PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist I guess this has been requested before...

but again...

Ability to run instrument VSTs like pianos and synths

A decent internal BAIB mixer

ability to mix using both MME and/or Asio - Expecting WIndows to do this is stretching things.


great app though!


Zero

Hi Zero.

Have you been bringing your Band-in-a-Box arrangements into RealBand for final mixdown/finishing touches? RealBand has both the mixer and the ability to put a different synth on each track.

Since you can only use one audio driver at a time, I don't think it would be possible to use MME and ASIO simultaneously, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean...

Thanks
Kent
PG Music

That does not suit the way I use Band in a box, most of my arrangements are simply quick stuff - and I am constantly changing them - I use BIAB to practice changes, song forms, cycles. I might put trogether a 2,5,1 followed by a chromatic descent, play(improvise it) it through using jazz, then see what its like in country, then bin it. I just quickly jot stuff down and importing and exporting is to much faff (here). I also find that I have to run my VSTs outside of BIAB environment (painos Hammonds - general GM is never going to cut it here for the pro) and I can't get levels right. If I use Asio in BIAB then I get no ability to balance stuff, if I use MME then I have to rely on Windows Sound control functions. Hardly ideal Some might be able to use there sound card GUI but mine does not have a mixer.

So - Support for VSTs and a mixer in BIAB - I dont wish to go outside and mess around, its time consuming.


Wouldnt it be nice if I could see and control levels and reverbs etc for all the pieces in the band AND my VSAT piano (which I have to run concurently as a standalone). I Adore BAIB thats for sure, but it does not seem very pro to me to have to juggle with outside apps just to get levels - after all, BIAB is an an accompaniment app. This seems to me to be basic requirements that are missing.

Why not integrate REAL BAND and BIAB -could be done if you got really creative and thought about the GUI. I have never seen the need for two apps - just more complexity more duplication to handle. Granted integrating would bring more complexity in one sense, but having to swap stuff between two apps is not ideal, and the learning doubles up for the user.

LOve BIAB!

Zero

ZZ i think you are trying to use a hammer to drive a screw. I understand what you want, but really this would be asking to change the basic foundation for a very far and widely used program, that I am sure far and away most folks would not want.

For quick changes BiaB excels as you know, but there is no need for tons of fancy VSTi use, a solid GM set is fine for scratch work. BiaB will use other VSTi, i have used Sampletank, and still do use it with omnisynth, and it sounds great. Once i get a song to the finish stages i drop it in a full on sequencer, and use the full arsenal of Samplers and synths i have, plus RTs and such.

As far as the two apps as I said in the other thread, these two apps are vastly different. One is not designed for full on recording, but was rather build to automatically generate a basic 5 piece accompaniment. You can add more to it with the open audio track. But to turn BiaB into a full on DAW is a bad idea. We have all seem just how buggy and bloated other apps become, like Sonar, and Cubase. they end up with so many added features that they struggle to fuction fully and from release to release there is a constant outcry for bug fixes. Heck even RB and BiaB have there share of patches with each release. I have a rock solid DAW that i can drop BiaB track beds into and make sound great in short order. It is really not that hard. Once a song is formatted in BiaB the drop and drag feature allows you to move it to RB almost effortlessly. Once there it can really take on shape and sound enhancements.


Why does ASIO cause unbalancing? ASIO does not sound one bit different from MME they are simply driver mode for hardware. If you have badly written ASIO drivers, you need to take a look at better equipment and hardware. I see you have a delta 1010, i use a delta 24/96 i have rock solid ASIO and a great software mixer to use to set it up.

Sure this is time consuming, and even a lot to learn, but if it was snap your fingers easy what would stop everyone from doing it and where would the challenge and fun be.

Your words are strong Rob... thats OK.... but I disagree

A few points: BIAB is now a fully pro accompaniment application the best in the world. We take this as an assumption.

Need for a VST Rack

Yet you can't use a decent piano in it. Very few pianists would use a GM synth. Many would their favorite Piano which they bash to death. Mine is True Piano diamond, but it might be IVORY, EAST WEST gear or domthing else. If you are such a pianist the gm synth is not an option.

My Hammond B3 has drawbars and lots of other features. If I use a GM organ I can use these. There are lots of other instruments out there that simply surpass GM synths - useful though they are.

Using Standalone apps, and sneaking around using WIndows mixers and two drivers is not professional design at its best. These things should be in house. This is a pity as BIAB has so much to commend (and is totally forgiven).


"Asking to change the basic foundation of the app"

I don't agree its changing the foundation, its about rethinking the GUI. Many major apps have upgrades that radically redesign the program. If you just leave the central structure alone and ad bits ad hock then you get a cluttering - like BIAB. Lots of people are saying the GUI is tired - I wont go into this too deeply, but it would be a pity if PG redesigned the BIAB interface and REAL BAND seperately - a lost opportunity in my book. It just takes a little creativity in my book.

Cubase:
Cubase is no longer buggy. Its working like a dream here in a 64 bit WIN 7 Environment. In my view (not yours - granted) , BIAB seeems to me to be like Cubase was before the fundamental rethink that represents the SX series. VST5 as it was called - in the early 90s, was a fantastic program in terms of its power, but it was cluttered and confusing. SX took the bold stewp of clearing the dross and reorganising the interface. Now with Cubase 5 its as slick as it can be and easy to use for its level of sophistication. ALL IMO you understand

"Asio causing unbalancing"
Maybe I did not make myself clear. At present if I use Asio on both my external instruments and BIAB I get no way of controlling the Audio output in BIAB. BIAB presents you with a windows mixer if you hit the speaker icon. Asio bypasses this on my system. I therefore cant set the level.
If BIAB had a mixer of its own then this would not happen. It has VU meters why no mixer. A mixer would also make it easier to see levels of instruments.

I really dont know REALBAND I admit. Like a lot of users I rarely go there. I just dont want to put my head in ANOTHER manual From what I can see Real Band seems neither fish nor fowl, it seems like BIAB ....HALF...... integrated with a sort of a sequencer. You can do things like type in chords - but why deny the user the full features if BIAB?

When a READ the PG descrption of the application. It seeems to me that they are describing BIAB type features. I have never used Power Tracks but its description makes it seem very odd - so it uses some quirky stuff and has anchord wizard thingy - again BIAB. Power Tracks seems dead to me in terms of future. There are freebie ssequencers out there these days - KVR.

SO, why dont I use REAL BAND? The new user, like me is faced with ferreting through the app to see what can and cant be done. I have two leanr two things instead of one. Real Band to me is a nuisance

OK so tell me I should learn it... maybe.

OK so I may be wrong about Real Band integration I still believe it can be done, hey, there are many perspectives of course.

I still think BIAB has need of a proper mixer and also a VST rack which allows you to play your virtual instruments - if nothing else.

ZZ one thing i can fully agree with is that it would be nice if BiaB allowed the user to use more than one VSTi. That would help those who want to use specific ones rather than GM. As far as merging it with Powertracks or RB I can't agree, and if you read on i will respectfully explain why.

One other thing is that you are comparing Cubase in some ways to BiaB, they are apples and oranges. Cubase is a recording studio/audio midi sequencer just like RealBand, Powertracks, Cubase, Sonar, Protracks, or Logic. None of these do any of the arrangement accompaniment stuff BiaB does, except RB. They are fundamentally different. If Cubase tried to impliment even a few of the features of BiaB it would become a very different program and most likely become very problimatic for years to come. Everyone of these programs with the exception of BiAB are simply recording studios with some nifty synth, sampler, and mixing features. BiaB is none of the above, it is a auto accompaniment program with a very limited recording feature added for the arranger to add a simple audio track or something to the file. It builds a custom arangement from a style with midi and audio realtracks. None of the above do any of that at all, once agian with the exception of RB.

Why use RB? Well because everything you are asking for is right there! A VSTi rack, A mixer, Effects slots! Everything. You have a solid recording studio software as the base of the program literally taken from Powertracks, then you have the basic features of BiaB added. You can arrangethe song from scratch using the auto features, plus record up to 48 tracks of midi and/or audio. If you arrange a song in BiaB you can literally open it in RB. You can add multiple VSTis and play any one you want. RB is young, and the addition of the Biab features was most likey a challenge. It will mature as it goes, and more fun features will be added, and it will be better, and more powerful. I have spend 35 years working in construction, i have a full arsinal of tools. I use the proper one to do the job each time. I never drill with a saw, or cut with a drill. I have never seen a multitool that i thought would be all that useful to build a house. I shudder at the thought of PG trying to full marry BiaB to RB. I do hope that BiaB is upgraded to add one or two more synths at a time, and i hope RB continues to grow and mature. But very carefully and never at the cost of stability.

I say all this with full respect for your opinion, and hope you don't take any offense. Good dialog is important, so keep talking about your thoughts and ideas, and we will see what great things develop over the years. Your fellow audionut, Rob.

Let me put it the other way then why not scap BAIB and simply put all its features in Real Band?

Becasue for the vast majority of BiaB users the program does what they want. They neither need it to be as you say or want it. You need to learn the same lesson my wife tells me I need to learn. "It is not all about me"

Most of the people here do one of two or three things. 1. build a basic song bed in BiaB then move it to a sequencer to finish with personally made or played tracks, and mix and master it. 2. arrange backing tracks to play live with and they do not need anything but a basic drum,bass, piano, guitar, or strings arrangement. They want it to re-arrange or generate the song every time so it sounds like a live band. Waa Laa Band in a Box. This is what most folks use it for.

For those that want the full recording package, plus some arrangement tools, they are developing RB. RB does not need ALL of BiaB's features. Some of them are specific to the above mentioned tasks, and don't lend themselves to the process that a sequencer does. Once again Saw and Drill.

Why should PG scrap a long time supported program and just develop RB alone when BiaB is their flagship, and so many like the program the way it is. They did listen and marry BiaB and PTPA into RB. Why not dive in and enjoy. What you want is there, and will continue to grow as time goes on. So they should toss it out just because you do not want to dig in and learn a new application? Really?

But Dr. Gannon Slowly as not to risk the stability of the program. Fix the main issues and add as needed by request.

I am out of this thread

Why cause you can't get PG to scrap the program and build it just for you? You refuse to use the programs thay have and want them to just redo the whole thing to "suit the way you use Band in a Box" Those are your words my friend not mine. I am not trying to jump on you, i am trying to understand and reply. Every few weeks someone comes in the forum and declares that the existing programs are not right and they want a full rewrite.

You yourself said you did not want to learn a new program, but wanted PG to change everything to meet your process, but what about the other 10,000 that like it like it is, or have some other way that suits them? Do they write the program for them as well?

Then I don't roll over and agree, you get mad and go. Okay then ZZ. I hope you find a way to work things out, you made some good points, but still i am unclear as to what you expected.

Best wishes, Rob.

Why not integrate REAL BAND and BIAB -could be done if you got really creative and thought about the GUI. I have never seen the need for two apps - just more complexity more duplication to handle. Granted integrating would bring more complexity in one sense, but having to swap stuff between two apps is not ideal, and the learning doubles up for the user

Once again you both miss the point, RB is an integration of BiaB and Powertracks. To meld them totally together would leave the current users of BiaB hanging in the air. There are tons of people all over the globe that use BiaB only for the feature se t it has. To turn it isnto a full on DAW Like a cubase is to take away the tool they use. Now fair. Rb is the center road, enjoy it and follow the development.

And what about Mac users like me .....there is no Realband for us!!!

My two cents worth. I've been using BIAB since floppies, for live performance only. Since I'm a pianist I only use Real Bass and Real Drums to accompany my playing. I suspect there are many like myself who don't even use RB. I like the variations in BIAB each time I press play. I don't want or care for static arrangements. BIAB suits my purposes just fine. Don't change the basic premise of BIAB. Maybe RB and BIAB could be combined, but keep a separate BIAB for those like me. Later, Ray

Ray this is the reason i keep saying what i have, there are many folks that use BiaB as it is, and only want small feature enhancements. But everyone keeps saying to combine BiaB and RB, RB is PT and BiaB combined. that is the whole point of this. What everyone is clamoring for has already been done. If PG had a far more powerfull way to meld these two I am sure it would either be done or on the table. But RB is the path they have chosen. I for one enjoy watching it's development.

I agree with Ray's point. Please don't take away BIAB as it currently is. Great for live play.

Cerio, i agree to ask for improvements is cool, but to ask to scrap the program and totally rewrite it is to forget that so many already use it and love it as is.

One other thing i question just how buggy the program is and how much of that is the systems it is playing on at fault. Sure there are bugs, and many are due to new features that some beg for being added. The program was pretty dog gone solid prior to RTs and RDs. So the thing is not to scrap that but continue to develop it. I have found that in most situations the problems are cuased by either pilot error, or system issues in 75% of the cases. I spend 6 years helping over at Cakewalk with newbies coming in and learning the program. I have seen hundreds cry of the bugginess of the product, only to find that the problem was they setup, and not a bug after all. All software has bugs, and always will, nothing is perfect. But every system has a different setup, different parts, and different users trying different processes. That is the origin of most bug complaints.

As far as newbies learning the program, i was that newbie two years ago, and ya know what i learned and the GUI was fine, and the program was complicated, but i learned with a little help from the regs here and a lot of hard work. You are right it could use a bit of cleanup, but for everyone that complains about the GUI there are two that are fine with it as is. Plus if you took a pole as to what to change you would get 50 opinion as to what to do! Who's suggestions do you take?

Sorry, but I'm missing your point. Once again, if you're happy with the program, I'm happy for you. In my case, I'm very happy with the program's results, but totally frustrated with the program's GUI. For example, finding the right style between thousands is always a nightmare, since the stylepicker window doesn't support a proper filter function. It doesn't support drag&drop either (wich is a standard feature on any Windows program since 15 years), so you just can't arrange the styles the way you like. This are just two between many examples I could give to you that shows how much outdated and inconsistent the GUI is, specially since the introduction of RDs and RTs.

Every few versions, all major software companys make a complete rewrite of their programs in order to maintain the program's internal coherence and integrity between newer and older features. BIAB is able to produce the most realistic music that a machine can produce, but its core code was writen 20 years ago and shows a GUI of a program of the 90's that (IMHO) interrupts the user's workflow. This has been discussed many times in this forum, and saying it again doesn't mean that we forget that some users are happy with the program the way it is, but asking for something that some other people think is important.

Peace,

Look at this shockingly low biab windows requirement:

Windows® 98 / ME / NT / 2000 / XP / Vista / 7

* Memory (RAM): Minimum 128MB.
* Hard Disk space: Minimum 400 MB. More space is required for RealDrums, about 100 MB per set and RealTracks require about 800 MB per set.
* PC Sound Card or MIDI module.

The folks at pgmusic programming skills still cater to outdated win98 , a program long unsupported by M$ , and i doubt any pgmusic customers today are using them actively. For sure the PC (sub-500Mhz) would have long been retired or no longer working.