To avoid confusion, this is a response to now deleted Charlie's post.

What doesn't work for me is this:
Charlie says:
"You discover a process or feature, like you have in this thread, and suddenly it's broken, was poorly designed, rushed and released before it was fully developed and doesn't conform to some mysterious, universal industry standard."

I was aware of this for about 4 years. Unlike you, I actually voice my concerns when I see a problem such as the one in question at the time of release. PGM asked for feedback on enhancing workflow. This is one of the items I believe should be addressed.

The mysterious industry standards are such of Daws and Virtual studio instruments that were developed in the last quarter of a century. Universally accepted ways of doing certain things. Charlie, I know you don't use VSTs, but have you actually tried working with another DAW, other than RB - a more current one (last 5 years?). Reason for asking is how can you make certain assessments or build certain arguments if you are not following evolution of music making software?


Methods? There are no "methods" to specifically what I proposed. Zero! They are workarounds you offered. "Alternatives" as you said yourself above.

I singled out RB because it was NOT proposed to take certain element(s)from RB and move to BIAB. That would be perfectly fine. RB agenda is pushed to use RB instead of BIAB. Big difference there.


Why go this route? Argue for the sake of arguing? Its boring as hell. Please let it go. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my request.

Last edited by Rustyspoon#; 02/05/25 11:22 AM.