Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
You need to be logged in to post on the forum
Topic Options
Index
#144386 - 01/03/12 06:53 PM Re: product comparisons [Re: rharv]
eddie1261 Offline
Veteran

Registered: 04/08/11
Posts: 2811
Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
Until one of the other DAWs comes up with a music generation feature, this is apples to guacamole here.... they are not the same tool. The DAW part of RB is comparable, all in all there is no other tool that does everything Real Band does in one package.
_________________________
www.soundcloud.com/eastside-eddie

Top
#144387 - 01/03/12 08:08 PM Re: product comparisons [Re: eddie1261]
Pat Marr Offline
Veteran

Registered: 10/25/08
Posts: 4687
Loc: Winston-Salem, NC
Quote:

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




depending on how you define "music generation" there are other apps that semi-automate the process of creating music. The Fruity Loops paradigm sees music as a series of looped patterns, and provides a nifty little grid to create the patterns easily and quickly.

Several other programs have a paradigm of assembling pre-recorded audio snippets to build a song.

Both of those paradigms are limited in scope, and start to sound redundant pretty quickly.

But to my mind, what sets RB apart from them is ..
1) the adaptive intelligence that is part and parcel to the building blocks used in RB and BIAB
2) the sheer configurability of the sytem makes it possible to create/automate almost ANY kind of music from classical to bluegrass and everything in between, and have it sound so realistic that most people can't tell it wasn't recorded by real musicians.

In most cases, RB can generate the same song that the other DAWs can generate... but the other DAWs can't recreate most of what RB can do.
_________________________
Win7x64 home, Focusrite Scarlett 2i4, Behringer Xenyx 1622FX Mixer, MAudio Oxygen 8 kbd, Roland XV-3080, TCHELICON Voiceworks, BIAB 2014 build 380 + RB 2014 build 3

Top
#144388 - 01/04/12 09:59 AM Re: product comparisons [Re: Pat Marr]
eddie1261 Offline
Veteran

Registered: 04/08/11
Posts: 2811
Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
Better analogy would be that while you CAN drive a nail with the handle end of a screwdriver, you are probably better off using a hammer designed to do that job.
_________________________
www.soundcloud.com/eastside-eddie

Top
#144389 - 01/04/12 12:34 PM Re: product comparisons [Re: eddie1261]
rockstar_not Offline
Veteran

Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 6202
Loc: Colorado Springs, CO, USA
I think the answer to this question lies deeper under the surface than what is being discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Scott

Top
#144390 - 01/04/12 02:10 PM Re: product comparisons [Re: rockstar_not]
Robh Offline
Veteran

Registered: 08/07/06
Posts: 3990
Loc: California
Scott, give us an idea what features you feel are missing that other DAW software has?
_________________________
Toshiba dual core Win 7 4 gig ram, BiaB, Realband, Studio one Producer, Melodyne, Gibson S-1, Carvin 980 Cobalt acoustic, Ovation legend 12 string, clone jazz bass, Fender Mustang III amp, Presonus Audiobox 1818VSL interface, TC Helicon voiceworks.

Top
#144391 - 01/04/12 07:33 PM Re: product comparisons [Re: Robh]
rockstar_not Offline
Veteran

Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 6202
Loc: Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Quote:

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




1. Flexible signal routing (not fixed to a hardware mixer mentality - many DAW let you use unlimited 'aux' type busses simply because you can use tracks as a bus)
2. Easy to use graphically based, node-enabled automation tools to control plugin and MIDI parameters.
3. Seamless integration of tempo locking (I use this with auto-filters and delay parameters all the time)
4. Sensible plugin use integration, without having to think of 'slots' and so forth.
5. Native audio edit tools that are non-destructive, built in cross-fading capability, etc. (actually, it took ProTools up to about 5 years ago to 'get' cross fading as a standard feature - so perhaps it's not fair to put this one in but I've been used to it since about 2005.)
6. Folder tracks

etc.

-Scott

Top
#144392 - 01/04/12 10:32 PM Re: product comparisons [Re: rockstar_not]
Robh Offline
Veteran

Registered: 08/07/06
Posts: 3990
Loc: California
Good thanks, that helps me understand what you are talking about.


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

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


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

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


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

Another one that is good.


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

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


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


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


6. Folder tracks


fancy feature that is cool, but you really do not need it often. Look if you are making music in a way that is not one of RB strengths, then using other software to polish is great. I have a ton of wood working tools, and so many are just for one specific purpose. I use what works. My process will work fine in RB, so i rarely jump over to anything else.
_________________________
Toshiba dual core Win 7 4 gig ram, BiaB, Realband, Studio one Producer, Melodyne, Gibson S-1, Carvin 980 Cobalt acoustic, Ovation legend 12 string, clone jazz bass, Fender Mustang III amp, Presonus Audiobox 1818VSL interface, TC Helicon voiceworks.

Top
#144393 - 01/05/12 06:03 AM Re: product comparisons [Re: Robh]
rockstar_not Offline
Veteran

Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 6202
Loc: Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Rob,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Scott

Top
#144394 - 01/05/12 07:24 AM Re: product comparisons [Re: rockstar_not]
Robh Offline
Veteran

Registered: 08/07/06
Posts: 3990
Loc: California
I see, that makes sense Scott. I can see where you are coming from. I guess, and no disrespect meant. If the very core function of BiaB, and Rb are unnecessary for you, why do you use the program? I mean that in a totally honest way. BiaB at it's very heart is for auto generation, and it's sound bed is aimed at jazz, rock, country, and other similar genres. It really is a very lacking product for the type of music you make. Is that not like trying to hammer Johns nail with a screw driver handle?

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

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

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

I would love to see that screenshot if you find it. Talk a bit more about how BiaB fits in if at all, that might be interesting.
_________________________
Toshiba dual core Win 7 4 gig ram, BiaB, Realband, Studio one Producer, Melodyne, Gibson S-1, Carvin 980 Cobalt acoustic, Ovation legend 12 string, clone jazz bass, Fender Mustang III amp, Presonus Audiobox 1818VSL interface, TC Helicon voiceworks.

Top
#144395 - 01/05/12 10:10 AM Re: product comparisons [Re: Robh]
rockstar_not Offline
Veteran

Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 6202
Loc: Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Rob

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

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

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

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

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

Top
#144396 - 01/06/12 12:02 AM Re: product comparisons [Re: rockstar_not]
Robh Offline
Veteran

Registered: 08/07/06
Posts: 3990
Loc: California
These types of conversations are great, i learn form others in how they make their music. So much to learn, and so much to remember.
_________________________
Toshiba dual core Win 7 4 gig ram, BiaB, Realband, Studio one Producer, Melodyne, Gibson S-1, Carvin 980 Cobalt acoustic, Ovation legend 12 string, clone jazz bass, Fender Mustang III amp, Presonus Audiobox 1818VSL interface, TC Helicon voiceworks.

Top
#144397 - 01/06/12 06:23 AM Re: product comparisons [Re: Robh]
rockstar_not Offline
Veteran

Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 6202
Loc: Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Quote:

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



I don't know if you were able to find the .mp3 demo link that Modlur made in the thread, here it is:

http://nelson.textdrive.com/~modulr/temp/ModuLR-KTBeatBoxDemo.mp3

Even though it sounds like he is beat-boxing over top of an existing drum beat, that's not the case. The kick snare and hi-hat sounds are playing as a result of his beat boxing.

One of the things that I get tremendous satisfaction out of is helping others do something I really couldn't do skillfully, but that they couldn't do by themselves immediately. This is one such example

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2



Shout Box (Live chat with other users)

PG Music News
RealTracks, RealDrums & MIDI SuperTracks Patch

There is a new general maintenance patch for RealTracks, RealDrums, and MIDI SuperTracks. Not only does the patch includes all of the recent fixes and enhancements for files shipped in 2013 and 2014, we've also added "Simple" variations to hundreds more previously released RealTracks. For more information and to download the patch click here.

RealTracks Compatibility Patch

This patch is for customers who purchased RealTracks Sets that were released after their Band-in-a-Box/RealBand version was released, and are having trouble getting the new RealTracks to be recognized by the program. Download the patch here.

Video - Activating Band-in-a-Box 2014

You've bought Band-in-a-Box 2014 and you're ready to start using the program! After you install the program you will be prompted to activate Band-in-a-Box within 30 days. This can be done over the Internet or by phone. Watch how to activate your Band-in-a-Box 2014 here.

Video - RealBand: Batch File Convert

With RealBand 2014 you can save lots of time by batch converting your various audio files, RealBand SEQ files, or Band-in-a-Box song files to an audio format of your choice. Watch the video to see how fast and easy you can do this.

User To User Video Tutorials

Have you made a video tutorial about a PG Music product? Why not share it! The User to User Video Tutorials page is where you can pass along helpful information to other PG Music users.

Sharing Your Band-in-a-Box Songs

You've just finished arranging your song in Band-in-a-Box and now you want to share it. Maybe you want to send it to your mom for Mother's Day; or to your band mates or students for practicing. There are a number of ways to share your Band-in-a-Box song!

Video: Adding RealTracks To Your Band-in-a-Box Song

Watch how you can add great sounding backing tracks to your Band-in-a-Box song here.

Forum Stats
21862 Members
41 Forums
28797 Topics
226966 Posts

Max Online: 1063 @ 07/10/13 09:12 AM
Newest Members
michelc, Danny Williams, fischkopp99, thelooploft, BoHappy

21861 Registered Users
Top Posters (30 Days)
Mac 137
dani48 105
Noel96 86
Matt Finley 80
VideoTrack 74
Guitarhacker 71
solidrock 70
floyd jane 68
jazzmandan 65
JimFogle 47
Today's Birthdays
Lloyd Morris