It IS a cool feature. Having it in BiaB was a huge step forward.. I bet many more people notice it now.
I'd have to research how long RB has had it; I'm thinking since PT8 or so (before RB even became a program) so I guess RB always had it

Now that you've discovered it; have fun! It was very interesting to hear RB handled that particular synth better than Sonar. Due to the nature of forums, we often hear the synth problems instead of when RB is the solution.

Yea I was about to say RB has only been around since 2008 (?) so a most 5 years (rounding UP) but thought it might sound like I was trying to start a fight - I'm not!

Happy New Year
Larry

Larry Kehl
I still use PT at one location, but usually have RB handy, so it gets blurred at times.
I consider them the same engine (RB and PT), so once I got to thinking about it I thought I better clarify.

Glad I did so you and I didn't come to blows over it ..
I like your sig, made me smile

I love the concept of one software does it all, RB is as close as it gets if you want music made and mixed .

I have Sonar X1 Essentials, nice. powerful, and useful, but I still use RB far more often.

I own Reaper 4.14, Nice Powerful, useful, I still use RB far more often.

I own Multitrackstudio, Nice, Powerful, super stable, and useful, i still use Rb more often.

The above three are all very good applications. MTS is one of the most stable,a nd simple productive DAW software packages i have ever touched. The problem is is does very little in the way of music creation, other than midi note addition thru piano roll or the like, and audio it is a very smooth audio auditor, but does not generate anything that even resembles a RT. If I created everything in BiaB, and did not have RB I would move it there more often than not.

Reaper is a deep powerful app, i love it's routing capability, and the light touch it has in it's footprint. It also is a dream to mix with, but guess what it does not generate a thing. Sure you can add midi notes, and record audio or add looped content, but so can almost any DAW software.

Sonar X1 is far more stable than i was led to believe, and is a very powerful app to mix audio, and process midi in. It is very familiar to me since i started in a Cakewalk app. Once again it does not generate files other than to build with midi, or record audio, and mix.

RB might not have every tool that these other apps have, or at least a few of them are not quite as sophisticated (yet), but it does generate, and it will build and work with midi, and you can record and edit audio, and you can do 99% of what you can do with the other apps. So why switch for just one or two features, that most likely have work arounds anyway. I just keep this updated and watch it grow.

A craftsman needs good tools. If a person can afford all music apps, why on earth would he/she NOT have them all? They each bring something good to the mix.

My main point is that if you can only afford ONE... the question arises "which one?"

Each person has to answer that question according to his/her specific needs. MY needs are best met with the PGMusic suite... but I fully understand that many people rely heavily on specific features of other products. That doesn't mean they can't also own BIAB and RB to gain the benefits they provide too.

Biab/RB ! No one else even comes close !

BiaB/RB if only one! Heck I pretty much use it all the time anyway!

If I coud only choose one it would RB. Before Reaper, ProTools, Sonar, Biab, et al.

The generating possibilities far outweigh the options found in other DAWs that I don't get in RB. And the track count and flexibility makes it outweigh BiaB, so the choice would be easy here.

Until one of the other DAWs comes up with a music generation feature, this is apples to guacamole here.... they are not the same tool. The DAW part of RB is comparable, all in all there is no other tool that does everything Real Band does in one package.

Better analogy would be that while you CAN drive a nail with the handle end of a screwdriver, you are probably better off using a hammer designed to do that job.

I think the answer to this question lies deeper under the surface than what is being discussed.

If the most important thing to you is to have automatically generated backing tracks, then there really is no comparison, RB/BIAB is the one tool to rule them all.

However, if that is not high on the priority list, and other music production tools have higher priority, then it falls down the list fairly far for some folks.

For me, a great deal of my 'composing' occurs with editing of sound, not necessarily notes. One genre that I play in is 'ambient' music, and for this type of sound, what notes are played is often secondary to the manipulation of the sound after the note is initiated.

In this regard, there are features standard in almost every other DAW software that have yet to show themselves in any PG products.

But I realize this is almost beside the point. The reason 99% of people are here on the PG forums is because backing track generation is a very high, if not the highest, priority as they consider making music with a computer involved.

Autogeneration of tracks is something I haven't been able to grok, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong for others to do so.

When I've been dissatisfied with my midi-oriented bass lines of 10 years ago, I searched high and low for sample sets, sound fonts, etc. and I still got midi-fied sounding bass. I finally sprang for a real live bass, and while I'm not Jaco Pastorius, Victor Wooten, or Jamerson, I find it incredibly satisfying to record my own bass parts. They will never measure up to the virtuosity of Real Tracks. Never.

However, I can hear what I want to have in the song from the get go and get to work figuring out how to play it straightaway, without auditioning auto-generated parts.

Drums, that's a different matter altogether. I have a hard time walking and chewing gum at the same time so playing drums on my own is really really crummy sounding.

My compositions tend to use instrumentation that I can play and imagine what it should sound like. I see Eddie's profile pic holding that sax, and since I have no idea what to play on that thing, I never venture there with a composition.

I think this is a key distinction in how different approaches to composing end up. Some think that every song needs horn parts, even though they don't play them.

Anyways, approach to composition lies at the heart of what tools work best. That's my opinion.

-Scott

Scott, give us an idea what features you feel are missing that other DAW software has?

Good thanks, that helps me understand what you are talking about.


1. Flexible signal routing (not fixed to a hardware mixer mentality - many DAW let you use unlimited 'aux' type busses simply because you can use tracks as a bus)

Not many DAWs, just one, Reaper. Sonar, Studio one, Cubase, Protools, Etc. all use aux busses like a mixer, only Reaper uses any track you want as an aux buss. While that is real neat, it is not really necessary. Sure it is a cool feature, but as long as you can place effects in a aux busses and send and return is that not the point? RB does that.


2. Easy to use graphically based, node-enabled automation tools to control plugin and MIDI parameters.

This is a good one, and i agree completely. The automation in RB is okay, in a pinch, but really weak. i have tried to use it several times, and can, but it is not as precise, or has far less options.


3. Seamless integration of tempo locking (I use this with auto-filters and delay parameters all the time)

Another one that is good.


4. Sensible plugin use integration, without having to think of 'slots' and so forth.

Again this is a Reaper mentality issue. Sonar, Protools, Cubase, and all the others use synth rack, and effect slots. Reaper lets you route anyway you want, and place sends and returns everywhere, allows VSTi, and VST placement on any track. Really cool in theory, but also not needed. As long as you can route each track to a synth that is the purpose.


5. Native audio edit tools that are non-destructive, built in cross-fading capability, etc. (actually, it took ProTools up to about 5 years ago to 'get' cross fading as a standard feature - so perhaps it's not fair to put this one in but I've been used to it since about 2005.)


Again a good one, while there is the smooth audio thing, it is not a true crossfade feature.


6. Folder tracks


fancy feature that is cool, but you really do not need it often. Look if you are making music in a way that is not one of RB strengths, then using other software to polish is great. I have a ton of wood working tools, and so many are just for one specific purpose. I use what works. My process will work fine in RB, so i rarely jump over to anything else.

Rob,

All of your comments about Reaper are unknown to me. I don't use Reaper.

Tracktion, Energy XT and others (any DAW that falls into the modular category) do allow use of tracks as busses.

I clearly stated in my first post in this thread that the comparisons between DAW software can only really be done in light of the way one composes.

My compositions start with the end sonic picture in mind. Many times; in fact I would say most times, I have the sound, and not the orchestration as my target.

The tools I mentioned - while you call them unnecessary, are to me necessary tools to do my compositions. It's a different mindset, not right or wrong - but the mindset and approach do beg for different types of tools.

To me, the auto accompaniment generation abilities of BIAB and RB are what are unnecessary and I've chosen to concentrate on a DAW that allows me to compose and mix the most naturally and efficiently for me.

My DAW is more like an electronics lab, where one of the goals is song composition, but some other goals are experimental sound design. I'll see if I can find the screenshot of the setup I did in Tracktion that allowed me to beat-box vocally into a mic, split the signal into 3 parallel paths, band pass filter each of the three paths - send those filter outputs to compressors, then into an audio-to-midi plugin, and finally trigger 3 different midi notes on a drum machine so that I had kick, snare and hi-hat samples triggering all from my vocal input 'boom-chuck-tssss' sounds that I performed live. Very fun.

Folder tracks - makes it very easy to comp tracks efficiently. Since I am almost required to comp tracks because I play everything but drums myself, this is a necessary tool.

Now, my approach is completely different than one that would gravitate to Ableton Live, or FL Studio. They would find use of the way I work as well as the PG approach, nearly impossible to accomplish their end goal.

So I'll reiterate my point, that composition mindset is the basis upon which to compare softwares that fall into the DAW category.

-Scott

I see, that makes sense Scott. I can see where you are coming from. I guess, and no disrespect meant. If the very core function of BiaB, and Rb are unnecessary for you, why do you use the program? I mean that in a totally honest way. BiaB at it's very heart is for auto generation, and it's sound bed is aimed at jazz, rock, country, and other similar genres. It really is a very lacking product for the type of music you make. Is that not like trying to hammer Johns nail with a screw driver handle?

Would not using the modular DAW softwares, and other add on tools make more sense? I dabbled in electronis music for a while and found AcidPro far better. add a good drum VSTi, and a gazillion loops, add a good midi guitar synth, and a keyboard and it should be a killer setup.

I believe the OP was really getting at how other DAW software compares to BiaB/RB in the sense of getting things done from a stand point of what BiaB/RB excel at. So my comments were somewhat aimed sideways to yours. Sorry if I sounded badly. When i said unnecessary i mean from a basic point of construction of what most folks do here. I do agree that everything you mentioned is a cool feature, but in the general sense of things you can get by without them really. But maybe not in your world, since you create music completely different from the majority here would do.

Me personally if I were to go back to creating trance, electronica, soundscapes, and other similar types of music, BiaB would be the last program i would i attempt to use.

I would love to see that screenshot if you find it. Talk a bit more about how BiaB fits in if at all, that might be interesting.

Rob

here is the discussion thread at KVR from 2005 where I tried it out and a couple folks grabbed the idea and ran with it. There's a screenshot in one of Modulr's post that shows his signal routing about 1/2-way down the first page of the thread.

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=88341&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

he also has an .mp3 demo of his results which is really cool.

Regarding the auto-arrangment capabilities of PG products, there really is no other comparable alternative.

My link in that thread is long dead. Again, this was 2005 time frame.

These types of conversations are great, i learn form others in how they make their music. So much to learn, and so much to remember.