Howdy all,

I played upright bass in four bluegrass bands and one blues group from the early 1970's until Janice and I decided to leave our last band several years back. A little subsequent living room picking faded into us only being avid listeners of many genres. Then two years ago we discovered BIAB. I'd mixed off and on since 1966 so it seemed like a fun adventure and a great opportunity to let Janice get back into her vocal/guitar chops and perhaps encourage me to restring the old bass fiddle. But a funny thing happened along this journey.

The acoustic bass RTs are just fantastic and the more I worked with them the less I was inclined to get back in the playing groove. If I couldn't get quite what I wanted out of a track I'd just splice in a few notes here and there, throw in a little compression and get what I wanted. So.....instead of getting my bass chops back via BIAB I've decided it's more fun to piece together RT segments. And, man, is it easier than trying to record/engineer myself on that fiddle.

I was stunned from the get-go by the quality of the RTs, all of them, and now have spent two years creating my own version of RTs in my DAW. The possibilities are just without limits and I guess being a retired ole phart helps as I have the time for it.

I was just wondering if anybody else has experienced this reversal of what I assume is the more typical use of RT, that is, using them to enhance your playing. I just never tire of seeing the reaction of accomplished musicians when I expose them to the powers of this software.

This is a reasonable question, and insightful. I think it only applies, though, to those who play an instrument that BIAB can "replace" like guitar, bass, drums, vibes or piano. Even then, the splicing of RealTracks snippets causes effects that an actual competent player of that instrument would immediately notice. These include chord voicing and range choices.

I can't really comment, as the wind instruments I play are not close enough to being replaced yet. If we ever get a lot more wind instrument RealTracks, I may start to feel what you are feeling.

Exactly the opposite in my case, some of the RealTracks actually inspire me to get busy and take off some of that great stuff.

Band in a Box is often viewed as a One Trick Pony, it seems, a shame, for it not only can be used in your production work, it is also - and first and foremost IMO - A Music Practice program.

Try learning one of those hot Bass parts sometime, you may just find another great use for a great program.


--Mac

The opposite holds true here also. I am not only playing more but I would have never been able to venture into the many various styles/genres BiaB offers if I didn’t experiment with BiaB. BiaB is also a tremendous helper as I learn the EWI-USB.

I know everyone’s workflow is different but personally I would rather play that to cut and paste. I think that is why I lean to the MIDI side of BiaB more that the RT side, although I do use RTs on occasion. This is not a criticism of those who do cut and paste it’s just not my style although on occasion I do cut and paste MIDI.

Hi Bud

It is a bit of both for me. BIAB has definitely inspired me to learn to play the guitar properly. But that is mainly for my live performances. Being a one person act it helps to have a guitar! BUT I don’t intend to use my own performance on the guitar to record. BIAB is so much better that I can aspire to be.

I took my debut CD to a professional to master. He does the mastering for about all the musicians in South Africa (nice little business if you can get it!). All my tracks are BIAB except one that ROG did. I asked him what he thought and he said he was very impressed with what I had put together. He said a lot of people spend hours and hours in the studio to achieve that..So a compliment I guess.

I agree, relate with Matt and Mac here a great deal. I appreciate the RTS, genuinely and BIAB has been a tremendous learning tool and production assist for me. Still is. As for 'production' quality, it is hit and miss for me. The original 'performances' and recordings are generally great, but as soon as some instruments get stretched or key shifted, the artifacts are too much. You hear this in the majority of the 'showcase' tunes. Due to the artifacts and particular quality of 'sound' that BIAB generates, the RTs are easy to spot. I think the 'initial' introduction to RTs and BIAB to musicians is always favorable and often impressive, but once they work it for some time, the natural limitations present themselves. I have tried to learn riffs from RTs but many riffs don't translate properly to different keys in real life. It is what it is and for me I am grateful for such a great program. I know its limits now, I am hoping to use to it to expand my own.

Cheers!

I'd like to hear some of these artifacts. I'm not being coy -- I'm serious. If they are in the majority of the showcase tunes, I'd appreciate having a few pointed out. Use my tunes, I don't mind at all. It may be my aged ears but the only times I hear issues of that nature are when a RT is played out of the recommended tempo range. As far as key shifted, well they have to be shifted as I'm not aware of how to determine what key they were originally played in - but I could certainly be wrong.

Thanks!

I've never encountered any sort of digital artifacts when changing keys on any of the RealTracks since the advent of the Elastique stretch engine some versions ago.

Guitar players using the transpose feature may encounter such things as use of open strings, positions, string timbre, etc. that are not exactly easy to duplicate when the file is transposed from the original key that the RealTrack may have been played.


--Mac

TexasHeartRush,

Maybe I do not understand just how the term "artifacts" is being used here and what it represents in an actual realtrack. But what I do here from time to time is a certain "run" or "note sequence/voicing" that I instantly recognize as realtracks. But that is because I am familiar with the sequences/voicing's, but what is more important to me is that my audience does not hear what I am hearing or for that matter care if a sequence or voicing was repeated during a song or two even if they do hear it. Now for recording my mileage may vary.

PS: I think due to realtracks I am actually playing more both actual physical guitar playing and also booking more gigs.

Later,

I did a set of backing tracks for a friend who took them to a local studio to record the vocals and mix the tracks.

There had been some pretty heavy stretching and splicing on the first track because I had trouble finding RealTracks that matched the feel, the the studio owner mentioned that it sounded pretty "ripped up".

I believed him, but (much to my irritation) I couldn't hear the artifacts. My ears aren't that good... yet.

Fortunately, the rest of the tracks sounded fine.

After recording the vocals (mine needing heavy pitch correction ) and mixing, my friend was thrilled with the results.

There is repetition in some RealTracks, but that's the nature of the beast. But the convenience of using them versus of recording the tracks myself usually means I'll only record a track myself as a last resort.

On the other hand, BiaB has been particularly valuable in teaching my kids how to play instruments. It's great for examples of how a "real" player might approach a part. And it's a lot more fun to practice with a band.

And teaching my kids to play bass has me playing bass now. If I'd known bass was so much fun to play, I'd have gotten one a long time ago!

Hey David, by stretching do you mean tempo changes within BIAB or DAW manipulation? Thanks.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant stretching via DAW. I couldn't find a good match for the feel or the tempo, so I hacked parts together by splicing and stretching in the DAW.

I thought it sounded OK, but the pro caught it right away.

As I mentioned, the other tracks were better matches, and didn't have that problem because I hadn't abused them in the same way.

When I first got into recording I had a 4 track tape machine, a bass, guitar, mic, and a Roland tr 707 programmable drum machine.

My listening to music got very detailed at that time. I might just focus on a hi-hat for instance, trying to figure out the hi-hats role in a certain style of music.

Now, mostly using real tracks, I've lost the need to focus on how to fit the detail parts together.

There are pros and cons to that. I can certainly focus more on the bigger picture now, things like song structure, lyrics etc.

I wonder if I'm missing some of the education I use to get when I had to focus so much on the details.

Sure, will look at your tunes when I have some time and give you some specific detail. These may be 'subtle' to many and un-noticeable by the audience within a mix, but they are clear to me and honestly I can't imagine why they wouldn't be? They sound exactly like what they are, 'time stretched' , or tempo stretched audio. I have been in production for alot of years but I don't think my ears are more attuned here. These are clear. Nuendo (and now Cubase) has had 'elastique' time stretch for years. It is a great tool when used sparingly. When too many RTs, or the wrong RT is stretched, it just has too many artifacts for me beyond utility purposes. (Hey BTW, I have the regular 2013 Everything Pak, not the Audiophile version) I assume most here are not using the Audiophile version.

'Artifacts' meaning jitter, warble, loss of note definition, slurred notes, mushy tones, loss of high end. This is true of almost all electric guitar to me and most electric bass whether in key range or not. Some are subtle, yes. Some less so. And for most instruments we have a general idea where it was played based on the feel of the riff. Same riff in different places has different feels. For me RT Drums are best. Generally always usable. Bass is very usuable within a mix, but artifacts outside of the mix. Fiddle can go either way, sometimes great sometimes really bad when the pitch is too far from the original. Upright bass is generally good and I find its natural timbre support that. Banjo can go either way. Acoustics are pretty good overall. Some great, some less. And some instruments are really excellent or certain tracks within the genre or instrument are excellent. I don't do the pianos or horns yet.

Some times I hear a RT tune with BIAB and with too many RTs it hard to listen all the way through. Even with a good song. Reminds me of an overplayed cassette transfer sometimes. Not always, but when too many RTs are used, it can get there. I love them sparingly myself place within the mix. So Bud (?) Ill listen when I get the chance and try to give several examples. For demos and home-spun CDs or albums, I find that Rts are a great support. For me I use them to write mostly, but play the tracks live for more serious recordings. Thats just me. Cheers!!

Thanks. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain that at length. Everything we've posted on the user forum has been all RTs and the genres range from blues to swing to country to reggae. When convenient I'd much appreciate an example or two. I doubt that my hearing is acute enough to hear the artifact(s) but I'd like to confirm that. Thanks again.

No argument there at all. I think that much of that slathering on of RTs is the noob thinking that "more gotta be better" though.

I'm thinking back to how many times in the studio, I found it easier to turn in a Piano, Rhodes, Wurly or Organ track by "putting my left hand in my pocket" *grin*

Or, when playing in the guitar track, avoiding those huge grand barre chords in favor of little two and three noters that don't get in the way but say only what they need to say.




It is not just you, my friend, there are a group of us who use BB for sketchouts, writing, arrangement to a certain extent, let the live musicians have both the bb created audio file plus the bb chart to it, easily delivered via the 'net and out of expensive realtime, but then take the project into the studio to record with live musicians. Matt Findley does that same thing also.


--Mac

Sure thing! I just listened to 30 secs of one link in your sig tag 'Don't Sell it" and the artifacts are there instantly starting with fiddle on the left side. I realized the term ' out of phase' is appropriate to describe the sound. Serious comb-filter-esque.
(BTW, the song itself, the arrangement and singing are really great. Good work! They carry the energy well) That is not part of the issue or content of my post.

Its never enough to distract from a demo but it would have to be used cautiously in production for me. I think your style of music has a bit more freedom and liberties in some ways since acoustics sound the least artificial. ...and yet so many organic instruments can stack up in BIAB also. Never an easy call.

I don't have time today but I will look at a few of these with detail. When they RTS are 'soloed' it can become more obvious. I would like also to post examples of non-phased, well recorded production from my studio as a contrast. Solid, clear rich organic (instrument) content. The contrast may be of some help. I think we as creative DIY types can get into a groove that supports our current needs and goals and we may get used to a sound and then it becomes acceptable to us even if a portion of the standard has been lowered. The benefits or higher standard performances of RT (and convenience) may outweigh the decreased sonic quality for some, simply based on where they are, what goals they have or what is important to them. All of it valid. BIAB is just a great tool for a variety of needs. Often times when we re-visit past work we see the value in diligent production effort and real instrumentation. I find this true of myself and yet sometimes an RT is the final high-quality support for the tune for me. Cheers Bud!

haha. Cheers Mac! Thanks for all of the positive support. It is appreciated. True be said, I love the tools and freedoms we have today as songwriters and BIAB is a blessing to me. I use it daily, I support it, recommend it and feel grateful for it. Happy holidays!

Thanks for doing that! If you get a chance I'd really appreciate your opinion on the guitar on this one. It's one of our few ventures into working with an electric lead.

Honey Babe Blues

BTW, as Mark Twain said "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt" but I'll take a chance. To what, if any, degree can mastering/mixing/mp3 conversion have on these artifacts, i.e, can they be mitigated to any extent?

I appreciate your insight, Bud.

Wait a minute.

That file is mp3 compressed at the standard 128kbps for webstreaming. Most of these sites won't accept higher.

Download the file and take a look at it on a good Realtime analysis software.

You will first see the typical 17KHz "brickwall" cutoff point associated with that mp3 compression bitrate.

You should also see the noise inherent above that critical 17KHz cutoff point.

The original .wav pcm digital file won't have that at all, count on it, I've already subjected RealTracks to the same analysis.


--Mac

Sure, I understand Mac. But im not referring to lossy compression artifacts. That affects the whole mix. Soundcloud audio processing is one of the worst for this. What I am referring to is happening on individual tracks. Just jitter and warble artifacts from time/tempo/key stretching. BTW, is there is 44.1 .wav available? It may just make it all more audible. I hear it here anytime I use BIAB.
Also, the BIAB .sgu file would help, though I suspect the audio has been edited considerably. Still it will reveal what I am referring to. Cheers.

Sure Bud. Mastering? Nah, that's not really an issue here as Mastering (although corrective in nature at times) is aimed at the whole mix. If you find yourself tackling individual tracks at the mastering stage, it may be useful to re-visit the mix. Your mixes are great. You have a great knack for placing instruments sonically and they seem consistent. The rest is constant refinement for all of us IMO.

For the tune you posted Honey Babe, yes, the guitar has the artifacts I am speaking of. Its instant for me. Sounds 'chorusy' or modulation affected. I found (one of) these blues track in BIAB (Blues Roadhouse?), changed the key to E and its there in the raw file as well in the key of E at this tempo. It works here in your demo, it support the intent and idea, but I hear it myself and its one of those unpleasant sounds to my ears. I can post the isolated track and it will be pretty obvious I think. If this was actually played by you, you did a great job copying the RT and it has a great deal of modulation on it! ha. Cheers!

I can only wish that was my playing! Yes, it is from the roadhouse group and is Jack Pearson of Allman Bros fame. I'm gonna take a snippet of his playing from the raw BiaB files, generate it in several keys, and bring them into the DAW and see if I can discern the differences.

FWIW, I never "stretch" or in any way manipulate RT's in the DAW other than moving snippets around to hopefully offer decent segues from vocals to instrument, etc., to to create something that works with the melody -- or at least doesn't work against it. Again, my 67 year old ears have been heavily abused by music over the last 5 decades!

Thank you very much for the time you took to listen and comments and thanks for the remarks regarding our mixes, etc.

Can we get a VOTE here? From anyone reading this thread..

DO YOU HEAR ARTIFACTS?

I hesitate to step into the middle of this... but...

I don't hear it. And I don't think 99% of anyone who listens will either.

You (Rodney) and you (Mac) have spent your life listening "professionally" - on very detailed (very expensive) speakers in very controlled environments. You have "trained ears" - or you hear things differently than the rest of us in the first place (I believe). And even if you listen on lesser speakers now, you know what you are listening for.

I listened to that opening fiddle 50 times (downloaded - listening on headphones). It sounds like a fiddle to me. My guess is - that if you had 100 random people listen to the first 30 seconds of that file - even at 128 - and asked "is there anything wrong with that?" you would get 98 "No's" (figure that in your sample you might run into 2 other professional listeners).

Same with the electric guitar. Sounds like an electric guitar to me. And how many processors would that guitar output be run through? Who's to say that the sound isn't processed to sound the way it does? - every guitar player sounds different.

I'm not saying that you guys don't hear something. I've heard Rodney's work and it is phenomenal in every regard. (I've been the beneficiary of it - and am forever grateful). I'll have to take Mac's word for it since I've never heard anything from him. And I respect your talent and knowledge.

But... does can anyone else hear this? In this day and age, are there any sophisticated listeners anymore. Do people still buy those expensive sounds systems? (I know they do, so don't lecture me on that). The world listens to our music on an iPod or their phone - through earbuds. And most of what they listen to isn't even real instruments! They aren't going to hear ARITFACTS in that fiddle!

I'm sure I've left something out (of this side of "the debate"), but I'm sure you will get what I'm saying here....

Does it matter?

I can hear the fiddle so I am not too old yet -- sounds good to me!

Ha ha. This post made me laugh. I certainly hope it is not a 'debate' Floyd but rather just a dialogue about the OPs original post. "Does it matter"? Only if it matters. Subtleties, details etc. are not for the audience, they are for me. Same as a chef and that tiny pinch of seasoning. Same as an artist, film-maker etc. The details are in the creation. These details, along with so many other things that are important to some of us would bore the average person out of their mind. No body hears when I change out pickups or a bridge on a guitar. Nobody but me.

That said, these 'artifacts' are not subtle. Not to me. I believe I have mentioned them to you Floyd at times when I have heard one of your demo tracks to play on. They just happen to stand out to me. So do they matter? Of course. To me, yes, yes, yes. I won't use them in that form. Does it matter in general? That is up to the person using them. Truth be told I could post these to a few of my peers and they would hear the same thing. I doubt I would even need to mention it. Like I said, stretching or pitch shifting .wav files produces artifacts. This is what happens when BIAB changes tempo and or keys with RTs. There is no getting around it. When it has to do both, it introduces double the amount. Trained ears? Perhaps. But that doesn't change anything. My ears, my needs, my production values etc. are no less valid. It makes no difference if the entire board said they heard nothing. As is I simply find other uses for the RTs.

Its all 100% good here and honestly I don't/wont 'debate' tone or production. Its all valid. Mine, yours, whomever. If this turns into something else, I would just sit it out. Thanks and cheers!

Well, as far as jitter goes, I've inserted clocking pulse from external and expensive lab grade clock source on quite a few high-end soundcards - and found the increased clarity and fidelity to be easily noticed - rather astonishing the first time, using the good old highspec E-MU 1616M.

And that test was always done using tracks recorded in the real, no automated accompaniments, loops, or any of that.


--Mac

With tongue planted firmly in cheek I offer this . . . Sometimes I hear "tings", strange "tings" but very often it's just those voices in my head.

Have fun guys, I am happy my hearing is not as fined tuned as yours. :>

Later,

Rodney - I get that they (artifacts) matter to you quite a bit. And I certainly am not trying to "devalue" that. My point is... I don't "get" what it is that you hear. Yes, you have told me that when I send you tracks - and I take your word for it... because I don't hear it.

And I would really like to know what others do or don't hear. Just to get some perspective. Are Bud and I just a couple of old guys with bad ears?

Mac - I'll admit, you are talking over my head there... can you explain (in "hick" for me) what the above test is determining (proving)?

Oh.. and another question...

Being that much of popular music today is NOTHING but loops, do you listen to it and hear nothing but artifacts all over the place?

And if not, what's the difference? (and, if you are wondering... I am in no way trying to be contentious... I really want to know..)

Floyd, I bet you can hear these just fine. You may just not have 'listened' for them. I just did 3 minute test with BIAB, literally. I took a random RT guitar track and found its natural key (key it was recorded in) and tempo (Key A, tempo 130 or close) It sounds great. It is example 1. I just moved it up to C in BIAB and reduced the tempo to 115 (not much) nothing more. Example 2. Artifacts begin to get happy here. Then I moved the key to E and put the tempo back to 130 (so in essence only changed the key) Artifacts are really happy here, all over the place having a party.

Keep in mind this is only 60 seconds of audio and only 1 track. When they stack up it gets crazy.

Listen for yourself (These are high-quality MP3s)

Example 1: www.rodneygene.com/mp3/RT_original_key.mp3 (original key A and tempo 130 sounds great as expected)
Example 2: www.rodneygene.com/mp3/RT_2_stepsup.mp3 (Step up 3 1/2 steps to C and tempo down -15 bpm)subtle change (Starts to slur and warble)
Example 3: www.rodneygene.com/mp3/RT_5_stepsup.mp3 (Step up 5 steps to E and tempo back to 130 (lots of slur and warble)

You can decide. I am sure I could find extreme examples, but it isn't needed IMO. Cheers!!

Its all good Floyd. Its a good question. For starters, no I don't actually listen to much modern music. But keep in mind that RTs are not samples, they are recorded audio phrases (that's the only similarity). Samples (for high-end keyboards and soft synths, drum programs etc) are often very high-quality 'snippets' recorded in controlled environments one hit at a time for their intended purpose (the file library for one instrument can be huge). And...when they are used in a 'loop' context such as Boheme uses them, the 'artifacts' can become a sonic contribution as part of the 'style'. In fact some 'low-fi' samples are very popular because of this. Its less important in its organic form so to speak. In classic rock or blues or country, its not as much of a compliment IMO. Thats my take on it anyway. Cheers!

Thanks Rodney for the examples, I can definately hear a loss of definition, almost like there is a chorus pedal being applied.

It's easy to hear side by side like that. I'm not sure I'd pick it up without the A-B testing. I'd probably just think there was a chorus pedal on the guitar.

My pleasure Frank. Im not sure how BIAB chooses the 'phrases' it plays. Based on key, tempo etc. Sometimes they work when they are close to the original key and sometimes less so. In some cases it gets pretty extreme.

Floyd, Mac was referring to word clock jitter. A measurement of clock stability/accuracy in a digital interface that happens at the ADC and DAC. Lower-end interfaces can have lower-resolution audio despite the sample rate being used. Meaning a better interface may hear the audio clearer. Although I have a high-end interface with a great clock, for clarity sakes, that is not the issue I was referring to here. I was using the word 'jitter' as description for audio sound characteristics. I could have easily said 'warble' which I later did. Cheers.

I'm just an old EE design guy, but hey.

If you are going to describe a certain phenomenon, not a good idea to use a term that has already been established as meaning something else, eh?

Even though you did not specify it as "clock" jitter, the term has been truncated through the marvels of a living language and it is risky to use the term "jitter" to decribe a phenomenon heard that is not related to clock jitter.

But then, the Engineer in me also cringes when examples are not inputs able to be truly analyzed, as well. For example, I would want to introduce some sounds that are controlled and perform some empirical measurement testing to proof what I hear. Perhaps a generated tone set that is consistent from test to test, with good analysis softwares or better yet, dedicated hardware measuring equipments, NIST traceable.

Comparisons of A -> B in the various iterations.

And then, after establishing the available Base Level measurements, I would also want to expose those with the hearing claims to the good old fashioned Blindfold Testing as well.

These kind of situations always interest me, for such might be the basis for ways to improve current methods. If empirical proofs could be isolated.

Awhile back there was a fellow in Austria who was supposedly a Stradivarius Violin expert and marketer.

He's in jail.

It seems that he sold quite a few violins as being Strads - and it turned out that they were made of wood that came from recently harvested trees, using automated methods.

Those violins were not worth the millions that a Strad can bring, yet even whole symphony orchestras were suckered into his deals. The fiddles turned out to be worth no more than about 2,000 bucks each.

Yet not a single player out of the bunch noticed anything different about the way the violins played and sounded.

Only after they were told that these violins were fakes - then all of a sudden these golden-eared trained violinists began to back-pedal with statements such as, "I always thought there was something slightly different about that violin..."



--Mac

Rodney,

Hey.. thanks for taking the time to explain further and to put up examples. I think it both demonstrates what you are referring to and why "the rest of us" don't hear it. If I hear any "difference" in Example 2 (which I don't, really) it is only because you say there is a difference (the "don't think about elephants" thing). I can detect the slight chorus effect in Example 3. However... it still sounds like some damn fine guitar playing to me. And I'm fairly certain that I would not be able to detect it in a mix. My guess is.. the ONLY people who could/would detect it (in a mix) are production professionals LISTENING for it or exceptional guitar players who are expecting a certain sound - again, not trying to de-value your take on it - I understand that - and when you say "your peers" would hear it, I assume they would be included in one of those groups...

This really has been an interesting discussion (and learning experience). It's kind of a shame that it happened under the title that it did "Playing LESS..." instead of something about "use of RTs in production...". There might have been more participation...

Thanks, also, for the clock/jitter explanation - although, I still don't get what Mac was trying to prove or disprove in the test he referred to - and he, apparently, has chosen to ignore my request for an understandable explanation.

Nice discussion guys. Enjoyed.

All I can add is we always knew if you strayed too far from tempo the adjusting would cause problems. I was not aware that a key change also could cause an issue, but makes sense. But to my ears, not much difference in the examples.

Having said that I can tell you I drink cheap beer and don't drink "call" whisky. Could never tell the difference and never wanted to develop such a refined taste that I needed to pay extra for the buzz.

However, I do appreciate and envey a little the tuned ears of the pros.

What's not understandable about the need for real empirical testing and the resulting data obtained?

The Scientific Method.

If we cannot find and measure an reported anomaly, there would be no way to implement any sort of attempt at improvement or correction of the report.


--Mac

My research design prof used to say "if it exists, it exists in some amount and therefore can be measured. " But that was before we knew much about quantum physics - which may fitting here.

I believe that there will come a day when the quant will be better understood, and that empirical measurements will indeed become de rigeur if not downright commonplace.

History of what we now think we know bears that out.

--Mac

OK..... late to the party.

On the OP... yeah, using the real tracks has made me sort of lazy. It's certainly quicker and easier to render a real track than to drag out the guitars. tune up, set up the mics, run a number of tracks and record a decent track.

At the same time, it does inspire me to play the guitars more...and mandolin as well. So it's a toss up weighted towards the "makes me lazy" side of the issue.

As far as the real tracks and artifacts..... absolutely yes! This has been the one downside I have found to using certain instruments in RB. The lead guitars especially. Most often they sound OK and a non-guitarist might be fooled but a real picker will notice immediately the mushiness of the sound in certain styles of playing. My latest tune (Kandahar) is a good example of this. It's especially noticeable with good speakers or cans.

I thought that was due to not having the audiophile version but I noticed that it's not always like that. I know that I need to select tempo as close to my project as possible or less than the project tempo, but how do you know the original key the sample was recorded in? (Maybe I need to look closer at the other columns in real tracks?) If I choose a RT with a faster tempo the artifacts are very noticeable with just about every instrument. So it's exact or less than for the tunes to sound halfway decent.

Mixing and mastering is a real joy using BB/RT as my backing tracks since half the work in mastering is to have decent sounding tracks to begin with.

Agreed.... this is one of the more interesting threads here in quite some time.

I go inside the RealTracks folder, locate the raw audio file and play it back in the WMP.

The original recorded Tonic will become readily apparent.


--Mac

I'm betting a lot of BIAB and RealBand users will be playing less this month (Dec. 2013) and perhaps the first half of next month (Jan. 2014) as they try out the 2014 upgrade.

Seriously, I've always been more interested in music production than making music.

I have many of the tools I need to make music (microphones, keyboard, acoustic and electric guitars) but I'm not a good musician. Heck, I'm not even a good beginning musician because I really don't care if I ever get better or not. But every now and then the mood hits me. When it does it's pretty easy to put together some RealTracks to play along with.

I've owned BIAB a couple of times and each time it couldn't keep my interest long enough to get past the learning. Since RealTracks have come about my interest level has remained high over a longer period of time. That's good because I find the more I use the products, the more music theory I HAVE to know to be able to use the products to make the sounds I want to make. (Doesn't make sense I know but it makes sense to me).

It's so great to be able to change tempo without also changing pitch. (You've had to have played with analog tape decks in the distant past to understand that one).

Most of all, I can drop a few chords, select a style suitable to my mood, get the tempo JUST right, select the instruments I want to hear and ... BOOM! It's done! How amazing is that?

Render each instrument to audio, import into my hardware or software DAW and play with faders, knobs and effects to my heart content. Paradise.

Am I any good? Nope. Not even a good beginner but I'm finally learning what I've wanted to learn ever since I purchased a Teac tape deck in 1974. I'm learning about production, what makes it tick and what it takes to put it all together and make it work.

Now, if I could just keep from getting sidetracked and actually finish ONE, just one song project.

This tread just keeps getting better.

Hi Jim! When I read your post I thought I was reading about myself! LOL. I play guitar and like to sing on my own recordings but I'm very average at everything I do I think but I have high aspirations. It's very easy to get side tracked with all that one can buy now a days, even the latest BIAB will require a far bit of time to get used too and considering I havnt learned much about my 2013 version yet, upgrading could be even more of a distraction. I'm not dissing the upgrade just realising where I'm at and asking myself is the upgrade worth it? The upgrade price is VERY tempting though because paying double after January would make it, for me, not worth it.