I was looking @ the programming language of band in a box & real band they use delphi if they changed to c++ would get less errors and run smoother. They seems very outdated - looking on google most audio applications use c++ with better gui's and less bugs. There are programs that will convert 80% of delphi to c++. They could keep the existing band in a box how it is 32 for the older users that have been accustomed to it's interface for the last 20 years and make a new modern version that can be used like band in a box but in an audio workstation like real band in a new c++ 64 application. They seemed to be able to port it to the Macintosh ok so I do think they would be able to accomplish this sometime soon hopefully.
I didn't understand why the video link to a 1997 video on Generating Solos?
You mentioned
Quote:
There are programs that will convert 80% of delphi to c++.
Have you used these programs successfully (like 80% successfully)? No, I guess not.
Whatever development environment BiaB is produced in has no relationship to its output functionality. Most modern development systems - whether it is Pascal, Java, C++ or C# etc - are all capable of producing the same results, (well, maybe not Cobol...)
BIAB & RB2026 Win.(Audiophile), Windows 10 Pro & Windows 11, Cakewalk Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Session Keys Grand S & Electric R, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M, Pioneer Active Monitors.
The output from the Delphi Compiler is just as compact and efficient as any C or C++ or C# compiler. Smooth running is a function of the programmer's effort.
BUT... to change from one language to another for a mature program is asking for trouble.
I know I am a programmer that uses Delphi primarily. It has grown up and kept on a technical level on a par with any other language.
Whatever development environment BiaB is produced in has no relationship to its output functionality. Most modern development systems - whether it is Pascal, Java, C++ or C# etc - are all capable of producing the same results, (well, maybe not Cobol...)
He he. I have been doing many things in COBOL but I wouldn't say that COBOL is modern. It is a nice language, quite speedy, quite comfortable to write and read but verbose. StylePicker and its fellow Pickers would probably be faster in COBOL and because of the file system the maximum number in the Style Picker would have never occured. But for the mathematical equations in the nusic files FORTRAN would be much much better.
Interesting topic. But, why would we end users be concerned with how or why the program is developed, programmed and compiled?
Because of the resulting size of the program and the speed it runs. The smaller the program the faster it loads. The more compact the code, the speedier the program is.
It is a [*****] to program, but written by very good programmers in Assembler the program would be much smaller and faster. The problem with third, fourth, fifth generation program languages (#GL) is that they are often very comfortable to use for the programmer but also create a lot of bulky overhead within the program. In Assembler you would have to program the GUI, in a 4GL you select the features and the appropriate module is loaded.
But in general: I don't care -- as long as my computer is fast enough and the necessary memory can be accessed.
(In the times when Bill Gates had said: "640 KB of memeory should be more than enough for everybody.2: The smallest program I've written in Assembler has had a size of 9 bytes. It gave back an errorlevel number indicating which key was pressed to control DOS batch programs. This program would have never been so small using another language except machine code.)
Interesting topic. But, why would we end users be concerned with how or why the program is developed, programmed and compiled?
Exactly! With today's fast computers and oodles of memory I have zero concern about what programming language PG might choose to use! No one would ever program a Windows application in assembler. Delphi, C++, who cares? Just get that GUI fixed! Better yet, get the whole thing converted to a VSTi that I can use in my DAW!
BUT... to change from one language to another for a mature program is asking for trouble.
Yes, agree 1000%. Big trouble. Huge trouble...
BIAB & RB2026 Win.(Audiophile), Windows 10 Pro & Windows 11, Cakewalk Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Session Keys Grand S & Electric R, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M, Pioneer Active Monitors.
Well, I would say you have it backwards. Go onto your DAW's forum and ask them why can't they be a slave to Biab's host?
My point is DAW's along with Biab have always been master host programs. They're not designed to be slaves.
Bob
Baloney!:) there is no need to ask a DAW to support my Kontakt instrument library because it is already designed to a standard! if PG designed the RealTracks to be a VSTi it would become something universal that would work with any DAW!
The programming language has nothing to do with it, the Delphi compiler is quite efficient, what slows BIAB down is it uses a lot of resources which need to be loaded into memory. You could program it in Assembly language or even machine code for that matter it the increase in speed would be minimal. What it needs is a streamlining of the GUI to be less taxing on the system
""They could keep the existing band in a box how it is 32 for the older users that have been accustomed to it's interface for the last 20 years and make a new modern version that can be used like band in a box but in an audio workstation like real band in a new c++ 64 application. They seemed to be able to port it to the Macintosh ok so I do think they would be able to accomplish this sometime soon hopefully.""
Sorry was trying to emphasize for a new version but keep the old delphi32 biab for those existing users. The delphi just seems very dated to be still using so I did a list of what others are using for good reasons I would expect. C++ is simply portable to just about any platform and it seems everyone was complaining about the gui problems and syncing to other daw's and vst syncing. Sorry it was just something I had noticed.
I'm totally out of my depth here, but I'm curious. I read through the list and saw that all the "Brand X" programs used C/C++ except for Sonar, which uses MFC. What's that?
R.
"My primary musical instrument is the personal computer."
MFC is an object oriented library it stands for Microsoft Foundation Classes, Delphi uses it's own object oriented library "VLC" which stands for Visual Component Library, it's far more sophisticated than MFC and now delphi is focusing on a vector based library called Firemonkey that is used for cross platform development on Android and IOS.
The problem is not in the language or in the libraries; it's in the code efficiency and baggage. You can easily port Delphi to C++, since they are basically the same language aside from the syntax, but all you'll end up with is the same exact program running with code compiled from C++ instead of Object Pascal. Band In the Box was written back in the DOS days and ported to Windows, but for all intensive purposes it still operates like a DOS program. It reminds me of the earlier versions of AutoCad for Windows before they rewrote it to function like a windows program. One thing that would speed it up is to lose all of the unnecessary bitmaps and 3D bevels on the buttons and controls that not only eat up resources but make it look like a program out of the 1990s
It wouldn't be a total rewrite, unless the GUI code is mixed in with the analytical and music processing code.
Typically all of the GUI code should be in the units which contain the forms that use them and all of the non GUI code such as the music generation should be in separate units.
If everything is in one big main unit and the GUI elements are being accessed from within the procedures which do all of the musical functions then yes it would be quite an undertaking and a nightmare to maintain.
Band In the Box was written back in the DOS days and ported to Windows, but for all intensive purposes it still operates like a DOS program. It reminds me of the earlier versions of AutoCad for Windows before they rewrote it to function like a windows program. One thing that would speed it up is to lose all of the unnecessary bitmaps and 3D bevels on the buttons and controls that not only eat up resources but make it look like a program out of the 1990s
Thank you roslon for that - that's what I'm trying to convey - that's why that old video was posted. ""make a new modern version that can be used like band in a box but in an audio workstation like real band in a new c++ 64 application - and keep the existing band in a box how it is 32 for the older users that have been accustomed to it's interface for the last 20 years"" Maybe not tomorrow or the next day but sometime soon would be a good thing.
XPro & Xtra Styles PAK Sets On Sale Now - Until May 15, 2026!
All of our XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAKs are on sale until May 15th, 2026!
It's the perfect time to expand your Band-in-a-Box® style library with XPro and Xtra Styles PAKs. These additional styles for Band-in-a-Box® offer a wide range of genres designed to fit seamlessly into your projects. Each style is professionally arranged and mixed, helping enhance your songs while saving you time.
What are XPro Styles and Xtra Styles PAKs?
XPro Styles PAKs are styles that work with any version (Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition) of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). XPro Styles PAKS 1-10 includes 1,000 styles!
Xtra Styles PAKs are styles that work with the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). Xtra Styles PAKs 1-21 includes 3,700 styles (and 35 MIDI styles)!
The XPro & Xtra Styles PAKs are not included in any Band-in-a-Box® package.
The XPro Styles PAKs 1-10 are available for only $29 ea (reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Listen to demos and order now! For Mac or for Windows.
The Xtra Styles PAKs 1-21 are available for only $29 ea (reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the Xtra Styles PAK Bundle for only $199 (reg. $349)! Listen to demos and order now! For Mac or for Windows.
Note: 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.
The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 19 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version as they require the RealTracks included in the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
Supercharge your Band-in-a-Box today with XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAK Sets!
With the release of Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac, we’re rolling out a collection of brand-new videos on our YouTube channel. We’ll keep this forum post updated so you can easily find all the latest videos in one convenient spot.
Whether you're exploring new features, checking out the latest RealTracks or Style PAKs, this is your go-to guide for Band-in-a-Box® 2026.
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac is here and it is packed with major new features! There’s a new modern look, a GUI redesign to all areas of the program including toolbars, windows, workflow and more. There’s a Multi-view layout for organizing multiple windows. A standout addition is the powerful AI-Notes feature, which uses AI neural-net technology to transcribe polyphonic audio into MIDI—entire mixes or individual instruments—making it easy to study, view, and play parts from any song. And that’s just the beginning—there are over 100 new features in this exciting release.
Along with version 2026, we've released an incredible lineup of new content! There's 202 new RealTracks, brand-new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 5, two new RealDrums Stems sets, XPro Styles PAK 10, Xtra Styles PAK 21, and much more!
Special Offers
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac and save up to 50% on most upgrade packages during our special offer—available until May 15, 2026. Visit our Band-in-a-Box® packages page to explore all available upgrade options.
2026 Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK Add-ons
Our Free Bonus PAK and 49-PAK are loaded with amazing add-ons! The Free Bonus PAK is included with most Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac packages, but you can unlock even more—including 20 unreleased RealTracks—by upgrading to the 2026 49-PAK for just $49.
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac® users: Build 904 now available!
If you're already using Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®, make sure to grab the latest update! Build 904 is now available for download and includes the newest additions and enhancements from our team.
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.
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean