Re; regeneration times of traks.
What I’m finding is that in doing a song that if one uses rb from the begin of writing the song that because of drawing of the traks waveforms visually in rb that
genning takes longer in rb vis a vis biab.
I feel it might be an advantage to offer an option in rb to turn off waveform Re drawing for those of us that like to work fast on a new song.
This way, for me rb would be a perfect song composition vehicle cos Of the 48 track flexibility,,,, then I could just drop my final genned Traks into reaper for final tarting up and mixdown etc etc.
Anyone see what I’m driving at ??
OR am i bonkers ?? lol.
so for now as i like to work fast looks like i have to keep to biab cos of shorter gen times.

Hi manning,

The reason RB is slower (and BIAB is faster) is because it fully generates each track before it starts playing.

BIAB, on the other hand, only generates the first few bars of each track before playback starts. BIAB then completes the generation of the tracks as a background process while the song playback continues.

Regards,
Noel

... which makes BIAB sometimes stutter, CPU-wise, in underpowered machines while RB does not.

I'm assuming if you turned off the checkbox for "Speed Up Generation for RealTracks" the performance of the two programs would be similar (Opt., Preferences, RealTracks).

^^
(up 2 posts) would be my reasoning ..
Linear versus the 'chorus' method.
Plus RB is saving the files in temp memory (no regenerating next play)

your call, but the few seconds are worth it here

It's way more than a few seconds if you simply open a Biab song that has all RT's in RB. It can take 10-15 minutes or so and even longer than that if you have a soloist RT. This was the primary reason for developing the D&D function.

Initially, when RB was first created, being able to open a Biab file was a big thing until all the RT's came out. Now it's a complete waste of time. You can cook and eat breakfast while the song is generating if you try that.

RB has many ways to allow you to get your project done like only generating the exact bars you need rather than generating an entire track for example or using the Bars window to move song sections around or to copy entire sections to extend a song.

But trying to use RB as if it's Biab is not very efficient. If it's Biab you need then use Biab not RB.

Bob

If it takes 10-15 minutes there must be another problem with a setting or something, as my computer has just over a gig of ram and although it does take longer in realband but maybe only 1 minute longer if that, or course the more tracks the longer it takes but it still never takes even 10 minutes.

Yeah, if it took 10 minutes I'd quit.

I have the temp files on another drive. That may help, but even a full minute would seem like quite a wait here.
Sounds like something else may be causing this.

/My machine specs are less than yours, jazzmammal, except maybe drive space/use

EDIT:
rereading original post and am now wondering if OP is leaving the first 8 tracks as BiaB Tracks .. if you regenerate every track every time, then indeed BB is markedly faster.

Once In RB I use the feature 'Make All BB tracks Regular Tracks' so I don't regenerate everything every time.

I've never ran across anything that took longer than 30-40 seconds to generate, and even that sounds like a stretch.

Holy crap, now I think I'm losing it. First I just opened RB and I got an error box saying I didn't have the activation ticket and to try reinstalling. I just used it maybe 10 days ago to create some charts for a gig and it was fine.

I reinstalled it and discovered I also needed the last update so I did that, then I opened and reactivated it. It's good so I found a 5 RT Biab song and it generated the whole thing in about a minute. What the...? Now I'm thinking about this and I don't think I've tried that for maybe two years or longer. I specifically remember reporting that generation time during one of the beta's and nobody said any different at the time but two years is a lifetime for software.

I hate putting bad info in the forum so move on, nothing to see here...

Bob