PG Music Home Forums PG Music Product Forums Band-in-a-Box for Windows Audiophile Tracks

Hi All

I just responded to a new BIAB buyer/user who just purchased the BIAB Audiophile Edition.
I've been eyeballing this option for some time now, and really haven't seen many (if any) people posting on the forum any info about these files.

So what I want to know is,
"Are there any people out there who have opted to buy the Audiophile Edition of BIAB?
And those who have,
"What is your experience? Have you purchased the compressed files in the past and were not satisfied, Is there a drastic difference in sound quality between the two, are they easier to work with within RealBand or other DAW's out there, etc?"

It would really be awesome if PG Music had some sound demos to show the quality difference between the two for us to hear. Maybe they woud get more people to buy that particular edition if we could actually "hear" the advantages.

So the next best thing is to hear from you "Audiophiles" who have purchased it, and hear your views (the pros and cons, if any).

Can anyone convince me to buy into it?

Harpo

I haven't purchased the audiophile version and would have no use for it but just a couple of thoughts.

Most importantly, the quality of the OUTPUT of sound has a LOT to do with the equipment used to produce that output.

I am certain that PG could provide statistics on the amount of DATA generated by the audiophile version vs. standard. But that would only describe what data is PRESENT...and would have nothing to do with what data anyone's system is capable of PRODUCING.

Having been in a LOT of recording studios in my life, I guarantee you that there is a STUNNING difference between how the SAME musical data sounds when produced via different combinations of amps/speakers.

Trust me...a lot of recording engineers sort of laugh in their sleeves when mixing/mastering music on rigs costing twenties of thousands of dollars MINIMUM when they know that a lot of that music will be listened to on car stereo systems or cheap in-home systems. Heck...one German company offers an Ipod speaker system for FOUR GRAND!!!!

And high end audiphile sound systems can cost WAY more than $100K!!!! So listening to audiophile music over inexpensive systems is sort of the opposite of "garbage in--garbage out."

(-:

So my own personal take is that unless you are producing music for commercial release and/or are able to listen to your BIAB files on a VERY high end stereo system AND you have very highly critical hearing, then you just won't HEAR the enhanced data contained on the audiphile version.

Just my 2 cents.

Best,
Jim

I agree with Jim. The average ear will not hear any difference...

Cheers,
Mike

Hi Harpo,

I can't really help answer your question at this point in time because UPS has screwed me around good and proper and STILL not delivered my shipment of BIAB, so I'm unable to give you any feedback on the Audiophile edition. However, if you go back FOUR pages on this same forum, you will find my original thread titled "Confusion over compressed files vs un-compressed files". It's the THIRD thread down from the top. Peter Gannon is the the first thread on the same page.

It may be worthwhile having a look at my first thread, because several members here kindly explained how the two file types (compressed and un-compressed) differ from each other, and how in the main, most people would never be able to tell the difference between the two, and how the quality of your recordings depends a lot on the quality of the gear one uses, more than the different file type. It's worth reading.

Like you, I would have liked to have heard demos from both the Regular edition as well as the Audiophile edition prior to my purchase, just so I could tell from my own personal audio perspective if I could actually detect any difference between the two, but there was no demos offering a comparison, so, I weighed up the knowledgeable information given to me by the other members, and made my purchase. For personal reasons, I needed to commit to purchasing one edition or the other by the end of this year. So, in the end, I simply chose to buy the Audiophile edition.

I'm sure there are a number of members here who have either the Audiophile or the Regular edition, or have had experience with using both. I sincerely hope a few of those members can chime in and help answer your initial question regarding the Pros and Cons of each edition or their comparison from personal use.

All the best,
Dome

EDIT: Before I asked the forum members here what the difference between the two file types was, I sent an e-Mail to PG sales and asked them this same question, but didn't hear back from them for several days, so I decided to ask my question here on the forum. When PG Sales eventually got back to me, the answer I got from two of the sales team (they answered my message twice) was ..."The un-compressed files sound better". Still very difficult trying to make an informed decision with an answer like that and no demos comparing the two file types.

Consider the following analogy:

When you print a document out on a laser printer it looks sharp with no artifacts around the edges of text. That`s the uncompressed first-generation version. When you make a photocopy of that page it generally looks very good but a keen eye will distinguish the difference. That`s the compressed second-generation version. If you were to photocopy the copied page you would begin to see noticeable artifacting. You are essentially compressing an already compressed version, making it third-generation.

When you play music through BIAB using the compressed version you are hearing high quality second-generation audio. When you save that music as a MP3 or WMA file you are recompressing the compressed files, giving you third-generation audio. If you futher manipulate the music in a DAW and save it out again, you are compressing it even further.

Still, as Jim and Mike point out most people can not tell the difference.

When deciding on which edition to purchase, the driving consideration should be 'What is the intended purpose of the generated tracks?'

If your tunes are backing tracks for gigging or jamming with, or background music for videos, then the compressed version is completely adequate, in my opinion. If your needs are more professional, such as charging people to make demos, you should buy the Audiophile version.

If you plan on editing the tracks in a DAW then you would benefit from the uncompressed tracks of the Audiophile because there is more `headroom` in the files for the nuances of musical overtones and such. Naturally you would work in the realm of WAV as much as possible. (For the record, WAV files themselves are compressed and the concerns around recompression exist here, too.) CD quality is 16-bit, 44.1 KHz but modern recording is now done at 24-bit, 192 KHz to allow for more manipulation without artifacting.

"The un-compressed files sound better" is an accurate but lazy response. IMHO the response should be "The un-compressed files are higher quality samples better suited for further audio editing." Or something like that.



- Walter

If you want to buy it just for your own listening pleasure, I would think the Audiophile is overkill. I bought it first time for 2013 now. I am busy producing an album and will use mainly the accoustic guitar from realband for this.

Maybe it is just my imagination, but I think it makes a huge difference. When audio is compressed, the high end is usually lost, or at least impacted more severely than the mids.

Accoustic guitars are usually mixed in a busy rock mix by taking the bottom out, and even the mids, to make place for the vocals. What you are left with is the highs. So, all you end up with in a rock mix is the highs - exactly those areas that has been lost when the waves are compressed as wmv.

When I got my audiphile disc, I dropped the new files into my songs, and had to re-adjust all my mixes again.

So, yes, in my opinion, it does make a difference.

Sepheritoh,

I'm sure there's a difference or they wouldn't be available as a separate option from PG Music, but I wonder if it comes down to the individuals expertise as an engineer/mixer that would allow the compressed tracks to sit in the mix as well as the uncompressed tracks.

Which brings us to "samples". Are they not compressed as well?
Samples are used almost as much as live sounds these days in music production and they seem to not have any derogatory effect on the mix as far as sound is concerned. Something to think about.

What do you think?

I still wish i could hear them side by side.

Harpo