My thoughts regarding the future

Posted by: Rob Helms

My thoughts regarding the future - 12/21/19 05:02 PM

I posted this inside another discussion but thought I would post it here for open dialog from users.

When discussions start about where RB/PTPA fit in the DAW landscape many of us have strongly defended it as a very powerful and feature rich DAW choice. Yes it has many great virtues. Features no other DAW has, those being the awesome BiaB capabilities. This DAW can do things a far more well know, and mainline program could never begin to do.

Yet the problem lies in that, while it is all that a a bag of chips, it still suffers from being fragmented as it is a wonderful marriage of BiaB and PTPA. That is both incredible and limiting in one moment.

I sent a note to the Peter, Andrew, and a couple others recently suggesting that future plans should include a lotta love for RB. BiaB is at a point where it either has to morph into something it was never intended to be, and I fear become a train wreck doing so, or slow down it development to a slow boil.

Imagine BiaB with no 50 new features next year instead 25 nagging bugs solved like the 255 limit. 202 new real tracks including ambient tones, breakbeat drums and a bunch of new current RTs and RDs. That addresses what many are clamoring for modernizing.

Next a complete and total update of RB. Modern mixer view something like studio one with inserts and sends, with excellent FX chains and new powerful plugins. Get rid of the 255 limit, updated and complete automation, not just volume and panning, not just fader moves. Build it into a DAW that rivals Studio one, Reaper, Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. but one that includes BiaB generation capabilities. Focusing on RB on allows it to be broken out from BiaB, allows it to become a paid product that generates revenue for PGM. This lets BiaB rest and catch up. It would still be a source of revenue with it becoming even more solid and a stable and many of its old bugs squashed for good. Lots of time and resources could be diverted into a wider more diverse RT development. Lots of resources diverted to RB so it can be one of the best, most advanced and stable DAWs around and used along side BIaB and a continuing to develop Biab plugin would be a lethal line up.

If RB is tethered to BiaB so tightly that it can’t be separated properly then develop a new DAW with all the features of a prime time DAW like Bandlab cake, but with the plugin integrated natively much like the integration of melody era into studio one a DAW that has all the riches of a program like studio one, or bandlab, but opens .sgu .mgu file natively, and features the plugin version 3.0 with many enhancements. PTPA is sitting there 75% of the way there, maybe it is the basis for this new product. A few years back 10 to be exact Presonus took a old underdeveloped DAW named Kristal audio and completely rewrote it to become Studio one. Maybe PGM takes a open source DAW like an ardour, and completes it, with the next generation BiaB plugin (3.0)as one of the core features. Add to that some awesome new effects like world class compressors, limiters, EQs, and more.


I would love to hear others thoughts on this.
Posted by: Jim Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/21/19 06:16 PM

It will easy for this discussion to dissolve into I wish this or I wish that; if so that's too bad because I don't think that is what the "My thoughts regarding the future" heading implies.

The future of PG Music is the DAW Plugin, Xtra Styles, RealTracks, midiSuperTracks and whatever additional content PG Music can dream up.

Over time the DAW plugin will draw in traditional DAW users including professional studios and audio/video production houses. The DAW plugin will develop into a plugin that does not have to rely on background tasks and helper apps. The plugin will continue to have a limited feature set as compared to the Band-in-a-Box program. The DAW plugin will continue to be part of the Band-in-a-Box packages. This is because it needs PG Music content to be very useful.

Two customer groups will vie for new content, hobbyists and studios. New content will be available for purchase throughout the year.

PowerTracks and RealBand will combine into one 64 bit DAW application and the legacy 32 bit applications will receive minimal updates until they are dropped. (There won't be too much maintenance required because both applications are pretty stable already) The new application will continue to support the use of PG Music content and include Band-in-a-Box like features. However the BiaB features will be built-in instead of add-on. The program will be available as a standalone product like PowerTracks Pro currently is.

The Band-in-a-Box program will continue to receive annual updates. The GUI will be updated and when it is updated MacIntosh and PC editions will be consolidated into one program. Legacy 32 bit Mac and PC programs will be available for people using 32 bit operating systems.
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/21/19 07:23 PM

I would support that direction, and that would be my first choice as I mentioned in my post to Peter, Jeff, and Andrew. I love RB, but it can be far better. With a lot of hard work and planning it could truly rival the big boys, but it has to be its own entity to accomplish this. I suspect plugin version 3.0 will be very interesting.
Posted by: sixchannel

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 12:21 AM

All and any of the above.
But please, please dont chase the 'studios' at the expense of the 'hobbyists'.
I use BB because I CAN. Give the Pros and bedroom Pros all their 'toys' and I for one,as a total Hobbyist will freeze my purchases at the last iteration that I could understand.
I have no intention of learning from scratch something that worked perfectly well before.
I just want to boot up the best music creating software in the world and Go.
Ian
Posted by: LtKojak

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 01:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Rob Helms
where RB/PTPA fit in the DAW landscape

Rob, BIAB is NOT a DAW. Never has been, never will be.

The workflow that'll get you closest to that imaginary "DAW" is to use BIAB as a plug-in in a REAL DAW, like Cakewalk by Bandlab or Tracktion T7, which are both free while allowing the use of 3rd party plug-ins and VSTs.

RB's never going to be a full-fledge DAW with the same possibilities as their competition, for the simple fact that they'll be playing R&D catch-up to make for at least twenty years lost in the race... with no ROI? It just makes no sense at all.

It's never going to happen, so my advice is to make your peace with the idea, just like Mick Jagger sang: "No, You Can't Always Get What You Want". wink

The way of the future, as I see it, is to better develop BIAB as a plug-in, teaming up with Cakewalk by BandLab, Presonus Studio One and Reaper, maybe adding/developing features exclusive to each one's workflows of those three.

Presonus' Studio One would make more sense, as they already have the "Chord Track" feature, which could be developed further to blend with BIAB's Real Track and Styles features, turning it into the most advanced DAW/Composing/Songwriting combo on the market, in which BIAB VST could be offered as an paying add-on for the Prime (free) version, the Artist (limited)version and the Pro (full-fledged) version, making it compatible with their new add-on business model.

Food for thought, PG Music...? cool
Posted by: Matt Finley

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 05:15 AM

Kojack, I haven’t tried Presonus Studio One in years. Does it pick up the chords from BIAB?
Posted by: MarioD

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 05:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Matt Finley
Kojack, I haven’t tried Presonus Studio One in years. Does it pick up the chords from BIAB?


Not to my knowledge. It determines the chords based on MIDI and/or audio tracks.
Posted by: MarioD

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 05:54 AM

Every time I see a message asking RB to be like Studio Pro One, CuBase, or any other pro DAW I ask are you willing to pay that much for a DAW? I was and I chose Studio Pro One.

One question I have is what is wrong with RB now? It is free and some here use it like a pro DAW. It is not the DAW for me but there are other DAWs that are not for me either. YMMV
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 05:55 AM

Pepe, you preaching to the choir on this one. I never said BiaB should be or is a DAW the quote was “RB/PTPA”

I have been a firm believer that BiaB should remain what it is auto accompaniment software. But while you are right that the RB/PTPA program need some catch up I don’t think it is a far off as you think.

As far as RB/PTPA being a full DAW, in my opinion they already are. There is very little that they can’t do. Yes some features are a bit old school or just plain simple, but there is far more than many realize.

My key point is that for the last few years users clamor for BiaB to develop into a DAW, bad idea I feel. Stop adding major piles of feature to BiaB and focus on content ie. RRs, RDs, Supermidi tracks etc. fix the long term bugs folks have mentioned. Maybe some modernization of the GUI. Small changes and stability enhancements.

To me the future here is the plugin, but it is not a revenue generator, but a free part of the package. I see RB/PTPA as a potential goldmine. Yes it needs some love, hard work, upgrading. It needs to be a separate program untethered from BiaB. Still able to generate tracks as is but brought forward as a stand-alone top flight DAW. I saw what Presonus did with Kristal audio a few years back. RB/PTPA Are way ahead of that program, it didn’t even have midi capabilities here we are 10 years later and it is mentioned in the same sentence as Cubase, Protools, Logic, etc. I have to believe RB/PTPA would not take that long to advance.

I have used Bandlab, RB, PT, Reaper, Sonar, MTS, Protools, and prefer Studio one to them all. RB/PTPA can be far more than it is, and if for some reason there are things we don’t know that would keep that from happening then the other route could be to develop an open source product along these lines.

While RB is deeply connected to BiaB, PTPA is not, it is a separate program that was used to create RB. What would prevent PGM from leaving RB as it is and giving PTPA the focus and bringing it into the future as a top DAW to compete with Studio one and the others. What have they got to lose? It is a $49 product. What if it was completely overhauled and became a $299 product with annual upgrade fee of $99 or $129 that more than doubles the annual take on that product, more importantly it could bring in some of the folks that use are BiaB users who then go to other DAW products. Keep some of those folks here.

With PTPA development the plugin could be integrated into its core. BiaB files could be the native format. With upgraded automation, more flexible routing and bussing capabilities, some updates to the midi engine, more features in the audio editing window, a new set of plugins with sidechaining, rewire to link directly with BiaB, ARA integration for things like Melodyne, Plugin 3.0 with deeper generation capabilities, a nice modern look. PTPA would be really attractive to a lot of people.
Posted by: Brian Hughes

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 05:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Matt Finley
Kojack, I haven’t tried Presonus Studio One in years. Does it pick up the chords from BIAB?


Hi Matt, it does not get the chords from BIAB. It works kind of like Audio Chord wizard. It can analyze MIDI and Audio tracks and determine the chords but it also can change the chords to something else. It does this even with Audio. It is quite impressive what you can do with it, but like anything else it is not perfect 100% at getting it right.
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 06:24 AM

Also there is a macro or script available to pull the chords from the BiaB plugin. That’s pretty cool.
Posted by: Matt Finley

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 07:02 AM

Thanks, everyone. When we have a DAW that, like MuseScore, reads BIAB native files and actually reads the chords, then we'll have something.

But how about Music XML? If you Save Special a BIAB song as Music XML, will Studio One read those chords directly (not just 'interpret')? Will any other DAW you know do that? My question is prompted by learning Studio One has a separate chords track, which I would find valuable enough to learn another DAW for IF it reads the BIAB chords directly. Thanks.
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 07:35 AM

Rob,
"many of us have strongly defended it as a very powerful and feature rich DAW choice."

RB is not a good DAW choice. It is not popular and actually almost unknown to wide audience because mainly it is used by people who rely on niche features related specifically to RT/RD. To me it is useless. I rather use a 12 year old Cakewalk Sonar than RB as a DAW.

December 2018 (2019 edition) - I opened RB for 15 minutes, closed it.
December 2019 (2020 edition) I opened RB for 5 minutes, closed it.
It is ages behind leading DAWs.

To be fair, I respect your passion, and who knows, maybe one day RB will become something more. I think PG has to keep program patched and running to keep loyal base in check, but for most people I think preferred way would be BIAB + VST Plugin and their DAW of choice.
-------
How do I see the future of PG software....ideally
A standalone BIAB, with re-designed, modern, MoDuLaR GUI, clean-easy to understand menus.
With features that actually work out of the box as intended, WITHOUT user suggested workaround acrobatics.

and VST plugin, that would have at least 85% features of the BIAB standalone.
Right now, after a year, VST is still not stable, which is a shame, but hopefully it will build proper muscles. On the VST note: Dear developers, if nobody mentioned this to you, I will. The transport buttons on VST plugin are UGLY! smile

---------------------------
One last looong thought. I think one of the biggest issues with PG is that people who are responsible for design are not trained in this field or just do it "on the side". There was an issue raised recently and some folks voiced concern about "fresh" blood using PG products to keep it healthy...
I am "semi-fresh" member, probably upper 25% of the age group of users. I dumped the program about 10 years ago when I first tried it, because it was a scary looking beast... And almost dumped it couple of years back. I stayed only because of several dedicated key members of the forum helped me to cut through the fat....
There were touchscreen phones way before ip*ones. They used to be called Pocket PCs with modems. Steve Jops, stole the idea, calling it "revolutionary" by paying pennies to designer J. Ive to make old concept look like a candy. He is probably smiling in his grave now. Kindly stay focused it is a single thought, I am almost done.
What I am trying to say, looks sell. PG should hire (or consult!) somebody who is good with design. I believe new kids are just scared of one million menus of BIAB and mid 90s looks of some items. Me, I am old enough to remember black and white TVs and rotary phones - I will survive smile But to get things appealing to younger folks MAKE THE GUI AND WORKFLOW WORTH THE YEAR 2020! smile

More customers=healthy product, right?
Posted by: Matt Finley

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 07:50 AM

I think you make a good point. We experienced users make the program work just fine, but to someone looking at the program for the first time (especially younger users), what do they think? Will they even give it your 5 minutes? Are they willing to overlook the appearance to find the extraordinary content and features in BIAB?

You are not the first to raise this issue. It goes back decades.

I'm almost 70 now, well within the estimate demographic discussed on another recent thread. I've performed professionally since age 12. But I spent a career teaching computer science to younger people, so I hope the aging disease was slowed a bit.

Posted by: TheMaartian

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 08:08 AM

SONAR went through the GUI update (their Skylight UI). It took a LOT of time and updates before it became stable. Lots of peeps stayed on SONAR 8.5 while the X1/X2/X3 versions worked their way toward stability.

What you're asking for is an almost complete rewrite of BiaB. While I'd LOVE to have a modern UI, I don't want it devolving into a bug-ridden mess.

What might be more doable is putting a modern GUI in the VST. That, along with Studio One (or Reaper, or your DAW of choice), could become a great solution.
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 08:26 AM

TheMaartian, I am not asking for anything. I am voicing my thoughts smile
My opinion, It should not be the item to "ask for" It should be obvious as bright sunny day to developers and whoever manages marketing at PG that design and workflow is way outdated. If they do not see that, maybe they need to consult somebody who knows about the design.

"I don't want it devolving into a bug-ridden mess." If proper person/people are hired that would be a non-issue.

Kids will not fall for XX New Features thing, it has to at least look and feel clean to them.

Your "mentioning" of X1...We are talking about 9(Nine) year old software here, which is like 25 in "human years" smile Still I would use that instead of RB.
Posted by: sixchannel

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 08:29 AM

On a personal level I wouldnt mind BB and RB being SPLIT. Shock, Horror!!!
I know that RB has some whistles and bells to manipulate further the BB files but as a 'Hobbyist' I find it horrible to use.
So - give me a full house but cut price BB and I'll carry on using my ancient old DAW.
Develop RB as a Full Professional DAW that everyone whinges on about RB NOT being and let them pay for it.

Ian
Posted by: Charlie Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 08:53 AM

My thought is rather than throw out the total uniqueness of BIAB/RB combo to downgrade it to fit into the framework of all the other audio DAW's, editors and accompaniment software programs, develop BIAB/RB combo on a path to maintain its uniqueness and strengths. Ascribing to a goal of being in the middle of the pack as an average DAW doesn't appear to be the greatest business model to me. The only factor to set a BIAB DAW apart from any other DAW is the presence of BIAB. We already have that. We can merge any and every conceivable arrangement of a BIAB audio render or midi file into any existing DAW today so what's the accomplishment? In addition, we now have the VST.

All the references to Studio One showcases some great examples to not travel this "to be just like" pathway. The latest S1-4.6 release obsoleted previous integration with Ampire as well as its own Channel Strip. Open projects from earlier versions won't work without 'workarounds' and Presonus's highly popular VSL software was obsoleted in earlier releases. Today, most of the Presonus early mixers are incompatible with the latest S1 release. There's a pattern of obsolescence not only with Studio One but with most other Software DAWs.

A logical growth path for BIAB would be to partner with a digital mixer manufacturer. There are many but I'll use Behringer as an example because their vast variety of x-series mixers that range from the $250 USD XR-12 to the full featured, full size X32 and all of these variations and models share the same OS platform allowing users to select devices for their personal needs and preferences.

Adding an HDMI and additional USB input to the hardware would allow for the software and OS development of connecting a BIAB External hard drive and running BIAB program integrated with the on board OS and without the need of a computer. Engineering RealBand to operate with midi control would allow BIAB/RB to operate from a X-touch and the artist/producer/arranger/live performer would have a completely self contained, in the box, Band in a Box.

Scaled versions (ie: small, unexpandable and built in DAW's) are hot sellers today and the market is rapidly expanding with Zoom, Tascam, Yamaha, Soundcraft, Mackie, and Behringer to name a few manufacturers producing units similar to the Tascam DP-24 multitrack, Tascam Model 24 digital Mixer, Zoom UI24 and L-12/20 digital mixers.

Presonus comes very close with its integration of StudioLive digital mixers DAW mode and also the tight integration between the Faderport 8 and 16 with the pre-amp audio interfaces like the Studio 192, Quatum and 1824/1810
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 11:13 AM

Ok,
I must admit, I might sounded a bit harsh.
The GUI on full screen of BIAB is almost ok looking from first sight.

I do believe it still needs scaling / modular approach., where user can design and save the workspace (upper tool part) which includes the items to be displayed, their custom sizes, etc. I would allow for double the size for tools at full screen to be at user disposal.

Mixer is another story...I will mention only visual part of it. User Videotrack showed an idea of auto-hiding mixer some time ago. So far, I was not able to see or come up with a better idea. Sorry, I can not find the post...

Menus have to be groomed and sorted better. Seems like they are scattered everywhere. Some roundness in menu styles and less of 90s look would help visually.

These are very doable things and out of all complex items on the lists are probably the less time consuming.
Posted by: LtKojak

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 01:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Rob Helms
I never said BiaB should be or is a DAW the quote was “RB/PTPA”

You're asking PG to catch up ten years of DAW technology R&D in RB for no money. Also, BIAB actually IS BIAB+RB. So, the message it's IMPLIED.

Originally Posted By: Rob Helms
you are right that the RB/PTPA program need some catch up I don’t think it is a far off as you think.

I completely disagree. Hell, RB 2020's not even 64bit, for pete's sake!

Originally Posted By: Rob Helms
As far as RB/PTPA being a full DAW, in my opinion they already are.

Yes, but the competition is light years ahead and some are even free. You're asking PG to re-invent the wheel for no money. Not going to happen, not now, not ever.
Originally Posted By: Rob Helms
There is very little that they can’t do.

Then you either don't know what the competition can already do better, some even for free to boot, or your needs are way more simple and modest than the average DAW user.

Originally Posted By: Rob Helms
I see RB/PTPA as a potential goldmine.

Based on what exactly? Explain it to me, as I don't see it AT ALL.

Originally Posted By: Rob Helms
Yes it needs some love, hard work, upgrading.

Do you have any idea at all how much does it cost software development? Based on your statements, I'm pretty sure you have no idea whatsoever.

Originally Posted By: Rob Helms
I saw what Presonus did with Kristal audio a few years back.

Fifteen years, to be precise.

Originally Posted By: Rob Helms
RB/PTPA Are way ahead of that program

You're kidding, right? RIGHT?

Originally Posted By: Rob Helms
I have to believe RB/PTPA would not take that long to advance.

Your heart certainly is the right place, Rob. The rest, not quite...

Originally Posted By: Rob Helms
I have used Bandlab, RB, PT, Reaper, Sonar, MTS, Protools, and prefer Studio one to them all. RB/PTPA can be far more than it is, and if for some reason there are things we don’t know that would keep that from happening then the other route could be to develop an open source product along these lines.

While RB is deeply connected to BiaB, PTPA is not, it is a separate program that was used to create RB. What would prevent PGM from leaving RB as it is and giving PTPA the focus and bringing it into the future as a top DAW to compete with Studio one and the others. What have they got to lose? It is a $49 product. What if it was completely overhauled and became a $299 product with annual upgrade fee of $99 or $129 that more than doubles the annual take on that product, more importantly it could bring in some of the folks that use are BiaB users who then go to other DAW products. Keep some of those folks here.

With PTPA development the plugin could be integrated into its core. BiaB files could be the native format. With upgraded automation, more flexible routing and bussing capabilities, some updates to the midi engine, more features in the audio editing window, a new set of plugins with sidechaining, rewire to link directly with BiaB, ARA integration for things like Melodyne, Plugin 3.0 with deeper generation capabilities, a nice modern look. PTPA would be really attractive to a lot of people.

Rob, you're a romantic. Keep on dreaming!
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 01:37 PM

Awesome dialog folks. It is interesting to hear the different views. Of course none of us know where things will go, but if we hold open conversations where nobody’s views are wrong but just ideas at the least PGM know what users think. I try to remember that those who post here regularly are a small cross section of users.

A couple responses to others, Charlie I still have a older VSL interface 1818 it still works perfectly in S1 4.6, but I understand what you mean by things slowly becoming obsolete. Secondly rustyspoon, as far as the plugin not being stable. I find it is very stable, yes there are a few features not working properly like the RCs from the RDs, however it works in Reaper but not Studio one. For me in studio one other than that it works pretty good. What does it need? Complete integration of BiaB intro/endings, hold and shots, a few other updates, and such then give us solo/mute buttons as pipeline diagrams. It would be a pretty cool plugin.

Maybe a BiaB/RB split is not possible, maybe it is. I don’t know the dynamics of that. That is one reason I mentioned ramping up PT development. Here’s one of the first programs build after BiaB. Sure it is dated to some degree. Still it has good bones. Midi, audio, BiaB files can be opened and it is not tethered totally to BiaB. The midi could use a bit of modern features, the audio editing window could use some updating, the plugins work but could use some updating. The mixer view and the tracks view are the ones needing a ton of work.

Tracks view: Toss out the 48 track limit. Delete the 48 tracks showing. Allow the user to add tracks as needed like all other DAWs. Three types midi, mono and stereo audio.

Mixer view: Chuck the 8 aux busses, and FX busses . Clean it all out. Nothing showing but the main output buss, redesigned with pre and post fader output. Allow individual Channels to appear when added by user from either of the two views, give them both FX inserts or sends to busses. Allow stereo or mono busses to be added per user need. Allow busses have inserted FX, or sends to other busses or outboard hardware

Modernize the GUI, and update the automation to work like other DAWs. Now you can record fader movement, change that to a more visual system like node based products. Develop plugin automation in the same vein. If you own BiaB and the new redesigned PT, then PT could access the RT/RD folders, or those that do not want to buy BiaB, could purchase PT packages that include RT/RDs. Allowing the new plugin version (3.0) that is built in and used a one click to open/close, to access these files.

Anyway it happens it should be fun to watch and use. Let’s never stop imagining what can be both with BiaB and with all things we enjoy in life.


Okay to dramatic, a little over the top? Hey I enjoyed writing it anyway. Hope your all having a great Sunday afternoon.
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 02:05 PM

Pepe, I do understand what is at stake in development. I also understand that it take time. I also know what the others do and don’t do well I have been doing this for better than 20 years. I have spent quality time with several DAWs, PTPA, Cakewalk MC versions 1,2,3,5, Sonar X1, Multitrackstudios, Reaper, Studio one from version 2 through 4.6. I also spent two solid years using RB as my full time DAW. Yes I agree it lacks a few modern features, but unlike someone who earlier said they spend 15 minutes with one version, and 5 with another I used the tar out of it. It is different, and as said some things are either missing or underdeveloped. There is a lot more under the hood than given credit for. I did over 100 projects in RB. As for 64 bit, that does not make a DAW light years “better” than a 32 bit DAW. 64 bit does not make anything sound better. It just allow the system to run faster on a 64 bit OS.

I might be a dreamer, and a romantic as you say. But I will never change. I believe that with dreaming comes ideas, and ideas breed excellence. PG music at one point dreamed up a fantastic product that gives many people the opportunity to create their dreams, be they hobbies, professions, or whatever. With more dreams, and hard work more dreams can come to fruition. Let the dreamers dream, and the creators create.
Posted by: edshaw

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 03:17 PM

Should be enough challenges in the core competency, composition, to keep PGM busy for the foreseeable future. Haven't seen much in the way of hip hop or rap in the user forum. Listening to the radio, disco changed but never really died, in fact, seems stronger than ever. Composers today are weaving ever more complex rhythmic structures and patterns, beats, and not just with the skins -- any sonic is fair game for today's rhythm kings. That's just one of the six basic components : strings, guitars, bass, piano, drums, melody. I understand, PMG does not want to risk abandoning their base -- folk, rock, country, blues, other 12 bar 1-4-5 forms, a base for which BiaB has been a dream come true.
What has the digital DAW brought to the table? Well, first off, synchronicity. Then, split, copy, and paste. Add search, precision, effects.
If I could ask for anything on BiaB, it would be an enhanced digital readout.
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 03:35 PM

cool ideas Ed. I don't see BiaB chasing this path, but who knows. especially if more folks request it. With real drums/tracks anything is possible even with out editing the audio.

To me this is more suited to a true DAW. Where audio editing is available in many forms and tracks.

I guess DAW is a subjective phrase it is simply a Digital Audio Work Station. by the words Biab qualifies, however around here most folks tend to think of a DAW as a typical recording studio software.
Posted by: Brian Hughes

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 03:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Matt Finley
Thanks, everyone. When we have a DAW that, like MuseScore, reads BIAB native files and actually reads the chords, then we'll have something.

But how about Music XML? If you Save Special a BIAB song as Music XML, will Studio One read those chords directly (not just 'interpret')? Will any other DAW you know do that? My question is prompted by learning Studio One has a separate chords track, which I would find valuable enough to learn another DAW for IF it reads the BIAB chords directly. Thanks.


Matt as far as I know Studio One cannot directly do this. How ever I am able to import the BIAB XML into Presonus Notion and send it directly to Studio One and have Studio One's chord track analyze it. Here is a picture of the BIAB song file called ADESTE which I saved as a XML file and imported into Notion then sent to Studio One. Notion & Studio One work together in case you are not aware of that.
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 03:53 PM

That is cool info Brian, thanks.
Posted by: VideoTrack

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 04:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
Ok,
...User Videotrack showed an idea of auto-hiding mixer some time ago. So far, I was not able to see or come up with a better idea. Sorry, I can not find the post...



I think this is the post?
Posted by: JohnJohnJohn

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 05:24 PM

Not sure who deleted my post on this thread but I'm gonna repeat myself (and prolly others as well!)

Realband development should be halted immediately and it should only be supported as a legacy product. All resources should be put toward the flagship products, BIAB and RealTracks! Spend time fixing bugs in BIAB and enhancing it with features like true inline bar-by-bar regeneration, more than 4 beats per measure, extending the 255 bar limit, allowing more tracks, etc.

Realband has just a single feature that is better than other DAWs and that is the ability to use RealTracks. Without that there would be absolutely no reason to use it. It was a nice effort by PGM but there are FAR BETTER DAWs available cheap or even free! I would bet money they don't have a single Realband user who chose it as their DAW separate from buying BIAB.

Realband could never stand alone as a product so don't continue to invest limited valuable resources in reinventing a wheel that already exists far beyond what you can create! Improve BIAB instead!
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 05:56 PM

Thanks JJJ for weighing in. Every opinion is valid. I agree with you in part. BiaB should fix the old nagging issues. 255, 4 beats etc. Bar by bar is a cool idea.
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 07:01 PM

JJJ,
I agree that resources have to go to places needed most and with most of other points you made. Except, I would prefer "selected bar freeze and re-generate un-frozen" approach instead of bar by bar. I believe there is more control over the arrangement this way.

VideoTrack,
your link to post says:
Access denied...
Posted by: VideoTrack

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 07:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
VideoTrack,
your link to post says:
Access denied...

Unusual, it is a link to a PG Music Forum page.

Try this:

https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=567118&Searchpage=1&Main=80045&Words=VSTAnimation_5.gif&Search=true#Post567118
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 07:21 PM

Videotrack:
still: Access denied.
Return to the previous page.

Maybe they are doing something with server, which is not uncommon on weekends.
Posted by: VideoTrack

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 08:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
Videotrack:
still: Access denied.
Return to the previous page.

Maybe they are doing something with server, which is not uncommon on weekends.

Not sure, it's working for me.
Are you logged in when trying? - (only a guess)
Anyone else have issues?
Posted by: Matt Finley

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 08:57 PM

It works here.
Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 09:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Matt Finley
Kojack, I haven’t tried Presonus Studio One in years. Does it pick up the chords from BIAB?


If you don't use the Plugin just use it to transfer the chords from your SGU into the DAW.
Studio One Chords from Biab Plugin

Biab Plugin Chords to Reaper

Until I get around to doing the Cubase just generate up a held chord midi track, drag into Cubase and Cubase will get the chords.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pup364svAo
Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 09:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
Videotrack:
still: Access denied.
Return to the previous page.

Maybe they are doing something with server, which is not uncommon on weekends.


If you right right click the little yellow icon in front of the post tittle copy link location.
https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=567118#Post567118
Posted by: JohnJohnJohn

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 10:17 PM

Originally Posted By: VideoTrack
Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
Videotrack:
still: Access denied.
Return to the previous page.

Maybe they are doing something with server, which is not uncommon on weekends.

Not sure, it's working for me.
Are you logged in when trying? - (only a guess)
Anyone else have issues?

Doesn't work for me either.
Posted by: VideoTrack

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 11:18 PM

Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
Doesn't work for me either.

Hmmm, have you guys been good for Santa? Stuff like this happens, you know grin
Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/22/19 11:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
Ok,
...User Videotrack showed an idea of auto-hiding mixer some time ago. So far, I was not able to see or come up with a better idea. Sorry, I can not find the post...


https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=567118#Post567118
Originally Posted By: VideoTrack
Very easy to achieve with a little bit of code like this. Introduce and retract at will:




https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=362260#Post362260

Originally Posted By: VideoTrack
Originally Posted By: Pipeline
"it would be great if you can redesign the GUI. In this state it looks old-fashionned, more like a random collection of functions and is therefore not very productive.

Here's where we are really working from the same page. I've put a big effort into promoting ideas for changes that the UI desperately needs.



I won't pretend. It reeks of legacy DOS and still has some clumsy non-intuitive menus. From the sample concept I prepared, barely a word has been sent in reply from PGM Staff.

There's a time-warp thing happening here, and it's holding the product back.

This is not just my view. I can demonstrate other real-world statements that have been mentioned where sales are jeopardized because new and potential users are simply put off by the appearance.

Sometimes you have to be direct, because being blunt and direct is the best way to be. The product is great, and is being improved all of the time. The single feature that desperately needs attention is the UI.

Fresh new inspiration is seriously needed.

Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/23/19 01:08 AM

Yeah, here it is! Thank you pipeline!
(Link still does not want to work for me)


Devs of PG, please look at this! Maybe some buttons & elements can have more modern appeal and position, but the concept Videotrack came up with is brilliant! This was posted 4+ years back.

If you think you can do better, prove it!
Posted by: LtKojak

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/23/19 05:22 AM

Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
Realband development should be halted immediately and it should only be supported as a legacy product.

Check.

Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
All resources should be put toward the flagship products, BIAB and RealTracks!

Check.

Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
Spend time fixing bugs in BIAB and enhancing it with features like true inline bar-by-bar regeneration, more than 4 beats per measure, extending the 255 bar limit, allowing more tracks, etc.

Check.

Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
I would bet money they don't have a single Realband user who chose it as their DAW separate from buying BIAB.

I don't think you can buy RB as a separate program.

Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
Realband could never stand alone as a product

I concur.

Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
don't continue to invest limited valuable resources in reinventing a wheel that already exists far beyond what you can create! Improve BIAB instead!

Yep, that's the bottom line. Just put RB out of its misery and start developing BIAB, specially the VST, and team up with Presonus, Cakewalk and/or Reaper (those are the biggest DAW communities in the world) with the ultimate goal of Integration.

3xJohn: you know what they say: "Great Minds Think Alike"! cool

Yours very truly,
Posted by: MarioD

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/23/19 06:57 AM

I think PGMusic should incorporate some if not all of Pipeline's ideas. His GUI is exactly how a contemporary GUI should look.
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/23/19 07:47 AM

Mario you mean VideoTrack's idea?
Pipeline revived the thread that was possibly unavailable to naughty users...

Posted by: EdZ314

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/23/19 03:20 PM

Pretty slick GUI setup, and impressive demo! Totally in agreement on the DOS aspect of the interface. Most of the younger crowd will have no clue what DOS was, but they will immediately be put off by anything with an "old school" look and feel, even if the thing could cook your breakfast and vacuum your floors.

I'm sure that PG Music is aware of the dilemma, and I'm good with the product for a couple years unless someone comes along with something better and that doesn't cost buco bucks.

I am very happy that the product continues to receive good support and bugfixes for the most important issues, and that there's a very active (but seemingly rather small) community of enthusiastic and talented folks here.
Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/23/19 05:59 PM

I tried for years n years n years to get RealBand better, I don't think that's gonna happen now as the Biab Plugin has killed that, why buy RealBand Ultra 64bit when you can have the Biab Plugin in you favorite DAW ? that energy would be better served in the Plugin.
You could of had a RealBand Ultra 64bit DAW that you would buy as it would of been the ONLY DAW with RealTracks/Drum etc.. generation directly in the DAW.
So that horse has bolted as we just get a couple of little things added each year to it, as we now we have a Plugin because of JJJ's original idea and then I just push that idea a fairrrrrrr bit and suggested ways to implement it.
I was a real nag to get VST transport SYNC implemented.

Yes concentrate on BB and the Plugin.
255 bar limit more, chords per bar, as Yul would say etc.. etc.. etc.. I've typed it all out sooooooooooooo many times.... I'm just so worn out from nagging 10 or more years on, I used to be MR Nice Guy believe it or not.


Posted by: MarioD

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/23/19 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Pipeline
I tried for years n years n years to get RealBand better, I don't think that's gonna happen now as the Biab Plugin has killed that, why buy RealBand Ultra 64bit when you can have the Biab Plugin in you favorite DAW ? that energy would be better served in the Plugin.
You could of had a RealBand Ultra 64bit DAW that you would buy as it would of been the ONLY DAW with RealTracks/Drum etc.. generation directly in the DAW.
So that horse has bolted as we just get a couple of little things added each year to it, as we now we have a Plugin because of JJJ's original idea and then I just push that idea a fairrrrrrr bit and suggested ways to implement it.
I was a real nag to get VST transport SYNC implemented.

Yes concentrate on BB and the Plugin.
255 bar limit more, chords per bar, as Yul would say etc.. etc.. etc.. I've typed it all out sooooooooooooo many times.... I'm just so worn out from nagging 10 or more years on, I use to be MR Nice Guy believe it or not.




I hear ya! You still are Mr. Nice Guy!
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/23/19 08:37 PM

I would actually support this path as long as two things happen. (Not that my support really matters)

1. That the development of BiaB is to get done things long ask for 255 bar limit, and not 50 new but poorly executed features. I’m all for really pouring resources in RT/RD development. That is actually why I continue to purchase the package.

2. Actually complete the plugin. Get everything planned working flawlessly. Implement pipelines Solo/mute/play idea. Make the real charts work in all DAWs. Lose the demo thing, it is like socks on a rooster.

Look I have said in several threads my feeling regarding RB/PT it seems like many don’t care. Just don’t be short sighted there are many who love and use it. But if this is as good as it is going to get so be it.

PLEASE COMPLETE THE DAW PLUGIN IT IS SO CLOSE. Make version 2 what everyone hoped for.
Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 12:00 AM

Originally Posted By: MusicStudent
....but our grandchildren and their children will have a blast with the new GUI.

lol lol lol you have my sense of humor !
I'll have to reincarnate for that.

Aspire to Inspire before you Expire.

I tried very hard for a new RealBand 64bit C++ way back here
https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=327412
I suggested to reprogram the old Delphi (8.3 255) to cross-platform C++ this would give Win/Mac at the same time like other cross-apps.
Adar has the plugin in C++ and seems to be able to quickly port the fixes/features both ways so they look identical and have the identical features.
Posted by: LtKojak

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 01:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Pipeline
I suggested to reprogram the old Delphi (8.3 255) to cross-platform C++

Yeah, with the ultimate result of scaring the crap out the developers...

I'm kidding, I'm kidding... but... am I...? confused
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 03:54 AM

I got a little upset with 2020. I was hoping that after 64bit/VST push, there will be a progress made to GUI/Menu cleanup etc. And there was close to none...

I just think some PG devs do not understand the power of good visual design and workflow.
I am very sure that outdated design and ancient type menus are keeping younger folks / new users away. Sadly, it seems devs will never fully understand that. So in my mind there is only two solutions.

1) Bring a talented designer who knows a bit about ergonomics and let him/her "show the way" to make things pleasant looking and pleasant to work with.
2)Talk to people on this forum and gather best ideas and just make them happen.

My 3 cents: No matter what direction of "design" BIAB will take, it has to be modular and scalable (see Cakewalk!) Where each user can design his/her workspace to their liking. If some really like the old 90's style, let them have the "90s template", but do not make everyone else "enjoy" this. Modular is a future proof (design) concept, as it gives user direct control over their workspace.

Also, as a part of yearly package, couple of "NEW template features" can be included, these would be the easiest couple of "features" to make for the iconic "50" smile

Ok, I will stop bragging now.
P.S. The RTs/RDs are great on 2020!
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 05:31 AM

Rustyspoon the more I think about what you call modular design the more I see what you are saying. I would support that, as long as it is simple and easy to use. I would hate it if many of the tools were so hidden I couldn’t find them with out a search warrant.

I do like videotracks GUI idea. It is simple and effective. Clean and neat.

One sad thing to me is here we are in the 2nd year of development and the plugin, thanks JJJ and Pipeline for this by the way. But here we are and it is still lacking some basic features needed When JJJ first wanted this I thought it might be a bad idea, for the same reasons that BiaB still has issue from the past.

Let me explain why I have resisted many of you guys ideas for major change. It is not because I think the ideas don’t have merit. Basically it is history of the DAWs I have used. My first full featured DAW was cakewalk music creator 1 then 2, 3, 5 they were decent. Then 1 upgraded to Sonar X1 thru those years I watch the users beg, fight, fuss, clamor for constant change to fit their viewpoint. It was always “ if it had this feature or that feature” or “if it looked or functioned like this program or that one” year after year and with each release the program became more and more bloated and buggy. So that I moved on as did many others.

With the Sonar X series one big grip was they wanted it to look different, so it did, then the fussing began about how many didn’t like it, and couldn’t find anything. Begging please for more changes. I would hate to see BiaB go down that rabbit hole, especially since it it a Faaaaaaaaar more complicated program than Sonar was/is. So I urge Simplicity and caution be careful what you ask for.

With that said I hope PGM does move toward simplifying the GUI going forward, and does fix the nagging old issues before adding any new features.

To me after listening to each user in this thread the focus should be

1. Fix bugs and limitations from the past. Redesign the GUI but carefully not radically.

2. Complete a fully working VSTi plugin (it is sooooo close)
255 bar limit, RC working, better visual on Solo/mute, no demo button,
Complete holds, shots, etc. make it read all .sgu/mgu file correctly
(Pipeline’s ideas) anything else can be for version 3

3. Focus on adding to and diversify the RT/RD development
The addition of Real Charts to RDs is brilliant and should be continued vigorously. This is a way to give those who want to mix multitrack drums the option I personally like that.

I don’t agree with completely suspending RB/PT dev. Stick Jeff Y in a back Room and let him roll up his sleeves and dig in. Start from scratch, leave the current programs as is for those who use them daily like silvertones. But to create a new modern DAW. I would love to see PT become a profit maker.

I want to thanks all who participated in this excellent discussion.
Posted by: Matt Finley

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 08:03 AM

Ha. Couldn’t find anything in the rewrite of SONAR? Been there.

When PG Music did revise the GUI two years ago, they thoughtfully left the old one and provided buttons and Ctrl+T until we could adapt to the new one. I haven’t looked back since, but it’s nice to know I could. I realize that wasn’t the serious GUI redo many want, but the approach to implementation was the right idea.
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 08:12 AM

Matt, only modular and scalable GUI will stop the GUI questions /requests for "good" because anyone would be able to make / design their screen set the way they see fit. At least the front page (THE FACE of BIAB!)
P.S. I would love to have an auto-hide items too as Videotrack suggested. I thought it was a very neat idea.
Posted by: Matt Finley

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 09:08 AM

Oh, yes, a very old request.

Yes, VideoTrack has some outstanding ideas in his video.
Posted by: jazzmammal

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 11:22 AM

Interesting thread, also a very old and been there, done that thread. These ideas go back 10-15 years. I think Sixchannel represents the vast majority of current users. It's hard to come up with a number but my gut tells me it's like 80-90%. Iow, nobody cares about all these high level enhancements.

They want it simple, they're not studio pros, they're just having fun at home making some music. The more stuff that gets added the less the average user wants it. Standard users don't want or need a stupid DAW! How many users on the forums comment they've never even looked at RB and don't use a DAW? Many, many of them. Biab as it is is plenty good enough.

This is the way it has been and is the way it is now. However, what about the future? That's a very good question and I have talked about that many times. It was mentioned that S1, Cakewalk and Cubase is the majority of DAW users. I doubt that but can't prove it. I know at the pro studio level Pro Tools still has that market locked up. I watched a two hour vid about 4 years ago launching Ableton Live 9 and they were congratulating themselves for reaching the 7 million user mark. They were bragging they were the largest home studio DAW worldwide but of course that's the company saying that so who knows? 7 million is a lot of users.

That got me into investigating exactly what Ableton Live is and how it's used. It's all about live DJ's doing huge live shows remixing existing hit song tracks given by other stars specifically for that purpose. What us grandpa's don't get is they're not remixing at home and simply playing the track at a show. No, the remixing IS the show! That's what the audience came to see. One DJ doing his take on those tracks. Another DJ will do it totally differently and that's the show. That kind of thing is about as far from what users use Biab for as you can get.

As much as I've tried I cannot see any kind of way Biab could be used for that kind of EDM, Hip Hip, Trance remixing kind of stuff. Ableton was purpose built for that. The plugin could be useful to create some new source tracks but man, the kids already have an incredible pool of possible source tracks already, I kinda doubt they need Biab for more. As for popularity, when I go on trips to resorts a couple of times a year, I check out the clubs in the resort, in town or on a cruise ship. It's all that kind of EDM dance music. I mean 100%.

I will specifically talk to millenials about this because they know I'm a musician and if I express a sincere respectful interest and not have an attitude, they will open up and talk about it. I can even name drop some famous DJ's and discuss them. When they say they're going to a dance club, EDM and current pop music is all there is, period. When we say on this forum there's no more venues to play, they've all dried up that's true for us. Not true for them. There are tons of dance clubs all over the place, just not our kind of dance clubs.

My opinion about Biab? I think PGM has a great niche in traditional songs using traditional instruments. That market is small in percentage when compared to the huge overall music market but still large enough to have a viable business going forward. There is enough of those types of songs on the current Billboard Top 100 to make Biab useful to younger people. Here's the problem though.

Young people think Biab is being used in nursing homes or something. All it's good for is for grandpa to mess around with ancient music styles in his retirement. If a 25 year old visits this forum what do they see? Exactly that, a whole bunch of retired grandpas talking about 50 year old music.

Somehow, at some time in the future the GUI must be modernized like we've all said. I completely agree the plugin is the future not RB. I think RB is pretty good, I don't see all the issues others talk about and I use it a lot but I'm definitely in the minority there.

The website must be modernized to feature modern styles and all the demos must be modernized to reflect modern musical tastes and feature young people creating modern songs. They can still talk about all the classic styles we all love but it can't be the primary focus, the modern styles must come first. That will completely alienate all of us grandpa's out there who hate most modern music.

That's the tightrope PG is walking right now and that's my heavily discounted 2 cents.

Bob
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 02:27 PM

Bob,
fun read / perspective. This:
"Young people think Biab is being used in nursing homes or something" LOL!!! This is funny, but so not true!

Masters and craftsman of live music art, will remain masters. These are folks who are on the Real Tracks and Drums. There will always be a demand for good Rock, Pop, Country, Jazz, Latin and other genres. Maybe new "styles" of music pushed them aside a little, but it is just a hype thing. I predict in relatively short time all that EDM stuff will just become another genre....Like Disco for example.

Here is an example of reverse tendency. When many thought the age of the rock was rolling down, Nirvana emerged. I do not believe that Cobain "invented" something new. Stuff was there for at least a couple of decades, but he made those kids listen! And hundreds of alike bands started to play "similar" music in their garages. That passion lasted for quite some time, and many great Rock bands came out from that period. Maybe I am wrong, but it seemed to me that even dusted titans of Rock like Aerosmith, Metallica, Guns&Roses returned to their glossy state.

It is like if you eat potato chips and drink soda, over time and when your belly starts to ache, you will develop cravings for carrots and celery. And wise versa, when you eat healthy, there is always a craving for a tasty slice of pizza. Pendulum.

Mario, from the forum, said something in another topic that got stock in my head: Cross Pollination. I think that this phrase is the Future Of BIAB (and Plugin).

I am sorry, but I will repeat myself(like a broken record smile ), not for the forum members, but in hope that somebody from PG will read it. Tracks / your session musicians are amazing and unique, functionality is 85% there. Your interface is scaring people away. Fix it for good. Make it flexible and attractive and you will see more traffic. The strangest thing to me is that usually it is the other way around. A pretty looking piece of software lacks the core "features". BIAB has more than enough features, but lacks ergonomics and looks.

Happy Holidays!
Posted by: Noel96

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 02:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Matt Finley
When PG Music did revise the GUI two years ago, they thoughtfully left the old one and provided buttons and Ctrl+T until we could adapt to the new one. I haven’t looked back since, but it’s nice to know I could.

I'm on the other side of that coin, Matt. I prefer the older view and I occasionally venture into the full-screen mode.

Noel
Posted by: Sergino

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 03:10 PM

I have read the first 3 pages of answers to this post, so I don't know if anybody else alredy said this: the future of Biab is some sort of implementation-integration with ARA. Studio One was the first using it with Melodyne. All the non-professional or at least less exigent can use RealBand just as it is now. But I hope PG-Music won't lose time updating it as it would be useless for everybody. Developing an ARA compatible BIAB would be the future as a DAW like Studio One would become RealBand on steroyds.
Posted by: jazzmammal

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 03:33 PM

I know nothing about ARA so I just looked it up. Wikipedia says this:

Audio Random Access (commonly abbreviated to ARA) is an extension for audio plug-in interfaces, such as AU, VST and RTAS, allowing them to exchange a greater amount of audio information with digital audio workstation (DAW) software. It was developed in a collaboration between Celemony Software and PreSonus.

ARA increases the amount of communication possible between digital audio workstation (DAW) software and a plug-in, allowing them to exchange key information, such as audio data, tempo, pitch, and rhythm, for an entire song, rather than just at the moment of playback.

This increased amount of information exchange, and availability of data from other points in time, removes the need for audio material to be transferred to & from the plug-in, allowing that plug-in to be used as a more closely integrated part of the DAW's overall interface


Others have mentioned how cool ARA is. Here's the question, if it was specifically developed by PreSonus and Celemony, how would PG get involved? Is it open source even though it's a private collaboration between two companies or is it available under license or what?

The next obvious question is what programming changes would be necessary for Biab to take advantage of this even if it is made available either for free or at a cost that PG would consider to be affordable?

Bob
Posted by: MarioD

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 04:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Sergino
I have read the first 3 pages of answers to this post, so I don't know if anybody else alredy said this: the future of Biab is some sort of implementation-integration with ARA. Studio One was the first using it with Melodyne. All the non-professional or at least less exigent can use RealBand just as it is now. But I hope PG-Music won't lose time updating it as it would be useless for everybody. Developing an ARA compatible BIAB would be the future as a DAW like Studio One would become RealBand on steroyds.


Are you sure about Studio One was the first using it with Melodyne? I was using Melodyne vai ARA in Sonar before I even knew Studio One existed.
Posted by: Teunis

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 04:20 PM

ARA is a way for say a VST to speak to a DAW. ARA is supported by quite a number of DAWs these days.

In the past for example to use Melodyne on a track one would need to play the track and capture the audio in Melodyne. With ARA one can simply add Melodyne as a VST and open up the track for editing. You hear the track through Melodyne.

See https://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/celemony-explains-ara-new-vst-au-rtas-plug-in-extension-506999

This has a fairly good explanation of ARA. Once again a tool for a particular type of use. In this case an interface standard between the VST and the DAW as I understand it.

Tony
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 04:58 PM

I am totally confused and curious.
I was poking at Melodyne some time ago. I ended up of not using it. As I understand it is mostly for shifting correcting pitch timing and few other things of this nature.

If my thinking is correct, why do we need it for BIAB? Would it be possible to use ARA in a DAW after the track export (through Plugin or by importing WAVs)?

Can not make the connection...how would it benefit BIAB?
Can somebody please explain in simple terms. Thank you.
Posted by: jazzmammal

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 05:20 PM

It's not in Biab itself, it's the plugin. Read what the quote from Wikipedia says about tempo and timing. ARA allows that info to come over to the DAW immediately not tick by tick as the song is playing as is the case in a standard plugin. That means the whole tempo map question is solved among other things. IF ARA can be made to work in the Biab plugin and IF it doesn't cost too much for licensing or whatever is required to use it.

This is yet another thing that is either a big shrug or vital depending on the user. I still think the vast majority of users are creating standard 4/4 or 3/4 songs at a constant tempo so it's a big shrug for them. For others with varying tempos and even different time sigs in the same song this could be a big deal because my understanding is with ARA in a compatible plugin and DAW that gets mapped up front.

Bob
Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 05:27 PM

Reaper has ARA.

Maybe rather than trying to implement so many things to Biab and drastically changing it would it be easier to bring Biab to the the already implemented, that is the whole idea of the Biab Plugin,
sure it started very basic but the way things are going with the Plugin now and once they get the play from RAM implemented that will be a game changer for it.
I wonder if Adar has a twin brother that is also a programmer ????
that would help move things along as I think he's at it 24/7 now.
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 06:00 PM

Sorry, now I am even more confused.
Wiki says Cakewalk supports ARA since version Version 2019.05

So, the VST Plugin does not have to have the ARA protocol coded "in it" as long as DAW has it
to share as wiki mentions: "key information, such as audio data, tempo, pitch, and rhythm, for an entire song, rather than just at the moment of playback."?
Posted by: Teunis

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 06:31 PM

If my understanding is correct it is a way of standardising the way a DAW speaks to certain VSTs to make the interconnection between processes smoother. I’m too old to get too far into it. For me if a process works then good enough. If something becomes difficult either find a way around it or forget about it.
Posted by: MarioD

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 06:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
I am totally confused and curious.
I was poking at Melodyne some time ago. I ended up of not using it. As I understand it is mostly for shifting correcting pitch timing and few other things of this nature.

If my thinking is correct, why do we need it for BIAB? Would it be possible to use ARA in a DAW after the track export (through Plugin or by importing WAVs)?

Can not make the connection...how would it benefit BIAB?
Can somebody please explain in simple terms. Thank you.


Melodyne is basically a pitch changing program. But it can also lengthen or shorten notes. It is used mostly for vocal tracks but it can be used in any audio track. The more basic versions of Melodyne work with monophonic instruments while the more expensive versions work with polyphonic instruments.

How can it benefit BiaB? If you have say a sax rhythm you like but not the notes. You can change the notes in Melodyne. And/or you can change the length of the notes. You can also take an audio track and convert it to a MIDI track, note that you may lose some of the nuances but they can be added via CCs. If you have a polyphonic audio you can either change the notes and/or the inversion/spacing of the notes. Melodyne can do more but these are the basic functions.

I have done the above with Melodyne in my DAW but I have never used it in BiaB. Maybe others have, don't know.
Posted by: Brian Hughes

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: MarioD
Originally Posted By: Sergino
I have read the first 3 pages of answers to this post, so I don't know if anybody else alredy said this: the future of Biab is some sort of implementation-integration with ARA. Studio One was the first using it with Melodyne. All the non-professional or at least less exigent can use RealBand just as it is now. But I hope PG-Music won't lose time updating it as it would be useless for everybody. Developing an ARA compatible BIAB would be the future as a DAW like Studio One would become RealBand on steroyds.


Are you sure about Studio One was the first using it with Melodyne? I was using Melodyne vai ARA in Sonar before I even knew Studio One existed.


Mario I am positive Presonus and Celemony developed it. It was a joint project.
Posted by: MarioD

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 07:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Brian Hughes
Originally Posted By: MarioD
Originally Posted By: Sergino
I have read the first 3 pages of answers to this post, so I don't know if anybody else alredy said this: the future of Biab is some sort of implementation-integration with ARA. Studio One was the first using it with Melodyne. All the non-professional or at least less exigent can use RealBand just as it is now. But I hope PG-Music won't lose time updating it as it would be useless for everybody. Developing an ARA compatible BIAB would be the future as a DAW like Studio One would become RealBand on steroyds.


Are you sure about Studio One was the first using it with Melodyne? I was using Melodyne vai ARA in Sonar before I even knew Studio One existed.


Mario I am positive Presonus and Celemony developed it. It was a joint project.


OK, thanx for clearing that up for me.
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 07:14 PM

Mario, thanks.
I do get the part how ARA (Melodyne) can be useful on instrumental tracks, I do not get the part how and why it has to be a part of BIAB plugin? In Daw you can simply use Melodyne VST (or similar) on the track you want to edit.

Probably a silly question, just trying to understand.
Posted by: Brian Hughes

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 07:27 PM

As of right now ARA support can be found in most of the major DAWS. Melodyne and Vocal Align are two of the most popular programs that take advantage of the protocol.

You might ask what is the advantage of this? Well what it allows these programs to do is instead of bouncing a track into these programs and then edit it and bounce it all back which typically used to be done in real time took quite a bit of time. Also they were not synced together.
Now you can edit on the fly and no more bouncing the track back and forth like before and everything is in sync. So how would the BIAB VST benefit from this? I would suppose it might be able to regenerate a multi riff directly to the tracks in a DAW. There can be a lot of things possible I suppose.
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 07:40 PM

RSpoon, the reason that Melodyne works like it does in a DAW is because of ARA. Before ARA, Melodyne was not truly integrated. You had to open the wave file in Melodyne. Now you can click on a audio track and edit seemlessly.

I would imagine ARA would make the flow of audio data, like tempo, key, etc smoothly passed between host DAW, and the plugin. Some BiaB tracks i. e. RTs with all the different things involved.

Ya never know what will be added to the plugin in the future.
Posted by: jazzmammal

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 08:00 PM

Rustyspoon, you're combining Melodyne and ARA. They are separate. Melodyne is a plugin while ARA is a protocol that can work with many different plugins. The only connection is the ARA protocol was developed jointly by PreSonus and Celemony (Melodyne) so Melodyne would work much better in Studio One. I bolded that sentence in my Wikipedia quote earlier.

Before you get too excited, the full Melodyne program costs $500 but there may be a sale on since it's Christmas. The most obvious use of Melodyne is vocal correction, it's used all the time for that in studios the world over. Another great use is say you have an otherwise killer piano or guitar track but one chord is a major and you need it to be minor. You can use Melodyne to literally move that note down a half step. The integration with Studio Ones Chord Track is it can make that change for you very similar to how Biab does it. You change the chord in a little box and when you hit Play prestochango, that major chord is now a minor. I'm pretty sure that's due to ARA. You don't need to manually go into the Melodyne plugin itself and make the change S1 does it automatically with Melodyne running in the background. That is definitely moving into Biab territory but S1 doesn't have anything like styles. Yet.

Right now we're talking about the Biab plugin and obviously ARA needs to be programmed into it in order to work, otherwise there's no discussion. ARA works in many DAW's already so if that was not needed we wouldn't be talking about it. In order to work it has to be programmed into both the DAW and the plugin.

Bob
Posted by: Teunis

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 08:07 PM

Once again I point you to https://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/celemony-explains-ara-new-vst-au-rtas-plug-in-extension-506999

This will explain ARA, it’s uses and beginnings.

It really seems all it is simply an interface to allow a DAW to more natively speak to some VSTs. As was said, prior to ARA if you wanted to use Melodyne the track would have to be recorded or copied into Melodyne. With ARA Melodyne simply opens up the track.

Look at the video mentioned in the link above. The designers of ARA understand it better than most.

Tony
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 08:18 PM

Thank you everyone for explanations!
Bob, Ok, now more clear.
Tony, thank you, watched the link.
What got me tripped is that in my understanding, when BIAB is "generating" the track the outcome is not predictable, until it is fully generated. So how can ARA "see" something that is not yet born? Ok... that is technicality smile
So basic understanding is that in theory ARA will help to keep tracks in sync with project -->export them directly to DAW tracks from VST.

I like Mario's real world approach of using melodyne on instrumentals:

"How can it benefit BiaB? If you have say a sax rhythm you like but not the notes. You can change the notes in Melodyne. And/or you can change the length of the notes."

As of now, if a note or chord sticks out from BIAB generated WAVs, in most cases I would just mute them.

P.S. I downloaded a trial of melodyne, will play with it later in the week. I know Sweetwater is running a 1/2 sale on Melodyne packages. Essential is $50.
But as I understand, the Essential version would not do many "essential" things. It has to be Assistant version or higher. Not sure if I need it now, but regardless will have a full free month to play with it smile

Again,
Thank you for your time!
Posted by: jazzmammal

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/24/19 10:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
What got me tripped is that in my understanding, when BIAB is "generating" the track the outcome is not predictable, until it is fully generated. So how can ARA "see" something that is not yet born?


Good question and I don't have an exact answer but parts of the Biab song is known before generation like tempo, time sig or multiple time sigs, chords, the overall song layout, number of total bars, mixer settings and probably more. What is not known is the exact notes until it is generated so yes, Melodyne correction would have to wait.

I suspect the things that are known and can be read from the Biab plugin immediately is enough to allow ARA to set the whole song up meaning it's already synced up with a tempo map, key sigs and the other stuff before the song is generated. Pipeline wrote quite a bit about that in his posts in other threads and I can't remember it all but I think I'm close. He will probably chime in to clarify it.

The fundamental question remains, can the plugin be made to work with ARA? Since it is a working VST I would think it should but what do I know?

Bob
Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/25/19 12:37 AM

It takes a while to analyze just 32 bars, longer than it would take to generate, and you need the VST3 version.
In the current version of Biab the VST is not syncing unless you hit the play button and play from the very start (include count-off) if you start on any other bar the VST will play from the very start.


Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/25/19 06:01 AM

Below is a video that explain Melodyne in studio 2 , but the same is true in studio one 4, Reaper etc. use your imagination regarding the tracks from the plugin. Imagine what you could do with the mulitiRiffs. Say a phrase ends a little short or doesn’t tie together smoothly. Edit it in Melodyne.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3J8SFhoe10
Posted by: Sergino

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/25/19 02:15 PM

since my post pointing on ARA, I'm reading a lot of other posts regarding mainly Melodyne. I didn't want to focus on ARA as a link between BIAB and Melodyne, but as a link between BIAB and any DAW supporting ARA.
Posted by: Brian Hughes

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/25/19 07:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Sergino
since my post pointing on ARA, I'm reading a lot of other posts regarding mainly Melodyne. I didn't want to focus on ARA as a link between BIAB and Melodyne, but as a link between BIAB and any DAW supporting ARA.


Exactly that is why I mentioned the Synchro Arts VocALign which uses ARA in Studio One as well. The thing is a DAW that supports ARA allows more time for the plugin to edit in realtime and play the results in sync instantly. This was not possible before ARA with programs such as the two mentioned programs.

With ARA 2, the exchange of information between DAWs and plug-ins is more comprehensive, which makes additional applications possible. The new ARA 2 specification allows the simultaneous editing of multiple tracks, the transfer of chord track information between the DAW and the plug-in, seamless clip borders that make the manual setting of crossfades superfluous, Undo interlocking with the DAW, and more. The features then become available depend upon the specific plug-in and DAW.
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 12/26/19 04:19 AM

Brian is ARA 2 out now and is that what Presonus uses? Never mind dumb question I remember now it was released about two years ago with version 4.

Posted by: TerryB

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/01/20 04:37 AM

I have found this discussion very interesting and have thought about it allot. My 2 cents. I will say that one of the things I value about this forum is the user base has passion for the product.

User Base - Younger musicians today are faced with so many choices. I can remember when I started I had Cakewalk DOS and could make 3 note music and thought that was great. When BIAB came along I was amazed as I am with the DAW market and available features today. I work in a company that is tech based and whether we like it or not have heard the 20 to 30 crowd make the comment that if the interface doesn't meet their modern ideas they feel it is sketchy and not a real product. User interfaces matter to them.

DAW Development - If I was PG I probably wouldn't pursue building out a DAW. It is a saturated market with some big players. When a company like BandLab gives Cakewalk away for free and it competes with many of the other players you have to have something really special to have any margin in the product. That is why the plug-in makes so much sense as a path forward. BIAB really excels in high quality arrangement and production of songs whether covers or originals. That is their value add to the marketplace in my opinion.

Music Today - It does seem like on Social Media EDM is king. Try looking up music apps on Youtube. A large percentage of the folks are using Ableton because of it's ability to use loops, clips and other tools that EDM folks use. It's midi implementation is just nuts. In the Worship scene for churches Worship leaders use it because the can control the music, the lights the words for presentation, etc. all from one application. What I find interesting however it that this year at our Christmas party we had a DJ. The young people didn't want to hear EDM, instead they like to stand around in a group and dance and sing songs from the 70's and 80's. This generation has the most eclectic and diverse taste in music I can remember in my brief time on earth. (Ok over half a century but in the scope of eternity a short time)

Path Forward - I would like to see focus on the Plug-in and continued feature development to allow even more integration with the major DAW's I find Cubase especially interesting because they already have a chord track that allows you to create accompaniment though not nearly as easily as BIAB. I don't think I have seen anyone say this but I would like to see PG develop an iOS app that could be used as at least a starting place and then import into BIAB. I can't tell you how many times on an airplane or in a hotel I wished I could pull up a simple version of BIAB on my iPad and work on a song. They already have the MAC version of BIAB so I have to believe the have the capability. Android would be nice too, however that doesn't seem to be as mature of a music platform.

I guess only PG really knows what their strategic plans are for the future. I just hope that Peter has a good transition plan for the company when it is his time to pass the torch. There is still a lot of potential in the concept and software.

Happy New Year Everyone!

Terry
Posted by: edshaw

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/01/20 01:19 PM

Streaming now 80% of the market.

https://www.engadget.com/2019/12/31/music-streaming-market-share-us-spotify-apple-music/
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/03/20 06:11 AM

TerryB,
I enjoyed reading your post.
Very balanced.

The single thing, that I see keeps echoing from one forum thread to another is "EDM"...
Terry, you are correct, kids like GOOD vintage music. I take my son to rollerskating rink every week, and young kids (7-12) skate with the same enthusiasm to modern EDMesque music as they do to Pop / Rock / R&B of 1960s-90s. And not even ONCE I heard anything negative about vintage tunes from them.

Good music is good music. I am strongly against BIAB (or plugin) to have certain "inclinations" targeting particular audience. You can add elephant load worth of loops and beats on demand, which are much easier to gather than finding talented musicians that can play acoustic instruments. In my opinion, the main thing is to make program & GUI snappy and appealing to people who will try it for the first time smile
Posted by: Masi

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/03/20 10:13 AM

My take on EDM and loop based music is that I see no point in PGmusic creating loops. Why? Because out there are many companies that sell sample packs for a very long time. And recently a few big players have started doing business with a subscription model.

So IMHO there isn't much to win for PGmusic with original content. OTOH making it easier to integrate loops is another thing. Yet another is having useful means to add a drum groove based on one-shot samples. Basically all that is missing is a sample player pre-configured to react on MIDI GM-2 notes. Perhaps an integratipon with Spice et al makes sense [1].

But to be honest, I don't think any EDM producer will consider BiaB unless he or she already knows their craft and seek for a way to break away from reusing samples, but get a jazzy piano riff or a short sax solo, etc tailored for their song.

And sad but true the whole UI is probably turning away lots of middle-ages users. It will IMHO turn away 99,99% of all youngsters out there. Personally I don't freak out because of it (old-fashioned graphic design but ok to use), but I'm a huge fan of a stream-lined consistent UI and BiaB is lacking in that regard all over the place. All of the dialogs are a mess! In contrast to what Rustyspoon wrote they have no appeal whatever. I grant that the veterans have lived with them perhaps for decades now and don't mind.

The only chance for this audience is a decent DAW integration with the plugin or a completely new UI for BiaB.

Masi

PS: A friend of mine who is in his fifties has started to play sax a couple of years ago. In terms of his taste (Jazz) and needs BiaB would be great for him. But he's not computery savvy, so I cannot recommend BiaB for him. He would be completely lost. The plugin wouldn't be of much help either. Only chance would be a version as if developed by Apple wink

[1] https://theedmguide.com/best-splice-sounds-alternatives
Posted by: jazzmammal

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/03/20 08:32 PM

Getting back to ARA, here's the answer from Adar a few days ago in the Biab VST thread:

ARA provides some great functionality when it comes to communication between the plugin and host, however it is not very helpful in our case since audio files are statically generated by the plugins helper app (bbw4). This may change in the future but as of now we cannot fully utilize the ARA extension.

Another one of those things that sounds good but ain't happening because as has been said gazillions of times before Biab is not a DAW and it's not like any other music production app. At least we got a response from the developer this time, so many times we discuss stuff to death and never hear a peep from anybody.

Bob
Posted by: acidbent

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/04/20 07:25 AM

Rob,

Exactly, 2,000% agree!!!!!!

Realband should be a daw, fully compatible with biab!!!!

It's not hard to catch up.

RB WITH BIAB, will overtake any DAW bec of its primary unique feature: realracks
Posted by: Masi

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/04/20 11:45 AM

Originally Posted By: acidbent
Realband should be a daw, fully compatible with biab!!!!

It's not hard to catch up.

Catch up with which program? One of those?

Pro Tools 2019
Logic Pro X
Digital Performer 10
Ableton Live 10.1
Nuendo 10
Cubase 10
WaveLab 9.5
Main Stage 3
Garage Band 10
Audition 12
Premiere Pro 13
Final Cut Pro X
Studio One Professional 4
Media Composer 2019
FL Studio 20
REAPER 5
Reason 11
Maschine 2
Komplete Kontrol 2
Bitwig Studio 3
Cakewalk by BandLab 2019
Samplitude Pro X4
Sequoia 14
Pyramix 11

FYI: that's the list of hosts Waves tests its plugins with. Realband isn't on the list.

What I want to say is that the market is completely saturated. Actually I wonder why there are still so many out there. I even wonder more about Studio One. It has got so much traction in so short time. Seems the product has been backed with a big team and much money.

So no, IMHO it's not easy to catch up.

Originally Posted By: acidbent
RB WITH BIAB, will overtake any DAW bec of its primary unique feature: realracks

I don't think anyone would change their DAW because of realtracks. A DAW is all about supporting a personal workflow for a specific task.

BTW, for me realtracks offer a quick way to have instantly satisfying sound. But I don't think that you can make a serious production with the drums (you need multi-tracks for that) and guitars without DI tracks. I'd wich PGmusic would ship all the realtracks with a MIDI version so I can switch the souud if I wish to later on.

Masi
Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/04/20 01:32 PM

The Biab Plugin will work in just about all those DAWs listed above.
We have DI guitars, we have the RealChart midi for most tracks though it's not recorded at the same time as the audio like the piano RealChart midi on the Yamaha digital piano PG uses, maybe if they used something like the Fishman TriplePlay when they record guitars would get a more accurate midi. The RealDrums should be Multi Stems soon hopefully. Also 48khz/24bit tracks is on the cards.
Posted by: rayc

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/04/20 05:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Masi

But I don't think that you can make a serious production with the drums (you need multi-tracks for that) and guitars without DI tracks.
Masi

I disagree regarding RealDrums - it's an absolute pain in the backside to get the stereo file right but it can be done as evidenced in this track...
https://soundcloud.com/rayc/mst-construction-paper-heart-pygmy-beat
The drums took quite an effort to pull off but I think they sound right for the track.
Multitrack options would be fabulous but I know from experience that mixing multi tracked drums is about the hardest task when mixing a song - the awful results that usually come with Easydrummer etc as also testament to this.
The guitars - I completely agree - most of the rock ones are over processed, (& often over played). DI files, or at least files with no pedals, unless indicated, and a clear indication of amp type and mic placement as well as nomenclature indicating type of guitar would be useful. I don't use RT guitars as I can always find a guitar player or do them myself and I'm not a fan of amp sims - no matter how expensive and GUI overdosed they are.
Posted by: rich in ca

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/04/20 11:41 PM

To all: A great discussion. I offer a quick profile of my DAW/BBW use history and supporting hardware/instruments. I started with BBW 2004 and currently use BBW 2020. I'm primarily a guitarist, but also play keyboard/piano, and other instruments. In the early days I started with Cakewalk Home Studio, then Cubase (lower end version); updated to higher level Cubase, but gave it away due to the dongle shackle (I seldom do anything on line with my music PC) and the "phone home or you can't use the software" angle is completely unacceptable. Imagine you can't use the SW because the internet is down, or the dongle failed, or the company was sold or out of business and you bought a new PC and can’t transfer the software. I tried Abelton live (one-dimensional, awkward interface…recent versions have the same look and feel). I then used Digital Performer (DP) on a friends MAC. I didn’t want to buy a MAC (although in recent years DP became available on both PC/MAC). Then I bought Cakewalk Dimension Pro and SONAR 5 Studio edition (2005) that included other soft-synths. Really liked SONAR 5 and it was stable. A friend of mine showed me his Pro Tools (PT) setup. PT required PT’s proprietary Hardware...a deal breaker. Pro Tools then, and now costs more than I will spend for a DAW.

In 2012 I upgraded to SONAR X1 (some issues at first but subsequent patches cleared most issues for me). And don't laugh… I still use my Presonus Fire-Wire for my home studio audio/midi with Presonus drivers. I use an Edirol Fire-wire unit for my portable rack setup and therefore don’t need ASIO-for-All. My setups are plenty fast for my needs and don’t have to deal with USB bus congestion. I have the free version of Presonus Studio One 4, and it's actually pretty good. I only use it to help a few friends who have the higher level(s) Studio One.

In BBW when I can't get a solution musically I will do that part on guitar/keyboard. When a soft-synth doesn't cut it, I'll use one of my synth-enabled guitars or Yamaha Motif keyboard or Yamaha ES rack and record both MIDI and Audio from the instruments.

Creating notation in BBW isn’t for me, so I use Notion, Guitar-Pro, and an old version of Finale, or MuseScore depending on the situation. The same holds true for printing notation or Chord Charts. BBW recent MXL export improvements have helped when exporting to other applications.

For me, BB is a pallet upon which I take concepts/ideas and use the available BBW features as a first/second cut. Then into my DAW where I refine, rebuild, augment and hopefully achieve my original goal. I take advantage of what BBW has to offer, and fill in the blanks where it doesn't. Additionally, there are areas where I want complete control of the music composition process.

Given the various discussions on software development/maintenance/staffing topics, I'd offer my perspective and background. I'm in my 70's. I am now happily retired from my 50-plus career years in software/hardware development, system design/development and program management that goes back to the teletype and core-memory days (for you old-timer computer types). I've developed and managed development efforts in the low thousands to 100 million dollar range (high-end Super Computing), so I have a solid grasp of what companies/organizations face including Cost, Schedule, and Performance aspects. Typically, a system/application envisioned doing everything often results in some things performing well, others poorly or not at all, or worse, never making it to implementation or production.

Several excellent points and suggestions have been expressed (not just in this thread, but historically) and PGM has responded to and implemented several of them.
So, here's my suggestion to us users and recommendation to PGM.

USERS:
1. Consider refining the scope of suggestions/desired features/functions (user requirements) to what is practical (from the PGM's perspective as well).
2. If you need DAW capabilities, more robust/feature laden notation capabilities, consider obtaining those separately (and as others have said, some are free).
3. Consider the scope of BBW in identifying your needs and prioritize them.
PGM:
1. Assess the suggestions in this forum and wish lists to form an initial baseline of potential new features/functions (requirements) and feasibility thereof for the next major or subsequent release(s), or Roadmap. Understandably, some companies prefer not to produce product roadmaps, but it is useful and usually welcome to the customer/user base. For important features to users, consider giving the users a reasonable time frame (viz., major release).
2. Create a user focused survey based on this and related threads and BB wish lists. Yes, I know some hate surveys, but when conceived with users in mind surveys benefit both parties.

Respectfully Submitted,

Richard
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/05/20 06:38 AM

1+
Posted by: methodman

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/05/20 05:40 PM

Many sequencer's are customizable. You can decide how to color various aspects of your work flow. Cakewalk for instance in X1 removed that features, and the fans screamed about it so they brought it back in x3. But with Biab you have over 50 video's explaining how to do different things with that program. Even at the oldest video's the features are still there. Maybe they get moved to different menus in later versions but 95% of the original product in Biab is there. It's like for example I own Pixarra Twisted Brush, which I think is a great program for digital painting. There is also a program called Corel Painter which has more formal videos made for it. (You have to subscribe to streaming services like VTC.com which every so often offer a $90 fee for a lifetime access to all their video courses well up to 2018. ) But you can only join at that fee by searching and finding a coupon for them. Virtual Training Network. There is also Safari Books online (now O'Reily books which has tons of video courses as well as books for every software, although some of them stop at a few versions back for example Reason 7 but they have courses on everything--except for Cakewalk--they used to but when Sonar was closed. They got rid of those books. but I study tutorials for other programs I don't have and look for the features on my particular software. (Again look for coupons to find Safari at 1/2 price which is well worth it. I wouldn't be able to subscribe to any of these services at full price!! Biab falls into a nitch but PG does a good job with their ecosystem, so I keep learning new things about it every day. and as far as Liberal education libraries the only one I know about is Questia. They cover no tech stuff but all the other subjects like Cival rights, philosophy, psychology math as a discussion, not teaching math! and logic, science how ceretain instruments evolved the mind of people. So I have that for everything that is non tech.

I'll continue it differently in the next blog
Posted by: methodman

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/05/20 05:49 PM

Interfaces are run by highlighting and Shortcut keys. Change the shortcut keys and you change the workflow. Workspaces are also modeled differently within genre's and (you could look at Reason for ideas' of how to do tricks from their instrument setups.) But the best way I think of is to work through the tutorials PG music provides. Stop at each point and practice it. There are different sections that require you to use several programs too. For example Screen Grabber software will let you make an Mp3 from your music steaming service which you can then plug into Biab Chord wizard and other software will hopefully print parts out in a midi format. I haven't got that far, but I'm sure these programs like tape recorders. deCoda and so forth will do that. I'm not sure PG music will separate out a vocal track. It will give you possibilities you wouldn't have though up by yourself though. Which is creativity. Most people don't want to bake from scratch! They would rather use a mix. and that is what Biab 's music is
Posted by: Jim Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/06/20 06:06 PM

+++ Groove3.com +++ has the best audio technology video tutorials I've seen. They offer both subscription and buy to own options.

The video series are well organized, professionally produced and taught by by knowledgeable instructors.
Posted by: jazzmammal

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/06/20 07:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
The single thing, that I see keeps echoing from one forum thread to another is "EDM"...

Terry, you are correct, kids like GOOD vintage music. I take my son to rollerskating rink every week, and young kids (7-12) skate with the same enthusiasm to modern EDMesque music as they do to Pop / Rock / R&B of 1960s-90s. And not even ONCE I heard anything negative about vintage tunes from them.


Sorry, Rusty but this means absolutely nothing. Are they streaming classic rock? Are they buying Beatles or Santana albums as digital downloads? Of course not. They hear that stuff and they think it's ok, they don't hate it or anything.

All you have to do is have a nice, friendly discussion with them and DO NOT even say the words "Good music is good music". They'll shut you right out in a polite way. No, tell them you've listened to some modern dance music and you're curious who their favorite artists are. Do they like the DJ's or the rappers better? What vocalists do they like? Name drop, ask what they think about Skillrex or Ed Sheeran or Drake. Once they open up and they know you're not going to make fun of their taste in music, they'll tell you. Highly unlikely you'll find any classic rockers in their list.

For the over 18 ones, ask what concerts they've gone to last year, what dance clubs do they go to and what kind of a dance club is it. I doubt they've gone to a AC/DC concert or a classic rock club. It's all DJ's, EDM, Rap and some R & B vocals. No, not Motown or Al Green, modern R & B which sucks to our ears.

If you have no idea who those people are (They're making millions) and maybe tried to watch the Grammies last year but turned it off after 10 minutes then you have no clue what's going on. If you are like me and do watch the Grammies, listen to some modern stuff, watch YouTube vids about all this, great. I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying I told myself 50 years ago I would not grow old with a brain frozen in concrete and living in a 40 year old time warp. I will know what's happening in the music biz.

I'm a fairly busy gigging keyboard player. It's 90% classic rock and 10% jazz but 20 years ago it was 50/50. Jazz is dead except for special occasion shows like a classical orchestra or string quartet would do. Classic rock is next.

I just finished three gigs over New Years including playing NYE at a funky old bar called the Marlin Club on Catalina Island. Loud classic rock. A few young people were there and they liked it but I doubt they're actually buying any of it from any source and that's all that counts. Follow the money. It's baby boomers like us who keep the Stones, Journey, Aerosmith etc concerts going. We're gone, they're done. And some of them are leaving before we are like Elton John just did.

I'm 74 now, will I be gigging in 10 years? Who knows but if I can, I will but I'm not stupid. If I'm either dead or out of it, I'm not caring about all the classic rock RT's inside Biab. The question would be then, who will?

Bob
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/07/20 05:08 AM

Bob,
I do not agree with most what you said. I am sorry. Simple reason we are talking about completely different animals here. It seems you are specifically interested in this:
"I will know what's happening in the music biz" You talk about "trends", and I am talking about the vibe. It takes one talented artist/band to break the mold you theorize on. These "trends" are changing with the blow of the wind. Vibe remains mainly unaffected (through centuries)

Jazz is not dead, silly! It is everywhere, just taking different forms. "Matter is neither created nor destroyed." smile


But most importantly, you as a musician should focus on what is in your head/feelings instead of chasing the tail of the Dragon (that might taste pretty awful, even if you catch it). Unless.. you play only specific set of covers (not originals) to specific group of people in specific region. Then, it is more like meditation / Yoga.

Bob, good (quality) music is not for everyone. It never was. Most folks are OK with general FM. Good music has almost NOTHING to do with musical business. I am sure you are aware of this. I guess it's time to turn back to the topic.

I believe PG has a very special strata in music arranging/recording. In it's own way is
very far ahead of most competitors. I rather skip a year of RT's in exchange for major software cleanup/tune-up. I am couple of years in and I only explored about 25% of what is in the BOX. Content is huge!

My "future" and present request is related to modernizing and tightening the software, GUI and adding several big MUST HAVE features that had been discussed in great detail in "Wishlists", so it is enjoyable to discover and do interesting things with all the content that is already in place.
Posted by: Masi

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/07/20 09:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
I rather skip a year of RT's in exchange for major software cleanup/tune-up.

Me too.

Masi
Posted by: MarioD

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/07/20 09:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Masi
Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
I rather skip a year of RT's in exchange for major software cleanup/tune-up.

Me too.

Masi


Another me too.
Posted by: jazzmammal

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/07/20 10:30 AM

Absolutely, I've said that every year for like, forever? Forget the 50 new features, and clean up all the old stuff. Clean up the menu system, add more than 4 chords per bar, get rid of the 255 bar limit, add better time sig support, improving the notation printing, these very old requests go on and on. Make all this the new features. That was my biggest gripe about the VST too. It's a good concept but the time and resources developing that could have been put to a much better use then do the VST. Look at the creating a new video thing from two years ago. Who uses that?

This all goes back to my guess, because I really have no information about it, that none of those things are possible without a completely rewritten brand new version of the source code. They're not willing or unable to go that far so here we are. Still a great program and I use it a lot.

Bob
Posted by: JohnJohnJohn

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/07/20 11:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
I rather skip a year of RT's in exchange for major software cleanup/tune-up. I am couple of years in and I only explored about 25% of what is in the BOX. Content is huge!

A HUGE -1 to this!

The new RealTracks are the ONLY reason I buy the upgrade every year. RealTracks is the one thing PGM does excellently and consistently year after year! The new features marketing never proves to be of value to me once I dive into each upgrade. Never. But the RealTracks ALWAYS deliver.

The year the upgrade includes no RealTracks is the year I DON'T upgrade.
Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/07/20 11:36 AM

There maybe be staff that just put the RealTracks, Drums, MST... together, they may not be programmers that fix bug and implement new features.
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/07/20 11:56 AM

I do not mind if Program & Content is separated and sold individually at slight increase in price of each, to satisfy needs of someone like JJJ. Discounted if bought together and discounted further for loyal / annual customers. Whatever it takes to get the software up to the level it deserves to be.
Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/07/20 12:29 PM

I was replying to JJJ's post but it keep deleting my post so I though JJJ's post has been deleted and yes it has, by JJJ or Admin ?????


This was a post I made in the wishlist More than 6 + 1 Instruments....

Quote:
more audio tracks, more midi tracks
no more 8.3 file names and 8th note chord resolution
real time signatures, i.e. not be limited to 2/4, 3/4, and 4/4

Biab was designed as an accompaniment program with styles like a keyboard,
everything in Biab seems to be built on 8.3, 255, rounded tempos and mock time signatures.
RealBand was suppose to take care of all this.


What way do you go ?
Put more resources into the Biab Plugin ?
Create a whole new product ?
Posted by: MarioD

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/07/20 12:39 PM

Originally Posted By: jazzmammal
............

This all goes back to my guess, because I really have no information about it, that none of those things are possible without a completely rewritten brand new version of the source code. They're not willing or unable to go that far so here we are. Still a great program and I use it a lot.

Bob


I agree. I think that PGMusic is locked into that old code. Plus with a lot of users using only RTs, with many only using RB, there is no reason to do a complete rewrite. I think that it is just those of us whom go from BiaB to another DAW that want the rewrite.

Like you I use BiaB a lot. However I have been noticing that a number of other companies are far ahead of PGMusic when it comes to the MIDI side. That might cause a few users to leave. YMMV
Posted by: beatmaster

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/07/20 01:05 PM


I agree. I think that PGMusic is locked into that old code. Plus with a lot of users using only RTs, with many only using RB, there is no reason to do a complete rewrite. I think that it is just those of us whom go from BiaB to another DAW that want the rewrite.


You would think that PG Music would just say their reasons and that would be that !!?.
Posted by: VideoTrack

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/07/20 02:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
I rather skip a year of RT's in exchange for major software cleanup/tune-up.


Before this year's release I suggested that I'd be more than happy to just see a handful of existing issues resolved, and in response got questioned on 'how would that bring in new customers?'

I would still prefer to see a number of significant issues and shortcomings fixed. The ones that are endlessly requested.
Posted by: JohnJohnJohn

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/07/20 04:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Pipeline
I was replying to JJJ's post but it keep deleting my post so I though JJJ's post has been deleted and yes it has, by JJJ or Admin ?????

They have deleted several of my posts recently. Oh well.
Posted by: rayc

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/12/20 02:59 PM

Originally Posted By: VideoTrack
'how would that bring in new customers?'

It always comes to this which is very worrying because a company that can't see that offering a better resolved/debugged/tested and stable program is good for new business is short sighted in terms of service & product.
I'm really uninterested in the masses of MIDI and most of the RTs offered in 2020. I am interested in improvements in chord wizard etc as I use those things often, (dealing with a singers who send me an unaccompanied sung melody or helping resurrect someone's old tracks etc.), but with the history of FIXES needed for any new roll out and the apparent instability of this current one I'm not pulling the trigger for all the stuff I don't want at least until the stuff I'm interested in has settled.
Posted by: Masi

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/13/20 05:02 AM

Originally Posted By: VideoTrack
[quote=Rustyspoon#]Before this year's release I suggested that I'd be more than happy to just see a handful of existing issues resolved, and in response got questioned on 'how would that bring in new customers?'

This is is a very simple-minded approach. Fixing bugs will make existing customers who will recommend it to others. This will make the chance higher for people becoming new customers.

I doubt that anyone who is not already a customers cares about how many styles or real tracks have been added. They may be convinced to buy a particular new version if some new feature has been added that is of use to them. But only if there has been at least some interest in previous versions.

Currently I think what may puts off people is the horrible old-fashioned UI, the quirky dialog boxes, etc. It makes the impressions that the company doesn't really care for the product (which I know isn't true at all). I hated to the look and feel when I first so the product and still hate is to this day. The only reason I bought it was that I knew I shouldn't judge a book by its cover. I can do with the looks, but the usability of some areas of BiaB is IMHO still sub-par. Possibly not changed because of lak of interest or not to annoy long-time users who no the quirks inside-out.

Masi
Posted by: jford

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/13/20 10:27 AM

Quote:
Possibly not changed because of lak of interest or not to annoy long-time users who no the quirks inside-out.


As a very long time user, I'm happy to invest the time to learn a new modern interface and even a new way of doing things (workflow), as long as I have a roadmap that crosswalks the new way to do things (versus the old way).
Posted by: Charlie Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/13/20 11:26 AM

<<< I doubt that anyone who is not already a customers cares about how many styles or real tracks have been added. They may be convinced to buy a particular new version if some new feature has been added that is of use to them. But only if there has been at least some interest in previous versions. >>>

BIAB is getting some new and good exposure on Facebook by Joanne Cooper and Herb Hartley. Songs are being posted, new purchasers of the programs are posting, asking questions and contributing new and fresh ideas. More seasoned users are answering questions and providing guidance and tips to people that have an interest in the program but haven't made a purchase yet. They are learning the benefits of purchasing packages above the base 'pro pak' and what having as many styles and RealTracks provide more than just more styles and RealTracks. I personally haven't seen posts where just the GUI has been a deal breaker to a first timer to purchase the program but some have been swayed toward purchase by the power and benefits of the latest release and the quantity and quality of styles and RealTracks.
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/14/20 07:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Charlie Fogle
I personally haven't seen posts where just the GUI has been a deal breaker to a first timer to purchase the program


Me. I almost jumped the ship, specifically because GUI scared me, and believe me I have patience. So there you have it smile

GUI is turning people away in a BIG way (I can't stress this enough!). The full screen "View" looks "sort" of ok, but needs work. Like modular/re-sizable buttons/menus and something done with the mixer --> Auto hide / auto expand... Full 16 channels channels Midi or RT. Oh yes, endless 90s style menus. Having the functions is a good thing. They just have to be sorted and presented well.

Years ago I had a website that had very specific things made for me. When it was time to update/upgrade it, there was a dilemma as the graphics were written into the code. So what we done is designed all graphics separately as CSS and connected old code functions to it. It worked fine for a few years until it was time to re-write the website. But when we did, the graphics were an "easy" move, because design did not change. If the design needs to be adjusted, it is pain free process now, since it is not tangled in the code. I am not a programmer, but I wonder if this is possible with BIAB? To design GUI that can be used with old code and separate enough to be used in the future, if at some time BIAB will be re-done?
Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/14/20 03:35 PM

Here's a GUI idea:
Posted by: Charlie Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/15/20 06:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
Originally Posted By: Charlie Fogle
I personally haven't seen posts where just the GUI has been a deal breaker to a first timer to purchase the program


Me. I almost jumped the ship, specifically because GUI scared me, and believe me I have patience. So there you have it smile

GUI is turning people away in a BIG way (I can't stress this enough!). The full screen "View" looks "sort" of ok, but needs work. Like modular/re-sizable buttons/menus and something done with the mixer --> Auto hide / auto expand... Full 16 channels channels Midi or RT. Oh yes, endless 90s style menus. Having the functions is a good thing. They just have to be sorted and presented well.

Years ago I had a website that had very specific things made for me. When it was time to update/upgrade it, there was a dilemma as the graphics were written into the code. So what we done is designed all graphics separately as CSS and connected old code functions to it. It worked fine for a few years until it was time to re-write the website. But when we did, the graphics were an "easy" move, because design did not change. If the design needs to be adjusted, it is pain free process now, since it is not tangled in the code. I am not a programmer, but I wonder if this is possible with BIAB? To design GUI that can be used with old code and separate enough to be used in the future, if at some time BIAB will be re-done?


I don't disagree with you that newcomers are put off by and overwhelmed by their initial introduction to the GUI. I just don't think it's an appearance and coding issue. It's more their lack of musical knowledge and their end result expectations from BIAB songs. You're correct about the complexity of the GUI also because the entry package of BIAB, the PRO Pak, core program is the same as every Pak including Audiophile. The least is as complex as the greatest.

The genius of BIAB/RB is not its simplicity but its complexity. The genius is BIAB's lone and unique ability to search for, capture, and compile realistic, complete compositions in thousands of styles by thousands of instruments from thousands of hours in studio quality environments by top session musicians.

I think there needs to be a version of the program designed in the same manner that most DAW's have today, a lite version having advanced features locked that is focused on novice level knowledge and use and most functions being automated. Perhaps have a limited RealTrack combo package and limited additional RealTracks like the Pro Pak but improve the midi portion of the program to all Hi-Q package supplied midi instruments with super midi soloists and the program is supplied with a limited amount of midi files that are complete commercial released songs that have been licensed for BIAB use similar to how Guitar Hero game was structured. Beginners could purchase an entry copy of BIAB that would open these licensed midi songs and these songs would sound good with the chord chart populated at opening, an appropriate midi H-Q style selected for the particular song, ready for the user to play and sing along with. Users could switch out to RealTrack combos from the default midi style. It could be a pre-programmed package of licensed commercial songs based on midi file songs targeted for novice users and karaoke performers and small performance acts that perform with tracks.

I like it that you didn't jump ship due to the GUI. My personal experience remains intact. wink
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/15/20 07:17 AM

I posted this in the plugin forum but I think it is valid here.


I realize the plugin is not top priority here. The core or flagship product Band in a Box is. However I feel after two development cycles the plugin should at the very minimum be higher on the food chain. It still has several areas where it needs attention in order for the plugin to be truly useable.

1. Render or sync to Tempo
2. Render Flat
3. Render Dry
4. Render Center pan
5. MIDI Drums not matching to Real Drums (in Studio One)
7. Bar settings (change style is not changing style)

Let’s just be real for a minute. No one thinks that BiaB is not the flagship here but to keep the plug in as an add on is being very short sited. There are so many more DAW users out there compared to those that use BiaB that it is silly not to focus on this product. BiaB is feature rich, and most users never scratch the surface. If it never received another single new feature it would be a fine product. For now just fix the dozen old bugs people have been asking about for years. Focus your attention on this plugin and attract the tens of thousands of young DAW users who will never use BiaB, but would love to have a ripping cool plugin to pound out track bases for song creation.

I think this product is key to the future of PGM, and in fact BiaB as a whole.

If you think I’m wrong imagine this. If PGM had not created RTs and RDs how many would still use it, and how many new users would have bought it. I can tell you I would not have updated it faithfully like I have if not for real tracks!

Peter, The plugin is your new RTs, another breath of life into your company for the future.

My reason to post this not to slow down BiaB, but to point out that getting the plugin done to its original mission, that of a source of adding basic tracks into a DAW of choice. It is close now but needs a few things. Finish the mission and break it out into its own program a VSTi (or other format) plugin for sale to the masses. Bundle it with all rock RTs, or all Jazz RTs, or all Country RTs, etc.

Doing this give PGM a direct route into the millions of DAW users that would never dive into BiaB proper. Allowing revenue to flow in to do as others want and take a breath and modernize BiaB.
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/15/20 11:38 AM

Why a good thread was moved out of sight? Questions, questions...

Charlie: Quote:
"The genius of BIAB/RB is not its simplicity but its complexity"
------------>
I think this is why I feel you are wrong. You are talking about "abilities and functions". The genius in my opinion is to make complex things eatable "out of the box" smile

Again, here:
"I just don't think it's an appearance and coding issue."
It is about appearance (and workflow!) Charlie, you are still missing the point!

We are not talking about You and me. We are talking about the future (topic theme) and future followers?!

Yes, You + me & couple of thousand boys and girls will accept the software as it is, learn all scattered pop up menus and functions hidden in random places and move on with their lives. New kids will come, look at it and say: "Gimme mymoni back!" and slap a negative feedback somewhere in high traffic area. Nobody needs that. We need people who will open it it, press couple of intuitive buttons and fall in love with it. And only then decide how far they want to experience it.

BIAB has to be:
Appealing and inviting, menus sorted, cleaned and put in a more logical sorted way. Get rid of 90s BoX menues. This is not hard to do. At least far not the hardest thing to do.
Posted by: Charlie Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/16/20 05:31 AM

You - <<< The genius in my opinion is to make complex things eatable "out of the box

It is about appearance (and workflow!)

We are talking about the future (topic theme) and future followers?

We need people who will open it it, press couple of intuitive buttons and fall in love with it. >>>

Me- In my last paragraph I agree with you and said that I think there needs to be a version of the program designed to be a pre-programmed package of licensed commercial songs based on midi file songs targeted for novice users and karaoke performers and small performance acts that perform with tracks. Where people open it, press a couple of intuitive buttons and fall in love with it. That's all about appearance and easy workflow. That's our future and our future followers. I agree.

There's no genius to that. That's all sales marketing. Many software programs have scaled down 'lite' versions. Every major DAW has free, lite versions and most ship them free in hardware packages.

I get it and you are totally correct. You're in the majority. This future you forecast is here now. Prospective buyers hear about BIAB, check it out and for the first time in their lives, they see the opportunity to sing along or record with a real band... or the amateur song writer can record that album and get the studio backing tracks he wants. All of that is in the package and there for the taking. They purchase the package, Install it. Fire up BIAB and there's that ugly, non intuitive GUI!!

Yes, you are correct. The future must be addressed. You're right, the future is a lot about appearance and workflow, automation of complex musical theory and simplifying musical based selections.

But, just like life, good looks and holding one's hand navigating through complex situations can only get you so far...





Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/16/20 11:50 AM

Since this thread was (?!) moved to "wishlist" lets switch to wish mode.

Charlie, you are still missing my point smile
There is nothing wrong with complexity. I am not in favor of dumbing down BIAB (for some reason I think you believe that I am)
I want workflow / menus! / features, sorted properly and presented neatly, logically and the last but not the least for menu items to look pretty. It is very far from that now. <---If you disagree with this, you do not have to read further.

Albert Einstein... I am almost certain that first thought that comes to mind of most people is "MESSY HAIR", but that was his appearance signature. I do not believe that it is in anybody's interest for BIAB to be associated with messy appearance.

I do not agree with you that there should be different versions (complexity levels) of BIAB. Cakewalk has "Lenses", or what they recently started to call "Work Spaces" were users decide what to show and how to show it. It does not take complexity or the features out of the program!

Peter & Co, did the GUI tune-up several years ago. The full screen mode does look clean,as a FRONT PAGE. I still would prefer changing minor things and have the menus modular/resizable, but overall it is OK looking. Presentable.

The problem items as far as appearance and basic functions are:

1) Mixer, which should be redesigned and have at least 16 channels available for RTs and/or MIDI! (Without saying something like "It is already there... IT IS NOT! You can make a bear ride a motorcycle and say "yes, it is possible" and "it was designed that way")

Mixer should also have autohide or similar visual approach. I personally would prefer Autohide (as Videotrack sketched up) and tracks on demand - show basic set of tracks and have a magic "+" button to add channels.


2) Endless pop up menus in random places, with poor sorting by type or logic. Clunky 90's boxes, which pop up in random places of the screen.












Posted by: MarioD

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/16/20 01:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
.........................
Peter & Co, did the GUI tune-up several years ago. The full screen mode does look clean,as a FRONT PAGE. I still would prefer changing minor things and have the menus modular/resizable, but overall it is OK looking. Presentable.

The problem items as far as appearance and basic functions are:

1) Mixer, which should be redesigned and have at least 16 channels available for RTs and/or MIDI! (Without saying something like "It is already there... IT IS NOT! You can make a bear ride a motorcycle and say "yes, it is possible" and "it was designed that way")

Mixer should also have autohide or similar visual approach. I personally would prefer Autohide (as Videotrack sketched up) and tracks on demand - show basic set of tracks and have a magic "+" button to add channels.


2) Endless pop up menus in random places, with poor sorting by type or logic. Clunky 90's boxes, which pop up in random places of the screen.

....................


I agree.
Posted by: Charlie Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/16/20 03:37 PM

I read all your remarks with hopefully as open as my mind can get. Unfortunately, I'm trained to literally read and interpret what one writes.

"I want workflow / menus! / features, sorted properly and presented neatly, logically and the last but not the least for menu items to look pretty." The words sorted, presented neatly, logically and pretty all address your wish for a better appearance of the GUI. I give them all a plus 1...

"We need people who will open it it, press couple of intuitive buttons and fall in love with it." I interpret pressing a couple of intuitive buttons to have nothing to do with appearance and everything to do with reducing complexity between the beginning of a project and the final result. That's how I interpreted what you wrote. Nothing to see here, because I agree with your concept here too.

I agreed with Mario in another thread regarding 16 channels for midi.

I'm fine with the Mixer and with all the pop-ups but I'm happy to throw my support with the majority and I think the majority of forum members support continued work and improvements to the GUI.

I'm good with it and I think BIAB can benefit from your recommendations. I always read them and try to grasp your reasoning. There's a wide variance of experience, training, ability and perspectives in the forum community. I learn a lot here. Some of that's from you. Thanks for your contributions.
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/16/20 06:44 PM

Ok, Charlie, now I see where we got disconnected smile

Here: "I interpret pressing a couple of intuitive buttons to have nothing to do with appearance and everything to do with reducing complexity between the beginning of a project and the final result. That's how I interpreted what you wrote."

I was actually thinking of an interactive "quick start" guide or interactive assistant. I understand that this might be a big project for PG, and probably will not happen anytime soon. However, the easy solution, what I have seen with some software, when you open it for the first time a splash screen will offer to take it right to the "quick start" video. I understand that there are tons of BIAB videos, and I watched quite a few of them. But none that I have seen are made as a "quick, follow me" start guides. Most are either pushing marketing agenda or deal with specific issues.

So idea of this Q.Start guide is for a person, who buys BIAB for the first time, have a very basic understanding of core things from the start, not getting lost in all the options.

Example of Quick start: Audition/Pick style-->open style-->change realtrack-->change tempo-->change key and so on. Short and sweet segments to get things rolling.

Like giving a bone (with some meat) to a dog....
(I felt like a rat in the maze the first time I opened BIAB smile )
Posted by: Charlie Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/16/20 07:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Rustyspoon#
Ok, Charlie, now I see where we got disconnected smile

Here: "I interpret pressing a couple of intuitive buttons to have nothing to do with appearance and everything to do with reducing complexity between the beginning of a project and the final result. That's how I interpreted what you wrote."

I was actually thinking of an interactive "quick start" guide or interactive assistant. I understand that this might be a big project for PG, and probably will not happen anytime soon. However, the easy solution, what I have seen with some software, when you open it for the first time a splash screen will offer to take it right to the "quick start" video. I understand that there are tons of BIAB videos, and I watched quite a few of them. But none that I have seen are made as a "quick, follow me" start guides. Most are either pushing marketing agenda or deal with specific issues.

So idea of this Q.Start guide is for a person, who buys BIAB for the first time, have a very basic understanding of core things from the start, not getting lost in all the options.

Example of Quick start: Audition/Pick style-->open style-->change realtrack-->change tempo-->change key and so on. Short and sweet segments to get things rolling.

Like giving a bone (with some meat) to a dog....
(I felt like a rat in the maze the first time I opened BIAB smile )




My thoughts were more like how BIAB chose to interface with the TRIO - pre-program it and limit the selection quantity. Either way, pre-program or quick start - The benefit of quick start with midi as the style, instruments, chord chart, key signature and tempo are all in place. BIAB also already has a limited selection of RealStyles that can be selected as direct midi replacement styles. That could be improved and expanded without too much technical changes.
Posted by: Roland S

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/27/20 12:21 PM

I am a Newbie to Band in a Box, but I would like to post some comments. I don't think further add-on programs are the right path. I think a consolidation and more focus on the strenghts of the already given functionality would be the right way forward for BB. In some areas this might also mean giving up some of the stuff that comes along with the current program packages.

Great and not so great:

First of all Band in a Box is a great program to create Mock-ups of song ideas and to get some inspiration what a song could sound like. However I doubt that any musician or producer would use it to do a complete production of a song. There are too many limitations and the sound quality isn't just good enough. Not even the Audiophile version would match current recording standards.

What I like about the program:
- The way how to come from some chords towards some song idea
- The variety of styles to choose from

What I really dislike:
- The mess it creates on the computer in terms of directories and scattered related content
- the way it integrates (or rather does not) with the existing DAW and audio setup (ASIO, 96k/24). It seems that BB creates its own DX Audio stuff in parallel and messes around with the set audio bitrates.
- the weird and completely overloaded UI. Despite all the tutorials and manuals, it often isn't clear to me, what the settings and functions are about or what a symbol means.
- the limitations when it comes to integrate own user ideas with the generated stuff
- the performance. I have a pretty new and fast computer with lots of RAM and SSD space. But even that gets to its limits.
- I never managed to get this sforzando and WT Coyote stuff working reasonably and the track channels don't accept my own VSTi's (SD3, Komplete, UVI Workstation, Korg Synths, ...)

At the end I usually get completely lost. I don't understand anymore what the BB program or the DAW plugin are doing, why certain tracks and sounds work, whilst others don't, why the computer freezes and so on. Sometimes not even the generated results seem to be predictible/reproduceable.

Why not keeping the whole subject lean and simple for the user?

In particular, what I expect from Band in a Box and what it should focus on from my point of view:

I assume that most users have a good DAW and decent collection of good soundineg Vst3 instruments. Also most musicians have their own idea what an instrument should sound like. So they would finally chose their own sound for the instrument anyway. Apart from some exceptions - why should I mess around with RealTracks and RealDrums, after having got some first impression of the song? What is really needed is the possibility to create some decent midi representation of the instrument track/part/variation, for further processing within my DAW. Providing such midi representations of a track or a part, is what BB should focus on and where the most value is created.

If BB could play the instruments with my own VSTi's with the given audio setup right from the start, that would be even better.

Starting from a preset style with a given instrument lineup is a weird approach. Usually I already have some audio and midi tracks for my songs as a start. I just look for some idea, what a further instrument or riff could do for the given song or a particular part. Instead of generating a full new song in BB, an instrument based filter and style picker would create the most benefit. Just filtering a particular instrument from the style finder, look what it would sound like in the song, with the given chords and a selectable style. Afterwards copying it to the DAW as midi file or Real Track as desired. By the way, this would likely also solve most of the performance issues with BB as it wouldn't have to generate an entire song every time.

I would like to create my own band lineup of instruments for a song and see what ideas BB could contribute to the song under those circumstances. I would like to select and mix different styles for different instruments. Maybe the outcome would be strange in most cases, but mabe also some good new ideas would come along with it.

Going beyond that, knowing that this vision may be some challenge for the programmers:

I am originally a guitar player and my capabilities on other instruments are pretty limited. I can convert melodies to midi notes, although those would not always match very well with the proper articulation of a desired target instrument. If I could feed BB with such a raw idea, either as a midi or audio track, letting BB create some proposals for a correctly played substitute that could be imported to my DAW, that would be perfect. All the other stuff BB comes with, just looks like huge overhead to me. It just distracts me from the real job.
Posted by: PeterGannon

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/27/20 03:56 PM

Thanks for the message.

> It seems that BB creates its own DX Audio stuff in parallel and messes around with the set audio bitrates.

BB doesn’t mess with any set audio bitrates. Perhaps you could provide some details of what is happening.

> Why not keeping the whole subject lean and simple for the user?
> Starting from a preset style with a given instrument lineup is a weird approach. Usually I already have some audio and midi tracks for my songs as a start. I just look for some idea, what a further instrument or riff could do for the given song or a particular part. Instead of generating a full new song in BB, an instrument based filter and style picker would create the most benefit. Just filtering a particular instrument from the style finder, look what it would sound like in the song, with the given chords and a selectable style.

All that is there already, in both the VST and the program. Please give an example of something that you want to do, but can’t. For example, adding a sax solo to an existing DAW project is a routine thing that lots of people do.

Posted by: JohnJohnJohn

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/28/20 02:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Roland S
I doubt that any musician or producer would use it to do a complete production of a song. There are too many limitations and the sound quality isn't just good enough. Not even the Audiophile version would match current recording standards.

While I would agree with some of your comments, especially about the GUI, you are just flat out WRONG with this point! I have personally sold lots of my BIAB tracks through libraries and I do NOT have the audiophile version!
Posted by: Charlie Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/28/20 03:08 PM

Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
Originally Posted By: Roland S
I doubt that any musician or producer would use it to do a complete production of a song. There are too many limitations and the sound quality isn't just good enough. Not even the Audiophile version would match current recording standards.

While I would agree with some of your comments, especially about the GUI, you are just flat out WRONG with this point! I have personally sold lots of my BIAB tracks through libraries and I do NOT have the audiophile version!

I agree with JohnJohnJohn regarding the quality and usefulness of BIAB generated tracks in recording projects. Both for home recordings and commercial studio recordings.
Posted by: Rob Helms

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/29/20 03:09 PM

I found your post interesting, but I reality I think many of the problems are lack of experience with the program. This program is deep, and as you mentioned can get confusing, even overwhelming. But for simple creation it is very solid. Spend a little more time with it, and ask detailed but focused questions. Include pictures or videos of problems. Be specific and stay with one issue at a time. There are many here that will help you,
Posted by: Teunis

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/29/20 11:31 PM

RolandS one of the things I really love about BIAB is the ability to “create my own band”. I believe the main limitation to BIAB is my own imagination. I’m sure if I had a better imagination I could get more from BIAB but I am to blame for that no one else.

When I use RealStyles I very seldom use the exact RealTracks as given. I imagine what “my band” needs and add those components. Then once the song is put together I tend to have instruments in the areas I want them. For example, I tend to keep the piano tracks on the right side and picking guitar bits on the left. I rarely have instruments swapping all over the place. If I had a real band I would not have instruments jumping about.

I reckon I generate pretty good backing tracks for myself and find I’m doing songs my way which I really enjoy. I love it when someone comes up and says I didn’t know you could do that song that way.

Anyway enough rant. I believe one is only limited by ones imagination.

Tony
Posted by: Jim Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 01/30/20 04:52 PM

Roland S, First of all welcome to the PG Music forum and to Band-in-a-Box. I hope you will become a frequent forum contributor in both posts and User Showcase song links.

I don't remember seeing Peter Gannon respond to the first post of many new members. I thought that it is pretty neat that the creator and company owner is interested to read and respond to your first post.
Posted by: Roland S

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/05/20 12:41 PM

Thanks to all of your replies
.
I have to apologize for some of my previous statements. There was likely a certain degree of frustration involved, after struggling with the program(s) and tutorials for almost 2 weeks. Meanwhile I could overcome many of my initial problems and discovered that the program provides a lot more functionality than I could even think of.

Nevertheless I still see some room for improvement. Not so much from a functional point of view, but more from a workflow perspective.
As soon as I will find the time, I plan to explain in more detail where I am coming from, where I am heading for and how the program could support me more straight forward and intuitive in this process.

If this could help future newbies to get good results quicker and with less frustration, this should be in everybody's interest.

I will try to make sure that I havn't missed out on some functionality/workflow that already exists. So I definitely have to dig a bit deeper into the subject.
Posted by: Roland S

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/05/20 01:06 PM

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your reply and this great program.

I use a RME Fireface UFX which is set to 96kHz/24Bit, in conjunction with the RME (Windows 10) ASIO driver. I use this setup with my DAW(s) and all other music programs. Whilst RealBand worked fine with this setting as well, Band in a Box always switched to 44.1kHz when it was opened. Since I set the preferences in Band in Box from ASIO to "WAS", everything works fine now.

Regarding my workflow and wishlist, I will prepare a detailed description as soon as possible. I found out, that most of the desired functionality already exists in Band in a Box somehow/somewhere. I just couldn't find it or I just didn't understand what the program was doing in a particular case and why. I think some minor enhancements could make life a lot easier for many users. As said, I will come back to that soon.

Roland
Posted by: Jim Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/06/20 10:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Pipeline
Here's a GUI idea:
Pipeline, That is a great looking toolbar mock-up. I especially like the add / remove icon feature.
Posted by: Jim Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/06/20 10:35 AM

Roland S,

Check out the +++ Groove3.com +++ tutorial videos for Windows and for Mac. The Windows and Mac video series are also available +++ DIRECT +++ from Groove3.com.

Both video series are a great introduction to Band-in-a-Box and how to use many of its features. The Band-in-a-Box (BiaB) for Mac series is 30 videos with 2 hours and 50 minutes of content. The BiaB for Windows series is 23 videos with 1 hour and 56 minutes. Both series offer video samples and extensive overviews and outlines.

I purchased the BiaB for Windows series so I can download the videos for offline viewing. Groove3 also offers a monthly subscription that allows you to access all their content.
Posted by: Roland S

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/07/20 09:25 AM

Thanks for the hint!
Posted by: Roland S

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/07/20 11:21 AM

Sorry for the large post, but I think it is necessary to understand where I am coming from.

I see the future of BB in the plugin and the content delivered. Seamless integration with DAWs is the key for success and content is where the money can be earned. Regarding integration - I work a lot with Melodyne Studio and really appreciate the comfort of the ARA integration with my DAW(s). BB's unique selling point is the creation of additional tracks and variation of styles. Tools like RealBand may be good as a quick start for beginners, but I doubt it will be able to compete with already established DAWs over time - unless somebody wants to invest a huge amount of money and effort in development. I personally wouldn't do so.
From my own experience and the colleagues I know, most users stick with their favourite DAW as long as they can - once they have found a decent one.

----------

My main work scenario, Band in a Box should support:

In my DAW I already have an audio jam track of a band rehearsal, without a constant tempo (but tempo markers). Maybe I already have some vocal melody, a midi drum track and some guitar tracks along with it. I want to create a proper song from that, bringing some structure to it, creating additional parts/bridges and further instruments. Band in a Box shall help me doing so.

Stage 1 - Preparation:

So my first challenge is to make BB aware of what is already there and what I likely want to keep. Intuitively I would try to copy and paste those tracks to the related BB tracks - to the VST plugin or the standalone version - either as midi file or audio file. When using the VST plugin, I would expect that it has automatically taken over the project tempo from the DAW or giving me the chance to import some tempo map.
- So far I have not found a way to import multiple audio files
- The project tempo from the DAW is not taken over by the plugin
- I couldn't import any midi file from my DAW project folder to any of the plugin tracks

Here my first level of frustration starts. From what I understood from the tutorials so far, I have to import one of the audio tracks only. As I can't import a midi chord track, I have to create the chord sheet and tempo changes in BB manually or try to use the ACW function. The tempo detection there is ok. The chord detection in ACW didn't deliver satisfying results to me yet. Means a lot of manual correction work again before storing the result as a raw song idea.

Stage 2 - The creative part

Usually I already have some idea what I would like to try out on the song. As an (extreme) example that may not make much sense: Adding some funky slap bass plus some gypsy style guitar along with a country style fiddle and some synth pad. Usually I already have some midi drum file from Toontrack's SD3 as a rhythmic basis, but that doesn't seem to help me much with BB.

Here I reach my second level of frustration. I can select a style from the style picker and BB will create some nice song for me. But it sounds like a typical song of this style/genre would sound like.
- No mix of styles
- little influence on instruments used with the predefined style (I could change the sound on midi tracks, but the playing style of the original instrument remains)

Don't get me wrong, but the whole reminds me a bit of instant soup (which nevertheless may taste good). But I want to create something different. Probably I could search for the various instruments and styles, switch the styles for the song sequentially and bring single tracks back into my DAW after each generation. But that will become pretty time consuming and requires a lot of patience. I am also a bit afraid that the results won't be as good as they could be, as in such a case BB won't have any idea about the tracks used in my song and their melodic interaction.

Stage 3 - Refining the song, arranging and mixing

Most of this job I will do in my DAW. There I have all the comfortable mixing and editing functions and I am used to the workflow. Although the RealTracks sound good and I might keep some of them, in most cases I will prefer a midi file to work with. I have tons of good sounding VST instruments available and tweaking around with sounds, tempo changes and melodic corrections is a lot easier using midi. So getting midi tracks from BB is cruical for me. In some cases I might be able to convert a RealTrack to midi myself, but if possible, I would like to avoid that additional step.


Summary of my desired improvements:
- when adding the BB plugin in the DAW, the plugin should automatically take over the project tempo from the DAW, as other plugins do.
- I want to be able to import/drop an audio or midi file from the DAW clipboard to any of the predefined mixer tracks in the BB plugin or standalone version.
- A CW function on a midi track should make chord recognition a lot easier for BB, helping me to fill the chord sheet without retyping everything.
- An instrument and style selection per track would be wonderful (if not explicitly choosen, the overall song style can still be used as default)
- Midi files available for all RealTracks, that could be brought back into my DAW.

Maybe some of my desired improvements already exist in BB and I just couldn't find them yet. In this case I have watched the wrong tutorials so far.

-----

After having said all that, I discovered that RealBand might be able to solve some of the subjects above. But after some first enthusiasm, trying out and reading another manual - it seems to to be another dead end. I haven't found any way to sync RealBand with my DAW. I am stuck, getting confused and frustration starts again...

Maybe I should rather practise with my real instruments instead of playing with the computer.
Posted by: PeterGannon

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/08/20 03:07 PM

> Maybe I should rather practise with my real instruments instead of playing with the computer.

I think you’ve partly run into problems because you’ve started off a first project with something too complicated (a song that isn’t at a constant tempo, that you also need BIAB to figure out the chords to). That just creates extra time and work for you. My advice would be to make your first project with BIAB to be a simple one, meaning one with a single tempo. Then add your own instruments playing to those constant tempo tracks.

There are over 8,000 original songs in the UserShowcase Forum, where people have done similar projects to yours, audio and MIDI, using Band-in-a-Box, their DAW and their added tracks.
Posted by: Charlie Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/08/20 05:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Roland S

BB's unique selling point is the creation of additional tracks and variation of styles. Tools like RealBand may be good as a quick start for beginners... most users stick with their favorite DAW as long as they can.

You've laid out a good work flow. DAW, BIAB, RB, DAW

My main work scenario, Band in a Box should support:

In my DAW I already have an audio jam track of a band rehearsal, without a constant tempo (but tempo markers). Maybe I already have some vocal melody, a midi drum track and some guitar tracks along with it. I want to create a proper song from that, bringing some structure to it, creating additional parts/bridges and further instruments. Band in a Box shall help me doing so.

Let your audio jam track be your starting point. It can be an audio file or a midi file. It can be a live field recording of your entire band rehearsing a song.

Stage 1 - Preparation:

So my first challenge is to make BB aware of what is already there (either as midi file or audio file). Use BIAB or RealBand to give you the chance to import some tempo map.

Yes. That is how you should begin your project. By importing an existing recorded audio file or midi file, you can use BIAB or RB tools to create a chord chart, tempo map, determine the key signature from your existing song.

- So far I have not found a way to import multiple audio files

You only need a single audio or midi file to work with between BIAB/RB and your DAW.

- The project tempo from the DAW is not taken over by the plugin

This is not necessary. Use BIAB or RB in stand alone mode.

- I couldn't import any midi file from my DAW project folder to any of the plugin tracks

If you're using a midi file and not an audio rendered from a midi file, open that midi file you want to use in BIAB. BIAB will automatically analyze the chords and populate the chord chart. It can be a midi file you play or program or it can be a commercial midi file you've purchased or downloaded from the internet.

Here my first level of frustration starts. From what I understood from the tutorials so far, I have to import one of the audio tracks only.
As I can't import a midi chord track, I have to create the chord sheet and tempo changes in BB manually or try to use the ACW function.
The tempo detection there is ok. The chord detection in ACW didn't deliver satisfying results to me yet. Means a lot of manual correction work again before storing the result as a raw song idea.

See my comments above. Opening a midi file, every thing is automatically decoded or a single audio file can be processed by the Audio Chord Wizard (ACW).

Stage 2 - The creative part

Usually I already have some idea what I would like to try out on the song. Usually I already have some midi drum file from Toontrack's SD3 as a rhythmic basis, but that doesn't seem to help me much with BB.

It will help once you adjust your workflow.

Here I reach my second level of frustration. I can select a style from the style picker and BB will create some nice song for me. But it sounds like a typical song of this style/genre would sound like.

You can either select a style, either RealStyle, Midi or a hybrid style of both. This is not necessary if you want to add individual instruments to play along in the style you have already determined with your initial DAW band rehearsal recording. That will be the groove you are trying to match using individual instruments, either midi, super midi or RealTracks.

- No mix of styles

You can mix, match, modify and change styles all you want.

- little influence on instruments used with the predefined style

Midi instruments and styles are completely editable. RealTracks are recorded audio and are not as editable as midi but there are techniques to maximize and make these tracks unique and distinct to your song.

Don't get me wrong, but the whole reminds me a bit of instant soup (which nevertheless may taste good). But I want to create something different. Probably I could search for the various instruments and styles, switch the styles for the song sequentially and bring single tracks back into my DAW after each generation. But that will become pretty time consuming and requires a lot of patience. I am also a bit afraid that the results won't be as good as they could be, as in such a case BB won't have any idea about the tracks used in my song and their melodic interaction.

You are correct that you have to tell BIAB/RB what you're looking for but consider that to be the same as if you have hired live session musicians to contribute tracks to your project.

Stage 3 - Refining the song, arranging and mixing

Most of this job I will do in my DAW. There I have all the comfortable mixing and editing functions and I am used to the workflow. Although the RealTracks sound good and I might keep some of them, in most cases I will prefer a midi file to work with. I have tons of good sounding VST instruments available and tweaking around with sounds, tempo changes and melodic corrections is a lot easier using midi. So getting midi tracks from BB is crucial for me. In some cases I might be able to convert a RealTrack to midi myself, but if possible, I would like to avoid that additional step.

You can just use midi tracks if that's what you prefer to use. Save a track as midi, open this saved midi file in your DAW and apply your preferred VST instrument from your DAW library.

Summary of my desired improvements:
- when adding the BB plugin in the DAW, the plugin should automatically take over the project tempo from the DAW, as other plugins do.

I recommend you create your BIAB tracks in the full version rather than the VST version in the beginning. The full version has many more features and options and knowing the full version will help you a lot when you do work with the VST and your DAW together.

- I want to be able to import/drop an audio or midi file from the DAW clipboard to any of the predefined mixer tracks in the BB plugin or standalone version.

It's very easy to open an audio file or midi file in BIAB to work with on a BIAB project. If you are having issues, just place your question here on the forum.

- A CW function on a midi track should make chord recognition a lot easier for BB, helping me to fill the chord sheet without retyping everything.

Opening a midi file in BIAB automatically analyzes the chords and populates the chord chart, sets the tempo and key signature. It's a great way to get a jump start on a project.

- An instrument and style selection per track would be wonderful (if not explicitly chosen, the overall song style can still be used as default)

Regarding RealTrack instruments, I recommend you work with individual instruments from the RealTrack picker to find instruments that fit the recorded audio recording of your band rehearsal.
- Midi files available for all RealTracks, that could be brought back into my DAW.

Here you should select RealTracks that contain Real Charts. If a RealTrack has a chart, the RealTrack name is underlined. Real Charts are midi.

After having said all that, I discovered that RealBand might be able to solve some of the subjects above. But after some first enthusiasm, trying out and reading another manual - it seems to to be another dead end. I haven't found any way to sync RealBand with my DAW. I am stuck, getting confused and frustration starts again...

Use RealBand as an intermediary step between constructing your song in BIAB and your DAW. It has many features to help select and generate additional tracks for your project.

Maybe I should rather practice with my real instruments instead of playing with the computer.

I suggest you create a recording of a song you want to use in a BIAB project, use it to locate and generate midi and RealTracks to supplement your live recording and import all that together into your DAW and create your song just as you imagine it to sound.
Posted by: Roland S

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/09/20 01:39 AM

Hi Charlie,
Thank You so much for your helpful explanations and your hints. At least it looks as if I am not completely off track with my observations. I am not so happy having to deal with 3 different programs (RB, BIAB Standalone, VST) in parallel with my DAW, but it seems to be all I can do at the moment.

Your example about the hired session musician is great. More or less that's the job I expect from BIAB. However I would rather expect the musician aligning with the rest of the band somehow, not necessarily bringing his own band with him and playing the song completely his way and in his tempo. That's probably why I am not so keen on creating the song in the BIAB standalone version upfront. But if I have to do so, I still can mute the rest of his band and copy only him.

For the desired (slight) tempo changes in my song I will have to find some solution. Most songs I do with constant tempo, however sometimes small tempo variations within the song will give it a more natural human touch. That's another good argument for having midi files at hand. Tempo changes are handled by the DAW automatically, without degrading the sound by further audio stretching operations.

I use the Ultra+ version of BIAB. I think the libraries cover the traditional American music styles very well. I can't think of anything that couldn't be found there. (If unavoidable I will also find a way to convert the RealTracks to midi).

Where I would like to see more content of, is the New Age stuff and all kind of other styles from around the world. Let it be African, Oriental, Asian, Balkan, Eastern Europe Gypsy styles, etc.
Especially the African rhythms and oriental instruments are something I am very keen on.
Although I am not a big fan of it, even Hip-Hop, EDM, Rap and other contemporary styles might come handy sometimes.

Thanks once more for your help!

Cheers
Roland
Posted by: Charlie Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/09/20 05:20 AM

"For the desired (slight) tempo changes in my song I will have to find some solution."

Here you go:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCRt2hQ137M

Jump to 37:45 for demonstration and instructions on how to get a click track for audio recorded without a click track
.

Your work flow seems like it will be best to work with starting your project in a DAW or with other recorded audio and then bring in BIAB instruments based on your existing song. knowing that makes it easier to get BIAB/RB to work for you and not against you.

Every so often a joke goes around the forum that BIAB always shows up, never tires of playing the same tune over and over, will practice for hours and won't ever run off with your spouse. That's the joke.

But, the truth is, it will show up dumb as a rock, not know the songs, the key, tempo or chord progression.... You have to tell it everything.
wink
Posted by: funkycornwall

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/09/20 04:13 PM

If you know what tempo changes you might require in a song then you can make them in BIAB standalone. For instance you might have verses at one tempo and chorus slightly faster then back to normal verse tempo and maybe a different tempo for the bridge. Maybe you might want a gradual slow at the end you can do all this in bar settings. Once you have all the tempos as you would like them you can export the song as a midifile into your DAW. This song will include all the correct tempo changes. Now when you export your RealTracks or RealDrums from BIAB to your newly created DAW song they should all line up perfectly with the tempos.
Posted by: PeterGannon

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/09/20 07:59 PM

> But, the truth is, it will show up dumb as a rock, not know the songs, the key, tempo or chord progression.... You have to tell it everything.

The Audio Chord Wizard (available in BIAB and RB) figures out tempos, chords and key from audio without you telling it anything.
Posted by: Charlie Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/09/20 10:09 PM

Originally Posted By: PeterGannon
> But, the truth is, it will show up dumb as a rock, not know the songs, the key, tempo or chord progression.... You have to tell it everything.

The Audio Chord Wizard (available in BIAB and RB) figures out tempos, chords and key from audio without you telling it anything.


Not to argue with the owner of the company but I don't feel I can leave you thinking I was dissing the program. Not the case at all. You missed the context of my remark. I was discussing the poster's work flow bringing BIAB tracks into his DAW.

In that context, I had compared BIAB/RB to a session musician arriving at a recording session for the poster's project. The session musician arrives not knowing the songs, the key, tempo or chord progression. You have to tell the musician about your project. I was telling the poster that BIAB/RB arrives at his DAW session the same way.
Posted by: VideoTrack

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/09/20 10:27 PM

Thanks for clarifying, Charlie. I saw exactly where you were coming from, and actually had a quiet chuckle laugh .

But you've clarified just in case some thought it was a negative remark (which it wasn't smile ).

Trev
Posted by: Rustyspoon#

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/10/20 08:30 AM

I suggested it earlier, I will add this again as I think it might be relevant.

Maybe it is a good idea to have a splash screen on the start with couple of video tutorials offered, right from the "start".

For example:
1)Getting started.
2)Complete backing track making.
3)All tutorials.

For the first one something very simple 3-5 minute walk through on basic stuff.

For the second something more complex: bar changes, tempo changes, use of soloist, etc. Still making a single song, not just parts of the project. So the first time user sees the whole process / workflow.

And third will point to website to all tutorials.

And of course have a tick on the bottom "do not display on start"
I have seen similar approaches on couple of software titles. Very effective.
Posted by: Matt Finley

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/10/20 10:04 AM

Yes, having the splash screen with help for new users is a good idea, with the checkbox to turn off.
Posted by: Roland S

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/11/20 10:49 AM

Hi Charlie,

Very helpful. I missed this tutorial, as I started with BIAB 2020.

Although I already have the tempo map in my DAW, it looks as if RB could help me to analyze tempo variations and even time signature changes in a very comfortable way in the future.

It would be even nicer if the BIAB plugin would try to follow the tempo map of my DAW as other plugins do. If necessary learning and storing the time signature and tempo changes during some dry run before any styles are selected and further tracks are generated.

But as it looks at the moment, I have to copy some of the track(s) to RB or BIAB Standalone first, analyze the tempo and the chords, save the song there, start the BIAB plugin in my DAW, importing the BIAB song and hoping that the plugin and the DAW will stay in sync. A bit clumpsy kind of procedure, but it may work.

Cheers
Roland
Posted by: Charlie Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/11/20 12:16 PM

< It would be even nicer if the BIAB plugin would try to follow the tempo map of my DAW >

It can be done. I'm not sure if the Plugin does, but certainly the full Band in a Box program or RealBand does.

If you export an audio track from your DAW project, and use the Audio Chord Wizard from either Band in a Box or RealBand, it will create a tempo map that will faithfully and accurately follow that audio so when you export a midi or RealTrack back into your DAW to use it as a track in your project, it will be in sync with your DAW project.

You can also use the click track method from the tutorial above but it will likely not be as exact as a tempo map created from the Audio Chord Wizard (ACW)
Posted by: PeterGannon

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/11/20 04:07 PM

> It would be even nicer if the BIAB plugin would try to follow the tempo map of my DAW as other plugins do.

Agreed. Currently I’m unaware of any protocol that would allow a plugin to retrieve the tempo map that is set in the DAW. Plugins are intended to be “live” (ie processing MIDI or audio in real time) so they don’t get much access to things while they are stopped.

There’d be a (slightly awkward) way of doing it, by exporting a MIDI file from the DAW and then dragging that midi file onto the plugin, where the plugin could then read tempos and time sigs from the MIDI file. That’s not implemented yet for the plugin, its something we’re planning.
Posted by: PeterGannon

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/11/20 04:09 PM

> It can be done. I'm not sure if the Plugin does, but certainly the full Band in a Box program or RealBand does.

Yes, BIAB and RealBand allow making bar/tempo maps like that. The plugin doesn’t.
Posted by: Roland S

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/11/20 10:44 PM

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your reply. It's good to hear about the planned improvements for the plugin.

As working as an IT Manager for software, I can imagine the challenges your software engineers are facing with my kind of requests and a huge product like BiaB with such a long history. Besides the technical challenges you also have to deal with the diverting expectations of your traditional customers and new ones who may ask for new concepts. I don't expect any miracles.

I am also aware of the challenges in conjunction with real time processing, especially when it comes to time critical operations like audio processing. Again, I don't expect any miracles.

Just some hint: It might be worth if your software engineeers for the plugin have a deeper look into the ARA protocol. I don't have a deeper understanding of it. But from what I figured out, programs like Melodyne Studio must face similar challenges like BIAB, despite the fact that they serve a different purpose. And Celemony does an excellent job when it comes to seamless integration with all kind of DAWs.

It may not work for BIAB in the end, but is always worth having a look what others do.

Cheers
Roland
Posted by: PeterGannon

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/13/20 10:13 PM

> It might be worth if your software engineeers for the plugin have a deeper look into the ARA protoco

Yes, we’ve had a look at that. It seems ideally suited to modifying a selected region of DAW audio. I’m not aware of what information it can get from a DAW when playback isn’t happening, such as the full tempo map, or chord names.
Posted by: Roland S

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/15/20 01:17 AM

Hi Peter,

Let me quickly explain where I see the parallels and the integration potential for BIAB using ARA2.

Also the Melodyne plugin has to analyze the input coming from the DAW. It does so when applying the plugin to an existing audio track. The Melodyne plugin takes the song tempo from the DAW and analyzes the audio file for the played notes. After that it seems to share the file with the DAW. Meaning that all changes done within the plugin are directly available for playback and further effect processing in the DAW.

The main difference between BIAB and Melodyne is, that BIAB creates tracks itself, whereas Melodyne just uses existing ones. But that shouldn't be a big problem.
In case of the BIAB plugin, it would be necessary to do some assignment between one of the BIAB tracks and the DAW track, likely using the audio track in BIAB as a start. The full tempo map could come from the DAW, like in Melodyne. If not using your ACW function as equivalent to what Melodyne does, a chordsheet import could also be an option.

Within the Melodyne plugin, I can switch between the tracks or work on several tracks in parallel. That's pretty similar to what happens within the BIAB plugin already. But with BIAB I currently don't have the separate tracks in my DAW. I have to import them one by one, every time I make a change in BIAB. Creating a track in the DAW first, assigning the BIAB plugin and sharing the respective track in BiAB would be a more natural workflow.

With Melodyne, many DAWs offer an audio to Midi conversion, creating a new separate midi track in the DAW on demand. In case of BIAB, the equivalent would probably be to create and assign a Midi Super track to the new DAW track.

The good thing about ARA2 is, that all major DAWs I know already support it. According to the time it took to get there, it must have been quite some effort for the DAW providers to adapt such a standard. So it should be in their interest to make most out of it and to re-use it whereever possible.
What I don't know though, is the policy and willingness of Celemony to share this standard with other products. But if you are interested you should be able to find out. At the end of the day it might be a win/win situation for both companies and definitely for the customers.

Cheers
Roland
Posted by: Masi

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/16/20 11:32 AM

Originally Posted By: PeterGannon
Currently I’m unaware of any protocol that would allow a plugin to retrieve the tempo map that is set in the DAW. Plugins are intended to be “live” (ie processing MIDI or audio in real time) so they don’t get much access to things while they are stopped.

There’d be a (slightly awkward) way of doing it, by exporting a MIDI file from the DAW and then dragging that midi file onto the plugin, where the plugin could then read tempos and time sigs from the MIDI file. That’s not implemented yet for the plugin, its something we’re planning.

Without ARA the audio plugins are listening to the live audio stream for analysis. If the plugin could listen to the MIDI stream it should be able to derive the tempo map from MIDI the clock. As the plugin is an instrument it could be placed on a dedicated MIDI track in every DAW.

It could be required to play the complete length of the song once to get the tempo map into the plugin, but without the need of exporting or importing MIDI files. Maybe the plugin could gather the data even if the DAW is rendering the track offline.

Masi

PS: Dragging MIDI files into the plugin would be great for adding the soloist to the plugin.
Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/16/20 12:33 PM

You should be able to get and set the tempo map from the BB Plugin in Reaper with API:

Count DAW tempo markers for BB plugin:
int CountTempoTimeSigMarkers(ReaProject* proj )

Get DAW tempo map for BB plugin:
bool GetTempoTimeSigMarker(ReaProject* proj, int ptidx, double* timeposOut, int* measureposOut, double* beatposOut, double* bpmOut, int* timesig_numOut, int* timesig_denomOut, bool* lineartempoOut )

Add tempo markers to DAW from BB Plugin tempo map:
bool AddTempoTimeSigMarker(ReaProject* proj, double timepos, double bpm, int timesig_num, int timesig_denom, bool lineartempochange )

Same with Chords:
int AddProjectMarker2(ReaProject* proj, bool isrgn, double pos, double rgnend, const char* name, int wantidx, int color )





Posted by: Trygve Larsen

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/17/20 12:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Charlie Fogle
If you export an audio track from your DAW project, and use the Audio Chord Wizard from either Band in a Box or RealBand, it will create a tempo map that will faithfully and accurately follow that audio so when you export a midi or RealTrack back into your DAW to use it as a track in your project, it will be in sync with your DAW project.

Originally Posted By: PeterGannon
Yes, BIAB and RealBand allow making bar/tempo maps like that. The plugin doesn’t.

Just wonder, when it's already done for audio, why is it not done for Midi? When we load midi with bar/tempo maps included, BiaB cant't/will not read it... This makes is useless as a serious midi program for MANY midifiles, classical music in particular, I guess. I have no idea why this is not done, but wonder IF it is on the table to be implemented?

Because, THAT is the last obstacle to import/render/ and add Real tracks/Drums to ANY midifiles, AND it would make BiaB SUPERIOR in an unmatched way, to any other music program software out there, as far as I can understand...
Posted by: Charlie Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/17/20 05:40 AM

You may want to experiment with rendering your midi file to audio and and having the ACW create a tempo map. I have no idea how accurate that will work for classical music but it works like a champ for easy listening, rock and country that's normally a single time signature. There is a tutorial video about creating a click track in RealBand and creating a click track may be a useful first step to identify areas that have different time signatures if that's applicable to your song project.
Posted by: Trygve Larsen

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/17/20 09:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Charlie Fogle
You may want to experiment with rendering your midi file to audio and and having the ACW create a tempo map. I have no idea how accurate that will work for classical music but it works like a champ for easy listening, rock and country that's normally a single time signature. There is a tutorial video about creating a click track in RealBand and creating a click track may be a useful first step to identify areas that have different time signatures if that's applicable to your song project.

Yes, that is a good workaround. So I'll have that in mind next time I have a long midifile with a lot of BPM variations. But STILL badly want PG Music to implement midi BPM readings.. wink

Perhaps I should make a post about it here to see how many others also want that...
Posted by: VideoTrack

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/18/20 02:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Trygve Larsen
So I'll have that in mind next time I have a long midifile with a lot of BPM variations. But STILL badly want PG Music to implement midi BPM readings.. wink

Perhaps I should make a post about it here to see how many others also want that...

Yes, unless PGM already have that in progress, that's a good starting point.
Posted by: Roland S

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/21/20 01:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Pipeline
You should be able to get and set the tempo map from the BB Plugin in Reaper with API:

Count DAW tempo markers for BB plugin:
int CountTempoTimeSigMarkers(ReaProject* proj )

Get DAW tempo map for BB plugin:
bool GetTempoTimeSigMarker(ReaProject* proj, int ptidx, double* timeposOut, int* measureposOut, double* beatposOut, double* bpmOut, int* timesig_numOut, int* timesig_denomOut, bool* lineartempoOut )

Add tempo markers to DAW from BB Plugin tempo map:
bool AddTempoTimeSigMarker(ReaProject* proj, double timepos, double bpm, int timesig_num, int timesig_denom, bool lineartempochange )

Same with Chords:
int AddProjectMarker2(ReaProject* proj, bool isrgn, double pos, double rgnend, const char* name, int wantidx, int color )







Great job and another smart way to create tempo maps and chord sheets. However this is not exactly what I mean with "seamless integration".

From the nature of BiaB it is obvious and I understand that it needs the chord sheet somehow. However as plugin version it should always follow the tempo and the time signature of the DAW whereas the standalone version may do it's own stuff. That's the main difference between a plugin and a standalone version. If an initially imported midi file helps the plugin to do so, that would be fine with me. But the plugin could also pick the project tempo from the DAW as a start and detect/store the DAW tempo and time signature during a first run through.

Obviously, if the tempo is changed by the user in the DAW, the plugin should detect such a deviation as it has to re-render the affected areas of the audio tracks in such a case. If that couldn't be done on the fly, ok with me. Some dropouts until the re-rendering is completed, would be tolerable from my point of view.

Editable time signatures and project tempo boxes should be obsolete within the plugin. Even the bars information should be obsolete in the plugin. The plugin should always follow the DAW from the first bar to the last bar of the song and if it runs out of chords on its way, so be it. Let's amend the chordsheet in this case.

Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/22/20 05:23 AM

How it is now using the BB .SGU format it only stores tempo for each bar not for each beat and it rounds the tempo to a whole number, it has not got real time signatures other than 3/4 4/4 and only 255 bars. RealBand has real time signatures and decimal tempo maps and it's own file format .SEQ and more than 255 bars.
It needs fixing to be able to play back the already generated tracks to the tempo map so if the tempo is changed in the DAW then it will play back the already generated tracks to that change so if you are using ACID render that will automatically fit the DAW track when dragged in, if you are not using ACID in you DAW then you can re-generate to the new tempo map. Once the play from RAM is implemented this will be a lot easier and quicker.
Posted by: nonchai

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/23/20 06:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Jim Fogle


"The future of PG Music is the DAW Plugin "

Over time the DAW plugin will draw in traditional DAW users including professional studios and audio/video production houses. The DAW plugin will develop into a plugin that does not have to rely on background tasks and helper apps. The plugin will continue to have a limited feature set as compared to the Band-in-a-Box program. The DAW plugin will continue to be part of the Band-in-a-Box packages.
This is because it needs PG Music content to be very useful



Amen.

And it seems to me PG resources aren't enough even to just pro out a proper plugin as desired let alone work on a full DAW.
Why on earth reinvent the wheel? Plus it has to be mentioned that PG musics ability to come up with respectable and modern user interfaces is questionable.

Leave stuff that DAWs , notnstion programs and Pro tools can do much better to DAWs and pro tools.

A better tactic would be to make the plugin for as seamlessly as possible in a DAW - similar to how Melodyne is becoming.
Posted by: nonchai

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/23/20 06:10 AM

Originally Posted By: LtKojak
Originally Posted By: Rob Helms
where RB/PTPA fit in the DAW landscape

Rob, BIAB is NOT a DAW. Never has been, never will be.

The way of the future, as I see it, is to better develop BIAB as a plug-in, teaming up with Cakewalk by BandLab, Presonus Studio One and Reaper, maybe adding/developing features exclusive to each one's workflows of those three.

Presonus' Studio One would make more sense, as they already have the "Chord Track" feature, which could be developed further to blend with BIAB's Real Track and Styles features, turning it into the most advanced DAW/Composing/Songwriting combo on the market, in which BIAB VST could be offered as an paying add-on for the Prime (free) version, the Artist (limited)version and the Pro (full-fledged) version, making it compatible with their new add-on business model.



I note you totally excluded the major DAWs Cubase and Logic. Nor Digital Performer. Cubase in particular has chord track features and what better than to be able to match it up with parts from BIAB via the plugin?.

So when it comes to teaming up - Steinberg would make a lot of sense.

The three *old* mainstream DAWs are also used extensively by composers working for tv, media, games and film - and to have a tool which offers instant session musicians will help a lot of those dudes get work out the door when fast turnaround is required. Whether for mockups or final versions.
Posted by: Jim Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/23/20 08:56 AM

The issue with "working seamlessly with all DAWs" is each DAW has it's own method for communicating with plugins. So a simple goal reveals a complex issue.

An even larger issue is PG Music has not clearly defined the plugin set of features. What capability does PG Music expect the plugin to deliver? What does agreeing with the Band-in-a-Box Lite nickname mean in terms of PG Music expectations and the plugin feature set?

Once the plugin feature set is defined, what is required to work seamlessly becomes much clearer.
Posted by: Teunis

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/23/20 02:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Jim Fogle
The issue with "working seamlessly with all DAWs" is each DAW has it's own method for communicating with plugins. So a simple goal reveals a complex issue.

An even larger issue is PG Music has not clearly defined the plugin set of features. What capability does PG Music expect the plugin to deliver? What does agreeing with the Band-in-a-Box Lite nickname mean in terms of PG Music expectations and the plugin feature set?

Once the plugin feature set is defined, what is required to work seamlessly becomes much clearer.


In the world of data and voice communications they standardised a model for how the different protocols fit together. For example, how one Ethernet card speaks to another. They did not say how the card should be made but how the signal enters the card and how it must leave.

I thought that is what the VST implementation was about. If a plugin uses the term VST it should comply to a set of rules. DAWs should also comply if they are “VST Compliant”. Maybe a Standards organisation is required in a similar vein to the IEEE lot that look after Electronic Communications. That way one can be sure if the have a VST it will work in your DAW.

My thoughts
Tony
Posted by: VideoTrack

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/23/20 03:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Teunis
In the world of data and voice communications they standardised a model for how the different protocols fit together. For example, how one Ethernet card speaks to another. They did not say how the card should be made but how the signal enters the card and how it must leave.

I thought that is what the VST implementation was about. If a plugin uses the term VST it should comply to a set of rules. DAWs should also comply if they are “VST Compliant”. Maybe a Standards organisation is required in a similar vein to the IEEE lot that look after Electronic Communications. That way one can be sure if the have a VST it will work in your DAW.

My thoughts
Tony

I absolutely agree 100%.
Standards and consistency are the most vital factors when individual systems need to interact - seamlessly.
Posted by: Jim Fogle

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/23/20 04:39 PM

Tony,

I don't disagree with you. But the VST specification is not a standard, the specification is proprietary. The VST specification was created and released by Steinburg in 1996 to encourage the development of third party effects for use in Cubase. Steinburg can decide to charge a license fee or quit support any time they desire.

Steinburg released the first VST3 specification in 2008 and discontinued VST2 support in 2013. However many programs, including Band-in-a-Box, do not support the use of VST3 since there are so many VST2 effects and developers continue to release new VST2 effects.

People gravitate to what they are familiar with and comfortable using. VST has mass acceptance and momentum similar to MP3.

Interesting reading: +++ Virtual Studio Technology on Wikipedia +++
Posted by: Masi

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/25/20 11:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Jim Fogle
However many programs, including Band-in-a-Box, do not support the use of VST3 since there are so many VST2 effects and developers continue to release new VST2 effects.

I can only speculate why hosts offer no support for VST3, but what I know is that you cannot get the VST2 SDK any more.

This means only developers who have already an SDK can continue to create no VST2 plugins. Everybody else is forced to create VST3 plugins.

Masi
Posted by: Pipeline

Re: My thoughts regarding the future - 02/27/20 02:01 AM

Free Plugin Chainer Element + BB VST3 Support + More Midi Tracks Win\Mac
and in the future..
https://discourse.ardour.org/t/pg-musics-realband/102739
You could easily add RealDrums to it also for Linux users like you do with PowerTracks as there is no Linux Biab unless Ardour or a Linux Biab Plugin could communicate with a BBW4 in a WineBottle ?

See the amount of users:
https://community.ardour.org/ping_stats

Code:
Current Status

Version	Linux   OS X    Windows
4.0	6678	1050	0
4.1	6118	711	191
4.2	6279	843	363
4.4	7053	1288	409
4.6	3521	655	248
4.7	13547	2040	579
5.0	2029	679	2095
5.1	576	73	118
5.2	7	1	0
5.3	3963	488	844
5.4	2816	1104	2322
5.5	5702	1087	2725
5.6	1256	276	524
5.8	7845	958	2106
5.9	1660	308	828
5.10	2907	622	1644
5.11	1223	372	1025
5.12	25537	7438	25899