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

before BIAB could record audio i was using PT to record. is it any wonder that the workflow i established then is the one i feel most comfortable with?

BIA B's DAW like attributes came too late for me. my workflow had already left it behind.

I have to disagree Audio, or at least say I am confused. I don't think BIAB was ever designed to make anything "out of the Box." It gives you tracks to work with, but you have to do something with them, like any producer. You don't just have a bunch of guys (or ladies) play some parts and then say: "That's it y'all. We're done. We can press our record now."

NO--what you start doing now is the hard part, mixing and mastering.

What Henry does is phenomenal, I agree on that part, but I work in genres of pop, house, rock and even alt-country where I think the stuff I am doing will stand up to anything coming out of a studio. The new stuff in recent editions of BIAB IS the next level.

I think I have proved it numerous times.

SO, I can get some fabulous tracks from BIAB, which has many other neat COMPOSING and EDUCATION tools, but mixing and mastering is not its forte.

For that you need a DAW, pure and simple.

All I can say about the quality of BIAB though--as TRACKS--is this:

If you say you can't use BIAB tracks to create a professional sounding recording (or full length album for that matter) you had to have been hit on the head with a pipe at some point.

There ARE pros on this forum doing just that, but they won't tell you who they are and they are reading all of this.

And laughing their heads off I am sure.

BIAB is the professional producer's best kept secret and everyone knows it.

The only people who keep talking of "limitations" and such are the same people who simply cannot write a song to save their lives.

A real songwriter will write a hit song on a cardboard box if there is nothing else available.

We use neither a DAW nor Real Band. Just BIAB. My recording process is somewhere between archaic and Neanderthal. But I like the sound I get. And that's what matters. I don't even use a mixing board. Everything I do is straight of the BIAB chord input page to Audacity to Soundcloud. We use the guitar amp for my guitar tracks and as a powered mixer for the vocals.


My process:

Create backing tracks in BIAB. Save as a WAV file in Audacity. All I do in Audacity is a bit of compression and minor EQ adjustments.

For vocals I use an AT 2035 condenser mic. I run the mic straight into my Peavey Nashville 112 guitar amp. We record with reverb already on the amp (rather than dry) and set the vocal and guitar EQ with just the Low - Mid - High - Presence knobs. We adjust the the vocal/guitar volume with the main volume and and gain knobs.

We send the vocal or guitar to Audacity from the amp's headphone jack straight into the PC's mic input with Audacity running on the PC. We do a little touch-up on the vocal in Audacity and save it as a WAV file. We then mix the backing tracks and the vocal/guitar track in Audacity and save it as another (final) WAV file. We upload that to Soundcloud and a few other places. we're done!

I do all my backing track editing on the BIAB chord input page. I use the included BIAB VSTs as needed.

Here are two examples of totally different songs. One is a Boss Nova with my wife on vocals and the other is a really weird psychedelic guitar instrumental. I think they are good examples of the variety of sounds we can get from this method using BIAB. Both of these songs were created and recorded exactly as described above. We use no third party tools other than Audacity - no external loops, VSTs or tracks. Just BIAB plus our vocals or my guitar track. I often get nice comments on the mixing and over-all sound.

1. You (Bossa Nova with my wife on vocals): https://soundcloud.com/alananddi/you-remix

2. Beyond the Ozone - Into the No Parking Zone (Psychedelic Instrumental): https://soundcloud.com/alananddi/beyond-the-ozone-into-the-no-parking-zone

Hope this contributed something worthwhile to the discussion.

Alan


PS:: The lead guitar on the psychedelic track was all BIAB - no outside tools whatsoever.

In all due respect Alan aren't you are using Audacity as a DAW?

At the end of day Mario, people can do whatever they want.

I could say:

"Hey I have an old Yamaha 200 keyboard with some cheesy disco demos and I just pump straight out of there to my computer sound hole and then add some tracks in Audacity of me yelling over top of it into my phone."

OK.

What would Andy Warhol say??

Art???

I guess.

Everybody has their own way.

If it sounds good to you and you think you are an artist I guess that's all that counts.

BUT, when I discuss mixing and mastering with people it is usually about a mixing session done with a DAW and a studio board or a DAW and computer.

But that's just me.

I know plenty of people who are doing quite fine in Nashville and their only recording tool is a phone.

Seriously.

Well, I didn't ask the question because Band-in-a-Box works for me in every possible way. I thought I implied as much in my initial post where I listed multiple automation functions that my DAW of choice, Cakewalk, can playback at one time.

The original reason I asked the titled question is because I thought the responses would be along the line of what features DAW users miss in Band-in-a-Box and would like to have in Band-in-a-Box.

The responses so far are not what I expected. I thought the discussion would be about added functionality that would enhance Band-in-a-Box in a manner that DAW users would stay in Band-in-a-Box longer. Something like: "I can use my big money surface controller in my DAW but can't in Band-in-a-Box" or "My DAW has more automation functions than Band-in-a-Box".

Perhaps but I don't know. I'm thinking that in terms of shared, common DAW functions Band-in-a-Box can likely perform it. While every DAW shares some common functionality each DAW also has strengths that make it unique from other DAWs. I wouldn't want the discussion to veer into a discussion of specific DAW strengths while overlooking some common function most DAWs share while Band-in-a-Box does not.

If the discussion is what I use or do in a DAW that I can’t or don’t know how to do in BIAB it is mainly about envelopes. Yes it is possible to go into F5 and make volume changes and/or drop tracks etc. I find simply drawing an envelope far smoother and simpler. Using envelopes I can start a change in any part of a bar.

It is also possible to move the timing using the stretch capabilities I have in a DAW.

Spectral editing is something I use a lot sure I may be able to add RX into BIAB but most likely not the features I want but then again in a DAW it is far simpler.

Adding different instruments and adjusting MIDI. Yep once again it is possible in BIAB but to me far simpler in Reaper or Cakewalk. Adding an orchestra such as VSL for example. I would not even attempt it in BAIB (there are many many MIDI CCs and Key Switches that need to be managed.)

Setting the overall LUFS levels of a song.

Above is just a few tasks that I find easier in a DAW. The list is by no means complete.

I do not consider any of the above to be a failing in BIAB. I just think BIAB is a different tool. In some cases I might use BIAB to generate the rough MIDI and add the extras. Sometimes I might write the entire section in a DAW.

Just some thoughts. As has been said “horses for courses”.

Keep well

Tony

I sincerely hope PGM does NOT read a thread like this and decide to try to put more DAW features into BIAB!

Modern DAWs are generally feature-rich and stable in both GUI and functionality. Trying to compete with those products by adding DAW features would only water down BIAB unnecessarily.

BIAB does what it does (RealTracks!) so incredibly brilliantly! There is nothing else on the market that can compare (although Toontrack is getting close with their EZ products and pattern libraries.)

Please, please, no additional DAW features for BIAB (but it would be nice if those utility tracks were 100% functional!)

I agree

+100000000000000000000000000000000000

I've been refraining from comment, but I've finally cracked.
I also agree.
"Horses for courses" as the UK expression goes.

If I want to drive on the Autobahn, I'd like a nice sports-car in which to do it.
If I want to plough/plow a field, I'd like a nice tractor in which to do it.
I don't need a power take-off in the sports-car.

I think John summed it up nicely.



The ease of working in a full featured DAW is priceless. Both BB & RB have a unique thing that no DAW can easily do.... but for working with audio, it needs to be a DAW. Yes RB is technically a DAW and BB seems to be adding tracks but it's about the features and ease of use and unfortunately PG still has a ways to go to catch up to the DAWs currently widely used.

All.

to the people that dont want biab to include more and more daw like features...its gonna be an interesting biab future , and i'll go out on a limb (here come the bad eggs...lol) and say i feel (with no inner pg knowledge)..
that pg will, over time, add more 'daw like' features in bb. cos over time this is what theyve been doing.

my thinking is what else could they do ?
remain static? and just do minor mods/refinements to bb ?
if bb stays static the product could decline cos people always want more.

per my wishlist i would love a total flac featured bb.
and if running on linux...wowser lol.

we shall see..lol.

happiness

om

Deal with odd time signatures properly instead of workaround kludges. Heck, even dealing with compound meters correctly would be a major improvement.

Okay, so some responding says no new DAW functions. I get it; especially when you're experienced with using a DAW, DAW functions in Band-in-a-Box are redundant.

But if past new feature introductions are ANY indication of Band-in-a-Box's path forward, there will continue to be more DAW like functions added to the program in the future.

My belief is PG Music is targeting new Band-in-a-Box features at the next generation of audio producers that are not locked into using a DAW. If you start audio production using a smartphone or online app then Band-in-a-Box is a step up. If Band-in-a-Box offers DAW functions and that is what they are comfortable using, why switch to a DAW.

Especially for new audio producers PG Music I believe they hope the balance will shift toward Band-in-a-Box as more DAW functions are added.

For the existing DAW functions in Band-in-a-Box my thought is you can't know how easy, hard or if a task can even be done in Band-in-a-Box until you use whatever DAW like feature Band-in-a-Box offers. Then compare with your DAW.

Some DAW tasks are easier in a DAW for sure. But some DAW tasks likely are easier in Band-in-a-Box.

I agree!

There is a lot BiaB can improve without adding more DAW features.

Byron.
(good points.)

of course , thats a given…but i was taking a broader bb future view.

anyhoo is there any accompaniement software that DOES do many added features that pg users have wanted in bb , myself included ?

heres my view (and i have no inner pg knowledge..i'm just a user like your goodself.)..

1..if the whole coding up music software accompaniement apps was easy/trivial , more companies would be doing it ? crikey i would have a bash myself …lol..thus…

2..i suspect the reason why certain features are missing in bb, is, to implement those features in code is not trivial and/or problematic. cos we used to face the same in industry..ie some features users had been asking for simply couldnt be done or causes problems in another part of the app.

3..i often wonder why some big name daws like 'logic' havent included bb features.
i suspect because they have realised the tech challenges in doing so. also they have no desire to, every year, supply more and more rt//rd libraries.

I'm sure PG devs DO KNOW that there is user frustration re certain features/needs..as we used to know our user base in industry..i'm just suggesting there are cogent reasons at the tech level why those needs havent been met.
maybe it might be usefull if PG gave feedback to users re how possible or not it is to meet certain needs/requests ?



happiness

om

I don't mean to sound overly negative but so far PGM has not demonstrated that they are in tune with "the next generation of audio producers" either musically (persistent emphasis on classic rock, country and jazz even in 2022) or technically (outdated, overly complex GUI, convoluted documentation, "50 new features" bloat).

My thought is that BB is unique with what they do and hopefully, they plan to stay in the lead in that regard. To me, for as long as I have been using their product, this last year's release was one of the biggest yet with the microchords and some of the other things they introduced such as the added user tracks. Heck this almost negates the need for Real Band since you can easily add more RT's in BB than the style you select has for a default. Keep making BB more versatile. I continue to use RB because, IIRC, I had a hard time getting the wave files out of BB as individual waves on my last few projects. In RB it's a simple Export. Maybe I'm missing that function somewhere in BB but I didn't see it.

Why spend time coding RB to play catch-up with the really stellar DAW's already on the market? There's really no need to reinvent the wheel. Why jump in a race where everyone is already in the home stretch and you're just leaving the starting gate?

Do what you do the best and stay focused on that. There's still a lot of room in BB for additional improvements to make the process easier.

just my 2 cents.

This has been accomplished with Realband. Generating ANY odd time I have tested just works.
Yet with the "don't add more DAW features" approach, this will never get to BiaB.

Some days I do not know why people stay in BiaB when RB just works better for a lot of stuff.
.. then I realize some people on here struggle with getting RB to run as expected, which to me seems more of a shortfall than many other issues mentioned with BiaB; make the alternate solution work for everyone
I have posted countless SEQ files where RB handles odd time SO much better than BiaB .. yet here we are .. still hoping RB stops being the orphan

Rharv/All.…re RB (DAW).
(some thoughts.)

the biggest rb issue/most postsi ive seen is either new people dont take the time to read the instructions re setting up drivers/sound device in rb or just assume its done automatically…like turning a switch on a vacuam. as tho' rb should read their minds as to sound device/driver selection.

this is a CORE issue imho. (same in biab re settings). even competitive daws ive noticed the common question from new users on other daws forums is often setting up the daw viz selection of sound device // drivers.
many times they just dont read the set up instructions.


even in reaper I also use one must take time in getting the settings/sound device selection correct…otherwise problems will ensue for a user.

maybe i had an easier time setting up rb cos i came from powertraks.
imho rb is a daw like reaps is a daw. both having their strong and weak points.

people can say i'm a rb 'apologist//biased' so be it…throw eggs at moi…lol..
BUT i wonder how many explored the rb manual in detail and in their journey realised the trak generating POWER of right clicking over a rb trak that produces a looong menu of generation and other features.
imho the simple fact is understanding in detail how to use any daw on the market (and biab if one is using it.) is of prime importance.

a corollary..my wife is into crafts big time , but many people she has seen that would like
to get into crafts often dont want to put in the time to develope their skills.
(man ya gotta see what she does with 4 knitting needles…lol)
another corollary might be one must be willing to put in the time if one wants to play an instrumentnt.

even i dont understand every nuance of rb cos its very very deep…thats its strength imho, but for some people that depth seems to frustrate them i guess.
ive just developed my own methods using rb. it IS a daw imho. just a DIFFERENT DAW from others with features that make it unique…like biab is unique.


imho new users that easily dismiss rb are going to miss some neat features including
the 'right clik over trak' feature to generate traks etc etc.
simply put i dont know any other daw on the market includeing v expensive high end daws that offer the features found in the rb right clik over a trak menu.

best

om