Originally Posted By: Charlie Fogle
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...

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.

Last edited by JohnJohnJohn; 08/22/18 03:30 AM.