Please offer a 64 bit version of the software.

It's tiresome, tedious and annoying to have to go to a DAW to complete a song, when it could be done so much quicker and easier, within BB, if 64 bit were there.

I would like this as well, but isn't it a bit premature to request this again so soon after the reception to your last thread in December?
http://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=226069&page=1

Not really Matt. If the process is started now, then the sooner we could all enjoy it.

What's the the point of midi if you cannot use quality vst instruments with the limitations 32 bit has?

Real tracks are great but you cannot always convert to midi ...... or alter a real track to how you would wish.

Yes, I agree with the value of the request.

I'm very uninformed 'bout the advantages of a 64-bit BIAB brings to the table... can some noble soul give me the skinny on it?

Thanking in advance,

A 32-bit OS or program can only address about 3.5 Gb of RAM, whereas a 64-bit jobbie can address as much as 192 Gb. Some VSTi's need a LOT of memory--think on the order of 1-2 Gb by themselves. Users are now able to employ multiple high-quality VSTi's--except that they can't with the memory limitation. Hence the need for the 64-bit program, to take advantage of all that beautiful RAM.

HTH,

Richard

My actual laptop runs Win 7, 64-bit, but it only has 4 GB RAM.

Would BIAB function "better" as a 64-bit app? That's what I'm having trouble understanding.

I am perfectly happy with windows 7 32 bit at the moment in fact I specifically asked my computer builder four years ago to give me that version as I loved the roland dxi.

I do understand the concerns though, of those that want the 64 bit version of biab and hope it may be available soon to them, but don't hold your breth.

I can't speak for PG music and am not a programmer but it sure comes across to me as must be a massive job to rewrite the program to make it 64 bit, such as their inability to meet the wishes of many users so far for that feature

Sometimes it seems to me that some new code writers for the program would be a great help (and no doubt would cost PG more money) and that the present code writers are somewhat reluctant to let new blood in. Must be a lot of financial considerations involved I would imagine.

Just how it comes across to me, and probably I am totally wrong as I have been proved to be on many occasions.

For me personally I am totally happy with 32 bit biab at the moment, could well change in a few years time.


Musiclover

To clarify, a Windows 64 bit operating system can run 32 bit applications. There is backward compatibility.

So you don't need to maintain Windows 32bit O/S to run 32 bit programs. They run perfectly on a Windows 64bit O/S as well.

My guess is that if PGM release a 64 bit version, they will release 2 builds 32-bit and 64-bit, thus maintaining backward compatibility.

This clarification is separate to the O/P's request, in which staying with 32-bit introduces functionality limitations. I definitely support an expansion to 64-bit.

Hope this helps

Trevor

The major reason for having a 64-bit BIAB has been well stated, namely to access more RAM if running under a 64-bit Windows on a PC that has a 64-bit CPU.

However, there is another good reason.

From the SONAR forum, I routinely read about users of 64-bit systems having trouble with 32-bit plugins. Yes, there's BitBridge and JBridge, but sometimes they don't work with a specific plugin or, worse, are not stable. It's that stability that worries me, and is the reason that I only use 64-bit plugins in SONAR. Doing that, I've never had a problem.

Of course, applied to PG Music, this means that not only should the programs be coded to 64-bit, but also their many plug-ins; otherwise, you get into the need for the wrapper that can (not will, but can) cause problems. That's a lot of coding.

Mal I totally get it but again this is a Wishlist item. I just did a search and you're all over the Wishlist thread.

Do you know we've been asking about a fix for the VST tempo lock issue for at least 7 years now? Or how about the time sig issue? That Wishlist request goes back further than that.

Some things PG cares about and some things they don't. Again I'm sympathetic to this as well but why keep cluttering up the main forum with it?

I wanna look like James Bond but we all have to face reality at some point.

Bob

I can't really see the issue here. Surely BIAB is primarily a system for making great song backings and has been hugely improved by the addition of RealDrums and RealTracks. It is not a DAW program and therefore not designed specifically to run loads of VSTs like a DAW is. Therefore the need for loads of RAM availability that you would obtain from becoming 64 bit is not essential. I can see 64 bit being a more significant feature for RealBand rather than BIAB. In addition surely it is not difficult to load tracks from BIAB to a 64 bit DAW program and continue from there. I repeat once again BIAB is not designed as a DAW. Therefore why get all heated up about it not being 64 bit? Seems to work pretty well as it is.

The above statement is actually only partially correct.

Regardless of the application title of 'DAW' or otherwise, Band In A Box is designed to use VST's, but while it remains on a 32-bit application platform, it is limited by which VST's it can use.

Submitted for clarification.

Kind regards
Trevor

Well to be honest Bob I don't look on at Malevans post as cluttering up the main forum or any other forum for that matter. He feels that he would like to see this feature implemented and has the right to express his opinion as often as he likes.

As regards facing reality I think that PG will have to face that reality some time in the near future that a lot of users want the 64 bit feature.

As I say I am perfectly happy with 32 bit biab but totally understand Mal wanting to express his opinion and having the right to do it, without someone telling him he is cluttering up the forum.

Musiclover

32/64 bit is a non-issue for me. BIAB functions perfectly for my purposes. I'm sure a large number of BIAB users could care less either, otherwise there would be a much louder outcry for a BIAB 64 bit version. If a majority of users wanted 64 bit, I'm sure the issue would be addressed. It seems that a very small minority wants this, making it non-profitable for PG. Business is business. Later, Ray

32 bit or 64 bit doesn't matter that much to me.

A compromise might be to offer a 64 bit version of PowerTracks and RealBand while leaving BIAB 32 bit.

If 64 bit and 32 bit were offered, do you really suppose that the majority would purchase the 32 bit software?

I think not and I sincerely see a much greater profit margin for this fantastic software and the developers.

I agree with you Mal.

I have seen on other sites where people will not touch a 32 bit program. I would think that PGMusic would gain a few more sales if it went 64 bit and in time, very shortly I think, they will be forced to go to 64 bit. I think the transition period for changing from 32 bit to 64 bit is almost over.

I agree as well, though I think all of my software that used to be 32-bit and that converted to 64-bit did so at no charge to me. Both versions are provided, and you install the one you want. Or even both, if there is a 32-bit-only plugin you can't do without and don't want to lose an older project.

Even with a wrapper as suggested by Dr. Gannon, BIAB should move to 64-bit before too long.

If BIAB goes to 64 bit I'll upgrade just like I did Win 8 then Win 8.1 For those of us who use BIAB for accompaniment on gigs it probably won't make any difference. All I need for background are bass, drums and occasional guitar. I'd be willing to bet that a large number of users are using BIAB just like that, especially long time users. I personally know some pianists who use BIAB the same way I do. The main emphasis is on my playing, not BIAB. Later, Ray

You are probably right, Ray. However, there are others like myself who never use it live, but just for composition. For me, it would be easier to stay within BIAB for longer than I can now.

My work flow involves using BIAB for the "creative" process. Then I export tracks (midi & real) to Logic Pro X on a Mac Mini with 16GB of ram. Hence avoiding the 32 bit issues since Logic Pro is 64 bits.

I refuse to purchase another BIAB upgrade until they make it 64 bit.

Yes MJames ..... If everyone said just that we'd probably have it in no time at all.

Maybe you should start a poll to see how many people want 64 bit. It seems that it's a small minority that wants 64 bit. I could care less whether it's 32 or 64 bit. BIAB works perfectly for me as it is and it's probably the same for many users. A poll would probably tell us a lot. Personally, I'm into live solo performance gigs and not composition, so my requirements are probably a lot different than yours. Later, Ray

While they are at it, they need to upgrade the code to get rid of the absoutely archaic system of 8.3 filenames for styles. I modify styles all the time to suite my needs and have to resort to absurd names like _BG-F8 instead of "Blugrass Full Instrument 8th Note Style with Resonator". 8.3 filenames went out when Windows XP came out back in 2001.

Ray, although a pole could be run it would only account for those now using PG Music’s products. Some of us and I’ll admit we probably are in the minority, are using VSTis that require more ram than a 32 bit program/system can deliver.

But there are a couple of other problems with staying with 32 bit. Like Mal I know of a few people that will not even try PG Music’s software because it’s 32 bit, even after they have heard what it can do on my machine. You may say that is their lose but it is also PG Music’s lose. Secondly and more importantly all computers are going 64 bit and very soon I suspect computers will not long be able to run 32 bit software.

I want PG Music to be successful. However to be more successful I believe they need to update. The non-MS approach, the multiple measure copy-paste for example, the 8.3 filenames, the GUI, although it is much better now, as well as a few other things need to be improved for it to appeal to the masses. YMMV.

I'm not sure how much a poll here on this forum would tell you, because for the most part people here already know and love BIAB, and, I'm guessing, will still buy new versions even if they are offered only in 32 bit, despite misgivings. But I wonder how many folks outside this circle have not even considered BIAB because it offers only a 32 bit version. Perhaps it would be better to do a poll on a forum like Gearslutz, KVR, VI-Control and / or some of the forums for the bigger DAWS (e.g Sonar, Cubase, Studio One etc).

For me at least 64 bits is a major deal. I use BIAB to explore ideas as I compose. I have invested a fair bit in some Kontakt sample libraries which sound superb, but they are just too RAM-intensive to use much in a 32-bit program. Yes, I can make do by composing while hearing RAM-lighter instruments such as those in Sampletank, Coyote Forte, etc, while trying to imagine how they would sound when played through RAM-heavier instruments which to me sound far superior (e.g Spitfire strings, Orange Tree Samples guitars, etc.) but it's just not the same; especially because what I hear at the moment influences compositional choices. (As a crude analogy, imagine that for some reason you had to make adjustments in photoshop in black and white, and then switch programs to see the effects in color.) Having to export from BIAB to RB and finally to my 64-bit DAW just to audition something in an instrument voice I know I'd like to use is a real workflow drag.

My 2 cents anyway.

My laptop is 64 bit. If BIAB became 64 bit, it probably wouldn't make much difference for my uses. I do agree with your position for your use of BIAB. BIAB started out as an accompaniment program and now has developed into it's present form. The ability to input my chords for mainly standards and have a world class rhythm section for solo gigs is great for me. Look at the number of registered users of BIAB, over 21,000 and maybe thousands more not registered. It seems like just a few of us bother to participate in the forums. Surely we could have a great sampling of opinions if PG wanted to do so. PG, being a business, has to also look at the profitability of making major changes. It's taken a long time to bring Mac users to where they are and they still don't have the full capability that PC users enjoy. Mac users make up about 28% of computer sales and the percentage of Mac BIAB users vs PC users is probably a lot smaller than the 28%. Still, I hope everyone gets what they want and need. Later, Ray

Well it's simple for me. My gigging days are over and I concentrate only on studio work, composing, singing and guitar and keyboard.

At present I occasionally use BB and never use RB.

If x64 bit does come i'll ALWAYS be using BB and will delve deeply into RB.

Without the power, I view the software as reference, assist tool and occasionally pinch a real track for a project. I study the styles too.

Those in the community that insist they do not need the added benefits of 64 bit software because they only use BB for live gigging would still benefit greatly by using backing from high end sample libraries and the software would be far more stable I am sure.

I don't need high end samples for my live gigs. I use bass, drums and occasional guitar. The main focus is on my piano playing and BIAB is under that. No horns or other orchestration. I've made a decent living playing piano with BIAB accompaniment. Later, Ray

One more here that would not ever upgrade any more if it is not 64 bit.
You can't even get a 32 bit PC (at least here in Denmark), And PGM: We is in the year of 2015 !
Even if I have the AudioPhile edition, I never use all traks as audio. It sounds realy good, but you can't do afterworks with it, as you can with MIDI. And many of my software instruments (IE: Halion 5), sounds as good as RealTracks. It makes no sence in BB's plugin support for VST's if you have to use bridge programs. I've seen many BB users complains about Jbridge, and you are forced to pay for it even if you've bought the realy expensive AudioPhile version. That is to bad politic from a company like PGM.
NOW IT IS TIME TO MAKE YOUR PROGRAMS 64 BIT OR IT WILL BE TOO LATE (for me at least)

I would like to offer another reason for moving to 64-bit: Windows 10.

In my experiments with 10 on a non-music machine, I've run into even more problems running some of my older hardware. It looks like I'm going to have to do some tweaking to coax my Roland Fantom XR to work in Windows 10.

The point is, hardware MIDI synths become unsupported at some point, and rather than pay for another piece of hardware, software synths are looking more and more attractive. To get great sounds from software, though, it would help greatly if BIAB could address more RAM.

EDIT: after hearing from a helpful poster here about another solution, I should point out that I had just solved the Fantom XR USB problem and have it working in Windows 10. My CD-RW / DVD ROM drive wasn't working either after the update to 10, and I fixed that. So, it's been a productive evening in Windows 10. For the times to come when I'm not so lucky, my original thought above still stands.

I agree that from a marketing pov and just general principles it would be great to do it. The questions is ROI.

I work with business and individual tax returns all the time. All that matters is the bottom line. How much will it cost PGM to do a complete rewrite of the program vs now much more customers it might bring in? Or, how many current customers might they lose?

Just a wild guess on my part but I think the percentage of users who care about 64 bit is in the single digits. Maybe even as low as 1 or 2%. Is that enough?

Bob

You're probably right, Bob (jazzmammal). I'd venture to guess that the only market driver that would get a 64-bit version would be if another competing software vendor came up with a program similar to BIAB, but with modern GUI and 64 bit operation. Given the size of the market, I don't think PGM has much to fear and less motivation to update BIAB to 64-bit, which is unfortunate for BIAB users. That said, if I were to look into my crystal ball, often cloudy as it is, there will come a time when OSs will be 64-bit only and 32-bit programs obsolete. Whether I will live to see that time is doubtful. lol.

Bob

I'm sure the switch will happen eventually. I remember when BIAB successfully switched from 16-bit to 32-bit. We will get there.

I don't know what you mean about "caring" about 64-bit.

But, as you're "wild guessing', I'd like to introduce a fact: since 2013, all laptops sold in Italy have been with a 64-bit OS, even the ones with only 4GB of RAM.

Care or not, if your computer is newer than three years, chances are, they DO HAVE a 64-bit OS.

Just sayin'...

Since I mainly use BIAB to generate separate instrument tracks using RealTracks I don't have a strong opinion any more about whether it goes to 64-bit or not. At some point a new version of Windows will come out that will eliminate support for 32-bit but that could be 5-10 years in the future.

Converting BIAB to a true 64-bit architecture would be a massive task for PG. If the GUI is any indication, BIAB probably contains loads of legacy code from the DOS/Win 3.1/Win95 days and would probably require enormous effort to redesign.

I guess if I had a vote I'd recommend they just continue to add on to the code they have. Oh, and add a bunch more RealTracks!

Exactly, and its high time it was done. Some very basic functions like recording are ridiculously programed. Everything seems Iffy.

therefore:

Design the whole thing again, of course in 64 bit. It's way past time IMO

I don't use anything but it's basic functions (not even rocording) because I just don't trust it the way it is, frsnkly a new user with experience of pro music software would find it all a bit of a joke the way it is, it reeks of windows 95.

IMO

Z

You know I generally agree with you but I just don't know if they could pull this off! When I think of the monumental effort this would be...it would probably be a 2-3 year project with most of their efforts focused on OS and 64-bit stuff and very little focus on the music/RealTracks stuff that we eagerly anticipate once a year. And what if the core technology is all ancient code? This could mean a re-write of everything! It just seems too big to me!

On the other hand, if they asked me, my advice would be to get to work on a VSTi version of BIAB in parallel with the current upgrade cycle. They could start basic...maybe build bridge technology to work between the DAW and the BIAB core...get a simple GUI designed that just handles the RT selection. Get rid of ALL of the volume, panning, f/x, etc. and just let me apply those using my plugs in my DAW! Basically strip out everything that is already available in my DAW. Leave nothing but the RT engine and interface to work as a VSTi.

Now THAT is a KILLER product! Does not hurt the existing BIAB crowd at all. We keep upgrading for the next 5 years. But, in the meantime, you are building PG's next breakthrough, game-changing products! And somewhere down the line you quietly retire BIAB as the VSTi version becomes the bread-and-butter product!

Can you imagine the excitement there would be over a VSTi that was based on RealTracks? It would put every MIDI/Sample-based product to shame! I own a ton of really nice sounding sample libraries but the amount of work I have to put in to make something that 1) sounds great while 2) not sounding canned is way too much whereas, with BIAB, I can rough something together in less than an hour that cannot be discerned from a real band!

One more bit of advice...DO NOT NAME IT BAND IN A BOX (but def keep the RealTracks brand)! Hire a really good marketing team with recent experience/success in state-of-the-art digital instrument marketing to come up with an Apple-worthy product name, branding, campaign, etc.

I should get a marketing job (if I'm so smart), right?

+1 A very sensible proposition. Ray

So what?

Just sayin'.

Are you saying that 64 bit Windows won't run a 32 bit app on any one of those millions of Italian laptops?

Until a new OS on a new computer will not run 32 bit apps (Biab) THEN we have a problem. Until that happens my wild guess is only a small percentage of users cares.

I know you read these forums. Are you aware that a very large percentage maybe even the majority of users (at least on the forum don't know about all users) are still running XP? What do they care about 64 bit anything?

How many people here post "if it ain't broke I ain't fixin' it"? They're running their old machines until their 2 gigs of memory turns to dust.

So, PG spends who knows now much to completely rewrite the programs to 64 bit but a very large group still doesn't care about that so then what?

Bob

If the programming team does not have the constraint of keeping all the legacy stuff, the program should be a lot smaller, faster and more performant, timing-wise.

Somebody should convince PG Music that FUTURE IS TODAY!

HTH,

I didn't upgrade this year and future upgrades are uncertain.
I've pretty much given up on using VSTi's with BiaB/RB beyond the included "Coyote", or Sample Tank, because of consistent crashes and sluggish performance.
I can load 8-10 VSTi's in my 64-bit DAWs with no problem. BiaB can hardly handle 1.

My only use for BiaB at this point is to generate a midi file I can tweak in my 64-bit DAWs using High Quality VSTi's.
Real Tracks are occasionally useful, but the new generation of VSTi's sound better, IMHO.

I'm in the same boat. I agree with you on the BiaB/VSTi issue also.

I will add that with MIDI you have total control over your music. A lot of the things on the wishlist like individual RD hits, making RTs play the melody, better endings etc can be accomplished with MIDI but you need better sound sources (VSTis) than a 32 bit program can handle. I'll add that you also need a working knowledge of MIDI to get the most out of it.

I did upgrade this year but only the basic program and the new MIDI tracks. I will probably do the same next year if there are improvements to the program and more MIDI tracks. YMMV

If the VST Tempo/Sync problem was fixed you could use an external VSTHost so BB/RB is not all doing the work and crashing, VSTHost can use a VST/i plugin Legree.dll/Legreei.dll (VSTHost Slavery Suite) that would sync BB/RB with the VSTHost64 without latency.

http://www.hermannseib.com/english/vsthost.htm

May be PG could make a 64bit VST Slave Host without a total re-write ?

Sure BB/RB 64 bit would be great but it is a massive re-write $$ undertaking for PG at the moment, but who knows they might be working on it now.

You can try this with Live Professor 64bit Host, but it just uses midi clock at the moment.
http://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=308107#Post308107

JohnJohn. Really good idea to make a Simple VSTi version of Biab or RB.
But build it as a (64 Bit) PlugIn program for DAWs like Cubase, Cakewalk, and other major DAW's. I do have Cubase 8 pro, and their new well thought out Chord track/builder i use a lot. But Biab's high quality styles you don't realy get here.Not yet anyway( but I do think it is coming, sooner than you think)
If I could use BiaB's Rhytms/ styles (both MIDI and Real Tracks) and use the chords in cubase to trigger the heart of BiaB it would save my musicday- Now and a long long time. I can imagine that PGM would save a lot of time and effort to go this way. And They would sell a lot of this stuff I think.
Then they can continue their 32 bit route for their Main programs for people who still use their not (anymore) supported WindowsXP and 5-10 years old machines. - Then PGM have bought some time, to eventualy fade out their very old "W95" 'ish programs.

Yes what JohnJohnJohn said also, a plugin version, this is how Realband kind of works, it calls on Realband\Data\bbw2.exe that is Biab, to generate up the tracks into the DAW Realband.

I agree 101% The new VSTi should be 64-bit! Maybe this is what they are working on already!! Fingers crossed!

Solidrock
RealBand is not a DAW for me, anymore. I'we never used a more unstable musicprogram on my computer.
So I stick to Cubase and will cross my fingers that PGM will make a simple VST plugin (sort of style program) to use within it. Until then I will import tracks (MIDI and Real Tracks) into Cubase 8.

LOL I'm the Father of complaining about Realband!
I have Cubase, but I can't produce a song going back n forth, back n forth from RB to CB. I have to be able to do it all in the one DAW then I export the finished tracks to mix n master. I now have a Chord Track in CB but no RealTracks or MultiRiffs yet, but until then I need RB unless I hire some session players.

I was talking about slaving VSTs outside of BB/RB so they don't crash.

I try to think of it like this from biab programmers point of view maybe.

They probably have been coding biab for years and years, They are really proud of the software they have produced, and with the current 32 bit program its easily within their ability to add 50 new features and other improvements. They understand the coding inside out.

Maybe, I don't know, doing a total rewrite in 64 bit is like learning a total new language and at this stage they maybe don't have the heart to start from scratch again, especially since they see that most users are satisfied with the present program.

And to hire in new people probably would cost 10-20K in dollars, you would have to sell a lot of ultra paks to get that amount back.

I feel that we won't see any 64 bit biab for a while yet, for those users that want it.

Maybe I am totally wrong just trying to see it from PG's side.

Musiclover

If $5 for every view of this topic was donated we would be there.

Hmmm, Can't argue with that statement!

It's time that PG programmer's saw things from the customers point of view. There is far too much bodgy tacky ill thought out, messy, poorly implemented, and archaic programming.

With the advent of JamKazam and other's it's probably already getting too late.

|a\s fro "fifty new features" drill down and you will find it's mostly hype.

Z

Solidrock

Thanks for the link http://www.hermannseib.com/english/vsthost.htm
how to slaving VSTs outside of BB/RB so they don't crash

(Do'nt know if I can figure it out, but maybe I will give it a try)

Me to LOL to se you are "the Father of complaining" about RealBand :-)

JamKazam is interesting but not so much as competition but as one way to get things done in the 21st century.

Save on storage space by having YouTube host videos and Photobucket host screenshots.

Don't manufacture hardware (their interface) until get enough nods for preorders to justify a production run.

Don't buy license to play commercial tracks for a few months after site is up and running.

Use KickStarter to finance the start up.

Maybe PG Music could have a KickStarter campain to finance the development of 64 bit versions of BiaB and RealBand.

Must be close to December, the broken record "64-bit bandwagon" is racing again!

Larry

Download VSTHost64 & Legree Slavery Suite, go to the VSTHost64 folder, right click VSTHost.exe create a shortcut > right click shortcut > Properties > and edit > Target "C:\Program Files\vsthost64\vsthost.exe" -slave:1 (or -1to16) > save and double click shortcut > load Legree.dll or Legreei.dll (VSTi > set to 1 (or -1to16), it will then sync in with vsthost. You can create more shortcuts -1to16 to use.
You will need http://www.pgmusic.com/jbridge.htm to use 64 bit else use VSTHost32.

If you need Tempo/Sync info for VSTi try method below:

Live Professor RB.mp4 (it should do the same with Biab)

You can try this with Live Professor 64bit Host, but it just uses midi clock at the moment.
http://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=308107#Post308107

Yes, Crowdfunding might be that way to go, have to see how PG feel about it. Maybe they want to stay small and close knit and do things in their own time ?

Solidrock,
Thank you again for your links and tudor work.
BUT ! If I have to use Jbridge I won't touch it. (It is a unstable program to)

I Think until PGM come up with a 64bit program (if ever), I will use BiaB the old fashion way as usual (importing Real and MIDI Tracks into Cubase)
I am glad I did find a "friend in need" who agree with me, that RealBand is a very unstable program.-
A moment I was afraid I was alone with this major problem.:-)