4 ms·

As usual, the lead developer (c'est moi) is happy to answer any questions.

junon 3y ago
I've used Cubase historically, but started and now have transitioned back to FL Studio since I can get my thoughts and ideas out quicker than in Cubase. I've seen Ardour for a long, long time but haven't ever tried it. What, if anything, would I be missing by switching? I primarily do composition, so lots of VSTs etc.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  FL Studio is a very, very different sort of DAW than, well, just about every other DAW (including Ardour). If you were moving from Cubase, Logic, Studio One, ProTools, Digital Performer etc., then I'd say you would miss very little by switching to Ardour other than some of the builtin plugins for those DAWs. But if you have become used to the FL Studio workflow, Ardour (and the list of DAWs above) are likely to feel clunky and unproductive.
  - junon 3y ago
    Good to know, I didn't mind Cubase's workflow per se, it's just that Cubase was 1) super buggy and unstable, and 2) ridiculously expensive, and updates cost a lot. That also factored into leaving. I'll give Ardour a try, thanks for the response and congrats on the release!
    - iainctduncan 3y ago
      FWIW, I would absolutely recommend learning a regular linear DAW in addition to FL Studio. I'm not an FL user, I'm a heavy Ableton Live user (entirely because of Max for Live), and it is also "non-standard". There are a lot of things that are much, much faster in DAWs from the pro-tools oriented lineage and it is well worth the few seconds it takes to copy audio from one to the other at times.
      - junon 3y ago
        I'm aware, I've used Cubase long-term, as well as a number of other ones in the past. FL Studio still gives me the fastest iteration speed out of all of them so far. However, I don't think that's due to FL Studio somehow being architected better or worse. I just think its score ("piano roll") editing controls are much better than most other DAWs I've used and it gets out of my way for the most part when trying to get things from brain to screen ASAP.
        cercobellezza 3y ago
        I feel the same way about the FL piano roll but don't quite understand what makes it unique. Shouldn't be "easy" to replicate?
  - pests 3y ago
    As someone who isn't very well versed in DAWs can someone give a breakdown of how FL Studio is different than others? I see references to "regular linear" below so what makes FL Studio not that? Sorry for the basic questions.
    - Reubend 3y ago
      FL Studio groups everything into patterns, and then the patterns are arranged to form a song. Traditional DAWS just place audio/MIDI data directly into the song, without abstracting those pieces away. If you're making something like hip hop or EDM, where there's a lot of repetition, then this functionality in FL Studio can be helpful. But it also has a lot of weak areas compared to other DAWs.
megaloblasto 3y ago
I just wanted to say that the lollipop chart is amazing! Thanks for your work!
Waterluvian 3y ago
This looks absolutely amazing. Thank you! Totally minor feedback in case you value this kind of feedback: the website’s layout is freaking out on my iOS Safari. I can scroll sideways like four page widths and then see nothing at all. Same with the front page. A short video if it helps: https://youtube.com/shorts/2dItDk_FtkI?si=WSsM2fgWR91IR7wU https://youtube.com/shorts/2dItDk_FtkI?si=WSsM2fgWR91IR7wU
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  It's an old version of bootstrap. Probably too old.
WhatIsDukkha 3y ago
How is the MPE work going? What about MIDI 2.0?
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  MPE: nothng is required to record and playback MPE, it's just MIDI 1.0. There's no "nice" way to edit MPE at this time. I can't say right now what priority we attach to this. MIDI 2.0: no plans at this time.
  - WhatIsDukkha 3y ago
    The tempo mapping grid tool looks super super cool, I look forward to trying it out.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      One thing we have discovered/realized since tagging 8.0 is that the grid tool will misbehave if you do "wild dragging" with it between existing tempo markers. It is intended to "tweak" the grid in that situation, and is designed around small, "subtle" mouse movement. We may be able to come up with some fixes that make it more robust in the face of users deliberately or accidentally going "wild" with the mouse.
chabad360 3y ago
What was the main reason for keeping the select-groups from applying to control surfaces? I'm not sure what would be the point of multi-selecting otherwise. As an aside, is there any way I can add functionality to a control surface (that isn't writing C)? I use a behringer X-Touch (heavily) and moved to Reaper because there were plugins that provided much deeper integration with my X-Touch (which as a result has me working a lot faster in certain areas).
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  We're still debating the control surface decision. There are two reasons for leaving things alone: 1. hardware surfaces have had different use conventions for a long time (certainly things that look like mixing consoles). They are effectively multitouch devices, and human interaction with them just isn't the same as with a mouse & GUI. 2. for Mackie Control Protocol devices, we already provide a nifty multi-target action there where you just press and hold one eg. solo button and then press another, to apply it to the range that was pressed. We do not providing scripting for developing control surface support. I've written extensively about my thoughts on Reaper's scripting [0] and I remain conflicted by the questions it raises. There's nothing that can be done in Reaper via scripting that can't be done in Ardour via C++, and a huge amount that theoretically could be done in Ardour via C++ that cannot be done in Reaper. I know this is not a satisfactory answer for people who do not want to master (a) C++ (b) the build environment. [0] https://discourse.ardour.org/t/is-open-source-a-diversion-from-what-users-really-want/102665 https://discourse.ardour.org/t/is-open-source-a-diversion-fr...
runiq 3y ago
I still feel like track/bus groups, VCAs, and now ad-hoc groups are three different ways of doing roughly the same thing. Are there plans to unify them into a single concept, maybe? (I know that especially VCAs are different here, but in the end, they are groups of groups if you squint hard enough, are they not?)
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  No, VCAs are quite different from the other two. They represent an external entity (the VCA) that can be used to control other entities, and they are mixer (signal flow) related only (i.e. have no impact on editing). Persistent and quick groups are definitely related; we've already a few trenchant observations about what we've done with quick groups, and we will work on taking them into consideration as we refine how this works. But fundamentally, I see persistent groups and quick groups as orthogonal, and their main job is not to interfere (too much) with each other.
  - runiq 3y ago
    I see, that's fair. Thanks a lot for Ardour, happy to be a sponsor! <3

I've used Cubase historically, but started and now have transitioned back to FL Studio since I can get my thoughts and ideas out quicker than in Cubase. I've seen Ardour for a long, long time but haven't ever tried it. What, if anything, would I be missing by switching? I primarily do composition, so lots of VSTs etc.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
FL Studio is a very, very different sort of DAW than, well, just about every other DAW (including Ardour). If you were moving from Cubase, Logic, Studio One, ProTools, Digital Performer etc., then I'd say you would miss very little by switching to Ardour other than some of the builtin plugins for those DAWs. But if you have become used to the FL Studio workflow, Ardour (and the list of DAWs above) are likely to feel clunky and unproductive.
- junon 3y ago
  Good to know, I didn't mind Cubase's workflow per se, it's just that Cubase was 1) super buggy and unstable, and 2) ridiculously expensive, and updates cost a lot. That also factored into leaving. I'll give Ardour a try, thanks for the response and congrats on the release!
  - iainctduncan 3y ago
    FWIW, I would absolutely recommend learning a regular linear DAW in addition to FL Studio. I'm not an FL user, I'm a heavy Ableton Live user (entirely because of Max for Live), and it is also "non-standard". There are a lot of things that are much, much faster in DAWs from the pro-tools oriented lineage and it is well worth the few seconds it takes to copy audio from one to the other at times.
    - junon 3y ago
      I'm aware, I've used Cubase long-term, as well as a number of other ones in the past. FL Studio still gives me the fastest iteration speed out of all of them so far. However, I don't think that's due to FL Studio somehow being architected better or worse. I just think its score ("piano roll") editing controls are much better than most other DAWs I've used and it gets out of my way for the most part when trying to get things from brain to screen ASAP.
      - cercobellezza 3y ago
        I feel the same way about the FL piano roll but don't quite understand what makes it unique. Shouldn't be "easy" to replicate?
- pests 3y ago
  As someone who isn't very well versed in DAWs can someone give a breakdown of how FL Studio is different than others? I see references to "regular linear" below so what makes FL Studio not that? Sorry for the basic questions.
  - Reubend 3y ago
    FL Studio groups everything into patterns, and then the patterns are arranged to form a song. Traditional DAWS just place audio/MIDI data directly into the song, without abstracting those pieces away. If you're making something like hip hop or EDM, where there's a lot of repetition, then this functionality in FL Studio can be helpful. But it also has a lot of weak areas compared to other DAWs.

megaloblasto 3y ago

I just wanted to say that the lollipop chart is amazing! Thanks for your work!

Waterluvian 3y ago

This looks absolutely amazing. Thank you! Totally minor feedback in case you value this kind of feedback: the website’s layout is freaking out on my iOS Safari. I can scroll sideways like four page widths and then see nothing at all. Same with the front page. A short video if it helps: https://youtube.com/shorts/2dItDk_FtkI?si=WSsM2fgWR91IR7wU https://youtube.com/shorts/2dItDk_FtkI?si=WSsM2fgWR91IR7wU

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
It's an old version of bootstrap. Probably too old.

WhatIsDukkha 3y ago

How is the MPE work going? What about MIDI 2.0?

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
MPE: nothng is required to record and playback MPE, it's just MIDI 1.0. There's no "nice" way to edit MPE at this time. I can't say right now what priority we attach to this. MIDI 2.0: no plans at this time.
- WhatIsDukkha 3y ago
  The tempo mapping grid tool looks super super cool, I look forward to trying it out.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    One thing we have discovered/realized since tagging 8.0 is that the grid tool will misbehave if you do "wild dragging" with it between existing tempo markers. It is intended to "tweak" the grid in that situation, and is designed around small, "subtle" mouse movement. We may be able to come up with some fixes that make it more robust in the face of users deliberately or accidentally going "wild" with the mouse.

chabad360 3y ago

What was the main reason for keeping the select-groups from applying to control surfaces? I'm not sure what would be the point of multi-selecting otherwise. As an aside, is there any way I can add functionality to a control surface (that isn't writing C)? I use a behringer X-Touch (heavily) and moved to Reaper because there were plugins that provided much deeper integration with my X-Touch (which as a result has me working a lot faster in certain areas).

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
We're still debating the control surface decision. There are two reasons for leaving things alone: 1. hardware surfaces have had different use conventions for a long time (certainly things that look like mixing consoles). They are effectively multitouch devices, and human interaction with them just isn't the same as with a mouse & GUI. 2. for Mackie Control Protocol devices, we already provide a nifty multi-target action there where you just press and hold one eg. solo button and then press another, to apply it to the range that was pressed. We do not providing scripting for developing control surface support. I've written extensively about my thoughts on Reaper's scripting [0] and I remain conflicted by the questions it raises. There's nothing that can be done in Reaper via scripting that can't be done in Ardour via C++, and a huge amount that theoretically could be done in Ardour via C++ that cannot be done in Reaper. I know this is not a satisfactory answer for people who do not want to master (a) C++ (b) the build environment. [0] https://discourse.ardour.org/t/is-open-source-a-diversion-from-what-users-really-want/102665 https://discourse.ardour.org/t/is-open-source-a-diversion-fr...

runiq 3y ago

I still feel like track/bus groups, VCAs, and now ad-hoc groups are three different ways of doing roughly the same thing. Are there plans to unify them into a single concept, maybe? (I know that especially VCAs are different here, but in the end, they are groups of groups if you squint hard enough, are they not?)

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
No, VCAs are quite different from the other two. They represent an external entity (the VCA) that can be used to control other entities, and they are mixer (signal flow) related only (i.e. have no impact on editing). Persistent and quick groups are definitely related; we've already a few trenchant observations about what we've done with quick groups, and we will work on taking them into consideration as we refine how this works. But fundamentally, I see persistent groups and quick groups as orthogonal, and their main job is not to interfere (too much) with each other.
- runiq 3y ago
  I see, that's fair. Thanks a lot for Ardour, happy to be a sponsor! <3