Why you left FL Studio?

[Dozius]

An unacceptable decrease in kawaii anime girls.

[Jace-BeOS]

I never left FL Studio... because, like Ableton Live, I never really got into it. Similar reasons: it just makes no sense to me and I didn’t want to go through the learning curve (especially for something as cluttered as FL Studio; the design is beautiful, but the organization and density of controls and menus is overwhelming).

I bought the lifetime free upgrades version ages ago, as yet another psych drug-fueled impulse buy. Didn’t get on with it, removed it.

Every few releases I would check it out again, still not like it, and ignore it again. Then I moved to Mac OS and abandoned Windows.

Interestingly, they ported it to Mac OS. So I started checking it out again. Still beautiful... still overly complicated layout and workflow. Also, it crashes. Like, a lot. All I did with the last update was literally just play the demo songs and it crashed repeatedly.

Deleted.

Maybe I’ll check in with it again in a future version.

[tooneba]

FL is like 'Offer 3 ways to do 1 thing' while some daw are like 'Don't offer more than 1 way if we developed in the best way'. I don't know which is better and all daw have both aspects more or less, but the difference is the latter doesn't come across the situation you have to assess multiple scenario and choose for yourself.

At this moment the software demands your brain resource to a certain degree until you get familiar with every scenario. This learning curve keeps new users away and they describe it as confusing, difficult, complicated, terrifying and etc. Considering "Search google and Get answer" culture nowadays, this learning curve is unignorable marketing barrier.

[burnt circuit]

FL is like 'Offer 3 ways to do 1 thing' while some daw are like 'Don't offer more than 1 way if we developed in the best way'. I don't know which is better and all daw have both aspects more or less, but the difference is the latter doesn't come across the situation you have to assess multiple scenario and choose for yourself.

At this moment the software demands your brain resource to a certain degree until you get familiar with every scenario. This learning curve keeps new users away and they describe it as confusing, difficult, complicated, terrifying and etc. Considering "Search google and Get answer" culture nowadays, this learning curve is unignorable marketing barrier.

The big barrier is between working with midi verses audio. FL Studio doesn't work directly with audio on the timeline, something that every DAW must do for a professional mixing and mastering engineer.

Working with clips, patterns and an external audio editor just isn't fast enough and ruins the most common workflow. Which results in lost time due to menu diving and using other software to get the job done.

But, for most amateur bedroom producers, time isn't an issue.

[noiseresearch]

/* whitenoise */

[Jace-BeOS]

FL is like 'Offer 3 ways to do 1 thing' while some daw are like 'Don't offer more than 1 way if we developed in the best way'. I don't know which is better and all daw have both aspects more or less, but the difference is the latter doesn't come across the situation you have to assess multiple scenario and choose for yourself.

At this moment the software demands your brain resource to a certain degree until you get familiar with every scenario. This learning curve keeps new users away and they describe it as confusing, difficult, complicated, terrifying and etc. Considering "Search google and Get answer" culture nowadays, this learning curve is unignorable marketing barrier.

Marketing? I don’t listen to marketing when I can help it. I’m more apt to be repelled by marketing than brought in by it.

Whatever you feel about FL Studio, that’s fine. I have some strong opinions on GUI design and I stand by them, but that doesn’t mean you have to feel constrained by them, nor am I attacking a product you like.

The end result is that FL Studio is still not for me. I was willing to try to learn it, but the fact that it was crashing just being left to play the included demo projects was a non-starter for me.

[tooneba]

FL is like 'Offer 3 ways to do 1 thing' while some daw are like 'Don't offer more than 1 way if we developed in the best way'. I don't know which is better and all daw have both aspects more or less, but the difference is the latter doesn't come across the situation you have to assess multiple scenario and choose for yourself.

At this moment the software demands your brain resource to a certain degree until you get familiar with every scenario. This learning curve keeps new users away and they describe it as confusing, difficult, complicated, terrifying and etc. Considering "Search google and Get answer" culture nowadays, this learning curve is unignorable marketing barrier.

The big barrier is between working with midi verses audio. FL Studio doesn't work directly with audio on the timeline, something that every DAW must do for a professional mixing and mastering engineer.

Working with clips, patterns and an external audio editor just isn't fast enough and ruins the most common workflow. Which results in lost time due to menu diving and using other software to get the job done.

But, for most amateur bedroom producers, time isn't an issue.

I was talking about the workflow. But speaking of audio, FL has same or better audio processing quality than your "DAW doing for professional mixing and mastering engineer used by pro studio producers".
A B C

For example, Studio one is awful though it may be defined by you as "PRO DAW". So I have no clue to see where you are coming from unless you are in Edward troll mode.

[Kongru]

I was talking about the workflow. But speaking of audio, FL has same or better audio processing quality than your "DAW doing for professional mixing and mastering engineer used by pro studio producers".
A B C

For example, Studio one is awful though it may be defined by you as "PRO DAW". So I have no clue to see where you are coming from unless you are in Edward troll mode.

I think you missed the point. burnt circuit was talking about the audio workflow, which absolutely sucks - most likely the worst of any DAW.

[tooneba]

FL is like 'Offer 3 ways to do 1 thing' while some daw are like 'Don't offer more than 1 way if we developed in the best way'. I don't know which is better and all daw have both aspects more or less, but the difference is the latter doesn't come across the situation you have to assess multiple scenario and choose for yourself.

At this moment the software demands your brain resource to a certain degree until you get familiar with every scenario. This learning curve keeps new users away and they describe it as confusing, difficult, complicated, terrifying and etc. Considering "Search google and Get answer" culture nowadays, this learning curve is unignorable marketing barrier.

Marketing? I don’t listen to marketing when I can help it. I’m more apt to be repelled by marketing than brought in by it.

Whatever you feel about FL Studio, that’s fine. I have some strong opinions on GUI design and I stand by them, but that doesn’t mean you have to feel constrained by them, nor am I attacking a product you like.

The end result is that FL Studio is still not for me. I was willing to try to learn it, but the fact that it was crashing just being left to play the included demo projects was a non-starter for me.

I don't know either your GUI preference or your priority when it comes to the DAW choice. I was talking about workflow which is hard to balance. Offering a lot of scenario and having many feature actually ruin the advantages in other aspect.

[donkey tugger]

I was talking about the workflow. But speaking of audio, FL has same or better audio processing quality than your "DAW doing for professional mixing and mastering engineer used by pro studio producers".
A B C

For example, Studio one is awful though it may be defined by you as "PRO DAW". So I have no clue to see where you are coming from unless you are in Edward troll mode.

I think you missed the point. burnt circuit was talking about the audio workflow, which absolutely sucks - most likely the worst of any DAW.

And yet...I've still managed to record shitloads of geetar indie rock songs with no bother.

Sauce for the goose etc...

'Workflow', another horrible word.

[Jace-BeOS]

FL is like 'Offer 3 ways to do 1 thing' while some daw are like 'Don't offer more than 1 way if we developed in the best way'. I don't know which is better and all daw have both aspects more or less, but the difference is the latter doesn't come across the situation you have to assess multiple scenario and choose for yourself.

At this moment the software demands your brain resource to a certain degree until you get familiar with every scenario. This learning curve keeps new users away and they describe it as confusing, difficult, complicated, terrifying and etc. Considering "Search google and Get answer" culture nowadays, this learning curve is unignorable marketing barrier.

Marketing? I don’t listen to marketing when I can help it. I’m more apt to be repelled by marketing than brought in by it.

Whatever you feel about FL Studio, that’s fine. I have some strong opinions on GUI design and I stand by them, but that doesn’t mean you have to feel constrained by them, nor am I attacking a product you like.

The end result is that FL Studio is still not for me. I was willing to try to learn it, but the fact that it was crashing just being left to play the included demo projects was a non-starter for me.

I don't know either your GUI preference or your priority when it comes to the DAW choice. I was talking about workflow which is hard to balance. Offering a lot of scenario and having many feature actually ruin the advantages in other aspect.

Oh, I think I misunderstood your prior post. Sorry.

[tooneba]

I was talking about the workflow. But speaking of audio, FL has same or better audio processing quality than your "DAW doing for professional mixing and mastering engineer used by pro studio producers".
A B C

For example, Studio one is awful though it may be defined by you as "PRO DAW". So I have no clue to see where you are coming from unless you are in Edward troll mode.

I think you missed the point. burnt circuit was talking about the audio workflow, which absolutely sucks - most likely the worst of any DAW.

I get he didn't get my point purely, meanwhile I get what he is tackling, that's why I brought one obvious example for reductio ad absurdum.

1. Professional quality is different from amateur quality
2. Pro uses Pro DAW
3. Pro DAW provides highest quality efficiently

According to his logic, when it lacks quality (like Studio One above example) it is no longer pro daw as well as the daw which is subjectively less intuitive. This is what I can't agree.

[burnt circuit]

I think you missed the point.

I think there's a little defensive confusion going on.

To put it simply, every DAW offers a certain workflow. Working quickly with audio on the timeline is not one of FL Studio's strong points.

But, it has many strong points elsewhere, such as midi editing, pianoroll, etc.

These certain tools can be utilized many ways, but for professional mixing and mastering engineers that are working with deadlines, speed is a requirement.

The rest of the world has the rest of their lives to get that perfect kick drum any way they can imagine getting it, while dragging their feet if they like.

[tooneba]

I think there's a little defensive confusion going on.

To put it simply, every DAW offers a certain workflow. Working quickly with audio on the timeline is not one of FL Studio's strong points.

But, it has many strong points elsewhere, such as midi editing, pianoroll, etc.

These certain tools can be utilized many ways, but for professional mixing and mastering engineers that are working with deadlines, speed is a requirement.

The rest of the world has the rest of their lives to get that perfect kick drum any way they can imagine getting it, while dragging their feet if they like.

There are no defensive bias or confusion here. I actually followed your logic to reductio ad absurdum.

This is the primitive definition of Pro that people already understand.

1. Professional quality is different from amateur quality
2. Pro uses Professional tool
3. Professional tool provides highest quality efficiently

“Efficiently” :

something that every DAW must do for a professional mixing and mastering engineer

results in lost time

But, for most amateur bedroom producers, time isn't an issue.

So when the tool lacks quality or efficiency in your scenario will it become the tool for amateur like you baldly stated? Is Studio One, for example, a tool for amateur because quality isn’t an issue? I can say no, because it has a advantage where it shines for providing highest quality efficiently.

[burnt circuit]

There are no defensive bias or confusion here. I actually followed your logic to reductio ad absurdum.

Sounds more like pure confusion or you just don't understand what a real working engineer really does.