PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production Video: Recording DAWLESS with BIAB

Here is why I record DAWLESS with BIAB.

There is no right or wrong way to make music. One must find a workflow that works for them and stay with it.

I agree listening is more important than watching wavs. If using a DAW just close your eyes and listen, something I try to do every time.

Good video.

I'm a user who hardly ever uses a DAW. I do 99% of my music inside BIAB. So I guess I'm DAWLESS also

As mentioned, use whatever fits best for your own circumstances.

I agree. I think the bulk of the work takes place in BIAB.

Thanks for watching and commenting.

Regards
Brian.

Hey MarioD.

I think for me, I get overwhelmed when using a DAW. BIAB has so much to offer, I don't feel the need for all those extra tools.

Thanks for watching
Regards
Brian

What do you do in your PC DAW to "Top and Tail" it? I'm sure you mean adding finishing touches, but what are these finishing touches? I'm curious if "Top and Tail" is possible within the BIAB program.

Regarding DAWless recording, hardware recorders are quite useful but the BIAB Mixer should not be overlooked.

There are unique advantages to composing, arranging and staying in the BIAB program rather than exporting tracks to a DAW.
Using tools, features and processes that are fully available only in the flagship, stand alone version of the BIAB suite of programs, it should be obvious to remain in BIAB in order to have access and take advantage of these tools. The Songform feature and MultiStyles are examples. Some others are activated by how a user constructs their song project. Cross-fades, fade-in, fade-out, seamless changes between RealTrack instruments, overdubs/punch-in, and the ACW are examples.

The BIAB Mixer is designed to emulate hardware analog and digital mixers. BIAB can also emulate live session musicians in a recording session. DAW's do not emulate live session musicians the same or similar to BIAB.

Some tools that facilitate recording in BIAB that there's little to no discussion here in the forum, may help some people that currently don't use BIAB's advanced features.

. The Artist Performance File - These are audio files created by users and are a type of UserTrack but normally song specific.
. The RealTrack Medley Maker - This provides users access to a 10 channel sub-mixer for each of the 24 Tracks of the BIAB Mixer. Older versions have this also.
. MultiStyles - There are two types, one for an individual song and MultiStyles that can be used the same as normal Styles.
. Virtual Tracks - These are the same as found on many digital stand-alone multitrack recorders.
. BIAB has two audio editors.
. Every track can volume automate MIDI and audio.
. Commercial midi file channels or snippets for recognizable riffs, solo's, etc., can be imported onto a track and Playable RealTracks can be assigned.
. The Master Track can be volume automated.
. PG Music staff finalize every demo and lesson as a BIAB SGU file. They use DAWs in production but finalize the songs as SGU.

On older versions of BIAB before the introduction of Utility Tracks, the RealTrack Medley Maker could render 77 RealTracks in a single render. This has been expanded with the Mixer having 24 tracks to 264 instruments. A BIAB Mixer Track can select and load up to 11 different RealTracks onto each track.

My point exactly Charlie. BIAB is already a one stop shop.
By "Top and tail", I mean scrub the count in and possibly fade the ending.

Regards
Brian

Jackdogdude

kudos to you.

the situation from what i see is how willing people are to delve into all the vast number of features in bb.
(its the same in rb....vast feature set includeing some things bb cant do currently eg fractional temps and it looks like handle sound interfaces with multiple ouputs so tracks can be routed to a outboard audio mixer..)

often people are comfortable with their current music app they have used for ages. so they just want to use bb like a waiter in a restaurant quickly serving up in this case generated tracks to their favorite daw they are used to.

perfectly understandeable...just human nature.

for example its interesting that some pg users like myself and others that started with pg powertracks daw are now into rb.
whereas users that grew up with other daws never probably open up rb to see how it might fit their needs.

as others have said 'each to his own'.

nice breakdown Charlie.

happiness.

om

Brian, nice video, and you're right, your music DOES sound great. With the digital tools available to musicians today, there's no reason to NOT achieve commercial quality results IF you know how to listen. CONGRATULATIONS on finding the combination of technology and musicianship that works for you and your lifestyle. I use a DAW and almost certainly will until I hang up music for good. It's a workflow thing for me. But I really admire your creativity and talent. THANK YOU for posting the video. I was wondering how you pulled off your DAWless magic...

You can truly make BIAB a one stop shop. BIAB can scrub the count-in several ways and there are at least 3 ways to fade the ending.

BIAB can be directed to scrub the drums and count-in when the song is rendered
The beginning can be trimmed using the Audio Edit Window to highlight and delete the selection

Ways to Fade the final render:

Manually use the Mixer Track volume button while recording the song externally
Open the Song Settings (Ctrl-N) and set the number of bars to fade
Open the Audio Edit Window and select the Master Track and use volume automation to fade the ending

Using the Audio Edit Window, there will not be a visible WAV form for the Master Track regardless if the track is MIDI or audio. Volume automation still works normally, Simply note the numbers for the first and last bars you want to fade - in a 32 bar song that would be bars 29-31

From the Master Track in the Audio Edit Window, automate a volume fade beginning at bar 29 and end the fade at bar 31.

Hi Charlie.

Thanks for the tips. I am aware of the techniques you shared even though I am still a relative newbie to biab.
I really need to learn more about Realband when I can get around to it.

I usually leave the count in on the production when I move it across to my stand alone device. This leaves me more options
to add new instruments easily at a later date. That's why I remove it later in Audacity.
I sometimes (rarely) need to fade out a song that has vocals singing the song out while it fades. I do this with Audacity too.

Thanks for talking the time to make an in depth response.

Regards
Brian.

Using a DAW, I can edit for feel in ways that are not possible inside BIAB. It's easy and I've never felt that BIAB needed to add that level of complexity.

Before that, I was cutting tape with a razor blade. Never again.

Hi Ron.

Thanks for watching. I am attempting to document my biab journey on Youtube.
I enjoy the process of making the videos, It keeps me busy and motivates me to
be musically creative. Coming up with new content each week is challenging and rewarding
when I get feedback.

Respect
Brian

Hi Mike.

The level of complexity in biab is exactly what enables me to make high end quality, full band arrangements without a DAW.
I know how it was slicing tape back in the day, I did my fair share of that too.

Happy recording and best wishes

Brian.

Hi OM,

Thanks for watching and commenting.

I have been on such a steep learning curve over the last 4 months learning biab, (Yes I'm a newbie) that I haven't
looked seriously at Realband yet. My first thought was that it was simply a DAW, apparently I was wrong.
Are you aware of any good learning resources for the software? Is it intuitive and user friendly? I suspect it is full of
hidden features just like biab.

Regards

Brian

Jackdogdude

re RB....my reply.

1..in the spirit of being unbiased...every year
i check out lots of music apps and daws.
ive done this recently. but...i still get dragged back
to rb because i would miss some feature(s) or other that
rb provides. what i found recently was some fabulous daws
with tons of great features. but...missing features i
have in rb.

2..in many respects rb will reward the user that (like bb)
is willing to 'dig into' its vast number of features.
and let me say imho the biggest catch 22 for daw developers
or any software engineering group is that, in order to
satisfy users often they put soo many features into a app
there is no getting round the fact that this means learning
cycles for new users.
(i would like a buck for every time i saw this unsolveable
problem when i worked in tech.)
in summary pg is in this catch 22 situation like any developer.
so like bb... rb has a huge number of deep features.
and some new nice features have been added like comping
i use for my vocals and chords displayed in the tracks view
timeline and other aspects.

3..some people view rb as an 'ugly duckling' on the surface.
however like a lot of things in life there is often beauty underneath.
once again ya gotta be willing to delve. ive developed
various rb tricks over the years also re workflow.

4..re training resources. there are various faq's and vids on the
pg site plus you tube and independent tips done by users etc etc.
but...in the end...nothing beats getting 'down and dirty'
with any app. also notice in rb there is a tips feature
plus of course the manual.

5..in the pg tips forum ive posted various tips for rb.
includeing free fx plugins that i feel rival very expensive
outboard units i once used in commercial studios imho.

all the best and remember the old gold miners adage...
'theres gold in those hills...but to get to it...its work'...lol.

happiness.

om

Hey Om.

I'm going to dig into rb . biab has been such a surprising piece of software, why wouldn't rb be the same? I will look into it and think it's another opportunity for me to document my learning curve and share my results. Thanks om. I appreciate your input.

Regards
Brian

BIAB is my source of instruments/parts that I can't play myself. The rest I do in Reaper.
Nuanced aspects like reverb, bussing fx and editing, (I often find there's plenty of editing of BIAB Real Tracks because of the stitching or timing), are easier to achieve in a DAW.
Real Band is a DAW and one that works well with BIAB/RealTracks but isn't much of a DAW outside of that. If you're DAWless don't enter that world via RB. There are a few who are apocalyptically evangelical about the thing but I suggest, as I do to anyone when they seek advice, check out the end result of the advice as used by the adviser before diving in. Listen to their songs/works as uploaded and presented by them and decide if the things they espouse are evident in their work - taste their pudding before trying their recipe.
I've been DAWless - Yamaha four track cassette, Roland CDx and an Zoom R16 ...I still have the machines and use them for bits n pieces - particularly the preamps in the four track and the R16 as a control surface or when I need extra ins, but the limitations are exactly that & I no longer have the discipline to think that far ahead in a writing/recording sense.
Reaper is as cheap as chips.

Yeah.... RB is a very basic DAW and will work for most folks.

However, I have been a long time user of Cakewalk in it's various forms. RB has a number of limitations that for me, impede the work flow and make things harder to accomplish. I really don't even use a lot of the features in Cakewalk, preferring to stay on the basics that I need and use. Automation of the volume and panning, using busses for "like kind" instruments and voices, Splitting, cutting, copying, and pasting audio clips, midi recording, and so many more things are just easier in Cake. I did try, and successfully used RB but it became quickly apparent the deficiencies and shortcomings vs using a full featured DAW.

It's been discussed before, but why should PGM waste time reinventing the wheel? Personally, I think they should essentially leave RB as it is.... and focus on the new styles and tracks and making the older tracks sound better in BB.

Of course, this is simply the opinion of one person....me.

Herb, Rayc, i always respect you guys opinion. I too as you remember came from a cakewalk background and always found it fairly easy to use. I also have used Reaper for years. However, i wonder if that is not just familiarity more than capabilities. I have used RB extensively over the years and while veered away for a while i am slowly coming back. I find RB more capable than most give it credit for. Like JAOM likes to say get under the hood. I find it handles some things differently, but just as efficiently if you really learn it. I have used and completed projects with Studio one, Reaper, Harrison Mixbus, Multitrackstudios, and Cake/Sonar. I have done head to head comparisions with many of them. By starting and completing a test project in each. I can say without reservation RB holds its own. Still, that may be me and the needs i have. Everyone has their own workflow, and a program they are familiar with.

Sometimes i feel that folks dismiss RB a bit too quickly because it approaches a function differently. Over a full year's time I literally took 100 midi files i found on the internet and reworked them in RB. It has very deep midi capabilities. I then added RTs and personally recorded tracks to the mix. Mixed them down. Then used RB to play them live for shows and parties. it performed flawlessly. I could not do that with Reaper, or Cakewalk/Sonar. It even scrolled the lyrics and chords for me.

Aside from that on several occasions i complained to PG (Jeff Yankauer specifically) about some perceived weakness in RB only to find out i was wrong. In the last two years it has had several upgrades that helped create a more user friendly feature set.

I guess my point is that If someone likes Cake better or Reaper better because it does what they like or are super comfortable with it. Great! That doesn't particularly mean it is superior to another DAW. To someone just coming into the BiaB world I doubt RB would be lacking anything. In fact it most like would be very familiar to the BiaB user. Especially if they have little or no DAW experience. I have watched for the past 20 year users steer users to the DAW of their personal choice not because it is better but because they personally are comfortable with it's workflow. Reaper users can't say Reaper is better than Cubase, or Sonar, or Studio One, all they can say is it is better for them because they are more familiar or comfortable with it. The same goes for Cake, or Studio one, or Cubase, or Logic users.

I guess i just feel it is a bit unfair to label RB as "basic" or inferior just because we might not be as comfortable with it as we are with the DAW we cut our teeth on. Nor to discourage BiaB users to try something else when they ask questions about programs here. We are here on PGMs site. Just my views and your milage may vary.