I'll help take a little work off of Mr Fogle, if I may. Under my post is a button labeled Reply. Don't just click in the text box below and type, make sure to click the Reply button.
On the next screen there is a large box to type a reply in .. below that are the words File Manager. These two words are clickable. If you click these two words (File Manager) it lets you upload an image (images only) and the uploaded image will show at the bottom of your Post.
Last edited by rharv; 02/06/1702:58 PM.
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome Make your sound your own!
Thanks to rharv for answering your question about how to post an image. Thanks!
I had not heard of the book you found and looked it up. The Billboard book appears to be a good starter book. I like the beginning where there are multiple choices (so you want to be a producer, so you want to record a band, etc.) for want you want to learn. That's a good way to layout a book like that because there are so many different ways to approach home recording.
A similar book is ++ Home Recording for Musicians ++. Even if you don't run across the book, the book website has some great reference guides that are free to download.
Author Mike Senior has two books many people think are among the best available. The books are called Mixing Secrets and Recording Secrets for the small studio. Once again the website for the books contains a wealth of information and links. The website is ++ HERE ++. There is a real good book review ++ HERE ++
For me, it's a lot of fun finding, building and understanding a reference library.
Last edited by Jim Fogle; 02/06/1704:26 PM. Reason: Added link
Thought it was a lovely song and especially beautiful moody vocal. Difficult to properly check the mix as I heard it on my iPad. I was not very keen on the sound of the strings when they came in. Too synthetic for the jazzy track. If anything the vocals are too far forward in the mix although I love the sound of the voice. Occasionally the backing dips to almost nothing and obviously at these points the song loses momentum. Maybe more variety in the arrangement with perhaps Instruments coming in and out at appropriate moments. You can sometimes achieve this by volume automation on the individual tracks. This means piano goes up in between vocal and down during and so on. Definitely worth getting the mix right though as I loved the song and the singing. Also very nice sax at the end.
A BIAB user named Floyd Jane directed me to this forum to seek input, feedback, advice, what-have-you, on the posted subject, "Mixing and panning", based on his response to my request for help concerning those two particular production elements as they are heard in my song, "How Do You Know (When Someone Loves You?)".
Here is the link to the webpage the song was posted onto:
I was not entirely satisfied with the mix I created that involved a vocal track and the following instruments: acoustic bass, drums, piano, slow strings, tremolo strings, and a steel guitar, all of them virtual instruments.
Simply put, I experienced some frustration attempting to get the instruments' volumes high enough without "clipping", or losing volume because of subsequent volume corrections I made. Panning seemed to complicate things because it seemed that steering the instruments right or left caused them to lose something -- body, or fullness, is the only way I could describe it -- so that, to my ears, ultimately, everything seemed to be clashing. What I mean is, I felt that none of the instruments were truly "balanced" in relation to the other.
Mr. Jane suggested that I indicate the DAW I used, which is Cakewalk Sonar. I'm grateful to him for his well-considered feedback, and I would be equally grateful to anyone who feels like pitching in their "two cents."
Thank you for reading this!
Most sincerely and respectfully,
"bluage"
Here is some imput/advice from an graduate of music/audio school:
1. Ask yourself what are the most important parts of the song? What parts really need to stand out in the mix, and what parts do you feel that the listen could get by with out really hearing up front and in the spotlight. Listening to the song, I can already tell that the center focus of the song is the singer, with a second focus on the sax solo twoards the end. I do understand that you want every instrument and part to be heard loud and clear but with all the instruments coming loud, what am I really supoose to be listening for?
2. Lower the levels on the tracks- Some DAWs have the option to lower the gain levels on the audio tracks to avoid clipping.
3. Lower the master fader- If you are not able to lower the individual audio trakc gain levels, then lower the master fader volume before rendering the mix
4. Retry panning certin instruments- When your panning an instrument in a DAW, all your doing is your change the placement of where the sound source is coming from within the stereo image which is controled by a pan potentiometer. In the old day before the pan pot, you had the option of either having a track be hard left (9 o'clock), hard center (12 o'clock), or hard right (3 o'clock). Now a days, you can adjust the pan pots as wide or narrow as you want. A nice trick for this is to take a stereo piano track, and only pan one side. It willl give you this effect as if the piano is coming from one speaker when it is actually coming from both speakers. I know panning things can make tacks sound out of place at first, but after a while, you'll start to find that not ever track need to be dead center.
5. Try compression- I don't recommend this when first starting to learn to mix, but if use properly, a little bit of compression can go a long way.
Computer: Macbook Pro, 16 inch 2021 DAWs: Pro Tools, Logic, and Maschine plays drums, percussion, bass, steel pan, keyboard, music producer/engineer
First of all, thank you for listening and offering the approving comment.
Know what's most interesting about all the responses I received? Everyone hears the mix differently, and the varieties of advice I've been given could be bewildering...but they're not! Why? 'Cause each piece of advice seems to be based on what each listener prioritizes in the "mix". That means I could choose -- and use -- any of the techniques mentioned specifically and please each of the people who advised me. So, I can't lose, right?
Looks like I've accidentally turned-around the old adage that "you can't please all of the people, all of the time"!
Thanks, "90 db".
Truly,
LOREN (a.k.a "bluage")
Last edited by bluage; 02/18/1710:00 PM.
"Music is what feelings sound like."-- borrowed from a Cakewalk Music Creator forum member, "Mamabear".
...the man with the name that sounds like the title of a (funky, of course) song! "Do the funkycornwall, chil-dren, the funky-funky corn-wall!"
"I was not very keen on the sound of the strings when they came in. Too synthetic for the jazzy track."
Partner, neither was I. The strings track was rendered from the oldest virtual instrument library in my possession: Edirol HQ Orchestral Synthesizer by Roland, vintage 2002. The CD ROM's so old, I have to wake it up by slapping rubbing alcohol all over it before I stick it in my PC's disk drive. However, I have other VI libraries that I could experiment with -- Miroslav Philharmonik, SampleTank, Kontakt 4, and Vir2 Instruments.
"Maybe more variety in the arrangement with perhaps instruments coming in and out at appropriate moments. You can sometimes achieve this by volume automation on the individual tracks. This means piano goes up in between vocal and down during and so on."
Agreed. I'm familiar with volume automation, but whenever I've done that, the automated tracks sound like they're on an elevator: "10th floor, ladies and gentlemen. Going up! 1st floor, going down! Watch your step, please..."
Would I compensate for that problem by simultaneously adjusting the other volume-automated track levels in the opposite "direction"?
Thanks for your feedback, "funkycornwall," especially since my post could be considered old by now...
Sincerely,
LOREN (a.k.a "bluage")
Last edited by bluage; 02/18/1710:02 PM.
"Music is what feelings sound like."-- borrowed from a Cakewalk Music Creator forum member, "Mamabear".
I went to your SoundClick webpage and listened (appreciatively, as always!) to "Come and Go," and "In A World Without You." You make me want to compose a "country" tune, but I'm a city bo'! Shall the 'twain ever meet?
I think -- I believe -- I'm pretty sure -- that I heard the proof of what you advised: "...you should be able to get practically any track to set well in a mix. It's a matter of getting the vocal track volume up if it was low and weak when you got it. Using some mild compression, and then normalizing the file will help in that regard if it was weak with low internal levels."
What I didn't notice upon studying your initial response to my post, was the term, "normalizing," the definition of which I read as "...the application of a constant amount of gain to an audio recording to bring the average or peak amplitude to a target level (the norm). Because the same amount of gain is applied across the given range, the signal-to-noise ratio and relative dynamics are generally unchanged."
I've seen that function listed in the main menu of my Sony Soundforge Audio Studio software, but never used it. Nonetheless, the definition of its function seemed pretty straightforward, and not too heavy to understand.
In the wake of this mighty revelation, the only question I would ask you, is at what point in the mixing stages would the effect be most usefully applied? To the separate tracks before they're rendered to a single audio file, or only to the finished file?
By the way, as I was listening to my posted song again, I discovered that all the individual instrument tracks that I thought I had panned to aurally distinct positions in the "sound field" to reasonably good effect were coming out of only the left monitor! When I opened it up in my sequencer, I realized that all the instrument tracks rendered by the same virtual instrument library only had a single audio output track. That probably accounts for at least some of the disappointment I experienced upon first listening to the song, wouldn't you say?
You lead. Me follow!
Thank you, "guitarhacker",
LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")
"Music is what feelings sound like."-- borrowed from a Cakewalk Music Creator forum member, "Mamabear".
I think -- I believe -- I'm pretty sure -- that I heard the proof of what you advised: "...you should be able to get practically any track to set well in a mix. ."
What I didn't notice upon studying your initial response to my post, was the term, "normalizing," the definition of which I read as "...the application of a constant amount of gain to an audio recording to bring the average or peak amplitude to a target level (the norm). Because the same amount of gain is applied across the given range, the signal-to-noise ratio and relative dynamics are generally unchanged."
In the wake of this mighty revelation, the only question I would ask you, is at what point in the mixing stages would the effect be most usefully applied? To the separate tracks before they're rendered to a single audio file, or only to the finished file?
So that all may know:
If a track can not be made to fit into a mix properly, it's time to reevaluate that track's purpose in the song. It's not that the track "can't" be made to fit, but the more proper question is, should it be made to fit? Every project I work on has tracks that were planned for the mix but after all was said and done, they never made it into the final mix. Don't ever put something into a mix just because you can.
Normalizing and compression. In a nut shell...... Normalizing raises everything in the mix in a linear manner, by the same exact amount up to a predetermined point which is determined by the highest peak in the song. Compression raise or lowers everything in a mix to a certain average determined by threshold settings and compression levels. Compression can actually change your "finished mix" by brings up soft parts and compressing down the loud ones. Both of these tools are useful when applied properly. I use normalization as one of the last steps in my wave editor. Compression on my projects is generally pretty mildly applied and always in the DAW before I export my final finished wave.
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.
Your "handle" leaves a serene, almost mystical impression. Cool! I hope you will forgive my four-day late response to your comprehensive post.
"Ask yourself what are the most important parts of the song? What parts really need to stand out in the mix, and what parts do you feel that the listen could get by with out really hearing up front and in the spotlight."
Wow. You do go straight for jugular, don't you? You were right on the money by taking note of the fact that all the instruments were "coming on loud." The only thing I'd ever read about mixing was to adjust track volumes just short of clipping...
Immediately upon reading your post, I went back to the song and did as you instructed: lowered the levels of the tracks, and then did the same thing with the master fader. Voila! It worked!
"I know panning things can make tacks sound out of place at first, but after a while, you'll start to find that not ever track need to be dead center."
Actually, I wasn't trying to push everything dead center. As I manipulated the panning controls, my intent was to "hear" my way through to determining where each instrument's track sounded best in the "stereo image" you mentioned. But as I indicated in my post, to my ears something I can only describe as a diminishment of the "fullness" of the sound, a thinning, seemed to occur in the wake my adjustments. My intuition tells me that maybe I was looking too closely at the graphic representation of the panning controls -- the way the green level light splits into two columns to display the relative increase or decrease of the signal while panning right or left -- instead of listening. What I mean is, perhaps my misdirected attention to the visual display affected the way I was hearing the sound of the instrument(s).
"Islansoul", your advice/instructions were easy to understand, and following them produced immediately pleasing results. Thank you very, very much for taking the time to listen to the song so closely and offer me the benefit of your music/audio experience.
Respectfully,
LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")
"Music is what feelings sound like."-- borrowed from a Cakewalk Music Creator forum member, "Mamabear".
.....The only thing I'd ever read about mixing was to adjust track volumes just short of clipping...
as I indicated in my post, to my ears something I can only describe as a diminishment of the "fullness" of the sound, a thinning, seemed to occur in the wake my adjustments. My intuition tells me that maybe I was looking too closely at the graphic representation of the panning controls -- the way the green level light splits into two columns to display the relative increase or decrease of the signal while panning right or left -- instead of listening. What I mean is, perhaps my misdirected attention to the visual display affected the way I was hearing the sound of the instrument(s).
If that's what you've read, you've been reading the wrong books.
Might I suggest an investment in Mike Senior's book called Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio. A number of folks here have this book as do I. Mike starts where your mixing starts and that is with your speakers. I think you will find this to be an excellent book to own.
Regarding "lights" and levels.... yes, volume cures a multitude of woes but it also covers up twice as many problems. You should be mixing at a low volume on halfway decent speakers. Mixing loud makes it sound better, but you're missing the important things. The folks who listen to your mix at a lower level will be disappointed in many cases, by the substandard mix that you missed due to volume.
As mixing engineer.... and that is your job title when you mix your own mixes, it is your job to find the problems in the mix and fix them, not bury them in volume and gagged track faders.
When I mix, I will occasionally look at the meters just to see where I am relatively speaking. I do want to have the meters in the green 99% of the time. I don't live or die by the meters.
If you have nice full tracks, and if you're using Real Tracks, that is rarely an issue, you should be able to have a full sounding mix if all you have is a piano and a vocal. It's actually easier in many respects, to work with a project having just 2 to 4 tracks in it and have it sound good as opposed to having a project with 12 or more tracks and making it sound good. We all fall victim to the "if I have it I need to use it" syndrome and mixing 12+ tracks with that mindset results in a mess of noise and mud.
My latest song has 6 rhythm guitars. A mixture of acoustic and electric. Only 2 of them are at any decent level where they can be heard. The others are 10dB or so down from 0dB in the mix. Barely audible.If I had run all 6 just short of clipping, can you imagine the cacophony of guitar noise that would have been? Same thing is true of the vocals. There were 5 tracks but you can only hear predominately one lead. If you listen carefully, you can hear the others in the background is a few places. There are other tracks that ride with faders pulled all the way down until that track is needed for a few seconds, and then back to the bottom. The B3 organ is one of those.
Mixing is an art. Levels, panning, use of EQ, applying FX, all of it matters and all of it takes time. You're off to a good start. Refine it a bit, learn some new things and you only get better with time and doing.
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.
Out of everything you explained in your latest post, the clincher, the show-stopper, the undisputed truth, the answer-to-just-about-everything-concerning-mixing, is expertly contained, in all its glorious simplicity and blue-sky clarity, within the following quote, which I reproduce here in its all-revealing entirety:
"My latest song has 6 rhythm guitars. A mixture of acoustic and electric. Only 2 of them are at any decent level where they can be heard. The others are 10dB or so down from 0dB in the mix. Barely audible.If I had run all 6 just short of clipping, can you imagine the cacophony of guitar noise that would have been? (Yes, I can, and your song would have been titled, "Guitar-zilla"!) Same thing is true of the vocals. There were 5 tracks but you can only hear predominately one lead. If you listen carefully, you can hear the others in the background is a few places. There are other tracks that ride with faders pulled all the way down until that track is needed for a few seconds, and then back to the bottom. The B3 organ is one of those."
That's it!!! With those words you've enabled me to cut off and cast away a troublesome misconception about mixing that was obviously the biggest obstacle to achieving the "balance" that was at the heart of my frustration with the song's tracks. You don't need hear every dang thing in the mix, all of the time.
To be fair, another forum member, “Islansoul,” said as much when he advised, “Ask yourself what are the most important parts of the song? What parts really need to stand out in the mix, and what parts do you feel that the listen could get by with out really hearing up front and in the spotlight.” So, on that point, obviously there is solid agreement…
However, there is one nagging question I have: if, in the sound design of your song, you decided to minimize the volume of certain tracks that you deemed subordinate to the total mix, such as the six acoustic/electric rhythm guitars and the five vocals, why, then, did you include them in the first place?
By the way, "guitarhacker," I'm working on another composition to which I applied your instructions about "normalizing," and it worked like gangbusters, partner! I mean, I was blown a-way by how smoothly it rounded out "peaks" and prevented "valleys" from sinking too far down in the mix. I think of it as "sound-shaping."
This forum – “Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production” – has turned out to be one of the most truly educational classrooms I’ve ever attended, minus the squeaky chalkboard, the wads of old chewing gum stuck to the bottoms of the desks, and the sour-puss teacher!
As "Ralph Kramden" (Jackie Gleason) used to say to his wife, "Alice" (Audrey Meadows), in the old television series, "The Honeymooners", "guitarhacker," you're the GREATEST!!!
From da' boddum of my heart,
LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")
Last edited by bluage; 02/22/1702:16 PM.
"Music is what feelings sound like."-- borrowed from a Cakewalk Music Creator forum member, "Mamabear".
However, there is one nagging question I have: if, in the sound design of your song, you decided to minimize the volume of certain tracks that you deemed subordinate to the total mix, such as the six acoustic/electric rhythm guitars and the five vocals, why, then, did you include them in the first place?
LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")
He mentioned this in his same post; "If you listen carefully, you can hear the others in the background is a few places." (I think he meant 'in a few places')
They may be 'subordinate' but may also be worth including, many times for effect/enhancement. Mixing is indeed an art. They weren't 'cut' but rather handled/added.
As evidence I reference his signature; Add nothing that adds nothing to the music
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome Make your sound your own!
Today's the Last Day of the Band-in-a-Box 2026® for Mac Special!
Order before 11:59pm PDT today (May 15, 2026) to save up to 50% off your Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac® upgrade and receive a FREE Bonus PAK loaded with great new Add-ons to use with this new version!
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac - Special Offers End at 11:59pm PDT on Friday, May 15th, 2026!
Order before 11:59pm PDT on Friday, May 15th and SAVE up to 50% on most Band-in-a-Box® version 2026 for Mac Upgrade packages... and that's not all! With your version 2026 for Mac purchase, we'll include a Bonus PAK full of great new Add-ons FREE! Upgrade to the 2026 49-PAK to receive even more NEW Add-ons including 20 additional RealTracks... that's 222 NEW RealTracks available with version Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac!
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac® today for as little as $49! Check out the Band-in-a-Box® packages page for all available purchase options.
Learn more about the Free Bonus PAK and 49-PAK here.
If you have any questions about which package is the best option for you, just let us know. We're here to help!
202 New RealTracks Released with Band-in-a-Box 2026!
With Band-in-a-Box® 2026, we've released 202 incredible new RealTracks (in sets 468-488) in a variety of genres—featuring your most requested styles!
Jazz, Funk & World (Sets 468-475):
Our new jazz, funk & blues RealTracks include a groovin’ collection of RealTracks and RealDrums! These include more requested “soul jazz” RealTracks featuring artists Neil Swainson (bass), Charles Treadway (organ), Brent Mason (guitar), and Wes Little (drums). There are new “smooth jazz” styles (4), which include a RealTracks first: muted trumpet, as well as slick new smooth jazz brushes options for drums. Blues lovers will be thrilled—there are more “classic acoustic blues” styles, including guitar (5), bass (4), and drums (10) with blues master Colin Linden, featuring understated and tasty background acoustic soloing, plus brushes drums and acoustic bass. There are also new electric blues RealTracks, including electric blues with PG favorite Johnny Hiland (3) and soulful electric slide guitar from Colin Linden (4). If you love funk & gospel, there are great new options this year, including gospel organ (3) from Charles Treadway, as well as new funk, tango, and rock ’n’ roll drums (3) and bass (1). And for big, bold arrangements, we have uptempo soul horns (4) featuring a three-part hip horn section with options for a full mix or stems of each individual horn — plus an accompanying rhythm section (4) of drums, bass, guitar, and electric piano!
Rock & Pop (Sets 476–482):
Our new rock & pop RealTracks bring a powerful mix of requested favorites, fresh genres, and modern chart-inspired styles! We have more of our popular “Producer Layered Acoustic Guitars (15)” featuring Band-in-a-Box favorite Brent Mason. We’ve continued our much-requested disco styles (10), and added new Celtic guitar (5) with a more basic, accessible approach than our previous Drop-D or DADGAD offerings. There are also highly requested yacht rock styles (17), inspired by the smooth, polished soft-rock sound of the late ’70s and early ’80s — laid-back grooves, silky electric pianos, warm textures, elegant harmonic movement, and pristine production aesthetics. Fans of heavier styles will love our new glam metal (13), capturing the flashy, high-energy sound of ’80s arena-ready guitar rock. We also have a set of rootsy modern-folk rock (18), with a warm, organic sound combining contemporary folk textures and driving acoustic strumming. And we’ve added lots of new modern pop styles (16) — the kinds of sounds you’re hearing on the radio today, featuring exciting new drums, synths, and cutting-edge RealTracks arrangements.
Country, & Americana (Sets 483–488):
Our new country & Americana RealTracks deliver a rich collection of acoustic, electric, and roots-inspired styles! We have new country pop (9) with legendary guitarist Brent Mason. There is also a potpourri (14) of bouzouki, guitars, banjo, and more, perfect for adding texture and character to contemporary acoustic arrangements. We’ve added funky country guitar (5) with PG favorite Brent Mason, along with classic pedal steel styles (5) featuring steel great Doug Jernigan. There are more country songwriter styles (8) that provide intimate, rootsy foundations for storytelling and modern Americana writing. Finally, we have “background soloing” acoustic guitar (12) with Brent Mason — simpler, but still very tasty acoustic lines designed to sit beautifully behind vocals or act as a subtle standalone solo part.
And, if you are looking for more, the 2026 49-PAK (for $49) includes an impressive collection of 20 bonus RealTracks, featuring exciting and inspiring additions to add to your RealTracks library. You'll get new country-rhythm guitar styles from PG Music favorites Johnny Hiland and Brent Mason, along with modern-pop grooves that capture today’s radio-ready sound! There are also new indie-folk styles with guitar, bass, 6-string bass used as a high-chording instrument, acoustic guitar, and banjo. Plus, dedicated "cymbal fills" RealDrums provide an added layer that work very well with low-key folky styles with other percussion.
The 2026 49-PAK is loaded with other great new add-ons as well. Learn more about the 2026 49-PAK!
2026 Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK for Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac®!
With your version 2026 for Mac Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition or PlusPAK purchase, we'll include a Bonus PAK full of great new Add-ons for FREE! Or upgrade to the 2026 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 2026 RealCombos Booster PAK:
-For Pro customers, this includes 27 new RealTracks and 23 new RealStyles.
-For MegaPAK customers, this includes 25 new RealTracks and 23 new RealStyles.
-For UltraPAK customers, this includes 12 new RealStyles.
MIDI Styles Set 92: Look Ma! More MIDI 15: Latin Jazz
MIDI SuperTracks Set 46: Piano & Organ
Instrumental Studies Set 24: Groovin' Blues Soloing
Artist Performance Set 19: Songs with Vocals 9
Playable RealTracks Set 5
RealDrums Stems Set 9: Cool Brushes
SynthMaster Sounds Set 1 (with audio demos)
iOS Android Band-in-a-Box® App
Looking for more great add-ons, then upgrade to the 2026 49-PAK for just $49 and you'll get:
20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums with 20 RealStyle.
FLAC Files (lossless audio files) for the 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums
MIDI Styles Set 93: Look Ma! More MIDI 16: SynthMaster
MIDI SuperTracks Set 47: More SynthMaster
Instrumental Studies 25 - Soul Jazz Guitar Soloing
Artist Performance Set 20: Songs with Vocals 10
RealDrums Stems Set 10: Groovin' Sticks
SynthMaster Sounds & Styles Set 2 (sounds & styles with audio demos)
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.
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