Some users here are desperately waiting for a 64-bit version of Biab.
Maybe this time Biab for Mac will be the first, because:
Quote:
During its Platform State of the Union keynote at the Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple told developers that macOS High Sierra will be the "last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromises."
Almost everyone of my DAW's are now issued as both 32-bit and 64-bit. With the demise of Windows XP (yes, I know people still use it, but it is without support from Microsoft), computers and operating systems are pretty much all 64-bit now.
Why not bite the bullet and allow BIAB to run multi-threaded (most computers these days are at least dual core), as well as use all available memory.
Making BIAB a 64-bit app is not an easy task to accomplish. BIAB is written in Apple's Carbon framework which allowed a transition from OS 9 to OS X. So actually most of the BIAB is based on a last century code. Carbon doesn't support 64-bit mode. So in order to make it 64-bit, PG-Music developers would have to transition to Cocoa framework on which all modern Mac and iOS apps are based on which means rewriting BIAB completely from the ground up. Whether or not PG-Music developers are ready to do so we don't know. Rewriting BIAB for modern Cocoa framework will likely break compatibility with older macOSes which means many customers with older OSes will not be pleased about.
But the bottom line here is eventually PG-Music will have to do this transition. Otherwise many customers will have to stick forever on their current Macs with High Sierra or run Windows in Virtual Machines and use Windows version of BIAB.
... So in order to make it 64-bit, PG-Music developers would have to transition to Cocoa framework on which all modern Mac and iOS apps are based on which means rewriting BIAB completely from the ground up. Whether or not PG-Music developers are ready to do so we don't know. Rewriting BIAB for modern Cocoa framework will likely break compatibility with older macOSes which means many customers with older OSes will not be pleased about.
They've had many years to get up to speed on this.
Originally Posted By: v1597psh
But the bottom line here is eventually PG-Music will have to do this transition. Otherwise many customers will have to stick forever on their current Macs with High Sierra or run Windows in Virtual Machines and use Windows version of BIAB.
We are just as likely to stop spending money money on BIAB.
I can boot from an external drive and run 2017. I can not use BIAB at all. I have choices. There is no feature that can be added to 2018 that will convince me to upgrade if 64 bit is not one of the features.
Sadly (well, maybe not sadly, but certainly inevitably), this is vital to the survival of BIAB and PG. 64-bit is no longer a "new" or "unusual" thing; it is the standard, and it is ubiquitous. On top of that, most of the best modern VSTs are only available in 64-bit versions. PG is gonna have to take the plunge at some point, or be left behind.
And I hope to goodness they are and have been working on it for some time already. This will not be something they can simply do during a yearly update.
+1 for those who want 64 bit. I wonder what percentage of BIAB users really care whether BIAB is 64 bit or not. I use BIAB for auto-accompaniment (bass and drums) when I practice and to print out lead sheets for the band I work with. Would 64 bit help me?
While it's true "everyone is now on 64 bit" (operating systems), there are some reasons to use 32 bit hosts, as I describe in the March 2018 Sound on Sound issue (Sounding Off). As raymb1 notes, for what he does, 64 bits wouldn't yield any improvement. As long as he can run a 32 bit version, it will do what he needs. And running BIAB in my 64 bit Win system, I've found no issues with any number of RealTracks and plug-ins running.
Likewise, as I note in the SOS guest editorial, my 32 bit DAW can do things that the 64 bit version of the same DAW cannot do! Of course, if you haven't been mixing for over 30 years and don't have perfectly good (and unique) plug-ins that are available only as 32 bit VST/DX/DXi, then 64 bits makes sense.
However, as noted above by some folks, software vendors are dropping 32 bit support -- some DAWs are no longer available as 32 bit, and next will be operating systems (as noted for Apple, and expected from Microsoft in the next major version or so). When that happens, 32 bit will not be an option, and 64 bits will be the way to go . . . at least until 128 bit OS are forced on users!
PG Music is certainly aware of these impending changes and hopefully will have a 64 bit option when it is needed.
Thanks PGSoundGuy, but if JBridge is always crashing it gets a bit frustrating. You would be better recommending a BiabVST that generates up the tracks right in any 64 bit DAW that you can load up with as many FX and VSTi's without a glitch.
Biab is great for Auto Accompaniment, learning and songwriting, as that's what it was designed for, but for any professional use it needs to step up as not everyone uses it just for it's intended purpose.
... You would be better recommending a BiabVST that generates up the tracks right in any 64 bit DAW that you can load up with as many FX and VSTi's without a glitch ....
BIAB as (64bit) VST plugin, that 'll be fun; and it (AP version) will be the largest plugin ever around, Guinness Book !! -F
When I upgrade BiaB/RB, I'm usually not all that interested in "50+ new features" etc. I'm more likely to upgrade for new & better Real Tracks and Styles, including midi.
Why not introduce a new 64-bit BiaB/RB for those who need and prefer 64-bit, while continuing to keep the 32-bit version available with minimal updating.
Annual upgrades would make all new features and extras mainly available for 64-bit, with minimal upgrades (if any) for 32-bit along with whatever extras are suitable.
Given that one of the most commonly used plugins is likely to be NI KONTAKT - and given this plugin now - on OSX
ONLY works in 64 Bit mode.
and given that - as clever as JBridge is.... this is a giant - foul-smelling - KLUDGE...
given all this...
please PG - focus your efforts on putting out a 64 bit version of BIAB.
Maybe this requires moving to a new underlying cross-platform framework - and finally biting the bullet on dumping and rewriting all the legacy code in PASCAL from AEONS ago...
and maybe it would mean actually holding off from making a yearly release - just to concentrate on refactoring the entire codebase to something suited to 2020+ - so that next year upgrade is merely the same as 2018 but with lots more real tracks - whatever. I think a lot of your user base would understand having a hiatus in product updates - if they knew that the future of BIAB would be a lot better. Modernised - etc etc..
And if there just isn't a sufficient income coming in from yearly upgrades to justify putting in a huge amount of man-hours in order to totally refactor and rewrite the code-base to make BIAB 100% cross-platform and future proof ...... .....
.... then maybe its seriously time to consider selling PG music or its BIAB I.P. to another company with the financial resources to actually fund a proper major rewrite of BIAB.
Some company like... maybe.... YAMAHA ?
Their track record in successful takeovers of respected music software companies and pro-audio companies like Line 6 - speaks for itself.
I just do not get it, why a company with such large following has such @%&&% (not very good) designers / programmers? BIAB feels to me like fine, 50 year old cognac (real tracks) that is served in rusty, banged cup.
How can you do a programming like that and look in the mirror with straight face? I feel that either they are deaf or simply leaching to the ones who do not have much choice.
I think they will switch to 64 bit in the next 2-3 years, simply because they will not have choice if they want to survive. And I am sure they want our money.
All they need is 1 smart engineer/designer with long flexible whip to supervise the ones who are just tinkering with ancient mummified code.
Programming and design is 10+ years behind schedule.
P.S. Dear artists that work for PG. Your contribution is just amazing to say the least. Stay alive and well! The rap above meant for people who supervise/ in charge of programming.
All they need is 1 smart engineer/designer with long flexible whip to supervise the ones who are just tinkering with ancient mummified code.
You should have stuck with your first thought, because it's a true statement of the facts. The day you present to us a program of similar functionality, is the day your opinion might make any sense to those of us that do understand what it takes to program it.
I can also be critical of the program, but being critical of people you know nothing about is being rather crass. I'm not saying that you don't bring up some good points, but it obviously is not that cut and dry for them.
Who even knows what the legacy code even looks like, but it's no doubt that they need to drastically update the core. I suppose you never heard the saying "You catch more flies with honey?"
"Biab is great for Auto Accompaniment, learning and songwriting, as that's what it was designed for, but for any professional use it needs to step up as not everyone uses it just for it's intended purpose. "
That's an interesting point but not a limitation I've encountered. I've encountered Biab limitations where folks have concerns with the final tracks created in BIAB but no concern has been from the way the program itself can manipulate audio.
I have had private conversations with three 'gurus' of home recording web based tutorial channels discussing why they haven't embraced BIAB to improve the quality of tracks the program would bring to countless 'average Joe's and Jill's' they target to teach recording and mixing skills to in cases where those folks don't have the skills or access to top quality musicians to provide tracks for instruments they can't or don't want to play. Cases where maybe they're unable to afford to hire a musician on an ongoing basis. Biab tracks can fill all of those needs.
However, all three rejected using Biab but for reasons that seemed to me to rely on the egotistical idea that a Biab track is cheating and not a real player. Another issue they say is Biab tracks are generic and predictable and the final generation of a track at 44.1/16 is not high enough quality audio to use in a home recording.
None of the three have reviewed and tested the program themselves and each responded generically with what I consider common misconceptions non users usually describe as weakness of the program. In my opinion, given the chance, I could quickly and easily disprove these myths because these experts have no idea what Biab can actually produce.
I can produce a 32 bar X 3 chorus Biab song in a single generation that is so complex that statistically even Dr. Gannon, Andrew, Kent, Deryk, or Ember can replicate it. The available audio, instruments, programming, and manipulatable parameters are so many to make the odds of anything but the most simple programmed generic chord chart unique beyond the point of recognizability as well as the Biab algorithm choosing the same audio phrases between two or more people creating the same song a near impossibility. Multiple generations would amplify those impossible odds. All this can be accomplished within the Biab program without the aid of any other outside program.
Saying all that, I'm interested in learning some of the unintended purposes you may use Biab tracks that can't be generated in it's current form. 44.1/16 is an obvious limitation but I'd bet if either of these three experts and most if not all of the average Joe's and Jill's had the opportunity to have Joe BonaMassa provide a track to one of their recordings but the track could only be in 320 MP3 format, they would use the track with that limitation....
about the people "who I do not know nothing about" I do not have to know them to see what they do.
For example if lets say you have a plumbing leak and you hire a plumber. While you are not at home your spouse lets plumber in, he puts a roll of duct tape over the leak. Does it mean he "fixed" it? You can say that... Is he a good plumber?
I think function wise BIAB is a fantastic program, but how those functions are implemented into design is just a nohow.
They should learn from Cakewalk, which I love dearly. I stopped using it some years ago because I felt it is not progressing with time. But as soon as they got right people like Noel, program became robust, clean, user friendly, not even to mention first "touch able" DAW (amazing track navigation) for Windows I jumped right in. With recent development with Cakewalk, I believe I will stick to it for years to come. I know they, Cakewalk and BIAB are completely different animals, but I think it is understandable the point I am trying to make.
To put it in another words, I believe that BIAB should not be frugal and hard headed and hire somebody who has vision and listens to user base and redo this unique program right way.
To me biggest drawbacks: 1)Not 64 bit 2)Slow rendering 3)Not intuitive arranger (song structure building especially, a big one for me) 4)Not dock-able /scale-able interface. I wish I can arrange windows the way I want it, and to show on the screen what I want. Cakewalk done a fantastic job on this. You can customize what you want on the screen and where you want it with great ease.
RealTracks may be still a cool sounding thing but this is a technology that is 10 years old. The next big thing™ IMHO will be that the progress machine learning made in the last time will make it`s way into music generating tools.
So it is really questionable whether it makes much sense to rewrite such an obviously mess of a code base.
I just do not get it, why a company with such large following has such @%&&% (not very good) designers / programmers? BIAB feels to me like fine, 50 year old cognac (real tracks) that is served in rusty, banged cup.
How can you do a programming like that and look in the mirror with straight face? I feel that either they are deaf or simply leaching to the ones who do not have much choice.
I think they will switch to 64 bit in the next 2-3 years, simply because they will not have choice if they want to survive. And I am sure they want our money.
All they need is 1 smart engineer/designer with long flexible whip to supervise the ones who are just tinkering with ancient mummified code.
Programming and design is 10+ years behind schedule.
P.S. Dear artists that work for PG. Your contribution is just amazing to say the least. Stay alive and well! The rap above meant for people who supervise/ in charge of programming. [/quote
Well I don't think 64 bit is going to happen any time soon.
I think maybe if we put ourselves in the developers shoes we might understand why.
An analogy might be,
You have been fixing up your house for years and years, you are not getting younger and feeling a bit tired. You have it finally the way you want it, and it serves the purpose, will do you for the rest of your life.
A few friends move in with you and start telling you what to do, Knock the whole place down they say, start afresh, build up from the ground. What a job, you say, I'm too tired, it would be such a massive task, in fact I like everything the way it is. I'll wait until someone with more vigour than me comes along to do it, but in the meantime I'm happy enough to let things be. Some of the friends decide to move out, not to worry you think, its still a nice house, I have plenty of other friends that are happy enough with the way it is, and you invite them in.
So there you are, that is how I view biab and whether or not it will go to 64 bit.
I have seen this posted way back,when I was going through the old postings on the forum.
So why on earth does Peter Gannon not see the postings and post a reply like he does for other subjects/posts now and again.
My take is you only need to look at the forum users, we are all of a certain age and so are the owners.
I don't think biab will ever get bought up by a company like Yamaha etc.
So its like an old piece of hi fi equipment, or musical equipment and you need to decide how many times do you keep repairing it or move to new modern equivalent.
Or is it worth replacing because ill be not needing it shortly.
BUT develop a VSTi version that would work in my DAW. Or as a Kontakt add-on. Reuse NONE of the existing codebase for the VSTi. Rewrite everything. Hire new people with the relevant experience or contract them. Keep all the RealTracks but give the VSTi a ready to use interface that autogenerates a full song AND incorporates the ability for me to pick and choose every available riff on a bar by bar basis. Drop about 90% of BIAB functionality and features. Just give us the RealTracks. No mixer...no reverb...no metronome...no videotracks...nothing already available in the DAW...only RealTracks and the features to select and manipulate them.
Bottom line is that eventually it is going to happen. Not sure when but there will come a day when many of the BIAB users will own machines and OS's that will not run 32bit applications. The choice is that the software owner will have to either update the program or eventually just go out of business.
I bought my 1st computer back in 1980 and even then I remember when 32bit finally arrived there were pundits saying that Intel and Microsoft will never drop support for 16bit apps because there are just to many of them out there. Now they don't even show up in the rear-view mirror.
My take, right or wrong, on this is that BiaB now has some competition. They are not as sophisticated as BiaB YET but they soon will be IMHO. This gives those of us that use MIDI and loops choices to make. If the MIDI competition gets up to BiaB and PGMusic insists on staying 32 bit then I will keep my BiaB for the RTs but jump off the sinking 32 bit Titanic. YMMV.
Note that I didn't mention RB. I don't use it so I have no idea how it competes with other free or inexpensive DAWs. Personally I don't like it at all but others use it to perfection. To each his own.
about the people "who I do not know nothing about" I do not have to know them to see what they do.
For example if lets say you have a plumbing leak and you hire a plumber. While you are not at home your spouse lets plumber in, he puts a roll of duct tape over the leak. Does it mean he "fixed" it? You can say that... Is he a good plumber?
I think function wise BIAB is a fantastic program, but how those functions are implemented into design is just a nohow.
I would ask you was your leak fixed, and if your spouse was satisfied with it, then I would say that's a good plumber. You know a plumber that's good at a lot of things if you catch my drift.
Sort of like thing beat up old program we talking about here. I'm with you on that there really is no excuse for it, but that is how they roll.
By all means give it to them straight, so that they get some good feedback. Thanks for your reply!
The writing's been on the wall. I was just thinking of this the other day, when I realized I wasn't using RB as much. You have other DAWs that shift audio and midi, so RT's are so old school now.
They don't realize it and/or somebody's sleeping on the j-o-b. I can technically now do in a DAW what I was doing in RB. The real tracks are their bread and butter, and they should be.
They kind of p-footing around with it, when they should be selling the Real Tracks online via a VSTi. imho
Like someone else mentions, they don't need the entire program, but instead only a subset of it that links to Real Tracks. It could be simple at first, but the key thing would be to sell people new tracks. You know maybe even set up a marketplace so that users could sell tracks ... and PG gets a cut?
I think that is the key to really make the brand shine in the eyes of the people. It's kind of joke because they don't really know about it, but if they knew that real notable musicians are behind the tracks, you the could ask a premium price for some of them. /js
Like someone else mentions, they don't need the entire program, but instead only a subset of it that links to Real Tracks. It could be simple at first, but the key thing would be to sell people new tracks. You know maybe even set up a marketplace so that users could sell tracks ... and PG gets a cut?
I think that is the key to really make the brand shine in the eyes of the people. It's kind of joke because they don't really know about it, but if they knew that real notable musicians are behind the tracks, you the could ask a premium price for some of them. /js
Anyone that wants to can create and give away or sell UserTracks. Also, PG Music identifies RealTracks musicians and even includes links to the artist website. PG Music doesn't display at every NAMM show but when they do attend RealTracks artists generally have a big presence. Just look at the photos from the last NAMM in Nashville.
I support making BIAB available in 64-bit, particularly on Mac because it's likely that OS will require it before Windows does. I also support the idea of making a VST3 that calls up RealTracks. But please don't think that RealTracks is all BIAB is about. Plenty of folks including me use the MIDI features of BIAB. And as a composer, I wouldn't even think of starting a new song in a DAW.
I don't even know a daw where you can put the chords in and press play.
My days before biab was the software acid and raw samples, you had to align, transpose, each wav sample, and that was after trying to find the key of the original sample, took ages just to get ONE decent track done and running smoothly.
Then start again for next track and so forth.
Some of the samples like gorgeous piano back then had each sample marked with the key but most did not, if I remember I paid 80.00 for them.
Biab yes 64 bit, and more modern product, like a vsti, But I don't think it deserves some of the postings above.
I suspect the problem is that the core coded (which I understand is Delphi (Pascal) based) is rooted in the 16-bit origins of BIAB, which along the way were converted to 32-bit (and even then, there were components that were left at 16-bit initially). From what little research I've done (out of curiosity, not as a programmer), most of the problems with then converting to 64-bit are pointer related, and the "size of" returned values. Embarcadero provides guidelines on converting to 64-bit :
and I suspect they've probably tried this, but the returned errors are probably massive.
And rewriting from scratch in a different language with all features intact is really going to result a version 1.0 program that will probably be extremely buggy. I remember when Finale went to 64-bit, the posted a number of features that would not be available (at least initially) because of the conversion requirements. I don't know that all the features need to move into a 64-bit version - I mean, how many people are really running "Pitch Invasion" or "Music Replay" on a regular basis?
I want to see a 64-bit version of BIAB (and RealBand) as much as anyone), but I suspect getting there is a heavy lift for a relatively small company.
That being said, I bet there could be a dedicated group of volunteers to test nightly builds of buggy 64-bit software in order to get there.
As of right now I have not thoroughly investigated any. Rapid Composer was mentioned so I will investigate that one. But right now I doubt that I will leave BiaB.
I don't know that all the features need to move into a 64-bit version - I mean, how many people are really running "Pitch Invasion" or "Music Replay" on a regular basis?
If I had to guess I'd say zero! These are two good examples of "features" that could and should be left behind in any rewrite.
I don't even know a daw where you can put the chords in and press play.
Biab yes 64 bit, and more modern product, like a vsti, But I don't think it deserves some of the postings above.
My take only.
Well, from my understanding is the squeaky wheel gets oiled. If it gets too squeaky it gets replaced with a nice shiny new one.
There are a couple of major DAWs that have chord tracks now, but there are not many people that are listening to the kind of music you get from just pushing play.
You can also do the same thing with Jammer Pro if you like working with midi.
Granted it's not a refined process as PG has it, but now I can make my own RT and use them in my DAW. I can use many of the sample/midi libraries that are available.
No, I'm afraid unless they do something, BIAB will just end up being a relic that's cherished by those wholly invested in it.
They will still run those old machines that support it, but newer software has already started replacing them.
I'm sure they deserve everything they get. I mean they work really hard and seem to be very successful, but sleeping on this might be their downfall.
Time will tell.
Edit: There's also Orb Composer that is like Rapid Composer.
Oh man, I've been following this thread (and a lot of the other, similar ones) with great interest, and I have so many thoughts I would not even know where to begin!
Before I begin, I want to apologize in advance in case I offend anyone here. Basically, I've always pursued music from a purely instrumental and theoretical. I play guitar and bass (quite proficiently, I like to think), and I am decently versed in music theory. I used BiaB strictly for learning purposes, and as a backing track tool to experiment with different progressions, chord modulations, etc, and music production and songwriting wasn't really an interest of mine until a couple of years or so ago.
I started using Reaper to collab online with many younger producers and songwriters who just wanted some live bass, some rhythm guitar or a guitar solo here and there. I started watching Kenny Goia's videos on YT to get better at Reaper, and suddenly my interest in production blossomed. I started experimenting with various effects, VSTs, and other plugins, and my mind was basically blown by how many possibilities are out there. Unfortunately, it also opened my eyes to a myriad of grievous shortcomings inherent in BiaB and RB from a production/workflow perspective
Here's a few random thoughts (any number of which I could very well be wrong about, fwiw).
A. PG Music is quite content in it's little niche. The folks here in the forum are the main demographic, and their bread and butter. The fact that new features are those such as video realtracks rather then more substantive things like the redesigned ACW, with the new release is evidence of the above.
B. No one's gonna have money for a yacht when they retire, and I imagine there will be enough to give their employees three months wages and perhaps a celebratory brunch at a reasonably priced family restaurant when and if they liquidate their assets. Earlier in this thread someone referred to a million dollars for each employee and I almost choked on coffee.
C. With the "right" management, PG Music could be raking in some serious revenue. I'm not saying it's being mismanaged. The owners are free to do as they please with their own business and product(s). I'm just saying if they wanted to make money, they could. Which leads me to...
D. There is no marketing presence to speak of. I recently downloaded a bunch of product demos from Native Instruments and I get popups non-stop. They also have dozens upon dozens of slickly produced videos highlighting scads of mind-blowing sounds that may be achieved by their product. To start raking in cash at this point, their marketing budget, IMO, should be multiples of what they spend on having their Realtracks recorded.
E. The program is just an antiquated mess. Hire a frikking team of programmers and clean this thing up. I don't care about the visuals (although I've no doubt it turns hundreds of potential customers off from even looking under the hood of the program), but there are so many things that should just work properly. For instance, the harmony future is absolutely brilliant-especially with the Intelligent Mode or whatever it's called. Unfortunately, whenever I've tried to use it the results sound downright awful and nothing like in the demo. There are so many requested features that are more like requests for bug fixes that are brought up on the forums, and there is virtually no response from PG Music.
I got a whole lot more where that came from, but I have to get back to work for moment. Also, I have not addresses some of the things that make BiaB one of the most brilliant and unique programs ever, and why you barely, if ever, hear the program hitting above 25 percent of its potential on the User Showcase (caveat, I don't spend a lot of time there, so don't take it personally, I may not have listened to your song so I'm not referring to your stuff as an individual... also, I'm not saying that these songs I listen to are not excellent songs, I'm just saying that they don't leverage what BiaB can do based on the hours I spent coming through the manual and generating all sorts of experimental stuff that blew my mind clear out of the water...)
Anyway, I've been loving these discussions, but gotta get back to work for the moment.
Oh man, I've been following this thread (and a lot of the other, similar ones) with great interest, and I have so many thoughts I would not even know where to begin! ...
Here's a few random thoughts (any number of which I could very well be wrong about, fwiw).
Thanks for your input! My feeling is that the program is pretty much feature complete ... and that's putting it lightly.
The program does what it needs to do, and so that may just be the final story of BIAB. I can totally understand their position of not feeling any pressure to act.
I know it must be hard for them not to take it personal, but I have nothing but the utmost respect for them and I want to see the program grow.
64 bit may not be in the cards for BIAB, but who really cares? They made their mark in the business, and you can always find a old machine to run it on for like forever and ever.
If I do knock anything about the program it's going to be the marketing. For instance who in the world feels like they bought a "pro" version with the basic version?
Here's a few random thoughts (any number of which I could very well be wrong about, fwiw).
It is nice to hear well thought out and stated points as you have done. And I get why you felt the need to apologize in advance!
Quote:
PG Music is quite content in it's little niche. The folks here in the forum are the main demographic, and their bread and butter. The fact that new features are those such as video realtracks rather then more substantive things like the redesigned ACW, with the new release is evidence of the above.
The demographic you referenced is aging and without a clear path to attract new/younger users I'm concerned this awesome program will just fade away. And things like video tracks just really puzzle me. I applaud the skill it took to create them but question their usefulness and don't even know if they have a plan for them beyond being 2018's novelty feature.
Quote:
There is no marketing presence to speak of. I recently downloaded a bunch of product demos from Native Instruments and I get popups non-stop. They also have dozens upon dozens of slickly produced videos highlighting scads of mind-blowing sounds that may be achieved by their product. To start raking in cash at this point, their marketing budget, IMO, should be multiples of what they spend on having their Realtracks recorded.
Regardless of whether they wish to make lots of money I feel they need to up their game to attract more users/customers.
Quote:
The program is just an antiquated mess. Hire a frikking team of programmers and clean this thing up. I don't care about the visuals (although I've no doubt it turns hundreds of potential customers off from even looking under the hood of the program), but there are so many things that should just work properly. For instance, the harmony future is absolutely brilliant-especially with the Intelligent Mode or whatever it's called. Unfortunately, whenever I've tried to use it the results sound downright awful and nothing like in the demo. There are so many requested features that are more like requests for bug fixes that are brought up on the forums, and there is virtually no response from PG Music.
I understand the dilemma they face but you are right that it needs to be fixed and I think a new VSTi product would be their best direction. When I first bought the product in 2012 I was overwhelmed and pretty much remain so! But that is mainly because of the UI, especially the dialog boxes and the manual. I have mostly given up on anything but generating RealTracks to use in my DAW.
Quote:
I got a whole lot more where that came from, but I have to get back to work for moment. Also, I have not addresses some of the things that make BiaB one of the most brilliant and unique programs ever, and why you barely, if ever, hear the program hitting above 25 percent of its potential on the User Showcase (caveat, I don't spend a lot of time there, so don't take it personally, I may not have listened to your song so I'm not referring to your stuff as an individual... also, I'm not saying that these songs I listen to are not excellent songs, I'm just saying that they don't leverage what BiaB can do based on the hours I spent coming through the manual and generating all sorts of experimental stuff that blew my mind clear out of the water...)
I would like to hear more and I hope PGM would like to hear more as well.
It really is an awesome program they have created and PG is a bonafide genius for imagining and developing it! What I can do with these RealTracks is nothing short of amazing. And I am pretty sure I have only realized a portion of what is possible. If this program had a modern interface and additional tools geared toward modern music it would be a killer product across all genres and generations!
I do criticize a lot and pretty harsh at times but it is only through frustration as it can be so much better. I think it's good to have constructive criticism just so long as it leads to construction.
There would be some that find the video realtracks helpful but maybe if they were green screen you could mix the artist together to create your own music video
Perhaps "they" can rest on their laurels, but at least setup a forum/thread where your users can give you feedback on what they would like to see. I get it that there may be no need to port BIAB over to 64 bit. There's probably not even a real cost benefit to do so, but what's at stake is the BIAB branding.
You can still market the brand via other means. Maybe look for a current VST developer you might want to partner with and license the brand to. That would certainly be a lot cheaper to invest in, and all you would have to do is focus on the integration.
I think they have to take in consideration that the reason some of us gripe and complain is because it's not hate, but it's that we love the program and would love to see it get with the times.
There are not many of us that can claim a success story such as this one, and when some of those shiny new gimmicky programs have come and gone ... I'd say that BIAB will still be standing strong.
That's what happens when you create something special, and I can see them wanting to go out on a high note, instead of gambling with what has been undoubtedly a true success story. /imho
This is my first post in this forum. I set out this morning to check on the status of a 64-bit Mac update, since I see a 64-bit Windows update is out. My two cents on this topic:
I use BIAB as a practice tool and for generating scratch tracks for arrangements I complete on my DAW. My last update was to BIAB 2017. The reality is that unless a 64-bit Mac version of BIAB is made available (and fairly soon) it will have to be left behind. The other software and devices I use force me to stay relatively up to date over time, and when 32-bit apps become unusable that will be the end for 32-bit BIAB. I may keep an old Mac around for awhile just for BIAB and a few other 32-bit apps, but I know better than to believe that will work for very long. Bottom line is that buying 32-bit BIAB updates no longer makes sense for me.
Here's hoping PG Music is working on a fabulous new 64-bit Mac version of BIAB!
Brassive, welcome. I see you are new on the forum. You’ve probably checked in here before and know this, but just in case, the developers release the new Windows version in December and the new Mac version the following late spring. They make an effort to have the two versions similar and have closed the gap in recent years.
I have a Mac with BIAB. It’s not my main production machine but I’ve seen the 32-bit software warning. I am confident there will be a 64-bit Mac BIAB before BIAB will no longer run on Mac.
I think the reason why the Win version is now 64/32 is because Mac is forcing 64 bit only, so I would say you have a 99.9% chance.
That really depends on which API Biab is using! If it bases on Carbon-API, and I guess it does because of its strange and non-native look-and-feel, then there will be no way to make it 64 bit because a 64 bit Carbon does not exist. The reason is that the development of Carbon has been stopped 2007!!!
The only way would be to completely rewrite the whole user interface code in Cocoa and Swift (or ObjC), what would be really great but is barely doable in a year or less!
If they used a crossplatform development we would get the same features Win\Mac and released at the same time like most other crossplatform apps and not have to spend the other 6 months working on the Mac version.
Good point, Pipeline. Actually, I think the development environment is cross-platform, but I do think that there are significant other external factors that would make this problematic (disparate methods on how audio systems are integrated on the different O/S's etc). This is only a guess though.
