot more precise envelopes than I ever heard in any analogue synths.

 

A lot of music today, especially the full-on variety, uses far too thin sounding basses for my taste though. They are punchy, but lack depth.

And I never found a VSTi I am happy with for bass when I tried.

 

For me struggling with basses is a thing of the past since I started using the Pulsar a few years ago. There I feel I get both punchy enough envelopes so I can avoid compressing the sound at all but at the same time getting very much warmth and depth.

Especially the Flexor modular modules is astonishing IMO.

[ukiro]

I have struggled a lot with analogue synths for basslines and find it very difficult to get a really good bass with them.

And it's mostly in the bass department I find old tracks seem to lack many times, and there seem to be quite a few that agree on that.

Some digital synths just have a lot more precise envelopes than I ever heard in any analogue synths.

 

Indeed older stuff generally has very weak basses. But Organic Noise were Jan Müller and Planet B.E.N., so there's an exception =) But for envelope predictability and control digital is indeed far superior. But that bubbly, organice and LIVING feeling that they managed to get into some of their tracks, combined with the depth and warmth of the sounds, have yet to be matched using digital equipment, IMO.

 

 

A lot of music today, especially the full-on variety, uses far too thin sounding basses for my taste though. They are punchy, but lack depth.

And I never found a VSTi I am happy with for bass when  I tried.

 

For me struggling with basses is a thing of the past since I started using the Pulsar a few years ago. There I feel I get both punchy enough envelopes so I can avoid compressing the sound at all but at the same time getting very much warmth and depth.

Especially the Flexor modular modules is astonishing IMO.

215122[/snapback]

I realize I've managed to threadjack this into being about bass, but I'll keep going anyway =) Indeed letting the bottom end of the bass go through without compression or EQ will generally give a nicer and warmer sound than the ultra-compressed and EQ'ed norm of today.

 

As has been pointed out before, by you especially, having the sound tweaked to perfection at the generating source is generally preferrable over heavy EQ'ing and other post-processing.

 

I think I might need to start a separate thread about bass now... =)

[Spindrift]

Ok, to keep the thread of track further I just have to make a little comment.

 

Sure you have to be very careful about you settings on a bass sound, but on the other hand it can be hard to tweak a bass sound to perfection.

Synth patches that is good for basses is generally very simple.

The 303 is one of the better analogue bass synths IMO, and it's not really a lot to control on it.

Basically get the right decay and filter settings and it sounds good.

 

So the "secret" to good basses according to me is not that you have to be very good in neither synthesis or EQ/compression.

It's just to find an instrument that sounds good.

 

Might sound simple, but can require a lot more work and experience than learning what threshold, attack and release does on a compressor or what frequencies is important or problematic.

[Naomh]

Here goes a little advice/trick for all of you, FLS users eheheh

 

If you look carefully into the mixer you'll see thal all 64 mixer channels are pointed to the Master Channel mix. try forget the master, and point each one of the mixer channels to the output(s) of your soundboard.

 

play with those, expecially if you have a nice hardware mixer

 

hope it helps

[Prio Alea]

I made this in FL5:

 

http://www.psynews.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22163

 

I've been told it sounds proffesional so I guess it's possible. People usually underestimate FL, it's a great and powerfull tool.

[Cybernetika]

Agree with Prio... if you have the proper VST plugins and sounds, and of course knowledge of what you're doing, it's indeed possible to do professional stuff... I personally like it more than Reason.

I've been told even Mike Oldfield (you know "Tubular Bells"?) uses FL Studio.

[Spindrift]

I made this in FL5:

 

http://www.psynews.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22163

 

I've been told it sounds proffesional so I guess it's possible. People usually underestimate FL, it's a great and powerfull tool.

217900[/snapback]

I think your track sounds quite good, but not impressive or great.

Of course good is enough for people to enjoy, and if you enjoy working in FL, keep at it.

Personally I just could not get the flow working with kick and bass sounding like that although I can listen to it and enjoy.

I like a bit more depth especially in the bas region and find the sound in your track a bit too narrow.

Maybe you just cut all the deep end of in the bass and kick which possibly would make FL handle it better.

 

I have done a track in Orion that was released, and I don't think Orion sounds better than FL. No one complained about the sound quality what I heared and I think that track sounded ok

But it sure don't sound like the productions I do in Logic

 

A good track or production is not about what you use, but that don't mean there is no difference between different software or hardware in sound.

Fine if you don't care about the sound quality and rather enjoy a nice workflow.

I just get so fed up with people trying to deny that there is differences, because that is to fool yourself.

 

I've been told even Mike Oldfield (you know "Tubular Bells"?) uses FL Studio.

But the question is does he mix in FL?

I really doubt it myself.

I heard about quite a few artists that use FL.

Prodigy for example is often mentioned, but fact is they mix on an SSL desk.