Quote:

---

Mod1 said:

like what?

---

Quote:

---

ReBirth said:

Quote:

---

Scream said:
but can you honestly say that if we asked a lot of people in the industry they will say that fruity is better??? I mean if it was why isn't fruity the big piece of software and logic, cubase and protools not?

---

erm...did u even read my post ? I didn't say Fruity was better than the others

Ok, fair enough, I may not know every ickle bit of "all" the appz, but I'd say that I'm pretty well tuned up since SAE's beaten every ounce of knowledge about those sequencers into my tiny little mind in the Audio Engineering diploma.....

---

Quote:

---

Scream said:

LOL Obviously you hadn't read the original post made by claire. this was us battling out what's the best sequencer. As you've quoted from my post i'm asking you if we asked a shit load of professional producers what's better FL or cubase, protools etc what would they answer? Get my point? I'm battling what i think is best. Notice i say "I"?? lol.

Like i said on samplecity mate it's down to personal pref, my mate can make wikid tunes in FL, yet i think you get a much richer sound out of logic with a lot less work as compared to FL.

I've only just started learning Logic and i've got a long way to go, but already i can see a difference.

---

fair enuff

Quote:

---

ReBirth said:

Quote:

---

Scream said:

LOL Obviously you hadn't read the original post made by claire. this was us battling out what's the best sequencer. As you've quoted from my post i'm asking you if we asked a shit load of professional producers what's better FL or cubase, protools etc what would they answer? Get my point? I'm battling what i think is best. Notice i say "I"?? lol.

Like i said on samplecity mate it's down to personal pref, my mate can make wikid tunes in FL, yet i think you get a much richer sound out of logic with a lot less work as compared to FL.

I've only just started learning Logic and i've got a long way to go, but already i can see a difference.

---

fair enuff

---

can't saif fairer than that, lol

Quote:

---

ReBirth said:
Like dropping in your samples from the broser straight into the step sequencer, and then it automatically loads it into the sampler. And when you want to timestrecth a pre-made loop, you quickly adjust it to 16 or 32 bars etc...whereas with others you first have to import the samples, or open up a sampelr on a channel and then import the sample into that etc..then open up a seperate editor to time stretch etc etc..

---

Obviously Fruity is a lot more streamlined as a soft-sampler. But citing this as evidence that Fruity is better than Cubase/Logic/whatever is a bit superficial.

There are things I can do much more quickly in FL, compared to Cubase, but ultimately FL is very limited. Essentially it's a virtual sampler with some sequencing abilities tacked on.

Saying FL is "better" than say Cubase (because of its slick sampler-style abilities) is like saying "Microsoft Word is better than Fruity because it has a great spell-checker".

Quote:

---

liquideyes said:

Quote:

---

ReBirth said:
Like dropping in your samples from the broser straight into the step sequencer, and then it automatically loads it into the sampler. And when you want to timestrecth a pre-made loop, you quickly adjust it to 16 or 32 bars etc...whereas with others you first have to import the samples, or open up a sampelr on a channel and then import the sample into that etc..then open up a seperate editor to time stretch etc etc..

---

Obviously Fruity is a lot more streamlined as a soft-sampler. But citing this as evidence that Fruity is better than Cubase/Logic/whatever is a bit superficial.

There are things I can do much more quickly in FL, compared to Cubase, but ultimately FL is very limited. Essentially it's a virtual sampler with some sequencing abilities tacked on.

Saying FL is "better" than say Cubase (because of its slick sampler-style abilities) is like saying "Microsoft Word is better than Fruity because it has a great spell-checker".

---

Quote:

---

Scream said:

Quote:

---

liquideyes said:

Quote:

---

ReBirth said:
Like dropping in your samples from the broser straight into the step sequencer, and then it automatically loads it into the sampler. And when you want to timestrecth a pre-made loop, you quickly adjust it to 16 or 32 bars etc...whereas with others you first have to import the samples, or open up a sampelr on a channel and then import the sample into that etc..then open up a seperate editor to time stretch etc etc..

---

Obviously Fruity is a lot more streamlined as a soft-sampler. But citing this as evidence that Fruity is better than Cubase/Logic/whatever is a bit superficial.

There are things I can do much more quickly in FL, compared to Cubase, but ultimately FL is very limited. Essentially it's a virtual sampler with some sequencing abilities tacked on.

Saying FL is "better" than say Cubase (because of its slick sampler-style abilities) is like saying "Microsoft Word is better than Fruity because it has a great spell-checker".

---

fruity has a spell checker?????

TAXI!!

---

a sequencer with a spell checker?
i like the sounds of this

Quote:

---

liquideyes said:
Saying FL is "better" than say Cubase (because of its slick sampler-style abilities) is like saying "Microsoft Word is better than Fruity because it has a great spell-checker".

---

AAAAAARGH...I didn't say Fruity is better than the others

Quote:

---

liquideyes said:
I know you didn't ReBirth!

My disagreement is with digitalliquid (for saying there is nothing you can't do with Fruity), and with the overall notion of comparing Fruity to Cubase/Logic/etc!

---

u BASTARD !!

Quote:

---

ReBirth said:

Quote:

---

liquideyes said:
I know you didn't ReBirth!

My disagreement is with digitalliquid (for saying there is nothing you can't do with Fruity), and with the overall notion of comparing Fruity to Cubase/Logic/etc!

---

u BASTARD !!

---

now eat some humble pie you bitch!!