Skip to main content

Hello people, I have both Cubase and FL Studio and have more than 3 years experience with each program. Though, i've started using FL first so this program becomes the go-to program when quick ideas come to mind because of its simplicity, and ease of use. I record live instruments and when people hear my sound quality, they are somewhat amazed but then when they find out the program I used was FL Studio, they tend to downgrade me when at first they were impressed.

This makes no sense, what is it about FL Studio that Cubase (or any other pro DAW) doesn't have?
I have ton of VST's and top notch audio tools (Waves, etc) which covers up for the features in Cubase, so what's the difference and most of all, what makes Cubase a "Professional" music program rather than FL Studio?

I've read that Nickleback has used FL Studio for one album...

Topic Tags


disc Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:11

Ive pondered this question myself on several occasions and have some possible hypotheses:

1. unfounded pre-conceptions.

As you probably know, FL studio started out as fruity loops. This was a very basic step sequencer which could load samples and manipulate time and pitch, and appart from some (terribly sounding) filters and sound shaping tools, that was it. It was considered as a bit of a toy. People who have no clue got stuck with that impression, ignoring how it developed from that into one of the most versatile, spontaneous composition tools today - IMHO.

other possible theories:

1. The name sounds very unimposing (compare "fruity loops" as opposed to the ring of say, "Digidesign Pro-Tools TDM", or "MOTU Digital Performer")
2. The interface design is admittedly, (but not unfortunately), a bit "cartoon" or "video game" like, if you know what i mean.
3. It is not associated with big studios or as an "industry standard" workstation. Therefore its assumed a toy for kids and amateurs who fill their time doing simple loops on their laptop whilst sitting on the loo or whatever.
4. its PC - only. this simple fact alone serves to discredit it by a big part of the "audio production population" who think that only macs are up to the job of using audio professionally.

Ive been producing music for almost 20 years and professionally for around 10, and have used every DAW that i know of. ive created some of my best music using FL.

Now as far as: what does cubase have that the other one doesnt? They are designed with a different approach to working. And they both have functions that the other doesnt. Thats why you use both Cubase AND fl studio, no?

it does not mean there are no workarounds, and certainly not than the one is better than the other.

All of the above are just personal opinions, but people who judge the quality of your results by the means with which they were created, absolutely miss the point, are probably ignorant, prejudiced, and not worth listening to.

To repeat what is being said over and over here, and which i totally agree with: its the musician that makes the music, not the tools he uses.

Sorry, rant over. touchy subject you see.

hueseph Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:27

Fruity loops is mainly midi and loops. Cubase was designed for people who work mostly with audio. That number is getting smaller and smaller. There are a lot of great tools in Cubase for people who like to record actual instruments as well as vox. The editing and automation are quite advanced.

I've used fruity loops very briefly. It works fine for what it does. Maybe I have the wrong impression but to me it doesn't seem to have a lot going for it if you intend to do a lot of audio editing. The sequencing in FL though it quite revolutionary IMHO. A lot of other DAWs have followed suit. Including Avid Pro Tools. Still, when working with audio, I would prefer to stick with Cubase, PT or one of the other DAWs.

Maybe it's familiarity or maybe it's just because it works the way I understand audio. I can trace the signal path as if there were a console in front of me. That is important when I'm sorting things out. I want to know how the sound is getting the way it is. If I want to change it it will be for a specific reason. Where an effect or bus is in the chain makes a huge difference. I need to know if it's an insert, pre or post fader send. Those little things can really change the way a track sounds.

disc Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:26

Must disagree with you there hueseph. Even from the very beginning, fruity loops step sequencer was solely build for loading audio files on the steps - it did not even have midi functionality - there were neither vsti support nor the ability to trigger external midi devices.

The latest version of FL Studio features quite advanced audio editing / processing tools, a track based audio sequencer, (as opposed to only a step sequencer) 64 bit plugin support, editable automation for nearly every parameter you can think of, a "patcher" for creating custom chains of plugins in a flexible modular-type fashion, with the ability to add personalised control parameters. The mixer functionality is just like that of any other daw, though it does need a bit of getting used to. But yes, flexibility in routing and buses, and inserts, sends, pre or post fader, are all defined and controlled by you.

BTW, i don't work for Image Line:frown::frown:... i just think its unfairly underrated, and perceived to be very limiting in comparison to "conventional" DAWS -which although not comparable because of fundamental differences in design and workflow - is i think not true.

Mo Facta Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:13

Fruity loops and Cubase can not be compared.

Video support?
5.1 support?
Group audio quantize (and editing)?
Batch export?

Just to name a few.

Most people just do not give Cubase the credit it deserves for being a deeply featured DAW and not just a simple midi sequencing/audio editing program. It was originally created as a software midi sequencer but those days are long gone. It now accommodates both midi and audio to the utmost for the most discerning and advanced user.

Cheers :)

hueseph Sat, 06/04/2011 - 08:51

IIRs, post: 372249 wrote: My first version of Cubase was midi only and ran on an Atari ST ;)

Yeah. You got me there. I learned on the old Atari. Loved that thing. Switching disks to load the program. I should have said in it's current form Cubase is designed for people who record a lot of audio. Even then that statement is wrong. It's the midi features of Cubase that made me stick with it for so long. But the audio editing tools are very good.


User login