Hello members of the prestigious group Band in Box. I have the edition Ultrapak and I wonder if there is a big difference in listening to a compressed or uncompressed realtracks..Is it worth the investment of $ 400.00 dollars USA ... !!! ! according to you? Currently I like the sound but if there is a good difference in frequency response I may be going ahead with the update ...
Is the audiophile edition designed for home studio recording using BiB as DAW?

<<< Is the audiophile edition designed for home studio recording using BiB as DAW? >>>

You've asked the wrong question. One can answer no because audiophile is not specifically designed or limited for home studio recording and depending on your use, costwise may not be the best choice. If one answers yes, that is also a correct answer because the audiophile edition is designed to work anywhere it is appropriate or desirable to use BIAB backing tracks. Your end use of the product as well as your intended audience will determine if the cost and small increase that, in most circumstances and situations, is imperceptible to hear will be worth the cost increase.

The odds are overwhelmingly in favor that the package you have now is more than sufficient to meet your home recording needs and can even produce high quality demos to pitch commercially if you need to produce a product at that level.

I have been using the Audiophile edition for around four years now and I am really happy with it. The end product does come out sounding a little bit better than the UltraPak with its wma files and that suits me. It's not lots and lots better though.

I also used the UltraPak for many years and was happy with the songs I created with it. As Charlie indicates, the UltraPak can produce fine sounding material that can be used for demos, etc.

For what it's worth, the Audiophile edition allows a user to install the full equivalent of the UltraPak on a computer's internal drive and the high quality audio wav files can be accessed from the USB drive.

Below is a thread that was created by Matt Finley about the Audiophile version.

https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=378939#Post378939

Have a read through the above thread. I suspect that you will find the information useful.

All the best,
Noel

Objectively the audiophile has to be better. The big factor is who's ears are going to listening.

You're right, it's sometimes subtle change between the UltraPak and Audiophile, thank you for your objectivity it helps me to make a head on a possible upgrade

Hi, I visited the topic for this purpose and that's exactly what I needed to know. Now I am more able to know if it's good for me..thank you a lot for your expertise, Dominic

One member posted this comparison of the dynamics between the WMA and WAV files. It may be useful:
Standard and Audiophile spectrum analysis

I never used the Ultra Pack just purchased the audiophile when it came out and upgraded to the next version every year. People with better ears than I have can hear a difference between the two. I figure if I'm going to make records with this program that I want the sound to be as good as possible.

WSS

To me it depends on your use. If you’re making high quality productions for potential commercial use, the Audiophile would be the way to go. If on the other hand you are like me simply knocking out a few backing tracks that’ll be played though a PA to a room full of noisy people with nobody really listening closely or putting tracks on social media where they are highly compressed why go to the expense.

There is some interesting discussion as to the normal 44.1k wav file is in fact a true representation of music. The real purist would say analogue is nearly good enough and even then there is some alteration of the signal. Most folk cannot really hear the difference however.

My thoughts
Tony