PG Music Home Forums PG Music Product Forums Band-in-a-Box for Windows Band In A Box 64 Bit

You are probably right, Ray. However, there are others like myself who never use it live, but just for composition. For me, it would be easier to stay within BIAB for longer than I can now.

My work flow involves using BIAB for the "creative" process. Then I export tracks (midi & real) to Logic Pro X on a Mac Mini with 16GB of ram. Hence avoiding the 32 bit issues since Logic Pro is 64 bits.

I refuse to purchase another BIAB upgrade until they make it 64 bit.

Yes MJames ..... If everyone said just that we'd probably have it in no time at all.

Maybe you should start a poll to see how many people want 64 bit. It seems that it's a small minority that wants 64 bit. I could care less whether it's 32 or 64 bit. BIAB works perfectly for me as it is and it's probably the same for many users. A poll would probably tell us a lot. Personally, I'm into live solo performance gigs and not composition, so my requirements are probably a lot different than yours. Later, Ray

While they are at it, they need to upgrade the code to get rid of the absoutely archaic system of 8.3 filenames for styles. I modify styles all the time to suite my needs and have to resort to absurd names like _BG-F8 instead of "Blugrass Full Instrument 8th Note Style with Resonator". 8.3 filenames went out when Windows XP came out back in 2001.

Ray, although a pole could be run it would only account for those now using PG Music’s products. Some of us and I’ll admit we probably are in the minority, are using VSTis that require more ram than a 32 bit program/system can deliver.

But there are a couple of other problems with staying with 32 bit. Like Mal I know of a few people that will not even try PG Music’s software because it’s 32 bit, even after they have heard what it can do on my machine. You may say that is their lose but it is also PG Music’s lose. Secondly and more importantly all computers are going 64 bit and very soon I suspect computers will not long be able to run 32 bit software.

I want PG Music to be successful. However to be more successful I believe they need to update. The non-MS approach, the multiple measure copy-paste for example, the 8.3 filenames, the GUI, although it is much better now, as well as a few other things need to be improved for it to appeal to the masses. YMMV.

I'm not sure how much a poll here on this forum would tell you, because for the most part people here already know and love BIAB, and, I'm guessing, will still buy new versions even if they are offered only in 32 bit, despite misgivings. But I wonder how many folks outside this circle have not even considered BIAB because it offers only a 32 bit version. Perhaps it would be better to do a poll on a forum like Gearslutz, KVR, VI-Control and / or some of the forums for the bigger DAWS (e.g Sonar, Cubase, Studio One etc).

For me at least 64 bits is a major deal. I use BIAB to explore ideas as I compose. I have invested a fair bit in some Kontakt sample libraries which sound superb, but they are just too RAM-intensive to use much in a 32-bit program. Yes, I can make do by composing while hearing RAM-lighter instruments such as those in Sampletank, Coyote Forte, etc, while trying to imagine how they would sound when played through RAM-heavier instruments which to me sound far superior (e.g Spitfire strings, Orange Tree Samples guitars, etc.) but it's just not the same; especially because what I hear at the moment influences compositional choices. (As a crude analogy, imagine that for some reason you had to make adjustments in photoshop in black and white, and then switch programs to see the effects in color.) Having to export from BIAB to RB and finally to my 64-bit DAW just to audition something in an instrument voice I know I'd like to use is a real workflow drag.

My 2 cents anyway.

My laptop is 64 bit. If BIAB became 64 bit, it probably wouldn't make much difference for my uses. I do agree with your position for your use of BIAB. BIAB started out as an accompaniment program and now has developed into it's present form. The ability to input my chords for mainly standards and have a world class rhythm section for solo gigs is great for me. Look at the number of registered users of BIAB, over 21,000 and maybe thousands more not registered. It seems like just a few of us bother to participate in the forums. Surely we could have a great sampling of opinions if PG wanted to do so. PG, being a business, has to also look at the profitability of making major changes. It's taken a long time to bring Mac users to where they are and they still don't have the full capability that PC users enjoy. Mac users make up about 28% of computer sales and the percentage of Mac BIAB users vs PC users is probably a lot smaller than the 28%. Still, I hope everyone gets what they want and need. Later, Ray

Well it's simple for me. My gigging days are over and I concentrate only on studio work, composing, singing and guitar and keyboard.

At present I occasionally use BB and never use RB.

If x64 bit does come i'll ALWAYS be using BB and will delve deeply into RB.

Without the power, I view the software as reference, assist tool and occasionally pinch a real track for a project. I study the styles too.

Those in the community that insist they do not need the added benefits of 64 bit software because they only use BB for live gigging would still benefit greatly by using backing from high end sample libraries and the software would be far more stable I am sure.

I don't need high end samples for my live gigs. I use bass, drums and occasional guitar. The main focus is on my piano playing and BIAB is under that. No horns or other orchestration. I've made a decent living playing piano with BIAB accompaniment. Later, Ray

One more here that would not ever upgrade any more if it is not 64 bit.
You can't even get a 32 bit PC (at least here in Denmark), And PGM: We is in the year of 2015 !
Even if I have the AudioPhile edition, I never use all traks as audio. It sounds realy good, but you can't do afterworks with it, as you can with MIDI. And many of my software instruments (IE: Halion 5), sounds as good as RealTracks. It makes no sence in BB's plugin support for VST's if you have to use bridge programs. I've seen many BB users complains about Jbridge, and you are forced to pay for it even if you've bought the realy expensive AudioPhile version. That is to bad politic from a company like PGM.
NOW IT IS TIME TO MAKE YOUR PROGRAMS 64 BIT OR IT WILL BE TOO LATE (for me at least)

I would like to offer another reason for moving to 64-bit: Windows 10.

In my experiments with 10 on a non-music machine, I've run into even more problems running some of my older hardware. It looks like I'm going to have to do some tweaking to coax my Roland Fantom XR to work in Windows 10.

The point is, hardware MIDI synths become unsupported at some point, and rather than pay for another piece of hardware, software synths are looking more and more attractive. To get great sounds from software, though, it would help greatly if BIAB could address more RAM.

EDIT: after hearing from a helpful poster here about another solution, I should point out that I had just solved the Fantom XR USB problem and have it working in Windows 10. My CD-RW / DVD ROM drive wasn't working either after the update to 10, and I fixed that. So, it's been a productive evening in Windows 10. For the times to come when I'm not so lucky, my original thought above still stands.

I agree that from a marketing pov and just general principles it would be great to do it. The questions is ROI.

I work with business and individual tax returns all the time. All that matters is the bottom line. How much will it cost PGM to do a complete rewrite of the program vs now much more customers it might bring in? Or, how many current customers might they lose?

Just a wild guess on my part but I think the percentage of users who care about 64 bit is in the single digits. Maybe even as low as 1 or 2%. Is that enough?

Bob

You're probably right, Bob (jazzmammal). I'd venture to guess that the only market driver that would get a 64-bit version would be if another competing software vendor came up with a program similar to BIAB, but with modern GUI and 64 bit operation. Given the size of the market, I don't think PGM has much to fear and less motivation to update BIAB to 64-bit, which is unfortunate for BIAB users. That said, if I were to look into my crystal ball, often cloudy as it is, there will come a time when OSs will be 64-bit only and 32-bit programs obsolete. Whether I will live to see that time is doubtful. lol.

Bob

I'm sure the switch will happen eventually. I remember when BIAB successfully switched from 16-bit to 32-bit. We will get there.

I don't know what you mean about "caring" about 64-bit.

But, as you're "wild guessing', I'd like to introduce a fact: since 2013, all laptops sold in Italy have been with a 64-bit OS, even the ones with only 4GB of RAM.

Care or not, if your computer is newer than three years, chances are, they DO HAVE a 64-bit OS.

Just sayin'...

Since I mainly use BIAB to generate separate instrument tracks using RealTracks I don't have a strong opinion any more about whether it goes to 64-bit or not. At some point a new version of Windows will come out that will eliminate support for 32-bit but that could be 5-10 years in the future.

Converting BIAB to a true 64-bit architecture would be a massive task for PG. If the GUI is any indication, BIAB probably contains loads of legacy code from the DOS/Win 3.1/Win95 days and would probably require enormous effort to redesign.

I guess if I had a vote I'd recommend they just continue to add on to the code they have. Oh, and add a bunch more RealTracks!

Exactly, and its high time it was done. Some very basic functions like recording are ridiculously programed. Everything seems Iffy.

therefore:

Design the whole thing again, of course in 64 bit. It's way past time IMO

I don't use anything but it's basic functions (not even rocording) because I just don't trust it the way it is, frsnkly a new user with experience of pro music software would find it all a bit of a joke the way it is, it reeks of windows 95.

IMO

Z

You know I generally agree with you but I just don't know if they could pull this off! When I think of the monumental effort this would be...it would probably be a 2-3 year project with most of their efforts focused on OS and 64-bit stuff and very little focus on the music/RealTracks stuff that we eagerly anticipate once a year. And what if the core technology is all ancient code? This could mean a re-write of everything! It just seems too big to me!

On the other hand, if they asked me, my advice would be to get to work on a VSTi version of BIAB in parallel with the current upgrade cycle. They could start basic...maybe build bridge technology to work between the DAW and the BIAB core...get a simple GUI designed that just handles the RT selection. Get rid of ALL of the volume, panning, f/x, etc. and just let me apply those using my plugs in my DAW! Basically strip out everything that is already available in my DAW. Leave nothing but the RT engine and interface to work as a VSTi.

Now THAT is a KILLER product! Does not hurt the existing BIAB crowd at all. We keep upgrading for the next 5 years. But, in the meantime, you are building PG's next breakthrough, game-changing products! And somewhere down the line you quietly retire BIAB as the VSTi version becomes the bread-and-butter product!

Can you imagine the excitement there would be over a VSTi that was based on RealTracks? It would put every MIDI/Sample-based product to shame! I own a ton of really nice sounding sample libraries but the amount of work I have to put in to make something that 1) sounds great while 2) not sounding canned is way too much whereas, with BIAB, I can rough something together in less than an hour that cannot be discerned from a real band!

One more bit of advice...DO NOT NAME IT BAND IN A BOX (but def keep the RealTracks brand)! Hire a really good marketing team with recent experience/success in state-of-the-art digital instrument marketing to come up with an Apple-worthy product name, branding, campaign, etc.

I should get a marketing job (if I'm so smart), right?