I have BIAB 2014 and have a question about getting realistic sound output on my songs. I am using Coyote and wonder if there is any better way to get realistic instrument sounds. What equipment do I need to add to my setup? I'm using a laptop w/Win 10

http://www.pgmusic.com/bbwin.realtracks.htm

You need Real Tracks for realistic sounds.

Ray answered about RealTracks, but they won't let you hear your melody, since the RT phrases are pre-recorded. To play specific notes and phrases, you need to use MIDI.

I'm presuming that you mean the Coyote WT that comes with BIAB/RealBand. However, all the Coyote WT does is "wrap" the default MIDI sounds that come with Windows. It's a way to get you up and running with a DXi synth without having a DXi synth. As such, it isn't going to sound very good.

For $40, you can get the Coyote Forte GM2 DXi synth, which will give you better sounds, but not great sounds.

For about the same amount, you can get a copy of CakeWalk Music Creator 7, which will include the TTS-1 General MIDI GM2 DXi synth. It's similar to the Coyote Forte in sound quality, but also different. It really depends upon the sounds you are looking for.

And then you can spend even more money from there. Check out the products from IK-Multimedia or Native Instruments to step up another level.

You can also use hardware synths (either a keyboard or dedicated synth unit), but you can't "render" those to audio - you have to "record" the whole song to get an audio file. While they can sound great, you have to account for more time to capture your creation (a 4 minute song takes 4 minutes to render; likewise, rendering individual tracks take that time to render). With a DXi or VSTi synth, rendering to audio takes a few seconds.

Another free option you can pursue is to use Soundfonts. There are some free/low cost soundfont players and a ton of free sound fonts available on the web. However, soundfont technology is pretty much dying away; but you can still get some pretty decent sounds. Fantasize Soundfont Player costs $29. Synthfont costs 15 euro. You can google for others.

Real tracks are basically non-editable.

A nice sound module like a Ketron SD2 will do wonders. I admit I haven't heard a lot of MIDI modules, but this one has the best General MIDI sound set I've heard. It makes the coyote sound like a kazoo in comparison.

Insights and incites by Notes

Agree with the Ketron (but I'm biased, since I have one).

The sounds really are great.

I'm with Notes and John. The Ketron is impressive for both its size and price.

I'm with them. My friend JonD has the Ketron and it is the best sounding GM sound source that I have ever heard.

Ketron/Solton.

If you haven't experienced this sound, you have no idea what you've been missing.

Allan

I should clarify.

The Ketron is awesome for MIDI sounds.

I agree with Ray though about the RealTracks.

Horses for courses

Have to add my two cents. Software synth-wise, I have a hand-full, including most of what comes with SONAR version 5 and X1 (TTS-1, ZT3A+, Dimension Pro, Pentagon, Studio Instruments, Session Drummer, Rapture and True Piano) Granted, none of those are high-dollar high-end soft synths. I also have Coyote, Sample Tank, and Garritan. I'll use Coyote with BB only as a quick and dirty draft. With Notion, I'll used either the Notion instruments, Garritan or Dimension Pro, and my hardware synths. With SONAR, I use a variety of those SONAR associated synths, and always use one of both of my Yamaha hardware synths (classic Motif keyboard and rack-mount Motif ES). I use the rack Motif ES for my synth-enabled guitars. Even though my Yamaha synths are long in the tooth, for both live and studio, they are hard to beat for realism and extremely low propagation delay compared to soft synths. With programmable velocity and after-touch, and, the Yamaha breath transducer, you can get some realistic flute and sax such as reed/breath chirps. There is a large degree of control and customization available in these hardware synths that don't require another VST plug-in. Now, if I looked at the newest Yamaha Series, I definitely would be writing a large check...but they are astounding. The software synths definitely have come up in quality, but I don't have any software glitches in either of my hardware synths or bus competition to deal with. And, unlike some of the software synths (usually mid to high-end), I don't have to connect to the internet just to re-validate a license.

I have a dozen synths and synth modules by Yamaha, Edirol, Roland, Korg, and Ketron. The collection includes an SD90 with some fantastic, realistic sounds and an XV-5050 with thousands of great synth sounds. I also have a few software synths (I prefer hardware but I explored softsynths).

Of all of these, Ketron has the best General MIDI bank.

I export from BiaB and work in a DAW. I can assign different tracks to different sound modules, and I almost always include many SD2 tracks, sometimes more than any other synth.

I can even change the sound of an instrument. My SD90 has dozens of guitars, Tele rear or front pickup, 335, LP, Strat, and others with more generic names. Plus sometimes that piano might sound better as a Rhodes, the guitar as a Clav, the brass as synvox, and so on.

I always 'explode' the drum track so I can put the kick on a channel with no FX, assign different modules to different drums, and again, there are usually at least a couple of SD2 drums in there.

I mix Real Tracks with MIDI tracks, and use the RTs when they are just right for the song I'm doing. But if they aren't just right, I'll prefer a MIDI track because I can edit it, doing thousands of things that aren't available with RTs.

BiaB and a DAW are my toys, and I like to pay with my toys. MIDI gives me thousands of ways to play with the music that RTs don't.

We have a few tools in our musical took kit. Sometimes the RT is right for the job, and sometimes MIDI is right for the job. Using the right tool for the job ends up with the best results for your music.

Insights and incites by Notes

I'm very new to the BIAB 2016. Am I correct in my assumption that with the proper script file, I can use the voices from my Tyros 5 in place of the Coyote MIDI voices built into BIAB? As you likely know, the Tyros 5 voices are quite stellar. Thanks.

- Lee

Yes, but no script is really needed.

Grab the patch file from here:
http://www.pgmusic.com/support_miscellaneous.htm

In the top section of the above page there are links with information on how to use them for BiaB, RB, and PT.

Your only challenges will be
Getting the MIDI from BiaB to the synth (MIDI Out port)
and
Getting the sound from the Tyros (mixed in with any other needed sound sources) to your monitors.

The Patch file I mentioned is only needed so all your Tyros factory patches can be easily accessed.
If you only need the GM sounds, it will not be needed.
You will need a way to get MIDI to the Tyros (USB ?) and then the sound from the Tyros to your ears in either scenario.

Thanks rharv.

John thank you for outlining this subject in a way I can understand. I just happen to be evaluating how to utilize soft synths, and which to consider.

google + free vst instruments

Also google/bing Kontakt Player. This is a stripped down version of Kontakt. It comes with some sounds and many third party patches will work with it.

Native Instruments also has other free players that you might want to look into. IKMultiMedia also has a free SampleTank 3.

I know that different tools are for different people, and what is best for me isn't necessarily best for everybody.

I'm not really wild about soft synths, VST or otherwise.

Why?

• External hardware synths have a longer shelf life. I still use my 1980s TX81z and MT32 - I got them when Win3.1 was on the PC and Mac used OS6 on Macs with Motorola CPUs. With all the OS changes and orphaned software synths, my old ones still work. Some of the sounds are still great, and I can mix them with the newer sounds of my more recent synths
• External synths have minimal drain on the computer's CPU making it more stable (fewer glitches/crashes). The soft synth requires the CPU to 'do the math' for every note played and ever expressive device use.
• Since external synths don't tax the CPU I can put a dozen of more synths into the mix. I can use the great Dr.Solo sound of my MT32 on one track, the woody acoustic bass of my i3 on another, the great mute guitar of my SD2 on another, the Tele rear pickup sound of my SD90 on another, the FM Rhodes of my TX81z on another and so on, choosing the best patch from my array for each part on the song. Since the sounds are in ROM and/or created by the sound module and not the computer, I could probably use 256 synths with no performance problems on my computer.
• External synths all have about the same latency, 5 or 6ms. That means I can mix a dozen or more synths, and they are synchronized. I've seen soft synths with almost a half second latency, try adjusting that track with one that has a quarter of a second latency.

I started with a DDD5 drum, added the TX and MT shortly after when my keyboard broke, and added newer synths when needed. If I used soft synths I would have had to replace them when OS upgrades happened, and then again when the next upgrade happened, and again and again, making them not only longer lasting but in the long run less expensive than soft synths.

Insights and incites by Notes

All quite reasonable points, Notes.

But I especially have to concur with the first one. Ain't that the truth!

How many times have we upgraded hardware and operating systems only to then find we have to leave perfectly working software behind.

It's a problem with computers.

I have a 1925 alto sax that works perfectly. I have synth modules that I bought in the 1980s that work perfectly. I have a guitar that was made in 1970 that works perfectly.

But software that worked in the first versions of OSX won't work anymore, and software that worked fine on Win7 won't work on 8.1, much less 10.

There are probably dozens of software synths that will not work on the newest OS from either Microsoft or Apple.

I make my living by playing music live. Why would I want to learn to depend on a soft synth sound for up to 500 songs only to find one day that the synth will no longer work on the new computer OS?

The sparkle of some of the FM synthesized melodic percussion sounds have really never been duplicated by the modern ROM based synths. So my TX81z and DS8 have an important place in my songs, Rhodes, Vibes, and a few others are stellar.

Dr Solo in my MT-32 is a great voice, and newer editions of it that don't use L-A synthesis just don't cut it.

My VL70m synths recreate solo sax, trumpet and many other instruments with the nuances that no other synth not using Physical Modeling synthesis can do, and currently, nobody makes a PM synth.

If I were using software synths, all of these sounds would be gone for me now, and I would miss them dearly - plus, I just wouldn't be able to make music that sounds as good anymore.

That's not to say more modern synths are no good, they excel in different sounds.

And that's the beauty of hardware synths. I can mix the old sounds with the new and get the best of both.

Insights and incites by Notes

The software didn't really quit working, it became obsolete as people abandoned it in favor of the bigger, newer and 'better' versions. A high end XP soft synth program that won't work on version 7,8 or 10, still works perfectly in XP.

XP machines are still available and easy to find. They are dirt cheap, many are given away free. Components are still abundant and easily obtained. High end components are now available at more than reasonable cost. Connect your midi instrument to your XP machine just as you always have and you get the same sound just as you always have; the same as Notes gets from his external equipment.

No external module was ever sold that comes close to the quantity sold of XP machines. Therefore, the availability of parts and replacement units cannot match the availability and ability to repair or replace an XP unit. A $0.75 proprietary chip that a replacement cannot be located can turn an obsolete external module into useless trash. Notes' machines are full of cheap but proprietary chips and obsolete components. The manufacturer may or may not have the capability to repair or replace any of Notes units.

At this point in time, an XP machine can be maintained and stay functional indefinitely. The sound they produce can be captured by any audio recording device.

Notes has taken care of and maintained his equipment and assumes it will continue to operate as it always has. That is not the case. The longer a piece does continue to operate, the greater the likelihood that if and when it does fail, there will no longer be a repair or replacement available. Currently, all components of an XP machine are abundant and readily available.

Lastly, Notes is limited to the quantity and quality of the sounds of his external modules. He can stack modules and has more sounds available to him than he likely will ever need. However, compare the quantity of total sounds available to him from his external modules with the much greater number of software synths that were made to operate on XP machines. It's no contest in quantity or overall quality. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of software synths that will not operate on new OS computers. But they work flawlessly on the OS in which they were designed to.

Some good points Charlie, but following your reasoning, for the sounds I currently have available I should have a the minimum, one each of the following computers:

• Motorola OS 6 or 7 Mac
• Power PC through OSX Mac
• Intel OSX Mac
• Win3.1 PC
• Win95 PC
• WinXP PC
• Win10 PC

on my workbench.

And I would have to mix and match the sounds from each of these machines together, not to mention synchronize them.

And even in the simplest sense, if I wanted to use a great but discontinued soft synth on XP and also use a spiffy new synth sound only available on Win10, syncing them together is a major PITA.

And how many computers from the mid 1980s still are running?

My Atari, Win DOS5/Win3.1, Motorola Mac, Win 95, Win 98, Power PC Mac, and an XP or two computers have all died.

I have 1980s synths with zero moving parts that still work today. My oldest computer is a 2002 XP ThinkPad. Synths last longer than computers.

- - -

And yes, I have thousands of sounds I'll never use. I'll probably never use the helicopter, demon from hell, sitar, bottle blow, air pad, sinosound rave, cascade, shattered, and so on (but who knows). They are fine sounds, but not for me right now.

My XV5050 alone has well over a thousand sounds in it. I use about 30 of them. I bought it used for a great price, but even if I bought it new, it would be worth it for those 30 sounds. And who knows, I might want to use more if I change the kind of music I'm playing.

But yes, there will probably be thousands of sounds I'll never use.

On the other hand, I don't play every song in a music book, I don't visit every website on the Internet, I don't listen to every station on my radio, if I watched TV, I'd never watch all the cable channels, I don't watch every video from Netflix, I don't read every article on my e-newspaper, I don't use all the settings on the microwave, I don't use every app on my computers (or tablet or phone), I don't drive on every road my tax money built, I don't even use every feature in BiaB, etc.

I don't look at it as things I'm paying for and not using. I look at the things I use.

If there are enough features on a device to make it worth my money, I buy it and don't worry about the things that I don't use. Those are simply extra features for another customer, or perhaps some day I'll find a use for them.

I buy things for the benefit they bring to me, not the extra features I don't use.

And when the soft synths and XP computers are all but gone (like Win3.1 computers and Motorola Macs), my hardware synths will probably still be working. They seem to be very rugged beasts and have outlasted a number of computers already.

Insights and incites by Notes

Having good gear is a plus....and using a synth that can play samples is good too. I rarely use midi any more. It's generally audio with an occasional sampled midi synth sound.

First: select the BB styles that use real tracks. They sound better than the 100% midi styles

Second: open the file with real band and let it create all real tracks.

Third: If you need more than that, use sampled sounds and the appropriate synth to play them. This would be my choice if I needed something to play a specific melodic line in a song. Of course, you need to play the parts on a keyboard to do that. Basic keyboard skills will get it done.

While its true that RTs sound better than MIDI, they sound only slightly better than a good MIDI synth.

However MIDI can be edited to coax more expression that is appropriate to the song you are making, and expression is much more important than tone.

Expression more important than tone?

Definitely.

Just think of the scores of singers that have poor voices but yet are or were extremely popular: Dr. John, Stevie Nicks, John Lennon, Blossom Dearie, Leon Redbone, Bob Dylan, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

And what is good tone anyway? The two most popular jazz tenor saxophonists of the 20th century both played the same model sax. But if you take a non-musician and play a recording from John Coltrane and Stan Getz the overwhelming majority of normal listeners will say they don't even play the same instrument - not a different make and model, but an entirely different instrument.

Tone is overrated and expression is underrated to musicians, because to the vast majority of listeners it's just the opposite.

Insights and incites by Notes

I agree with all you say Notes. You would not necessarily need a separate machine for each OS. Many software programs were cross platform so one machine could house several different software programs from older OS systems.

My point was simply that these older soft synths are not 'lost' and can still be available if someone wanted them. Also, as things in computing are currently, an XP system doesn't have to die. Every component of XP systems is replaceable, thus repairable. An offline, dedicated unit can be as reliable as external hardware.

My point was that if I had a very expensive, top of the line XP compatible software synth and library, a dedicated CPU may be worth having just for the soft synth and library.

You have good points.

However my old synths work fine in the rack without another computer. They are virtually maintenance free, turn on in a few seconds, and if I ever need a replacement, I see them on Ebay all the time.

It's much easier for me to hook up another synth in the MIDI branched chain than another computer.

I suppose I could run an XP computer forever, if a desktop, but the repairs (I can't do that myself) would possibly be too expensive.

I have a 2002 ThinkPad that gave me over 10 years service doing one-nighters, bouncing on stage, riding in the van, constantly changing temperatures, and running flawlessly every night.

A few years ago it developed a problem. It still works fine, but the laptop screen has to be in certain positions to see the display. I took it in, the Lenovo repairman said IBM quit making those parts years ago. If I buy a broken machine of the same model, I could probably fix it. I told him 'No thanks'.

BTW, the other 2002 ThinkPad is still working flawlessly (I run two on stage). I replaced the defective one with a newer ThinkPad.

Your stage setup sounds very stable and reliable. I'm referring more to producing synth sounds for a studio recording setup than for live stage use.

If I had purchased $700 NI Komplete package in 2008-09 era for my XP and knew the product inside/out, there is no reason it could not be performing the same function for me today even though my BIAB/RB 2016 is running off a Kompact incompatible Windows 10 desktop. Having an XP machine would make perfect sense to me.

BTW, your thinkpad could probably still be used daily in your studio by connecting a external monitor to the VGA output.

I'm sure the 2002 ThinkPad would work with an external monitor, but with the single core Pentium III processor, it takes too long to boot or do anything complicated.

If playing soft synth sounds, I'm afraid the latency would be too much for me.

And when playing with a half dozen or so synths at the same time, latency becomes a big issue. Most hardware synths run at 5 or 6 ms latency. There is no consistency with softsynths. One could be a tenth of a second, another almost half a second, and there is no way I'm going to tweak the tracks, ppm by ppm until the both play at the same time. Multiply that by six.

On stage I use the machines for 2 things, play the backing tracks I create myself, or display the words, music notation or both.

With over 550 songs in our 'book', the newer ones aren't memorized yet, so I need to glance at the music and/or words.

And for those songs we haven't played in a long time, that first glance is usually enough to jog the memory.

And also, in the middle of a song, even while you may be singing or playing the sax/guitar/windsynth someone might come up and request a "Happy Birthday" or another song, jerking me out of 'the zone'. A few glances at the music can help me find my place in the backing track and get back to the business of performing.

I never understood why people come up in the middle of a song to say something. I guess they don't understand it's like coming up to the podium while someone is in the middle of a paragraph in his/her speech and asking a question.

We forgive them for they know not what they do

Insights and incites by Notes

"I never understood why people come up in the middle of a song to say something."

Agreed. That drives me nuts too! I can only do 35 things at once. When people talk to you, that equals 36 things. At that point I'm doomed .

I'll go OT here to relate one of my favorite stories. The world renowned pianist Paul Smith used to perform at a Velvet Turtle right down the street from me in a small lounge. He was right in the middle of a smoking solo of Tunisia when this woman is walking all scrunched over trying to keep her head out of his spotlight with a paper in her hand. As she gets close to him he motions to his bass player and stops cold right in the middle of his solo. She was obviously startled. He smiles and says pleasantly "What would you like to hear, dear?" He looks at the paper and says, "Sure we can do that", gives her another big smile and picks right up with this killer solo.

I thought that was so cool. He actually embarrassed the crap out of her without obviously doing it, you know?

Bob

Wow! I could never do that. I could be kind and stop playing, but never pick up where I left off. But then, I play with backing tracks that I create myself. Perhaps with a real band I could resume, but it would definitely take me in a different direction (perhaps better, perhaps worse).

Back on topic.

More realistic sound got me thinking.

All sounds are real.

I play saxophone, it's my main instrument, and has been for decades. I was first in the all-state band every year I was in school, and for a tenor player, that is quite a feat - it goes to the alto player by default.

I have two great tenor saxes and one alto with the voice of an angel.

But I probably play the WX5/VL70m MIDI sax on stage as much as I do the acoustic ones.

Why?

Sometimes the synth sax sound is simply more appropriate for the song.

Just as a pianist might switch for the Rhodes when he/she wants that sound, I switch to one of the synth sax sounds.

Do you mean acoustic instead of realistic?

Once a sound is recorded, it is no longer acoustic anyway.

The criticisms of MIDI are very similar to those aimed at electric guitars way back when.

And the saxophone itself was dissed when it first came out. German bands among others refused to use it, and considered it an inferior clarinet-ish sounding instrument.

There is a time for acoustic, a time for acoustic electric, and a time for electronic. The trick is picking the right tool for the right job at the appropriate time.

And since virtually every recording that has made it to one of the Billboard charts in the past 30 years has MIDI deeply embedded into its DNA (Per Alan Parsons and Craig Anderton), there is obviously nothing wrong with MIDI.

The A-List pros know.

Insights and incites by Notes

The man (Paul Smith) has class, Bob!

Excellent post, Notes!

I've always wondered the same. I've heard some pretty crappy MIDI voices even on my Tyros 5 (although rare) but after they are placed in the mix, they fit like an expensive pair of leather gloves. They seem to sound natural. I think Yamaha knows this, and goes to great pains to design voices that sound good inside and outside the mix. Then there's effects, which can make or break a MIDI instrument's sound...but I digress .

- Lee