PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production Why Use A DAW When There Is Band-in-a-Box? (Discussion) [Resolved]

Why do you need a DAW when you have Band-in-a-Box? What do you do in your DAW that you don't or can't do in Band-in-a-Box?

For example I use Cakewalk by Bandlab to automate multiple functions at a time on an audio or midi track. Cakewalk can simultaneously automate playback of volume, pan and mute on an audio track. At the same time I can automate playback of volume, pan, mute, reverb, chorus and expression on a midi track.

I started to make a list, but then thought... the answer is simpler than that. While BIAB does have specialized feature which make it totally unique compared to any DAW, it also does have some general DAW features. The reason I don't use them is 1) Limited Features, 2) awkward workflow, 3) lack of stability.

All of those limitations are handled by a professional DAW.

List of Reaper Features

For me, back in February when Audacity was my primary "DAW", I spent many hours trying to get RealBand to work; thinking that it would more tightly integrate with BiaB. I even posted a call for help here; Although I was/am greatful for the help, I/we were unsuccessful. We tried hard to get it to work.

Here is the thread:

RealBand Recording Problems

A buddy told me about Studio One, so I bought it and love it. It allows me to record my instruments, drag and drop audio, precisely control volume and has full export capability. So far it has everything I need and I've had zero problems with it.

I used Cakewalk Pro Audio, then SONAR, then briefly BandLab by Cakewalk. These are all the same DAW product as it has evolved.

The reason was that I learned it long before PG Music offered RealBand.

Now I use Presonus Studio One version 5 as my DAW.

The reason is that it is tightly integrated with my notation program, Presonus Notion 6, so when I wanted to change to a stable and future-proof DAW, and change to a notation program that was more current, user-friendly and stable with great sounds easily available to a composer, I chose this pair.

My reasons are not as likely to be your reasons. Preferences in workflow would normally be in consideration, too, so pick what works for you. No one has yet written the perfect software tool to do everything, so choose those tools that work best for you. One tool I still use frequently is a stereo Wave file editor, Adobe Audition. Yes, I could do this function in a DAW or other programs, but I learned this one over two decades ago, also. It's just a comfortable fit. Sometimes that's the only reason I can give you: it works, it's easy, and I'm fine with things as-is.

This question to me is a bit like why buy a screwdriver if you have a hammer. One could use a hammer to drive in screws or for that matter a screwdriver to hit in nails. But and it’s a big BUT to use a tool made for specific tasks makes the job simpler, more efficient if not better.

For years I used various versions of Sonar then when things were looking dicey with Cakewalk I got into Reaper as well as Cakewalk by BandLab. I tended to use Cakewalk for MIDI as I really understood MIDI operations in that Cakewalk. I used Reaper for mixing as that DAW provided advantages in that area.

As I got on and learnt more about Reaper’s scripting and other flexibilities I am slowly but surely tending to go to Reaper for all my DAW needs. In Reaper it is easy to create menus and possible to design tools for specific functions making Reaper more flexible than Cakewalk (IMHO)

I use BAIB to design, layout and input the chords and various instruments for a song as that to me seems the best tool for that job. I guess I could do this in Reaper or Cakewalk but it would be nowhere near as good nor efficient. I could use BIAB to mix and record the extra bits I might want to add but once again to me would not be efficient.

In Reaper for example it is extremely easy to adjust the play rate of a piece or have the levels of various parts move, or manipulate panning on the fly. Whatever takes your fancy. It is also fairly easy to remove unwanted noise and things like that. This goes on and on.

The right tool for the right job it was my attitude all my working life so why not for music.

My thoughts
Tony

THUMPER.

did you study the realband manual and i think there are vids now on setting up realband. ??
rb works for me and lots of people.

i think the issue is rb can sometimes be 'fiddly' to set up depending on the audio interface. the KEY is setting up the driver prefs correctly.

All.

my preferred combo is reaps//rb//biab. done 90 songs with the combo. i use the strengths of each.

it has to be said that the more one 'plumbs the depths'
of a music software , the more one will get out of it.
and bb and rb are very deep for example...as is reaps.

haveing said that i'll mention a few things i really like
in reaper ,..
(and this is not to slam bb or rb that have their own strengths which i love and use all the time.).

so reaper...
1. i love the main display showing all the traks.
2. ditto for the workflow eg moveing 'clips' around/editing etc etc.
3. various operational stats like latency and cpu and disc and plug in stats etc.
4. the free jesusonic plug ins included and other plug in
features eg i can use pg dx plus with vst's.
5. the small footprint and portability and how reaps runs on a pc with no probs/lagging etc etc. also runs on various OS platforms.

i could go on...but the above are just a few reasons.
musicstudent pointed to a full list of features on reaper.

best

om

I'm kind of like justanoldmuso
'maybe' start in Biab, if not and I have a strong idea of what I want and plan to Generate just to fill in some stuff (which is way more likely around here) I just start right out in RB.

Generate what I need and time-sync other stuff.

If I'm just tinkering around, I'll try various chords/style combos in BiaB to try to find some kind of hint that inspires an idea. Same way I use any loop/generate/pattern software. BiaB is more efficient at that than RB.

But then once I have the idea I get out of BiaB so I get more control, even though it can be more work. I enjoy that kind of work way more than dealing with the leaves in the fall. <grin>

If I need something RB doesn't do I do not hesitate to move to Reaper, or others.

Mostly it's just figuring out the workflow that works best for you.

I cut my teeth on Roland software and Powertracks, so the workflow in RB is just familiar to me, & I work where I am comfortable until I have to move on.

Kind of like when I built houses. Get as much done on the ground as you can.
When you need to get on the roof, well, you move up to the roof.

I'm comfortable in PT/RB, but realize I sometimes need to get on the roof.
Not sure where BiaB fits into that scenario, maybe tinkering with floor plans before starting to build the house (?)

I started with Dr T's sequencer back in the Atari days, then went to Cakewalk Pro Audio, Sonar, then finally to Studio One Pro 5.5. Thus I am very familiar with DAWs.

I agree with Jim on the many aspects of using a DAW. In fact I get out of BiaB as soon as I can and go straight to my DAW.

Tony has the right answer. A DAW and BiaB are two different tools.

I do not like to use RealBand. It doesn't fit well in my workflow. It is not that RB is a bad DAW; it is not and many use it as their only DAW. I just don't want to spend time learning all of the intricate workings of RB when I will not use it much. I must say that the few times that I have used it RB was stable.

Another reason that I don't stay very long in BiaB is the VST loading times. When I boot Studio One Pro 5.5 it only takes a couple of minutes to read all of my VSTs and VSTis. Having BiaB load them took over a half an hour. I am not putting the blame on PGM, it is just BiaB was not meant for that kind of usage.

In summary I hope BiaB stays focused on being the best backing track generator and doesn't become more like a DAW.

YMMV

I started with Dr T's sequencer back in the Amiga days, then went to Cool Edit Pro, which became Adobe Audition, then finally to Pro Tools. Thus I am very familiar with other DAWs.


Same. BIAB is just my tool to get the layout or template of the song complete.

Back in Feb, I consulted every resource I was aware of including videos. And you, rharv and MarioD helped as best you could but to no avail; thanks for trying. The fact that only 3 tried to help, out of a reported 36,433 members tells me that the RB userbase is either not large or not that motivated. Meanwhile, Studio One worked instantly and there seems to be a healthy group of S1 users here. One has to use the tools that work.

I will say that I hope that the programming resources directed toward RB do not inhibit future growth of the flagship program BiaB.

Tony (Teunis) presents a great analogy in terms of why it may be a better idea to use BIAB rather than a DAW for many tasks one encounters in song creation. Here's my take on his analogy:

<< Why buy a screwdriver if you have a hammer? >>

as an analogy to;

Why buy a DAW if you have BIAB?

I use a screwdriver many times to drive small nails, make a punch mark, tap pieces in place etc. For small instances where a tap is sufficient, the screwdriver gets the job done as efficiently and quicker than I can fetch a hammer for the small job.

It's the same with BIAB. Tasks like cut/paste, comping, volume automation, panning, adding some effects, audio recording, MIDI recording, cross-fades, fade-in, fade-out, inserting silence, muting, trimming intros, trimming outros, arranging, transposing, harmonizing, transcribing, extracting stems, time shifting audio, convert channels (mono/stereo), add/delete bars, audio punch in/out, bussing, bouncing tracks, sound on sound recording, move/copy MIDI/audio, normalize tracks, fix tuning, time stretch and pitch to name a few tasks BIAB can do and it shares with DAWs.

Many times, and in my case, more often than not, I can complete the tasks from the list above quicker and obtain results that are indistinguishable from doing the task exporting tracks out and completing them in a DAW.

I'm not suggesting that BIAB has obsoleted DAWs for music production but neither is pro quality music production unobtainable using BIAB if by-passing a DAW during the creation process. If a user doesn't have a DAW, there's no rush to go and acquire one.

I think a lot depends on how you 'grew up' with BIAB. I started on floppies and midi only and got PowerTracks bundles with BIAB for free.

Learning to use both programs I found some functions not available in BIAB were easily managed in PT. So my workflow was get as much laid down in BIAB and then move to PT to produce midi backing tracks for the duo i played in.

Since then BIAB has acquired many many more functions, but so has PT in becoming RB. Building on my skills with PT, its natural for me to use RB for 'heavy lifting'. RB is still for me, more transparent and obvious than BIAB. Legacy track? Melody track? soloist? utility track? no need to search - all the tracks are in front of you.

I know it's second nature to Jim and Charlie to stay in BIAB but for me RB is so much easier. Nothing hidden, fx easily added, a mixer that looks like a real life mixer..... and all the functionality of BIAB if i need it.

so with RB as my DAW it's a workflow i prefer. and if i get stuck, the program is so easy and familiar I can usually work out how to do things. but not always - and that's why the forum is so useful!

Having said that you use the right tool from many choices, I stay in BIAB as long as possible. As a composer I make a lot of changes before I take a song into production.

Simple answer is BIAB is NOT a DAW! And, Realband is NOT a feature-rich, modern DAW. Realband does not compare favorably to any of the modern DAWs available today. The one thing it does is support RealTracks but when you realize it doesn't even respect BIAB bar settings, frozen tracks, etc. you see it is not even useful in your BIAB workflow!

BIAB is absolutely brilliant at generating tracks from the awesome RealTracks library. And that is enough! I get in BIAB and out to my DAW ASAP!

Like many others
BIAB only as long as I need. Mostly real tracks. Almost zero midi.
The DAW does the rest

in the spirit of lively friendly collegial debate lets look at some pg users who use the 'free' REALBAND (RB). ie 'the other side of the RB coin" as it were.
(and lets not forget a new user can get a pak under 100 buckys with both biab AND RB. some competing software with only daw features can cost much MUCH MORE.)

1..the very talented long time pg user Joanne Cooper who i respect highly.
she is a long term RB user who has posted on her site and the pg forums about how she uses RB as a DAW. with various articles etc etc. LINK>>>

https://joannecooper.co.za/home

one of her articles is titled 'eight reasons RB is her daw of choice'.
i agree particularly about the 'no dongles' aspect. i also dislike them and will never EVER use a product that employs them cos ive seen too many people have issues sometimes.

https://www.joannecooper.co.za/blog/blog/eight-reasons-why-i-as-a-band-in-a-box-user-use-realband-as-my-daw-of-choice

2..pg user RHARV was kind enough to allow me the other day to listen to one of his productions done using RB. count me highly impressed….a top flight major studio i feel couldnt have beaten the production quality and dynamics etc etc. and RHARV is another pg user i highly respect.

3..moi. ive done 90 songs using biab/reaper and YES RB included as my go to software combo to do songs.
and ive forgotten how many 'demos'.
i play to the strengths of each of the 3 bb/rb/reaps.
(12 songs i have posted in the pg user showcase and on soundcloud see my sig at the bottom.…ill let others determine whether my crazy songs are good or not….lol..my 'thing' is the fun of doing songs..good or bad.).

in order to be fair and balanced i have to say RB has many nice daw features imho , BUT one MUST be willing to plumb its depths. this is the crux of it.

in addition…yes some might see it as an 'ugly duckling' BUT as my granny might have said 'beauty is often skin deep..its what is inside thats important'.

fwiw i just posted in the RB wishlist forum my RB wishes for 2023.
and if one goes back in that forum ive posted many past wishes.

in conclusion i'm sure there are pg users that use RB other than us 3 posted above.

WHY HAVE I TAKEN THE TIME TO MAKE THIS POST ?

cos it troubles me that a new pg user might dismiss RB. too easily. i also want to see the RB user base grow and RB prosper.
IS RB PERFECT ?..NO ! but ive found other competing products arent often perfect either.

let me say also...in the past ive had 'big lads' i met say to me 'REALBAND' or "POWERTRAKS" never heard of it..;.looking down their noses in the process UNTIL
i showed them several of the features and watched their eyes 'bug out' lol.

back to your regular programming ..lol.

happiness to all.

om

ps Mario i still have here my old 'sequencer one' diskette..ah those were the days...lol.
ps teunis. many good points.

While RealBand and PowerTrack Pro have their advocates I hope the discussion doesn't linger on those programs for a couple of reasons. First RealBand and PowerTrack Pro are PG Music's DAW offerings and I don't want this topic to become a discussion of PG Music DAWs versus all the other DAWs out there. Second the programs are only available for Windows so Macintosh users are left out of the discussion.

Some of you mentioned you are more comfortable or use to performing certain tasks in your DAW versus Band-in-a-Box. I understand that as I normally don't like getting out of my own comfort zone.

Bob Calver brought up an interesting thought. He mentioned "growing up" with Band-in-a-Box so he is comfortable using the program. I think experience using ANY product or program breeds comfort. Once you are comfortable with a program you naturally prefer other products that are similar and operate in a similar manner.

I believe one reason some people have difficulty with Band-in-a-Box is they are comfortable using a DAW. They believe Band-in-a-Box is a DAW so they expect BiaB to work similar to a DAW. Related from a user interaction standpoint is that there is really no other program to compare Band-in-a-Box against.

IT IS NOT THE TOOL, IT IS THE PERSON USING THE TOOL.

I yelled that because it is the truth. It really doesn't matter what your tools are but the experience behind the person using it. Many tools are job specific while others have a few "side" functions. Yes a screwdriver can be a hammer for small nails, or an awe, or a small pry bar but they are not the optimum tool for those jobs. However they may get the job done.

All powerful pieces of software have learning curves. BiaB, any DAW, Scaler, etc have huge learning curves IF you want to dig deep into the program.

Any workflow is great IF it works for you. Charlie, RHarv, Matt, Joanne, and others have dug deep into BiaB and/or RB; thanx GOD they are willing to share their information. I use BiaB as a scratch pad figuring out chord progressions and styles. Sometimes I will use either the Melodist or the Soloist to give me some ideas for leads. I do all of my heavy work in my DAW, Studio One Pro 5.5 which I have dug deeply into. I have no desire to dig deeply into BiaB or RB as I can do many if not all of those things Charlie and others have listed quicker and easier in my DAW. Why? Because I know my DAW as you know your tools. This workflow works for me and may not for others.

As I stated it is the tool user and not the tool.

Your point is true but it is not the complete truth! Some tools are better than others and it is perfectly valid to have that discussion. Every piece of technology is subjected to reviews and comparisons with other implementations so potential users can can make a more informed decision.

The whole argument that a poor tool can be used to create quality results does not change the FACT that there are much better tools available.

And the issue is a LOT deeper than just deep diving into a poor tool to learn to work around it's warts. I believe it is FAR better to simply find a better tool!

It’s funny how many people seem to be either afraid or not interested in learning a new skill. When I first started work as a trainee after leaving school I went to a training school where about 50% of our time in the first year was about how to correctly use tools. Use the correct tool or best tool for the job.

With producing music there are many alternatives into how to get a job done. I recall a little session I had with a fellow musician who said you can’t use BIAB to do that and I showed him how. He said I have had BIAB for years and I didn’t know that. I said go to the PG site there is a plethora of great videos there to demonstrate aspects of BIAB. Go find Joanne Coopers stuff or Henry Clarke you’ll learn heaps. “Oh I don’t have the time for that”. My answer then I can’t help you.

I find learning is what it is about. I spend time every day looking and reading stuff on these forums. I learn by doing so. I reckon I still spend 50% of my time learning new skills or finding ways to make better use of what I know.

I said earlier in these posts it is about using the best or most appropriate tool for the job. In music production this can be very subjective however without enough learning how can one make the best choices.

Learn!!! It is fun.

My thoughts
Tony