Suppose you are happy with the BIAB arrangement and you export the tracks to your DAW. For each track (bass, guitar, piano, etc), you may add your favorite VST instruments.
But will you double the tracks in order to have a fuller sound? I mean, should you duplicate so that you will have two tracks of piano, two tracks of drum, etc?
I will do it for lead vox, rhythm guitar, and occasionally backup vox if I am the one singing. Some artists use doubling as an in-your-face effect, but I tend to keep it subtle.
"My primary musical instrument is the personal computer."
I've done it on a part or two to emphasize a part. I've also detuned or put a little chorus on the doubled one and that can change the sound, sometimes making it sound fatter, sometimes just weird - experimentation is the key for me.
But I think if you did it to all the parts, it would sound pretty much the same.
I'm also talking MIDI here, I do most of my editing with MIDI because (1) it's easier to edit MIDI and (2) there are hundreds of edits you can perform on MIDI that you just can't do with audio yet.
Mostly.......NO! Doubling a track in that manner does nothing except make it louder and risk other issues.
You can use compression and level control to get a louder sound if that's what you're after.
But before you do anything..... ask yourself and answer this question. What do you mean when you say you want a "FULLER SOUND"? Is there anything wrong with the version you have with one track each? Does it sound OK or does it lack something? Could the problem be solved another way...such as with EQ and compression?
Figure out what it's lacking first. There may be a way to get what you want... in fact there is....and you don't need to double to get it.
Having said that: doubling, tripling, and more (aka layering) is a useful tool when it's used correctly and in the proper places. Doubling everything in the project is NOT the right way to get it. In fact, that will simply cause other issues to occur. I use it on vox and acoustic guitars..... but I NEVER copy a track to do it. I always ALWAYS record unique tracks for each track I want in the mix. Levels and EQ are critical to a successful double vs something that isn't.
Most of the lead vocals in my projects are triples..... main in the center up nice and loud... 2 additional leads, lower, and panned 100% L/R. In fact, you probably can't hear the other lower vox in the mix..... but in a soloed state.... they are audible. That's how it works best. The subconscious hears them and to you....they simply sound a bit fatter, or fuller.
Often, the desire to double the tracks to get a "fuller sound" is really a band-aide solution on something else that's really the problem. You should be able to get a nice full sound with relatively few instrument tracks and none of them doubled. If you can't..... you need to find out why you can't and work on that problem.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.com Add nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
Doubling is a fine technique to use if it helps you accomplish the sound you are looking for!
I have used it on vocal tracks to "thicken" my voice. And I have used it when I want a background of something like a strummed acoustic panned both right and left.
Of course you have to do a little more than just double the track...mainly add some delay to the doubled track. Check out these articles for more info,
If you are using BiaB, there is a special feature working behind the scenes to deal with the issue of doubling parts. It actually makes completely different parts, it doesn't try to just change one slightly from the other. This is for Realtracks.
If you put 2 or more of the identical Realtracks on separate tracks, BiaB will automatically generate different parts for each of them, so that there is no time in the arrangement that it would be playing the same thing - because if it did, it would sound like one player instead of two.
There is no setting needed for this, it just works, as long as you are generating them all at once by pressing the play button. We call this feature same-but-different.
Fwiw, in our tests, attempting to generate different parts by just offsetting the timing of an audio track, or panning doesn't work, and it often sounds worse. That's why we made the same-but-different feature, so that you actually hear 2 different parts play at all times.
If you are using BiaB, there is a special feature working behind the scenes to deal with the issue of doubling parts. It actually makes completely different parts, it doesn't try to just change one slightly from the other. This is for Realtracks.
If you out 2 or more of the identical Realtracks on separate tracks, BiaB will automatically generate different parts for each of them, so that there is no time in the arrangement that it would be playing the same thing - because if it did, it would sound like one player instead of two.
There is no setting needed for this, it just works, as long as you are generating them all at once by pressing the play button. We call this feature same-but-different.
Fwiw, in our tests, attempting to generate different parts by just offsetting the timing of an audio track, or panning doesn't work, and it often sounds worse. That's why we made the same-but-different feature, so that you actually hear 2 different parts play at all times.
This is really handy for the rhythm tracks. Use this on the acoustic guitars for example, in the background of the song. I simply set up 2 tracks and record my Taylor guitar 2 times playing the same thing. RB will also duplicate this quite easily and well.
I would not advise using this on a lead part for the attempted purpose of doubling the track since it does NOT play the same thing twice...... HOWEVER..... I use this unique function quite often on lead parts, not to double, but to choose segments from each part to create one awesome solo. Listen to the piano and the guitar solo in this song.
There are 3 piano parts rendered from the same piano in real band and there are 5...yes 5...count them.... 5 guitar tracks rendered from the same real band track and in Sonar, I used envelopes to allow the parts I wanted to play. The result is fills and a solo that sound like they are one simply amazing part/solo. Some of the piano fills, while very short, are in fact coming from 2 different tracks controlled by volume envelopes.
AS PeterG points out... the worst way to attempt doubling is the lazy man's way.... simply copying a track and delaying it or detuning it.... this method causes some serious phase issues as the frequency of the notes played a few milliseconds apart mix in the DAW. You get comb-filtering and that doesn't sound good. I've done it, we've all done it, it's just not the best or recommended way to do this.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.com Add nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
A lot of people have used double-tracking in hit records. It's an effect, and like most effects, it's probably best to use sparingly and only when it contributes something special to the song.
Here's another approach. Have you tried a BBE Sonic Maximizer? A little bit of processing with that gizmo can really liven up tracks. (they have a software plug in too).
Like most things, too much is too much.
The theory behind it is this (the way I understand their literature):
The voice coil of any loudspeaker delays the high frequencies more than the low ones. Coils resist changes in voltage. This results in the low frequencies hitting your ears first.
The BBE has a control (process) that delays the low frequencies so that they highs and lows can enter your ear in phase. Since no two voice coils are alike you use your ears to adjust the process control. Note: I find it best to adjust the BBE before equalization.
There is also a low contour that acts like the "loudness" button on an old stereo set. It boosts the presence of the low sounds, adding punch without adding mud.
I have the hardware unit on my PA set, and won't leave home without it
If you are using BiaB, there is a special feature working behind the scenes to deal with the issue of doubling parts. It actually makes completely different parts, it doesn't try to just change one slightly from the other. This is for Realtracks.
If you put 2 or more of the identical Realtracks on separate tracks, BiaB will automatically generate different parts for each of them, so that there is no time in the arrangement that it would be playing the same thing - because if it did, it would sound like one player instead of two.
There is no setting needed for this, it just works, as long as you are generating them all at once by pressing the play button. We call this feature same-but-different.
Fwiw, in our tests, attempting to generate different parts by just offsetting the timing of an audio track, or panning doesn't work, and it often sounds worse. That's why we made the same-but-different feature, so that you actually hear 2 different parts play at all times.
Peter, this is a wonderful feature of BIAB and I use it a lot!! But on a few occasions I have seen BIAB generate the exact same part for two different tracks on a few bars. In these situations I either regenerate or I export each track individually and manipulate them in my DAW. I noticed this because I had both tracks panned hard left/right and on some bars it would come back to the center as they combined! If I see it again I will save the file and send it to you. I do not think I have seen this in BIAB 2015 yet. And, as I recall it was a ukulele RealTrack in at least one case.
the worst way to attempt doubling is the lazy man's way.... simply copying a track and delaying it or detuning it.... this method causes some serious phase issues as the frequency of the notes played a few milliseconds apart mix in the DAW. You get comb-filtering and that doesn't sound good. I've done it, we've all done it, it's just not the best or recommended way to do this.
I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing here but I am talking primarily about doubling a single track for "thickening" a vocal where the singer cannot sing a double for whatever reason. In these cases this technique can work quite well.
IMHO it is silly to call a technique "lazy man's way". Did the Revolver album suffer because John and the others were "lazy" and chose to use ADT instead of actually performing doubles? If a technique helps you achieve the sound you want then use it!
I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing here but I am talking primarily about doubling a single track for "thickening" a vocal where the singer cannot sing a double for whatever reason. In these cases this technique can work quite well.
I thought that was the topic of discussion in this thread. If a singer can sing a track, certainly, they should be able to record a second (or more) track in a short time. Unless the taxi is outside honking the horn, in which case, you gotta work with what you got into that one track. I might have used this on "Give Me A Chance" because we recorded one take. I'd have to go back to the project and look to be 100% sure. The singer was not able to get back to record anther after that with her school schedule. So, yeah... sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, or do without. When we did the original recording, I wasn't thinking about doubling the track. After the fact, I did. Too late.
Quote:
IMHO it is silly to call a technique "lazy man's way". Did the Revolver album suffer because John and the others were "lazy" and chose to use ADT instead of actually performing doubles? If a technique helps you achieve the sound you want then use it!
It is the "lazy" way to do it since doing it right means you have to take the time and make the effort to record a brand new track and get the phrasing 99.9% accurate.... vs simply doing a copy and paste then nudging the track a few milliseconds.
After all the goal of a double is NOT to have two or more audible voices but to simply make the one sound fuller, thicker, fatter. IIRC, the Beatles did use it quite a bit and it kinda became a signature sound so to speak. The Beatles invented lots of things and as a result of them being at the beginning of new concepts, had the levels set differently from what many producers use today. Not wrong, but just different...they were breaking new ground and learning about things as they went. I heard a story about Paul. It was said that he spent 2 days...and not 8 hr days, but much more than that, working in the Abby Road studio on ONE vocal track for a single song.... doubling the tracks by recording a new unique track and getting it perfect. He didn't copy it or punch it in or splice it.... he wanted it right. Beginnings of words, the consonants, the endings, the inflections.... everything had to be right.
But here's the critical thing.... while yes, absolutely, lots of hit records from every genre are using this, and have been for decades, it's critical to get it right and most folks who are using the lazy man's way to double are probably also a sure bet that in addition to being lazy, they don't really know how to get a decent double that doesn't sound obvious and have comb filtering issues in it. A good ear can almost always tell when someone is just starting out using this technique and quite often when the track is copied and nudged. I admit I have used the lazy man's double a time or two myself. Nothing's wrong with that...we all have to start somewhere and learn as we go.
Last edited by Guitarhacker; 05/14/1503:15 PM.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.com Add nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing here but I am talking primarily about doubling a single track for "thickening" a vocal where the singer cannot sing a double for whatever reason. In these cases this technique can work quite well.
I thought that was the topic of discussion in this thread. If a singer can sing a track, certainly, they should be able to record a second (or more) track in a short time. Unless the taxi is outside honking the horn, in which case, you gotta work with what you got into that one track. I might have used this on "Give Me A Chance" because we recorded one take. I'd have to go back to the project and look to be 100% sure. The singer was not able to get back to record anther after that with her school schedule. So, yeah... sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, or do without. When we did the original recording, I wasn't thinking about doubling the track. After the fact, I did. Too late.
Quote:
IMHO it is silly to call a technique "lazy man's way". Did the Revolver album suffer because John and the others were "lazy" and chose to use ADT instead of actually performing doubles? If a technique helps you achieve the sound you want then use it!
It is the "lazy" way to do it since doing it right means you have to take the time and make the effort to record a brand new track and get the phrasing 99.9% accurate.... vs simply doing a copy and paste then nudging the track a few milliseconds.
After all the goal of a double is NOT to have two or more audible voices but to simply make the one sound fuller, thicker, fatter. IIRC, the Beatles did use it quite a bit and it kinda became a signature sound so to speak. The Beatles invented lots of things and as a result of them being at the beginning of new concepts, had the levels set differently from what many producers use today. Not wrong, but just different...they were breaking new ground and learning about things as they went. I heard a story about Paul. It was said that he spent 2 days...and not 8 hr days, but much more than that, working in the Abby Road studio on ONE vocal track for a single song.... doubling the tracks by recording a new unique track and getting it perfect. He didn't copy it or punch it in or splice it.... he wanted it right. Beginnings of words, the consonants, the endings, the inflections.... everything had to be right.
But here's the critical thing.... while yes, absolutely, lots of hit records from every genre are using this, and have been for decades, it's critical to get it right and most folks who are using the lazy man's way to double are probably also a sure bet that in addition to being lazy, they don't really know how to get a decent double that doesn't sound obvious and have comb filtering issues in it. A good ear can almost always tell when someone is just starting out using this technique and quite often when the track is copied and nudged. I admit I have used the lazy man's double a time or two myself. Nothing's wrong with that...we all have to start somewhere and learn as we go.
Sounds like elitist BS to me! if a technique works and gets you the sound you want then by all means use it! John Lennon knew that as do thousands of others. I guess it is lazy to use pitch control or a digital reverb instead of building your own plate version? Must be really lazy to use BIAB instead of hiring studio musicians! It is always about the results, not whether you used this tool or that tool or took a route someone else considers "lazy".
Sounds like elitist BS to me! if a technique works and gets you the sound you want then by all means use it! John Lennon knew that as do thousands of others. I guess it is lazy to use pitch control or a digital reverb instead of building your own plate version? Must be really lazy to use BIAB instead of hiring studio musicians! It is always about the results, not whether you used this tool or that tool or took a route someone else considers "lazy".
That made me smile......
Yes, it's lazy when you simply copy a track to double it rather than recording it two, three, four or more times, taking the time to do it the right way when you have the option and the time to do it the right way. I don't think I have said "don't do it"....just that there is a better way to do it that takes more time, effort, and skill. It's not the easy path, but it does yield better results in the long run.
That's all.
Just as "nudge" is a tool that can line up a clip properly, pitch, reverb, and BB/RB are tools. Just as using a hammer to drive a nail is using a tool, rather then trying to use your hand or a rock..... tools make a job easier. It's not laziness to use a tool.
And if you want to use copy/paste/nudge & detune for your doubling .....all I can say to that is... be my guest. You will get out of it what you put into it.
Last edited by Guitarhacker; 05/15/1502:46 AM.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.com Add nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
Sounds like elitist BS to me! if a technique works and gets you the sound you want then by all means use it! John Lennon knew that as do thousands of others. I guess it is lazy to use pitch control or a digital reverb instead of building your own plate version? Must be really lazy to use BIAB instead of hiring studio musicians! It is always about the results, not whether you used this tool or that tool or took a route someone else considers "lazy".
That made me smile......
Yes, it's lazy when you simply copy a track to double it rather than recording it two, three, four or more times, taking the time to do it the right way when you have the option and the time to do it the right way. I don't think I have said "don't do it"....just that there is a better way to do it that takes more time, effort, and skill. It's not the easy path, but it does yield better results in the long run.
That's all.
Just as "nudge" is a tool that can line up a clip properly, pitch, reverb, and BB/RB are tools. Just as using a hammer to drive a nail is using a tool, rather then trying to use your hand or a rock..... tools make a job easier. It's not laziness to use a tool.
And if you want to use copy/paste/nudge & detune for your doubling .....all I can say to that is... be my guest. You will get out of it what you put into it.
Need my EBS filter for sure! You say doubling a track is lazy yet you use computer-generated backing tracks rather than hiring studio musicians! Gag at a gnat and swallow a camel much?
Everyone has their tools and techniques and shortcuts. One man's BIAB/digital reverb/ADT is another man's lazy technique. There is ALWAYS "a better way to do it" for everything in producing music (and life in general) but I choose the techniques that work for what we are trying to achieve in any given situation and ignore "authorities" who frown on such techniques. Because the end result is what I am after!!
Some do.....some talk. You talk a good game. When was the last time you posted some music you worked on?
Just wondering, because I took a few minutes to search back over 2 years to find and listen to something you actually recorded and posted to see and hear your skills in action.... sorry, but I came up empty handed.
Last edited by Guitarhacker; 05/15/1508:29 AM.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.com Add nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
Some do.....some talk. You talk a good game. When was the last time you posted some music you worked on?
Just wondering, because I took a few minutes to search back over 2 years to find and listen to something you actually recorded and posted to see and hear your skills in action.... sorry, but I came up empty handed.
I don't post my music here. Simple as that!
Care to elaborate on how you can say ADT is lazy while you use computer-generated backing tracks and that is not lazy? For the record, I don't think either one is lazy!
The first plug-in on ++ THIS ++ page should work. Here is a quote from the developer's page:
"ADT - Artificial Double Tracking The ADT technique was developed at Abbey Road Studios by engineers recording the Beatles in the 1960s. To free John Lennon from having to sing everything twice for real double tracking they came up with an artificial replacement: they sent the original signal to another tape machine and re-recorded it. Due to the physical distance between record and playback heads the new signal was delayed. The length of the delay depends on the tape speed (the slower the tape is running the longer it takes for the signal to travel from the record to the playback head). However, due to the machine's (small amounts of) Wow and Flutter the delay time was not fixed but varied slightly, giving an additional chorus-like effect. The ADT Plug-In takes a mono input signal and creates a stereo output. The original input signal will be output on one channel, the new ADT signal on the other. Blending the two is also possible. The Plug-In allows to control the delay time (10 - 50ms), Wow and Flutter (both with intensity in % and frequency). All values are based on the technical data of the tape machines that was originally used to create this effect."
By the way, this VST is free and is comparable to the $150(US) Waves doubler. There are 12 pages of comments on ++ THIS ++ KVR Audio forum.
You've done it again! This looks excellent. I'll have to give it a go.
It makes sense that the automatic doubling using a tape recorder is more effective than today's 'copy and paste' because of the mechanical variations that the machine naturally experiences. It's interesting to note that delay was also variable and a consequence of the electronics. Cool.
Mac 2025 Special Upgrade Offers Extended Until August 15th!
It's not too late to upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac® and save! We've extended our special until August 15, 2025!
We've added many major new features to Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®, including advanced AI tools like the amazing BB Stem Splitter and AI Lyrics Generator, as well as VST3 plugin support, and Equalize Temp. Plus, there’s a new one-stop MIDI Patches Picker with over 1,100 MIDI patches to choose from, all neatly categorized by GM numbers. The MultiPicker Library is enhanced with tabs for the SongPicker, MIDI Patch Picker, Chord Builder, AI Lyrics Generator, and Song Titles Browser, and the tabs are organized into logical groups. The Audiophile Edition is enhanced with FLAC files , which are 60% smaller than AIFF files while maintaining identical audio quality, and now ships on a fast 1TB SSD, and much more!
Check out all the new features in Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac® here:
Purchase your Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac during our special to save up to 50% off your upgrade purchase and receive a FREE BONUS PAK of amazing new Add-ons. These include the 2025 RealCombos Booster PAK, Look Ma! More MIDI 13: Country & Americana, Instrumental Studies Set 22: 2-Hand Piano Soloing - Rhythm Changes, MIDI SuperTracks Set 44: Jazz Piano, Artist Performance Set 17: Songs with Vocals 7, Playable RealTracks Set 4, RealDrums Stems Set 7: Jazz with Mike Clark, and more!
Upgrade to the 2025 49-PAK for just $49 and add 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and 20 RealStyles, FLAC Files for the 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks, Look Ma! More MIDI 14: SynthMaster, MIDI SuperTracks Set 45: More SynthMaster, Artist Performance Set 18: Songs with Vocals 8, and RealDrums Stems Set 8: Pop, Funk & More with Jerry Roe.
Learn more about the Bonus PAKs!
We’ve expanded the Band-in-a-Box® RealTracks library with 202 incredible new RealTracks (in sets 449-467) across Jazz, Blues, Funk, World, Pop, Rock, Country, Americana, and Praise & Worship—featuring your most requested styles!
Jazz, Blues & World (Sets 449–455):
These RealTracks includes “Soul Jazz” with Neil Swainson (bass), Mike Clark (drums), Charles Treadway (organ), Miles Black (piano), and Brent Mason (guitar). Enjoy “Requested ’60s” jazz, classic acoustic blues with Colin Linden, and more of our popular 2-handed piano soloing. Plus, a RealTracks first—Tango with bandoneon, recorded in Argentina!
Rock & Pop (Sets 456–461):
This collection includes Disco, slap bass ‘70s/‘80s pop, modern and ‘80s metal with Andy Wood, and a unique “Songwriter Potpourri” featuring Chinese folk instruments, piano, banjo, and more. You’ll also find a muted electric guitar style (a RealTracks first!) and “Producer Layered Guitar” styles for slick "produced" sound.
Country, Americana & Praise (Sets 462–467):
We’ve added new RealTracks across bro country, Americana, praise & worship, vintage country, and songwriter piano. Highlights include Brent Mason (electric guitar), Eddie Bayers (drums), Doug Jernigan (pedal steel), John Jarvis (piano), Glen Duncan (banjo, mandolin & fiddle), Mike Harrison (electric bass) and more—offering everything from modern sounds to heartfelt Americana styles
And, if you are looking for more, the 2025 49-PAK (for $49) includes an additional 20 RealTracks with exciting new sounds and genre-spanning styles. Enjoy RealTracks firsts like Chinese instruments (guzheng & dizi), the bandoneon in an authentic Argentine tango trio, and the classic “tic-tac” baritone guitar for vintage country.
You’ll also get slick ’80s metal guitar from Andy Wood, modern metal with guitarist Nico Santora, bass player Nick Schendzielos, and drummer Aaron Stechauner, more praise & worship, indie-folk, modern/bro country with Brent Mason, and “Songwriter Americana” with Johnny Hiland.
Plus, enjoy user-requested styles like Soul Jazz RealDrums, fast Celtic Strathspey guitar, and Chill Hop piano & drums!
With your version 2025 for Mac Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition or PlusPAK purchase, we'll include a Bonus PAK full of great new Add-ons FREE! Or upgrade to the 2025 49-PAK for only $49 to receive even more NEW Add-ons including 20 additional RealTracks!
These PAKs are loaded with additional add-ons to supercharge your Band-in-a-Box®!
This Free Bonus PAK includes:
The 2025 RealCombos Booster PAK:
-For Pro customers, this includes 33 new RealTracks and 65+ new RealStyles.
-For MegaPAK customers, this includes 29 new RealTracks and 45+ new RealStyles.
-For UltraPAK customers, this includes 20 new RealStyles.
Look Ma! More MIDI 13: Country & Americana
Instrumental Studies Set 22: 2-Hand Piano Soloing - Rhythm Changes
MIDI SuperTracks Set 44: Jazz Piano
Artist Performance Set 17: Songs with Vocals 7
Playable RealTracks Set 4
RealDrums Stems Set 7: Jazz with Mike Clark
SynthMaster Sounds and Styles (with audio demos)
128 GM MIDI Patch Audio Demos.
Looking for more great add-ons, then upgrade to the 2025 49-PAK for just $49 and you'll get:
20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums with 20 RealStyles,
FLAC Files (lossless audio files) for the 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums
Look Ma! More MIDI 14: SynthMaster,
Instrumental Studies Set 23: More '80s Hard Rock Soloing,
MIDI SuperTracks Set 45: More SynthMaster
Artist Performance Set 18: Songs with Vocals 8
RealDrums Stems Set 8: Pop, Funk & More with Jerry Roe
New! Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher for Mac!
Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Mac & Windows Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) is here with 200 brand new RealStyles!
We're excited to bring you our latest and greatest in the all new Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Band-in-a-Box! This fresh installment is packed with 200 all-new styles spanning the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres you've come to expect, as well as the exciting inclusion of electronic styles!
In this PAK you’ll discover: Minimalist Modern Funk, New Wave Synth Pop, Hard Bop Latin Groove, Gospel Country Shuffle, Cinematic Synthwave, '60s Motown, Funky Lo-Fi Bossa, Heavy 1980s Metal, Soft Muted 12-8 Folk, J-Pop Jazz Fusion, and many more!
All the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 20 are on special for only $29 each (reg $49), or get all 209 PAKs for $199 (reg $399)! Order now!
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 20 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version because they need the RealTracks from the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
New! XPro Styles PAK 9 for Band-in-a-Box 2025 and higher for Mac!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 9 for Mac & Windows Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 29 RealTracks/RealDrums!
We've been hard at it to bring you the latest and greatest in this 9th installment of our popular XPro Styles PAK series! Included are 75 styles spanning the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres (25 styles each) that fans have come to expect, as well as 25 styles in this volume's wildcard genre: funk & R&B!
If you're itching to get a sneak peek at what's included in XPro Styles PAK 9, here is a small helping of what you can look forward to: Funky R&B Horns, Upbeat Celtic Rock, Jazz Fusion Salsa, Gentle Indie Folk, Cool '60s Soul, Funky '70s R&B, Smooth Jazz Hip Hop, Acoustic Rockabilly Swing, Funky Reggae Dub, Dreamy Retro Latin Jazz, Retro Soul-Rock Fusion, and much more!
Special Pricing! Until July 31, 2024, all the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 9 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Order now!
XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2025 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
New! Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher for Windows!
Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Windows & Mac Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) is here with 200 brand new RealStyles!
We're excited to bring you our latest and greatest in the all new Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Band-in-a-Box! This fresh installment is packed with 200 all-new styles spanning the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres you've come to expect, as well as the exciting inclusion of electronic styles!
In this PAK you’ll discover: Minimalist Modern Funk, New Wave Synth Pop, Hard Bop Latin Groove, Gospel Country Shuffle, Cinematic Synthwave, '60s Motown, Funky Lo-Fi Bossa, Heavy 1980s Metal, Soft Muted 12-8 Folk, J-Pop Jazz Fusion, and many more!
All the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 20 are on special for only $29 each (reg $49), or get all 209 PAKs for $199 (reg $399)! Order now!
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 20 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version because they need the RealTracks from the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
New! XPro Styles PAK 9 for Band-in-a-Box 2025 and higher for Windows!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 9 for Windows & Mac Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 29 RealTracks/RealDrums!
We've been hard at it to bring you the latest and greatest in this 9th installment of our popular XPro Styles PAK series! Included are 75 styles spanning the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres (25 styles each) that fans have come to expect, as well as 25 styles in this volume's wildcard genre: funk & R&B!
If you're itching to get a sneak peek at what's included in XPro Styles PAK 9, here is a small helping of what you can look forward to: Funky R&B Horns, Upbeat Celtic Rock, Jazz Fusion Salsa, Gentle Indie Folk, Cool '60s Soul, Funky '70s R&B, Smooth Jazz Hip Hop, Acoustic Rockabilly Swing, Funky Reggae Dub, Dreamy Retro Latin Jazz, Retro Soul-Rock Fusion, and much more!
Special Pricing! Until July 31, 2024, all the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 9 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Order now!
XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2025 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you over the phone. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday, and 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST Saturday. We are closed Sunday. You can also send us your questions via email.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you on our Live Chat or by email. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST (GMT -8) Saturday; Closed Sunday.
Norton Music
You say doubling a track is lazy yet you use computer-generated backing tracks rather than hiring studio musicians! 
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean