This is an absolute Novice RB question.
I have been using BIAB for quite a while and my workflow has always been to export all tracks in BIAB as wavs to my old DAW (Cakewalk GTPro2 from 2004)and mix and mess with it in there.
Despite it always having been there I have avoided RB apart from the odd foray into it.
BUT - I think I MUST get to know it and use it. Having messed with it a bit and got to grips with the fact that things arent where they are in BIAB I created a chord sequence, a style etc etc and it made me wonder -
WHY do we need BIAB at all if everything can be done in RB that can be done in BIAB?
Its not a trick question.
Ian

For me, I like using BIAB first because I generally find it easier to quickly audition styles, regenerate parts and the parts start playing sooner in BIAB (because RealBand has to generate the whole song before it starts playing and BIAB doesn't), the BIAB interface is geared more towards making song structure, chord, and style changes.

Once I've gotten everything generally how I want it in BIAB, I then move to RealBand for the task of adding additional tracks, vocals, other live instruments, etc.

Both work nicely together, IMHO.

Thanks John
Astute observation.
Thanks
Ian

I do the same for all of those reasons.

Ditto.

--Mac

Thanks,guys
One of my plans for 2014 was to make myself use RB as my DAW.
Then I found I could do loads of BIAB things in it.
Very happy to continue using BIAB as I have.
I must be brave and drop my next BIAB project into RB whence will likely come beaucoup De questions.
Ian

I follow in JF's and the other's foot steps.

I find it much faster to get the basic framework put together in BiaB, and then over to the versatility of RB to take it to the next level. I particularly like the way I can regenerate only part of a track in RB, which I cannot do in BiaB.

I also often use multiple choruses with repeats, so it's faster to get this together in BiaB.

Once opened in RB, save as a RB SEQ file, and then the next time the song is loaded in RB, it's instantly playable.

HTH
Cheers
Trevor

Pretty much the same for me...

I love BB as a writing tool. Sure beats a note pad and a pencil for composing and writing.

The ease of changing tempo, key, style, structure, chords, etc is just the icing on the cake. Being able to hear what the song "can" sound like when finished is a huge plus.

I don't do much in RB. I use it to render the tracks to wave. That's about it really....

I export all the tracks and mix and edit and record live tracks in Sonar.

Thanks.
I think I'll stick to my current workflow and maybe run an existing SGU into RB and see what I can do with it - for comparison.
Ian

My workflow is almost identical with the only difference is that I do not use RB at all. I go from BiaB straight into Sonar.

Unlike Herb I can not really hear exactly what the finished BiaB part of the song sounds like as most of my VSTi’s (note VSTi’s are my main sound sources) require more RAM than any 32 bit program can supply. Note this is only true when I work with MIDI and not with RTs but unfortunately the majority of my work in with MIDI using VSTi’s.

If you work with BB, after a while you may find as I did, you don't really need to hear big and lush MIDI synths playing the thing at that stage of the game.

This is especially true if you narrow down your MIDI synth/sampler possibilities to a few that you can come to know really well.

Once you've been through it a few times, it is possible to use a rather simple sounding GM synth inside BB, say it is set for an Electric Piano, get the thing working together well as a basic songfile, and then export to your DAW in the knowledge that once you substitute that special sounding and lush Rhodes patch, you will have what you want or what the project demands.

So unless the songfile I'm working on is destined to be *played back inside BB* such as in a live performance using the laptop, I'm not all that concerned with BB being able to entertain me at the moment.


--Mac

Logical thinking Mac.
I've been working on a pseudo classical tune and got so caught up in trying to get a midi / RT / anything so that the "SOUND" was right, I lost sight of the fact that I had 120 bars of tune to work out and enter the chords for. As soon as I went for a simple midi style (ARPORK44 as it happens), the chords kept coming and I was so able to hear the right from wrong.
IAn

That is exactly what I do Mac. My reference to sound exactly like what I want was about timbre.

+1

exactly.

I don't worry too much about what BB version sounds like. I use the RT styles so there are plenty of real sounding instruments in my BB project.

I run 32 bits (XP Pro 32)with 4gig ram and have been able to run several of the really big lush synths at the same time..... Kontakt (several instances) and East West, and more all the while having Ozone and several other "heavy plugs" in the FX bins..... and not a single hiccup.

I love my XP! Maybe Microshaft should stop bringing out yet another too early Windows "X" release and re-issue ultra stable XP
Ian

Yep, a lot of serious PC users (and software developers) would argue that Microsoft haven't really done themselves any favors since XP...

The problem with being #1 is that you soon realize that you have no real objective other than constantly worrying about staying #1, and that leads to the worry and conjecture as to what #s 2, 3, and 4 are up to, because #2 & etc. have a firm objective; to become #1.

#1 can soon become paranoid.



That's Sun Tzu, paraphrased.



--Mac

The only problem with the XP Pro 32 version is that it only supports 4Gb of ram..... although, I must say, I have never had a project crash due to a lack of memory.

I do know, however, that at some point, I will need to upgrade to a 64bit OS.... I'm already bumping into that 64 bit ceiling in some ways.... such as the new software and plug ins that are coming out, are all 64 bit now and many are starting to discontinue their 32bit compatibility modes..... so in order to run them at all, I would need the 64bit OS....

But my take is as follows: As long as my DAW runs smooth, does what it currently does with respects to recording and mixing, and I don't feel the "need" to have the latest and greatest updates.... I will continue to use the 32 bit rock solid platform I currently run.

My concern is that PG Music will also, at some point, feel the need to go 64 bit totally and stop making BB/RB compatible with the older 32 bit OS platforms.... when that happens.....???????

I might simply go to using 2 computers..... One new el-cheapo laptop running Windows 10 128/64 (or some such nonsense) and simply export the files as waves via USB stick to my trusty 32 bit DAW.

(wink wink)

Herb, i have a newer 64 bit win 7 laptop, and my old trusty 32 bit XP machine running #@ bit stuff. that machine actually runs better. But you are right it is slowly headed that way. I have Studio one on that machine both 32 bit and 64 bit, as i have to still bridge some plugs that are 32 bit like sampletank and kontack. I all of my live playing files work in RB on the lappy now, since they will end up there, but i am going to build a new Win 8 16 gig 2 TB system this year piece by piece, and that one will have to do me as a working DAW, for a few years like the last one did. I use the old delta card on the desktop still, and the Audiobox 1818 is on the lappy. That will change as i plan on a small Presonus 22 VSl for the laptop and the bigger unit will feed the desktop here soon.

I like my #@-bit processor.

If you like it, why are you swearing at it?


(ha ha only joking). What? There's no capital 3?

Being an IT geek, I always keep to the latest version of Windows. I'm on Win 8.1 64-bit and have no issues at all with BIAB or my other software. My only limitation is that my old GadgetLabs 1/4" 8in x 8out sound card drivers don't work by default (They went out of business over 10 years ago). I run Win 8.1 in Test Mode to make it work and no issues so far.

Back on topic... I mostly start in RB if I have a good idea of what I'm starting with. Like the others, I'll start with BIAB if I'm starting from scratch.

And when that happens, PG Music will lose my Annual update money.
One lost Customer.
My BIAB20xx will then remain in my machine, frozern in time as will my XP.
Would be interesting if this thread garnered some kind of response from PG direct
Ian

I doubt PGMusic will abandon 32 bit anytime soon. Every DAW that I know about comes in both 32 and 64 bit versions. I’m sure PGMusic will do the same IF they do indeed expand to 64 bit.

Huh? Not to offend but that's like a guy in the 80's saying he's gonna wear his mullet forever. Sooner or later it becomes cost prohibitive for software companies to support obsolete platforms. We're fortunate that PG hasn't already gone that route as I would say a lot of software companies out there are producing 64-bit-only software.

Agreed on Mario's comment.

A songfile made on the first release of Band in a Box will load and play in BB2014.

That's back-compat above and beyond a lot of other softwares, so I don't think this particular red herring'll float.


--Mac

Well said Mac.

Most Software Development Platforms have a "build option" to produce 64 or 32 bit output applications. I feel that the RAD tool that BiaB and RB uses is no different. So delivering a combination of 64 and 32 outputs is not a big deal. Everyone would be happy.

32 bit will stick around longer than XP. Many W7 machines run 32 bit, especially in office type environments where the load isn't too bad.
Heck, one of my programming machines at work is 32 bit.

It is rare to find software that will not adapt to 32 bit in some way.
Ever notice that Programs (X86) folder? Take a look inside; it's full of programs that were designed for 32 bit systems.

I'm guessing when that happens..... 64 bit or nothing..... I will remain frozen in time at that point....

I'm actually kinda there now with regards to many of the new plugs and toys coming out....

As I said before, as long as this 32 bit OS keeps working.... more realistically, I should say, as long as I can keep this COMPUTER working, I will be on this OS & platform.

Hard drives can be replaced, power supplies can be replaced, software can be reinstalled and re-authorized..... so likely, I will remain with this system and the only updates will be to BB/RB as I feel the need to "keep current" with the latest cool offerings.

I joke that "if and when" I do finally bite the bullet and upgrade, the current OS from Microsloth at that time will likely be the newest version of Windows 24 @ 128 bits.

I have Studio one v2 on my desktop and laptop, on the Win 7 lappy I have both 32 and 64 bit installed. Right now i use the 32 bit mostly. I imagine 64 bit for PG will come, and really should for those that want to keep up on the latest and greatest. for what BiaB, and RB does for me, it is perfect as it is, with only a couple gripes, but i am sure those are in the works eventually. Neat stuff i wish i had more time to really use them, life gets so busy at times. But hey that's good too!

Sorry sslechta, but not everyone is so flush with money that they can throw away good stuff simply because the next new thing has come along, again and again and again.
AND - whats wrong with my mullet??!!
Ian

Got it Sixchannel, although I only paid $40 for Windows 8. It was heavily discounted for early adopters for the upgrade from Win7.

P.S. - I think I had my mullet until about '92.

well, the simple answer that nobody has mentioned is that RB can't do everything that BIAB can do. BIAB has been around longer and simply has more features.

But, as RB progressed, it certainly has added most of the key features of BIAB, and IMO it has already reached the point where everything I typically do to a project can be done from start to finish in Realband.

Some key Things RB can do that BIAB can't:
have more than 7 tracks
increase midi resolution
use multiple MIDI ports

Things RB can do that other DAWS can't do:
continue to add generated MIDI or real tracks
continue using PGMusic magic for a longer part of the song creation cycle

common work flow:
1) use BIAB to rapidly solidify an idea

2) use RB to add additional tracks from styles or RTs, and to surgically arrange everything where you want it

3) if your typical mixing doesn't require a bunch of resource hog plugs, make it easy on yourself and finish the project in RB

4) if you mix with multiple resource hogs like Session Horns, BFD3, Amplitube, and other sound libraries, then you almost need to move the project to a 64 bit DAW in order to use them all at the same time and really hear the unified mix.

This subject also depends upon what a particular user's wants and needs happen to be.

For example, those of us who love to play jazz and love improvising like Band in a Box better for the simple reason that, if a songfile is left unfrozen, each time it is loaded or regenerated creates a slightly different performance.

This is more in line with what a good jazz combo brings to the performance. And it simply adds to the fun of interpretation and improvisation, having to react to those subtle little accompaniment differences in realtime.

Also a super practice aid in that respect.

One thing I've noticed over the years on these forums is that perhaps far too many forum members tend to view these marvelous programs ONLY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WHAT IT IS THAT THEY WANT TO DO - with an attitude that what anybody else may be doing is irrelevant.


--Mac

I wouldn't go so far as to say that when people describe their experience it necessarily presumes any judgement about how other people use it...

I am reminded of the old parable about several blind men trying to come to an understanding of what an elephant must look like.

The blind man standing at the elephants head feels the trunk and reports that an elephant is like a snake.

The man at the ears reports that an elephant is like a large sheet of leather

The man at the side reports that an elephant is much like a boulder

The man at the legs reports that the elephant resembles 4 trees grouped together etc etc

Each of their reports is accurate, but you wouldn't get the big picture until you assembled all of the information into one image of an elephant.

The forum does the same thing... it provides a collection of many views and experiences, none of which minimizes the other, but all of which contribute to additional understanding of the topic.

Except for all the posts I've read over the years where someone just has to tell us what they think is "useless" or whatever about the features that they don't think we need, Pat.

--Mac

good point... I hadn't considered that

Bingo..... while no one specifically mentioned that, you can see it was touched on in a few of the early replies in this thread.


Simply put, they are 2 separate and unique programs, designed to work together, but each one has unique talents and abilities that the other does not. Each one serves a special role in the song creation process. Drop either one from the equation and the magic that we all know, love, and use, is gone.

I'm with Mac on this one.

It's okay to ask for features that help your workflow (and many have been implemented over time), but it drives me crazy when someone says, "Why does it do this? I don't need this. This is a worthless feature. Please remove it from the program."

If I recall correctly, someone even suggested completely removing MIDI from the program, because all they need are the RealTracks (since they didn't use MIDI).

That is one of the comments that I remember as well.

What's funny about it to me is that quite a few who declared the "no MIDI" stance are now the same ones clamoring that they cannot edit RealTracks as one would be able to do with MIDI. -- And completely misunderstanding the abject differences between the two.

Then there is the ever-repeating, "Too many Jazz styles" that comes around with every new release that also has plenty of other style genres included in it.

I'm just glad that PGM is not one of those companies that attempts to respond to such, instead offering many goodies for many different kinds of people. Won't mention any names, but there are softwares that I used to use - and pay for no longer - that succumbed to that sort of clamoring and in the process managed to make a mess out of what was once a promising endeavor.


--Mac

For me, simply put, I like to come up with a basic arrangement in BIAB then add the details in RB.

"all you whippersnappers who don't like MIDI and jazz should just get off my lawn!!"

Why do you feel that way about RealTracks?

Feel what way about RealTracks? I love's me some RealTracks and truth be told I am starting to love MIDI too now that I got GPO4 to play them better!

So then, who or what comment in this thread led you to post that remark?

honestly, no one in particular! I just read through the whole thread and it really has that "get offa my lawn" feel to it!

It's a horses for courses thing but another thing that's often not said is that you buy BIAB and you get RB bundled with it ... for no extra cost (yeah I'm sure the price we pay has accounted for RB but the price is worth it for BIAB alone)

They are becoming closer in terms of functionality and what you have between the two is more than you would get offered for the same price by other software companies.

I used to use BIAB to write and then move to RB but for me, RB is so good these days [for the kind of tracks I need to write], that it has become my "go to" app for even noodling with ideas.

The fact that PG have kept development going on both programs is just great and one day there may be a single app that incorporates all our requirements in one bag. Until then, there's still choice a plenty.

Not many developers would run two converging apps as separate entitites for ever.

The way I tend to think about it is like NT and windows. If you're running XP or later, you're actually running more NT than windows.

I also start in BIAB and then finish off in RB.

The songs just generate faster in BIAB and is just a little more intuitive (IMO) to speed up the first stage of getting the backtrack sorted. After that RB is again better suited for the recording phase of my creations.

Trevor wrote: Once opened in RB, save as a RB SEQ file, and then the next time the song is loaded in RB, it's instantly playable.
Thanks Trevor, I was getting ready to ask about that.
Joey

Hi Joey, thanks for the feedback and kind words. Glad to be able to assist in any small way possible.

Cheers
Trevor

I am a score writer who takes the BIAB generated midi file and imports it into FINALE 2014 and/or LOGIC Studio

RB and RealTracks do not alway generate a midi file. If you are preparing music for a band or orchestra that actually reads music, it is great to be able to generate those notes and have them printed out for the band to read.

Long Live BIAB.