PG Music Home Forums PG Music Product Forums Band-in-a-Box for Windows uncompressed wav files - what is the advantage

I am looking at upgrading my BIAB. What is the advantage of having the uncompressed wav files that comes with the Audiophile Edition as opposed to the Everyting Pak which seems to have the same number of Real Tracks and Real Drums?

The Audiophile wavs are 'studio' quality. The Everything tracks have been compressed - thus theoretically have lost some quality in the compression. It is a long term discussion whether most people can hear the difference. If you are one who swears to be able to hear the difference in an original CD and one which has been compressed to MP3 or WMA, you should get the Audiophile version. This is especially true if you will be making CDs from your tracks. If using only for performance, the compressed tracks are more than adequate.

R

Hello,

The "Audiophile" version is also desirable if you are planning on doing much post-production work to the audio that Band-in-a-Box produces, as having more initial data allows for more extensive processing.

Your processing power is taking a hit because you're hitting a wall- you don't have enough processing horse power, or you ram isn't adequite enough, or your hard drive is only a 5,400 rpm instead of 7,500 rpm- all of which makes a substantial difference with multi media work. Wav files, as opposed to WMA files will add to the load during real time processing, and it will also add to substantial amounts of hard drive space being needed to accomodate them. I come from recording all my own tracks and always do so at no less than 44.1/24 bits. I believe that is the rate/depth of the uncompressed audiophile files. It was a very tough decision not to go for the audiophile package for me. But I couldn't afford it, simple as that. So it then became, could I be satisfied working with WMA files. I'm pretty picky about such things. I took a shot on the ultra package and I have been fine with the files. I rely on real tracks and for me, what is WAY more important is just clean generations of parts for my charts. It doesn't matter what sample rate or bit depth the file is if it doesn't generate clean parts in the first place, at any given tempo I choose. THAT is what matters mostly. After that, WMA files handle the same way as uncompressed files when it comes to editing and mixing. Technically, uncompressed wav files are absolutely prefered. But does it seriously matter? Not in my experience. If you write quality music and mix quality recordings, that's all that matters really. No one, not the listener or the mixer is gonna throw up their hands and proclaim it's terrible- it's not uncompressed wav files! But the choice is there for those who want it. That's good too. Is it needed, even if you fancy yourself a serious production person? In my opinion, nope. But if you have the means to get an audiophile package, it can't hurt investing in that and on many levels, it helps greatly too. Just have the hard drive realestate available to deal with the file sizes, both internally and perhaps externally. If you work with 24/44.1, you're gonna need room now, and room to grow in the hard drive department.

Working with high res uncompressed audio files demands your attention towards hard drive space and speed. If you have a great computer with a fast processor, 4 gigs memory at minimum, multi core, a 7,500 rpm hard drive, perhaps two hard drives internally such as a 320 and a 500 gig, and a couple of terrabyte usb exteral hard drives to archive projects off to, you're nicley setup to deal with uncompressed files- especially if you do lots of audio work and you're busy churning out the next big hits of the day! But don't let all that scare you off either. I worked with uncompressed files for years [still do] with meager pc's, juggling buffering and slow downs with heavy audio loads, and just get external hard drives for archiving. It can be done- it's just a pain. Good luck with your choices.

I should add one thing too- the 2011 version reduces files needed in general, I believe. That will substantially help the amount of hard drive resources needed to work with things like real tracks. Someone else will have to confirm that.

Dan

As Dan just mentioned, the new elastique algorithm that BIAB 2011 is now using allows them to reduce the size of the Real Tracks to 35% of what it used to be. This savings applies to both the compressed and non-compressed (audiophile) versions.

I find it is reasonably hard to notice a difference in a single track between the compressed .WMA and the audiophile .WAV unless I am on my studio computer with pro sound equipment attached. However, when you start to mix many tracks together, you do start to notice more of a difference because noise in a mix is additive.

Finally, you should always feed Melodyne the best possible quality signal that you can.