I wonder how it is, that whenever someone is asking about sequencers people go all mad, defending the tools they use, bashing anything else and such?

I mean, such a question requires at least *some* sort of constructive and objective statements.

In the end it all depends on your preferred working style and on the material you want to record.

The main difference here is patternbased vs. "linear" working. And while one or the other method isn't literally impossible with almost all sequencers, there are some conceptual differences making certain working methods easier in certain more or less dedicated tools.

I try to explain as good as possible:

() Patternbased sequencers (Fruity Loops, Orion, Reason, Storm and such) in general (note: I don't say exclusively, to avoid nasty comments) are made up in a way that you program, record or "design" individual patterns and line them up later on. With all the latest versions this can usually be done in various ways, such as realtime recording things or just doing it with your mouse.

I would tend to say that *many* people using patternbased sequencers are mainly aiming for mouse usage - Fruity Loops for instance didn't even allow to use MIDI input to record things originally, that functionality was added later on. So historically it's a "mousing sequencer" and IMO that's still what it's strengths are.
The big advance of patternbased programs usually is that you have almost perfect control over the pattern itself.

The downside (at least that's my personal experience) is that you don't have as much control on the overall song structure - almost naturally, as you are working on patterns rather than structures in the very first place.
A short example: If you want to have a pickup from one bar to another, you will often find yourself having to deal with a new pattern that has to be programmed and then inserted into a playlist or so (I am not soo much informed as to being able to say if these things haven't been improved a lot recently though).

On the upside: Pattern programming works very fast and efficient, giving you quick control over each note and related events (i.e. one could setup a different filter setting for each note very quickly).

() "Linear" sequencers (Cubase, Logic, Cakewalk, Muzys and such) however aim more at something I'd call an "overall structural control", and from their history they are like expecting you to feed them with "realtime input" (MIDI, Audio), rather than with mouseclicks.

Maybe "trackbased" would be an even better description. Whereas in patternbased sequencers one may tend to program one *almost* final pattern as a starting point (i.e. drums, rhythm, comping, melody) at once and then work on variations, with "linear" sequencers one may for instance record some vocals along with a guitar first and then add the additional parts later on.
One could almost say that there's something like a "horizontal" vs. a "vertical" approach towards things.

Naturally these sequencers aren't made for pattern sequencing, so things such as using your mouse as an input device require more or less some workarounds.
In the end, "linear" sequencers are more like big tape machines - of course with way advanced editing options.

() What to choose?
As said before, this all depends on your style and preferred way of working.

If you are some sort of singer/songwriter, a patternbased sequencer might be nothing for you as you just want to record your ac. git and sing along, then maybe add some drums, bass, keys and whatever later on.

If you however are more into tight dance beats, arpeggiated synth lines, mad filter sweeps and the likes, programs such as Fruity and Orion may just be your cup of tea.

If you are interested in both, you may eventually have to buy both. That's actually what a lot of people are doing these days (see Donkey Tugger's reply). That's also why patternbased programs such as Reason (via ReWire) and Fruity (via VST) allow for almost seamingless integration into linear sequencers. Best of both worlds.

() In the end there's some things to consider:

- All the mentioned pattern based sequencers don't support audio recording. They allow to import audiofiles, but if you plan to record audio a lot, they don't cut it (no Peter, please don't jump onto that, this is a fact).

- "Linear" sequencers usually require more general musical knowledge to get you started - they aren't made for mouse input originally and they are designed to work along more or less "traditional" styles. You record something via realtime input and they play it back for you. Of course you can manipulate things more or less easily, but in the first place they "expect" proper realtime input.

- At least some patternbased sequencers offer a pretty much better "bang for the buck". Fruity and Orion both come with a serious package of integrated synths, plugins, samplers and other soundmangling devices, whereas with, say, Cubasis (which is in the same price category), you get a bunch of things I'd consider to be "toys" or "teasers" to say the least.

- Things are approximating each other. While most patternbased programs these days for example allow for MIDI recording, have the usual piano roll style editors and the likes, Cubase SX is trying to cope up with things originally being the domain of other programs, such as the MIDI plugins (step sequencer, arpeggiator etc).

In the end I can just second Kriminal: Go try the demos and decide which working style is for you!

Btw: Personally I am using Logic, but I am seriously considering getting some of those patternbased tools in addition as they offer some things in a WAY more easy fashion than what is possible in a "standard" sequencer.

Regards,