With a background in commercial illustration and marketing I have a suggestion for a Band In A Box/ Realband facelift.
Market or rebrand both programs under the "RealBand Studio" name or "RBS" texting acronym for short.
This is much the same idea as Photoshop becoming Adobe Creative Suite (CS1, CS2 etc.)
CS is becoming more and more the normal reference for Photoshop especially with the move towards the texting shorthand of today's youth.
KFC and JCP are other examples.
Within RBS the aspiring musucian/songwriter has access to Realtracks and "Midi Live?" which brings them a professional backup band to their live input.
The Band In A Box "AutoGen" feature makes the process fast and easy.
My thinking is that the goal of most musucian/songwriters is to get their work and ideas into a professional recording studio for processing.
There they have access to all the sound shaping tools and,if needed,pro studio muscians as backup.
Band In A Box is just one of those tools.
Current PG Music marketing puts "the cart before the horse" in this respect by promoting Realband as a tool for BIAB.
Most of the forum posts indicate that their workflow is to take the BIAB song into another DAW for final processing reinforcing this idea.
Focus on improvement of the current ReaBand feature set is needed to eliminate the need for going to another Daw such as Reaper or Protools and should be a priority over adding more, possibly redundant realtracks.
Better compatibility on the Mac version is also needed with the popularity explosion of that segment of the youth market.
Perhaps a slogan could be "RealBand Studio, Your Music, Your Way".
Will also post this in the BIAB and Off Topic forums to get the widest possible input.
Carkins
Carkins, your post makes me ask this question yet again with hope I get concrete answers this time.
Protools, Reaper, Sonar, Logic, Bob's DAW..... all the stalwart defenders of those programs have yet to give me a specific "Reaper does this thing <insert specific feature here> and RB does not.
Outside of not being able to use mixer fade automation, I see nothing that another DAW can do that RB can't. That takes me to the point of "Is it just that you know <insert DAW name here> better and rather than learn where RB does things you keep using your old choice?"
The music creation part of RB has become so subliminal that when people try to compare RB to their favorite DAW they seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that none of those other programs generate the actual music. That has always amazed me that the "comparers" want to compare apples to grapefruit. Until Protools, Reaper, Sonar, Logic, and Bob's DAW can actually CREATE the music like RB does, there is no discussion to be had. One is a car, one is a skateboard. They both get you where you want to go, eventually, but one does more than the others. That would be RB.
So again I ask the people who move their tracks to a different DAW rather than do final mix down in RB, what is it that your favorite DAW does that RB doesn't do?
Quote:
... Protools, Reaper, Sonar, Logic, Bob's DAW..... all the stalwart defenders of those programs have yet to give me a specific "Reaper does this thing <insert specific feature here> and RB does not.
Outside of not being able to use mixer fade automation, I see nothing that another DAW can do that RB can't. That takes me to the point of "Is it just that you know <insert DAW name here> better and rather than learn where RB does things you keep using your old choice?"...
There it is -- the simple and correct answer. If you get the results you want out of the DAW you have, why should you spend the time learning a completely new one? I know how BIAB and Sonar works well enough, I guess, so why should I evaluate RB? The only advantage in RB seems to be that you can re-gen a few bars of RT's instead of the whole track in BIAB. I don't know what "mixer fade automation" is, but I have to have it! (so that's another strike against RB -- ha, ha).
Eddie, by the way, in a couple of threads you've mentioned that someone said you had too much reverb on a vocal -- but your vocal was 100% dry. I don't know if it was me (probably), but if the vocal was dry and you still had too much reverb on it -- then it was room reverb due to your recording setup. Just because your vocals were boxy and reverby in the older times doesn't mean they were caused by a reverb plugin.
Quote:
The only advantage in RB seems to be that you can re-gen a few bars of RT's instead of the whole track in BIAB.
I find the control over the Real Tracks is better for me in RB. I like to do things like generate many solos over the 8 or 16 bar solo space and cut and paste sections together. I have done as many as 8 to get what I wanted.
Quote:
I don't know what "mixer fade automation" is, but I have to have it! (so that's another strike against RB -- ha, ha).
If you use a control surface, as I do now, you can boost and cut sections of a track and the automation feature will remember those mixer moves. Like is for some reason, 8 bars of vocal is weaker than the rest. Rather than having to go in and gain change those 8 bars in RB, you can just slide the fader up for those 8 bars and then back down again and the software will remember that move. And you can watch the mixer fader go up and down when it happens, so there's the cool factor as well. What is funny, and shocked me the first time it happened, is when you start a new project in Sonar the faders on the mixer will snap to zero. The first time it happened I almost jumped out of my chair and grabbed the ceiling.
Quote:
Eddie, by the way, in a couple of threads you've mentioned that someone said you had too much reverb on a vocal -- but your vocal was 100% dry. I don't know if it was me (probably), but if the vocal was dry and you still had too much reverb on it -- then it was room reverb due to your recording setup.
You have done it once or twice but several others have as well. When I record, I am in an almost 100% anechoic environment. I will try to draw a picture with words.
I acquired a bunch of old doors for free. (Love Craigslist!) I also acquired some thick moving quilts for free from the local U-Haul when they replaced their stock with new ones. (Knock on a door or two! The worst thing that can happen is they say no.) I laid 2 of those doors down on the floor and, after installing hinges, stapled one of those quilts to it. Then I did the same for a second set of doors. When I record vocals, I take both of those door pairs and stand them up flexed to 90 degrees to make a square out of them with the mic set as deep into a corner as possible. The only opening in the carpeted square booth is a space to reach my arm out and click the mouse. I also turn the room speakers off and use headphones so the vocal track is not recording ambient music from the monitors. Also, the wall directly opposite the workstation has a quilt that I got for 2 bucks at Goodwill stapled to it, starting with the angled ceiling and on down to the floor.
I will also at some point build one of those 180 degree sound diffusing chambers that Guitar Center wants $100 for. I am still thinking about the right way to mount it to a mic stand, but I know how I will build the 180 degree C-shaped shell, and I have a bunch of foam sheets to glue into it. I may actually make it more like 270 degrees with a hood. We'll see.
On early efforts, I was doing everything outboard. The instrument reverb was usually setting #3 (.3 seconds) on an Alesis Midiverb II rack mounted reverb unit, and the vocals were setting #11 (.8 seconds). I was also using a Behringer stereo 31 band EQ. That was giving me WAY too many things to play with, and I only got one shot. Once it was recorded, it was down. With onboard effects, as you know, you can just delete the effect and start again with a clean track. I learned that if properly recorded and EQd, reverb is usually not necessary. I also started making slate sheets for every song with track assignments and notes like "vox have 1600hz boosted and 400hz cut - everything else flat".
This has been such a learning process and I am thoroughly enjoying it.
Quote:
... I acquired a bunch of old doors for free. (Love Craigslist!) I also acquired some thick moving quilts for free from the local U-Haul when they replaced their stock with new ones. (Knock on a door or two! The worst thing that can happen is they say no.) I laid 2 of those doors down on the floor and, after installing hinges, stapled one of those quilts to it. Then I did the same for a second set of doors. When I record vocals, I take both of those door pairs and stand them up flexed to 90 degrees to make a square out of them with the mic set as deep into a corner as possible. ...
Unfortunately we are getting way off topic -- but we always do. I am definitely not an expert on room sound treatment (I have zip at the moment), but I don't think the quilts will control all the frequencies correctly and the hard back doors will create an excellent slapback surface for the untreated frequencies. I hate to say it, but without any evidence to the contrary, I would say your "100% anechoic environment" might not be working as you expect it to.
The hard back doors are on the outside. Where I am standing is quilt. You can tell quite distinctively how dead it is in there. Unless the sound is going up 90 degrees to the ceiling and coming back down into a 3x3 ft hole, I am as quiet in there as if I was in a padded cell (which I fortunately have no experience with yet).
Quote:
The hard back doors are on the outside. Where I am standing is quilt. You can tell quite distinctively how dead it is in there. Unless the sound is going up 90 degrees to the ceiling and coming back down into a 3x3 ft hole, I am as quiet in there as if I was in a padded cell (which I fortunately have no experience with yet).
I meant that frequencies that the quilt can't absorb (probably all the lows) and going through the quilt, hitting the hard surface of the doors and bouncing right back in. Maybe I am wrong and hopefully someone who knows about this stuff will jump in.
I did a lot of reading at gearslutz's acoustic treatment section and I am assuming that would be the consensus of opinion on your setup.
Quote:
So again I ask the people who move their tracks to a different DAW rather than do final mix down in RB, what is it that your favorite DAW does that RB doesn't do?
And I will give you my answer again!
Sonar’s workflow better matches my workflow. I have a lot of tempo-based softsynths and effects that will work in Sonar but not in RB. Sonar handles upper bank patches much easier than RB. I am very happy with Sonar so why should I learn a new one?
Again I am not knocking RB and in fact I have always said that if someone isn’t already familiar with a DAW that they should learn RB.
Threads likes this remind me of the “what is a best car, Chevy or Ford” threads? There is no correct answer. We all have our preferences in both cars and DAWs. LIVE WITH IT!
Back on topic:
I would like PG Music to make Realband the equal of the other DAWS so that someone new to creating music would choose it over the other DAWS because of the superiority of the BIAB feature.
Seems to me they are more than 1/2 way there, maybe a lot more, not really being familiar with using the missing features available in other other DAWS.
I'm looking at it from the standpoint allocating their resources towards attracting new users a lot younger than myself and I suspect a majority of the current posters.
It's just a matter of time, with the current state of technology before another DAW comes up with a BIAB clone.
Loops are an example of this attempt.
Chances are it could be Garageband, a name with greater brand recognition.
PG should focus on preparing for this and I applaud Peter for asking for our input.
Most companies don't.
Carkins
here's my take on this Cark,
1) a lot of ideas like this seem to start with the assumption that PGMusic products are the "little brother" of all the REAL DAWS, and if they just adapted to what everybody else is doing, they'd be big dogs too. But I have a feeling that if we knew the world wide sales of all the products that typically show up in these discussions, PGMusic probably already has more installed customers than most of the "big dogs" (Just my opinion, I have no empirical data to back it up... just a variety of seemingly small observations through the years and a gut feeling.)
2) if you think of music making as being a modular system in which you can literally snap together the synths, instruments, effects, notation software etc that suits your work flow.. .it doesn't matter anymore if one company can do it all. Pick the best of class in every category... best synth, best notation etc.. and there are plenty to choose from... and everybody can have exactly what he/she wants already... without waiting for any of the software companies to change. PG has done an excellent job of including almost everything a person needs to make music... but they understand that some people prefer other plugins, other DAWs etc. No big deal.
3) People buy this product instead of that product because of the unique features, not because of the features everybody has. If I already own a hammer, I have very little incentive to buy a new tool kit because they added a hammer this year. But, if they add something I don't have (and want) I'll probably spring for it
4) therefore, the absolute BEST use of resources in a company like PGMusic is to keep developing the proprietary stuff that nobody else can do. And from where I sit, that appears to be the common denominator in all of the past updates that I can remember. Adding features other DAWS already offer makes no sense, because so many of us already have 5 other DAWS and one of them (or more) can already do that. If you think of the other DAWS as modules in the modular system, then All you need is a collection of modules that, as a complete system, can do everything you want to do.
5) as a module in the system, PGMusic products are best in class at intelligently generating music from a chord sheet. As best in class, many people who use other DAWS still have an incentive to add PGMusic products to their music making toolbox. Even if they never changed anything, there's nobody else positioned to steal their unique slot in the system.
6) so, why do they ask us for suggestions? Is it to stay viable as a company? No, that's already nailed down, and it ain't gonna change. They ask for our suggestions because (my opinion) it pleases these people to hear the things happy customers say about their product. I would go so far as to guess that it pleases Peter Gannon to add value and happiness to the world through his product. I believe that because the way this company conducts business is notably different than the way other companies deal with their customers.
Quote:
Sonar handles upper bank patches much easier than RB.
Upper bank patches? Upper bank of what? Isn't that the name of a stretch of beach of North Carolina? Yes that was a joke, but I don't know what you mean by "handles upper bank patches". Accesses the sounds like when I select cartridge B set 3 patch 6 on my ESQ-1? If that is what you mean, I don't grasp how one software would "handle" them any different than another. You enter a patch number and it plays it.
The fact the RB is a 48 track DAW is a serendipitous bonus feature much like when your intelligent, sweet, loving spouse also happens to be attractive and/or rich. RB and BIAB are composition tools. Other than Garageband, I am not aware of other software packages that compose backing tracks. I do know that Sonar, Protools, Logic and the rest of the usual suspects do not. If your "workflow" (and I love the application of that word here - fits perfectly) includes playing everything in live with either real instruments or soft synths and drum machines, or even bringing in side players to so what you can't, then Sonar is for you. Sonar (which I have and use, BTW) was never intended to be what RB is.
Another way to state the bottom line is that RB can do most of what Sonar does (and remember, that is just the value add part of RB), but Sonar can't do the main thing that RB does. Compose.
I agree that a repackage may be in order that accentuates the strengths of RB.
Carkins, in my opinion what you are suggesting is mostly a marketing change. Those types of suggestions sometimes are not well accepted with the intended goodwill that you have in place. I've been saying this about the graphic design of PG advertisements for at least the past 5-7 years. It still has a 'home-made' appearance, when it's advertised in print. Homemade, not as in 'better' like with most food, but more like something one kicks out of Microsoft Publisher, complete with gradient block text, etc. I've suggested PG Music run a graphic design competition for logo design, web page design, magazine advertisements, etc. with a local community college and they will almost assuredly get a more modern appearance to their messaging. Quite honestly, the graphic design looks the same as the cover of the manual I have from the 1996 era version of PowerTracks Pro Audio that I have still on the shelf here. Companies update logos, design themes, etc. regularly. Even iconic brands like Apple, most car companies, etc. update their branding at least once a decade.
PG could organize it's products into 3 categories:
Composition and backing track generation: "Real Band In a Box" to combine those two tools into one, whether you are using recorded audio or midi patterns to generate.
Digital Audio Workstation: Power Tracks Pro Audio
Computer Aided Music Lessons: All of the way cool lessons PG has with their lesson series.
I still think that most of the consumers of the other DAW softwares are likely unaware of PG products. As to the uniqueness of the composition tools, probably the group of potential customers that might be able to grasp it the best are those using Garageband for iPhone and iPad (this might be in Mac OS versions, not sure), where the 'smart' instruments are useful for realistic backing if you simply supply the chords (via touching the desired chord names whilst recording) but the results are not easily changeable - what gets recorded in Garageband are the auto-generated midi note data. So, if you recorded an Am in bar 3 of a section and want to change it to C, well - you have to erase the individual notes or 'clip' and start over on that section - not as cool as simply regenerating the data.
Imagine if when visiting the PG website, you saw a short animation of the basis of what BIAB and RB are mainly about - auto accompaniment/backing track generation.
@eddie, you are correct that most of the DAW-like features of PG products are right on pace with other more well-known products. Where there are differences seem to me to be in one of a few general categories:
1. Compatibility with general trends in audio processing (VST/VSTi, ASIO - PG was quite late to this game, and there is still at least one aspect of the VST/VSTi which simply doesn't work and renders other software's unique value proposition meaningless - tempo locking)
2. Signal routing internal to the program (compared to modular hosts - but these are not so popular: Tracktion, EnergyXT, there's at least one Mac platform program I can't think of
3. Signal routing external to the program (ReWire capability - nearly standard these days with any other DAW, even lower priced programs)
These are not showstoppers, but they are what make people walk or stay away - if they are even aware of the differences.
-Scott
Quote:
@eddie, you are correct that most of the DAW-like features of PG products are right on pace with other more well-known products. Where there are differences seem to me to be in one of a few general categories:
Differences, yes.
Deficiencies? No.
As long as it composes and the rest don't it is in it's own category. Garageband is a competitor for RB. Protools et al are not competitors because they do not compose and generate music.
Apple and boisenberry.
Quote:
Quote:
Sonar handles upper bank patches much easier than RB.
Upper bank patches? Upper bank of what? Isn't that the name of a stretch of beach of North Carolina? Yes that was a joke, but I don't know what you mean by "handles upper bank patches". Accesses the sounds like when I select cartridge B set 3 patch 6 on my ESQ-1? If that is what you mean, I don't grasp how one software would "handle" them any different than another. You enter a patch number and it plays it.
OK I was in a bitchy mood last night so I apologize for that. I opened RB today and found out that it now does handle upper/higher bank names properly, i.e. shows the name of them instead just numbers and letters.
Quote:
The fact the RB is a 48 track DAW is a serendipitous bonus feature much like when your intelligent, sweet, loving spouse also happens to be attractive and/or rich. RB and BIAB are composition tools. Other than Garageband, I am not aware of other software packages that compose backing tracks. I do know that Sonar, Protools, Logic and the rest of the usual suspects do not. If your "workflow" (and I love the application of that word here - fits perfectly) includes playing everything in live with either real instruments or soft synths and drum machines, or even bringing in side players to so what you can't, then Sonar is for you. Sonar (which I have and use, BTW) was never intended to be what RB is.
Another way to state the bottom line is that RB can do most of what Sonar does (and remember, that is just the value add part of RB), but Sonar can't do the main thing that RB does. Compose.
But that is what BiaB is for. I don’t think many people here realize how many users of other DAWs use BiaB. I know I was amazed at the number of Sonar users that use BiaB. BiaB is the moneymaker for PGMusic and if the merge it with RB they may very well loose some customer base. Especially now that Toontracks and others are getting in on the auto-generating backing tracks business.
Quote:
I agree that a repackage may be in order that accentuates the strengths of RB.
That may help but a lot of us use other DAWs for many reasons with probably the most common being familiarity. Again why change it we are happy with what we are using?
I hope PGMusic keeps Biab and RB separate programs. I would like to see BiaB incorporate some of the RB backing track features into it.
PS - For the record yes I have used RB. I just like Sonar better. Also I only have two DAWS, Sonar and RB. I don't need any more.
A ha!!!! Toontracks? So there IS another one out there that creates backing parts! I was not aware of anything but Real Band and Garageband.
Garageband, btw , has some GREAT sounds included. I have already used it for some sweetening parts. The Rhodes is great. One of the string patches is quite flexible and the sounds can be smooth or course, envelope filters there for dynamics, etc..... The Hammond, which includes drawbars, is glorious. When I think that it's an iPad being controlled by an Akai Synthstation 49 and I can get that kind of sound from it... amazing stuff.
Yep but Toontracks midi is proprietary to their instruments. That is you have to buy the piano
http://www.toontrack.com/products.asp?item=125To use the midi backing tracks. Plus it’s one instrument at a time purchase and thus far there are a limited number of instruments. But they are competition to PGMusic and the piano does sound very good. I have not purchased it and I probably will not as I am very happy with BiaB’s latest midi improvements.
They are no way close to what BiaB does however their midi is not quantized. BiaB’s supermidi tracks are not quantized either. I hope BiaB comes out with a lot more unquantized supermidi tracks. They are the future for the midi side of BiaB. Off course nothing other than possibly cutting and pasting loops comes close to RTs.
Yep, software and hardware instrument sounds have come a long way in the last 20 or so years. I listen to some of my old TX81 acoustic instrument’s emulation and say “Wow, and I thought that was great back then”! But that old TX81 does have some really nice bass, bells and synth sounds that I occasionally use.
Here's my take on What Real Band Doesn't Do.
In the Real Band wish list (I think) I opened the discussion, "Real Band--the Killer App." From others' comments I extracted three deficiencies which, if corrected, would make RB indispensable to everyone, not just PG fans. They were unlimited channels, full support of VST technology (meaning the ability to handle tempo information), and implementation of Rewire.
I've never used close to 48 channels; I just mention that because other sequencers don't have that limitation. The need for full VST support should be apparent to anyone who uses them.
Rewire may not be so obvious. I've made a specific, detailed request for this in both the BIAB and RB wishlists. Please look up that post for detailed information on why this would be a Good Thing. I'm not actually sure it would be possible in BIAB, but I see it as a sine qua non of any app claiming to be a full-featured sequencer, i.e., Real Band.
In short, it allows any two Rewire-equipped sequencers to work together as one so that you can use the unique features of each. No more copying or dragging/dropping tracks, just use the audio/MIDI output from each as is. From what I've read here I don't believe there are many people who would need more than two programs to overcome any limitations they might see in any one alone.
Selfishly, I want to be able to use BIAB and/or RB with Propellerhead* Reason, a mighty sequencer/soft instrument combo which, oddly, doesn't support MIDI Out. Reason has a few other quirks (including, if I understand correctly, not supporting drag and drop), but combining the strong points of it with PG products would, to me, be unbeatable. But ya gotta have Rewire working first.
*PH and Steinberg [of Cubase and Nuendo fame] were the developers of Rewire.
Ryszard, see #3 on my list. FWIW, Linux users - the really savvy ones - can use something called 'Jack' which is like a patchbay inside the computer.
I tried at it for perhaps 8 hours total on a machine at work; to attempt to get some VST usage of a linear phase graphic EQ that I use, and I realized that the whole venture for me was too much brain work - to understand which flavor of Linux to use, which DAW, etc. And that I had to really know Linux. The 10 or so command line UNIX commands that I used to use on HP 300 series computers back in the late 80's were not going to make me a Linux expert.
I bailed out of the experiment.
Reason looks very interesting now that the Record features are included. More and more I see the appeal of a closed environment DAW. Garageband on the iPhone - incredibly useful and surprisingly good for 5$. The Rhodes and Wurly instruments alone are worth far more than that, DAW features notwithstanding. On the iPad, the B3 emulation is outstanding (not so much on iPhone, less controls, no ability to switch leslie speed, etc.)
My selfish thing is the hard core VST compatibility, #1 on my list. #2 on my list has allowed me to to very fun sound experiment setups. Also makes it really easy to do side-chain/ducking compression.
And back at Eddie - we are talking about DAW aspects, not composition generation aspects. As far as the latter goes, I think it will be a long time before we see any real competition to BIAB/RB. If ever. Toontrack's thing is laughable in it's limitations. Garageband on iOS is closer, but still terribly limited for editing once you've laid down the 'smart' chords as they are immediately rendered to individual MIDI events. The list of 3 items I wrote down are the DAW features that are rather common, that frustrate existing PG users, and for new users looking for those features, keeps them away. Let's not forget that there is also PTPA - that's the thing that should be compared DAW-to-DAW.
Antwort auf:
I find the control over the Real Tracks is better for me in RB. I like to do things like generate many solos over the 8 or 16 bar solo space and cut and paste sections together. I have done as many as 8 to get what I wanted.
That's the reason why I purchased Reaper after having tried with RB.
It's so much faster to cut and paste. And already cut parts can be changed in length again in no time. Much more possibilities in experimenting. RB is rather clumsy in this compared with Reaper.
I only generate Tracks in RB and then drag them into Reaper.
Guenter
The only reason I brought any of that up, Scott, was because this was about a name change for RB, and if they were to change the name, they need to come up with something that really defines what this product is and does vs what others are and do.
I need to read more about what Rewire is so I understand what Ryzard is talking about. It sounds like a midi router of some kind, but I have no concept of how that would affect the end product once things are recorded into audio tracks whether they were originally MIDI parts or not, so that may or may not factor in.
However, everybody agrees, nothing else composes, so BIAB/RB is in a category by itself. The only thing I might do is make the packaging a little more eye catching and consider a stronger retail presence. Word of mouth is great advertising. I got my copy because the singer from the band I play in had it and showed it to me. Since I got it, I can count 4 people who I can say for sure bought it, and 2 more that said they loved it and would like to buy it. I have a feeling that walking into a store and seeing it may result in at least a few more percent of market share. Protools is great. Sonar is great. Logic is great. None of them create music.
Edit:
After reading Craig Anderton's review of Rewire and a few other articles, I see it to be a useful tool, just not for me. I wouldn't use what it does. Show of hands though, I am curious to know how many people here use it?
Quote:
After reading Craig Anderton's review of Rewire and a few other articles, I see it to be a useful tool, just not for me. I wouldn't use what it does. Show of hands though, I am curious to know how many people here use it?
Probably very few, because they can't--PG Music products are not Rewire equipped. I used it on my old DAW when I was running Nuendo 1.6 (primarily an audio app) with Reason 3 (then a pure MIDI app). It allowed me to assign the MIDI sounds of Reason channels in Nuendo and process them there. You can operate two Rewired apps from the transport control of either. I was only the most rudimentary user. There may be other uses of which I am not aware.
On my new DAW I can no longer run Nuendo. (Nor do I need to, as Reason 6 now records audio.) I still have to import MIDI tracks from BIAB in order to use them in Reason. I'm not sure Rewire would even be appropriate there. But I will have to copy and paste audio tracks from RB as it doesn't have Rewire, and Reason doesn't support drag-and-drop in any case. We're working on Propellerhead, another eminently responsive company, to correct this, too.
Quote:
Here's my take on What Real Band Doesn't Do.
In the Real Band wish list (I think) I opened the discussion, "Real Band--the Killer App." From others' comments I extracted three deficiencies which, if corrected, would make RB indispensable to everyone, not just PG fans. They were unlimited channels, full support of VST technology (meaning the ability to handle tempo information), and implementation of Rewire.
Richard's comment, when taken in context with my thinking about music making as a modular system, does bring up a point that I hadn't factored in:
In a modular system, a key necessity is for all the pieces to snap together and play well together. Two of Richards must-haves fall more into the arena of "working as a team " with other modules than simply duplicating features other products already have.
For the same reason that many of us ditched USB devices when they stopped working with new operating systems (in other words, when they became incompatible with the rest of our music making system) people also tend to ditch products that don't play well with the rest of their music making system.
If all your other stuff is rewire compliant, utilizes Melodyne internally instead of forcing it to be used as a standalone product, and uses other plugins the same way except for one product, as soon as a similar product comes along that DOES play well, people will switch to it.
IMO, these are areas where any software company does need to stay in synch with other similar products.
Pat, you have extracted the essence of what I was trying to say. All I am asking for is for BIAB and/or Real Band and [insert app of choice here] to play well together. REALLY well. Like seamlessly.
When it comes to plugins I am kind of a minimalist. I tend to use what is available unless it is horribly deficient in some way. That is specifically why I began to use Reason--as a huge, powerful modular synth and FX unit, insdtead of fooling with cheap soundcards and subpar softsynths such as the old Sound Canvas included with BIAB, or even the slightly better Coyote Forte.
Reason has its own quirks. It doesn't have MIDI Out and doesn't support plugins or drag and drop. The ability to directly connect it to either BIAB or RB would, to me, be the best of all possible worlds. The rest of you have your own "dream team" in mind, but it's the same thing.
It is possible. It doesn't cost a thing to implement in terms of licensing. PG has, in a rare move, acknowledged this and said that "it is being looked into." That was quite a while back, but I am still hopeful.
Rewire. Rewire. Rewire.
Quote:
After reading Craig Anderton's review of Rewire and a few other articles, I see it to be a useful tool, just not for me. I wouldn't use what it does. Show of hands though, I am curious to know how many people here use it?
I do not use it as I have no need for it.
There is prolly 95% of BIAB that I don't use, either. I was responding in the affirmative to Pat's comment about modularity. Rewire would be a major step toward having PG products integrate with the rest of the professional audio world.
To tag onto Ryszard's comments:
My reason for wanting true and deep VST/VSTi integration is actually the exact same reason as Ryszard's desire for ReWire:
Choice of instrumentation and sound sources.
Ryszard's decision was to learn Reason deeply and the way forward for integration is through ReWire; which has become somewhat standard fare for DAWs, even the others that are under $100 like Mixcraft, nTrack, etc.
My decision was to look for VSTi that did what I needed them to do; Jamstix for being my drummer, all of the GSi physically modeled old-school electromechanical keyboards.
I also got hooked on tempo-locking effects like Kjaerhus' autofilter, any number of delay plugins, etc.
I wasn't happy with Sound Canvas or even soundfont playback.
Lots of forumites here made this into a hardware decision - buying the Ketron GM module, but those of us that have wandered outside the world of GM are those that point to these features as necessary.
What did it for me was trying the CMuzys freeware DAW that came on the cover CD of computer music magazine. That had great ASIO integration, and allowed playthrough of VSTi. The first time I fired up the Minimogue VSTi (freebie), I spent many long nights playing old prog-rock synth leads - or at least trying. Something I hadn't been able to do for 20 years! I was hooked.
-Scott
Quote:
There is prolly 95% of BIAB that I don't use, either. I was responding in the affirmative to Pat's comment about modularity. Rewire would be a major step toward having PG products integrate with the rest of the professional audio world.
I'm guessing a little here as I don't remember the details.Just before the "Drag & Drop" feature came out it was discussed, not sure if it was with testers or the general population,what would be best to implement, D&D or Rewire.The consensus was D&D as I don't think enough folks understood what Rewire was. Rewire has been on Peter's mind for sure just not sure why it hasn't been implemented yet.I could guess but won't.