No pitch recognition program I have ever tried has worked well. Tuners can do it though, with a single tone, held.

From what I have heard, Melodyne is the best pitch recognition app to date. I am sure not perfect though.

Yo Dude or Dudette which ever applies? It doesn't take rocket science to figure out
how to use the ACW or what it does. My point is, what it does, it doesn't do well.
If you took the time to follow the initial or original thread, this topic was being
revisited. A few responses to this post seemingly understand the dilemma of this and
related software programs that attempt to do it...convert audio into some form of
useful midi data. Melodyne and Amazing Midi (previously mentioned) are programs that
do that, not well, but just the same, the technology is still not there yet.

My reason for responding to your post and similar response to yours is to set the
record straight regarding, under developed apps within BIAB. Random chord generation
from audio is what it's doing, based on algorithms that *try* to interpret frequencies
producing a representation (midi wise)of the audio file. Read what pgmusic claims what
it can do and what it really does! The ACW is nothing more than a glorified random chord
generator based on the current technology in that area. I was merely interested in
successful attempts that users found with this program, at this point, in it's current
state of development.

I mean really, chord layout or the ability to indicate how many measures were in the
audio file, yikes! What did we do before computers??? I used my fingers and toes, a
pencil and paper, and my ears to learn tunes and often times I still do.

FWIW! Maybe the squeaky wheel will eventually get the oil, someday?
Wrkinit

And I think you missed the point. As stated in my most recent post/reply. "What it is
touted as being able to do, it doesn't do it well. Yet, the results you get are questionable
at best, so far! And what's so wrong about bringing up short comings of pgmusic products
and apps? How about more time and energy spent not on re-inventing the wheel, but on making
what you got, and what it does better....O I forgot, isn't that what we call revisions and
upgrades?

Wrkinit

My, what a snarky reply. Ear training program? Wow, you mean one can train their ears to hear?
Now if we only had a program that could create intelligent and useful information/responses?

There's always one or two that find a way to kill a buzz!

Wrkinit

I do hope you enjoy figuring out very complex programs by yourself as you are well on your way to alienating the whole bunch.Best change your ways.

jford,

Here again, another knee jerk response that doesn't address the thread or subject. Or has this
relegated to a flame field? The purpose of raising the issue *again* is to bring attention to
products that are making BIAB top heavy. As a long term user, and supporter of the product line,
it's about feedback from actual users, and not from those that have vested interest or those that
aren't using all the bells, gongs and whistles. After all, isn't this a forum where we can be civil,
respectful and provide insights into making a product better and more useful, without attacking one
another? I've only responded in kind, much to my disappointment to only a few, regarding this
discussion. Isn't that what this forum was intended to be for, if not, please explain? Then
again, kindly don't bother....

In terms of being snarky, let's grow up, hugh? Or is your purpose on here, and those inclined
that responded in this fashion, to posts remarks or attacks without really contributing anything
useful? I'm Just seeking insights into ACW and what others think and feel about it. Regarding the
"Wish lists," I'm not talking about re-inventing the wheel (ACW), just make it more relevant.

BTW, this subject was raised before, and since then, I haven't seen or heard about any
developments or improvements regarding it. That's all...get it?

Wrkit

Midi is dying. Next versions of windows I bet midi goes. Then a few Linux types will keep it alive for a decade or so.

These are user forums. We don't hold hands and sing Kum by yahaw or yahaw but close. If you would like to get out a pen and paper and write to dr Gannon regarding your disgust with the mathematical and acoustic abilities of his soffware, and if you hone you people loving and writing skills perhaps you get a nice post from him.

Huge ...me?

Only when wearing bi vocals. Note sp correction. My specs make my...never mind.

Band in a forum wants musical tewms only, I guess bi vocals are duets.

Wrkit,

What version of BIAB do you have? ACW has changed a bit over the years.

Regards,
Noel

The ACW also does a good job putting a BIAB rhythm to a live recorded audio cut.
Thus helping BIAB and you add backing tracks to a live track with an uneven rhythm.

Ian

Wow, how insightful? What's that old adage...if you don't have anything
useful to contribute to the discussion....

Peace out & many bright moments!

Wrkinit

Finally! A Breakthrough!

The following link was on the Yahoo users group forum.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Band-in-a-Box/message/42663
Message: #42663 of 42673

It addresses a revelation for those of us trying to make lemon aid
from a lemon.

Wrkinit

Not a breakthrough at all.I've been doing this for some time on songs that have difficulty. Your issue though was ranting that it didn't work right doing a process it was never intended to do.

Wrkit, I've been reading this thread again. Lets start over because this may simply be a misunderstanding of terms. You first refered to using the ACW as an audio to midi converter. It doesn't do that and this Yahoo group post doesn't change that. The ACW is primarily used for two things:

1. You're not a very good musician, you can barely count on your fingers and toes so you put in a favorite song you simply want to play yourself. It will give you more or less the layout and chord changes so you can figure out the rest of it. That function has nothing to do with Biab, converting anything to midi, none of that.

2. Here's where there might be a misunderstanding. If you send the ACW info to Biab all it's doing is populating the chord grid with what it thinks are the chords. If you were to take a pic of the chord grid with your camera, then click on file>new in Biab and then looking at the pic, manually enter those same chords into a new blank chord grid, what do you have? A brand new Biab song waiting for you to pick a style, set the part markers, etc. There's no audio to midi conversion happening. It's just the chords on the chord grid.

That's all this is. The ACW gives you the chords to a new Biab song so if your original audio song is a 6/8 jazz swing, you can then take the same song and use a country rock 4/4 shuffle or something. That's it. Conversly the ACW also puts the original audio file on the audio track inside Biab so you can find a style that fit's the original audio file and then generate some Biab parts to go along with it. If you don't want to play along with the original audio file you mute or delete it. Biab is not using the notes the ACW detected to somehow create or choose a style or anything. You simply pick any style you want as usual and Biab generates the parts. Again, nothing to do with audio to midi conversion or random chord generating. Now, I will admit sometimes it may sound or look like random chords because it didn't do a good job of detecting. There's already a bunch of tricks mentioned here to help with that including slowing down the tempo like that Yahoo post suggested.

If you're a good player with good ears then the ACW doesn't do much for you and that's why I don't use it much either. For me if there's some complicated song I want to put into Biab, I can usually find a midi file of it and it's all there. Biab and RB both do a pretty good job of detecting the chords from a midi file and usually the melody is there too so all you do is look at the lead sheet and it's already written out for you. The procedure with Biab is similar but much faster when you have a midi file of your song. Biab takes the midi and like the ACW, will detect the chords from it and put them on the chord grid. There's always a few you need to change but that's basically it.

Hope this clears this up a bit.

Bob

Sometimes i get results from the ACW that seem random. Changing the 'sensitivity' often corrects this.

Go to 'analysis,' then 'audio beat detection sensitivity.' Try it both ways. Might help.

Man! Probably the last response Wreckit will ever get from this group!

And BTW, ACW works great for me for what it is intended to do. Give you a great START to a BIAB song. I have run dozens of mp3's through it and with some cleanup have a good chord progression. I know I have saved many many hours using this tool.

Thanks guys for clearing this up. I was under the impression, and from what I thought the ACW did, was to *recognize* the actual chords of the wav or audio file. As Bob stated. it doesn't "quite" do that, but basically does more of a chordal layout, if you will. I get it. Maybe with the references used to describe the ACW is what misled me? When I imported the ACW results into BIAB and kept the audio file (instead of deleting it) as it played back, what I heard and what BIAB/ACW showed, seemingly, didn't match up. The suggestion of slowing down the Audio file made sense to allow for better sensitivity or recognition of sorts. I guess the other "audio to midi" programs mentioned do more of a *monotone* conversion of audio to midi, which I mistook the ACW for being capable of. My impression was that the ACW was more advanced to include poly-tonal recognition. This is what I was referencing. Possibly, one day the technology will be able to do that, but at the present time, I see it's not there yet....Years ago, when I thought of why can't they just use some form of a digital audio spectrum analyzer and convert that info into some form of digital representation that could mirror the analog signals, then again, with overtone frequencies and harmonics, that might be a tad more complicated to do....maybe?

Anyway, I do appreciate the informative responses to the subject matter and hopefully we can all get along. BTW, the song I used was an old Bill Withers tune called, "Can We Pretend." Now if only I could get the sheet music for this unattainable little song...sigh!

Wrkinit

You still don't get it. The ACW will give you a layout of all the chords in the song so then you can add RTs, RDs or midi parts. It also generates a tempo map.The parts you add will play along perfectly with the original audio file.I've done this many, many times. I produced a commercial CD for a band recently and used the ACW to add RTs after the fact. Here's a link to the CD.Tell me which tunes I doctored up using the ACW.
Twelve Gauge Persuaders

What I do get is the non-informative response of yours. What's that saying, "If you don't have
anything of value to contribute....

Wrkit

Then again maybe not! Thanks for ?!? Geez, another non-entity!
Gimme a break! I hope your music doesn't reflect who you are?
I'll stop responding to these jive ass responses and spend my
time making music instead of discourse? That's the ticket!

Bright Moments!
Wrkinit

Let's see you have 62 posts and I have 6000. My info can't be all that jive ass. suit yourself man.

Just when it looked like it was safe to jump back in the water...

Wrkit, we're not there with you so trying to explain things on a forum can get tricky. It's very easy to talk past each other because we don't really know exactly what you're doing. Silvertones is right but the ACW certainly is a bit tough to get used to. Have you found the video that Rharv produced about it? I don't have the link handy but it's around here somewhere.

I can tell from some of your posts you're cool, just don't be so quick to jump to conclusions,'k? I know if we were all sitting around having a few brewski's and talking about this with a laptop we'd work this out quickly.

Bob

John,

I almost hate to reply in this thread given the original thought trend by wrkit. But I'm curious as to your statement about "MIDI is dying" and if your main opinion driver is Windows? Here, I'd have to disagree with you, primarily because:

Most users I know and/or read threads on other music forums (Cakewalk/SONAR, Yamaha, Roland, Notion, Guitar Pro, etc.,) don't rely on Windows for MIDI processing (meaning midi-mapper or in/out). In fact, Windows isn't a consideration, given that many (if not most) use a hardware audio and/or MIDI interface and drivers for DAW and basic recording. Additionally, besides keyboard, there are (while fewer in number than keyboard players) who own and use other synth instruments, such as guitar, wind, electronic drums (also recall Peter's recent request for MIDI features).

Sorry for replying in this thread, but I think you are off the mark here.

Richard

Bob, Richard,

Here’s the thing. I previously indicated the misconception of what the ACW did and what it’s intended to do, which Bob so eloquently explained. My response only reflected the usefulness I found in trying to interpret a simple song I had experimented with. The results were not even close to what I know the song to be. The ACW, to me, is as useful as the “Song Title" generator. I mean come on. An app that names your original compositions? Or an app that auto generates chord progressions for you, in addition to one having to find a style that closely resembles the audio file you were trying to replicate. Geez. So what I'm hearing there's a need or use some find with this, great! I guess it's good for those that need
these kinds of things, but for me, I would have preferred to have an upgrade to the notation aspect of BIAB
or the resizing of the style windows, less gui clutter, etc. And please, this was mentioned in the "Wish List" forum, but as Peter G. indicated, there are certain things that would require a total rewrite of the program and would not be cost effective and too time consuming. Trust me, I've seen the ACW video and have produced results (none useful to me) that, well suffice it say, I could've used something else as an app or add on function than the ACW, but that's just me....

I guess this is where things are, in terms of, pushing buttons, looping and using cut & paste functions in creating music. Whatever happened to learning an instrument and writing songs the old fashion way? When’s the last time a Grammy was awarded to someone who used this new technology to make that #1 hit song?

I guess it’s only a matter of time, but the thing I find mostly is underdeveloped functions to sell and make money verses upgrading functions the program was initially created for…midi. Granted, audio is the “now” thing, but I guess I’m one of those that still feel midi is and will always be relevant in the process. IMO, and don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of advancements in the area of computer generated music, it’s just frustrating trying to get the idea out and not getting side tracked with all the phoo- phoo-la, that takes away from the initial purpose of using the technology to make music. Learning curves for some are huge when it comes to time spent just learning how to use software products, let alone remembering why you brought them in 1st place.

As wordy or verbose as this might be, it's an attempt to *DISCUSS* various aspects of BIAB and get feedback from those that can share their experiences and insights, without slandering, attacking or disrespecting one another. That's all.

Wrkit

JazzMammal,

Perhaps you misunderstood my statement "...Windows for MIDI processing (meaning midi-mapper or in/out).". You are referring to the OS, while I am referring to modules within the OS. Applications, drivers, and other modules are dependent on the Operating System/environment, to be sure, but one (or an application) doesn't have to use an included vendor's app or module (e.g., Microsoft midi-mapper). And, having worked in the trenches developing software and systems with Microsoft and several other much larger platforms for more years than I'd care to admit (and before Microsoft existed), I have a pretty decent understanding of the subject. As to whose applications, drivers, configurations, etc., I say whatever works for someone provokes no argument. However, my emphasis was with John's "MIDI is dying" statement, that I happen to disagree with, and so does the Music industry. So does PGMusic, else they wouldn't still seek input for new MIDI features.

Richard

Wrkit,

I too wish that BBW had additional notation features. Howerver, I never really expected BBW to provide that (not saying I wouldn't like it). I use SONAR (both version 5 and X1 producer) for my DAW (went through several other vendors over the years), and while SONAR does have some decent notation features, BBW does some things SONAR doesn't. Sometimes it helps, sometimes one has to export into another product to refine it. I do use Finale for my final notation products and more recently have started exploring Notion 3 (it's not quite there yet). I don't expect BBW to do what SONAR does. And I don't expect SONAR to do what Finale or Notion 3 does. And the other way around.

For me, BBW gives me a great place and canvas to start, explore several avenues, styles, genres, etc., and do so quickly and easily. It's a great product and I am amazed at what PG Music has accomplished and how they continue to innovate (I've used it since version 2004). I just don't expect it to do it all.

I look at ACW and other similar products that I have purchased as a "rough idea", a "good staring point". A good analogy in the software development world is an automatic code generator, marketed by some vendors. They may come close. Good for prototypes but not the final product.

Richard