Recording in one DAW, sequencing in another?

[Diodes]

So currently, Palpable's/my system for making songs with live tracks in them is to sequence everything in FL Studio, export a track to put into Cubase, where we record the live tracks, then export them and import them back into FL Studio where we finish the song. I was wondering if this is normal, like do other people do this? Or is this just insanely and needlessly tedious?

We don't use Cubase for sequencing because we have a very light version that came with our sound interface. We don't use FL Studio for recording partly because there are major latency issues such that when I sing or play into the microphone, I hear it back in the headphones with a noticeable delay. And partly because I totally hate the interface for recording in FL Studio and find it completely counterintuitive, so I haven't bothered to play around and see if I could fix the latency. (Before anyone explains how to record in FL Studio, we know how to do it and I still do so for like one hour compo and stuff, but I find it a pain and have much more problems with it than doing so in like Cubase or even Garageband.)

We have been considering exploring our options with other DAWS such as Reaper or Sonar or just getting the full version of Cubase. But I wanted to know if others deal with the same issues even in other programs, like the latency might be the result of having so many tracks and effects in a song, and the reason why Cubase doesn't have latency issues for us is because it is only playing back one bounced track? Or maybe there are other good reasons why you would want to record in a separate program?

[Scrap McNapps]

The more tracks and effects you have running, the more likely are going to develop pops and clicks during play back and recording if you are doing it at a low latency, so naturally increasing the latency is going to help with that. That is what I experienced with a project I was working on. I am fairly sure if you exported ALL of the dry tracks from FL Studio, put it into Cubase, and use the with different effects and plug ins within Cubase, you will run into the same issue. It does vary from program though so. Try freezing the tracks to reduce CPU and help reduce latency if you can.

And it is not uncommon for people to use more than one DAW. Some people make their beat in the program of their choice and do the mixdown in another program simply because it is better suited for that step. And don't forget about the person that might have to save their songs as wave files because they might have to go to a studio that uses a different DAW. For raw production, Sonar 8.5 and REAPER are excellent choices. If you own Cubase though and are happy with the results, I would stick with that so there is less to relearn.

[Tensei]

I personally record and sequence everything within FL simply because I'm used to their clunky recording interface, and I haven't ever really felt the need to learn a more efficient alternative.

Do note, however, that I have to do TONS of track-freezing to keep my recording latency-free, which probably is about as 'efficient' as jumping between different DAWs.

[Cyril the Wolf]

Move over to Sonar

It's time consuming probably, but hell if its economical...

Apparently Reaper is really good, but I also know several people who love Cubase (notable user being snappleman)

[LuketheXjesse]

Apparently Reaper is really good

Yes it is.

[big giant circles]

I actually used to do the same thing, Amy, except substitute Cubase with Acid. I agree that FL's recording initially isn't quite as intuitive or obvious though, definitely no argument from me there. That being said, when I finally learned how to record in FL, I haven't used any other DAW for it since.

You probably don't have your input monitoring situated the same between FL and Cubase which is causing that notable latency you're talking about. However, the actual latency between your voice/instrument and your computer will exist the same in Cubase as it does in FL (or any other DAW) and depends wholly upon your soundcard/drivers and what your buffer is set to, but certain factors can make it seem like there's a big difference, such as where in the signal chain you're listening back or how big a load your CPU is carrying when you record. To compensate for this natural latency, many soundcards and software programs have ways to listen to the sound at the speed that it's going into your interface, prior to being processed.

The Tascam US-1641 is a good example, because it has a knob that lets you choose if you want to listen to the input directly or post-processing (or both)

I've really never used Cubase, so I'm not sure how it's set up to monitor inputs, but it may be set by default to monitor the direct signal instead of the processed one like FL does.

So anyway, that's probably more response than you needed, but the short answer to your question is "Yes, I've done it before, but I don't now, because I'm too lazy to switch between programs, and I prefer to have everything all in one anyway"

BTW, what kind of soundcard do you you guys use anyway?

[Diodes]

Thanks for all the replies, they are interesting and helpful.

Jimmy, after reading your post, I realized something about our recording in FL Studio vs. Cubase. When recording in either program, I always use a mix of direct input and computer playback, such that I can hear the backing track from the computer, but also directly hear what I am singing or playing. I think this is what is going on: When recording in Cubase, I only hear the direct input from the microphone plus whatever tracks are in Cubase. However, in FL, I hear microphone input plus existing tracks PLUS the new track that FL is creating from the microphone input, played back again through the software. (I hope that made sense, it was hard for me to explain that.) That new track is what I hear at a delay from everything else. Plus the sound is very jarring, to me it doesn't sound the same as direct microphone input, and I think that even if it was not at a delay it would throw me off because it sounds unnatural, though I could be wrong and maybe it would sound fine if it was synced up properly. But basically what I am trying to say is if there is a way to turn off playback of the track that is being created, I think that would help a lot.

Another thing that bothers me about FL's recording interface is that it doesn't show the waveform as it's being recorded. So you don't necessarily know until you've finished your take whether it actually recorded anything or not. x_x However, maybe there is a setting to turn that on that I don't know about. If so, and if the above problem could be fixed, I think that would make FL's recording interface a lot more usable for me.

Our sound interface is the Lexicon Omega.

[Kanthos]

Could you record-arm the track but also just mute it? Or maybe route the track to nowhere or to some outputs on your audio interface (if it has more than two) that aren't being used? The last possibility does depend on how your audio interface does monitoring or on how you have your monitors or headphones plugged in; on mine, I can obviously connect monitors to either pair of outputs and that's all I'd hear, and if I use headphones, I have to choose which pair of outputs get sent to it. Regardless, there's probably an easy way to mute the vocal track you're recording or to send it somewhere where it won't be heard.

[Diodes]

Could you record-arm the track but also just mute it? Or maybe route the track to nowhere or to some outputs on your audio interface (if it has more than two) that aren't being used?

Ahh, brilliant. I was going to say that I had already tried turning down the vol all the way on the track in the mixer that is recording, but that doesn't work because then that track doesn't record. But I thought before I complain that this suggestion doesn't work, I should try out the other things you said. So I searched FL's help to see how I could route the track another way, and found this helpful piece of advice: If it is necessary to prevent audio reaching your speakers, deselect the send to Master. This works perfectly, I don't hear the processed audio, but I can still hear what I am singing/playing into the mic using the direct input as Jimmy described in his post. Thank you Kanthos!

So I believe that solves one of my 2 major issues with recording in FL! Now if I could get the waveform to display as it's recording, I would be a very happy person.

[Kanthos]

Excellent, glad it worked! Sometimes it's just thinking in a different way that helps.

I do similar things in Ableton Live in the project I use for my live keyboard rig to get the routing I want: I route my individual sounds so they're grouped into four main tracks - keyboards, organs, leads, and pads (with more routings for the instruments that I need to route through Guitar Rig to add effects) - and each of those outputs directly to one of the four outputs on my audio interface. I don't let anything get to Live's master track at all!

For the second problem, what version of FL Studio are you using? Are you recording directly into FL or into Edison (embedded and integrated within FL?) I'm not an FL user, but Edison might show you the waveform and (hopefully) shouldn't be much more complicated to use. Looking at this, it looks like all you have to do is put Edison on a mixer track, record, and then hit Shift+C to export the audio to FL as an audio clip (and then presumably unload Edison to save memory).

[Legion303]

I sequence in FLS, then do live recording and mixing in Cubase.

-steve

[Nabeel Ansari]

I don't actually do this, but I'd like to use FL Studio as a sequencer and then do all of my sound processing in Reason. If my computer could run FL Studio like it can run Notepad, then I'd just stick to FL Studio.