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

I listed a few tasks Band-in-a-Box automatically performs to illustrate there are benefits to using Band-in-a-Box users don't think about or overlooked. The majority of the tasks I listed can be somewhat repetitive in a DAW.

At least one person indicated a preference to manually perform one or more of these tasks. I can understand that. Most users responding in this thread are very experienced. If I had the ears, skill and experience some of you have I'd want to maintain them at that level.

But I'm not at that level. I don't REALLY want to put in the time and effort to get to that level; although sometimes I like to believe I do.

So far I haven't read much where someone says they use their DAW to do this or that because Band-in-a-Box can't do one of those things. The feedback seems to be more about using their DAW because of familiarity, comfort level or maintaining skills. Those reasons are as good as any but were any of them your first thought when you saw the title of this thread, "Why Use A DAW When There Is Band-in-a-Box"?

At a primary foundational level, I do not understand this thread.

BIAB generates tracks, and is wonderful to work with as a song track builder and backing track creator.

However, when you move to the point where you want to do some serious mixing, envelope creation, fading, coloring, addition of numerous track "pieces", and the application of VSTS to all those tracks and the busses, how can you skip the DAW??????

That is where the mixing and mastering takes place.

(Real Band is a gem in that it not only generates tracks but also is not bad as DAW. It is wonderful to see your tracks laid out and get the visual glimpse of how it is all coming together from top to bottom in Real Band. Need a mandolin in there for a few seconds?? Add one!)

But I always do the final stuff in Cakewalk, because of the ease of use with mixing, VSTS, and stuff like that.

So, I am not sure I get this thread.

BIAB and DAWS are too different animals. Apples and oranges.

David, I agree comparing Band-in-a-Box to any DAW is not fair to Band-in-a-Box or the DAW because it is an apple to orange comparison. Comparing the two was not my original intent. I tried to phrase the title question, "Why Use A DAW When There Is Band-in-a-Box?" in such a manner that responding forum members would not compare.

The thought that prompted me to ask the title question is: PG Music continues to add more and more DAW like functionality to Band-in-a-Box every year. At the same time forum users continue to render tracks flat, dry and centered to export the tracks to their DAW where the tracks are edited, mixed, processed and mastered.

Much, but not all, of that work can be done in Band-in-a-Box. Sometimes the work is easier in Band-in-a-Box. Then why not do the work in Band-in-a-Box?

As someone that has Band-in-a-Box, Cakewalk (software DAW), Audacity (software digital recorder and wave editor), (hardware DAW) I've challenged myself to stay inside Band-in-a-Box as much as possible. What I'm discovering is I can do almost everything in Band-in-a-Box that I can do with my other products.

I'm also discovering old habits are hard to break. It's easy to return to the other products because I'm comfortable using them for certain tasks. So I have to use Band-in-a-Box long enough to be comfortable using Band-in-a-Box.

There are some tasks Band-in-a-Box can't do or the steps to perform a task don't make sense to me but overall I'm finding Band-in-a-Box can do more than I thought.

One last thought if I may. Some of the users that posted in this thread have used software DAWs or midi sequencers for a long time. They have their DAW templates tuned to perfection, the skill to edit, mix and process tracks to achieve a unified sound. I'm not that person. My investment in time and money is Band-in-a-Box so the more I can do in Band-in-a-Box the more return on my investment I receive.

They're also two different fruits. Llamas and kangaroos <grin>

I post here to support PT/RB, which brought me into this fold, so yeah, I am biased.
I totally admit it.

I use other DAWs, but since this is the PG Forum, I try to support them.
As you said, RB is unique in that you can work in a DAW environment but still Generate.
I know the BiaB plugin allows doing that in other DAWs ..
Once I need to move on from RB, I'm fine with that, but I need reasons .. sometimes I don't need to move on at all
Mixing, VSTs etc seem to work OK for me in RB usually, and when they don't I move on .. but to get back to OP, producing a final product in BiaB; that's extremely rare here
/as in I'm not sure I ever have

it seems to me Jim that you have learnt every new wrinkle of BIAB as it has come out. time past it didn't do a lot of the things a DAW does so we all learnt how to supplement BIAB with a DAW (in my case RB).

so, why go back to BIAB to learn how to do things we already do quite happily outside BIAB?

nothing else produces a track that's almost right as quickly as BIAB but for my needs - creating the equivalent of a four or five piece folk or pop band - BIAB's basic functions are perfectly adequate without a lot that has been introduced to make BIAB more like a DAW.

like rharv i admit i'm a PT/RB advocate because i grew up with them. yes BIAB does a lot of things now, but i already have the tools I've used for a long time to do them so the steep learning curve of how to do the new things BIAB can do -is something I avoid

Bob/Rharv/other RB/PTW users etc..

i think frankly its time to change the product name of Powertracks.(PTW) maybe...
cos anyone thinking of buying it..and not aware what we mean by PT might think reading these forums we were talking about another well known industry product.
and thus PG might lose a sale perhaps.

maybe PG should have a contest for a new name for Powertracks.
how bout POWERDAW 23. meaning 2023 version then in 2024 version..POWERDAW 24.

anyhoo before originally getting biab/rb i started with PTW as a test as i was using also a 2 inch tape based studio at that time.,...and as PTW cost peanuts..and bcos i'm a maverick , and muso mates looked down their noses at PTW even tho' they had never tried PTW….
i thought why not …worst case i lose the cost of a cheap dinner out….lol.

well…to say i was impressed is an understatement...
compared to much more pricey products. particularly cos i ran it on a junk pc at the time as a test….sooo i sold off the 2 inch gear etc cos i was v fed up with tape and constant maintenance costs and powertracks gave me more tracks and i saved big time over using 2 inch gear.

THUS the move to RB was a natural progression i guess….many times i might 'do a ruff demo'
in RB like i used to do in PTW.

as i said upthread ..and no one commented…i'm very curious if there is a similar character trait tween us RB users ? eg Joanne/Rharv/Bob/David/moi and other users i'm not aware of. etc etc.
for example i'm a 'digger'. are you all the same ?
i would love to know...why some people take to RB like 'a duck to water' , but some dont.

now the above is not to knock biab. ive used it soo many times also for song development,
and its great so many features have been added.
i use biab all the time like RB.

and i'm excited what 2023 will bring to both biab and rb.


happiness.

om

To answer how can you skip the DAW BIAB requires defining the foundations of BIAB and DAWs. The two software program types entered music creation relatively close to each other. They're different but they share the same foundation, analog multi track recording. The oldest reference I've found where PG Music marketed BIAB as a Multi Track recording is back in the 2015 release of both PC and Mac versions. BIAB had audio elements prior to that year but that's when audio recording was introduced and the term multi track was used.

As each software program developed and progressed, DAWs advanced in track count, digital editing features, VST instruments, libraries and overwhelming quantity of gear emulation software, and mixer routing of a very complex nature.

BIAB developed and progressed improving and adding RealTracks, UserTracks, Styles, upgrading and improving the BIAB algorithm, stability, the elastique stretch and pitch component and upgraded and improved processes and features effecting the multi track emulation of BIAB. BIAB is a very robust and capable digital multi track recorder that's on par more with stand alone digital multi track recorders than it is today's modern DAW. But, the same as a stand alone recorder, BIAB is capable of producing a full production without using a DAW.

Modern digital technology has made it that audio degradation has been eliminated from multi track processes like bouncing and sub mixing down multiple tracks that are used to increase the number of tracks available over the unit's physical track limitation. Prior to the introduction of the 16 additional Utility Tracks, it was assumed BIAB was limited to 8 channel inputs and tracks and if a song production needed more than these 8 channels, then tracks had to be exported and the project completed in a DAW. This has never been the case. Applying well established multi track recorder techniques and processes like assigning groups, aux sends/returns and bouncing, channel and track count had not been a recording project issue for decades. Early Beatles recordings made on 3 and 4 track machines routinely had a final mix of 14-16 tracks. Doubled harmonies, added percussions, guitars and vocals doubled, strings, piano, harmonica could all be in a final Beatle song recorded on a 4 track.

These same principles, techniques, processes, features and tools have been available for use in BIAB all along.

Because BIAB is capable of producing an arrangement of 24, 48 or more tracks in a first generation recording with no audio degradation, a recording that's panned, audio balanced and processed with digital Fx's, it's possible to 'skip' a DAW if one wants to.

But Jim,

There is NO WAY on God's Green earth to do 1/1000 of what I can do to a .wav, or 20 tracks of .wavs inside of a DAW like Cakewalk in BIAB.

I can get the basic tracks generated, but I don't WANT BIAB effects or panning. I want my OWN, out of a list of 1,000 VSTS I have. I maybe use 40 VSTS on 10 drum channels alone.

Then I export a mixed drum track.

THEN, boy that is where the real stuff begins and there is a LOT of fiddling and fading, and knob adjusting on rack mounts to get the exact sound I want.

So, yeah I love the heck out of BIAB for those real tracks (and midi) but there is no way to create the real artisanship of mixing inside BIAB unless BIAB becomes a full on DAW, which would be pointless. There already is Real Band which is great for track visualization AND generation.

There is a thread going on about "Tonnetz charts" in another area (woodshedding I think), and if you look at the website (https://www.songwriter.studio/) almost all of the lessons hint at an architectural methodology for "energy flow" that might best be created in Real Band! Chord by chord and track by track, section by section.

I will forever see track "generation" and track "management" (as one part of arrangement) as two different things.

Band-in-a-Box gives you an arrangement of sorts, but if you are making a real song, the best you can get is to the fifty yard line.

You still have a long way to go after you have those basic tracks in mind, and even if you use the pink dot dot dots.

That's my rant.

For me the answer is not a knock on BIAB but in a nutshell LOOPS LOOPS LOOPS :-) I Gotta agree with Dave on this one. In all fairness I can only use BIAB as a tool. With all my vocal layering. singing 4 part harmonies, and creating a ton of vocal adlibs (just to name a few things) no way can I do this "EFFECTIVELY" in BIAB. Plus mainly I use a LOT OF LOOPS !! No way can I create my loop compositions in BIAB satisfactorily. This loop based creation is so far from a BIAB composition that it cannot come close to comparing. https://youtu.be/MMrw48cl26Q

Knock-out sound Henry. Clearly a big effort went into this arrangement, and sure it's absolutely reasonable to understand that BiaB wasn't ever designed to deliver that level of production 'out of the box'. What BiaB does, it does extremely well, but what you've done is at another level.

ALL.

i feel i must agree with david's and henry's comments re daw usage.

in my case i do a lot of detailed vocal work in reaps….. multiple voc tests, v low level micro edits comps etc etc.
its one of the reasons i like reaps. otoh i dont use autotune because i feel vocs by their nature should be natural. i know autotune is the current rage…but not for moi..also i remind myself zillions of grrreat tunes were done before autotune. and if i screw up a voc its my own fault.

anyway reaps has a 'poor mans' tuning feature available which lets me fix the odd vocal note.
but the main thing is the ease i can zoom in and do micro edits..and do subtle stuff like slow down a song and solo a trak in order to make it easier to do a micro edit.
also reaps has 'spectral editing'…but ive not needed it yet.

basically i use biab and rb often for getting down 'the song foundation/bed traks'..
and the reaps and rb for what i might say is the 'iceing on the song cake'.

as teunis aptly said 'use the right tool for the job'.

which is why i use bb AND rb AND reaps to do a song.
(note i really really like the mp3 maker in rb for some reason i cant put my finger on.)

I REALLY LIKE IN RB THE ABILITY TO RIGHT CLIK OVER A TRAK AND HAVE SOOO MANY DIFFERENT GENERATION//trak creation OPTIONS,...eg clik traks//audio traks//midi traks etc etc. very very flexible. things other daws dont do.

i often wonder if new users really explore the trak right clik LOOOONG lol menu trick in rb.
there all sorts of neat features to discover. yes i'm an unapologetic FAN of RB....and...
if my wishes in the wishlist came about with flac and other wishes etc, i would be over the moon..lol.

happiness to all.

om

< Originally Posted By: David Snyder
But Jim,

There is NO WAY on God's Green earth to do 1/1000 of what I can do to a .wav, or 20 tracks of .wavs inside of a DAW like Cakewalk in BIAB.

Band-in-a-Box gives you an arrangement of sorts, but if you are making a real song, the best you can get is to the fifty yard line.

You still have a long way to go after you have those basic tracks in mind, and even if you use the pink dot dot dots.

That's my rant. >

I think it's also fair to say:

<There's NO WAY on God's Green earth to do 1/1000 of what I can create as a single RealTrack WAV, or 20 tracks of RealTrack WAVs inside of a DAW like Cakewalk like I can in BIAB.>

Yes, "You still have a long way to go after you have those basic tracks in mind, and even if you use the pink dot dot dots." but the question posed for this thread, "Why Use A DAW When There Is Band-in-a-Box?" infers that "the pink dot dot dots" isn't as far as BIAB can go in developing a RealTrack or song arrangement. You guys are choosing to pull out of BIAB with basic tracks in hand at the fifty yard line when BIAB has not given you all it's got to give when it's at the fifty yard line.

How do you know you're at the 50 yard line if the goal post keeps moving?

I think most of us are saying we do it to be more efficient with our time.
That is hard to argue against. We know what we are efficient at and what we are not.

Sure I can drive a screw in with a screwdriver by hand, but I can also grab the drill with the right tip and do it 10X faster with less effort.
Doesn't mean the screwdriver is no good.

You asked 'why' and a lot of have given the same reason; it's faster for us, which makes it better.

Who gives a rodent's rump how a song is produced?

I have never heard anyone say "that song was recorded with, insert DAW, BiaB, Toontrack, or any program of your choice". With some sound sources (RTs, Kontakt, Sampletank, etc) yes but not the process.

We all have our own workflows. We can share them and if others benefit fine, if not also fine.

Lets not let this become a battle between in-depth BiaB users and in-depth DAW users. Each have their pluses and minuses.

Exactly.

This just shows me how far I have to go.
10 drum channels? I struggle with 7 channels total in my songs !

And VSTs? If I happen to have any (that came bundled with BiaB or S1), I wouldn't know how to use them.

Signed,
A Hopeless Forever Newbie

The journey will be a lot of fun though. We all have lots to learn.
Otherwise it would get boring real fast.

/FWIW, we usually pre-mix drums down to 6-8 channels here, but 10 does not seem excessive. /

40 FX on 10 tracks seems a bit much, considering sub-mixes allow sharing some FX, but I am not criticizing anyone. Do what works.

Most important; have fun, learn as you go. We all did that.
Do it at your own speed.
I would also suggest learning about VSTs, they can make a huge difference.

Thanks rharv, it has been and is fun and very far from boring. And BiaB is a big part of that.

We should establish a "PG Music Appreciation Day" where once a year, we express what this company has meant to us in a giant multi-page thread.

Yeah, that could turn epic
Many things I have done I couldn't have done in BiaB alone, but I couldn't have done without BiaB either.

I do truly appreciate PGMusic and wouldn't be shy to share

I started using Logic Pro X and Garageband before I started using BIAB, and this was the workflow I got comfortable with, and where I feel free to be creative with whatever I want to do. Though having DAW'ish functionality, I use BIAB for composition and RTs only which in fact is quite a big deal in my songwriting, performing and production.

I have a single question for you about this - if you're happy using BIAB and it works for you in every possible way, why did you open this discussion in the first place - is it because you're missing anything, that your fellow users could point out, is found in a DAW? (in such case - let us know what you're missing)