PG Music Home Forums PG Music Product Forums Band-in-a-Box for Windows - Let The Games Begin! -

As a long-time, yearly upgrader, my interest is primarily new and improved real tracks and styles. Also, anything that promotes better sound for live performance. Don’t need lots of new features. Don’t use a fraction of what 2019 will do. I just do what I’ve always done----sequence songs for live play. Works great for that.

RobH,
Sure, it is fun to think what is possible
I am curious to know if PG had means to re-invent / rewrite things any way they want...
Would they still consider making several titles or single software that does it all?

I think people complain about the bugs and other stuff (mee too...(not the movement*)). I believe the core of the problem is that PG is relatively small company and I can understand that keeping up with several titles can be challenging, especially when the focus has to be shared in production of RealTracks/Drums.

If one day I win the lottery, I will try to convince Santa to consolidate everything to a single, smooth, modular (bug free!) platform just in time for 20XX release


P.S. About the lenses in Cakewalk... Yes, sure it is mostly visual, functions are all there. At the same time you can set up you lenses or project templates focusing on specific tasks. Mixing/VST Synth Work/Recording etc... I have managed to crash Cakewalk only on several occasions when I had VST synths and FX on most of individual tracks from several different manufacturers running couple of dozen of tracks (midi+audio) and recorded vocals on multiple take lanes at same time. What I am trying to say, it is SUPER stable, no matter what I throw at it.

Uggg...all this talk about investing seriously limited development resources on RealBand!

There are soooo many DAWs out there that are far better than RB. It will never catch up.

It only has one feature my DAW is missing and that is RealTracks integration. And the only true benefit it brings to RealTracks is a feature that should be in BIAB...multiriff.

It is absurd to continue development on a product that 1) could never compete against other DAWs and 2) most of your customers don't even use!

My suggestion? Freeze RealBand and only patch it if absolutely necessary. Then put those resources into adding multiriff to BIAB, finishing the VST and fixing lots of stuff in BIAB like adding tracks, new time sigs, etc.

If I were to develop a killer new app that helps me write novels and short stories I wouldn't also invest my limited resources to try and create a substandard word processor. I'd make it both stand-alone and a plug-in for Microsoft Word.

I for one hope that RB continues to develop. It does all I want it to do and after years with PowerTracks its an interface and method of working I'm familiar with.

The seamless way you can rough out a song in BIAB then finish in RB is great. What I would like is the ability to record subgroup moves in the mixer

The last two post are very telling to me. One wants the “freeze” RB, the other develop it. Everyone has a different workflow. Taking a popular program and completely changing it effect many people.

Since we’re using Cakewalk as an example, I’ll continue that line of reason. One of the reasons cakewalk sonar failed was as it was developed, it grew somewhat unstable. I remember the long discussions on the forums. I came from the floppy disk days of twelve tone music cakewalk all the way through to sonar. One of its problems was adding to many third party plugins and many features that battled for resources.

When BandLab bought it they stripped it down to a lean and stable basic program. Now it is very solid and productive. To blend BiaB, RB/power tracks into one modular super program would introduce so many variables that one can’t even imagine the complications it would cause.

If this were feasible I would imagine that other companies would be scrambling to create competitive products. We don’t see cakewalk, Cubase, protools, etc trying to add BiaB features to their DAWs. You would end up with so many different functions and so many miles of code that would introduce so many potential bugs and conflicts that would ruin the program for everyone.

But who knows what it going on behind the scene. We might some day have a super program that does it all. I just would hate to have a Swiss Army knife program that is okay at everything, but is not great at anything.

How about a 128-bit version of BIAB. That way you can even beat IBM and AMD to the punch.

I am more with JohnJohnJohn on this.

Unless MANY hours/resources are poured into Realband to make it even remotely close to free Cakewalk or very competitively priced and expandable Reaper, I really do not see a future of this program. Except for several features that BIAB does not have, I do not see a reason to use it myself, especially as a DAW for recording vocals or live instruments or mixing...(Oh yes, I tried "liking" it) I do realize that some people are attached to the workflow and several unique features of RB and that is why I fantasized of having a single modular program that would have detachable "modules" to design interface + features that suits the end user. I would care less, if PG was a big company that could manage development of several titles without issues. It is just my belief that working on a single software title for a small company would be less time consuming, and the remaining resources could be assigned to development, not repairs.

I like RealBand and BIAB as separate products but as so many who don't like it are continuously saying such and such a DAW is better, it seems to me that currently everybody is happy with the programs they use so PG shouldn't change course.

The current market provides everything everybody wants without merging RB sand BIAB. Don't like RB - use the DAW you do like and leave me with BIAB and RB separate!

New Realtracks and super midi tracks are the main reason I update each years.........

Sorry, that this thread has got a little off track. Some clarifications are needed.

Some folk identify RealBand as being a comparable version of Cakewalk, Logic, FL Studio, Reaper or Audition.

Others identify that RealBand is an upmarket BiaB.

The fact is, that RealBand is neither.

RealBand sits in between these two. It is a unique DAW. It can take advantage of BiaB features, use them more powerfully than BiaB can, and provide very reasonable output and results. It has its own place in the industry and will probably not step on too many toes.

. Oddly, only two comments throughout this thread mention improvements to the BIAB/RB end product, audio files and they're irrelevant to the final audio file quality.
. The same deficiencies all DAW's from Audacity to Pro-Tools HDX have interfacing with BIAB/RB are the same.
. BIAB/RB audio files work with every DAW regardless of it's commercial level and OS Platform.
. Forum comments and ideals posted here are platform, OS, hardware and workflow related and not toward audio file quality.
. If any forum member ever gets the opportunity to have an original work or cover professionally and commercially published, the audio file quality will matter, not the platform, OS,hardware or workflow used to create it.
. BIAB/RB audio files are of high enough quality to be used in commercial releases or included in productions done in top commercial studios by the world's top mixers.

Bobby Owsinski, recognized as one of the world's top and most in demand mixing engineers, is also one of the best selling authors of music industry topic books. His books are used in colleges as textbooks and references around the world. I have a copy of his 2014, third edition The Mixing Engineers Handbook.

In the book, Mr. Owsinski interviews and quotes tips, quips, and complaints from 36 other world class, top rated mixing engineers about their mixing techniques, tricks and obstacles. Notable mixers such as Andrew Scheps, Ken Scott, Dave Pensado are interviewed and he's included mixing pros that specialize in nearly every genre from rap to orchestration.

100% of these professional mix engineers discuss issues with the quality and quantity of the audio files they receive from clients and zero say anything at all about the platform, OS, workflow or hardware the files are recorded on... Just sayin'...

Charlie, I would venture to suggest that there are few, if any, Professional mix engineers here in our forum. But I agree, none who are interested in BIAB versus RB. However, the real discussion point here is "workflow". For the majority of us in the forum not only do we mix, but also write, record, compose, arrange, produce, master and publish - workflow is a priority. just sayin,.

I'll start my replay with because yes, we are here for fun and not to step on toes or offend others. I'd written out two other posts for this thread before I finally pushed the enter button on this one... I don't want to offend of make light of anyone's workflow or end product. This may be close to the edge, so forgive me in advance if it is, but hear me out. My thoughts are not about anyone in particular.

I'm comfortable with your thought that few of our active forum members are solely, commercial producers and engineers. However, take some time to examine the list of Users and you'll see more than a few that don't post are Studios, Producers, engineers and other professional designates. There are fewer than 100 active forum posters out of 30,252 registered users. If there were a way to validate the true answer, I'd wager there are major, mainstream Studios, record companies, their employees, Major name artists, producers, engineers, and mixers that own and use BIAB in their commercial projects.

My point all along is we're discussing 'workflow', gear or interfacing with other software and not our 'output'. There are currently several other post of discussions in various threads here in the Forum and the core of all of them revolve around 'workflow' and not 'output'.

Professionally, it's BIAB/RB's output and not it's workflow that's universally rejected by the commercial market. Here's some examples.

1. No mainstream top level DAW/Home Recording Site, including their FB and YouTube presence, have ever done a review or demonstration of building a home studio recording project around BIAB generated tracks. They'll do one with a $49 USB Mic, a $29 USB audio interface, a $49 electric guitar internet find, VST's, or VSTi's but BIAB is off limits.

2. I've personally contacted three top level internet tutors/trainers and two of them rejected working with BIAB audio files because of their generic and recognizable sounds/repeating riffs and poor overall quality, including the 44.1/16 resolution limitation. The third didn't even bother to respond.

3. On one of these sites, there was a question from a subscriber/student regarding using a BIAB recorded track and the moderator chastised the student that forum was not about other software products and subsequently removed the post referencing BIAB product. I've subscribed to that site for years, there are multiple posts daily about different brands of hardware, software, VST's and VSTi's. BIAB is the only product I've ever seen removed in such a manner.

Considering BIAB's output reception noted above, I suggest that the majority of us in the forum that mix, write, record, compose, arrange, produce, master and publish as their workflow (all of us for all practicable purposes) have taken a bigger bite than we can effectively chew.

I'll venture back to you and suggest that there are few, if any BIAB users that have taken time to learn all of the features available in the program that undoubtedly will benefit their workflow as much as generating and moving an audio track to another software. That will increase their speed in creating and editing a project. That will also produce a very complex group of audio files solely from within the BIAB program before they move their final rendered audio files to other software programs for advanced editing and effects. Learning and using these features will create audio files that are so unique and distinctive, they will be unrecognizable as coming from BIAB. They will be astronomically and statistically impossible to duplicate and will absolutely not be generic and boring.

Charlie, two many good points in there for me to fully comprehend at this time. But you got me thinkin... thanks for the input.

Here's how Biab is used professionally. Harvey Gerst is a long time friend of Peters and owns Indian Trails studio in Texas. Google his name. He posted extensively about this years ago including his mixes. Totally pro level stuff.

He'll be doing a band demo. Limited budget. The artist is a singer and guitarist. They'll pay for a drummer and bass player that Harvey has on call. The budget is used up, he's mixing the session and it needs a little help. Enter Biab. He'll create another guitar RT or a little piano part. He may only use those for the second time around or half a bridge or whatever. Biab is used in studios the world over like that. Not the whole band or the whole song but as a sweetner here and there for demos to go with the live tracks.

99.9% of everybody on this forum are either hobbyists or delusional wannabes who buy into the hype that Biab is the be all end all for their breakout hit. Uhhhh, no.

I have a lot of fun with it but I keep it real ya know? This is why sometimes I just can't help myself and make snarky comments when people get all involved talking about high level stuff that Peter should be doing with these programs. Yeah great, wonderful. Throw all that stuff into it, make it able to create the best most awesome arrangements in the world. Who's going to know enough to use all that power? Maybe 20 people out of the 30,000 registered users on the forums?

Bob

Bob

Great dose of pragmatism and reality.

(not begin snarky I really do agree and would go further but would really hack people off so I won't and I LOVE BIAB been with it since Oct '90 it was version 2 for DOS)


Larry

Yeah, I was going to reference Harvey as an example also.
There are others, but Harvey has been considered authoritative for many years .. really since before BiaB came out, so I'm quite sure he is not the sole user to fit this definition. I'd venture to say very few of the true studio level users have the time/inclination to be posting here.
Doesn't mean they don't use it, more apt to infer that they don't have problems with it that they need forum help solving.

Just trying to keep some perspective on active users.
Some current active users have commercial releases, including TV/Movie/Radio stuff, in their portfolio .. but they don't put it in their signature or advertise it.
They are out there.

I *think* RB/PT development is done (mostly) by separate staff.
I suppose you could cut those staff, but PT/RB would essentially be frozen 'as is' if you did, like the PGPlugins were when JCJr left.

Plus some of the PT/RB developments have helped catapult some BiaB features over the years (I'm guessing here, but I assume the current BiaB plugin wouldn't have happened as easily if it weren't for previous RB development .. could be wrong, just ask my wife!).

BiaB is not a DAW, but RB helps keep some focus on the use of BiaB in a DAW.
This endeared many of us to RB, but also reveals the value of the RB development staff in helping BiaB mature over the years.

Food for thought.