PG Music Home Forums PG Music Product Forums Band-in-a-Box for Windows Recording audio track

Need some help from some of you tech guys or others who know.
I have 2012 version of BB with the Forte soft synth downloaded from PG Music. It's run on Windows 7 on my SONY VAIO E Series lap top. I've imputed a bunch of songs that I run directly from my laptop into a mixer amp & speakers. I sing & play guitar with these songs at small venue gigs for elder care facilities, group homes and the like. I now would like to record my voice on the audio track in order to harmonize it. I would then mute one, then sing the other live to the recorded voice, effectively singing a duet with myself. Going through the steps from the manual, when pressing the "Recording Properties" button the "Recording Control" panel doesn't come up. You're supposed to be able to set the recording level for different devices; in my case a USB mic. Instead, a message comes up that says: "No entry found for Mixer or AWE Control" It goes on to say I don't have a SoundBlaster or need to re-install the software. I called PG music up & the person told me just to go ahead, record & just skip that step & everything will likely be OK. Well I have some trepidation & some questions I need to ask: What is a SoundBlaster anyway? Is it just a souped up version of a sound card? Was it supposed to be in BB when I bought it? If not, why is there a SB icon on the main screen? Do I need it? If so, how do I acquire it? Will the sound quality on recorded audio be any less without it? Hope to get answers to these questions. Please talk English as much as possible.
Thanks,
Russ66

The Soundblaster reference is old and referred to an aftermarket soundcard that was made by Creative. At one time it was very popular.

Your USB soundcard should work fine, if you simply do what Support said, ignore the Soundblaster part and keep on past it, see if your USB doesn't work to record a test audio track, it should, if it doesn't, likely an internal setting in the usb device's control panel, this is the place to get help on that if it happens.


--Mac

Hi Russ

This YouTube video might give you some pointers:
Recording Guitar Audio in Band In A Box

The presenter is recording a Guitar in place of a Microphone, but everything else should be the same

Hope this helps
Cheers
Trevor

I'll say that you should first try what tech said.... ignore the notice and forge ahead. See if that works OK.

A soundblaster is a soundcard. And generally not a very good one either for recording music. A USB mic is also seen by the computer as a sound card and that can, at times, create it's own problems since you generally have to use the computer's default (factory) soundcard for playback. Sample rates and clock timing issues can wreak havoc on the playback.

Generally, unless you are on a higher end DAW, and or using soft synths, the factory card will work OK for music. I've had no problems using BB & RB on factory sound cards. When I record with my Sonar DAW, I do use an aftermarket interface. Factory doesn't cut that job at all.

For live gigging, I would consider mixing the tunes down to CD. I have done a little bit of live venue stuff since I got into this hobby. I record the song in full, with all parts, and then simply mute the lead vocal and acoustic guitar parts. I burn that edited version to a CD and spin that on the gig. I sing the lead, all the harmonies are where they're supposed to be and at the right levels, and the same for the guitar. I even mute the solo's and play them live as well. That works like a charm for me on the rare occasions that I play live. I even set up the set list and burn the CD accordingly.

Just my 2 cents..... you certainly don't have to do it this way.

Thank you Mac,Videotrack and Guitarhacker. I'm glad there are guys like you out there. I've been having fun with BB singing & playing guitar with it. Over time I've gotten better at imputing and editing songs but would now like to do some vocal recording to spice up my voice when singing for others. I guess I'll proceed with my USB recording mic. & see if I'm satisfied with it. I'm aware that some of you don't think too much of them. I'm generally satisfied with the sound I get directly from laptop through the mixer-amp & speakers. I did upgrade to a better soft synth called Forte from PG Music. The question is whether this would be good enough for doing vocals on the audio track. Now when you talk about interfaces, do you mean an external sound module? When I started with this I had intended on getting one, but opted for the Forte soft synth to save some money. These are dumb questions I know, but I'm learning, considering that when I started this stuff I barley knew the difference between a channel & a track! There is also the question of mixing. Someone from the forums I can't remember who, stressed the importance to me of getting a decent mix, by setting up in a large area like a big garage, not a small one, doing the mix then freezing the tracks. This I did & it comes out pretty good for the small venue gigs I do. I also have the advantage of seeing the music & lyrics as I sing & play. Now he also recommended to not burn to CD or MP3, but to take the laptop with on the gig. Only with much experience with mixing should I render anything to an MP3 or CD. So this brings another question to mind: Under what enviorment would you mix before burning a CD? Obviously, a CD can be played in any place large or small right? Anyway, I can deal with that later. For now I need to know more about getting my voice on the audio track & whether it will be good enough with the stuff I have right now or not.
I really do appreciate you guys out there on the forums & at PG Music. I feel as though I've come along way from where I started, nut have a ways yet.
russ66

Using a USB mic and the resultant issues with that is not about the quality of the sound it can record. It's about having everything work together and in sync in the mixing stages. AS I mentioned, the USB mic is a sound card to the computer. You already have a sound card in the computer. The USB mic's soundcard is generally only a one way device..... sound into the computer, so to hear things, you have to use the factory sound card. Since the sound cards don't use a common clock for timing, it's very possible for the tracks to get out of sync, and unless the sample rates are the same on both, you will also have issues there. The factory card often uses MME as it's driver and that driver doesn't handle the processing of synths in real time very well. As a result, you often experience dramatic latency in the playback of that synth track even though it looks to line up perfectly with the audio tracks. Mix that with the timing and clock issues and you can have a real frustrating mess on your hands.

Laptop mics are not recommended for recording something you are planning to burn to a CD.

Interfaces vs sound module. The sound module, as I understand them are midi based devices that accept midi input and provide a sound output. Similar to using a soft synth but simply in a hardware format. Many of these are rack mountable for stage and studio use. They have superb sound samples in most cases. Many have upload capabilities to add new sounds. I've seen these used on stage to provide a very realistic grand piano sound for a band using a compact midi keyboard. Beats dragging a baby grand in the back seat of the car. To a listener who knows, it is very very hard to tell the difference between a professional sound module and the real thing.

The interface is simply an external (in many cases) soundcard. Most of them now connect with a USB cable. For many home enthusiast recording aficionado's, the third party, after market sound card or more commonly referred to as an Interface, is the way to go. Most folks who are in this hobby will eventually move to one of them simply because they make the recording and playback process so much easier. For most commercial type work, it's a "must have" piece of gear.

The size of the room you record in is not as critical as your skill set. I record in the corner of a small room. My studio space is about 6 feet, by 7 feet and that is being generous. The room, while it does play a part in the sound of things that are mic'd..... it plays no part in the stuff like MIDI in the box. Again, on the playback and mixing stages, the room will color how you hear the mix. This is probably the most important point where the room is critical. You can approach this from one of several ways.
1. Go whole hog and treat the room acoustically if you have the time, money and your wife will let you.
2. Purchase software to help figure out the nulls and peaks and resonant freqs and set that software up properly and use it. (ARC / automatic room correction software)
3. Play a number of commercial CD's and "learn" the room and your speakers. Use that as your reference to what a "good mix" sounds like in that room, on that gear.

You don't mix for a specific environment. You mix so that it will sound acceptable in the majority of environments. The only way to do that is to have the mix you are hearing be as ACCURATE as possible. Part of this is the gear. Using studio reference monitors vs using home stereo speakers or head phones for the sound source is critical. Most home stereo speakers are designed to sound a certain way, to accentuate certain freqs, and to color the sound intentionally. In a studio, you want to hear what is really happening, not listen through rose colored glasses. If there's a problem in the rhythm guitar EQ, you need to hear it in the studio and fix that before you print it to the CD.

By getting a grip on the real sound of your mix through one of the methods I listed above, you should be able, with time and skills you acquire, to mix so that it will play well in small and large spaces and not be bottom or top heavy or have mid range issues.

Hope this helps you a bit.

It takes most people years to build these skills but it depends too on how badly you want it, and how hard you work and apply yourself to this hobby and art form. Just as it takes years to become proficient on piano or guitar, the same thing applies to mixing and mastering. It's a learning process and you often don't know what you don't know. But, keep studying and learning and one day you will.

Ask questions, post songs and don't be afraid of the critical comments.

Russ,

I think that once you get your backup harmony vocals recorded, you'll be just fine using your BIAB mix on your laptop. K.I.S.S. Principle.

As for “Mixing” - I would mix through your PA, just as if you were playing live. A mix done on stereo speakers or even good monitors is not going to sound the same through a PA, for a variety of reasons.


Regards,

Bob

I would not advise mixing that way at all. A solid studio mix, properly executed and EQ'd will sound good with most systems without a need to create a custom mix. If you take the time to get the mix right with some quality flat response monitors, it will sound good on everything you play it on.

Trying to custom mix like this misses the biggest variable in the equation. The room. Live gigs can be in small rooms or large room, outside in a field or in an amphitheater, the rooms can be carpeted and have sound treatment on the walls or be bare concrete floors and cinder block walls. There's simply no way to cover all the bases with a custom mix. In addition, the mix would be playing to the biases of the sound system rather than having a neutral bias from the studio mix. This would make some rooms damn near impossible to get sounding right.

It's best to simply nail a good studio mix in a room and with monitors that let you hear all aspects of the mix and use that for all the places.

If you take the time to get the mix right with some quality flat response monitors, it will do what it's supposed to do.

Only under ONE condition would I even consider doing a mix like that. IF,and only if, I had a house gig, with the same room, the same PA, and never needed to play anywhere else, to take the time to do the mix specifically for that room would not be a totally bad idea, but still IMHO, a waste of time, since the studio mix can easily be EQ'd as needed to any given room. Mix once, EQ as needed.

“A solid studio mix, properly executed and EQ'd will sound good with most systems without a need to create a custom mix. If you take the time to get the mix right with some quality flat response monitors, it will sound good on everything you play it on.”



Actually, it won't. Mono vs. stereo mix, frequency response variables between stereo or monitor speakers and PA enclosures (especially bass response), dispersion, cabinet design – many reasons. SOS addressed the topic in this article:


http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov03/articles/backingtracks.htm


“It can be very hard to judge the playback mix while you're at home in your studio, especially if your studio uses small speakers. Large PA systems give a very different bass response, and rehearsal-room monitor speakers will introduce their own 'idiosyncratic' tonal characteristics! When it comes to committing to a mix, a practical solution could be to take your original multitrack machine (be it ADAT, Tascam eight-track, computer or whatever) to the rehearsal room along with a small mixing desk. Then you can set up each song and have the band play along to it, while a band member stands in front of the PA speakers and makes a judgement about the mix of the mono playback material.”


Duplicating this situation for the OP would require setting up his PA and mixing his backing tracks in mono through it.

The “room” has less to do with the final sound than the mix that is matched to that particular PA system.



Regards,


Bob

So, tell me again why it is that commercial CD releases from artists of all genres only have one studio mix?

Seriously, if the studio mix is not the best mix for most situations, why are they not releasing the "car mix", the "small speaker" mix, the "monster stereo with enhanced bass response" mix and so on.... All I can find is one studio mix and I'm forced to use that same CD in every situation....?

This is an apple.

This is an orange.

Clear?



Since you chose to edit your post, I will as well.

A "studio" mix will not work through a live PA. For one thing, it's stereo. PA mixes are always mono (for many reasons). I've already noted some of the other reasons a studio mix will not work through a live PA.

nonsense. We played CD/tape mixes in stereo in the PA all the time.... stereo input were mixed to mono in the "mixer"....it worked and sounded perfectly fine.

what's fruit got to do with this? It's not that different actually.

edits are off limits now too? (dang speling misteaks gotta stay I guess so peeple won't git upset)

No arguing with an expert such as yourself. Even if that “nonsense' is SOP with every live ME in the world. Silly me.

I bought BB because it was hyped as an accompaniment tool. I use it for small venue gigs, nothing very big at all. sing & play guitar along with. I use a Fender Passport portable PA. It's a combo\amp & 4 channel mixer with 2 75W stereo speakers. I plug my singing mic in 1 channel, my guitar into another & the laptop with my BB tracks into a 3'd. From what I'm hearing, since I have no desire whatsoever of recording any of the tracks I've made in BB to a CD, but to sing & play live to those tracks, coming directly from BB in my laptop I have everything I need right now right? I'm generally happy with the sound I've been getting, but I now want to record my voice to an audio track in BB. I may need to upgrade to a better driver as you say. Mine is the "MME" & they say the "ASIO" is better. How & where would I obtain that? As to the mixing, I'm getting a little confused here. I was told by someone about a year ago (I think from PG Music), can't remember the name, but right here on the forums in no uncertain terms that bed room mixes are "totally useless", (his words). This was echoed by some others as well. And that I needed to set up in a larger space like a garage & mix there with the same gear I'd be using on the live gig. This I did & am happy with the results. The ONLY difference now is what I stated about recording my voice in the BB audio track in order to effectively sing a duet with myself live to the audio track, not to any CD. You have however set me straight on some other misconceptions I've had, and I'm grateful for that.
russ66

Hi Russ,

• DISCLAIMER: I haven't read through the above posts and so I may well be doubling up on what's already said. If so, I apologise in advance.

Firstly, ASIO and MME are different ways of getting the sound signal to the speaker. One is not really "better" than the other in the quality of sound. The difference lies in how fast the signal travels to the speaker. If you're experiencing lag with BIAB, then ASIO4ALL (freeware) might be worth having a look at. If not, stay with MME. The sound quality will not be affected.

I use MME all the time unless I want to record directly into BIAB and then I change to ASIO4ALL. After the recording, I always return my setup to MME. I rarely use BIAB for recording because it is not as versatile as either Realband or Reaper (my DAW). These days, with PG Music's invention of Performance Tracks i the present version of BIAB, it's possible to record elsewhere and create a WAV or WMA file that can be loaded directly into BIAB when a song is opened (no extra fiddling is necessary).

I don't know who said "bedroom mixes are no good" but whoever it was would seem to be a die-hard enthusiast of 'out of the box' mixing. Digital technology means that one can record and mix pretty much anywhere! I can't remember who but a couple of years ago, there was an excellent couple of submissions in the User Showcase Forum from a guy who'd mixed something on a laptop in a hotel room and, unless he'd said so, I'd never have known.

These days, pretty much all mixing is done in the computer and the studio is much less significant (from my perspective, the type of studio is irrelevant). Reverb, delay, EQ, etc., etc., etc., are all added post-recording now (as far as I'm aware at least) and there are a number of software programs that add finishing touches to a mix to make is sound just like top class studios. I personally use "Ozone" by iZotope to do this.

What I've found is that the only factors that limit my mixes sounds are my ears and my lack of technical understanding. As I get more knowledge from reading, my mixes get better.

If you want to have a listen to any of my bedroom-produced songs, you'll find them via the link in my signature.

I hope that this perspective is useful,
Noel

Hi Russ66,
I too purchased BIAB for making backing tracks to songs I wanted to play live while singing and playing my acoustic guitar. I also have a Fender Passport I use. My Passport is older and has an aux in which takes a 3.5mm stereo input. I have used an iPod and PC (with BIAB) to play live. I can't be positive, but I am pretty sure the mix (supporting tracks) comes through as stereo.

I know the elderly love to hear the vocal harmonies in music, which takes them to a time that the voice was the primary instrument they heard. I took a different approach to this.

I purchased a TC Helicon Voicelive Play GTX, which duplicates your voice and adds up to two additional parts for harmonies. Works really well and fairly simple to use. It uses the notes in the guitar chords to generate the harmonies. It is a foot pedal in which one button turns on and off the harmonies. Look it up on YouTube.

The Voicelive play has two xlr outs. I have mine set in stereo and run the right to channel 1 (panned right) and the left output to channel 2 (panned left). The result is a nice stereo mix that separates the harmony parts. The guitar and vocals can be adjusted in the gtx so all you need to be concerned with is the mix from your BIAB.

I set the BIAB on Jukebox which allows you to play one song after the other in the Order you want. It can be started and stopped with the touch of the space bar.

Good luck on your search for this information. I am sure you will find something that works great for you.

And thanks for your service of singing to the elderly! I am sure whatever you deliver is wonderful to them.

I don't think that exact quote was used..... but, perhaps close.

We've been discussing the need or not, to make a special and specific mix for a live PA gig vs using a well balanced and EQ'd studio mix.

Bob has pointed to one article which briefly mentions taking the recorder/mixer to the rehearsal hall, playing the material through the PA to judge the MONO characteristics of the mix in playback. It mentions in the same paragraph about using small studio speakers. In the story, which I read briefly, this is the only paragraph that even approaches the topic we were discussing.

It can be very hard to judge the playback mix while you're at home in your studio, especially if your studio uses small speakers. Large PA systems give a very different bass response, and rehearsal-room monitor speakers will introduce their own 'idiosyncratic' tonal characteristics! When it comes to committing to a mix, a practical solution could be to take your original multitrack machine (be it ADAT, Tascam eight-track, computer or whatever) to the rehearsal room along with a small mixing desk. Then you can set up each song and have the band play along to it, while a band member stands in front of the PA speakers and makes a judgement about the mix of the mono playback material.

One writer's opinion is hardly a consensus or an industry standard. In all my years in live music and playing with professional bands and artists, I have never come across any FOH engineers who use anything other than studio recorded mixes when they are playing background music.

What the writer says is often true. If you mix in a studio using small cone speakers.... I've seen some small stuff but generally 5" or smaller qualify in my book, it can be difficult for the novice to get a balanced low end to the mix because the smaller cones simply don't move the air that the big ones do. So taking a mix that is mixed on small cones and as a result biased bass/bottom heavy as a result of the "mix engineer" not being able to hear the material ACCURATELY..... yeah, plug that into a PA with some nice 15" subs and mid range cabs and you will have a mix that is a mess on the bottom.....

BUT... that is NOT the fault of the PA system or the room. It comes from the mix not being heard accurately. I believe I addressed that issue when I referred to a "balanced mix" in the studio.

This factor generally exists in home studios where the person mixing is not experienced enough to know, and the speakers are too small to produce the bottom end that actually exists in the tracks.

Professional studios, on the other hand, and more experienced home studios, have the gear and the skills to know about this and it's all part of the days work.

I'm not an expert by any means nor a defining authority on this topic. I'm simply a musician who happens to have decades of experience in this field of live and recorded music and I'm always learning new things. However, in all those years, I have never seen, nor have I heard of anything other than studio mixes on the music. Certainly, if this was industry standard, to have unique mixes (not talking about stems) for live shows, it would be widely known. Ya?

To any and all who reply: Feel free to respond with a valid argument and POV. Keep it intellectual.

+1

And in some instances, not just for "background" music as well.

The real issue is to "know your monitors" so that you can mix and master on them with the full knowledge that the end result will "translate" to many different playback situations.

On top of that is the fact that there are so many differing PA systems in use, with nearly an infinite number of possible pieces of componentry, settings, speakers or speaker types, all of this coupled with how the user thinks they should run the thing, which may or may not be in conformance with the known and scientific application of such, well, it soon becomes a crapshoot.

If the system in question has never been subjected to Realtime Analysis along with the necessary steps needed to correct response, which may vary from venue to venue, if the operator of the system does not have a very good handle on use of Fletcher-Munson response curve usage as involves system amplitude levels, if the operator has not taken steps to measure and correct Time Alignment, they likely have no choice but to use that system to tweak their backing tracks to their liking.

They only have to take their audience's response into consideration at that point.

Or at least, they should.

I remember a situation in which we recorded the performance Live "off the board" - prefader! - into multitracks on the DAW.

Next day, before the second performance, I played it back as multichannel Line Inputs through the very same system - and the guy who managed the band wanted to start tweaking the board.

It sounded pretty much exactly like it sounded during the live performance the night before, though, with which he was very happy.

He thought it didn't.

Perceptions, not the reality, can be perhaps the biggest hurdle here.



--Mac

“Bob has pointed to one article which briefly mentions taking the recorder/mixer to the rehearsal hall, playing the material through the PA to judge the MONO characteristics of the mix in playback.”



Once again....actually, no.

The reason to mix the tracks through the live PA is to achieve a mix that plays well on that particular amp/EQ/speaker/sub setup. Not to 'judge' any 'mono characteristics' (whatever that means). The mix is played back in mono (with a few exceptions) for totally different reasons.


I do hope my argument is deemed 'valid' by the experts in residence.

Bob, I understand what you're saying, I really do. I'm not saying it's totally wrong. I read the story you referred to and in one paragraph (which I quoted above) they talk about doing the thing you are advocating. Mixing on small speakers and playing back on a PA with larger speakers and of course if you are converting stereo tracks in the mix to mono.... yes it's always a good idea to check the mix in a club.... during the sound check.

I have already said previously that this is OK to do under a very narrow set of conditions. Mostly due to the extensive labor and time involved for the negligible return regarding sound quality, on that time. Most sound quality issues that would be introduced from this issue are fixable with a decent EQ in the rack.

You do have, arguably, a valid point of view on this. The question would be, is it practical to do at every gig? The answer to that is probably "no" for most musicians and artists.

If you are a house band and play the same exact venue all the time, it might be worth doing the mixes at the venue, on the system, and thus you can account for most of the variables....I say most because the tonal characteristics of the room will change based on the number of people in attendance. Empty rooms always sound different than rooms that are half full vs rooms that are packed. I have never played a single club or venue where we were able to leave the EQ set the same as the last gig. In addition, I have seen our FOH guy adjust the EQ throughout the night as the audience numbers increased.

My point is that for most bands/artists, the time it takes to remix and check your 4+hr set list to achieve the "perfect" sound in a given room is simply unreasonable for a working band to do at every gig. If they are using backing tracks on CD or hard disk, a good basic, balanced studio mix will nail it every time. If they have a FOH guy, that person handles the job in real time. If the artist sets the mixer on stage as many solo artists tend to do, a simple walk around with the tracks playing at level before the crowd arrives will normally expose any idiosyncrasies in the room and they can be accounted for and then simply let the show roll on.

Most studio mixes, if well balanced and EQ'd properly, will translate well on a PA system. The reverse is not likely to be true. I also frequent the Sonar recording forum and topics like this come up often enough. It's generally from someone who mixed on some stereo speakers and "man it sounds really good" but then takes the mix to a buddy's house or plays it in his car and it's crap. I've heard very few PA systems in my time that are "studio quality" sound systems. Some were close but most are not. We'd often use a commercial recording to "get our system" in the EQ ballpark quickly in a club. Nothing, and I mean nothing was ever perfect when it came to sound in the venues we played.

Hence the expression that I know everyone has heard: "Close enough for rock and roll"