PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production RB vs BIAB

I searched, I promise! But there seems to be a lack of information on this specific question: when does one use BIAB and when does one use RB?

RB seems to be just as capable as BIAB but with more DAW functionality, but then BIAB seems almost DAW-like itself. From my short experience with the two products, I would think RB actually duplicates BIAB functionality and adds some of its own features, seeming to make BIAB almost obsolete. Is it the interface target? Maybe one is more basic than the other?

What are the differences? And, again, when do you use one over the other?

Thanks!

What are the differences between RealBand, Band-in-a-Box, and PowerTracks Pro Audio?

BiaB is limited to a handful of instrument tracks, and one vocal track. This is sufficient for a lot of folk. If you've got layered vocals or additional audio tracks, you'll have to use RB.

RB is basically a DAW with BiaB built in. It's easy to learn, so if you want an easy to use DAW, you'd use this.

If you've already got a DAW that you know and love, you can export your tracks there. You lose the ability to regenerate the tracks on demand, but get all your favorite features.

I suspect that if you aren't already married to a DAW and are recording audio, you'll want to work with RB.

Additionally, RB has one substantial advantage over BIAB: it can regenerate part of a track.

OK, so does BIAB have any advantages over RB (except that we know it and are comfortable with it)?

On my computer, BIAB gets into playing the song much quicker than RB because RB waits until the song is fully generated whereas BIAB starts playback while backing generation is in progress. This is the main reason I use BIAB as the starting place for my songs.

cklester: if you purchase BIAB (Windows edition), you will automatically get RB - they come as a pair.

Personally I find RB to be totally inadequate as a DAW! Very old and clunky interface. Slow to load songs and even slow to do simple things like scroll the track screen! There are MUCH BETTER free and/or inexpensive DAWs out there. But, like someone else said, they include RB at no charge (there's a clue for you!) when you buy BIAB so you can try it yourself and see what you think.

The one thing I almost like about RB is that it can generate RealTracks bar by bar. However, it is a very frustrating interface and even though I have tried several times I usually end up back in BIAB to generate my tracks.

I'm glad they include both.
To me BiaB is much 'clunkier' to generate in than RB (because of how I work; which is linear)
But BiaB does get the basic parts down and actually generated faster. So I use it for the initial basics, then flush it out in RB.
Then use whatever DAW you want to finish it.

The reason JohnJohnJohn 'almost likes' RB is one reason I won't NOT use it; the ability to surgically work with RealTracks and RealDrums. It never generates exactly what I want. So I regenerate what I don't like. Maybe even use the MultiRiff feature (another not found in BiaB) to generate 8 variations at once and then pick/choose and cut/paste what I want - where I want - how I want.
BiaB is more restricted (but deep in many ways), however, for me, RB is the go to variation. I like the linear, familiar interface.
No need to 'Freeze' tracks. Essentially every track is 'froze' unless you specifically regenerate it, edit it, etc. .. which is why I use BiaB to get the chords/style down .. then off to RB as soon as possible.

Many people have mentioned in earlier threads they like to begin a song in Band-in-a-Box to figure out song basics like the best styles (or styles), key signature, tempo, chord progression and song structure.

Once the song framework is understood, the Band-in-a-Box SGU song file can be saved and exported as a SGU file. The SGU file can be imported into RealBand then saved as a SEQ file which is the native file format for RealBand. BiaB is restricted to eight tracks while RealBand can have up to 48 tracks so you can easily use many more instrument sounds. RealBand follows a timeline so many people feel more comfortable with it. Real Band will let you regenerate RealTracks in sections as small as one measure. The RealBand "multiriff" feature generates up to eight selections so you can choose what you want faster.

To me the biggest difference between BiaB and RealBand is how track regeneration is handled. BiaB regenerates EVERYTHING when the regen button is pressed while RealBand regenerates only the selected area when the regen button is pressed. While it not as bad as it use to be it is very easy to regenerate a track in BiaB when you don't want to.

While RealBand performs most daw functions, many people prefer to move audio tracks to their favorite daw for additional editing, mixing and (possibly) mastering.

It is truely whatever workflow that works best for YOU!

What can I say ? all of the above.
I think Biab is Peter's first born so it is the favorite, the promotion and selling is "all about" Biab everywhere you look, but the second born does not get much of the attention as it's not promoted.

Do you see Promos "by Callie - PG Music" in Realband Forum ?
this was the latest
RealBand 2015 has Arrived!
by Callie - PG Music

This is the latest video.

RealBand 2014 Full New Features Video
Date: 12/9/2013

You can buy RB standalone here but it's last years version.
http://www.pgmusic.com/realband.htm

I think RB has to come into a right of it's own and not just some add-on for BIAB that most users don't even know about.

Sure it has it's problem, which I try so hard to it get improved year after year. . , but until I can generate up realtracks in a sleek DAW I will stick with it.
Users that come to Biab after being accustomed to DAW's find Biab an incredibly steep learning curve, where as RB is a no brainer, you can SEE & TOUCH the tracks, all 48 of them.
Just like Suzi said "Tracks, Tracks, 48 Tracks !

So that's why I thought it needs to be Promoted www.realband.org

I'll throw in my 2 cents worth.

BB is limited to just a handful of tracks. But it does a great job as a composing tool.

RB has more tracks available and the cool thing is not only do you get the handful of tracks BB started with, you can generate and save as many other tracks as you want.

I too agree that RB as a DAW still has a lot to be desired and for that reason I use Sonar to finish my projects.


So essentially, from the writing to the mixing is a 3 step process. BB>>RB>>X1

My 2 cents.

This is a REALLY interesting topic. Learned a lot.

DE

Band-in-a-Box (BIAB) is designed to be a band, well, a small ensemble, that allows you to quickly enter chords and generate an arrangement to either quickly create a song, practice with, or even perform live with. Each time you play, it generates a slightly arrangement, to give it that live feel. Yes it has a lot of features that venture towards a DAW, but it is not (and I suspect never will be) a DAW; that's why PGMusic has RealBand. BIAB really is designed to be used "on-the-fly". It generates an arrangement with RealTracks very quickly and your are off and playing along. Sure it does a lot of other things, but at its heart, that's what it is designed to do.

With BIAB, you are able to "get together" with four or five (and with RealTracks) top-notch musicians and play along to your heart's content. Want to go back to bar five and start all over; they never complain. Want to play the song in a different style; a couple of clicks and your there.

Yes, you can create full arrangements and do a fair amount of tweaking to songs, but it really is designed to be a song creation, practice, and performance tool. BIAB has tools to allow you to play the parts you want to play in real time (for example, the Conductor feature).

RealBand is designed to be DAW, and is track-based, and is static. It's not going to introduce subtle changes every time you play. It will play exactly what you laid down. Nothing wrong with that, but I've yet to see live musicians play exactly the same every time in a live environment. RealBand will let you take the output of the band (because it will read BIAB files) and let you work on it, add more tracks, add more effects, double parts, record harmonies, change parts around, etc, but in the end, it's going to be a static performance to be captured to a WAV file for ultimate playback on some device (CD, streaming web, or MP3 player).

So, is one better than the other? It all depends upon what you are doing and what you are trying to achieve. I would say one is different from the other in purpose. Is a car better than a bicycle? Both provide transportation. The car certainly has more power and goes faster, but you can't just go anywhere with a car. If you are looking to experience nature in the middle of the woods, a car isn't going to do it for you. It just depends on what you are wanting to do.

I use BIAB often to sketch out ideas (because it's fast), to practice with, and browse styles. It's much faster doing those things with BIAB. If I decide I want to capture a performance for posterity, then it's off to RealBand.

If you like one over the other, then use that one. I don't think we should diminish RealBand because it comes free with BIAB. PowerTracks, which is not free, does the same thing RealBand does, minus a lot of the BIAB features (although it includes more now than it used to), because it doesn't make sense to have BIAB feature unless you also have BIAB to go along with it (styles, soloists, melodists, RealTracks, chord progression engine, etc.) So PowerTracks is sold stand-alone. But it just makes sense then that RealBand go along with BIAB and it's really just part of the overall BIAB package, not just a free add-in. If you just want the DAW parts of RealBand without the BIAB features, then you can purchase PowerTracks for a lot less than purchasing the BIAB/RealBand package, but to get RealBand, you need to purchase Band-in-a-Box, because the two work hand-in-hand.

Is RealBand a Sonar (or a Cubase or a ProTools or a Studio One or even a Reaper)? No, but try getting a pedal steel guitar arrangement to sound right across any chord progression using Sonar or Reaper (when you don't actually have a live player to record). RealBand can do that in a couple of seconds.

And nothing wrong with starting in BIAB or even RealBand and exporting to a different DAW. Would it be nice if we ultimately get Rewire (hint, hint)? Sure, but until then, you are just manually doing what Rewire accomplishes automatically (using multiple tools to feed into a single tool achieve the end result).

Just my $0.02 worth on the two products, and those $0.02 seem to be worth less and less each day.

So much great input on this thread. Thanks, guys 'n' gals!!!

I'm really, really liking BIAB and RB. I have Cubase AI 8 installed, and I really like it, as well, and it seems I might need Cubase to supplement my BB/RB development for specific, "more-advanced" things. However, I suspect that's because I don't know how to do everything in RB as of yet. Things like automation, EQ, etc., seem to be easier in Cubase. Maybe someone will prove me wrong... :-D

This statement made me realize a 'sidenote' difference .. not so much as how they operate, but another reason why you may choose one over the other.


When I am making a CD, I don't want it to be different every time!
When practicing/jamming/solo performing this may be good, but for a CD the end listener is going to hear it the same every time, so the project should be approached as such. In this case RB is the logical choice.

Here's another take on this. I use RB because I use multiple hardware and software polyphonic synths. For example, using a Yamaha Motif, I can assign up to 16 instruments on 16 separate tracks using RB. This can't be done with BIAB.

Paul Warren's excellent add-on MidiReDirect helps expand this capability in BIAB. But, in my opinion, RB, or another DAW, is the only way I have found to get around BIAB's track limitations.

Jeff

Good point.
To expand on that, with RB you can also have multiple MIDI ports. At one point we used a Delta 1010, Soundblaster and USB for MIDI, giving us 48 channels (16 X 3 ports). The Port feature of RB is nice to have sometimes too.
/The Soundblaster didn't make the move to this system so currently only 32 MIDI channels available.

I've never had a problem with RB interface being old, clunky, or being slow to load songs, so I wonder if this is related to the computer that it's being used on, or the methods that are being used?
If I compose in BiaB and want to take it to RB, I open the BiaB song in RB and then save it as a RB song (.SEQ file). After that, just open the SEQ file, it's virtually instant.

I think it's fair to say that most users create their material initially in BiaB and then take it to RB if / when required.

Yes, there are other DAWs available, but there in no other DAW on this planet that can do what RealBand does. Period.

I am using a state-of-the-art computer and when using more modern software, like Reaper 5 or the latest Photoshop CC, everything works beautifully! The interface on most of my software is smooth as silk with scrolling and other window tasks working flawlessly.

Then I load up RealBand, load a BIAB song and...wait. After it finally loads I start noticing problems.

Even though the song was frozen in BIAB, some sections are not playing the same riffs on the RealTracks!

And then I notice that my BIAB bar settings are ignored by RB so that work was for naught!

And when I try to scroll using the mouse scroll wheel it is...well it is just a joke! Scroll a little and then wait a little for it to catch up! I assume this is simply not programmed correctly because, as I said, my modern software all works fine with the scroll wheel.

Then I notice idiosyncrasies in the GUI that are just painful to have to slog through. I click inside the style field and the whole thing locks up and Windows reports it has crashed but if I give it about 30 seconds it will hide RealBand main window and then pop up a windowed titled "Select Style Prototype Style=stylefilename". The whole interface is just as odd and eccentric as BIAB but, unfortunately, the two are not even very similar!

So, I totally stand by my comment that RealBand is totally inadequate as a DAW with a very old and clunky interface! And regarding your comment that "there in no other DAW on this planet that can do what RealBand does" that is only true relative to the single function of generating RealTracks. Other than that single function RB, could never succeed as a modern DAW.

As others have advised here, I avoid RB unless I need to use it just to generate RealTrack options I cannot get in BIAB. Then I always move to a real DAW for my mixing/mastering.

I can use Realband with PowerTracks, I can open in PowerTracks an SEQ made in Realband or a UserTrack and simply highlight the bar/s of a chord/s and drag the Audio/Midi straight into Realband.

(Just change the default out of the temp root in your Audio Settings first to:
RB
AppData/Local/Temp/Realband

PT
AppData/Local/Temp/PowerTracks)

I use BIAB writing and putting the song together, RB to audition, generate and occasionally edit RT's. I use Reaper to mix and edit more there than I do in RB.

There are folks who use RB as a DAW quite well.

For me, Reaper's features are easier to use in my workflow and it works on my computer with fewer glitches. However, I do have to run it in admin so it's not a totally glitch free DAW either.

If you're used to Cubase and happy with it, you'll probably find yourself mostly using RB to generate RTs.