PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic When and why do you leave RealBand to use another sequencer - if you leave it at all ?

@All,

My comments about PG's midi excelling above all else is individual note editing - that is where I think it's better than pretty much anything else.

What stinks is the lack of other editing/mixing functions like all midi CC control automation, that is node based - as Robh points out.

One day, I will probably buy back in to PG with the MegaPak. I left the fold when I got hooked on low-latency VSTi handling with freebie instruments that brought back the goosebumps from the old days. I then made some investments that I got used to and now it would be hard to go back to being without them, just like I would not like to do without cruise control on a car. Sure I can do it manually, but I'd rather something else take that off my mind/effort.

I don't need autogeneration of tracks right now. In fact, the 'smart instruments' in my Garageband on iPhone do a serviceable job of this. Oh, it's a 5$ app. I can't feed it a chord sequence, but I can pre-select which chords are going to be used in a track and simply trigger when the chords change. There's enough variety that I can get the song idea down.

So - making a long story shorter:

If you need to autogenerate backing tracks, there is nothing else on the market like BIAB/RB.

If you need modern flexibility and utility of recording software, most other products on the market - even low priced offerings - have more features. If you like those features (midi tempo communication between plugins and the host, automation flexibility, ReWire, modular signal routing within the host, etc.) then you likely use a 2nd program to do these things.

No harm, no foul.

It would be cool if these long term (some for 5+ years) wishlist items would get included in RB, then it gets much closer to calling BIAB/RB both the best autoaccompaniment software in the market AND a great DAW to boot. Those of us that do use this latter list of items regularly have been yammering on for 5+ years about some of them - we speculate whether they can even be done, since it seems like these would remove what we perceive as inequality as a "Digital Audio Workstation", but then again, this is not what the thread title uses - it uses "Sequencer", which for a long time meant MIDI only, and some of the items like the automation and VSTi/VST tempo use, are standard fare even in other midi-centric sequencing function of other DAW softwares.

I do not use RB at all. I did look into the program when it was first released, but I didn't like the feel and the workflow. So I can not give any form of comment on the latest versions of RB. I did buy and use Powertracks Pro Audio 12 for a while. I liked it and that DAW worked for me, but then I tried a version of Cubase. That DAW fit me like a glove. The workflow, the great VST's and VSTi's that come with it and the support for third party VST's are great.

So Cubase (6.5 at the moment. I do have 7 (grace period), but I have to upgrade my XP to Win 7 or 8 first) is the heart of my studio. I use BiaB to compose music and create certain tracks. These are all imported dry (with no effects and no panning) into Cubase where I add other tracks, apply effects, edit tracks etc. I also do quit a few live recordings of bands and choirs with a Roland R1000 recorder. All these tracks are loaded into Cubase so I can mix them.

I think there are a lot of great DAWs on the market these days. Ranging in price from free to quit a lot of money. Yes, there are differences in these DAWs, but in the end all boils down to the skills of the man/woman behind the wheel. If you bought BiaB, you got RB thrown in for free. If RB works for you, that is great: no need to look for a different DAW. Should you run into limitations or develop the need for something else, that will be the time to look around for another DAW.

Just like I have worked with Windows XP on my DAW-computer and never felt the need to upgrade the OS. Untill now, since Cubase 7 will not install on XP. That's when you run into limitations and are forced to look for something new.

I've stayed away from this thread up until now because I think that which DAW you use is all down what you want to do with it and personal preference as to how you work. I do find though, that some people (not directed at anyone here) will criticize a product without having a full working knowledge of it.

In fact, it's been my experience that most people only know a proportion of the capabilities of their own DAW - I've been using PowerTracks since it went audio about 12 years ago and I'm still discovering new aspects of it.

The thing which is puzzling me and why I've joined in at this late stage is that there have been lots of references to the lack of automation with RB/PT. I find I can automate the channel fader, pan control and eight aux sends on all 48 channels. In addition, I can do this either by moving the controls in real time on the mixer, or by drawing or editing the curve for all these controllers in the PIANO ROLL window. I can also use this method to automate all other MIDI controllers. I accept that it would be nice to have the sub-groups automated, but other than that, what is it that people feel is missing?

Just curious...

ROG.

The DAW is the tool set, and the user the carpenter. I can take the very best tools that the wood working industry has to offer, and some old master carpenter can beat me to pieces with a basic set of tool. The skill to use these tools comes from experimentation, practice, and time.

Take a tool set that works and learn it. I wish i had the time i spend chasing all the different programs back, and had use that to really learn just one system.

Hi Scott - thanks for the explanation. It certainly helps me to understand where you're coming from. I can't see a time when I'd need to automate plugin parameters, but I can see why others might want to.

Like I said, it all depends on what you're recording and your working practices.

ROG.