It's unfortunate that there is no way to compare the .WMA Realtracks to the full fidelity .WAV Realtracks before you buy. I'd really like to A/B a few realtracks to hear the difference.

Now...most songs end up as MP3s today anyway, but if you export the .WMA realtracks to Sonar, for example, and then add true .WAVs tracks for some other instruments, and then export it to an MP3...you get some twice-compressed tracks in there...RIGHT?

And if you compress a .WMA track, I am going to assume it "loses a generation of fidelity".

Anyone here with a recording/mastering background and experience who knows for sure?

Some random reactions:

True, you do not want to compress the same file twice. I think that's different from using a compressed track in SONAR, where a project is saved in an uncompressed format (basically, non-destructive editing), where you then might compress the whole project to MP3. Another way to think of it is that, when a compressed file is imported into DAW software, it is uncompressed. It won't get any better, but it shouldn't get worse. I also use SONAR. I would not even think about this question unless the track in question were an acoustic guitar or piano, or a drum track, AND the song in question had only a very few instruments where they were very prominent in the mix.

About your first query, there is little audible difference between the .WAV files and .WMA files as supplied by PG Music. There are good threads on this subject every so often. You will only hear the difference if you have good ears, good equipment, and a quiet listening environment. Further, the only time I have noticed any significant difference is in mixing many .WMA tracks in the same project, since noise (however little) is additive in a mix.

I recall a post by someone who bought the regular version, and called PG Music to upgrade to the audiophile version. PG Music worked something out that satisfied that customer. To my knowledge, no one has posted a demo comparing the two types, because normally a file posted on the Internet is compressed to MP3, and you would be hard pressed to hear any difference.

Matt,

Thanks. Do you have the audiophile version then, that you use for your CDs?

I make CDs as well, and I was thinking that a WMA on there could be a problem.

Of course, we know that "in the mix" you don't always need, or even want, certain instrument tracks to be at their peak fidelity. It's all about the final mix.

I use BIAB as my session players for the rhythm section, basically. I play any lead instruments, and I also like to play the pads and such.

PGMusic says they'll sell me the audiophile version as a $299 upgrade, and they will take it back in 30 days if I don.t need it...but I'll pay shipping both ways, and that will be $42.

I just wish they would have some downloadable WAV files and the parallel WMA realtracks for comparison.

--- Glenn

http://www.reverbnation.com/GlennGalen

(all of the songs on my site have a BIAB foundation).

Quote:

---

Matt,

Thanks. Do you have the audiophile version then, that you use for your CDs?

---

Glenn, yes, I have had the audiophile edition almost from the beginning of RealTracks, as soon as they were made available as an option. After paying once, the update price has been more than fair to keep up. You still get the .WMA versions of files (although you can delete them to save space) along with the .WAV versions, and BIAB knows to use the .WAV files if present. With version 2011, the quality difference between .WMA and .WAV is less than it used to be.

I use BIAB extensively to produce composer's demos, before a concert or studio session. However, my CD, and other CDs for which I used BIAB to prepare, are still recorded by live musicians in the studio. Time is money, though, and I come to a studio very well prepared as a result of using BIAB for composing and arranging.