|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 174
Apprentice
|
Apprentice
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 174 |
...I just listened to 30 secs of one link in your sig tag 'Don't Sell it" and the artifacts are there instantly starting with fiddle on the left side. I realized the term ' out of phase' is appropriate to describe the sound. Serious comb-filter-esque.
Wait a minute. That file is mp3 compressed at the standard 128kbps for webstreaming. Most of these sites won't accept higher. Download the file and take a look at it on a good Realtime analysis software. You will first see the typical 17KHz "brickwall" cutoff point associated with that mp3 compression bitrate. You should also see the noise inherent above that critical 17KHz cutoff point. The original .wav pcm digital file won't have that at all, count on it, I've already subjected RealTracks to the same analysis. --Mac Sure, I understand Mac. But im not referring to lossy compression artifacts. That affects the whole mix. Soundcloud audio processing is one of the worst for this. What I am referring to is happening on individual tracks. Just jitter and warble artifacts from time/tempo/key stretching. BTW, is there is 44.1 .wav available? It may just make it all more audible. I hear it here anytime I use BIAB. Also, the BIAB .sgu file would help, though I suspect the audio has been edited considerably. Still it will reveal what I am referring to. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 174
Apprentice
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 174 |
Sure thing! I just listened to 30 secs of one link in your sig tag 'Don't Sell it" and the artifacts are there instantly starting with fiddle on the left side. I realized the term ' out of phase' is appropriate to describe the sound. Serious comb-filter-esque.
(BTW, the song itself, the arrangement and singing are really great. Good work! They carry the energy well) That is not part of the issue or content of my post. Thanks for doing that! If you get a chance I'd really appreciate your opinion on the guitar on this one. It's one of our few ventures into working with an electric lead. Honey Babe Blues BTW, as Mark Twain said "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt" but I'll take a chance. To what, if any, degree can mastering/mixing/mp3 conversion have on these artifacts, i.e, can they be mitigated to any extent? I appreciate your insight, Bud. Sure Bud. Mastering? Nah, that's not really an issue here as Mastering (although corrective in nature at times) is aimed at the whole mix. If you find yourself tackling individual tracks at the mastering stage, it may be useful to re-visit the mix. Your mixes are great. You have a great knack for placing instruments sonically and they seem consistent. The rest is constant refinement for all of us IMO. For the tune you posted Honey Babe, yes, the guitar has the artifacts I am speaking of. Its instant for me. Sounds 'chorusy' or modulation affected. I found (one of) these blues track in BIAB (Blues Roadhouse?), changed the key to E and its there in the raw file as well in the key of E at this tempo. It works here in your demo, it support the intent and idea, but I hear it myself and its one of those unpleasant sounds to my ears. I can post the isolated track and it will be pretty obvious I think. If this was actually played by you, you did a great job copying the RT and it has a great deal of modulation on it! ha. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 14,650
Veteran
|
|
OP
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 14,650 |
Sure Bud. Mastering? Nah, that's not really an issue here as Mastering (although corrective in nature at times) is aimed at the whole mix. If you find yourself tackling individual tracks at the mastering stage, it may be useful to re-visit the mix. Your mixes are great. You have a great knack for placing instruments sonically and they seem consistent. The rest is constant refinement for all of us IMO.
For the tune you posted Honey Babe, yes, the guitar has the artifacts I am speaking of. Its instant for me. Sounds 'chorusy' or modulation affected. I found (one of) these blues track in BIAB (Blues Roadhouse?), changed the key to E and its there in the raw file as well in the key of E at this tempo. It works here in your demo, it support the intent and idea, but I hear it myself and its one of those unpleasant sounds to my ears. I can post the isolated track and it will be pretty obvious I think. If this was actually played by you, you did a great job copying the RT and it has a great deal of modulation on it! ha. Cheers!
I can only wish that was my playing! Yes, it is from the roadhouse group and is Jack Pearson of Allman Bros fame. I'm gonna take a snippet of his playing from the raw BiaB files, generate it in several keys, and bring them into the DAW and see if I can discern the differences. FWIW, I never "stretch" or in any way manipulate RT's in the DAW other than moving snippets around to hopefully offer decent segues from vocals to instrument, etc., to to create something that works with the melody -- or at least doesn't work against it. Again, my 67 year old ears have been heavily abused by music over the last 5 decades! Thank you very much for the time you took to listen and comments and thanks for the remarks regarding our mixes, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,034
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,034 |
Can we get a VOTE here? From anyone reading this thread..
DO YOU HEAR ARTIFACTS?
I hesitate to step into the middle of this... but...
I don't hear it. And I don't think 99% of anyone who listens will either.
You (Rodney) and you (Mac) have spent your life listening "professionally" - on very detailed (very expensive) speakers in very controlled environments. You have "trained ears" - or you hear things differently than the rest of us in the first place (I believe). And even if you listen on lesser speakers now, you know what you are listening for.
I listened to that opening fiddle 50 times (downloaded - listening on headphones). It sounds like a fiddle to me. My guess is - that if you had 100 random people listen to the first 30 seconds of that file - even at 128 - and asked "is there anything wrong with that?" you would get 98 "No's" (figure that in your sample you might run into 2 other professional listeners).
Same with the electric guitar. Sounds like an electric guitar to me. And how many processors would that guitar output be run through? Who's to say that the sound isn't processed to sound the way it does? - every guitar player sounds different.
I'm not saying that you guys don't hear something. I've heard Rodney's work and it is phenomenal in every regard. (I've been the beneficiary of it - and am forever grateful). I'll have to take Mac's word for it since I've never heard anything from him. And I respect your talent and knowledge.
But... does can anyone else hear this? In this day and age, are there any sophisticated listeners anymore. Do people still buy those expensive sounds systems? (I know they do, so don't lecture me on that). The world listens to our music on an iPod or their phone - through earbuds. And most of what they listen to isn't even real instruments! They aren't going to hear ARITFACTS in that fiddle!
I'm sure I've left something out (of this side of "the debate"), but I'm sure you will get what I'm saying here....
Does it matter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815 |
I can hear the fiddle so I am not too old yet -- sounds good to me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 174
Apprentice
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 174 |
Can we get a VOTE here? From anyone reading this thread..
DO YOU HEAR ARTIFACTS?
I hesitate to step into the middle of this... but...
I don't hear it. And I don't think 99% of anyone who listens will either.
You (Rodney) and you (Mac) have spent your life listening "professionally" - on very detailed (very expensive) speakers in very controlled environments. You have "trained ears" - or you hear things differently than the rest of us in the first place (I believe). And even if you listen on lesser speakers now, you know what you are listening for.
I listened to that opening fiddle 50 times (downloaded - listening on headphones). It sounds like a fiddle to me. My guess is - that if you had 100 random people listen to the first 30 seconds of that file - even at 128 - and asked "is there anything wrong with that?" you would get 98 "No's" (figure that in your sample you might run into 2 other professional listeners).
Same with the electric guitar. Sounds like an electric guitar to me. And how many processors would that guitar output be run through? Who's to say that the sound isn't processed to sound the way it does? - every guitar player sounds different.
I'm not saying that you guys don't hear something. I've heard Rodney's work and it is phenomenal in every regard. (I've been the beneficiary of it - and am forever grateful). I'll have to take Mac's word for it since I've never heard anything from him. And I respect your talent and knowledge.
But... does can anyone else hear this? In this day and age, are there any sophisticated listeners anymore. Do people still buy those expensive sounds systems? (I know they do, so don't lecture me on that). The world listens to our music on an iPod or their phone - through earbuds. And most of what they listen to isn't even real instruments! They aren't going to hear ARITFACTS in that fiddle!
I'm sure I've left something out (of this side of "the debate"), but I'm sure you will get what I'm saying here....
Does it matter?
Ha ha. This post made me laugh. I certainly hope it is not a 'debate' Floyd but rather just a dialogue about the OPs original post. "Does it matter"? Only if it matters. Subtleties, details etc. are not for the audience, they are for me. Same as a chef and that tiny pinch of seasoning. Same as an artist, film-maker etc. The details are in the creation. These details, along with so many other things that are important to some of us would bore the average person out of their mind. No body hears when I change out pickups or a bridge on a guitar. Nobody but me. That said, these 'artifacts' are not subtle. Not to me. I believe I have mentioned them to you Floyd at times when I have heard one of your demo tracks to play on. They just happen to stand out to me. So do they matter? Of course. To me, yes, yes, yes. I won't use them in that form. Does it matter in general? That is up to the person using them. Truth be told I could post these to a few of my peers and they would hear the same thing. I doubt I would even need to mention it. Like I said, stretching or pitch shifting .wav files produces artifacts. This is what happens when BIAB changes tempo and or keys with RTs. There is no getting around it. When it has to do both, it introduces double the amount. Trained ears? Perhaps. But that doesn't change anything. My ears, my needs, my production values etc. are no less valid. It makes no difference if the entire board said they heard nothing. As is I simply find other uses for the RTs. Its all 100% good here and honestly I don't/wont 'debate' tone or production. Its all valid. Mine, yours, whomever. If this turns into something else, I would just sit it out. Thanks and cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
Well, as far as jitter goes, I've inserted clocking pulse from external and expensive lab grade clock source on quite a few high-end soundcards - and found the increased clarity and fidelity to be easily noticed - rather astonishing the first time, using the good old highspec E-MU 1616M.
And that test was always done using tracks recorded in the real, no automated accompaniments, loops, or any of that.
--Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,705
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,705 |
With tongue planted firmly in cheek I offer this . . . Sometimes I hear "tings", strange "tings" but very often it's just those voices in my head.
Have fun guys, I am happy my hearing is not as fined tuned as yours. :>
Later,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,034
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,034 |
Rodney - I get that they (artifacts) matter to you quite a bit. And I certainly am not trying to "devalue" that. My point is... I don't "get" what it is that you hear. Yes, you have told me that when I send you tracks - and I take your word for it... because I don't hear it. And I would really like to know what others do or don't hear. Just to get some perspective. Are Bud and I just a couple of old guys with bad ears?  Mac - I'll admit, you are talking over my head there... can you explain (in "hick" for me) what the above test is determining (proving)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,034
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,034 |
Oh.. and another question...
Being that much of popular music today is NOTHING but loops, do you listen to it and hear nothing but artifacts all over the place?
And if not, what's the difference? (and, if you are wondering... I am in no way trying to be contentious... I really want to know..)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 174
Apprentice
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 174 |
Rodney - I get that they (artifacts) matter to you quite a bit. And I certainly am not trying to "devalue" that. My point is... I don't "get" what it is that you hear. Yes, you have told me that when I send you tracks - and I take your word for it... because I don't hear it. And I would really like to know what others do or don't hear. Just to get some perspective. Are Bud and I just a couple of old guys with bad ears? Mac - I'll admit, you are talking over my head there... can you explain (in "hick" for me) what the above test is determining (proving)? Floyd, I bet you can hear these just fine. You may just not have 'listened' for them. I just did 3 minute test with BIAB, literally. I took a random RT guitar track and found its natural key (key it was recorded in) and tempo (Key A, tempo 130 or close) It sounds great. It is example 1. I just moved it up to C in BIAB and reduced the tempo to 115 (not much) nothing more. Example 2. Artifacts begin to get happy here. Then I moved the key to E and put the tempo back to 130 (so in essence only changed the key) Artifacts are really happy here, all over the place having a party. Keep in mind this is only 60 seconds of audio and only 1 track. When they stack up it gets crazy. Listen for yourself (These are high-quality MP3s) Example 1: www.rodneygene.com/mp3/RT_original_key.mp3 (original key A and tempo 130 sounds great as expected) Example 2: www.rodneygene.com/mp3/RT_2_stepsup.mp3 (Step up 3 1/2 steps to C and tempo down -15 bpm)subtle change (Starts to slur and warble) Example 3: www.rodneygene.com/mp3/RT_5_stepsup.mp3 (Step up 5 steps to E and tempo back to 130 (lots of slur and warble) You can decide. I am sure I could find extreme examples, but it isn't needed IMO. Cheers!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 174
Apprentice
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 174 |
Oh.. and another question...
Being that much of popular music today is NOTHING but loops, do you listen to it and hear nothing but artifacts all over the place?
And if not, what's the difference? (and, if you are wondering... I am in no way trying to be contentious... I really want to know..) Its all good Floyd. Its a good question. For starters, no I don't actually listen to much modern music. But keep in mind that RTs are not samples, they are recorded audio phrases (that's the only similarity). Samples (for high-end keyboards and soft synths, drum programs etc) are often very high-quality 'snippets' recorded in controlled environments one hit at a time for their intended purpose (the file library for one instrument can be huge). And...when they are used in a 'loop' context such as Boheme uses them, the 'artifacts' can become a sonic contribution as part of the 'style'. In fact some 'low-fi' samples are very popular because of this. Its less important in its organic form so to speak. In classic rock or blues or country, its not as much of a compliment IMO. Thats my take on it anyway. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 216
Apprentice
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 216 |
Thanks Rodney for the examples, I can definately hear a loss of definition, almost like there is a chorus pedal being applied.
It's easy to hear side by side like that. I'm not sure I'd pick it up without the A-B testing. I'd probably just think there was a chorus pedal on the guitar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 174
Apprentice
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 174 |
Thanks Rodney for the examples, I can definitely hear a loss of definition, almost like there is a chorus pedal being applied.
It's easy to hear side by side like that. I'm not sure I'd pick it up without the A-B testing. I'd probably just think there was a chorus pedal on the guitar. My pleasure Frank. Im not sure how BIAB chooses the 'phrases' it plays. Based on key, tempo etc. Sometimes they work when they are close to the original key and sometimes less so. In some cases it gets pretty extreme. Mac - I'll admit, you are talking over my head there... can you explain (in "hick" for me) what the above test is determining (proving)? Floyd, Mac was referring to word clock jitter. A measurement of clock stability/accuracy in a digital interface that happens at the ADC and DAC. Lower-end interfaces can have lower-resolution audio despite the sample rate being used. Meaning a better interface may hear the audio clearer. Although I have a high-end interface with a great clock, for clarity sakes, that is not the issue I was referring to here. I was using the word 'jitter' as description for audio sound characteristics. I could have easily said 'warble' which I later did. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
I'm just an old EE design guy, but hey.
If you are going to describe a certain phenomenon, not a good idea to use a term that has already been established as meaning something else, eh?
Even though you did not specify it as "clock" jitter, the term has been truncated through the marvels of a living language and it is risky to use the term "jitter" to decribe a phenomenon heard that is not related to clock jitter.
But then, the Engineer in me also cringes when examples are not inputs able to be truly analyzed, as well. For example, I would want to introduce some sounds that are controlled and perform some empirical measurement testing to proof what I hear. Perhaps a generated tone set that is consistent from test to test, with good analysis softwares or better yet, dedicated hardware measuring equipments, NIST traceable.
Comparisons of A -> B in the various iterations.
And then, after establishing the available Base Level measurements, I would also want to expose those with the hearing claims to the good old fashioned Blindfold Testing as well.
These kind of situations always interest me, for such might be the basis for ways to improve current methods. If empirical proofs could be isolated.
Awhile back there was a fellow in Austria who was supposedly a Stradivarius Violin expert and marketer.
He's in jail.
It seems that he sold quite a few violins as being Strads - and it turned out that they were made of wood that came from recently harvested trees, using automated methods.
Those violins were not worth the millions that a Strad can bring, yet even whole symphony orchestras were suckered into his deals. The fiddles turned out to be worth no more than about 2,000 bucks each.
Yet not a single player out of the bunch noticed anything different about the way the violins played and sounded.
Only after they were told that these violins were fakes - then all of a sudden these golden-eared trained violinists began to back-pedal with statements such as, "I always thought there was something slightly different about that violin..."
--Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,034
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,034 |
Rodney,
Hey.. thanks for taking the time to explain further and to put up examples. I think it both demonstrates what you are referring to and why "the rest of us" don't hear it. If I hear any "difference" in Example 2 (which I don't, really) it is only because you say there is a difference (the "don't think about elephants" thing). I can detect the slight chorus effect in Example 3. However... it still sounds like some damn fine guitar playing to me. And I'm fairly certain that I would not be able to detect it in a mix. My guess is.. the ONLY people who could/would detect it (in a mix) are production professionals LISTENING for it or exceptional guitar players who are expecting a certain sound - again, not trying to de-value your take on it - I understand that - and when you say "your peers" would hear it, I assume they would be included in one of those groups...
This really has been an interesting discussion (and learning experience). It's kind of a shame that it happened under the title that it did "Playing LESS..." instead of something about "use of RTs in production...". There might have been more participation...
Thanks, also, for the clock/jitter explanation - although, I still don't get what Mac was trying to prove or disprove in the test he referred to - and he, apparently, has chosen to ignore my request for an understandable explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 11,772
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 11,772 |
Nice discussion guys. Enjoyed.
All I can add is we always knew if you strayed too far from tempo the adjusting would cause problems. I was not aware that a key change also could cause an issue, but makes sense. But to my ears, not much difference in the examples.
Having said that I can tell you I drink cheap beer and don't drink "call" whisky. Could never tell the difference and never wanted to develop such a refined taste that I needed to pay extra for the buzz.
However, I do appreciate and envey a little the tuned ears of the pros.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
Thanks, also, for the clock/jitter explanation - although, I still don't get what Mac was trying to prove or disprove in the test he referred to - and he, apparently, has chosen to ignore my request for an understandable explanation.
What's not understandable about the need for real empirical testing and the resulting data obtained? The Scientific Method. If we cannot find and measure an reported anomaly, there would be no way to implement any sort of attempt at improvement or correction of the report. --Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 14,650
Veteran
|
|
OP
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 14,650 |
My research design prof used to say "if it exists, it exists in some amount and therefore can be measured. " But that was before we knew much about quantum physics - which may fitting here.
Last edited by Janice & Bud; 12/02/13 03:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodshedding - Learning to Play!
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
I believe that there will come a day when the quant will be better understood, and that empirical measurements will indeed become de rigeur if not downright commonplace.
History of what we now think we know bears that out.
--Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ask sales and support questions about Band-in-a-Box using natural language.
ChatPG's knowledge base includes the full Band-in-a-Box User Manual and sales information from the website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New! XPro Styles PAK 7 for Band-in-a-Box 2024 for Mac!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 7 with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 50 RealTracks and RealDrums that are sure to delight!
With XPro Styles PAK 7 you can expect 25 rock & pop, 25 jazz, and 25 country styles, as well as 25 of this year's wildcard genre: Celtic!
Here's a small sampling of what XPro Styles PAK 7 has to offer: energetic rock jigs, New Orleans funk, lilting jazz waltzes, fast Celtic punk, uptempo train beats, gritty grunge, intense jazz rock, groovy EDM, soulful R&B, soft singer-songwriter pop, country blues rock, and many more!
Special Pricing! Until September 30, 2024, all the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 7 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea)! Supercharge your Band-in-a-Box 2024® with XPro Styles PAK 7! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of XPro Styles PAKs.
Watch the XPro Styles PAK 7 Overview & Styles Demos video.
XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2024 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
New! Xtra Styles PAK 18 for Band-in-a-Box 2024 for Mac!
Xtra Styles PAK 18 for Band-in-a-Box version 2024 is here with 200 brand new styles to take for a spin!
Along with 50 new styles each for the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, we’ve put together a collection of styles using sounds from the SynthMaster plugin!
In this PAK you'll find: dubby reggae grooves, rootsy Americana, LA jazz pop, driving pop rock, mellow electronica, modern jazz fusion, spacey country ballads, Motown shuffles, energetic EDM, and plenty of synth heavy grooves! Xtra Style PAK 18 features these styles and many, many more!
Special Pricing! Until September 30, 2024, all the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 18 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea)! Expand your Band-in-a-Box 2024® library with Xtra Styles PAK 18! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of the Xtra Styles PAK 18 here.
Watch the Xtra Styles PAK 18 Overview & Styles Demos video.
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 18 requires the 2024 UltraPAK/UltraPAK+/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! Xtra Styles PAK 18 for Band-in-a-Box 2024 for Windows!
Xtra Styles PAK 18 for Band-in-a-Box version 2024 is here with 200 brand new styles to take for a spin!
Along with 50 new styles each for the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, we’ve put together a collection of styles using sounds from the SynthMaster plugin!
In this PAK you'll find: dubby reggae grooves, rootsy Americana, LA jazz pop, driving pop rock, mellow electronica, modern jazz fusion, spacey country ballads, Motown shuffles, energetic EDM, and plenty of synth heavy grooves! Xtra Style PAK 18 features these styles and many, many more!
Special Pricing! Until September 30, 2024, all the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 18 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea)! Expand your Band-in-a-Box 2024® library with Xtra Styles PAK 18! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of the Xtra Styles PAK 18 here.
Watch the Xtra Styles PAK 18 Overview & Styles Demos video.
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 18 requires the 2024 UltraPAK/UltraPAK+/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 7 for Band-in-a-Box 2024 for Windows!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 7 with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 50 RealTracks and RealDrums that are sure to delight!
With XPro Styles PAK 7 you can expect 25 rock & pop, 25 jazz, and 25 country styles, as well as 25 of this year's wildcard genre: Celtic!
Here's a small sampling of what XPro Styles PAK 7 has to offer: energetic rock jigs, New Orleans funk, lilting jazz waltzes, fast Celtic punk, uptempo train beats, gritty grunge, intense jazz rock, groovy EDM, soulful R&B, soft singer-songwriter pop, country blues rock, and many more!
Special Pricing! Until September 30, 2024, all the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 7 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea)! Supercharge your Band-in-a-Box 2024® with XPro Styles PAK 7! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of XPro Styles PAKs.
Watch the XPro Styles PAK 7 Overview & Styles Demos video.
XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2024 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
Video - Band-in-a-Box® DAW Plugin Version 6 for Mac®: New Features for Reaper
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Mac® - Update Today!
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Mac® Video - Over 50 New Features and Enhancements!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums65
Topics83,044
Posts752,801
Members38,981
| |
Most Online2,537
Jan 19th, 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean