PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist More than 6 + 1 Instruments and better handling of more complex MIDI files

Face it. It's time for a major facelift. Like what M$ did when they went from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. It might have pissed off 3.1 users, but it was a game changer that benefited all M$ users in the long run. (I was an OS/2 user at the time, so I didn't care much one way or another, since I was using a superior product)

Anyway, the same will happen with Band in a Box users. It will grow in use by leaps and bounds. The platform now is bug-ridden and rickety. It's past time for a clean sheet of paper. One of my biggest pet peeves is being stuck with 16bit/44.1Hz when the rest of the world has been using 24bit/96kHz (and higher) for over 20 years.

Yawn. Over and over and over...

I don't disagree but jeesh, how many times to we have to write this? Is it really necessary, I would say just give it a rest. Nothing's been done about these things as long as I've been on the forum. I've written all of these points too in who knows how many threads for years and years and years and, and...

It's pointless imho, PGM is well aware, they'll either do it or they won't. Until then get used to Real Band, it does address some of these issues but not all.

Bob

You talking to me, or another Mike? I don't recall ever having RB crash on me. I'm just not used to the interface and I feel disinclined to have to learn how to use another DAW product right now. If I'm gonna spend the time to learn another DAW, it's probably gonna be Reaper.

Oh, must be having a senior moment. I just realized I still had time to edit that part out so no harm, no foul.<grin>

Bob

Maybe the plugin code can be added to Ardour to create a new 64 bit cross-platform RealBand DAW, it works with scripting like Reaper so no more workarounds just create a script to do what you need. Get it to play from RAM but then be able to write to a tracks also.

THe codebase of BiaB is so old that you can actually see it. Just have a look at those dialogs *

From a programmers standpoint it would be tempting to start from scratch and leave all the legacy code behind. But this is only for the fun of it. Unless you have a really big team it's bound ti fail. So in reality it's only possible to do iterative changes. Depending on nature and quality of the code this takes time. If you are understaffed it will take a very long time.

Masi

* I hope they can use different dialogs in the VSTi. To me all of they dialogs are an example of bad usability (too many issues to list them all in this post).

I'll make a prediction right now -- and this is coming from a person who's been using BiaB for 22 years now, and still using it because there is nothing else that can do what it does. Someday that will change. Someday a bright group of young turks is gonna figure out a way to do what BiaB does, but in a slick, streamlined, bug-free interface. And it will spell the beginning of the end of BiaB. Now, I hope this doesn't happen. But I suspect it will. Because that is simply the nature of things.

+1

Very, very true! But it can change in a better direction for BIAB with a few efficient steps and relatively small cost.

Mainly:
1) make the interface (Design !!!) and workflow! as smooth as possible using old code.
2) make a demo version of the program with included VERY SIMPLE,
in your face" video to start things, for somebody who never used BIAB.
3)Make the the initial package even "lighter" (less RT's) and cheaper, so more people can try it.
4)Advertise better, there are so many channels...
5)Make upgrades less complicated (all these choices!)
6) And if you see proper traction, hire somebody with proper set of skills who can orchestrate a fast and painless re-write

Anything's possible but I doubt it. What's the heart of Biab? Styles. Creating a chord track like Studio One has or even having the ability to alter chords using Melodyne or whatever is nice but that has nothing to do with styles and how to use them inside a DAW to create a complete song arrangement.

People see how a DAW can take individual audio/midi tracks and allow you to move them around to create a song and think that's what Biab does. No it's not. As you know Biab does all the creation and arranging for you using pretty smart music theory based AI. This is a very small niche market I doubt it would catch any "young turks" attention. Most young musicians are all about loop based "bedroom producer" stuff.

The closest thing I've seen in all the different plugin's and music programs to Biab is Jamstix. It has the ability to create a new drum track for you based on an audio file. You have a lot of control as to how that's done similar to how Biab works.

Otherwise there are programs like EZKeys, EZDrums, various guitar instrument plugins that have tons of different phrases in many styles for you to pick from. All of that is great but it's you putting this all together manually. Nobody has 6,000 styles that group all that stuff together for you with a few mouse clicks and then generate a complete song in a few seconds.

I don't see anybody trying to do an end run around PGM patents to try to come out with thousands of pretty decent styles and then using those styles to sort through all the hundreds or thousands of different instrument tracks to put together a coherent song. It's the styles that controls everything. A style has 6 total tracks and somehow behind the scenes Biab knows which tracks to grab out of the thousands available to use. If it's midi I can see that's relatively easy because it's creating a new midi track from scratch but the RT's? Man, that's a whole other thing.

Let's look at midi since it's easier. Everybody knows the sound quality is totally based on the synth. Biab uses GM for simplicity. Say a new company doesn't. A great sounding synth costs big bucks. What are they going to do come up with their own high end synth for sound in their new program? That alone is a huge project. Or do they let you buy what you want? Do that and they'll get all the same complaints we see here. Why do my tracks sound like crap? It's because you're using a crap sound source.

How do they select the exact instrument for a given track? Well that depends on the synth too. GM is simple, same patch numbers regardless of the synth. I suppose a new program could be tailored to the different big name synths. One version for Sample Tank 4, another version for Kontakt another for Halion etc but look at all the different instrument packs you can buy for each. That would be a total complete mess. Thousands of patches available. Can you imagine the nooby questions their forum would get?

And this is just for the midi side, what about audio like the RT's? Where's the source for a new company to provide audio parts? Unless they're going to hire all the same people PG has to record them where would they come from?

That sounds like a huge challenge to me for somebody to try to beat Biab at it's own game.

Bob

Bob, all your points are good ones. And I may be all wet in my prediction. But I hope I'm not. Why? Because the one thing that PGM needs more than anything else is competition. They have become stagnant, complacent, and insensitive to demands because they don't have to worry about anyone else trying to outdo them with a superior product, a lower price, or both. We all know -- or at least we should -- that competition improves the product for all concerned. BiaB is not immune to this. In fact, it shows clearly why competition is necessary.