PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist DAW Features In BiaB - Yes/No Why/Why Not

DAW like features.
I believe the number of available tracks (24) is fine for novice, intermediate or advanced user for arranging songs using the genres BIAB represents. However, a straight forward ARM > record for audio would make it whole for many hobbyists. Is the "method" present, yes. But as it stands, it's way too convoluted for a person who is either used to DAW recording (past 25 years) or novice, who doesn't want to dig through menus to accomplish a simple task. From the actual conversations I've had with musicians who potentially would want to use BIAB to create backing tracks and record 2-5 takes of their own instrument... They don't want to learn 2 programs. They don't need 90% of bells and whistles DAW (or RB) has to offer. They just need a handful of tracks on top of backing for their instrument/vocals. I believe making process of audio recording in BIAB smooth could bring a different group of people. For someone like me, I would very much like the ability to do some sketches while in BIAB (the easy way) to see how arrangement works with vocals and make corresponding changes before exporting.

Also Per-track volume automation for all tracks would be great. Since code for string&node automation is available in BIAB already, that would qualify for workflow enhancement... And a DAW like feature.

P.S. Charlie. We (I hope) are talking about workflow enhancements. The point your were trying to convey is a workaround / alternative to a better and simpler workflow that I offered. Mine would have less steps, easier to navigate, visualize and execute. I didn't dodge it, I ignored it, because it is not what is being proposed.

< P.S. Charlie. We (I hope) are talking about workflow enhancements. The point your were trying to convey is a workaround / alternative to a better and simpler workflow that I offered. Mine would have less steps, easier to navigate, visualize and execute. I didn't dodge it, I ignored it, because it is not what is being proposed.>

I reviewed and studied your video demonstrations using Cakewalk and went to YouTube to look further into Cakewalk. I found a tutorial by Mike with Creative Sauce and he opened up Cakewalk's piano roll over the tracks view the same as I did in BIAB. I agree that it would an enhancement to be able to toggle between midi and audio but I'm not sure it's possible. BIAB uses proprietary tool wizardry and Creative Sauce guy used a VSTi piano for audio.

The proposal would not result in less steps because the proposal suggestion is to toggle between midi and audio on the same track. Toggle on, toggle off for five partial regenerations results in 10 additional clicks that aren't required in how the task is done presently. Navigation is the same as is the visualization. It's also the same as the DAW Cakewalk works so I assume it to be up to industry standard for midi editing. Execution is better because the audio doesn't have to be disabled, erased and lost. Multiple versions of edits for midi data, audio data or both can be saved or exported. But the workflow isn't the real benefit of your proposal. Underlying midi has long been an underused super feature of BIAB/RB. I recommend you to consider a second look at how it works. Partial regeneration and editing midi using audio to export to a DAW and use with VST3's is only one of many unique and powerful ways to use underlying midi with audio.

RealTracks in the Mixer and waveforms in tracks view isn't actually audio. The audio is in the RealTracks Folder that is directed by RealTracks data and rendered. Similarly, User Tracks and Artist Performance Files are audio but because both are types of Artist Performance Files, they can also have underlying midi data just like RealTracks in Tracks View and the Mixer. Some audio editing results in a RealTrack to be converted into an Artist Performance File because the edit changed the RealTrack and the edit is material that BIAB did not create. That's when an edit results in the name change to artist and the track labels turn to orange. At that point, the RealTrack has to be converted into an Artist Performance Track which the proprietary format of PG Music to allow audio to exist on other tracks besides the Audio Track in the Mixer. PG's proprietary Artist Performance File seems to be the secret sauce to make this possible.

The concept and reality of underlying midi for RealTracks and audio precede the introduction of Tracks View by more than a decade. Piano Roll has never been a workaround in BIAB, and didn't transition into a workaround with the addition of Tracks View. Playable RealTracks and VST3 are the game changers. I don't know if your wishlist suggestion is possible but would certainly put my full support behind the wish. I agree with you, it would be worthwhile enhancement.

For instance: I loaded a RealTrack Guitar soloist, copied it to another track and copied the first track's midi data to a second track and converted the track into a Playable RealTrack so the two guitars doubled each other note for note.

Today, I copied a Artist Performance Set song from Artist Performance Set 4 and copied the entire song and SGU and then converted Brent Mason's solo performance track for that song into a Playable RealTrack that allowed me to actually edit and modify his performance with samples from the guitar he performed with.

"I agree that it would an enhancement to be able to toggle between midi and audio"

That's all that was actually needed to avoid all the negativity.
The rest is discussion. Can PGM do it? I think yes, because RT is a layer and underlaying MIDI is also a layer and they generate simultaneously. As I have shown by deleting RT, MIDI layer is present in TV. Will they do it? I don't know. I will put this request in when I come up with idea of how this can be done elegantly.

Yes, it would be far less steps to do raw work right in the track view for partial regeneration. Especially if you have several MIDI tracks that can be partially regenerated in same manner. Process is much slower if done in BIAB Piano roll and only can be done on a single track at a time. TV gives you a "map" of all.

Also, I am not sure why you mentioned Cakewalk. I just showed that you can drag BIAB's MIDI directly from track header to DAW, that was the purpose of demonstration.

Hopefully you can resolve someone telling you how BIAB can do a process you've just discovered isn't a negative. If nothing else, it should help you to better develop your wish proposal. If I know BIAB can already do what you're proposing in the Wishlist, rest assured that PG Music staff also know it.

You are right to think that generations and regenerations of the midi data and RealTrack data generate simultaneously. The RT is a layer and the underlying midi data is a layer. Your proposal is to disable the RealTrack and toggle it back on so more editing can be done.
As you formulate your idea and refine how it can be done elegantly, you have figure how the disabled RealTrack can simultaneously generate along with the midi you edited. To work, both layers must be active.

As it is now, Tracks View is active full time. Piano Roll is active full time. Both are visible. Editing, generation and regenerations can be done from either window. Edits and regenerations update simultaneously.

The same as you, I have no idea if single track toggles can be done. I also have no idea why they would do it.

I hope you can see how someone sharing how BIAB already works can help you formulate better proposals rather than as something negative. I wasn't joking that I was unaware you've considered us in a six year dispute.

That you were unaware of underlying midi and its potential until recently when it's been there for decades should help you set negativity aside and not be so focused on what seems to be restrictive and limiting thinking to knowing and understanding advanced BIAB processes. There are many of them and all are as exciting and beneficial as underlying midi and audio on the same track.

A quick example is the benefit of using RT1152 for muting a RealTrack rather than (F5) Bar Settings to mute that same region.

Which do you think creates smoother transition? Which do you think will continue to create smooth transitions if the track is regenerated multiple times?

< Also, I am not sure why you mentioned Cakewalk. I just showed that you can drag BIAB's MIDI directly from track header to DAW, that was the purpose of demonstration. >

Which is exactly why I mentioned RealBand. It was a demonstration that it can do that exact same thing or you can actually do the entire process in RealBand. So I'm not sure why you saw it as a negative thing. I didn't consider your mention of Cakewalk as negative but rather went to YouTube and watched some videos about it.

all i want for xmas 2025 is all daw like features in rb trscks view to be implemented in bbtv as ive mentioned many times. ie editing of audio and midi tracks.
i know ill get bashed by some but i feel above should be priority one. because a benefit would be for new users useing both bb
and rb....and thus saveing different learning cycles.

Charlie im glad you mentioned rrb...respect for your deep knowledge of both bb and rb.

i would suggest if bb DOES get a new nice gui that as bb is so deep like rb that new users will still need to dive into bb to get the best out of bb....the major problem i see on various recording
forums these days...and the elephant in the daw room imho is if people arent willing to rtfm or view vids or understand windows and buying the right sound interface that probs will ensue.
because there is only so much developers can do to make an app easy to use....particularly if said app has tons of features like bb (and rb).

i think in summation its ok doing daw features in bb plus a new gui....but how many new ussrs in this i want it now society are willing to dive into pg products ? therein lies the rub...and sadly i just dont know how pg addresses that.

THUS...heres a challenge to posters in this forum.
assume your pg...how would you solve this developer conundrum ?? i ask because imho this is the elephsnt in the room. how does a dev address app ennui or say as many
people have said to me ...i aint interested learning windows.
you can.lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.


happiness.

om

It sure is a big challange.

I think they have to start from the workflows to sort out what they are and to get them very clean and to present the options and follow on workflows in very intuitive way.

Many very easy things that should and could be straight forward can easily be made very complicated and convoluted if the logic and options in the workflow is a mess. And many functions does not mean it has to be complicated if it is ituituive to the users expectations in the workflow.

Even if I had a big development team available for this type of work I would also bring in a supplementary team of professional GUI designers to support the work and progress.

"To work, both layers must be active."
I know. And that is actually the request. To have them both available but toggle between the two. To simply put, toggle would mask and mute RT - but not delete or remove it. It would still be there generating and doing mirror work, but just underlying MIDI would be revealed, and so it would be possible to work with MIDI in TV. I am especially interested in being able to partially regenerate MIDI parts, to get variants and simple export of MIDI (just as I've shown with Cakewalk example). Toggle back, it would ignore VSTi on the track and do exactly what it does now.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie, RB agenda is pushed in BIAB topic as an alternative to BIAB, praised, asked to be cared for or whatever, not in the context or the spirit of this particular thread topic. Similar, with how another member starts civilized discussion then inserts certain unrelated material in every possible thread he can find. "Look at me" syndrome. If this was a discussion on real band, I would not have joined this discussion, nor I would try to disrupt it in any manner. My video merely shows that BIAB MIDI can be dragged to (almost) any DAW. I just happen to use Cakewalk. BIAB remains the focus of the subject.

I understand your wish and support it and give it a plus one.

< Toggle back, it would ignore VSTi on the track and do exactly what it does now. >
I'm sure this is a typo as Partial Regeneration requires a RealTrack.

< Charlie, RB agenda is pushed in BIAB topic as an alternative to BIAB... >

I'm not another member so that should not influence this discussion. I also don't have a RB agenda. It's totally irrelevant to me what software anybody chooses to use. RB is very relevant to this discussion as a DAW irrespective of it's built-in BIAB capabilities. No alternative was needed. BIAB can do this task just fine. The issue is that Tracks View doesn't support the editing without erasing the RealTrack.

It's a DAW just as Cakewalk, Reaper, Studio One, or any number of DAWs members on the Forum use. If this was a discussion about how BIAB midi can be dragged into Cakewalk, I would not have joined this discussion. I just happened to use RB for my demonstration because it's readily available from my desktop.

I agree with you that BIAB should remain the subject's focus So I'll ask for the third time. What's wrong with the current process to edit underlying midi using partial regeneration of a RealTrack from the Tracks View with the moveable Piano Roll open for editing the midi? (This is actually unnecessary as the Partial Regeneration simultaneously updates the underlying midi and RealTrack.) But, you do request the option in your wish, so the attached screenshot shows that both the midi and RealTrack active, visible and editable on the same screen and confirms partial regenerations updates the midi and RealTrack.

Note that the third screenshot shows it is possible to generate and partially regenerate multiple times in just the Track View and choose to save, import or export the underlying midi to your hearts content without ever disabling or erasing the RealTrack.

I saved the underlying midi to new tracks for demonstration. Having the underlying midi visible and editable while using Ctrl-8 Partial regeneration is optional but not necessary. I suggest working and editing the RealTrack edits and partial regenerations until the track is to your liking and only export or save once editing and regenerations have been completed. That may alleviate the need to invent a dual layer view. But, if you post dual layer visibility as a wish, I'll give it my support.

< Toggle back, it would ignore VSTi on the track and do exactly what it does now. >
"I'm sure this is a typo as Partial Regeneration requires a RealTrack. "

No typos. It does. And I said it clear as day that it should be present-still generating, but masked and muted. Disabled from the view. You will be working with ALL MIDI in a SINGLE view of TV and have ability to partially regenerate ANY track in a SINGLE view with MULTIPLE tracks using tools of TV. Also, you will be able to export any track from a SINGLE view. It's NOT about deep editing, but specifically sectional generation.

"So I'll ask for the third time. What's wrong with the current process to edit underlying midi using partial regeneration of a RealTrack from the Tracks View with the moveable Piano Roll open for editing the midi?"[/b]

BECAUSE THIS IS A WORKAROUND YOU ARE PROPOSING - NOT WHAT I AM REQUESTING.

P.S. Some moons ago in a public conversation you stated in fairly plain language that if a function is present, you don't care much about the workflow. I have this feeling that it's a continuation of that conversation.

All of the partial regeneration of a MIDI track must start with a RT. If it hasn't been mentioned in the 5 pages of this conversation then how about partial regeneration of a pure MIDI track? That is a MIDI track from a MIDI style. As of today it can't be done.

If this has already been mention I apologize for the redundancy.

A RealTrack doesn't have a VSTi, it's designed to play audio. The underlying midi is for display on a RealTrack track. What you're now describing is simply a midi track that's editable in Tracks View and adding Partial Regeneration to midi. Which neither doesn't currently exist. So, yes, it's a wishlist item.

Editing underlying midi doesn't affect the RealTrack but editing or regenerating the RealTrack affects and changes the underlying midi simultaneously to match the new audio. The midi is there so users can see notation, tab if applicable, the Piano Roll view, The big Piano, the Guitar Guitar Window and users can use the midi like you have described.

Because of all of those above applications as well as underlying midi on a RealTrack has been a feature in BIAB since at least 2014, likely years longer, I'm not proposing anything. This is not a new proposal but a BIAB long-time major feature. It exists now. Not a workaround. It's not unstable, broken, complex, or hidden. It's a Rock Solid Mainstream Feature that's intermingled with about 20 other features.

< P.S. Some moons ago in a public conversation you stated in fairly plain language that if a function is present, you don't care much about the workflow. I have this feeling that it's a continuation of that conversation. >

Not really, but it's as true today as it was back then if that's what I actually said. It's true because when BIAB has a feature, I accept and learn PGM's design and functionality and use it. Simple and efficient and lots of fun.

No problem. It's been mentioned. Somehow this has morphed from RealTracks to midi.

RS Quote 2/7/25 - This thread: < "To work, both layers must be active."
I know. And that is actually the request. To have them both available but toggle between the two. To simply put, toggle would mask and mute RT - >

"P.S. Some moons ago in a public conversation you stated in fairly plain language that if a function is present, you don't care much about the workflow. I have this feeling that it's a continuation of that conversation. >

Not really, but it's as true today as it was back then if that's what I actually said. It's true because when BIAB has a feature,I accept and learn PGM's design and functionality and use it. Simple and efficient and lots of fun."

That's why we shouldn't have this conversation in wishlist, where people offer ideas on improvements or something that will improve their workflow, that unlike you are not fully satisfied with existing methods. I rest my case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to topic.
Mario,
Yes, I believe if a track (RT or MIDI) has content variations , there should be an easy ability to regenerate parts and export. The easy way. +1

Thanx for the info Charlie and Misha.

You're welcome. I hope there was something useful to you.

Most minor point: there were mentions of “5 pages of conversation”. It’s not necessarily so and if you were to refer to a post on page 3, for example, that could be confusing.

In your forum Preferences, you can select the number of posts per page. The default is 20, the max is 99, and mine (for my desktop PC) is 50.

a concern....

us commenting about a new improved bb are a very small sampling of pg world users.
So...what about this idea ?

pg must know the location of their users all over the world SO
does it make sense once pg have decided on a final new bb design that pg contact a sampling across the world re what users think ? eg via email.
lots of users im sure are busy with their jobs and families and maybe dont have time to partake in these forums.

my concern is will the wider user base be happy with the final design ? or...will there be still some people unhappy after pg has expended manpower creating a new improved product based on the input of a small group of us users.
i once faced this in industry...ie even tho a steering committe of a small number of users representing the user base signed off on a redesign and after tech teams expended lots of manhours STILL some users complained. ...so back to square one......

hope i make sense...frankly i only want a couple of things...
One mainly being daw like editing in bbtv.

om

As mentioned in the thread "what should be prioritized", I think it is,

"important to involve conducting extensive usability tests with newcomers who have a fresh perspective, rather than relying on feedback from long-time users who have grown accustomed to the program's quirks."

"my concern is will the wider user base be happy with the final design ?"

If design is good, there should be nothing to be concerned of.
UI, unneeded complexity and known limitations that require unorthodox "alternatives" (workarounds) - Those are most cited issues. JAOM, if you are that concerned, whole wide internet is your research field. Since BIAB was around for decades, there are plenty of conversations, reviews, observations that are fairly easy to find. Most companies have dedicated open spaces where users can express their concerns or wishes. Those who care enough to speak out, do it through the proper channels. Like we do it here.


My take is this. BIAB has 90%+ of features in place. Program is fast and for the most part stable. They need to go back to fix & complete existing features and invest time in workflow and UI, so those features are discoverable and working with them is a pleasure. So you don't feel like a snake crawling between cinderblocks. Track View it seems the culprit of Daw "features" that some folks are so resistant to. I see Zero issues completing TV the right way, the evil DAW way

PG Music has a +++ sign-up for newsletter webpage +++ . At one time I use to receive a newsletter a few times a year. But I have not received one in quite some time. I assume other users have signed up for newsletters over the years.

PG Music can send out a newsletter any time they want to.