Subject…side benefit of bb utility traks.
(and maybe save an expensive pc upgrade)

Let me explain.

In the past before the added bb traks i typically would do lots of traks in a multitrak software like reaper or realband…thus taking up lots of disc space if loads of audio traks.

But NOW with the added bb utility traks i find myself staying longer in bb, and getting the mix right in bb , and then creating a stereo mix from bb once all is the way i want it, and importing the stereo master into reaper or realband (both which have their own unique features) …
Et voila…add a few traks…my vocals in reaps and/or rb…and other bits n bobs on traks….and thus the song is done. This way ive saved an expensive new pc which ive been contemplating…PLUS i find i’m saving disc space.

Of course it depends on the users work approach…but i find the added utility traks have made me rethink my workflow.

I always try to keep things in perspective and keep on reminding myself that we are spoilt today,
compared when the beatles/martin produced world hits on only a few traks...
eg 3 if i remember.

As an example in reaps or rb, given this new workflow ive prolly reduced the trak count from sometimes 40 traks to under 10.
Just an idea.

Best
om

< "As an example in reaps or rb, given this new workflow ive prolly reduced the trak count from sometimes 40 traks to under 10." >

This post in context with your other current post regarding CPU upgrade from I7 to I9 is a great perspective to whether an expensive pc upgrade is necessary.

For instance:

. BIAB's native multi-track architecture can yield a 77 track, first generation stereo render on an older version running on an XP machine.
. Tracking using an external digital recorder completely eliminates latency, software conflicts, driver setup or necessity of an audio interface.

. Using an external digital recorder will add portability and mobility more physical input and output options.

For a similar price of a new, expensive upgrade, the same money will buy a mint, used Behringer X32 40 channel, 25 bus digital console/recorder with automated faders, Pro-grade effects and a 32 channel audio interface or a 32 track recorder module is also available for remote recording without a computer. This removes all of the heavy CPU usage from the computer with the load carried by the console. This is a very reliable setup.

For a setup that's just as reliable but for less cost, go for the Behringer XR18 - This provides all of the features of the X32 in an 18/18 audio interface setup with a reduction down to 18 physical inputs.

The point being if a user isn't heavily invested in VST's and other CPU hogs, even for strictly studio use, more value may be gained putting money into external digital consoles and recorders than expensive CPU's destined for sooner than later antiquation and immediate integration headaches.

My response here relates to Scott C's post in your other thread:
https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=714669#Post714669

Charlie.
Yes you make a number of good points about using an external mtr like behr.
Only prob is such an external mtr wont run complexbig orchestral libs obviously
and kontact etc etc.
Maybe one day in the future when download speeds are lightning fast then i foresee
then bb and its rt’s could become an orchestra in a box. Right now the prob is as i see it…pg cant expand the rt’s massively to include lots more orchestral instruments cos the download of such would be terabytes and terabytes probably. Thus for those who want more orchestral
Rt’s than in bb we need to use vsti sample lib plug ins, and in turn need more powerful pc’s.
Which is prolly one reason of many why apple implemented the m1 silicon.

Ps…i dont have a latency prob right now.
i just need a powerfull pc for orch libs.
My big mistake was not buying a audient interface with more inputs.

Best
om

Yes, in your setup, you'd have to buy enough PC to feed the libraries. But, even then, having a console frees up space for those big libraries.

SAVE MONEY - don't buy more storage/processing - use BIAB - buy more storage/processing - for sample libraries.
Talk about circuitous routes.
On a mix level though - rendering a stereo mix from BIAB that is then augmented with vocals et al in another DAW will, in all likelihood, present some final mix problems.

Hi OM,

I agree with you. I was using Utility tracks and Audio Edit in BIAB just recently and it's brilliant how easy it is to get a really good stereo mix happening in BIAB now.

--Noel

With the addition of the 16 Utility Tracks, it now makes sense to reverse the standard workflow of the past of starting a project in BIAB and then move those tracks to RB or a DAW. Instead, bring live tracks recorded in RealBand or other DAW into BIAB to generate and build a mix. A lot of potential is lost generating and getting out of BIAB too quickly. Lost is the full power of BIAB track generation, MultiStyles and many other features that are exclusive to only the BIAB program and don't carry over to the Plug-in or RealBand.

Choose a style to facilitate recording live tracks externally like vocals, Solo's, live instrument Rhythms and backing vocals and import them into BIAB where the arrangement can have a better, more complex arrangement.

Charlie