Differences Between Sequencers

[Scream]

liquideyes said:

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!!

[Mr_Happy]

Scream said:

liquideyes said:

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

[ReBirth]

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

 

[LiquidEyes]

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!

[ReBirth]

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 !!

[Scream]

ReBirth said:

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!!