FRUITY LOOPS 101 - PLEASE direct -ALL- FL questions here

[Cozark]

I seem to be having trouble giving my songs a "full" sound, or whatever you want to call it. They always sound really....empty. Since I could never explain exactly what I mean, I'll just post something of mine so you can hear for yourself.

http://s28.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0LHGZRSLZYFHE1P4V5X41RG030

Here's to hoping someone responds before the link dies...

[zircon]

This isn't really an FL issue. It's about samples, production, and most importantly, arrangement.

[Cozark]

Well, I figured it COULD be an FL issue, since everything I do is within the program, so I thought I'd post this here.

I have to ask though, what does arrangement have to do with making it sound not as hollow? I realize that to some degree arrangement does affect the "fullness" of a song, but I think the biggest problem here has something to do with production probably the free soundfonts I used. I've heard people do better things than that with free sounds though, so I don't want to try to use that as an excuse.

[Cozark]

Scratch that last post. What I originally meant to ask was: is FL capable of producing high quality songs using only the Fruity effects? I mainly use the parametric EQ, reverb, and stereo enhancer. Is there something I'm missing to make it sound better?

[zircon]

My second album (www.cdbaby.com/zircon2) used FL effects for about 90% of the processing I had to do.

[Navi]

fruitys parametric eq is EXTREMELY competent.

[ArseAssassin]

fruitys parametric eq is EXTREMELY competent.

Agreed. I still recommend you import it to an external audio editor for post-production.

[prophetik music]

fruitys parametric eq is EXTREMELY competent.

Agreed. I still recommend you import it to an external audio editor for post-production.

eh. you can do it all in FL if you wanted to. granted, its tough getting a good full eq done on the whole piece, but thats a problem in general, i've found.

or does someone know of a good free software that has a really nice eq on it? i don't like the lack of flexibility that the fruity one has.

[zircon]

Generally, you shouldn't HAVE to use EQ on the master track. Maybe to give things a *slight* bass boost or rolloff, or a little more brightness. But with the proper steps taken in the production phase, you should not need to do much correction at all. The fruity parametric EQ has as much 'flexibility' as pretty much any other parametric EQ..

[Navi]

fruitys parametric eq is EXTREMELY competent.

Agreed. I still recommend you import it to an external audio editor for post-production.

eh. you can do it all in FL if you wanted to. granted, its tough getting a good full eq done on the whole piece, but thats a problem in general, i've found.

or does someone know of a good free software that has a really nice eq on it? i don't like the lack of flexibility that the fruity one has.

What do you mean by lack of flexibility? I may not be very knowledgeable of EQ software or anything, but most of the stuff i've used/seen has static EQ points that you can raise or lower, while FL lets you customize those points individually, which seems to me to be more flexible than a normal EQ vst/effect.

[LooPKiD]

Well Cozark I listened to your sample and it does sound "Full" enough to me, I know exactly what you mean by a "Full" sound, but it sounds to me that you fairly created that effect. Maybe its just me and my low demandings but it sounds O.K. to me..

[EDIT:] Hail to Parmetriq EQ of FL .. I agree with the rest of the boys the Par. EQ of FL is niceeeeee....

[Cozark]

Well, it certainly sounds better than anything else I've ever done, but it still doesn't have any "oomph" or any sort of power behind it as far as production goes. It's like it's being played on some crappy old radio or something. And all I have as far as production/mastering/whatever goes is FL, so there won't be any post-production happening anywhere else for me.

So can this be fixed simply by a little EQing? I'm wondering if ther are some other tricks to FL for things like this that I just don't know about yet, because all I really know how to do is lay out some melodies and beats and put some basic FX on them.

[Beatdrop]

FL's default selection of effects processing units is very substantial. As has been mentioned, the Parametric EQ is superb. zircon is also 100% correct in his statement about not needing to put an EQ on the master track. The only reason you would need to is for rolling off frequencies below 20 hertz, above 18-20 kilohertz, and to balance out broad ranges of mid frequencies or increase whole ranges of frequencies in general. All specific EQing should be done to each individual instrument, and I strongly suggest using a Parametric EQ on every single FX track. It can certainly add to CPU usage, but it's very crucial to getting the acclaimed "professional" sound.

EQ aside, FL has a fantastic array of effects processors. Flangus is pretty much the only chorus/unison plugin you need, Fast Dist is great for dirtying up a sound (while Blood Overdrive will chew it up and spit it back out), Delay 2 can function both as a multi-tap and a tape delay (without all the added bells and whistles), Reverb is quality and more versatile than a lot of other reverb plugins out there, and there are even more specialized plugins currently in beta and on their way.

[prophetik music]

the reason i asked about a more flexible eq is because i want to to go through and apply an eq with more than just seven sliders. when i use my friend's software, he uses an eq plugin that has 36 sliders...in other words, he uses an EQ that allows for pinpoint control of the sound that he wants to create for the final track.

[Navi]

while it may not be the same, or easier, a good alternative to that is to put multiple (2 - 3) ParaEQs on a track and put the specific EQ zones you want across the multiple plugs?

[zircon]

the reason i asked about a more flexible eq is because i want to to go through and apply an eq with more than just seven sliders. when i use my friend's software, he uses an eq plugin that has 36 sliders...in other words, he uses an EQ that allows for pinpoint control of the sound that he wants to create for the final track.

Most pro EQs actually have LESS sliders, not more. For instances, the Waves EQ has only 2 bands. More does not equal better. Use multiple EQs if you have to.

[Navi]

Humor me in this conversation and explain to me how two bands are useful...

I know Waves is supposed to be the OMGHOTSTUFF...but I really can't grasp how two bands would function sufficiently.

[OverCoat]

Two bands would basically just cover bass cut/boost and treble cut/boost

[prophetik music]

there are times when i've found that having an eq with more bands to be something i'd like to have. granted, not all the time, but there are times when i'd like it.

using more than one is irritating because you haVe to figure out what is where (don't forget you need one slider at the low end for bass rolloff and one to be at the high end for high rolloff) so you wind up with competing freqs. i just would rather having one with more than seven.

[Splunkle]

the reason i asked about a more flexible eq is because i want to to go through and apply an eq with more than just seven sliders. when i use my friend's software, he uses an eq plugin that has 36 sliders...in other words, he uses an EQ that allows for pinpoint control of the sound that he wants to create for the final track.

Ummm. I think you are talking about a 7 band eq, not Fruity's Parametric EQ. While the Fruity Parametric EQ only has 7 sliders, it is parametric, which means that you can adjust the freq each sliders is boosting or cutting, thus allowing you to pinpoint the frequencies you want exactly.

Also, all good parametric EQ's (which includes fruity's) can adjust the "width" of the slider - how the slider will effect nearby frequencies. You could make it huge, so moving the slider will move about will effect frequencies several 1000 hetz above and below it, or really narrow so it only effects frequencies within 10 hetz. I think these are logarithmicly scaled, so 10 hetz really low is a few hundred up really high, which is good, else you would get some really weird effects with wide band EQing.

And yet another wonderful thing about the Fruity Parametric EQ. It allows you to choose the type of slider. You can make it a normal boost/cut thing, or a high/low cutoff, notch, and a few others besides.

In short, Fruity Parametric EQ is really, really good. At least, it is in my humble opinion.

To all you people who already knew this, apologies for the long post.

[zircon]

Two bands would basically just cover bass cut/boost and treble cut/boost

Uh, no. We're talking about parametric equalization. A 2 band equalizer with set bands would be idiotic in the world of pro audio.

there are times when i've found that having an eq with more bands to be something i'd like to have. granted, not all the time, but there are times when i'd like it.

using more than one is irritating because you haVe to figure out what is where (don't forget you need one slider at the low end for bass rolloff and one to be at the high end for high rolloff) so you wind up with competing freqs. i just would rather having one with more than seven.

Set band equalizers are not very useful. Use a parametric EQ.

Humor me in this conversation and explain to me how two bands are useful...

I know Waves is supposed to be the OMGHOTSTUFF...but I really can't grasp how two bands would function sufficiently.

Why would it NOT be useful, is the better question? Do people here not know how to use parametric EQs, or what? They are the most powerful tools around.

[Navi]

Humor me in this conversation and explain to me how two bands are useful...

I know Waves is supposed to be the OMGHOTSTUFF...but I really can't grasp how two bands would function sufficiently.

Why would it NOT be useful, is the better question? Do people here not know how to use parametric EQs, or what? They are the most powerful tools around.

I taught myself how to use all the stuff in fl - based on what I found them to be able to do. Therefore, I know how to use most things in an unorthodox way. Expound, plz.

[zircon]

There's not much to say. If you need to boost a bass frequency, you set one band to that. At the same time, if you want to roll off about 7khz, you use the other band for that. Or you could use one band to boost vocal clarity in the 8khz-10khz range and another one to minimize the 4-6khz range. Whatever you want to do.

[Ichitootah]

Another Sampletank problem here, but I wouldn't be surprised if it applied to other plugins similar to it.

I'm having this problem when I try to route Sampletank to midi channels. So, I set the port on my Sampletank from --- to 0, I set the port on my midi out to 0. Then I put an instrument in Sampletank's first channel, and I use the midi out (which I also set to channel 1) to control it. Simple right?

But then, when I try to change the volume in sampletank, and expect it to carry over to the midi channel (why not?), the volume invariably resets itself to 100. The pan resets as well. It resets the volume and pan every time I press play, pause, or stop.

This only happens if there is a midi channel set to the corresponding port and channel of my sampletank. If either of those are different, the volume and pan reset will not happen. If both are the same, even if there is no data in the midi channel, sampletank will still reset itself every time I press play, pause or stop in fruity. It ONLY resets volume and pan, not attack, decay, anything else. Volume & pan just so happen to be right next to eachother on the very right side of sampletank, i'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I'm completely baffled by this. Please help! I'll be very grateful.

[Nase]

The midi channel is simply sending its information each time you hit play etc. I'd just stick to editing the panning and volume parameters in the midi out channel, it's more accessible anyway.