IMO:
A TOTAL rewrite is on the cards. I notice that there has been no update at all since January. I believe that all work has ceased on BIAB. BIAB as such is in its last reincarnation.

Here is my guess:

There is a totally new program under development, 64 bit, new sound engine, new improved VST management, no more archaic code and weird compromises and workarounds, new GUI, possibly an amalgamation of the features in RB and Biab into one single app.

Better Notation, some kind of implementation of the 'Melodyne' type technology that is capable of merging MIDI and Audio, even notating it in an editable way. Maybe even vocal tracks for Real tracks.

Let's face it, Real Band will never keep up with the big boys - Cubase, Logic, Protools....

We might have to wait for this, even past Christmas and into te new year, but, IMO its going to be worth the wait!

Maybe there will be teething problems, that's OK here,


OK, that's put the cat amongst the pigeons. The old guard will probably want to object....

Zero

I don’t know if you consider me part of the old guard but I agree with almost every wish you have stated.

But as you said

.

For this very reason I do not want BiaB and RB merged into one program. I would prefer to have BiaB a separate program for those of us who use Sonar, Cubase, Reason etc.

You may well get your way Mario, the way I see merging the programs is keeping all of the features of both, though |I would think its better to implement exporting in a less odd way. It would be good to see tracks AKA as a sequencer in biab and have a more capable mixer with perhaps VST fx etc.
I must confess I don't use real band here, it simply crashes too much.

Just my opinion.

ZeroZero, I hope you are correct! PG did ask for inputs on GUI and we have not heard a peep and they missed an upgrade opportunity that has to be a little costly in terms of lost revenue. probably something big coming!

I agree something a bit bigger than the typical must be in the work. As said in the past, i don't see a rolling of RB and BiaB into one as the solution. RB is already a rolled version of PT and BiaB. What i see is a big face lift of BiaB as ZeroZero layed out. Some much needed GUI work, a few very nice features, further development of the RT/RD/Supermiditracks path. Then aggressive further development of RB.

To say Rb will never keep up with the big boys is in my opinion a tad short sighted. Actually in some areas it is far ahead of the big boys. None of them even begin to do what RB does. Conversely Rb is admittedly lagging far behind in VST,/VSTi implementation, and in many areas of workflow. As far as stability it is very solid on my system. maybe two three crashes in the last 6 months, mostly caused by me. Still you are right it is less stable than either of my other programs. I see the future being RB split off from BiaB, and not being umbilically connected. But standing alone. So that it's evolution is separate. The ability to add in a far greater range of VSTi plugs, and technology like ARA from Melodyne.

I was tinkering with Studio one V2 Artist the other night, (came with my new interface) WOW being able to double click a wave track and open Melodyne, and make great edits was seamless. This is also the case in Sonar 3 now. Being able to include tempo lock VSTi like jamstix. further evolution of RD where the drum tracks are on separate channels. 64 bit for RB. As it stands now i can do a project from start to finish in RB. But just a few more improvements and stability mods would make it a very big deal. Routing and bussing could be upgraded somewhat.

Imagine Rb with RT/Rd tech, Super midi tech, Full VST/VSTi, 64 bit engine, ARA coding, Flexable routing, Upgraded Audio edit window (melodyne would fix a lot of that), comping lanes, the ability to choose the input for individual tracks rather than have it record on all the tracks at one time for multi input interfaces.

Some thoughtful points there Rob

There is always the flip side of the coin. I agree 64 bit probably will be implemented, but maybe not a lot more.

Maybe just maybe the half year upgrades weren't as profitable to PGmusic as we think, all the work involved for not a lot in return and all the trouble involved. Maybe all the extra realtracks lying around have become all used up, just enough left for a 2014 version.

To be honest, although I may well be wrong I'd be surprised if there is a vastly different GUI in 14.

Musiclover

I am curious why pg music doesn't communicate more with the forum faithful, so we're not always guessing what's coming down the pike....

As a SONAR user, do you visit their forum? That will really give you an eye-opener on the topic of companies communicating with users. Cakewalk actually emerged quite well recently, but only after a very difficult year.

Bostonx, I have no such concerns with PG Music. Never have had. You are new to the forum, so you couldn't have a feel for this yet, but hang in there.

been here a little over a year and there certainly are lots of users here who are very helpful! but I have not seen much activity from PG here. do they post here very much?

I've been on the Sonar Forum for about 1.5 yrs, and was really impressed with the amount and quality of the interaction from Cakewalk's management/technical support!

It was quite a change from a previous life as an owner of a Cirrus Aircraft SR22 airplane and member of the Cirrus Owners Pilots Association (COPA). It was company rules that forbid any Cirrus employer from posting on the forum. Although the President did break the rule once when somebody showed a video of a flying lawnmower and he couldn't stop laughing! He had to comment.

I prefer the Cakewalk (Sonar) mode of providing support, news, etc. on their forum.

Wally G

Wally,

I should think that the legalities of an Aircraft Manufacturer are just a tad bit more complex than those regarding Music Making Softwares.

let us pray,


--Mac


But then I'm still full of wonder as to how a couple of pilots - and combined AT Controllers - could manage to land that 747 jumbo on the wrong strip like that. If you haven't heard the radio log on that one yet...

John3, I don't think PG staff posts here much, but we do know they read it because suggestions have been implemented. For example, I have been contacted for more detail on a suggestion.

Suggest away!

From discussions on the WEB site and personal discussions with management, it was a marketing decision. Eventually technical liaisons (COPA members)were established as conduits between pilots and management/engineering.

Landing or approaches to the wrong airport happen all the time. There are 8 color GPS maps in our plane. I was flying to Fullerton CA airport under an IFR flight plan. Controllers were amending our flight plan every five minutes in the very busy LA airspace. I was very busy constantly changing way points into the GPS. Finally ATC stated that the runway of intended landing was straight ahead. I looked up and there it was. I quickly contacted the tower and informed them that we were on a straight in approach. The tower came back and said "no, you just passing the airport off the left. Two similar airports in close proximity to each other with the same runway headings. It happens...


Wally G