Is it worth the trouble to try this? I like Biab for creating backing tracks but frequently prefer my own tracks for bass and guitar. Over the years I have exported to Cakewalk. Recording tracks directly into Biab has inconsistent results and often causes lockups.
Should I move on to Daw once chart is developed or keep trying?
I have never tried recording bass directly into BiaB.
The method that has always worked well for me is to record "directly" into my DAW. Quotes because I prefer to hear my playing thru my practice amp (I like the tone) so then I use my XLR Out on the amp and feed that to my interface which in turn is connected to my DAW (via USB) on a Win 11 desktop.
I use BiaB for what it's good at which is producing backing tracks.
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 would continue to record the way you're most comfortable with. That way you can better concentrate on your performance.
For you that's likely moving backing tracks out of Band-in-a-Box (BiaB) into Cakewalk and recording in Cakewalk.
For someone new to recording themselves I would suggest recording in Band-in-a-Box. Then they don't have to learn additional software (a DAW), can alter song structure as needed, continue to finesse backing tracks to better match their performance and have the benefit of not having to export backing tracks.
How about recording into RealBand? It comes with BIAB and directly loads the BIAB song files.
I'm not a "pro" at this, but I have had pretty good success with creating my song in BIAB and then load the SGU file into RB and recording bass and guitar tracks and other instruments there. I'll make edits and do the track processing there as well. For my uses there is no real need to export to another DAW since so far RB does everything I need for what I'm doing. One of the benefits for me is that I can visually watch the progression of the BIAB song chord changes pretty much the same as in BIAB, etc. while recording in RB. After I found that I can use most Reaper plugins in RB, that pretty much sealed it for me. It works for me, but like I say, I'm not a "pro".
I also move over to RB as i love the ability to use the partial regeneration capability to fine tune my RTs. Now that it has the ability to hide unused tracks and has much improved comping features for recording i use it far more than Reaper or Mixbus on my machine. I set up a template with my favorite effects on each channel so i can get the sound i want. It is not perfect but what it lacks in one area it excels at in others.
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
My 2 cents is recording in any DAW is far superior to recording in BiaB.
Mario, I'm surprised at how strong a statement you've made. Do you mind sharing why you feel "recording in any DAW is far superior to recording in BiaB."?
My 2 cents is recording in any DAW is far superior to recording in BiaB.
Mario, I'm surprised at how strong a statement you've made. Do you mind sharing why you feel "recording in any DAW is far superior to recording in BiaB."?
Jim, I don't know why Maria would say that, but I agree 100%, does that surprize you? For me, I can tell you why. If one is just starting out and wants to dabble with recording themselves playing over BIAB backing tracks, Yes, BIAB will do it. I have demonstrated that here in the forum over the years. But, if you are serious about your recording and you want to pursue your music growth by doing recordings, you have to move to a true DAW. Recording ones music is serious business and requires serious tools and workflow that BIAB simple does not have. I would encourage anyone interested in recording to start sooner, rather than later, working one of the many available DAW's which were specifically designed for this purpose.
Jim, I don't know why Maria would say that, but I agree 100%, does that surprize you?
I don’t know why Maria would say such a thing either. But I think Mario might say the following: (Ducking and running for cover) 😊
Is it possible to dig a ditch with a spoon? Yes Is it possible to hammer a nail with a rock? Yes Is it possible to grow without a teacher? Yes Is it possible to experiment with chord progressions using pencil and paper? Yes
But if you want to dig well, hammer cleanly, grow deeply, and compose quickly, you choose the tools and supports that make the work faster, clearer, and more effective; especially when your time is a high priority.
Now I need to shovel my driveway. Honey, where’s my spatula? 😊
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.
My 2 cents is recording in any DAW is far superior to recording in BiaB.
Mario, I'm surprised at how strong a statement you've made. Do you mind sharing why you feel "recording in any DAW is far superior to recording in BiaB."?
Off the top of my head: 1- hearing what you are recording - although that may have changed as i have not tried to record in BiaB for some time now 2-multiple takes 3-it best fits my workflow - trying to dive deep into BiaB has always caused me problems while the DAWs that I have used over the years (Vision-Cakewalk pro audio-Sonar-Studio One Pro-Fender Studio Pro) have not
Plus I agree with everything Dan has said YMMV
I haven't lost all of my marbles but there is a small hole in the bag someplace!
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
... if you are serious about your recording and you want to pursue your music growth by doing recordings, you have to move to a true DAW. Recording ones music is serious business and requires serious tools and workflow that BIAB simple does not have.
Okay Dan, I'll play devil's advocate and bite at the bait. What serious recording tools does BiaB simply not have?
... You choose the tools and supports that make the work faster, clearer, and more effective; especially when your time is a high priority.
Bass Thumper, just like with my response to Dan I'm playing Devil's Advocate. I have a question for you; are you more familiar with using a DAW or BiaB? I ask because I assume you are more familiar with recording in a DAW than you are with recording in BiaB. Remember this thread started with the question should the op record in BiaB or a DAW. I believe anyone will work faster, clearer and be more effective using a tool they are familiar and comfortable with than using a tool they are not familiar with. At least that has been the case for me and most people I know. But when you're familiar with recording in a DAW but are not as familiar with recording in BiaB you can not say with accuracy which program the op should choose. Why would a person familiar with a DAW ask the question? Would it be reasonable to assume the op likely is about as familiar with using BiaB as they are a DAW? If that is the case why should the op learn two programs (DAW & BiaB) instead of learning more about the program (BiaB) the op has invested time and money?
... Off the top of my head: 1- hearing what you are recording - BiaB has real time input monitoring 2-multiple takes BiaB allows multiple takes 3-it best fits my workflow - trying to dive deep into BiaB has always caused me problems while the DAWs that I have used over the years (Vision-Cakewalk pro audio-Sonar-Studio One Pro-Fender Studio Pro) have not I agree that when a program gives you problems when you try to do something but other programs do not then it's better to use the other programs.
BIAB needs a simple Arm>Record audio record option. Current method is very obsolete. Maybe not as advanced as mature DAWs, but simple enough to understand and use without digging out manual or asking questions on forum. I feel it is getting close to that point. I just wish it would be done well (like new UI) and not half baked, even if it would be limited to the number of existing tracks.
While I record audio / MIDI in DAW, I would very much appreciate being able to use a couple of existing tracks for basic audio input recording for sketches and ideas. 2026 BIAB Piano Roll is already very usable. Time to tackle audio recording.
P.S. Ohh, and a statement: "BIAB is not a DAW" makes me nauseous. BIAB is a DAW. A different kind, but nevertheless a DAW.
... if you are serious about your recording and you want to pursue your music growth by doing recordings, you have to move to a true DAW. Recording ones music is serious business and requires serious tools and workflow that BIAB simple does not have.
Okay Dan, I'll play devil's advocate and bite at the bait. What serious recording tools does BiaB simply not have?
Here is a short list specific to Reaper in my case: Take Management & Comping: REAPER excels at managing multiple vocal takes, allowing users to record in loops and easily select, swipe, or lane the best parts for a perfect vocal performance. Razor Edit Mode: A non-destructive editing mode that acts similar to Adobe Audition, allowing for fast cutting, moving, or editing of specific vocal phrases without destroying the original take. Take Folder/Lane System: Allows for stacking takes on top of each other, making it easy to compare and combine different performances. Item Pitch Manipulation: Users can hold Shift + Alt/Opt while dragging to quickly change the pitch of specific, individual vocal items for tuning adjustments. Customizable Track Templates: Allows setting up dedicated vocal tracks (lead/backing) with pre-loaded plugins, routing, and coloring, speeding up the workflow for repeated sessions. Input Monitoring & Effects Management: Offers low-latency monitoring with the ability to add effects (like reverb) while recording, which helps vocalists, while allowing the raw, "dry" signal to be recorded.
Now to your point, of couse a newbee may not understand and therefore not appreciate any of this. But my point is I would encourage them to to start to learn. With out going into the details - Reaper is essentially free to use as you are learning. When you discover how wonderful this specific DAW is, you will gladly send them $60 for lifetime use.
... if you are serious about your recording and you want to pursue your music growth by doing recordings, you have to move to a true DAW. Recording ones music is serious business and requires serious tools and workflow that BIAB simple does not have.
Okay Dan, I'll play devil's advocate and bite at the bait. What serious recording tools does BiaB simply not have?
Here is a short list specific to Reaper in my case: Take Management & Comping: REAPER excels at managing multiple vocal takes, allowing users to record in loops and easily select, swipe, or lane the best parts for a perfect vocal performance. Razor Edit Mode: A non-destructive editing mode that acts similar to Adobe Audition, allowing for fast cutting, moving, or editing of specific vocal phrases without destroying the original take. Take Folder/Lane System: Allows for stacking takes on top of each other, making it easy to compare and combine different performances. Item Pitch Manipulation: Users can hold Shift + Alt/Opt while dragging to quickly change the pitch of specific, individual vocal items for tuning adjustments. Customizable Track Templates: Allows setting up dedicated vocal tracks (lead/backing) with pre-loaded plugins, routing, and coloring, speeding up the workflow for repeated sessions. Input Monitoring & Effects Management: Offers low-latency monitoring with the ability to add effects (like reverb) while recording, which helps vocalists, while allowing the raw, "dry" signal to be recorded.
Now to your point, of couse a newbee may not understand and therefore not appreciate any of this. But my point is I would encourage them to to start to learn. With out going into the details - Reaper is essentially free to use as you are learning. When you discover how wonderful this specific DAW is, you will gladly send them $60 for lifetime use.
Excellent examples! One minor quibble. The $60 personal license fee is good for the current major version, plus the next one. For example, I bought a license when v4 with the current major version, so it was valid for v4 and v5. That was many, many years ago. When v6 was released, I bought a new license for $60 that was valid for v6 and v7 (which is the current major release). Here's part of the header from my license file:
Version: 6 (valid through 7.x) Type: Non-commercial Created on: Tue Dec 3 20:31:37 2019
That was over 6 years ago! And v7 is still going strong at v7.61. I will happily pay another $60 when v8 is released. I pay about $150 each annually for Bitwig Studio and Studio One (now Studio Pro). Reaper is extremely capable and is easily the most cost effective full DAW.
Personal caveat: I'm 74. Assuming that I live long enough to see the release of v8, the v8/v9 license will almost certainly be a lifetime license for me.
Last edited by TheMaartian; 02/08/2611:31 PM.
ThinkPad i9 32GB RAM 7TB SSD; Win11 Pro; RME Fireface UCX II; BiaB 2026 Ultra Bitwig Studio 6; Studio Pro 8; Melodyne Studio 5; Tonalic Studio 1; Acoustica Premium 7 Gig Performer 5; NI S61 MK3; Focal Shape 65; Beyerdynamic DT 880 & 770
Great answer Dan and I appreciate TheMaartins addition about Reaper's licensing practices. Reaper seems to be very popular with many forum members. While the comments about input monioring with added effects and take management pertain to the discussion of recording in BiaB instead of recording in a Daw the other items mentioned have more to do with post production functions like editing or program management and do not pertain to recording so much. Still, all the comments are nice to know. One comment I can make about recording in a DAW versus recording in BiaB is most DAWs allow the use of surface controllers while BiaB doesn't. It seems to me that many people prefer to set levels with a surface controller over setting levels with a mouse. Another observation is most DAWs can accept more sample rate and bit depth settings without having to convert than BiaB. That restriction can make it more problematic to use some interfaces with BiaB than using the same interfaces with a DAW.
One comment I can make about recording in a DAW versus recording in BiaB is most DAWs allow the use of surface controllers while BiaB doesn't.
Ya, here is my vocal recording booth with "surface controller". I use this to arm, start and end my sessions since I can't sit at the workstation and perform in the booth at the same time.
In my understanding, people who DO want to record into BIAB want a simple solution for basic recording. Unlikely they would use 80% of features mentioned by Dan. Instead of sending these folks to DAWs or/and under-daw RB, perhaps a good idea to request this feature from PGM. The functions for doing this are there, but the process is not user friendly, outdated, inconsistent and does not reflect current philosophy of Track View.
I am certain that a good number of BIAB users would settle with several tracks of audio recording + BIAB accompanying tracks without the need of using another software, if it is simple enough.
BIAB needs a simple Arm>Record audio record option. Current method is very obsolete. Maybe not as advanced as mature DAWs, but simple enough to understand and use without digging out manual or asking questions on forum. I feel it is getting close to that point. I just wish it would be done well (like new UI) and not half baked, even if it would be limited to the number of existing tracks.
While I record audio / MIDI in DAW, I would very much appreciate being able to use a couple of existing tracks for basic audio input recording for sketches and ideas. 2026 BIAB Piano Roll is already very usable. Time to tackle audio recording.
P.S. Ohh, and a statement: "BIAB is not a DAW" makes me nauseous. BIAB is a DAW. A different kind, but nevertheless a DAW.
A significant difference between the DAWs I'm familiar with and BiaB is BiaB tracks can accept audio or midi input while DAWs have tracks that are midi or audio specific. Even DAW hybrid tracks, like Cakewalk's instrument track, is really just a midi track with a hidden instrument patch. I don't believe BiaB can have a "simple arm/record audio record option" as long as BiaB tracks are not midi or audio specific.
While you do not agree with the statement "BiaB is not a DAW", all you have to do is check out the +++ BiaB for Windows "About" +++ statement or consider why PG Music offers Realband to see PG Music does not agree that BiaB is a different kind of DAW.
In my understanding, people who DO want to record into BIAB want a simple solution for basic recording. Unlikely they would use 80% of features mentioned by Dan. Instead of sending these folks to DAWs or/and under-daw RB, perhaps a good idea to request this feature from PGM. The functions for doing this are there, but the process is not user friendly, outdated, inconsistent and does not reflect current philosophy of Track View.
I am certain that a good number of BIAB users would settle with several tracks of audio recording + BIAB accompanying tracks without the need of using another software, if it is simple enough.
Surprise! I agree with everything above. I'm just not sure what is the best way for PG Music to make recording more simple than it is at present.
However I'd like more information about the poster's problems while recording in BiaB to see if we can advise steps he can take to minimize the problems.
I haven't said anything about the RealBand comments because RealBand is a DAW and the question was about record in BiaB or a DAW. Additionally, while everyone in this discussion has computers using Windows I still try to consider readers with Macintosh computers. They do not have access to Realband.
"I'm just not sure what is the best way for PG Music to make recording more simple than it is at present." It could work 100 different simpler ways. One way this can be done: 1)Open track view. 2)Add blank utility track 3)Right click on track header and it should have option "Convert to Audio Track" or similar with arrow with input choices of your interface. (No silly pop-ups or modal windows!) Once the input is chosen, track is converted to accept audio input from the choice you made, adding arm button and level slider or knob. Hit main transport "Record" button and off you go.
Bass Thumper, just like with my response to Dan I'm playing Devil's Advocate. I have a question for you; are you more familiar with using a DAW or BiaB? I ask because I assume you are more familiar with recording in a DAW than you are with recording in BiaB. Remember this thread started with the question should the op record in BiaB or a DAW.
Jim, you are entirely right, I am more familiar with recording in my DAW than in BiaB. However, over the years I’ve had sufficiently painful experiences with the GUI and workflow of BiaB and RealBand to confidently say (imho) that if you take your music seriously and seek to musically grow then BiaB is not the recording tool you want. It isn’t only about “recording” per se. It’s about all the other tasks and sub tasks that are required to take an idea from creative inception thru completion.
I have struggled with BiaB’s outdated GUI, inconsistent workflows and lack of quality post-processing for years. But the chord entry grid and the quality of the RTs is what keeps me loyal. But struggles with basic elements like odd time signatures and consistent looping workflows have been detractors for many. What does this have to do with recording? Everything. Because the same lack of strategic design thinking is embedded in the recording aspects of BiaB.
This is contrasted to Studio One, now FSP where simple drag and drop is prevalent in the program and logic and consistency is prioritized by the Presonus/Fender development team. FSP is my audio hub and there isn’t a single feature I can think of that is missing (or is clunky) regarding it. Is it perfect? For me, right now, yes. Despite this, improvements and additions are continually made to it; many of which I may never use. If you spend some time in the world-class DAW forums, you’ll see that they are way beyond debating odd time sigs and whether or not looping should be standardized. Those issues were solved years or even decades ago.
And so, rather than needing to fight BiaB to accomplish what I need, FSP is not only a joy to work with but historically has been 3 steps ahead of me on what I need to do. BiaB historically has been 2 steps behind. My time is too valuable to spend 20 minutes doing a task in BiaB where 2 mouse clicks and a drag gets it done in FSP.
To one degree or another we’re comparing elephants to ants. I wouldn’t be surprised if the weekly staff effort of the big-name DAWs are measured in multi-thousand manhours. My AI assistant searched Ableton as having 500 employees (20k hrs/wk) and Avid/ProTools having approx. 1500 employees (60k hrs/wk). Of course, not every employee is involved in sw development, but it gives some idea as to what we’re talking about.
My advice to those that want to compose music is to put BiaB in your toolbox. My advice to those that want to record, process and share music is to put a big-name DAW in your toolbox.
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.
Some posters are missing one trivial point. A good number of people using BIAB don't need much. 2-8 tracks of audio recording would fulfill their needs entirely. If I had to guess, that number of users are likely at least 20% of all BIABers. Possibly much more.
I've enjoyed this conversation. It's been fun playing Devil's Advocate. Thanks to everyone for participating up to this point and particular dpresley for starting the thread. I've about exhausted the Devil's Advocate part of me so I'll drop out for now.
My goal is to integrate my own bass tracks with real tracks. The live interaction of bass with real tracks makes them more "real". With my Motu interface and line out from amp I don't think there is any difference regarding whether recording in Biab or Sonar. Once recorded I can easily audition various real tracks or drums if I stay in Biab.
Another reason I like this is that I spend too much time searching for bass lines that don't fit the groove.
My goal is to integrate my own bass tracks with real tracks. The live interaction of bass with real tracks makes them more "real". With my Motu interface and line out from amp I don't think there is any difference regarding whether recording in Biab or Sonar. Once recorded I can easily audition various real tracks or drums if I stay in Biab.
Another reason I like this is that I spend too much time searching for bass lines that don't fit the groove.
My 2 cents.
You are absolutely correct. There's no difference recording in BIAB than Sonar through your interface. Honestly, the whole process is easy,.
Charlie, process is not "easy". Honestly. It is outdated, convoluted and out of touch with current standard methods. This is especially evident now when we got Track view, which is PGM's way to "standardize" user experience. Audio recording in BIAB as it is now, is a bolt on approach, which needs rethinking.
Charlie, process is not "easy". Honestly. It is outdated, convoluted and out of touch with current standard methods. This is especially evident now when we got Track view, which is PGM's way to "standardize" user experience. Audio recording in BIAB as it is now, is a bolt on approach, which needs rethinking.
I plugged in a USB mic. opened BIAB, Tracks View, Hit the main transport Record Button and recorded several seconds of audio. That's about as standard as it gets. Show us how to make it easier.
This whole argument is workflow related. Once you have spent time in a DAW & then try BiaB, it's a battle.
Some people come in here via that route. Which is why I sometimes recommend RB, as it's workflow is much more DAW like. It's not a leading edge DAW, but it offers the BiaB advantages in a DAW like workflow, though the GUI still needs a bit of getting used to.
No 32 bar choruses and regenerating evey time you hit play, instead you generate what you want where you want on any track. And have more & more intuitive control.
I know, none of this answers how to record in BiaB, but it does say PGMusic also gives you another way (free with BiaB) to do what it does. Try it, you may like it better. I do. Every time I open BiaB, trying to do normal DAW stuff just takes more effort.
Last edited by rharv; 02/09/2604:52 PM. Reason: added &
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome Make your sound your own!
rharv, "This whole argument is workflow related." Agreed. But so is everything else, from baking to house building. Cliché, but one of the main ideas behind of software is that it's not hardware and it should evolve. I believe current method existed way before Track View. Now they need to integrate existing functions to current reality.
In 7 years I was here, I am yet to see any (!) new member come in and praise RB. There must be a good reason for that. Just think about that statement for a moment. Prove me wrong.
Again, instead of sending people to traditional Daw for basic task as this, there should be a straight forward and widely accepted method to record audio in BIAB - PGM's flagship product. Maybe not as advanced as some posters mentioned comparing with other titles, but user friendly. I just hope they will get some user input on this, as they did with UI to avoid making something that will not be accepted well by those who want and understand the benefit of good workflow concerning audio recording in BIAB.
I'll keep this brief as I'm going through some minor medical stuff.
So the fact that some people come on these forums and detail they have done over 80 songs in RB counts for nothing ?
I'm a Reaper user but I also like real band. Rb does things I haven't seen in any other music software including band in a Box... I've posted the differences with band in a box on these forums. Both biab and rb have their advantages and differences.
I've done a ton of songs using the Reaper real band and band in a box combo.
Happiness
Om
Last edited by justanoldmuso; 02/09/2607:45 PM.
my songs....mixed for good earbuds...(fyi..my vocs on all songs..) https://soundcloud.com/alfsongs (90 songs created useing bb/rb) (lots of tips of mine in pg tips forum.)
Muso, if you joined in 2020, as your avatar shows, than honestly, I believe you are the first person I know from my time here that constantly pitches RB.
If you go through the pg forums past threads you can read about real band users commenting they don't understand why some band in a box users struggle trying to do certain functions in band in a box that are a breeze in real band.
in this thread itself you have heard from various real band users suggesting real band has a good solution for the stated need of the user.
Go back through recent threads even and you will see various real band users commenting how they use real band in songs. I'm just trying to be fair Rusty.
Om
my songs....mixed for good earbuds...(fyi..my vocs on all songs..) https://soundcloud.com/alfsongs (90 songs created useing bb/rb) (lots of tips of mine in pg tips forum.)
Misha, I also pitch it! I have used it consistently for years. Using Reaper, Sonar, Mixbus, and Studio One pro along the way. I always come back to RB. One of the reasons many do not "Pitch" RB is that usually when they do they get jumped on for bringing it up. I am not accusing you of that but it happens and used to happen a lot. SO many that use it just keep quiet. If you look on a daily basis there are a lot of people on that forum right now 389 on BiaB thread, 38 on the Mac BiaB thread, 19 on the plugin thread, and 41 on the RB thread. That is the way it is every time i look so a reasonable amount here use it. 2nd most on the site. I know it is a bit different from how most DAWs are set up, but so are many others. In the last three years several very powerful upgrades have been added to RB and it does a lot of things very good. It as Muso said does stuff no other DAW does example RST generation and partial regen. fast and slick. No other DAW in the world does that not even with the BiaB plugin which after 7 years does not do Partial regen.
My point is that it makes a very powerful companion to BiaB. To your very important point above BiaB does record and does a fair job for those who do not need a lot just a vocal and maybe one instrument. A little refining may go a long way. One option is save the file open it in RB add a couple track mix and master right there in a traditional DAW environment and your done. I have my RB set up with a template where each track has the Harrison 32C channel strip on the first 8 tracks, and SSL master strip on the Master channel. So easy to dial in a very powerful mix.
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
FWIW - I think PGM is cut to thin with the number of products they are supporting, i.e VST3 plug-in, BiaB, RB, and Mac computers. I would love them to take BiaB and incorporate it into the VST3 plug-in and get it working correctly and take BiaB incorporate it into RB and get it working correctly. IMHO that would satisfy the all users and leave PGM with just two programs; RB for those whom want to record in BiaB and the plug-in for those whom use other DAWs.
Just my two cents
I haven't lost all of my marbles but there is a small hole in the bag someplace!
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
OM, I am not sure what you are saying... Quick browse gave me a solid understanding that most users (except you) in RB discussions joined at least 10 years ago or prior to that. My argument was that I have not seen any recently joined people who praised that software. I will take some of it back as it seems, judging by your joining year (2020) you are an exception. However, 6 years is a lot of years without at least a handful of new "visible" supporters. As you've said, be fair. ----------------
Regardless of that, the conversation is about BIAB + recording audio into BIAB. It's not a discussion about RB. as rharv said: "This whole argument is workflow related." That is true.
Once PGM properly integrates existing functions to Track View, the issue of sending people elsewhere for straight forward audio recording in BIAB will be gone.
Point taken, however it will not be totally gone as BiaB is still limited to how many tracks one can record on. When people record many types of modern and even vintage music it requires multiple tracks to fit things like partial track recordings, comped vocals and guitar takes, loops to add certain sounds into it. i doubt BiaB will ever be a unlimited track recording studio. As Jim pointed out earlier that was never it's mission. Mario said "incorporate BiaB into the plugin and RB" It is already incorporated there. The plugin is BiaB light. It would imagine that it is literally impossible to incorporate all of BiaB into the plugin. Way too much code. As far as RB it has all of BiaB it needs. It needs a few modern refinements and it does exactly what it was designed to do. Assist BiaB when Users want a more open architecture to do traditional recording. Yes back to the point of this post. The tracks view needs a few of the upgrades to make it right for those who just want to add a couple tracks to their BiaB creation. +1000
As far as new people coming into RB how would we know 90% of the user base does not post here. Of the ones who do few post in RB do to the backlash we all received over the years. I have been using PTPA since 2003 ands then RB since 2008 And have a very deep understanding of what's under the hood. Year ago i did a head to head with Reaper and Sonar VS RB on a creation of a cover song from a internet midi file. Time to create, time to add "flavor tracks" (my take) and lyrics and mix to finished. RB more than held it's own. In my mind it won the contest. While Sonar and Reaper did a very nice job of a simple turn the midi into usable tracks. Neither had any advantage over RB when it came to processing midi with synths. Sonar might have had a very slight edge due to it having better build in synths but using back then sound fonts they all did equally well.
Why do i say RB won the battle? It had the ability to add RTs and RDs that added realism to the tracks and take it from a simple cover to a personal take on the song.
Misha i am not trying to argue the point as your view is valid in regard to adding tools to the tracks view it is just when someone dismisses RB as unimportant in the discussion i do not agree. JAOM has a long history recording and his points are relevant.
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
<< " however it will not be totally gone as BiaB is still limited to how many tracks one can record on. When people record many types of modern and even vintage music it requires multiple tracks to fit things like partial track recordings, comped vocals and guitar takes, loops to add certain sounds into it. i doubt BiaB will ever be a unlimited track recording studio" >>
BIAB functions as a very robust, digital multitrack recorder similar to Tascam, Zoom and other standalone hardware digital recorders. The same multitrack recording principles of those devices apply to BIAB Flagship program. BIAB has never suffered a lack of tracks to compete with any recording studio. BIAB can do everything you mention today and could as far back as 2014 when audio recording was added to the program.
My goal is to integrate my own bass tracks with real tracks. The live interaction of bass with real tracks makes them more "real". With my Motu interface and line out from amp I don't think there is any difference regarding whether recording in Biab or Sonar. Once recorded I can easily audition various real tracks or drums if I stay in Biab.
Another reason I like this is that I spend too much time searching for bass lines that don't fit the groove.
My 2 cents.
I see your point. The real issue, to me, isn't the lack of features (automation features, audio clip manipulation, editing tools, take recording, routing, etc.), but the lack of stability and standardization in BIAB compared to other specialized software when it comes to recording and working with audio.
Personally, I use Reaper, a program with many virtues, but first and foremost, a rock-solid program, ultra-efficient with system resources (the installer weighs an incredible 15 megabytes), and with a super intuitive user interface, as any DAW should be. BIAB also has many virtues (you won't find any other software that produces better quality tracks out there), but certainly, audio processing, robustness, or the user interface is not where it shines.
It’s better to use each tool for what it was designed for; that said, you have nothing to lose by trying it for yourself.
Rob, I know your tender feelings toward RB. I don't interrupt any conversations on RB when it lives in it's own space. I never did. Regardless of our mirror opposite views on it , this discussion should focus on BIAB + recording Audio into BIAB. This subject is important to me personally, and I share frustration of OP and all those who want a straight forward, user friendly approach. I feel it is simply wrong to send people elsewhere instead of advocating to standardize this in BIAB. Which should be no brainer.
-------
Cerio, While I share your sentiment on "It’s better to use each tool for what it was designed for", there are exceptions. This is one of those. Most responders share views based on their own workflows and don't consider that other users might not want to get involved in learning a whole new software to just get a few tracks of audio into BIAB the easy way - and be done. Would you, yourself would want to learn another software if all that you needed was to record your vocals or single instrument (1-8 tracks) on top of BIAB arrangement? I definitely would not.
Would you, yourself would want to learn another software if all that you needed was to record your vocals or single instrument (1-8 tracks) on top of BIAB arrangement? I definitely would not.
I spent MANY hours trying to make BIAB work for me, but I just gave up. I learned, like many others, to use BIAB just for what it is good for: generating backing tracks.
Would you, yourself would want to learn another software if all that you needed was to record your vocals or single instrument (1-8 tracks) on top of BIAB arrangement? I definitely would not.
I spent MANY hours trying to make BIAB work for me, but I just gave up. I learned, like many others, to use BIAB just for what it is good for: generating backing tracks.
I guessing, you wanted a bit more than just getting a few tracks of audio recorded.
When the new tracks view in bb came out I communicated to PG all the neat features that I thought it should have. all the usual audio and MIDI features. The basic concept being one Central View to do most of one's work in creating a song thus saving the user flicking around between different views and menus and commands etc etc.
I also requested some global things like unique chord track Tempo track and lyric track marker track and various others.
I'm sure I'm not the only one making the above requests for more digital audio workstation features. I wanted band in the Box users to be able to access lots of features that I currently enjoy in real band tracks View And other views like bars View.
So don't jump on me.
I also wanted to ensure the band In The Box users didn't have to flick backwards and forwards to other music programs and maybe thus saving the band In The Box user spending money on other programs. I've spent lots of time doing this to and fro over the years using Reaper real band and band in the box together with other programs.
We shall see what the future holds.
Om
Last edited by justanoldmuso; 02/11/2611:26 AM.
my songs....mixed for good earbuds...(fyi..my vocs on all songs..) https://soundcloud.com/alfsongs (90 songs created useing bb/rb) (lots of tips of mine in pg tips forum.)
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.
For me, I can tell you why. If one is just starting out and wants to dabble with recording themselves playing over BIAB backing tracks, Yes, BIAB will do it. I have demonstrated that here in the forum over the years. But, if you are serious about your recording and you want to pursue your music growth by doing recordings, you have to move to a true DAW. Recording ones music is serious business and requires serious tools and workflow that BIAB simple does not have. I would encourage anyone interested in recording to start sooner, rather than later, working one of the many available DAW's which were specifically designed for this purpose.
![[Linked Image - Only viewable when logged in]](https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=32299&filename=IMG_2379.jpeg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/zDWC4TCt/rec.jpg)
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean