There's very little that you can't do in it. Nowadays, I'd probably get more out of FL if I was just starting out. Keep in mind that FL had no audio recording and its sequencer wasn't that great a while back so I think a lot of people picked up an additional DAW. Keep in mind that I've use Cubase exclusively for a long time, so my comments are opinion, not fact. If it's all you have, there's not much that it lacks. FL has good mixing options, but the mixer is almost an afterthought. Of course, in Cubase you can add as many as you want for sends and groups, but you can only route 16 channels at a time from FL to Cubase.Ĭubase doesn't necessarily have more than FL does when it comes to mixing, but I like the layout much better. Here is the official description for Cubase Studio:EditByBrothersoft: Boasting a wealth of new capabilities unmatched in its price range, such as VST Expression and up-to-the-minute VST3 instruments and effects, like the new Groove Agent ONE drum machine and Beat Designer step sequencer as well as the new PitchCorrect intonation effect, Studio.

It would take more steps but if may give you more flexibility if you don't need more than 16 channels. When comparing FL Studio vs Reaper, the Slant community recommends Reaper for most people. If you don't need more than 16 channels, you can also load the FLStudio multi VSTi within Cubase, enable all of the outputs, and route them from the FL mixer to Cubase.

Cubase or fl studio