PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist Suggestion: Selective Re-Generating

Hey Jim.
We met at Cakewalk forum
I am admitting that I might be wrong in many ways, but
I do not believe my assumption is wrong in the way BIAB handles real tracks.

Meaning, it is programming issue, not the hardware issue.
These rendering processes take way long, even on my fast i7-7600 CPU machine with fast SSD and plenty of memory. Philosophy on the engine that handles them should be re-thinked.

It is about the cleanliness of how you design software. If you remember, I mentioned ChordPulse program at Cakewalk forum. I am not going to compare apple to oranges here, but ChordPulse is a great example of robust code and clean user friendly interface that lasted for years without significant changes.

There is no excuse for PG programmers or their supervisor. Do not get me wrong, I love what the program can do, but execution of BIAB is just unacceptable for 2018. Will not be upgrading anytime soon unless they do it with their heart and not the place they have been doing it.

We’re almost there.

In the earliest days of RealTracks, a few of us users attempted to measure (in a very unscientific way) the difference between rendering the WMA files and the WAV files. We concluded it was maybe 20% faster with the uncompressed WAV files.

That difference is less now. When the Elastique algorithm was introduced, if your PC was fast enough, you could delete what was called the +- files. These eliminated fully 2/3 of the required files, since pitches could be shifted effectively using Elastique. Not only did it dramatically save storage space, but it seemed to work faster

In any event, the program first has to uncompressed a WMA file, and this is why the regular version regenerates a song slower than the audiophile version.

It is my understanding RealTracks are loaded into RAM, and that the real magic is then done by the CPU. Another way to say this is that the CPU seems to be by a good measure the most important component in how fast BIAB regenerates a song. Yet another way is to say that improving my CPU and RAM made much more of a difference than switching from a hard drive to an SSD, or from the PG Music USB drive to an internal hard drive.

I know that homework was done on this. But how sure you are that BIAB renders files in memory? Sorry, not being clear.... It sources them from hard drive when rendering and I believe they should be loaded in memory from the time you assign them to mixer and worked on the project from there. See attached.

I only know what I’ve read. I would guess the reason you see that message is that you might want to play a frozen song, in which case that audio is loaded rather than the RealTracks and RealDrums specified in the mixer. Those are only loaded before regeneration.

It’s a valid question, whether the efficiency can be improved.

Rustyspoon#,

You've got a good memory to remember me from the Cakewalk forum! Did I mention ChordPulse to you or did you mention it to me? I've had the program for a long time and don't remember now how I first found out about the program; I'm glad I did though as it's a wonderful program. However, I feel comparing ChordPulse to Band-in-a-Box is an unfair comparison. That's kind of like comparing a Volkswagon Beetle to a Rolls Royce. Both are reliable, European vehicles but beyond that, they are hard to compare.

As you mentioned, +++ Chordpulse +++ is an accompaniment program that uses styles to create songs. So ChordPulse and Band-in-a-Box share that functionality. However beside that shared function the two programs differ.

ChordPulse has a simple but elegant user interface while Band-in-the-Box's interface is much more complicated. But that is because the Band-in-a-Box program has many more features. ChordPulse is a midi only program that relies on Windows' built-in GS wavetable for sound reproduction. Band-in-a-Box midi can use any midi driven external or internal sound module. However BiaB also use audio sources such as audio loops, user created audio, RealTracks and or RealDrums. ChordPulse can create a general midi file. So can Band-in-a-Box. Band-in-a-Box can create, display and print notation while ChordPulse does not offer anything similar.

But, I don't think your intention was to imply the two programs were equal. I suspect your intent was to highlight the minimal but elegant user interface of ChordPulse versus the busy and complicated user interface of Band-in-a-Box.

PG Music has been making incremental changes to the user interface in the last few years so I believe PG Music is aware change is needed. However, the program is so versatile and users use the program in so many different ways that I believe it is difficult for PG Music to know what features to highlight. But every year they tweak and receive user feedback regarding what works and what doesn't work.

Band-in-a-Box regenerates on the fly. By that I mean Band-in-a-Box renders the first few bars of a song then begins playback while regenerating the rest of the song as a background task. I don't know of any other program that builds tracks that way. Maybe one way to make the program more efficient would be to delay playback until all tracks are completely regenerated.

If you get the Windows Task Manager up and look at the RAM being used by bbw.exe you will see it grow as the tracks are generated, add double the amount of bars and double the RAM is used.
The saved SGU with frozen tracks will just contain the the position, length and transposed information only of the section from the source wav/wma so it will use that information to load the same section back to RAM rather than a new random one.
In RealBand it uses bbw2.exe in the background to generate up the tracks direct to wav in a temp folder then loads them into the RealBand tracks as wav. So it will use all 7 tracks in bbw2.exe to generate up 7 MultiRiff of the same intrument to wav segments in the Realband temp folder then overwrite that section of track in RealBand with the MultiRiff you choose.

Jim, as I mentioned I do not want to compare apples to oranges. I only brought up ChordPulse to put accent on what is elegance vs clutter. Complexity should not be excuse for clutter.

Guys, I know that you are trying to help, thank you! I am sure you know about BIAB 10 times more than I. The last time I have tried it over a decade ago and gave up on it. This year I bought it and tried to approach it with open mind. This thread caught my attention, because rendering does steal a lot of time and when I have the time and the mood to make backing tracks, I do not want to waste a good chunk of it on rendering processes.

The point that I am trying to make is, I believe frozen or not BIAB goes to the source location of files on hard drive instead of loading active real tracks (the ones used in composition) directly to memory each time you click on that "render" button. If I am not mistaken, probably it is the culprit of the problem.

Most likely that code was written at the time when computers had 512megs of Ram on average, not the case now. Again, I am guessing here, but I think I am right on the getting files from hard drive each time when rendering instead of keeping them in memory.

What does PG say about this? Do they even reply to such concerns?

Rustyspoon#,

You're correct that you can spend a lot of time waiting for Band-in-a-Box to render. Selective rendering could reduce wasted time. But at the same time that's why I appreciate the multi-riff feature in RealBand. I believe the more you try to force Band-in-a-Box to render bars exactly to match specifically what you hear in your mind, the more time you will spend waiting while tracks are rendered. That is time lost.

I also believe new users loose more time than seasoned users. New users must try more styles and instruments than seasoned users because new users are not as familiar with the available styles and RealTracks. Demo songs can not accurately represent how an instrument will sound with the chord progressions, other instruments and styles you may be using in your song.

I can say that experience seems to dramatically speed up the song building process, especially if you frequently create songs similar to your past creations.

Jim, I think we have a bit different views on things.
You are telling me that you can make 20 great dished with potato and I am telling you that potato must be cooked first.
I think RealBand is irrelevant piece of software (I think I will be eaten by now). BIAB should be one program not two. RealBand probably one of the worst DAW wannabees of the 21st century. Especially now, when you have amazing Cakewalk with great engineer team that listens, for free.

Please do not take this as an insult. I am just trying to view this realistically. Believe me, I want BIAB to be robust, modern, user friendly software and not a patient on "life support" infused by cash of loyal followers.


I think both of these things: selective rendering and option of "holding" active realtracks in memory should reduce rendering time to minimum.

As pointed out it all depends on how much RAM you have, and the size of the tracks you're trying to render. I suspected the same thing, but then again I believe it also happened on my machine with only 8gb of ram.

My external drive ran out of space, and that is how I figured out it was using the drive to render. I don't think I ever got a definitive answer on it. I thought if anything it should have been using the internal drive to render if not the RAM.

Nope. I do not believe you are right. My memory does not spike above 25% and CPU at 38% when rendering. I believe the slowness in rendering is caused by program taking/gathering audio files from their original sources each time you click "render/play" button.

To me, if BIAB shows loading while rendering from C: it is loading from C:

I want somebody from PG to answer this relatively simple question instead of users wondering and speculating. This is called answering customer question.

Just a tip, then: why no contact Support? They will be happy to answer your questions. It's not their job to monitor this board and evaluate every post to see if they need to reply.

Just a tip.

Mike, you were right, that was the easiest thing

To those who still have doubts. It was confirmed by PG that every time you press "generate/play" button, BIAB goes to the source files on your hard drive. or where you store your files, does not work with them (keeps them) in memory.
Ram has very little to do with the time it takes to render/play composition because of re-indexing. Horrible approach...

If they were kept/worked in memory it would take much, much less time.

I don't know this for sure but maybe they had to do it this way because it is a 32 bit program. 32 bit programs only have 3.5 GBs to work with, that is without some kind of addition workaround software like jBridge for MIDI.

I would guess that a 64 bit program could eliminate the operating procedure.

"Ram has very little to do with the time it takes to render/play composition because of re-indexing. Horrible approach...

If they were kept/worked in memory it would take much, much less time."




As one who never had a doubt, I already knew this, I'll skip ahead to what I think is the issue being overlooked. With the focus of this thread being on what the computer is doing, most of the comments say nothing about what BIAB is doing. It has been noted that the amount of ram is not essential which lead some to have concern about rendering time.

What some think is a "Horrible approach" is to me a brilliant design feature that brings the magic of quality, studio grade audio to many students, songwriters, producers, teachers and hobbyists that have limited resources so they can't have the latest $5,000 CPU running Protools highest level pro version and mixing to an SSL console. However, they may have the audio technical skill to write, create, arrange, produce and perform a BIAB song on an XP machine with a $20 Behringer interface or worse -- a usb Snowball Mic -- to create a quality production that is indistinguishable from any other song published in the Users Showcase. To me, that alone is reason enough to forego irrelevant and faster rendering.

BIAB technology is about creating audio and not about replacing Protools on your machine. If you think RealBand is useless, you probably need to spend some time over on the Mac forum. Many there would love to have it. Because you may not can get the results you want from RealBand doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means you can't do it. Even with its relatively slow rendering, you can create a BIAB song much faster, with less steps, than you can in a DAW.

Let's do a real life rendering comparison, for time and money.

1. Joe Gilder, Home Studio Recording website and YouTube

Joe is a Nashville singer/songwriter and session musician that has a popular YouTube presence for home recording and also creates tutorials for Presonus. Joe and four other Nashville session musicians also provide a demo service. Approximately once a month they get together at one of the players home studio and over the course of the day create 5-9 demos they've contracted to complete for clients. The client submits an MP3 and either a phone conversation or skype call to describe their vision for their completed demo. Once agreement is reached on the demo structure and general arrangement, Gilder's group offers a basic package of 5 instruments, Bass, Piano, Drums, rhythm guitar and lead guitar for $550. Does their package of 5 instruments sound familiar? Next, one of the group charts the song and they discuss and decide on the final arrangement. Then they record the song (it usually gets done in one take but sometimes they have to overdub mistakes. Joe states recording is usually done in 10-12 minutes.) Once all the tracks are properly recorded, WAV files of each track are dropboxed to the client for the client to mix/master in their own DAW.

That's a real scenario and we see that from the time the client submits his MP3, it may take up to 3 1/2 weeks or more to get their WAV tracks. If they decide to add additional instruments, there is an additional cost in time and money. If they want to audition additional instruments or split solo parts between instruments, there is additional cost in time and money.

2. Same Recording done in BIAB

In this story, the client is your next door neighbor. He comes to you with an MP3 Saturday night about six. After the third beer he's convinced you to create and arrange a BIAB demo for his song.

To chart his MP3 song to BIAB, you play the MP3 through the ACW (Audio Chord Wizard) With a few chord corrections, you have the BIAB chord chart completed, Part markers placed, the correct key signature and the correct tempo and time signature. You spend about 10 minutes with your neighbor in the StylePicker selecting a suitable style and set of instruments. You replace one RealTrack guitar with a selection you both like better and you decide on a lead soloist.
Using F5, you create your arrangement in about another 10 minutes. You generate the song and your neighbor is so excited with his demo he heads out to the convenience store to get you a 12 pack while you print his song to CD. If you want to experiment with auditioning other soloist instruments, you can do dozens before you and your neighbor consume the 12 pack.

To me, this sort of displaces the aggravation of a 25 second render.... It doesn't matter how many times you render before you are satisfied. A track will render before you can set up and complete a live punch in.


Another thing when one's focus is directed to only the single source of what the computer is doing and not what BIab is or can do, is it eliminates many, many analog recording techniques available for use in BIAB to accomplish and obtain results that some have spent thousands of dollars on additional software unaware that BIAB can do the same without ever leaving the program.

I'm probably alone with my thoughts here, but I'm not feeling the benefits of the computer architecture that I've seen in the thread.

I chose the group of Nashville session musicians for several specific reasons. One- Their group of musicians and instruments are similar in makeup to many BIAB styles. Two- They are multi talented musicians so they can easily and quickly offer and provide additional instruments to exchange out the basic setup with other less common instruments that may fit a particular demo song better, eg. banjo, fiddle, pedal steel, dobro. Third- There is the common denominator between this specific group of session musicians and BIAB RealTrack musicians being that at least one of Gilders bandmates is also a BIAB session player....

Charlie, I think you are missing the point.
You do not need $5000 CPU.... All you need is 8-16gb of RAM on $150-$300 computer A used i7 Thinkpad would be great example of that.

10-15 years ago, I can agree that would be a "brilliant" approach. Now it would considered to be a very sloppy programming.

The only point where I can agree with you on this is to have this feature available for people who are using 10-15 year old computers. For vast majority there should be a choice, an OPTION of choosing between rendering from hard drive OR doing the process in memory.

Adobe and other software companies had this option for over a decade to choose how processes are handled.

Just because riding a horse is faster than walking is no reason not to build a car!

And I wish that the ACW worked even half as good as Charlie described. I've tried to use it on simple songs with simple chords and found its quicker and way less frustrating to type in the song!

"For vast majority there should be a choice, an OPTION of choosing between rendering from hard drive OR doing the process in memory.

Adobe and other software companies had this option for over a decade to choose how processes are handled."

You're right. I'm missing the point. You missed my point that in its present form, Biab works with every PC configuration from XP to the futuristic next years super whiz bang model meaning the final audio product is the same quality and sound regardless of the computer the audio is generated on. Your suggestion removes that option of universality and eliminates many users from compatibility with future versions of BIAB.

I'm missing what improvement in sound quality of the audio that 64 bit, selective regeneration will make? What will it produce that is different from what BIAB produces today? Why will a rendering from a hard drive sound different or be superior to current rendering?

My guess is that adobe and other software programs that have made major changes to their core programs most likely have early versions of songs created with their product that are incompatible and cannot be opened with the latest version. I don't see where BIAB and Adobe processing differences are an issue. BIAB creates audio tracks Adobe does not. So isn't the rendering speed of BIAB a mute point when it comes to what Adobe does? What is the difference between having a live player record a track in Adobe and importing a RealTrack created in BIAB? If rendering speed is an issue, isn't a 25 second render of a 3 1/2 minute track preferable to a live player recording a similar track but having to do it in real time of 3 1/2 minutes?

It works that way for me. I'll repeat with respect, what I said above about RealBand. Because you may not can get the results you want from the Audio Chord Wizard doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means you can't do it. It also doesn't mean you that with some work and practice it can't be as efficient for you as it is for me. Some songs yield faster and more accurate results than others and more times than not, I don't use the ACW for speed. That's not the value and benefit it gives me. I've no more to say about the ACW because this thread is about another subject that has no effect on the ACW and how it works.