Your new multi‑view GUI is a great step forward, but it also exposes a deeper issue.
Transport‑based apps rely on one global transport model. In BIAB, every view behaves differently — looping, cursor position, and transport state all break apart. Until there’s one consistent standard across views, I can’t stay in the program long enough to build real workflows.
Please make this a priority, because a unified transport model would immediately improve usability for every customer. Thanks
Studio One (latest version), Win 11 23H2 , i9 -10940X 3.3 GHz, 32GB Mem, a 4K 40" monitor, PreSonus Studio Live III Console as interface/controller. secondarily test on Reaper, Cakewalk, and S1 on Surface Pro 3 Win 10 (latest versions).
It's mind boggling how the designers think this kind of behaviour is OK. I think this year's upgrade has been overall quite a good one but one of the things I hate is click/menu/click/click for things that should be a very simple single click. Unfortunately, 2026 has added a few more to the list.
Jeff, you have clearly articulated multiple shortcomings in the design that really do need to be resolved.
I hope that PGM Developers take action on these items as a matter of urgency. Thanks for your hard work and considerable efforts to not only improve the program, but to identify major shortcomings and make recommendations on how these should be resolved.
BIAB & RB2026 Win.(Audiophile), Windows 10 Pro & Windows 11, Cakewalk Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Session Keys Grand S & Electric R, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M, Pioneer Active Monitors.
The Good News: The changes to the GUI in v2026 were wonderful, and allowed us to "see" our BIAB music in a whole new way. Now with Jeffs illustrations we can now envision the obvious next steps needed. I hope PGM looks long and hard at this vision.
The Bad News: I am afraid these next steps may not get the priority they need. Fact is, some of us older guys don't have time to wait for yearly updates. So having these enhancement coming in a timely fashion would be much appreciated.
Stuff like this is why i have never completed a project with any kind of recording in BiaB. I have built many backing tracks but always move on because the underlying functionality is to complicated. I always have to dig around to find how to accomplish something that is that is basic functionality in any other software package. Peter, Andrew, if you are reading this please listen. This is at the very core of what is needed. If you want to really make BiaB a standard in more studios both home and professional, you need to clean these type things up.
What you did this year was epic in visual experience. But it truly exposes the core issues many of us have been talking about for years now. Standard DAW behavior.
Last edited by Rob Helms; 01/30/2606:31 AM.
HP Win 11 12 gig ram, Mac mini Sonoma with 16 gig of ram, BiaB/RB 2026, Reaper 7, Harrison Mixbus 11 , Presonus Audiobox USB96
It is like there have been several different software developers sitting isolated in different buildings with no communications between them and no overall design approach to follow.
If it was me and I thought I had all the necessary skills inhouse I still would have brought in some external GUI help to make a short audit of the software. Things like this would have come up on the table long long time ago. Now the users have to point it out again and again end even have to make videos to demonstrate the issues.
I really hope this will be fixed very soon, and I agree with the posts above it is a stopper! One only tends do the simplest work in BIAB and then move away as soon as possible.
BIAB 2026, Studio Pro 8, Song Master Pro, Win11 Home. i7-9700K CPU, 32GB, ESI MAYA44eX, ZOOM UAC-2, Guitar Pro 8, Transcribe, (EZKeys2, EZD3, SD3, EZBass, EZMix3) Amateur: fiddle, guitar, vocal, beginner on bass.
I always have to dig around to find how to accomplish something that is that is basic functionality in any other software package.
It's the software's biggest let down. It gets infuriating. I'm fine with using computers, software and hardware, very much above average and yet after 20 or more years, BIAB still drives me insane, so much that I just can't be bothered to do anything more than the basic stuff with it and just quickly move it to the DAW.
Even today I had a typical experience. Wanted to create a simple click / metronome over a backing. Everything turned into something problematic until I just give up with frustration. I know of no other software that I couldn't have done this in under one minute. Ended up discovering what I think is another bug while I was at it but had to give it in cos I couldn't take any more.
There’s no doubt about the industry standard for looping. It’s a single global toggle in the transport. The new BIAB GUI makes it clear how much users struggle with inconsistent behavior across views. Looping, and cursor position all change depending on where you are, and that breaks workflow. The existing Transport Loop icon could simply become a true global toggle that works the same in every view.
NOTE: These are not all DAW transports: They include video editors, notation editors, plugins with sequences built in, and DAWs. This is to drive home the point that looping for all cases is just part of the transport code and should be kept that basic.
Studio One (latest version), Win 11 23H2 , i9 -10940X 3.3 GHz, 32GB Mem, a 4K 40" monitor, PreSonus Studio Live III Console as interface/controller. secondarily test on Reaper, Cakewalk, and S1 on Surface Pro 3 Win 10 (latest versions).
+1 for everything the OP posted in that excellent video!
My perspective is similar and well known. I LOVE what I can get out of BIAB! It is way out beyond AWESOME! But I HATE using BIAB to mine for those audio diamonds! Or, at least, I used to! I have to say this 2026 update is the best thing PGM has ever done to improve the GUI and UX! After many hours of using this new version I find I am starting to actually enjoy using BIAB! Now, with that said, I still bail out of BIAB as quickly as possible and do all of my leveling, panning, mixing, fx, cuts/pastes, etc. in my DAW. And that is because of the very things the OP has illustrated. It is just not close to being complete for those advanced tasks to actually finish a song. And, before Charle F. (for whom I have immense respect) can jump in and point out that you can do everything inside BIAB including slopping the hogs and trimming the bushes, I get that some things CAN be done but they are so difficult and obtuse and unpredictable that I will not bother to even try when better tools exist that are quick and easy to use.
So, 2 main points...1) AWESOME work on the UX in 2026 and 2) LOTS left to do to really make the built-in functions and features accessible to average users!
+1 Jeff. 6 non-standard ways to do looping in BiaB??
Years ago when I was brand new to BiaB, I decided to listen to a piece of wisdom from Mario. He basically said build your tracks in BiaB and then get out of it as soon as possible and get into your DAW. I followed that advice, have avoided much heartburn, my DAW has a slam-dunk easy loop range capability and it has served me well for years.
Why anyone would want to swallow broken glass and loop within BiaB is beyond me. I'll pass on what Mario said . . . use BiaB for what it is good at and then jump to your DAW.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2026 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
...He basically said build your tracks in BiaB and then get out of it as soon as possible and get into your DAW...
Yes, and that's exactly the problem that needs fixing, not running from. If all of the functionality worked seamlessly, correctly, properly, there would be no need to go to a DAW. The O/P's post clearly identifies items that need fixing. There should be no need to go to a DAW.
Bottom line: I would rather have these functions work properly inside BIAB instead of having to take the song into another product to get it to completed. And that's what the O/P has demonstrated needs to occur.
BIAB & RB2026 Win.(Audiophile), Windows 10 Pro & Windows 11, Cakewalk Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Session Keys Grand S & Electric R, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M, Pioneer Active Monitors.
100% agree with the OP's excellent breakdown of looping disconnects. Can appreciate how fixing this could improve many workflows, but it would not improve mine as I never use looping in BiaB. Honestly, there are so many quirky features in BiaB, I've just learned to live with them, or work around them. And that's just for the 2% of BiaB I actually use.
If I were PG Music, I'd focus instead on an AI implementation for searching content and fixing stem generation so that features like "fix sour notes" are unnecessary.
Besides, BiaB will never be a DAW, and if it were, it would be RealBand...
DC Ron BiaB Audiophile Presonus Studio One ASUS I9-12900K DAW, 32 GB RAM Presonus Faderport 16 Too many guitars (is that a thing?)
100% agree with the OP's excellent breakdown of looping disconnects. Can appreciate how fixing this could improve many workflows, but it would not improve mine as I never use looping in BiaB. Honestly, there are so many quirky features in BiaB, I've just learned to live with them, or work around them. And that's just for the 2% of BiaB I actually use.
If I were PG Music, I'd focus instead on an AI implementation for searching content and fixing stem generation so that features like "fix sour notes" are unnecessary.
Besides, BiaB will never be a DAW, and if it were, it would be RealBand...
I think this is one of the problems that PG have to deal with. We all use it so differently. I use looping all the time but it's only one of many problems with inconsistency and the amount of times I am saying to myself "wtf!". Like the "Loop Selected" button. Apart from its strange implementation, what even is it? In anything other than the chord sheet it isn't "loop selected" at all, it's "loop the underlying bar". Things like this will have you wasting time until you realise it's just the PG way - do everything different from the norm but use the same terminology as all the others. You expect it do do something but it does something else.
There are just too many problems like this in so many areas of BiaB. The "2%" I use is mostly because I just can't be bothered with the remaining 98%. I tried, I get frustrated, I give up because I might spend way too much time trying to do something that should have been almost immediate.
AI? I have no interest and would like to see the word removed altogether from the software. Start with common sense categorising and filtering will solve half the problem with search. I do agree it will never be a DAW and I don't want it to be. I wish they'd spend their time concentrating on improving usability for what the software was intended for.
Even if it never will be a DAW the functions that are there need work in a consistent way otherwise they are useless and only cause confusions.
If I only could choose one fix I would also choose a fix to improve the search function it is far more important to me to be able to find what I am looking for in the huge content library.
BIAB 2026, Studio Pro 8, Song Master Pro, Win11 Home. i7-9700K CPU, 32GB, ESI MAYA44eX, ZOOM UAC-2, Guitar Pro 8, Transcribe, (EZKeys2, EZD3, SD3, EZBass, EZMix3) Amateur: fiddle, guitar, vocal, beginner on bass.
... If I were PG Music, I'd focus instead on an AI implementation for searching content and fixing stem generation so that features like "fix sour notes" are unnecessary. ...
That would appear to be something quite different from the subject matter in this particular thread. Please consider that perhaps those worthwhile ideas should be discussed in new, separate thread discussing those particular concerns?
BIAB & RB2026 Win.(Audiophile), Windows 10 Pro & Windows 11, Cakewalk Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Session Keys Grand S & Electric R, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M, Pioneer Active Monitors.
... If I were PG Music, I'd focus instead on an AI implementation for searching content and fixing stem generation so that features like "fix sour notes" are unnecessary. ...
That would appear to be something quite different from the subject matter in this particular thread. Please consider that perhaps those worthwhile ideas should be discussed in new, separate thread discussing those particular concerns?
I have to respectfully disagree that the looping issue is a "matter of urgency" for developers. There are more pressing issues, and I am providing examples. Totally agree that this could be a separate thread.
DC Ron BiaB Audiophile Presonus Studio One ASUS I9-12900K DAW, 32 GB RAM Presonus Faderport 16 Too many guitars (is that a thing?)
DAWs loop recorded material along a fixed timeline. BIAB loops musical intent. BIAB offers multiple loop functions because looping serves different purposes; editing, practice, composing, teaching, and auditioning ideas, to name a few. Some loop modes are designed for exact repetition, while others may regenerate new material by design.
Identical playback on every loop is a DAW expectation, not a universal one. Band in a Box treats audio differently than any and every DAW in existence. BIAB is not a DAW and at some point the fundamental difference between generating and post editing functionality needs to be in your conversations.
Disagreement is part of fleshing out what the user base needs and not a problem. It helps PGM realize what it is going on out here. To me this is important. These things like looping are typical functions of any audio software. When working out a track even if you want to move it to a DAW is important in order to send over a complete working track.
I have said in the past if PGM took a year to completely fix many of the not quite done features and clean up functionality much like they cleaned up GUI this year they could position the software for the future. AI will work itself out as needed.
DC mentioned RB. It has been in the same boat for years, just short of being a true competitor to other DAWs. In the last two years it has come a long way. If PGM would add one new programmer to help Jeff Y. with RB and then focus on making BiaB respond to industry standards as Jeff Ps video details, they could have an incredible 1 - 2 punch.
Yes, i know there are many who do not like the RB idea and i understand why it does need attention, and PGMs reluctance to give that attention makes it hard to support. I am not suggesting that they slow down or inhibit BiaB progress but add some help to get where they need to be.
We all know the plugin after several years is still very lacking. The new Apps are a long way from really doing anything of great value. The flagship needs to be standardized, and the companion DAW needs to be FINISHED! What a package that could be. What was envisioned in 2008 when a marriage of BiaB and PTW conceived a Child.
The point of this is not to hijack Jeff's thread but to point out that completing things in the proper way help relieve user frustration.
Looping and a few other functions are important to take a hard look at how they work different from other software since many will come from those platforms and want to have a similar experience.
HP Win 11 12 gig ram, Mac mini Sonoma with 16 gig of ram, BiaB/RB 2026, Reaper 7, Harrison Mixbus 11 , Presonus Audiobox USB96
Charlie as usual you make solid points, however while it is true that the looping often serves other purposes in BiaB, the click experience is still very confusing. There is strong evidence that some of the looping does not even work, it follows a line not an area. Sometimes it does not even loop at all it just ignores the selected area. These are not okay because it pushes people away from the product prematurely.
HP Win 11 12 gig ram, Mac mini Sonoma with 16 gig of ram, BiaB/RB 2026, Reaper 7, Harrison Mixbus 11 , Presonus Audiobox USB96
Just to keep the thread centered: The New GUI is only one part of user experience. The deeper issue is consistency across views (looping, cursor, zooming, scrolling, transport behavior), because that’s what keeps people comfortable enough to stay in the workflow instead of jumping out early.
Thanks for the ideas so far, Keep the input coming on anything related to user‑experience consistency.
Studio One (latest version), Win 11 23H2 , i9 -10940X 3.3 GHz, 32GB Mem, a 4K 40" monitor, PreSonus Studio Live III Console as interface/controller. secondarily test on Reaper, Cakewalk, and S1 on Surface Pro 3 Win 10 (latest versions).
Thanks for you comment. The point this thread and your response are missing is that the conversation is being framed entirely in DAW terminology and mindset. DAW looping standards don’t apply to BIAB. To use BIAB effectively, DAW users need to understand BIAB’s own standards and approach. BIAB is not a DAW, and it handles audio and musical material differently. The architecture between the two is fundamentally different.
Some of the six different looping functions relate to how the looping is being used; editing, practice, composing, teaching, or auditioning ideas. Some loop functions are optimized for exact repetition, while others may regenerate new material. Expecting identical playback on every loop applies to DAWs, but not necessarily to BIAB.
Don’t expect BIAB to behave like a DAW. Approaching it from BIAB’s generative perspective, the looping behavior is consistent with its design, even if it looks different from what DAW users might expect. DAW users need to change mindset. BIAB doesn’t need to be re-designed.
Charlie, What you are saying is simply misleading. " DAW users need to change mindset" No, Charlie, you have to change your mindset and try to avoid confronting progress and confusing people. Please, I kindly ask not go that route.
--- In my view some responders missed main point of the conversation. It is not solely about the looping, but global consistency throughout different views. Selection, looping, cursor start position, transport. ALL of these play a part in a bigger picture and have to be viewed as whole. And yes, it is absolutely urgent to fix items related to navigation, selection, consistency. This is not a "wish" request, but a report of broken items in a workflow.
Library thoughts are also very (!) important and they deserve a separate thread.
I am digesting and testing some items from jpettit list and will follow up when time permits.
Yes, and that's exactly the problem that needs fixing, not running from. If all of the functionality worked seamlessly, correctly, properly, there would be no need to go to a DAW. The O/P's post clearly identifies items that need fixing. There should be no need to go to a DAW.
Bottom line: I would rather have these functions work properly inside BIAB instead of having to take the song into another product to get it to completed. And that's what the O/P has demonstrated needs to occur.
AudioTrack, Most of the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation are long gone. And Baby Boomers are now dying off. BiaB must be made attractive to younger folks or it simply won’t survive. The competition in this space is fierce and young folks (and others) have little tolerance for clunky software. Developers around the world know this.
You say “If all of the functionality worked seamlessly, correctly, properly, there would be no need to go to a DAW.” I agree. But that is like saying if the world had no criminals there would be no need for jails.
Reality is we do need jails and many do need an (external) DAW. Six years ago I gave RealBand a good opportunity to meet my needs and it couldn’t. There are lengthy and detailed threads on this if you care to search for them. Time is a valuable commodity indeed and I can't waste mine on convoluted work-arounds and time consuming workflows.
Have you ever used a piece of well-design, consistent, user-friendly software? I have, and it’s a joy.
Despite evidence to the contrary, my bottom-line hope is that some serious software re-design is done to attract and retain those young folks. In the meantime, BiaB, Fender Studio Pro, my bass guitar and my arranger keyboard are a wonderful team.
And no, imho, we don’t need another 97 RealTracks in 2027
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2026 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
I don't think I have missed the main point of this thread: It's to create a record of some of the very basic, broken BiaB functionality for the developers to focus on.
The problem (for me) is that this discussion assumes the concept of "workflow" has a single, well-understood definition. And of course it does not. Same with "user experience".
I have no issue with either my workflow or my user experience in BiaB. I just don't.
Is it slick? Well, no. Does it work? Absolutely. Could it be improved? Sure. Is it urgent? Not for me.
So if a developer ever reads this, I think it's important to present other points of view.
And with limited resources, I think there are larger strategic issues for PG Music developers to address.
DC Ron BiaB Audiophile Presonus Studio One ASUS I9-12900K DAW, 32 GB RAM Presonus Faderport 16 Too many guitars (is that a thing?)
The crux of this discussion is architecture and intent. Stating BIAB’s architecture and intent is not misleading. It’s foundational.
BIAB is not built on a DAW-style, fixed-audio, timeline-first architecture. BIAB’s role is to define the structure and parameters, and to generate the music before it ever enters a DAW timeline for editing and polishing. That architectural design cannot be overridden by terminology, expectations, or rhetoric.
Because of that, when discussing transport-based behavior, the transport model should defer to BIAB’s architecture, not DAW conventions. DAW transport behavior is neither required nor inherently clearer in BIAB, and forcing it risks obscuring BIAB’s generative workflow rather than improving navigation.
I certainly agree that there are differences in BIAB's functionality and a DAW's functionality.
While there have been comparisons to what a DAW might deliver, I seriously doubt that the intent here is to make BIAB work like or become a DAW.
I am absolutely convinced that the intention here is to improve consistency in how BIAB itself operates.
BIAB & RB2026 Win.(Audiophile), Windows 10 Pro & Windows 11, Cakewalk Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Session Keys Grand S & Electric R, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M, Pioneer Active Monitors.
There are those who have no issues with the workflow—those who don’t see any problems and for whom everything works exactly as intended. They cling to their methods, obstruct discussions about modernization, threaten not to upgrade, and remain nostalgic about antiquated approaches, ’90s graphics, and modal workflows—without consideration, or caring, what the average new user will think of the software when they run it for the first time.
In my view, because of people like that, BIAB is where it is right now instead of where it should be.
On a brighter note, I’m glad there are enough of us here who aren’t distracted by the noise and can clearly see that black is black and white is white—who can tell the difference between a flaw and “intended design.” And I’m glad the PGM team, which I believe is beginning to open up to bigger changes, is finally starting to turn the tide.
I would advocate for not using derogatory terms to frame posters with dissenting opinions. Otherwise Groupthink can creep into these discussions. We wouldn't want that, would we?
Truth is, the average new user is likely going to Moises Studio. THAT's a slick interface. This simplicity is what the next generation of users will want IMHO. And we'll never get there at this snail pace before something comes along and completely blows BiaB away.
Not intending to rain on anyone's parade. But traditional software developers who are competing with AI engines are going to have to NOT treat the current environment as business-as-usual.
A reminder: I was INVITED to participate in this thread...
DC Ron BiaB Audiophile Presonus Studio One ASUS I9-12900K DAW, 32 GB RAM Presonus Faderport 16 Too many guitars (is that a thing?)
Thanks for you comment. The point this thread and your response are missing is that the conversation is being framed entirely in DAW terminology and mindset. DAW looping standards don’t apply to BIAB. To use BIAB effectively, DAW users need to understand BIAB’s own standards and approach. BIAB is not a DAW, and it handles audio and musical material differently. The architecture between the two is fundamentally different.
Some of the six different looping functions relate to how the looping is being used; editing, practice, composing, teaching, or auditioning ideas. Some loop functions are optimized for exact repetition, while others may regenerate new material. Expecting identical playback on every loop applies to DAWs, but not necessarily to BIAB.
Don’t expect BIAB to behave like a DAW. Approaching it from BIAB’s generative perspective, the looping behavior is consistent with its design, even if it looks different from what DAW users might expect. DAW users need to change mindset. BIAB doesn’t need to be re-designed.
I can agree that we shouldn't necessarily expect BIAB to behave exactly like a DAW, however, I don't think this is the argument. Terminology does matter and so does expected behaviour. If a button says "Loop selected" then I expect it to loop selected. In audio displays this is not what happens, it loops to underlying bar. Also, I expect F10 to do the same in each window, i.e., "loop selected". This is maybe not a big deal but all these small things add up to frustration after a lot of use. The only consistent thing in BIAB is inconsistency.
So many things just seem crazy. the "loop entire song" button for instance. Click to open menu and then choose from three options. Two of those options can also be ticked / enabled or unticked disabled. What is the point? No matter which option I click, there are only two outcomes - the entire song will loop - or not loop. Why make it so unnecessarily cumbersome? A simple on / off toggle with no menu option at all will not only do what we expect but will also be one less pointlessly annoying thing. Yes, a small issue, but still one of far too many.
I could make the same argument about terminology. If BIAB is designed to do everything different from the norm, then PG should stop using typical DAW terminology.
Again, all fairly minor problems but I could go through a typical day using this software and come across far too many similar, needless, agravations. It all adds up to a lot of frustration.
Not intending to rain on anyone's parade. But traditional software developers who are competing with AI engines are going to have to NOT treat the current environment as business-as-usual.
I asked my AI assistant for the list of computer languages it has been trained on. Below is the list it gave.
Systems and low level languages: C; C++; Rust; Go; D; Zig; Nim; Ada; Assembly (x86, x86-64, ARM, RISC V); Fortran; Objective C
Hardware, parallel, and specialized languages: VHDL; Verilog; SystemVerilog; OpenCL; CUDA C/C++; OpenMP pragmas; GLSL / HLSL; SPARK Ada; HDLs for FPGA; Q#; Solidity; Move (blockchain)
Emerging, niche, and experimental languages: Crystal; Nim; Vala; Zig; Julia (already listed under data); Idris; Agda; Elm; ReasonML / ReScript; Ballerina; Red; Pony
Notice any missing language? I do . . . Delphi.
The programming skills and speed of today’s LLMs have already surpassed those of moderately skilled programmers and therefore are becoming increasingly valuable to software companies and government agencies.
If other AIs are not trained in Delphi and if BiaB is mainly written in Delphi, then PGM is severely handicapped because it won't be able to leverage the coding capabilities that AIs bring to the table.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2026 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
Just to keep the thread centered: This isn’t about DAWs, and it’s not only about looping. It’s about multiple views consistency , and how BIAB’s independently‑developed views need consistent transport behavior (cursor, selections, looping) to feel unified.
Here we can see inconsistency Cursor and Selection between nearly all views.
When PG Music set out to improve user experience, it goes beyond GUI changes. Consistency is a big part of that.
Studio One (latest version), Win 11 23H2 , i9 -10940X 3.3 GHz, 32GB Mem, a 4K 40" monitor, PreSonus Studio Live III Console as interface/controller. secondarily test on Reaper, Cakewalk, and S1 on Surface Pro 3 Win 10 (latest versions).
I really would like this to be fixed very soon - I don't want to wait another year.
These things are so obvious - why do PG not see it themselves and act on it - why do the users have to point it out in every occurance and every detail.
BIAB 2026, Studio Pro 8, Song Master Pro, Win11 Home. i7-9700K CPU, 32GB, ESI MAYA44eX, ZOOM UAC-2, Guitar Pro 8, Transcribe, (EZKeys2, EZD3, SD3, EZBass, EZMix3) Amateur: fiddle, guitar, vocal, beginner on bass.
These things are so obvious - why do PG not see it themselves and act on it - why do the users have to point it out in every occurance and every detail.
It's called software quality control; and it isn't easy to get right . . . but it can be done. It involves quality control engineers (with authority) involved in every step of the design/re-design process.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2026 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
Jeff that is the perfect example. I do not understand why some folks keep arguing against this stuff. It is as obvious as can be. Please feel free to do one of two things. If you disagree fine say so, but do not continue to push back and derail the discussion. Add something of value or if you feel that a different direction is needed open you own thread and let the user base either confirm your request or not as they see fit.
Jeff's point about consistent behavior is very valid in my opinion. Not to push BiaB to be a DAW i would fight against that and have in the past. I do not want BiaB to be a one stop DAW as i feel that takes away from the depth of it's rich architecture> it is a great creation tool. Charlie's point about linear design is valid as well since that is what a DAW is. DC Ron you said you gave up on RB 6 years ago. Well it has had some very nice upgrades since then and works much better. It still needs growth but as a companion to BiaB it is very powerful. If i hit a stump in what it does (happens very seldom) i move to either Harrison Mixbus or Reaper to finish.
Please PGM take a good look at this subject and respond to it. Either tell us you see the point here or let us know why they cursor, looping, and other inconsistencies are there or needed.
HP Win 11 12 gig ram, Mac mini Sonoma with 16 gig of ram, BiaB/RB 2026, Reaper 7, Harrison Mixbus 11 , Presonus Audiobox USB96
In my opinion, these kinds of issues are not "special," "different," or "non-standard" ways of doing things; they are just plain wrong, unfinished features and bugs that should be fixed ASAP. We shouldn't be describing these kinds of bugs in the "wishlist" subforum, praying that in a year (or two, or three...) the developers will fix them by presenting them as "new features." Again, these design and QA flaws are so obvious, and have such a massive impact on the user experience, that they should be fixed immediately.
On the other hand, the argument that "BIAB is not a DAW, and users shouldn't expect it to behave as a DAW" has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed here, and it doesn't make any sense to me.
Well, this is certainly a thumbs up. The more important question is what is the priority? A thumbs up will only validate that it's on the list of things to fix. There are a lot of ways to prioritize bug fixes, most often in my experience by criticality and complexity(cost)...
DC Ron BiaB Audiophile Presonus Studio One ASUS I9-12900K DAW, 32 GB RAM Presonus Faderport 16 Too many guitars (is that a thing?)
Priority should be fix existing issues first, before bringing new features. Especially those that relate to basic, tier 1 operations. Exceptions are when whole big chunks are being redone, as we had seen with UI. It brought something new and very useful, and on the way solved a LOT of obscurities that were added throughout the years. Which page of the manual says: ""BIAB is not a DAW" ?... Couldn't find it.
Rob, it was I, not DC Ron that said he gave up on RealBand 6 years ago. I spent weeks and weeks trying to get the thing to do what I needed and finally gave up; I simply could not justify the time that RealBand demanded to be a part of my workflow. Nor could I tolerate the 1990s GUI feel. Don’t get me wrong, I felt that BiaB was a great tool, and today I’m still a loyal BiaB customer. The idea of typing in a chord progression, selecting a style and hit play is brilliant. Does it need work to remain viable going forward? Yes. Imho PGM should focus on its core strengths while aggressively going after the 20 and 30-somethings; if that demographic is captured and enthralled, other demographics will follow. I believe many would agree that RealBand is not a core strength and its staffing resources should be directed to the flagship product.
However, when I discovered Studio One (now Fender Studio Pro) it was a breath of fresh air; my work flow was no longer slow and clunky but effective, logical and friendly. Studio Pro is well designed, has all the features I need, is fully compatible with my workflows, has a modern GUI, is a joy to work with, is maintained by an industry-leading team that understands software design and quality control and continues to add new relevant features in its major upgrades.
Imho, RealBand should not and cannot compete with the established/mature DAWs out there. The bar is simply too high and the market too crowded. Who am I talking about? Ableton Live, Logic Pro, FL Studio, Pro Tools, Cubase, Fender Studio Pro, Reaper, Reason and others. My understanding is that all of these tools are very strong DAWs.
Back in 2024 we wrote a 14 page White Paper on BiaB. I seem to remember that you participated in its authorship. It seems 2024 is eons ago, perhaps technologically it actually is, particularly in the domain of AI. For those unaware, it’s still available.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to catalog how much progress has been made since we wrote that paper vs. how much of it is still relevant today.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2026 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
Imho, RealBand should not and cannot compete with the established/mature DAWs out there. The bar is simply too high and the market too crowded. Who am I talking about? Ableton Live, Logic Pro, FL Studio, Pro Tools, Cubase, Fender Studio Pro, Reaper, Reason and others. My understanding is that all of these tools are very strong DAWs.
I feel the same about BIAB. I get a feeling PG will be trying to compete with the likes of Suno with overuse of the AI tag, but unfortunately will fail miserably, which I mean in the nicest possible way. BIAB has some very unique features and should stick to its strength and improve on those, IMO the target demographic is mostly musicians and singer / songwriters. How that can keep them going with a younger demographic I have no idea. I think people taking up musical instruments is declining but I also don't think they will ever go away. As a practicing aid, BIAB has never been beaten. As an educational aid it also has some incredibly great features and this is where I think things can be improved dramatically. I personally don't feel that these people are really the Suno market.
Quote
Back in 2024 we wrote a 14 page White Paper on BiaB. I seem to remember that you participated in its authorship. It seems 2024 is eons ago, perhaps technologically it actually is, particularly in the domain of AI. For those unaware, it’s still available.
Just a quick nudge back to the bigger picture: The issue isn’t any one feature. It’s that looping, cursor positions, selections, panning, zooming, scrolling all behave differently from view to view. When the basics don’t line up, it breaks the flow and people end up fighting the software instead of staying in the music.
This is my last example of inconsistencies across views. (scrolling, panning and zooming) These basics are critical to making BIAB user friendly and thanks for sharing your honest views.
Studio One (latest version), Win 11 23H2 , i9 -10940X 3.3 GHz, 32GB Mem, a 4K 40" monitor, PreSonus Studio Live III Console as interface/controller. secondarily test on Reaper, Cakewalk, and S1 on Surface Pro 3 Win 10 (latest versions).
Jeff, this is very well laid out. There have to be some pre-existing standards for at least SOME of this, as I find I'm using a very small set of commands to do things like zooming no matter what environment I'm in.
DC Ron BiaB Audiophile Presonus Studio One ASUS I9-12900K DAW, 32 GB RAM Presonus Faderport 16 Too many guitars (is that a thing?)
Jeff, Thank you for taking time and pinpointing these relatively easy to fix things, that in their current state erode user experience. One thing that I want to mention, I believe a default action for scrolling should be scrolling, not panning. Perhaps there should be a global set for mouse scroll wheel behavior, if for some reason folks want panning instead of scrolling. To me, scroll -> panning actually is a "muscle memory" issue.
Selection, looping, cursor starting point - center of the project throughout all views, zooming, scrolling, transport behavior should be viewed as a whole and be done in one sitting. Otherwise it will be a mosaic of patches that might or might not solve underlying issues.
Personally, I believe a big chunk of solution would be to implement a timeline with proper cursor instead of "song overview" that would be persistent through all BIAB views. That cursor, when set, will determine new project center and will return you to that position. Panning and zooming should respect new project "center".
Selecting a part of any track, should duplicate selection on timeline - that is a standard approach, not re-inventing a wheel. That selection could be used to define loop points. Alternatively, a selection could be made on a timeline itself, which would duplicate selection globally - same selection on all of the tracks. This could be very useful not only for "looping" but for other tasks as well. (see video below)
A single global looping button at the transport (the one we already have). The deeper options of repeats, etc should be achieved through right click of same looping button - this is already done, and if there are some particular looping settings in other parts of the program (6 methods) they should be brought to same looping button context menu.
Bottom line is that I rather see certain things done in a fashion of accepted standards than patching smaller holes. Piano Roll "almost" got the standard timeline going with the selection option (see Jeff's first video), but it is very finicky and the problem of inconsistency doesn't go away, even if it is brought to standard (proper cursor / start position marker, loop selection without hard coded automation of ON state, disabled only through unmentioned shortcut), we would need same timeline in all views.
FWIW, I found a neat lecture on the philosophy of good software design. Just listening to this guy speak makes it obvious that he has a mountain of credentials. It brings back memories of the learning/develoment courses that many of us took as professional engineers to stay at the forefront of our chosen careers.
Some notable subjects he talks about are: Red Flags Tactical Tornados Spagehtti Code How to hire the best software coders ("hire based on the slope, not the y-intercept") And his software design book
There are lots of goodies in this lecture and is well worth watching for anyone interested in the challenges of designing good software products and some associated pitfalls to avoid.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2026 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
Thanks to everyone who contributed. Many of us have been pointing out these same issues for years, including the videos I posted years ago.
The new multi‑view GUI makes the underlying problem even clearer.
BIAB has grown organically for decades, one view at a time, and that’s why looping, cursor positions, selections, panning, zooming, and scrolling all behave differently depending on the view.
The GUI refresh was a great step, but improving the user experience now means unifying these fundamentals so the views feel like one coherent application.
Consistency in the basics keeps people in the music instead of fighting the software, and I hope PG Music will acknowledge this and make it a priority for the next phase of BIAB’s evolution.
Thanks again for everyone’s time and input.
Studio One (latest version), Win 11 23H2 , i9 -10940X 3.3 GHz, 32GB Mem, a 4K 40" monitor, PreSonus Studio Live III Console as interface/controller. secondarily test on Reaper, Cakewalk, and S1 on Surface Pro 3 Win 10 (latest versions).
Thank you Jeff for the clear well done videos. I agree that we took a giant step forward with this years release. Why what you are talking about is very important and vital is that these aspects of the program will make the GUI update really shine.
PGM team please respond with your thoughts on this. If it is possible please share your opinion on it. Without your input we are striking the air with no way of knowing if we are making sense or not!
HP Win 11 12 gig ram, Mac mini Sonoma with 16 gig of ram, BiaB/RB 2026, Reaper 7, Harrison Mixbus 11 , Presonus Audiobox USB96
There are lots of goodies in this lecture and is well worth watching for anyone interested in the challenges of designing good software products and some associated pitfalls to avoid.
Hmm, yes. I agreed wholeheartedly with most of that.
About my only significant different view was on exceptions, but that's because most of my work has been embedded and in that circumstance, one the software is live, exceptions help nobody and break systems. I tried to catch all potential exceptions by data checking and, once that's complete, removing them and if necessary jamming in otherwise credible false data to keep the machine running. Some systems really can't afford to just stop or break.
Jazz relative beginner, starting at a much older age than was helpful. AVL:MXE Linux; Windows 11 BIAB2025 Audiophile, a bunch of other software. Kawai MP6, Ui24R, Focusrite Saffire Pro40 and Scarletts .
Hmm, yes. I agreed wholeheartedly with most of that.
About my only significant different view was on exceptions, but that's because most of my work has been embedded and in that circumstance, one the software is live, exceptions help nobody and break systems.
Yep, there are various strategies available. But the goals should be graceful recovery; logging, cleanup (closing files, releasing resources, etc when relevant), relevant messaging to the user/coders and appropriate fallback behavior. In music and non-music software applications alike, we’ve all seen where graceful recovery wasn’t assured. But as an industry, I’ve seen significant improvement over the years.
But back to the main thrust of this thread; consistency across views is very important for positive user experience.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2026 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
In general the main ideas are: -Improve looping - standard loop control on the transport and standardized across windows. -Zoom/scrolling on various windows should be standardized. -Sync with current time between windows (views)
We addressed some of these points with the GUI update and there is certainly more work to do. So we agree with the ideas presented here and plan to add them in the future. Thanks!
In general the main ideas are: -Improve looping - standard loop control on the transport and standardized across windows. -Zoom/scrolling on various windows should be standardized. -Sync with current time between windows (views)
We addressed some of these points with the GUI update and there is certainly more work to do. So we agree with the ideas presented here and plan to add them in the future. Thanks!
Thanks, Andrew we really appreciate you jumping in. Just to restate the three core areas backed by many people here: - Consistent toggle‑looping behavior across all views - Unified zoom/scroll/pan behavior across all views - A single, synced current‑time position between views
These core behaviors are what keep people in the creative flow, and it’s great to hear they’re on your radar for future updates.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
Studio One (latest version), Win 11 23H2 , i9 -10940X 3.3 GHz, 32GB Mem, a 4K 40" monitor, PreSonus Studio Live III Console as interface/controller. secondarily test on Reaper, Cakewalk, and S1 on Surface Pro 3 Win 10 (latest versions).
As Jeff mentioned: "- A single, synced current‑time position between views"
This is one of the most painful workflow limitations for me. As there is simply no proper focus on the section you are working at. 1/2 of the views already have a variant of "time line" but the all function differently and non has proper cursor start position marker or able to select a section. Only new Piano Roll has semi-working time line. Proper global time line with start position cursor doubled as select cursor will solve a lot of navigation, selection, looping issues and will standardize workflow by a lot.
Band-in-a-Box 2026 for Windows Special Offers End Tomorrow (January 15th, 2026) at 11:59 PM PST!
Time really is running out! Save up to 50% on Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows® upgrades and receive a FREE Bonus PAK—only when you order by 11:59 PM PST on Thursday, January 15, 2026!
We've added many major new features and new content in a redesigned Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows®!
Version 2026 introduces a modernized GUI redesign across the program, with updated toolbars, refreshed windows, smoother workflows, and a new Dark Mode option. There’s also a new side toolbar for quicker access to commonly used windows, and the new Multi-View feature lets you arrange multiple windows as layered panels without overlap, making it easier to customize your workspace.
Another exciting new addition is the new AI-Notes feature, which can transcribe polyphonic audio into MIDI. You can view the results in notation or play them back as MIDI, and choose whether to process an entire track or focus on specific parts like drums, bass, guitars/piano, or vocals. There's over 100 new features in Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows®.
There's an amazing collection of new content too, including 202 RealTracks, new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 5, two RealDrums Stems sets, XPro Styles PAK 10, Xtra Styles PAK 21, and much more!
Upgrade your Band-in-a-Box for Windows to save up to 50% on most Band-in-a-Box® 2026 upgrade packages!
Plus, when you order your Band-in-a-Box® 2026 upgrade during our special, you'll receive a Free Bonus PAK of exciting new add-ons.
If you need any help deciding which package is the best option for you, just let us know. We are here to help!
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows® Special Offers Extended Until January 15, 2026!
Good news! You still have time to upgrade to the latest version of Band-in-a-Box® for Windows® and save. Our Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows® special now runs through January 15, 2025!
We've packed Band-in-a-Box® 2026 with major new features, enhancements, and an incredible lineup of new content! The program now sports a sleek, modern GUI redesign across the entire interface, including updated toolbars, refreshed windows, smoother workflows, a new dark mode option, and more. The brand-new side toolbar provides quicker access to key windows, while the new Multi-View feature lets you arrange multiple windows as layered panels without overlap, creating a flexible, clutter-free workspace. We have an amazing new “AI-Notes” feature. This transcribes polyphonic audio into MIDI so you can view it in notation or play it back as MIDI. You can process an entire track (all pitched instruments and drums) or focus on individual parts like drums, bass, guitars/piano, or vocals. There's an amazing collection of new content too, including 202 RealTracks, new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 5, two RealDrums Stems sets, XPro Styles PAK 10, Xtra Styles PAK 21, and much more!
There are over 100 new features in Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows®.
When you order purchase Band-in-a-Box® 2026 before 11:59 PM PST on January 15th, you'll also receive a Free Bonus PAK packed with exciting new add-ons.
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows® today! Check out the Band-in-a-Box® packages page for all the purchase options available.
Band-in-a-Box 2026 Video: The Newly Designed Piano Roll Window
In this video, we explore the updated Piano Roll, complete with a modernized look and exciting new features. You’ll see new filtering options that make it easy to focus on specific note groups, smoother and more intuitive note entry and editing, and enhanced options for zooming, looping, and more.
Band-in-a-Box 2026 Video: AI Stems & Notes - split polyphonic audio into instruments and transcribe
This video demonstrates how to use the new AI-Notes feature together with the AI-Stems splitter, allowing you to select an audio file and have it separated into individual stems while transcribing each one to its own MIDI track. AI-Notes converts polyphonic audio—either full mixes or individual instruments—into MIDI that you can view in notation or play back instantly.
Bonus PAK and 49-PAK for Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows®
With your version 2026 for Windows Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition or PlusPAK purchase, we'll include a Bonus PAK full of great new Add-ons for FREE! Or upgrade to the 2026 49-PAK for only $49 to receive even more NEW Add-ons including 20 additional RealTracks!
These PAKs are loaded with additional add-ons to supercharge your Band-in-a-Box®!
This Free Bonus PAK includes:
The 2026 RealCombos Booster PAK:
-For Pro customers, this includes 27 new RealTracks and 23 new RealStyles.
-For MegaPAK customers, this includes 25 new RealTracks and 23 new RealStyles.
-For UltraPAK customers, this includes 12 new RealStyles.
MIDI Styles Set 92: Look Ma! More MIDI 15: Latin Jazz
MIDI SuperTracks Set 46: Piano & Organ
Instrumental Studies Set 24: Groovin' Blues Soloing
Artist Performance Set 19: Songs with Vocals 9
Playable RealTracks Set 5
RealDrums Stems Set 9: Cool Brushes
SynthMaster Sounds Set 1 (with audio demos)
Android Band-in-a-Box® App (included)
Looking for more great add-ons, then upgrade to the 2026 49-PAK for just $49 and you'll get:
20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums with 20 RealStyle.
FLAC Files (lossless audio files) for the 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums
MIDI Styles Set 93: Look Ma! More MIDI 16: SynthMaster
MIDI SuperTracks Set 47: More SynthMaster
Instrumental Studies 25 - Soul Jazz Guitar Soloing
Artist Performance Set 20: Songs with Vocals 10
RealDrums Stems Set 10: Groovin' Sticks
SynthMaster Sounds & Styles Set 2 (sounds & styles with audio demos)
One of our representatives will be happy to help you over the phone. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday, and 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST Saturday. We are closed Sunday. You can also send us your questions via email.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you on our Live Chat or by email. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST (GMT -8) Saturday; Closed Sunday.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/fbpRSbjJ/Loop-Standards.png)
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean