Dear Programming Wizards,

It would be very helpful to be able to regenerate specific bars within a track rather than the entire track (via a dialog where one could choose individual bars/instruments leaving the rest of the music unchanged).

An alternative might be to be able to freeze selectively the bars you want to keep and regenerate the rest (or repeat a phrase).

If you have BIAB for Windows it also installs Realband and Realband can do this for you.

I would very much like to be able to regenerate sections of an otherwise great track in BIAB and stay in BIAB rather than take a song to RealBand. This request goes back many years.

+1

Same here.

A big +1

A BIG +1

That is this kind of feature that users want ASAP !

+1

I would gladly trade every new feature introduced since I first bought BIAB in 2012 for the ability to regenerate bar by bar, track by track in BIAB! And it would bring that goodness to Mac users since they don't have Realband. And I'd never have to open Realband again! Win-Win-Win!

Please PGM, please skip the less useful features like video tracks and just implement something extraordinarily useful like this. Please?

Have a look at Biab MultiRiffs an Easier Way

Definitely if RealBand can do it, then it's clearly possible and therefore BiaB should be able to do it also.

+1

Dude, I am blown away by what you manage to accomplish. I get lost pretty quickly trying to follow your "Biab MultiRiffs an Easier Way" post but I know that is on me. But thanks for all you do to try and add practical improvements to these products! It is much appreciated!!

Here's a Biab MultiRiff Demo (SGU+WAV)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/38y0puc0jfevrmf/Biab_MultiRiff_Demo.zip?dl=1

Just load the audio file in that you want the MultiRiff for.
With F5 on Bar 1 Mute each separate instrument but not the Audio track,
on the Bar you want the Riff to start F5 set each instrument from Mute to Back to normal,
on the Bar you want the Riff to stop F5 Mute each instrument.
You can start them sooner if you want some lead in notes and edit them in your DAW, or end later for tails notes or to fade out.

Assign the same instrument to all 7 tracks in the RT picker window.

To preview the Riffs, Solo the Audio Track (if not showing click Audio at the bottom right of the mixer)
right click the solo button on track 1 > play
right click the solo on track 1 then 2 > play
right click the solo on track 2 then 3 > play
etc...

When you have found the one that fits best drag that track to DROP WAV
to render just the riff bars, select the bars then drag that track to DROP WAV
Still can't find one ? Generate Play again.

You can Import the Exported Riff back into your original Biab song.

+1

+1 from me!

+1 I fully agree with Matt.

Yes!!! +1 !!

+1

Maybe I am thinking this wrong...
If it was up to me... What if you choose your real tracks, assuming to the bin (mixer). Program renders them to a lower quality "temp" files that is enough to work out the idea/sketch. For example, original files 100megs Temp low size files would be something like 10.

Having to render a lower quality files will make rendering process to much (MUCH!!) faster with option to render full weighted song. Meaning all the changes you make are just "changes" that will be saved to be used with small size temp files or with original files. This was the approach Adobe took in their video editing software Looooooooooong time ago.

And of course it should be possible to render just "selection" of timeline when working with full size files.

just my 2 cents

As I understand it, it actually takes longer to regenerate with lower quality (compressed) files. If you’re interested, I wrote about this in the Tips and Tricks forum, discussing the differences between regular and audiophile versions.

But I like your idea if it would work.

Of course it would work if it is done right

Idea is not mine at all (I wish) That is how Adobe handled large files for video editing decades ago.

I was thinking not compressing audio files, but diluting them.
For example 20meg Wav file to 1mg 128bit MP3 and so on. So essentially you have two "bins" One for original large files and one for temporary "working" files.

Ohh...
Another thing. Is it my mistake, or BIAB renders files taking the source from hard drive? I think working with them loaded in memory should make things faster.

Rustyspoon#,

I believe the assumption behind your thought is incorrect. RealTracks are stored in *.wma or *.wav formats for Windows and *.MP4 or *.aiff for Macs. A slight gain in rendering time, but a large reduction in storage space, can be achieved by converting compressed *.wma or *.MP4 RealTrack files to uncompressed *.wav or *.aiff files. In fact when RealTracks were first introduced some users converted their RealTracks to reduce rendering time. However even back then users acknowledged the time gain was very small.

RealTracks have a sample rate of 44.1Khz and a 16 bit depth irregardless if they are wav or aiff files. There is no simpler file format for PG Music to use.

Presently Band-in-a-Box does not have the capability for a user to select a track, highlight some bars of a song and then ask the program to come up with a different arrangement (rendering) for the highlighted bars. RealBand, a companion program that ships with the Windows version of Band-in-a-Box, has a feature that performs that function. The name of the feature is "multi-riff".

RealBand is not available for Mac users so they do not have access to the multi-riff feature. Many Windows Band-in-a-Box users are not comfortable using RealBand. That's why the idea of adding the multi-riff feature to Band-in-a-Box has support from both Windows and Mac users.

Hey Jim.
We met at Cakewalk forum
I am admitting that I might be wrong in many ways, but
I do not believe my assumption is wrong in the way BIAB handles real tracks.

Meaning, it is programming issue, not the hardware issue.
These rendering processes take way long, even on my fast i7-7600 CPU machine with fast SSD and plenty of memory. Philosophy on the engine that handles them should be re-thinked.

It is about the cleanliness of how you design software. If you remember, I mentioned ChordPulse program at Cakewalk forum. I am not going to compare apple to oranges here, but ChordPulse is a great example of robust code and clean user friendly interface that lasted for years without significant changes.

There is no excuse for PG programmers or their supervisor. Do not get me wrong, I love what the program can do, but execution of BIAB is just unacceptable for 2018. Will not be upgrading anytime soon unless they do it with their heart and not the place they have been doing it.

We’re almost there.

In the earliest days of RealTracks, a few of us users attempted to measure (in a very unscientific way) the difference between rendering the WMA files and the WAV files. We concluded it was maybe 20% faster with the uncompressed WAV files.

That difference is less now. When the Elastique algorithm was introduced, if your PC was fast enough, you could delete what was called the +- files. These eliminated fully 2/3 of the required files, since pitches could be shifted effectively using Elastique. Not only did it dramatically save storage space, but it seemed to work faster

In any event, the program first has to uncompressed a WMA file, and this is why the regular version regenerates a song slower than the audiophile version.

It is my understanding RealTracks are loaded into RAM, and that the real magic is then done by the CPU. Another way to say this is that the CPU seems to be by a good measure the most important component in how fast BIAB regenerates a song. Yet another way is to say that improving my CPU and RAM made much more of a difference than switching from a hard drive to an SSD, or from the PG Music USB drive to an internal hard drive.

I know that homework was done on this. But how sure you are that BIAB renders files in memory? Sorry, not being clear.... It sources them from hard drive when rendering and I believe they should be loaded in memory from the time you assign them to mixer and worked on the project from there. See attached.

I only know what I’ve read. I would guess the reason you see that message is that you might want to play a frozen song, in which case that audio is loaded rather than the RealTracks and RealDrums specified in the mixer. Those are only loaded before regeneration.

It’s a valid question, whether the efficiency can be improved.

Rustyspoon#,

You've got a good memory to remember me from the Cakewalk forum! Did I mention ChordPulse to you or did you mention it to me? I've had the program for a long time and don't remember now how I first found out about the program; I'm glad I did though as it's a wonderful program. However, I feel comparing ChordPulse to Band-in-a-Box is an unfair comparison. That's kind of like comparing a Volkswagon Beetle to a Rolls Royce. Both are reliable, European vehicles but beyond that, they are hard to compare.

As you mentioned, +++ Chordpulse +++ is an accompaniment program that uses styles to create songs. So ChordPulse and Band-in-a-Box share that functionality. However beside that shared function the two programs differ.

ChordPulse has a simple but elegant user interface while Band-in-the-Box's interface is much more complicated. But that is because the Band-in-a-Box program has many more features. ChordPulse is a midi only program that relies on Windows' built-in GS wavetable for sound reproduction. Band-in-a-Box midi can use any midi driven external or internal sound module. However BiaB also use audio sources such as audio loops, user created audio, RealTracks and or RealDrums. ChordPulse can create a general midi file. So can Band-in-a-Box. Band-in-a-Box can create, display and print notation while ChordPulse does not offer anything similar.

But, I don't think your intention was to imply the two programs were equal. I suspect your intent was to highlight the minimal but elegant user interface of ChordPulse versus the busy and complicated user interface of Band-in-a-Box.

PG Music has been making incremental changes to the user interface in the last few years so I believe PG Music is aware change is needed. However, the program is so versatile and users use the program in so many different ways that I believe it is difficult for PG Music to know what features to highlight. But every year they tweak and receive user feedback regarding what works and what doesn't work.

Band-in-a-Box regenerates on the fly. By that I mean Band-in-a-Box renders the first few bars of a song then begins playback while regenerating the rest of the song as a background task. I don't know of any other program that builds tracks that way. Maybe one way to make the program more efficient would be to delay playback until all tracks are completely regenerated.

If you get the Windows Task Manager up and look at the RAM being used by bbw.exe you will see it grow as the tracks are generated, add double the amount of bars and double the RAM is used.
The saved SGU with frozen tracks will just contain the the position, length and transposed information only of the section from the source wav/wma so it will use that information to load the same section back to RAM rather than a new random one.
In RealBand it uses bbw2.exe in the background to generate up the tracks direct to wav in a temp folder then loads them into the RealBand tracks as wav. So it will use all 7 tracks in bbw2.exe to generate up 7 MultiRiff of the same intrument to wav segments in the Realband temp folder then overwrite that section of track in RealBand with the MultiRiff you choose.

Jim, as I mentioned I do not want to compare apples to oranges. I only brought up ChordPulse to put accent on what is elegance vs clutter. Complexity should not be excuse for clutter.

Guys, I know that you are trying to help, thank you! I am sure you know about BIAB 10 times more than I. The last time I have tried it over a decade ago and gave up on it. This year I bought it and tried to approach it with open mind. This thread caught my attention, because rendering does steal a lot of time and when I have the time and the mood to make backing tracks, I do not want to waste a good chunk of it on rendering processes.

The point that I am trying to make is, I believe frozen or not BIAB goes to the source location of files on hard drive instead of loading active real tracks (the ones used in composition) directly to memory each time you click on that "render" button. If I am not mistaken, probably it is the culprit of the problem.

Most likely that code was written at the time when computers had 512megs of Ram on average, not the case now. Again, I am guessing here, but I think I am right on the getting files from hard drive each time when rendering instead of keeping them in memory.

What does PG say about this? Do they even reply to such concerns?

Rustyspoon#,

You're correct that you can spend a lot of time waiting for Band-in-a-Box to render. Selective rendering could reduce wasted time. But at the same time that's why I appreciate the multi-riff feature in RealBand. I believe the more you try to force Band-in-a-Box to render bars exactly to match specifically what you hear in your mind, the more time you will spend waiting while tracks are rendered. That is time lost.

I also believe new users loose more time than seasoned users. New users must try more styles and instruments than seasoned users because new users are not as familiar with the available styles and RealTracks. Demo songs can not accurately represent how an instrument will sound with the chord progressions, other instruments and styles you may be using in your song.

I can say that experience seems to dramatically speed up the song building process, especially if you frequently create songs similar to your past creations.

Jim, I think we have a bit different views on things.
You are telling me that you can make 20 great dished with potato and I am telling you that potato must be cooked first.
I think RealBand is irrelevant piece of software (I think I will be eaten by now). BIAB should be one program not two. RealBand probably one of the worst DAW wannabees of the 21st century. Especially now, when you have amazing Cakewalk with great engineer team that listens, for free.

Please do not take this as an insult. I am just trying to view this realistically. Believe me, I want BIAB to be robust, modern, user friendly software and not a patient on "life support" infused by cash of loyal followers.


I think both of these things: selective rendering and option of "holding" active realtracks in memory should reduce rendering time to minimum.

As pointed out it all depends on how much RAM you have, and the size of the tracks you're trying to render. I suspected the same thing, but then again I believe it also happened on my machine with only 8gb of ram.

My external drive ran out of space, and that is how I figured out it was using the drive to render. I don't think I ever got a definitive answer on it. I thought if anything it should have been using the internal drive to render if not the RAM.

Nope. I do not believe you are right. My memory does not spike above 25% and CPU at 38% when rendering. I believe the slowness in rendering is caused by program taking/gathering audio files from their original sources each time you click "render/play" button.

To me, if BIAB shows loading while rendering from C: it is loading from C:

I want somebody from PG to answer this relatively simple question instead of users wondering and speculating. This is called answering customer question.

Just a tip, then: why no contact Support? They will be happy to answer your questions. It's not their job to monitor this board and evaluate every post to see if they need to reply.

Just a tip.

Mike, you were right, that was the easiest thing

To those who still have doubts. It was confirmed by PG that every time you press "generate/play" button, BIAB goes to the source files on your hard drive. or where you store your files, does not work with them (keeps them) in memory.
Ram has very little to do with the time it takes to render/play composition because of re-indexing. Horrible approach...

If they were kept/worked in memory it would take much, much less time.

I don't know this for sure but maybe they had to do it this way because it is a 32 bit program. 32 bit programs only have 3.5 GBs to work with, that is without some kind of addition workaround software like jBridge for MIDI.

I would guess that a 64 bit program could eliminate the operating procedure.

"Ram has very little to do with the time it takes to render/play composition because of re-indexing. Horrible approach...

If they were kept/worked in memory it would take much, much less time."




As one who never had a doubt, I already knew this, I'll skip ahead to what I think is the issue being overlooked. With the focus of this thread being on what the computer is doing, most of the comments say nothing about what BIAB is doing. It has been noted that the amount of ram is not essential which lead some to have concern about rendering time.

What some think is a "Horrible approach" is to me a brilliant design feature that brings the magic of quality, studio grade audio to many students, songwriters, producers, teachers and hobbyists that have limited resources so they can't have the latest $5,000 CPU running Protools highest level pro version and mixing to an SSL console. However, they may have the audio technical skill to write, create, arrange, produce and perform a BIAB song on an XP machine with a $20 Behringer interface or worse -- a usb Snowball Mic -- to create a quality production that is indistinguishable from any other song published in the Users Showcase. To me, that alone is reason enough to forego irrelevant and faster rendering.

BIAB technology is about creating audio and not about replacing Protools on your machine. If you think RealBand is useless, you probably need to spend some time over on the Mac forum. Many there would love to have it. Because you may not can get the results you want from RealBand doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means you can't do it. Even with its relatively slow rendering, you can create a BIAB song much faster, with less steps, than you can in a DAW.

Let's do a real life rendering comparison, for time and money.

1. Joe Gilder, Home Studio Recording website and YouTube

Joe is a Nashville singer/songwriter and session musician that has a popular YouTube presence for home recording and also creates tutorials for Presonus. Joe and four other Nashville session musicians also provide a demo service. Approximately once a month they get together at one of the players home studio and over the course of the day create 5-9 demos they've contracted to complete for clients. The client submits an MP3 and either a phone conversation or skype call to describe their vision for their completed demo. Once agreement is reached on the demo structure and general arrangement, Gilder's group offers a basic package of 5 instruments, Bass, Piano, Drums, rhythm guitar and lead guitar for $550. Does their package of 5 instruments sound familiar? Next, one of the group charts the song and they discuss and decide on the final arrangement. Then they record the song (it usually gets done in one take but sometimes they have to overdub mistakes. Joe states recording is usually done in 10-12 minutes.) Once all the tracks are properly recorded, WAV files of each track are dropboxed to the client for the client to mix/master in their own DAW.

That's a real scenario and we see that from the time the client submits his MP3, it may take up to 3 1/2 weeks or more to get their WAV tracks. If they decide to add additional instruments, there is an additional cost in time and money. If they want to audition additional instruments or split solo parts between instruments, there is additional cost in time and money.

2. Same Recording done in BIAB

In this story, the client is your next door neighbor. He comes to you with an MP3 Saturday night about six. After the third beer he's convinced you to create and arrange a BIAB demo for his song.

To chart his MP3 song to BIAB, you play the MP3 through the ACW (Audio Chord Wizard) With a few chord corrections, you have the BIAB chord chart completed, Part markers placed, the correct key signature and the correct tempo and time signature. You spend about 10 minutes with your neighbor in the StylePicker selecting a suitable style and set of instruments. You replace one RealTrack guitar with a selection you both like better and you decide on a lead soloist.
Using F5, you create your arrangement in about another 10 minutes. You generate the song and your neighbor is so excited with his demo he heads out to the convenience store to get you a 12 pack while you print his song to CD. If you want to experiment with auditioning other soloist instruments, you can do dozens before you and your neighbor consume the 12 pack.

To me, this sort of displaces the aggravation of a 25 second render.... It doesn't matter how many times you render before you are satisfied. A track will render before you can set up and complete a live punch in.


Another thing when one's focus is directed to only the single source of what the computer is doing and not what BIab is or can do, is it eliminates many, many analog recording techniques available for use in BIAB to accomplish and obtain results that some have spent thousands of dollars on additional software unaware that BIAB can do the same without ever leaving the program.

I'm probably alone with my thoughts here, but I'm not feeling the benefits of the computer architecture that I've seen in the thread.

I chose the group of Nashville session musicians for several specific reasons. One- Their group of musicians and instruments are similar in makeup to many BIAB styles. Two- They are multi talented musicians so they can easily and quickly offer and provide additional instruments to exchange out the basic setup with other less common instruments that may fit a particular demo song better, eg. banjo, fiddle, pedal steel, dobro. Third- There is the common denominator between this specific group of session musicians and BIAB RealTrack musicians being that at least one of Gilders bandmates is also a BIAB session player....

Charlie, I think you are missing the point.
You do not need $5000 CPU.... All you need is 8-16gb of RAM on $150-$300 computer A used i7 Thinkpad would be great example of that.

10-15 years ago, I can agree that would be a "brilliant" approach. Now it would considered to be a very sloppy programming.

The only point where I can agree with you on this is to have this feature available for people who are using 10-15 year old computers. For vast majority there should be a choice, an OPTION of choosing between rendering from hard drive OR doing the process in memory.

Adobe and other software companies had this option for over a decade to choose how processes are handled.

Just because riding a horse is faster than walking is no reason not to build a car!

And I wish that the ACW worked even half as good as Charlie described. I've tried to use it on simple songs with simple chords and found its quicker and way less frustrating to type in the song!

"For vast majority there should be a choice, an OPTION of choosing between rendering from hard drive OR doing the process in memory.

Adobe and other software companies had this option for over a decade to choose how processes are handled."

You're right. I'm missing the point. You missed my point that in its present form, Biab works with every PC configuration from XP to the futuristic next years super whiz bang model meaning the final audio product is the same quality and sound regardless of the computer the audio is generated on. Your suggestion removes that option of universality and eliminates many users from compatibility with future versions of BIAB.

I'm missing what improvement in sound quality of the audio that 64 bit, selective regeneration will make? What will it produce that is different from what BIAB produces today? Why will a rendering from a hard drive sound different or be superior to current rendering?

My guess is that adobe and other software programs that have made major changes to their core programs most likely have early versions of songs created with their product that are incompatible and cannot be opened with the latest version. I don't see where BIAB and Adobe processing differences are an issue. BIAB creates audio tracks Adobe does not. So isn't the rendering speed of BIAB a mute point when it comes to what Adobe does? What is the difference between having a live player record a track in Adobe and importing a RealTrack created in BIAB? If rendering speed is an issue, isn't a 25 second render of a 3 1/2 minute track preferable to a live player recording a similar track but having to do it in real time of 3 1/2 minutes?

It works that way for me. I'll repeat with respect, what I said above about RealBand. Because you may not can get the results you want from the Audio Chord Wizard doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means you can't do it. It also doesn't mean you that with some work and practice it can't be as efficient for you as it is for me. Some songs yield faster and more accurate results than others and more times than not, I don't use the ACW for speed. That's not the value and benefit it gives me. I've no more to say about the ACW because this thread is about another subject that has no effect on the ACW and how it works.

If you want to test the speed generating tracks straight from RAM and not hard drive files, just create a RAM Drive, create a RealTracks and Drums folder on it, copy the RealTracks and Drums folders that the style uses to the RAM drive, point Biab to these new locations.
This will work better if you have wav files rather that wma that need decompressing first.

google > ram drive software free

Or it means that my requirements/standards for a software program are higher than yours! And to your other point about maintaining compatibility with XP, if true, that is a very bad business decision! XP is long gone with no future whatsoever and below 5% of all Windows users are using it. I suspect the delay in upgrading BIAB to a more modern standard has a lot more to do with the hardship of converting an ancient codebase and less to do with a desire to maintain compatibility with XP.

I will guess that less than 5% of ALL window users have BIAB installed on their computers so there is no business decision to be made. Even if there are only 20 XP users in the entire world, they can buy Biab, install it and make music, practice, perform or any other use available to everyone that uses the program and that music can be indistinguishable from the music created by the user with the latest hardware. That's a claim most current DAW's cannot make.

But, if Dr. Gannon's vision for PGMusic is that when he's ready to retire, to dissolve the company, take the money, and move to a deserted island in warmer weather than what he currently enjoys, he may do that. If he does, I'm good. Good for the rest of my life. So are all of the XP users at whatever number that may be. So are you. My point being Dr. Gannon may have no interest in re-inventing BIAB. If that were to be the case, the investment money needed to upgrade to a more modern software would better serve his retirement nest egg wouldn't it?

I firmly and sincerely believe that BIAB generated tracks have quietly been included in main stream commercial recordings. There is absolutely no question that commercial grade audio can be produced in BIAB. The same is even more true when utilizing BIAB MIDI styles and pro grade midi synths. Don't overlook the product, produced by those 5 Nashville session musicians charging $550 for a song, can easily be replicated with the same quality of backing tracks from BIAB. Good arranging and skill in using BIAB by a top tier BIAB user could make tracks every bit as good as those live session players.

I speculate that at some time in the future if BIAB is to continue to be included in audio production, the company will follow the lead of all the major DAW manufacturers and orphan the current BIAB suite and introduce a complete new version that is incompatible with the current software. It will update VST integration, have unlimited Ram access, break the 44.1/16 barrier and have the highest recording specs at which time it could move into the Ilok dongle commercial recording arena and compete with loops...

I realize I'm in the minority and that's ok. But here's what I don't get with my minority view and why I don't get it. What does the majority think they are gaining with their higher requirements and standards for the software of the current version of BIAB/RB when, as you stated in your last response to me, you and many others cannot grasp or properly use the ACW? The ACW is an XP era so called antiquated and outdated software. I still have two working DOS machines with green screen, big analog monitors, that can be used to write a number one NY Times bestseller and that book will look and read like every other book on the best seller list. Today, any BIAB user can write, arrange and produce a song in any version of BIAB, from a location anywhere in the world, and it could become a number one song and sell millions of copies. I don't think more gear will necessarily and automatically improve the music...

Pipeline, good thoughts! But it is useless in the big picture. Random Access is about 20 times faster than SSD. Every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows that (well almost). I do not need to prove it to myself. I know it will be lightning fast compared to current way.

Charlie, no disrespect, but I think you are a little bit jammed up in the way of thinking about this. I said, it would be logical to have a CHOICE between working with active tracks in memory OR from hard drive (just he way you like it). This should be relatively easy to implement.

If done from the memory, I believe it would solve the selected part "re-genereation". It would just not be an issue. It can render items everytime you click on the specific bar, to play from that bar with newly added changes or such.

If PG's goal is to cash in and walk, as you suggest, then maintaining ancient code is fine. But kinda crummy for all the PGM employees!

I agree BIAB produces world class tracks and can guarantee they have been used in licensed music! But the reason it stays kinda obscure is it has not been updated to modern standards. And maybe, in a way, that is a plus for those of us who use it!

And we can just disagree on things like ACW and analog green screen monitors. I've never been impressed by folks doing things the hard way. Yeah, you can write a novel with a green screen. You can write a novel with a typewriter. You can write a novel on grocery bags with crayons. I prefer to use technology so I can focus on my art and not struggle with outdated tools.

All keen and worthwhile ideas Rusty. However, I don't think it has been disclosed exactly what BiaB does internally when producing output.

So. do we know how much is from internal RAM and what is simultaneously being produced in the background from a drive?

The program is multi-threaded, but I guess you already know that.

VideoTrack, BIAB gathers tracks from the original source in hard drive every time it re-generates. This was confirmed to me by PG. Regardless of what it does next, this indexing process of gathering stuff from hard drive by itself takes most of rendering time.

It is like having a full basket of blueberries with a few rasberries burried somewhere, mixed in. So re-generation process has to find those "rasberries" each time and put it in your cup, instead of finding them once and keeping them separate.

So when program asks: WhEre ArE mY RasBeRRiEs?!?! it would be logical to have them separate and say: "Here they are, master..." And not do this: "One second master, here is one....ohh.. I found another one....here, here there is one more" and so on...

That makes absolute sense to me. Absolutely, where else would the data come from? Certainly not the compter's RAM. So, it has to get into RAM in the first place. Imagine loading every realtrack option into RAM at startup so it would be more immediately available. How long might startup take? Imagine the same for an Audiophile system. Loading everything into RAM at startup. Can't imagine? No? Neither can I.
Startup would take a very, very long time, and most computers would page swap a thousand-trillion times faster than you can read this message.

It sounds as though you don't use Frozen tracks?

In Frozen tracks, the system already knows exactly what to use and where everything is and doesn't need to go searching.

Do you use Frozen Tracks?

Does this help?

(You're ideals are virtuous, but I'm not sure that you understand the complexities?)

No offense intended in this reply.

Ok. Last post from me on this subject period, regardless. I'll address the few things from your last post to take this conversation full circle.

If PG's goal is to cash in and walk, ....

That's the beauty of speculation. It can be anything we wish. In your world, Dr. Gannon craps out on his employees. In my world, he gives each employee a million dollars and signs the rights to all the Biab code, trademarks and brand to the ones that want it and these former employees go on to redesign a new BIAB that has all the elements of the Wishlist, 192k, 32 bit floating, unlimited RAM, Dante, full vst integration, 192k RealTracks, a 6000 piece supermidi instrument list, Complete Kontakt library, Complete Garritan Library, 50,000 plus new RealTracks, Replace Realband with a fully functional, fully integrated choice of DAW between Reaper, Cakewalk, Cubase, Studio One and Protools and a Roland Integra 7. Ships with buyers choice of 32 channel Behringer X32, Presonus Studiolive or Yamaha LS9. Oh, and sadly ships at a price point that only the largest commercial studios in the world can afford...

I agree BIAB produces world class tracks and can guarantee they have been used in licensed music! But the reason it stays kinda obscure is it has not been updated to modern standards. And maybe, in a way, that is a plus for those of us who use it!

Yes, it can be world class. My thought to why differs a bit from yours. I don't think the entire problem is computer coding although I certainly concede there are those, such as yourself and others, that already use the program that it is a significant drawback. I think the percentage of those that think it makes the program obsolete and outdated would largely lose their voice were a major studio release a project by a major artist, a major producer that would become a mega hit. Just as the industry now has mainstream commercial releases of pop, hip hop, house and makes use of loops, samples and synthesizers of songs by programmers that are not musicians but know how to construct modern music completely in the box and do not need a major studio to operate from to generate mega hits. I think a major hit from a major artist, major producer from a top recording company creating the musical backing solely from BIAB generated audio tracks could cause another shift in the industry.

And we can just disagree on things like ACW and analog green screen monitors.

I don't see where we disagree on our personal statements we made about these two items.

"I've never been impressed by folks doing things the hard way..."

Ouch, sorry I've been unable to impress you. The good thing is I didn't have any intention of changing your mind but rather simply voice a different opinion.

"I prefer to use technology so I can focus on my art and not struggle with outdated tools."

I get it. You prefer presets composed by professionals rather 'struggling' with learning to use the tools you have .... I've no problem with that but I will share with you -- There is a reason a Universal Audio 1176 hardware unit sells for $1,999 today versus the emulation plugin by Waves CLA-76 for $39. Here's excerpts from a 4 Star review on the CLA-76 from A Sweetwater review, "After comparing the real thing to the plugin, I laughed and thought, that's cute. Although the plugin doesn't sound anywhere near the real thing .... The Waves plugin only slightly mimics this at BEST."

But you do get those professional presets...

For me, I've had a home recording studio continuously since 1968 and with time and experience, do not find working with antiquated, outdated technology a struggle or difficult at all. That's probably just me though.

Have fun. I'm out of here.

Charlie, I love your scenario about PG walking away! Well, except for that last part about the price.

I apologize for my rude-sounding comment about not being impressed. I reread it and it was not nice nor necessary!

You missed my point about using technology. It is NOT about presets. But it is about the tool getting out of my way so I can do the art. As an example, I really do not like Realband because of how clunky and slow it is sometimes. Waiting for the scrolling to catch up and having the mouse disappear for several seconds while it appears to be locked up is just unacceptable in a GUI in 2018. And that frustration definitely negatively affects my creativity.

Regarding whether the Waves plug matches the Universal Audio 1176, I doubt very many people would care! All of these plugs that claim to perfectly emulate Abbey Road Studios' Reverb Plate Room or whatever are just marketing hype! If I can produce a great track no one (except me) cares how I achieved it.

I bet if my version was to come true, there would be some houses mortgaged!! I have to say that would truly be an awesome program...

All is good regarding any comments.

Not really missed it completely. I had just watched Chris Lord Alge on YouTube with a mixing seminar using his signature CLA Waves plugins. He mixed using only CLA plugins and only the presets because he designed the presets based on how he actually uses the plugins in a mix. The presets were his starting point and more than 90% of the time, the presets work as is without any tweaks. To me, that's getting the tool out of the way and freeing up focus on the art itself, correct? I was being a bit facetious with my comment. Sorry.

I get what you are saying about RealBand or any other unstable software. Uninterrupted concentration can be fairly critical to a project. Especially now at my age and with my memory and train of thought. I'm now just an engine and caboose.

"If I can produce a great track no one (except me) cares how I achieved it." Yes. That is really the salient point isn't it? Enjoyed our conversation and I'm really out of here this time.

VideoTrack... I think we have miscommunication... Or I do not understand something trivial. Here is what I am talking about: When you select real tracks for your composition, ONLY THOSE CHOSEN tracks should reside and worked with in memory, NOT all of BIAB realtracks... I am talking about 5-6 selected real tracks here. And for folks like Charlie, who might not have a couple of gigs of RAM to be speared, good old way of gathering them from HD should be present.

I believe Freezen tracks is something else. They remain "frozen" and do not accept changes unless you "unfreeze" them for rendering.

Have a try of it anyway with the RAM Drive and see how it goes compared to hard drive access. If it is a lot quicker then you will know that is where the problem is and not something else it's doing in the back ground.
I would think it would read the RealTrack info from the particular instrument's XT2 or ST2 calculating what is best then load those sections from the associated file/files in the RealTrack instrument folder. The RealTrack files are different keys as far as I can remember so it should only be working with one of them at a time. The time might be spent calculating or something else rather than reading the file sections to RAM ???? That's why it might be worth trying the RAM Drive first see what difference it makes.
Also I don't know if it was mentioned above anywhere, but check the Speed up Generation...settings in RT Prefs.

Maybe with the MultiRiffs, Biab could use another instance in the background (if necessary as it might be able to generate up one riff at a time using the one track ??) as RB does to generate generate up 7 choices for your selected bars/beats then it would only be a matter of copying the MultiRiff track section data (realtrack file, position, transpose, tempo etc..) then replace the existing track data @ the chosen bars/beats of the frozen track, then regenerate that track back to RAM using the frozen data plus the new data from the MultiRiff. If that riff is not suitable do the same with riff 2 and so on, if a suitable riff is not found the track will revert back to the original that Biab froze beforehand.

And/Or create a BiabVST that will do all this in a nice DAW smile