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

If you want to test the speed generating tracks straight from RAM and not hard drive files, just create a RAM Drive, create a RealTracks and Drums folder on it, copy the RealTracks and Drums folders that the style uses to the RAM drive, point Biab to these new locations.
This will work better if you have wav files rather that wma that need decompressing first.

google > ram drive software free

Or it means that my requirements/standards for a software program are higher than yours! And to your other point about maintaining compatibility with XP, if true, that is a very bad business decision! XP is long gone with no future whatsoever and below 5% of all Windows users are using it. I suspect the delay in upgrading BIAB to a more modern standard has a lot more to do with the hardship of converting an ancient codebase and less to do with a desire to maintain compatibility with XP.

I will guess that less than 5% of ALL window users have BIAB installed on their computers so there is no business decision to be made. Even if there are only 20 XP users in the entire world, they can buy Biab, install it and make music, practice, perform or any other use available to everyone that uses the program and that music can be indistinguishable from the music created by the user with the latest hardware. That's a claim most current DAW's cannot make.

But, if Dr. Gannon's vision for PGMusic is that when he's ready to retire, to dissolve the company, take the money, and move to a deserted island in warmer weather than what he currently enjoys, he may do that. If he does, I'm good. Good for the rest of my life. So are all of the XP users at whatever number that may be. So are you. My point being Dr. Gannon may have no interest in re-inventing BIAB. If that were to be the case, the investment money needed to upgrade to a more modern software would better serve his retirement nest egg wouldn't it?

I firmly and sincerely believe that BIAB generated tracks have quietly been included in main stream commercial recordings. There is absolutely no question that commercial grade audio can be produced in BIAB. The same is even more true when utilizing BIAB MIDI styles and pro grade midi synths. Don't overlook the product, produced by those 5 Nashville session musicians charging $550 for a song, can easily be replicated with the same quality of backing tracks from BIAB. Good arranging and skill in using BIAB by a top tier BIAB user could make tracks every bit as good as those live session players.

I speculate that at some time in the future if BIAB is to continue to be included in audio production, the company will follow the lead of all the major DAW manufacturers and orphan the current BIAB suite and introduce a complete new version that is incompatible with the current software. It will update VST integration, have unlimited Ram access, break the 44.1/16 barrier and have the highest recording specs at which time it could move into the Ilok dongle commercial recording arena and compete with loops...

I realize I'm in the minority and that's ok. But here's what I don't get with my minority view and why I don't get it. What does the majority think they are gaining with their higher requirements and standards for the software of the current version of BIAB/RB when, as you stated in your last response to me, you and many others cannot grasp or properly use the ACW? The ACW is an XP era so called antiquated and outdated software. I still have two working DOS machines with green screen, big analog monitors, that can be used to write a number one NY Times bestseller and that book will look and read like every other book on the best seller list. Today, any BIAB user can write, arrange and produce a song in any version of BIAB, from a location anywhere in the world, and it could become a number one song and sell millions of copies. I don't think more gear will necessarily and automatically improve the music...

Pipeline, good thoughts! But it is useless in the big picture. Random Access is about 20 times faster than SSD. Every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows that (well almost). I do not need to prove it to myself. I know it will be lightning fast compared to current way.

Charlie, no disrespect, but I think you are a little bit jammed up in the way of thinking about this. I said, it would be logical to have a CHOICE between working with active tracks in memory OR from hard drive (just he way you like it). This should be relatively easy to implement.

If done from the memory, I believe it would solve the selected part "re-genereation". It would just not be an issue. It can render items everytime you click on the specific bar, to play from that bar with newly added changes or such.

If PG's goal is to cash in and walk, as you suggest, then maintaining ancient code is fine. But kinda crummy for all the PGM employees!

I agree BIAB produces world class tracks and can guarantee they have been used in licensed music! But the reason it stays kinda obscure is it has not been updated to modern standards. And maybe, in a way, that is a plus for those of us who use it!

And we can just disagree on things like ACW and analog green screen monitors. I've never been impressed by folks doing things the hard way. Yeah, you can write a novel with a green screen. You can write a novel with a typewriter. You can write a novel on grocery bags with crayons. I prefer to use technology so I can focus on my art and not struggle with outdated tools.

All keen and worthwhile ideas Rusty. However, I don't think it has been disclosed exactly what BiaB does internally when producing output.

So. do we know how much is from internal RAM and what is simultaneously being produced in the background from a drive?

The program is multi-threaded, but I guess you already know that.

VideoTrack, BIAB gathers tracks from the original source in hard drive every time it re-generates. This was confirmed to me by PG. Regardless of what it does next, this indexing process of gathering stuff from hard drive by itself takes most of rendering time.

It is like having a full basket of blueberries with a few rasberries burried somewhere, mixed in. So re-generation process has to find those "rasberries" each time and put it in your cup, instead of finding them once and keeping them separate.

So when program asks: WhEre ArE mY RasBeRRiEs?!?! it would be logical to have them separate and say: "Here they are, master..." And not do this: "One second master, here is one....ohh.. I found another one....here, here there is one more" and so on...

That makes absolute sense to me. Absolutely, where else would the data come from? Certainly not the compter's RAM. So, it has to get into RAM in the first place. Imagine loading every realtrack option into RAM at startup so it would be more immediately available. How long might startup take? Imagine the same for an Audiophile system. Loading everything into RAM at startup. Can't imagine? No? Neither can I.
Startup would take a very, very long time, and most computers would page swap a thousand-trillion times faster than you can read this message.

It sounds as though you don't use Frozen tracks?

In Frozen tracks, the system already knows exactly what to use and where everything is and doesn't need to go searching.

Do you use Frozen Tracks?

Does this help?

(You're ideals are virtuous, but I'm not sure that you understand the complexities?)

No offense intended in this reply.

Ok. Last post from me on this subject period, regardless. I'll address the few things from your last post to take this conversation full circle.

If PG's goal is to cash in and walk, ....

That's the beauty of speculation. It can be anything we wish. In your world, Dr. Gannon craps out on his employees. In my world, he gives each employee a million dollars and signs the rights to all the Biab code, trademarks and brand to the ones that want it and these former employees go on to redesign a new BIAB that has all the elements of the Wishlist, 192k, 32 bit floating, unlimited RAM, Dante, full vst integration, 192k RealTracks, a 6000 piece supermidi instrument list, Complete Kontakt library, Complete Garritan Library, 50,000 plus new RealTracks, Replace Realband with a fully functional, fully integrated choice of DAW between Reaper, Cakewalk, Cubase, Studio One and Protools and a Roland Integra 7. Ships with buyers choice of 32 channel Behringer X32, Presonus Studiolive or Yamaha LS9. Oh, and sadly ships at a price point that only the largest commercial studios in the world can afford...

I agree BIAB produces world class tracks and can guarantee they have been used in licensed music! But the reason it stays kinda obscure is it has not been updated to modern standards. And maybe, in a way, that is a plus for those of us who use it!

Yes, it can be world class. My thought to why differs a bit from yours. I don't think the entire problem is computer coding although I certainly concede there are those, such as yourself and others, that already use the program that it is a significant drawback. I think the percentage of those that think it makes the program obsolete and outdated would largely lose their voice were a major studio release a project by a major artist, a major producer that would become a mega hit. Just as the industry now has mainstream commercial releases of pop, hip hop, house and makes use of loops, samples and synthesizers of songs by programmers that are not musicians but know how to construct modern music completely in the box and do not need a major studio to operate from to generate mega hits. I think a major hit from a major artist, major producer from a top recording company creating the musical backing solely from BIAB generated audio tracks could cause another shift in the industry.

And we can just disagree on things like ACW and analog green screen monitors.

I don't see where we disagree on our personal statements we made about these two items.

"I've never been impressed by folks doing things the hard way..."

Ouch, sorry I've been unable to impress you. The good thing is I didn't have any intention of changing your mind but rather simply voice a different opinion.

"I prefer to use technology so I can focus on my art and not struggle with outdated tools."

I get it. You prefer presets composed by professionals rather 'struggling' with learning to use the tools you have .... I've no problem with that but I will share with you -- There is a reason a Universal Audio 1176 hardware unit sells for $1,999 today versus the emulation plugin by Waves CLA-76 for $39. Here's excerpts from a 4 Star review on the CLA-76 from A Sweetwater review, "After comparing the real thing to the plugin, I laughed and thought, that's cute. Although the plugin doesn't sound anywhere near the real thing .... The Waves plugin only slightly mimics this at BEST."

But you do get those professional presets...

For me, I've had a home recording studio continuously since 1968 and with time and experience, do not find working with antiquated, outdated technology a struggle or difficult at all. That's probably just me though.

Have fun. I'm out of here.

Charlie, I love your scenario about PG walking away! Well, except for that last part about the price.

I apologize for my rude-sounding comment about not being impressed. I reread it and it was not nice nor necessary!

You missed my point about using technology. It is NOT about presets. But it is about the tool getting out of my way so I can do the art. As an example, I really do not like Realband because of how clunky and slow it is sometimes. Waiting for the scrolling to catch up and having the mouse disappear for several seconds while it appears to be locked up is just unacceptable in a GUI in 2018. And that frustration definitely negatively affects my creativity.

Regarding whether the Waves plug matches the Universal Audio 1176, I doubt very many people would care! All of these plugs that claim to perfectly emulate Abbey Road Studios' Reverb Plate Room or whatever are just marketing hype! If I can produce a great track no one (except me) cares how I achieved it.

I bet if my version was to come true, there would be some houses mortgaged!! I have to say that would truly be an awesome program...

All is good regarding any comments.

Not really missed it completely. I had just watched Chris Lord Alge on YouTube with a mixing seminar using his signature CLA Waves plugins. He mixed using only CLA plugins and only the presets because he designed the presets based on how he actually uses the plugins in a mix. The presets were his starting point and more than 90% of the time, the presets work as is without any tweaks. To me, that's getting the tool out of the way and freeing up focus on the art itself, correct? I was being a bit facetious with my comment. Sorry.

I get what you are saying about RealBand or any other unstable software. Uninterrupted concentration can be fairly critical to a project. Especially now at my age and with my memory and train of thought. I'm now just an engine and caboose.

"If I can produce a great track no one (except me) cares how I achieved it." Yes. That is really the salient point isn't it? Enjoyed our conversation and I'm really out of here this time.

VideoTrack... I think we have miscommunication... Or I do not understand something trivial. Here is what I am talking about: When you select real tracks for your composition, ONLY THOSE CHOSEN tracks should reside and worked with in memory, NOT all of BIAB realtracks... I am talking about 5-6 selected real tracks here. And for folks like Charlie, who might not have a couple of gigs of RAM to be speared, good old way of gathering them from HD should be present.

I believe Freezen tracks is something else. They remain "frozen" and do not accept changes unless you "unfreeze" them for rendering.

Have a try of it anyway with the RAM Drive and see how it goes compared to hard drive access. If it is a lot quicker then you will know that is where the problem is and not something else it's doing in the back ground.
I would think it would read the RealTrack info from the particular instrument's XT2 or ST2 calculating what is best then load those sections from the associated file/files in the RealTrack instrument folder. The RealTrack files are different keys as far as I can remember so it should only be working with one of them at a time. The time might be spent calculating or something else rather than reading the file sections to RAM ???? That's why it might be worth trying the RAM Drive first see what difference it makes.
Also I don't know if it was mentioned above anywhere, but check the Speed up Generation...settings in RT Prefs.

Maybe with the MultiRiffs, Biab could use another instance in the background (if necessary as it might be able to generate up one riff at a time using the one track ??) as RB does to generate generate up 7 choices for your selected bars/beats then it would only be a matter of copying the MultiRiff track section data (realtrack file, position, transpose, tempo etc..) then replace the existing track data @ the chosen bars/beats of the frozen track, then regenerate that track back to RAM using the frozen data plus the new data from the MultiRiff. If that riff is not suitable do the same with riff 2 and so on, if a suitable riff is not found the track will revert back to the original that Biab froze beforehand.

And/Or create a BiabVST that will do all this in a nice DAW smile