I was looking @ the programming language of band in a box & real band they use delphi if they changed to c++ would get less errors and run smoother. They seems very outdated - looking on google most audio applications use c++ with better gui's and less bugs. There are programs that will convert 80% of delphi to c++. They could keep the existing band in a box how it is 32 for the older users that have been accustomed to it's interface for the last 20 years and make a new modern version that can be used like band in a box but in an audio workstation like real band in a new c++ 64 application. They seemed to be able to port it to the Macintosh ok so I do think they would be able to accomplish this sometime soon hopefully.
I didn't understand why the video link to a 1997 video on Generating Solos?
You mentioned
Quote:
There are programs that will convert 80% of delphi to c++.
Have you used these programs successfully (like 80% successfully)? No, I guess not.
Whatever development environment BiaB is produced in has no relationship to its output functionality. Most modern development systems - whether it is Pascal, Java, C++ or C# etc - are all capable of producing the same results, (well, maybe not Cobol...)
BIAB & RB2024 Win.(Audiophile), Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors, AKG K271 Studio H'phones
The output from the Delphi Compiler is just as compact and efficient as any C or C++ or C# compiler. Smooth running is a function of the programmer's effort.
BUT... to change from one language to another for a mature program is asking for trouble.
I know I am a programmer that uses Delphi primarily. It has grown up and kept on a technical level on a par with any other language.
Whatever development environment BiaB is produced in has no relationship to its output functionality. Most modern development systems - whether it is Pascal, Java, C++ or C# etc - are all capable of producing the same results, (well, maybe not Cobol...)
He he. I have been doing many things in COBOL but I wouldn't say that COBOL is modern. It is a nice language, quite speedy, quite comfortable to write and read but verbose. StylePicker and its fellow Pickers would probably be faster in COBOL and because of the file system the maximum number in the Style Picker would have never occured. But for the mathematical equations in the nusic files FORTRAN would be much much better.
Interesting topic. But, why would we end users be concerned with how or why the program is developed, programmed and compiled?
Because of the resulting size of the program and the speed it runs. The smaller the program the faster it loads. The more compact the code, the speedier the program is.
It is a [*****] to program, but written by very good programmers in Assembler the program would be much smaller and faster. The problem with third, fourth, fifth generation program languages (#GL) is that they are often very comfortable to use for the programmer but also create a lot of bulky overhead within the program. In Assembler you would have to program the GUI, in a 4GL you select the features and the appropriate module is loaded.
But in general: I don't care -- as long as my computer is fast enough and the necessary memory can be accessed.
(In the times when Bill Gates had said: "640 KB of memeory should be more than enough for everybody.2: The smallest program I've written in Assembler has had a size of 9 bytes. It gave back an errorlevel number indicating which key was pressed to control DOS batch programs. This program would have never been so small using another language except machine code.)
Interesting topic. But, why would we end users be concerned with how or why the program is developed, programmed and compiled?
Exactly! With today's fast computers and oodles of memory I have zero concern about what programming language PG might choose to use! No one would ever program a Windows application in assembler. Delphi, C++, who cares? Just get that GUI fixed! Better yet, get the whole thing converted to a VSTi that I can use in my DAW!
Well, I would say you have it backwards. Go onto your DAW's forum and ask them why can't they be a slave to Biab's host?
My point is DAW's along with Biab have always been master host programs. They're not designed to be slaves.
Bob
Baloney!:) there is no need to ask a DAW to support my Kontakt instrument library because it is already designed to a standard! if PG designed the RealTracks to be a VSTi it would become something universal that would work with any DAW!
The programming language has nothing to do with it, the Delphi compiler is quite efficient, what slows BIAB down is it uses a lot of resources which need to be loaded into memory. You could program it in Assembly language or even machine code for that matter it the increase in speed would be minimal. What it needs is a streamlining of the GUI to be less taxing on the system
""They could keep the existing band in a box how it is 32 for the older users that have been accustomed to it's interface for the last 20 years and make a new modern version that can be used like band in a box but in an audio workstation like real band in a new c++ 64 application. They seemed to be able to port it to the Macintosh ok so I do think they would be able to accomplish this sometime soon hopefully.""
Sorry was trying to emphasize for a new version but keep the old delphi32 biab for those existing users. The delphi just seems very dated to be still using so I did a list of what others are using for good reasons I would expect. C++ is simply portable to just about any platform and it seems everyone was complaining about the gui problems and syncing to other daw's and vst syncing. Sorry it was just something I had noticed.
I'm totally out of my depth here, but I'm curious. I read through the list and saw that all the "Brand X" programs used C/C++ except for Sonar, which uses MFC. What's that?
R.
"My primary musical instrument is the personal computer."
MFC is an object oriented library it stands for Microsoft Foundation Classes, Delphi uses it's own object oriented library "VLC" which stands for Visual Component Library, it's far more sophisticated than MFC and now delphi is focusing on a vector based library called Firemonkey that is used for cross platform development on Android and IOS.
The problem is not in the language or in the libraries; it's in the code efficiency and baggage. You can easily port Delphi to C++, since they are basically the same language aside from the syntax, but all you'll end up with is the same exact program running with code compiled from C++ instead of Object Pascal. Band In the Box was written back in the DOS days and ported to Windows, but for all intensive purposes it still operates like a DOS program. It reminds me of the earlier versions of AutoCad for Windows before they rewrote it to function like a windows program. One thing that would speed it up is to lose all of the unnecessary bitmaps and 3D bevels on the buttons and controls that not only eat up resources but make it look like a program out of the 1990s
It wouldn't be a total rewrite, unless the GUI code is mixed in with the analytical and music processing code.
Typically all of the GUI code should be in the units which contain the forms that use them and all of the non GUI code such as the music generation should be in separate units.
If everything is in one big main unit and the GUI elements are being accessed from within the procedures which do all of the musical functions then yes it would be quite an undertaking and a nightmare to maintain.
Band In the Box was written back in the DOS days and ported to Windows, but for all intensive purposes it still operates like a DOS program. It reminds me of the earlier versions of AutoCad for Windows before they rewrote it to function like a windows program. One thing that would speed it up is to lose all of the unnecessary bitmaps and 3D bevels on the buttons and controls that not only eat up resources but make it look like a program out of the 1990s
Thank you roslon for that - that's what I'm trying to convey - that's why that old video was posted. ""make a new modern version that can be used like band in a box but in an audio workstation like real band in a new c++ 64 application - and keep the existing band in a box how it is 32 for the older users that have been accustomed to it's interface for the last 20 years"" Maybe not tomorrow or the next day but sometime soon would be a good thing.
The choice of development environment has little or no bearing on the resultant functionality.
Object Pascal is anything but a dated language. It has always been and is still under very active development. The latest RAD Studio is Seattle, released just a few months ago. It includes cross-platform capabilities, giving Multi-Device application support.
I understand your intentions are good, but porting to a different language won't deliver the results I think you are expecting. And certainly won't deliver anything quickly - far from it.
Could the User Interface do with some work? Well, yes. Like all active products, users expect to see regular enhancements.
BIAB & RB2024 Win.(Audiophile), Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors, AKG K271 Studio H'phones
If everything is in one big main unit and the GUI elements are being accessed from within the procedures which do all of the musical functions then yes it would be quite an undertaking and a nightmare to maintain.
Given the program's legacy this would be my guess.
johnjohnjohn " get the whole thing converted to a VSTi that I can use in my DAW!" that could not be hard to do as realband\data\bbw2.exe generates up the tracks then lays them in real band that is a daw - initializing accompaniment functions is starting bbw2.exe up that appears to be much the same as bb\bbw.exe band in a box.
videotrack "Object Pascal is anything but a dated language" is delphi the best to be using for this ? I just wonder why the other daw applications are using c++ and not delphi - is it the personal choice of the person programming since the 90's or is there a reason why c++ could not work for them ? is delphi easier than c++ ? there is a big forum somewhere on band in a box 64 where people are wanting a new interface rather than the dated one would delphi do this ok ? if so why is it not there yet as requested by many but the interface on the ones listed above using c++ are very modern.
videotrack "Object Pascal is anything but a dated language" is delphi the best to be using for this ? I just wonder why the other daw applications are using c++ and not delphi - is it the personal choice of the person programming since the 90's or is there a reason why c++ could not work for them ? is delphi easier than c++ ? there is a big forum somewhere on band in a box 64 where people are wanting a new interface rather than the dated one would delphi do this ok ? if so why is it not there yet as requested by many but the interface on the ones listed above using c++ are very modern.
Pieline, I think I see where you are coming from, but I really believe you don't quite grasp the programming side of things. I'm guessing that because you saw DAW's whose interfaces you liked better and noticed that they were written in C++, that the best/only way to write a good DAW is to use C++.
C++ doesn't produce better graphics or better programs than Object Pascal (Delphi). They're both high-level languages. Down in the nuts and bolts, they all utilize Graphics Objects, I/O routines, Metafiles and more that are exposed by the Windows Operating System.
Here's an analogy: An author wants to write a best seller. He can use a PC or a MAC to write it. Will the book be a better seller because he used a MAC? Of course not. It will only be as good as the author's writing style and creativity, not the editor he produced it with.
Hope this explains it more clearly.
BIAB & RB2024 Win.(Audiophile), Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors, AKG K271 Studio H'phones
I'm still unclear as to the reasons why they use c++ and not delphi ? - if you could give some examples of daw's that are using delphi with good interfaces and operation so I could compare and get an idea of what it is capable of it might help me to understand more than what I do. I don't think it is just about interfaces as said before there are many other problems. I'm just at a lost as to why they use C++ and not delphi.
Well, I would say you have it backwards. Go onto your DAW's forum and ask them why can't they be a slave to Biab's host?
My point is DAW's along with Biab have always been master host programs. They're not designed to be slaves.
Bob
Baloney!:) there is no need to ask a DAW to support my Kontakt instrument library because it is already designed to a standard! if PG designed the RealTracks to be a VSTi it would become something universal that would work with any DAW!
This is a brilliant idea! RTs could become as universal as MIDI and I would expect that PGMusic's sales would skyrocket!
Actually if they could produce a VSTi RT player where one would input the chords and it would generate RTs they could sell it as a separate product.
Yeah, I've got O.C.D, Old, Cranky, and Dangerous.
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
Attack the new guy or welcome the new guy as there might be some truth that hurts a bit to hear ? that's why I said
""They could keep the existing band in a box how it is 32 for the older users that have been accustomed to it's interface for the last 20 years and make a new modern version that can be used like band in a box but in an audio workstation like real band in a new c++ 64 application""
Mike R "I believe that FL Studio is written in Delphi. It certainly used to be." It is strange what it is written in.
Well, I would say you have it backwards. Go onto your DAW's forum and ask them why can't they be a slave to Biab's host?
My point is DAW's along with Biab have always been master host programs. They're not designed to be slaves.
Bob
Baloney!:) there is no need to ask a DAW to support my Kontakt instrument library because it is already designed to a standard! if PG designed the RealTracks to be a VSTi it would become something universal that would work with any DAW!
This is a brilliant idea! RTs could become as universal as MIDI and I would expect that PGMusic's sales would skyrocket!
Actually if they could produce a VSTi RT player where one would input the chords and it would generate RTs they could sell it as a separate product.
In my opinion PG has one HUGE challenge and one HUGE opportunity!
The challenge is converting decades old code to something with a modern GUI abnd 64 bit. It will almost certainly require a major rewrite in logic, code, GUI, etc. Even if they accomplish this they only end up with version X of BIAB.
The opportunity is to build a VSTi version of BIAB! This would also require a large effort but they could leave out a ton a legacy features and functionality that would not be needed in a VSTi. If I could add BIAB RealTracks to individual tracks in my DAW...man oh man that would be heaven! In the pop up VSTi window there would be the ability to select a RealTrack instrument and enter chords in bars and generate/regenerate on command. Maybe the BIAB track(s) could even display chords in my DAW to serve as the "guide" track for the whole song!
This would be so cool and would instantly open up an enormous new market for PG! And they could continue selling the regular BIAB for those who love the classic interface!
Still shows delphi. What is the detector you are using to determine the code base, it might just be detecting a wrapper rather than the native code perhaps ?
FL may have changed to C++ but it certainly used to be coded in delphi for many years and has a neat and fast interface although non standard windows look and feel.
"The opportunity is to build a VSTi version of BIAB! This would also require a large effort but they could leave out a ton a legacy features and functionality that would not be needed in a VSTi. If I could add BIAB RealTracks to individual tracks in my DAW...man oh man that would be heaven! In the pop up VSTi window there would be the ability to select a RealTrack instrument and enter chords in bars and generate/regenerate on command. Maybe the BIAB track(s) could even display chords in my DAW to serve as the "guide" track for the whole song! "
What you are describing as a VST is how RB works with Biab. PGMusic can save a ton of R&D and money just by you learning RealBand and switching over to using it. Alternately, one can already click DAW Plug-in MODE in BIAB and drag ever how many files or regenerations of tracks that you want to into any DAW? What is the payoff to PGMusic to undertake such a huge effort that is at best, promoting a competitor's DAW over RealBand?
"The opportunity is to build a VSTi version of BIAB! This would also require a large effort but they could leave out a ton a legacy features and functionality that would not be needed in a VSTi. If I could add BIAB RealTracks to individual tracks in my DAW...man oh man that would be heaven! In the pop up VSTi window there would be the ability to select a RealTrack instrument and enter chords in bars and generate/regenerate on command. Maybe the BIAB track(s) could even display chords in my DAW to serve as the "guide" track for the whole song! "
What you are describing as a VST is how RB works with Biab. PGMusic can save a ton of R&D and money just by you learning RealBand and switching over to using it. Alternately, one can already click DAW Plug-in MODE in BIAB and drag ever how many files or regenerations of tracks that you want to into any DAW? What is the payoff to PGMusic to undertake such a huge effort that is at best, promoting a competitor's DAW over RealBand?
Well, first, they don't gain a single new customer by me "learning RealBand and switching over to using it"! Not one new customer there! I already use and love BIAB!
And second, let me blunt, RealBand is not a great DAW! I doubt it could even survive as a stand-alone DAW product without RealTracks. So again, very few new customers available to PG that are interested in giving up their modern 64-bit DAW for RealBand!
Third, the DAW plug-in mode you describe sounds interesting but there are so many inconsistencies and warts in BIAB that I would never bother when I can just as easily render my tracks to then use in my DAW. And again, no new customers for this feature!
So that leaves us with a new VSTi version of RealTracks. This would directly compete with huge sellers like Native and everyone else selling VSTi products. It would work in every DAW. Convincing someone to buy a new VSTi is certainly not a big task while convincing them to drop their DAW for an old one that supports RealTracks...well that is never gonna happen!
So there you have it. An almost unlimited supply of new customers who would buy a RealTracks VSTi for their DAW vs. just continuing to sell the DOS/Win3/Win95 patched up product to us old-timers (until we stop buying it of course!)
And also let me blunt, I considered going ahead in my initial comment to address the "RealBand is not a great DAW!" arguement. To be blunt again, I saw that one coming a mile away! Name a single mainstream DAW that has not undergone upgrades, rewrites and enhancements. Protools is up to version 12. Reaper did not use to be a very stable and good DAW. Sonar is ramped up Music Creator. There are folks out there making music as good as most anybody with Audacity. All of those programs are better today than they were in earlier years. Realband is getting better too. I've had Music Creator, Cool Edit, Studio One Professional, Protools 6, 7., Cubase and there have been stability or compatibility issues with each and every one of them at some point.
I didn't advance answer the RB not a great DAW for three reasons. 1. I saw it coming and decided to wait until now. 2. The post is about a VSTi version of BIAB. BIAB is not a DAW. Realband is only relevant because as poorly as you think it performs, it integrates superbly with Biab in the manner you want it to work with other DAW's as a VSTi. and is there for you to use. 3. Terms such as universal, plug & play and works with every DAW seem to be more marketing tools than absolutes. Think of the time setting everything up, drivers, asio, MME, latency, crashes, porting, firewire vs USB, USB2 vs USB3, dongles, activations, passwords and user accounts. Heaven is always just a sin away. The imagination much brighter than the reality. And the reality is that for many, the VSTi version may not be any more stable than RealBand is now.
"RealBand is not a great DAW!" arguement. To be blunt again, I saw that one coming a mile away!
cause you know it is true?
Originally Posted By: Charlie Fogle
Name a single mainstream DAW that has not undergone upgrades, rewrites and enhancements...Realband is getting better too.
not fast enough for me and the thousand of others who use more modern DAWs!
Originally Posted By: Charlie Fogle
Heaven is always just a sin away. The imagination much brighter than the reality.
Is that any reason not to dream and aim high?
Originally Posted By: Charlie Fogle
And the reality is that for many, the VSTi version may not be any more stable than RealBand is now.
Well that would be a real concern if I were PG. I have used dozens of plugins in several DAWs and for the most part they work quite well. The market would certainly not accept a RealTracks VSTi that is not stable.
My main point in suggesting a VSTi is to build on what PG has done best! Namely, RealTracks and the way they create them, time-stretch them, transpose them, integrate them into my chord progressions, etc. That is nothing short of BRILLIANT! It is far more brilliant than any DAW on the market that I have seen. It is far more brilliant than any VSTi I have used so far!
In their RealTracks, PG has something truly amazing that would set the music world on fire when compared to sample libraries where I still have to play the parts entirely! But they need a way to get this brilliance into the hands of people making music and I honestly believe yearly patches to the current GUI will never do that! On the other hand, a new VSTi version of RealTracks would be the product of the year or maybe the decade!
My main point in suggesting a VSTi is to build on what PG has done best! Namely, RealTracks and the way they create them, time-stretch them, transpose them, integrate them into my chord progressions, etc. That is nothing short of BRILLIANT! It is far more brilliant than any DAW on the market that I have seen. It is far more brilliant than any VSTi I have used so far!
In their RealTracks, PG has something truly amazing that would set the music world on fire when compared to sample libraries where I still have to play the parts entirely! But they need a way to get this brilliance into the hands of people making music and I honestly believe yearly patches to the current GUI will never do that! On the other hand, a new VSTi version of RealTracks would be the product of the year or maybe the decade!
RealTracks ARE awesome! But comparing them to a VSTi program is not a fair comparison. By definition VSTi is a sound generator and can only sound as good as the midi commands let it sound. RealTracks are a collection of audio phrases. The genius is not just the sound but the arrangement the musician follows, the recording and mixing engineers dedication to creating the right sounds AND the (BiaB) program's audio engine capability to compile the phrases into something that is both pleasing and coherent. To me that is truely magical.
Would a laser focused VSTi with the capability described above be great? You betcha'. Would it be the equal of megabucks VSTis like Kontakt? Perhaps but it would be a huge gamble for a small music company like PG Music. But, I don't think the VSTi program would be compared to another VSTi. I think it would be compared against audio loops and against loops RealTracks and a VSTi does not fare as well because loops and RealTracks both rely on audio phrases.
Compare RealTracks and BiaB against VSTi and PG Music "wins" because it is an apple versus oranges comparison. Compare RealTracks and BiaB against loops and you have a much more level match up. PG Music doesn't "win" but it doesn't lose either. They just get to compete against every other company that makes Acidized and Rex loops.
So we are all settled on a vsti version and a 64 bit c++ audio workstation version I will mark that as confirmed. The existing delphi32 version as stated will still be available for the older users and the 64 bit c++ audio workstation will also be ported to Macintosh.
So we are all settled on a vsti version and a 64 bit c++ audio workstation version I will mark that as confirmed. The existing delphi32 version as stated will still be available for the older users and the 64 bit c++ audio workstation will also be ported to Macintosh.
Nothing wrong with ambition.
BIAB & RB2024 Win.(Audiophile), Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors, AKG K271 Studio H'phones
RealTracks ARE awesome! But comparing them to a VSTi program is not a fair comparison. By definition VSTi is a sound generator and can only sound as good as the midi commands let it sound. RealTracks are a collection of audio phrases. The genius is not just the sound but the arrangement the musician follows, the recording and mixing engineers dedication to creating the right sounds AND the (BiaB) program's audio engine capability to compile the phrases into something that is both pleasing and coherent. To me that is truely magical.
Would a laser focused VSTi with the capability described above be great? You betcha'. Would it be the equal of megabucks VSTis like Kontakt? Perhaps but it would be a huge gamble for a small music company like PG Music. But, I don't think the VSTi program would be compared to another VSTi. I think it would be compared against audio loops and against loops RealTracks and a VSTi does not fare as well because loops and RealTracks both rely on audio phrases.
Compare RealTracks and BiaB against VSTi and PG Music "wins" because it is an apple versus oranges comparison. Compare RealTracks and BiaB against loops and you have a much more level match up. PG Music doesn't "win" but it doesn't lose either. They just get to compete against every other company that makes Acidized and Rex loops.
Some good points but not sure what your overall position is!
In my growing collection of virtual gear I have some plugs that feature totally synthesized sounds and I have some that are digitized samples. Some of the synthesized sounds have no real-world equivalent while others are intended to model and synthesize a real instrument.
What they all have in common is they can be "played" using a MIDI controller or by inputting the notes on some version of piano roll software.
Some of these plugs are very simple with only a note-for-note match between the MIDI controller and the samples being played. But others have quite extensive functionality such as loops or strum patterns, or drumming patterns, etc.
I understand that BIAB/RealTracks are not created, stored and manipulated note-by-note, rather, they are complete musical phrases a bar or more in length. So clearly there would be some difference between playing notes on a MIDI controller and having the plug select the proper samples from the library.
But given all of that I see no reason why it would not be possible to implement RealTracks generation via a VSTi interface that would work inside any DAW!
And yes, there would be technical issues to work out and also possible issues with assumptions of users who are familiar with how samples work and unfamiliar with the RealTrack phrase approach.
So, I acknowledge it will be a fairly steep learning curve if the PG team has not programmed VSTi before but I cannot imagine the curve to be any steeper than a complete rewrite in a modern framework! And of course there will still be GUI elements required but all of the stuff the DAW already does can be left out.
At the end of the day, if PG could create a RealTracks plug that follows the standards and works in any DAW it would be a KILLER product!
Some good points but not sure what your overall position is! At the end of the day, if PG could create a RealTracks plug that follows the standards and works in any DAW it would be a KILLER product!
I agree a VSTi that can use RealTracks to create an audio file within a DAW environment is a wonderful idea. I support the thought.
But I don't think PG Music has any desire to create a VSTi.
That's one of the great things about PG Music, one never knows in advance what they will do. I never would have guessed a Band-in-a-Box foot pedal or partnering with Roland and Microsoft on Songsmith. PG Music follows their own path.
It was on the Songsmith website. Roland provided different instrument samples from those used in Microsoft software. Songsmith also had a modeled based versus sample based instrument set for a short time years ago.
The project seems to be pretty stagnet but every now and then you can visit the website and scroll through the pages and find something new. I don't think there have been any changes to the program itself since 2012 but the forum area still has some activity.
There is still a big difference between the Mac-version and the Windows-version. Mac-users are missing a lot of Windows-features. When will there be an equivalent version? PGMusic should list the differences on their website. I didn't know them and was quite disappointed.
Isn't one of the main reasons behind the differences between Mac and Windows BIAB versions due to the fact that Apple changed their OS significantly a few years back without consideration for those programs that were designed for the previous system? I'm not sure about this but I seem to recall a discussion a year or two ago.
I understand that BiaB current version and RealBand can run on Mac computer hardware, just need Parallels or Boot Camp etc and run it on a Mac under Windows O/S
Trouble is, many Mac users refuse to do that. That's really their decision. There is a choice.
BIAB & RB2024 Win.(Audiophile), Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors, AKG K271 Studio H'phones
I would say that all the other cross platform audio applications are released at the same time but I could be wrong you would have to have a look and let me know. When you fix a problem with one version you would also be fixing the problem for the other version. Just trying to lift the awareness up.
I have not coded for a long time, did it at UNI, then some years in program design. Old school as a programmer, modular 2, Pascal.
As you guys know, I support a total rewrite and a VST. I believe that a new product will come with time (perhaps a loooong time) .
In regards to programming language I don't really know OOP, but I would have thought that major considerations would be what code was available off the library shelf, if there were good interfaces to work in, whether their was sympathetic development tools, enabling stuff like dockeable drag and drop widows, good sound, low latency. Programming from scratch is always possible but it can be expensive and their are better ways to use time.
I recently retired as a software developer after 30 years in the trenches. I've written everything from Assembly to C#. I worked freelance for the last 15years. I don't know how many tons (all code is measured by the metric ton) of code I have written.
A good friend (and decent enough programmer) once told me that Programming is easy, good Ideas are difficult.
Inexperience sometimes makes people believe a particular tool or technology will instantly solve a problem. Experience shows us mostly this is not true. It is people who take the tools and make the product what it is.
In the hands of Stradivari a chisel is a formidable tool. In my hands it is but a pry bar.
The boys and girls at PG Music have put together a first class piece of code for over a decade now. This is MUCH longer than most programs survive.
Hats off to them.
They never could have done it in JAVA!!!
biab2024(Mac) Latest Build Mac OS Sonoma 14.5 Apple M2 pro 32GB Ram Logic Pro 11
All excellent points mrgeeze. Actually, BiaB just celebrated its 25th anniversary. An eternity in software applications.
Joel Spolsky is a New York software developer with some excellent ideas. I've long been an admirer of his work.
I remember he wrote this article - a long time ago now, but I kept a link to it because it's great advice and this advice is still current. The article discusses rewriting code from scratch. The line that caught my attention was: "It’s harder to read code than to write it." How true.
If PGM ever decided to port to a different development platform, don't expect the next release for a long time. A very long time. And what would be delivered after that extraordinary wait? Exactly what we have now, except with a whole new set of bugs thrown in that need to be painfully sorted out.
Joel also makes other excellent points:
"When you throw away code and start from scratch, you are throwing away all that knowledge. All those collected bug fixes. Years of programming work.
You are throwing away your market leadership. You are giving a gift of two or three years to your competitors, and believe me, that is a long time in software years."
I expect Peter and his team are aware of this too.
While I'm sure the intentions are all good, the O/P should definitely read Mr Spolky's article. I have no intention of being confrontational, but the line: "if they changed to c++ would get less errors and run smoother" is just utter nonsense.
Trevor
BIAB & RB2024 Win.(Audiophile), Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors, AKG K271 Studio H'phones
That's a cool series of essays and it brings back memories -- yes reading code is hard and developers knowing what they have written don't devote time to comment what the code means. Later they take weeks to analyze what they presumably have thought writing this mess within an hour.
It's a good read for everybody who has master solutions to better software.
I have followed Joel for years as well and I totally agree a complete rewrite of software as complex as BIAB would be an enormous undertaking. But there comes a time with every piece of software where you must bite the bullet and do it! Lots of folks here are always wishing for true 64-bit and except for a few die-hard EGA/DOS/WIN95-fans, everyone agrees the GUI is overdue for real modernization. Those kinds of changes done right will likely necessitate a pretty serious rewrite.
But I will come back to my VSTi mantra! If I were PG I'd plan to keep patching up BIAB indefinitely but on a parallel track I would hire a crack team of modern software architects & engineers to connect the brilliant RealTracks engine into a modern VSTi interface. Now that is a Killer Product!
"They could keep the existing band in a box how it is 32 for the older users that have been accustomed to it's interface for the last 20 years and make a new modern version that can be used like band in a box but in an audio workstation like real band in a new c++ 64 application."
Hey guys don't miss the point i'm trying to make - the writing is on the wall - have a bit of insight. You don't want to hold things back. Can you really see band in a box being still having only 32 bit in 2020 2030.. ? I always see things long before they happen but they still always happen. Lift up your consciousness, come up with some transcending ides - new concepts.
This is a good place to bring these to fruition. Don't just sit back and wait n hope pg comes up with some good thing at the end of the year like chickens waiting to be fed, make it happen !
Don't hold back and knock things - get into it. You guys have got to aim a bit higher. With all the vast programming knowledge you guys have it should be possible - not impossible.
If another company decide now to do the same thing, how quick do you think it would take pg to change things ?
LISTEN to johnjohnjohn - get that "VSTi interface" happening NOW !
I found this http://sourceforge.net/projects/delphiasiovst/ so you delphi programmers might be able to incorporate the bbw.exe into a vst as is done something like in realband that calls on c:\realband\data\bbw2.exe (initializing accompaniment)
you could set up a main instance of the plugin on track 1. and set it to track 1. in the vst, with track 2. set to track 2. in the vst and so on or allow the next track as a midi track for the midi notation of that real track.
so the plugin will follow the host synchronization n bpm TPOPSTRINGDIALOG
the vst would need to show the chord window TSSWINDOW and other necessary windows that could be in tab form, might be easiest to follow if you have the chord window like real band continuous unfolded - but basically you just need it for generating up the tracks then move to the daw functions for any further editing.
you should be able to select any bars then click the generate track No.X button on the main plugin window to render a new piece if you don't like the section, without having to generate the entire track.
so the generate buttons would need a drop down menu with real track - drums - user track - super midi and so on with recent generation to choose from could be something like the drop down generate in real band.
you would still need the open save as to import and save an sgu
you can set a bar offset in your daw to allow for 2 bar count off and pickup intro notes.
That is just a startup idea any other users with suggestion, improvements and ides for the vst please post! *
* again please note "They could keep the existing band in a box how it is 32 for the older users that have been accustomed to it's interface for the last 20 years"
Stimulating conversation that I've been following from the beginning. Been reading, but held my fingers in check, but feel the need to write something regarding this subject.
I'm sure that PG is way ahead of you. As development takes time and knowing how 'secret' PG is about upcoming releases, I am not at all surprised to not see any PG staff responding to this interesting thread.
Do any of you seriously believe that Dr. Peter Gannon is still living in the DOS ages? I think not. Bide your time, fellow BIAB'ers.... As has been adequately mentioned, a complete rewrite of what we have today is a HUGE undertaking and will take a lot of time and resources (therefore, money!).
Things will come to fruition in time. And time is what it will take.
Keep on keeping on!
Cheers, Mike
My Music * Asus ROG Strix G15CF 32 GB DDR4 4TB HDD + 1 TB SSD NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 8GB Win 11 AKAI EIE PRO Sound Interface. BIAB/RB 2024 UltraPak Build - Latest
Can somebody explain me WHY exactly is a great, desirable feature to have?
Pretty please?
Do we "need" to have Band-in-a-Box? Is there a "need" to have RealTracks? Is there a "need" to have a tv? Is there a "need" to have ____________ (fill in the blank with whatever you like/want that someone else might not like/want!) It ain't about "need"!
When I am president of the BIAB VSTi fan club, long-time BIAB users who love the interface and functionality will be able to keep it! But for others who want to use the latest, greatest software, GUI, 64-bit, DAW of choice, etc. the new VSTi version will be great for them! (I just realized I may have doomed my idea with that association in this forum!!!)
There is an enormous market for virtual instruments to add in to my DAW and help me create amazing music. I own lots of these libraries such as Kontakt and others. But in most cases the instrument samples are note by note and while that provides great flexibility and control, I also have to play everything on a MIDI controller to get them into my DAW. Some of them include patterns that get close to what RealTracks offers and I like those a lot.
For me, and I suspect lots of others, I have zero interest in many of the things BIAB does. I will never ever use it live and will not even use it to produce complete backing tracks. Mainly that is because I have a DAW that I much prefer to use (and there are LOTS of people out there who have a preferred DAW and will not be changing that!) I am not going to use the built-in metronome or any of the other gadgets.
But those RealTracks! Oh My God...those RealTracks! A pirate's dream. A king's ransom. A maiden's knight in shining armor. Well, the RealTracks are nothing short of amazing! And they blow everything else in the virtual instrument arena out of the water! Hands down. End of story. Slam the door. It it fits it ships!
Having the ability to drop the RealTracks engine into my DAW would be the best thing since sliced bread! And this would indeed be a Killer Product! Can you imagine the excitement among the millions of music producers who could now add RealTracks to their productions directly in their DAW of choice
The only downside is a whole lot of people could start producing music that is as cool as what we BIAB users are producing! Wait...I have changed my mind! Let's cancel the whole VSTi idea before I lose my edge!
ReWire VST works as a standard VST instruments and can load all versions of Reason (32-bit and 64-bit) on PC and Mac OS X. Want to use Reason inside energyXT, MPC, Maschine or any other VST DAW/sequencer, then ReWire VST is for you.
The vst can work in a similar way - just needs to use the c:\realband\data\bbw2.exe like real band does to bring the tracks into the daw instead.
C'mon, let's be pragmatic. There's always room for improvement, but I don't think a single file date of July 24 1991 means the entire system was last written/developed/improved in the 1990's.
Maybe it means that it's fantastic in it's backwards compatibility (!)
It goes without saying that your intentions are all good, no doubt. All things need constant attention & upgrading. But sorry; that's just not a realistic example. I too want to see continual improvement. But let's start with where we are now, not where we were then, yes?
Trev
BIAB & RB2024 Win.(Audiophile), Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors, AKG K271 Studio H'phones
sorry "files" in the bb root going all the way back to 07/24/1991 5:47PM "8.3" "1995,1996,1997,1998,1999 - - - where we are now is still using 8.3 - I remember be limited to working in 8.3 file names back in the dos days trying to squeeze all the different company names and areas into 8 characters I think it would be a good thing not a bad thing it might be just that old notion fear of change
Sometimes I look at this thread and think is this really the biab windows forum, the subject would seem more at home on a computer programming forum. Of course your view may differ.
I think there has been a vast improvement in the biab GUI over the past few years, it has come along in leaps and bounds, and now is a lot easier to use.
Just look at the 2013 GUI and does anyone want to go back to this?
Windows 10 (64bit) M-Audio Fast Track Pro, Band in a Box 2024, Cubase 13, Cakewalk and far too many VST plugins that I probably don't need or will ever use
a long time back somewhere in the forums here I remember watching a video someone made of a whole new band in a box with a totally quantum leap interface that was totally user ajustable - I think that combined with new 64 bit programming would be fantastic. It's just good to see new ideas and new ways of doing things being suggested - sure most would just rather just sit back and not get involved or come up with any new ways and just hope for some good things at the end of another year.
It's always new ideas that we first imagine that bring about change - let's face it that guy that first imagined that the world was round would have coped a pretty hard time - I think some were even scorned, jailed or executed.
I might be just 5-10 years too soon - I could always come back in 5 n try again when there is a collective shift in consciousness.
Hope this helps.
** again I did suggest to keep the old 32 bit delphi for those long term users from back in 07/24/1991 5:47PM
a long time back somewhere in the forums here I remember watching a video someone made of a whole new band in a box with a totally quantum leap interface that was totally user ajustable
Sometimes I look at this thread and think is this really the biab windows forum, the subject would seem more at home on a computer programming forum. Of course your view may differ.
I think there has been a vast improvement in the biab GUI over the past few years, it has come along in leaps and bounds, and now is a lot easier to use.
Just look at the 2013 GUI and does anyone want to go back to this?
Who cares what programming language is used.
My sentiments exactly! Thanks for that post!
Cheers, Mike
My Music * Asus ROG Strix G15CF 32 GB DDR4 4TB HDD + 1 TB SSD NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 8GB Win 11 AKAI EIE PRO Sound Interface. BIAB/RB 2024 UltraPak Build - Latest
just trying out RapidComposer http://www.musicdevelopments.com/rapidcomposer.html it is a standalone and a vsti - the vst RapidComposer_x64.dll (400k) is just used to connect the daw to the RapidComposer_x64.exe (9meg) that starts up when the vst is loaded. BBW.exe is only 8meg so a vst version would be a must to lay tracks down straight in your daw.. though the syncing problem would have to be fixed, like that rewire vst didn't work http://www.energy-xt.com/index.php?id=0115
1 would we have to load a biab vst for every track?
2 And if so load and edit each instance of the vst (realtracks etc) separately for each track?
If so seems a rather long winded and way about way of doing things, might just be a lot handier just to do everything in biab or rb, and then render to .WAV and import into the DAW.
What I am saying though it might be a nice feature to have could be more trouble than its worth.
Windows 10 (64bit) M-Audio Fast Track Pro, Band in a Box 2024, Cubase 13, Cakewalk and far too many VST plugins that I probably don't need or will ever use
Win10Pro,i9,64GB,2TBSSD+20TBHDDs,1080TI,BIAB'24,Scarlett18i8,Montage7,Fusion 8HD,QS8,Integra7,XV5080,QSR,SC-8850,SPLAT,FL21&others,Komp.14,IK suite&others, just a guitar player-AXE FX III &FM9T, FishmanTP, MIDIGuitar2, GK2/3'sw/GI20
rather than saying no that's way too hard it'll never happen - get your thinking caps on and come up with some ideas how it can be done - if Peter came on here asking you for ideas on how to do it you would be straight in there - we would not say oh no Peter forget it that's way too hard Doc. The original post was about programming language but you guys said that would never happen as it's way too hard to do, don't rock the boat. Why not make a list of what is possible and what is not and pin it to the top of the forum, that way anyone coming here with "crazy ideas" will be cut off quick smart and sent on their merry way never to return again - how dare they ! Men on the moon, off to the insane asylum for you mister !.
Come on you Guys, I know you have it in you, I'm sure each one can come come up with an idea, don't be embarrassed it won't sound silly, come on do it for ol' pipeline
just trying out RapidComposer http://www.musicdevelopments.com/rapidcomposer.html it is a standalone and a vsti - the vst RapidComposer_x64.dll (400k) is just used to connect the daw to the RapidComposer_x64.exe (9meg) that starts up when the vst is loaded. BBW.exe is only 8meg so a vst version would be a must to lay tracks down straight in your daw.. though the syncing problem would have to be fixed, like that rewire vst didn't work http://www.energy-xt.com/index.php?id=0115
I have owned RapidComposer for over a year and it is a very impressive tool! In a lot of ways it does what BIAB does but strictly with MIDI and VSTis. And in some ways it does a lot more! PG would do well to study some of the features RC provides and bring those into BIAB. Things like huge libraries of riffs...automatic suggestions for chords that might typically follow the last one...huge library of chord progressions as well as a chord progression generator...stand-alone and VST versions...32-bit and 64-bit...and so on! The RC interface seems a bit quirky to me but is still a much more modern one.
Of course, nothing compares to the end result I can get quickly with RealTracks! So I see these two tools, BIAB and RC, as two important tools in my songwriting toolbox! I would now never be without either one!
1 would we have to load a biab vst for every track?
2 And if so load and edit each instance of the vst (realtracks etc) separately for each track?
If so seems a rather long winded and way about way of doing things, might just be a lot handier just to do everything in biab or rb, and then render to .WAV and import into the DAW.
What I am saying though it might be a nice feature to have could be more trouble than its worth.
Musiclover
It may be that some of us think of BIAB rather one-dimensionally. If you think of it as a performance tool, a chord detector, a training aid and all of the other myriad of features new and old that occupy (litter?) the complex menu and toolbar, then I'd have to agree with you that this should never be converted to a VSTi!
BUT, if you view BIAB, as I do, as simply a shell I have to struggle with to get to those SWEET RealTracks, then having a RealTracks VSTi would be a godsend! I would venture to guess the vast majority of modern music producers work inside their DAW and prefer NOT to have to leave it to use external software on their tracks! Imagine what a pain it would be if your favorite VSTs/VSTis required you to output your tracks, process them inside their own proprietary software, then export and bring them back into your DAW!! There is a very BIG reason for the whole plugin concept...we want to work in a unified environment to the greatest degree possible!
So, imagine a new product from PG called RealTracks VSTi where you mainly get two things...a huge RealTracks library and an engine to manage them (select, stretch, tempo adjust, etc.)! This new product would leave out maybe 75% of the BIAB "features" like a metronome or jukebox and leave out most/all of the MIDI-specific features!
My feeling is such a product would be a killer, best-of-NAMM type deal! Every music producer and every wannabe music producer would be the target market for such a product! I am even a little nervous that PG might actually do this some day and let the rest of the music world know what a great thing we have here!
And before anyone says "just use RealBand" I won't bother to list the reasons why I will not do that but let me just state the very simplest one...what if every plug-in you use, every compressor, every EQ, every reverb required you to use a DAW designed for that plug? That would get old pretty quick, right?
yes the RC interface seems a bit quirky to me also was just about to give up - there is a new Beta 3 being tested one of the features is Source code clean-up, building with C++14 - yes PG could learn, you can drop any midi into the chord track and it will auto fit to the scale/chord. Yes RT love em. It was mentioned in another page about linking the midi of real charts to the real audio so you could enter a midi solo and it would try to fit the corresponding audio of the real charts notation to your midi and like multiriffs give you different ones to choose from that would be closer to your midi notation you need rather than just using any bit of solo the real track artist was playing to fit to your song - RapidComposer has a similar regenerate function (below). BB could well use a multiriff like rb and in the bb audio editor window be able to access the other audio tracks not just the user audio so it could have the same audio edit window as rb that lets you select any track and add some non destructive pan and volume adjustment wav overlays for starters then maybe later a separate automation node lane underneath.
I was thinking maybe we could start a pledge donation 64 c++/vsti upgrade, somewhere in here $30,000 was mentioned - I don't know how many users are hobbyist and how many use it for music production. Maybe we could start a pledge page and see how it goes ? - I would be willing to pledge $1,000 as a starter.
"I find it really strange that a program that has been around for this long has got so many problems. Nevertheless, -I like the concept of BIAB and there are simply nothing like it on the market but the issues I have experienced should have been taken care of before release. A program like this should inspire and not make the user frustrated and loose inspiration. PG should offer a Demo version ! "
I think that nailed it, my sentiments exactly. They have started now on the 2017 version, so that gives them 6 months to reprogram a solid C++ version, if there is not a profound change for 2017 that is it for me, Hasta la vista, baby. If so I will get into scripting in Reaper and create a script users can use and share instrument/drum tracks they have recorded/created and Reaper reads the BWF chord markers & Acid tempo within the wav file (created in Reaper's render dialog from the track makers) and then fits them to your Reaper's chord/marker track. Having very large forum with so many users there would be a large community input of tracks and further script development.
"I find it really strange that a program that has been around for this long has got so many problems. Nevertheless, -I like the concept of BIAB and there are simply nothing like it on the market but the issues I have experienced should have been taken care of before release. A program like this should inspire and not make the user frustrated and loose inspiration. PG should offer a Demo version ! "
I think that nailed it, my sentiments exactly. They have started now on the 2017 version, so that gives them 6 months to reprogram a solid C++ version, if there is not a profound change for 2017 that is it for me, Hasta la vista, baby. If so I will get into scripting in Reaper and create a script users can use and share instrument/drum tracks they have recorded/created and Reaper reads the BWF chord markers & Acid tempo within the wav file (created in Reaper's render dialog from the track makers) and then fits them to your Reaper's chord/marker track. Having very large forum with so many users there would be a large community input of tracks and further script development.
This thread is painful read. Why do you keep making these silly posts when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about? You obviously have no idea what the difference is between Object Pascal and C++ yet you posting this nonsense. Object Pascal and C++ are basically interchangeable, simply changing from one language to another will accomplish nothing other than wasting thousands of manhours.
They have started now on the 2017 version, so that gives them 6 months to reprogram a solid C++ version...
This statement clearly indicates to me that very little is known about the time it might take to translate a computer language for a program of this size.
Moreover, C++, Object Pascal, C# etc are all high-level languages. The compiler converts the high-level source code to machine code instructions that the processor can handle. Essentially, the end result machine code for "Hello World" is the same regardless of what high-level code it started as. The source code is not what is executed when you launch the program.
We all (myself included) want reliable and robust products, and improvements to the interface.
However, yes, please close this thread, it's littered with nonsensical statements.
BIAB & RB2024 Win.(Audiophile), Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors, AKG K271 Studio H'phones
Win10Pro,i9,64GB,2TBSSD+20TBHDDs,1080TI,BIAB'24,Scarlett18i8,Montage7,Fusion 8HD,QS8,Integra7,XV5080,QSR,SC-8850,SPLAT,FL21&others,Komp.14,IK suite&others, just a guitar player-AXE FX III &FM9T, FishmanTP, MIDIGuitar2, GK2/3'sw/GI20
However, yes, please close this thread, it's littered with nonsensical statements.
If this is the new standard then LOTS of threads here would have to be closed!
I am actually surprised you would take this stance; weren't you the one who created animated screenshot demos showing PG how to redesign the GUI? To me it seems Pipeline is making specific suggestions in that same spirit! He might be underestimating the time required (or not if the right team were in place) but his main point that this software needs more than an annual fresh coat of paint is one the majority of users would probably agree on.
And a complete rewrite is sometimes necessary to move forward. However, my suggestion, as always, would be a complete rewrite but NOT of BIAB or RealBand! Instead, package that sweet RealTrack engine and functionality into a VSTi and market it to the whole world of digital producers instead of the small niche that uses BIAB. Leave out lots of the features that are applicable to a stand-alone program and create a streamlined killer VSTi that lets me use RealTracks in my DAW. Not in RealBand...My DAW!
And keep BIAB and RB just as they are with annual bug fixes for anyone who loves those interfaces!
However, yes, please close this thread, it's littered with nonsensical statements.
If this is the new standard then LOTS of threads here would have to be closed!
I am actually surprised you would take this stance; weren't you the one who created animated screenshot demos showing PG how to redesign the GUI?
Hold your horses JJJ. Please don't misquote me.
The O/P stated: "Best to just close this silly thread. [CLOSED]" I simply agreed that it should be closed, because a rewrite in a different language (that's the subject matter of the thread, isn't it?) is just begging for trouble. And with absolute respect to the O/P's intentions, comments about doing this is 6 months are simply bizarre.
Please note that I also stated:
Originally Posted By: VideoTrack
We all (myself included) want reliable and robust products, and improvements to the interface.
I didn't suggest not to produce a better, more robust version with a better interface. I suggested that starting again from scratch and writing it in a new language was not the way to deliver this. I've been writing high-level and low-level code in multiple languages for most of my working career. Believe me, I know how not to approach this.
And if the truth be known, I actually truly admire Pipeline's stance. There is clearly a genuine intention from Pipeline to improve the product. I support that 100%. And there is always room for improvement. The way it gets delivered is the only part that I have concerns about.
Bring on a better product? Certainly!
I hope this clarifies. Trevor
BIAB & RB2024 Win.(Audiophile), Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors, AKG K271 Studio H'phones
I have also been a programmer for many years! But I don't think any of us has the information to know what shape this software is in and what it would take to convert it to a new language. If large chunks are coded in compiled libraries and only required a GUI replacement it will be a different project than if everything is spaghetti-ed in one big codebase. And it also comes down to your team and their experience. Six months is probably too aggressive but I suspect Pipeline was not stating that as an absolute amount of time anyway.
I can see how the PG staff might not relish users telling them what to do and how to do it but who knows? Maybe they appreciated your screen demos and Pipeline's language suggestion!
One last thing...when he suggested closing the thread and called it silly I think that was sarcasm because someone had called him out in a rude way!
If you are a programmer you can easily take a look at the RB project (exe) and go from there.
I think I was even able to get it into Visual Studio .. you see the basic structure, which gives you an idea how much work it would be. One user here (SolidRock)used to make patches and recompile it. Even posted links on these forums with no complaint from PGMusic. I'm sure that's pushing it a bit for the use agreement.
Just checked; Realband & BiaB exe files open in VS 2010 Ultimate version here .. FWIW I altered how RB looks here, with encouragement from certain PGMusic staff. Granted it's not a major overhaul, but I like it better. Easier to see certain things for me. While tinkering with this I made various 'skins' (Stone look for Rock, Straw for Country, etc) but decided the one that made me most efficient was best for me. I can easily see selected tracks this way, and when used in combination with User Categories (these change the icon on the left end of Tracks) it is also obvious to other users as well. Since Barry does Vox (mainly) and John was the drummer, it is pretty obvious what the track would contain .. plus the Category assigns FX to the Track with their individual settings. Makes quick easy work when mixing a project with multiple SEQ files. Since I recorded the drums with the same mic set up on each song, using a preset Category gives me a good starting point between songs. There are a ton of cool features once you learn them.
For the record, this was a blank project I opened and assigned Categories to show these features. My actual production files contain many more Categories (with various images) so I know that, for example, a given track was John's hi-hat mic or the mic on the kick pedal [snap] .. or the speaker mic in front of the hole on the bass drum [boom]. How far you take it is up to you.
It's all good
Last edited by rharv; 06/03/1602:22 PM.
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome Make your sound your own!
Making BIAB a 64-bit app is not an easy task to accomplish. BIAB is written in Apple's Carbon framework which allowed a transition from OS 9 to OS X. So actually most of the BIAB is based on a last century code. Carbon doesn't support 64-bit mode. So in order to make it 64-bit, PG-Music developers would have to transition to Cocoa framework on which all modern Mac and iOS apps are based on which means rewriting BIAB completely from the ground up. Whether or not PG-Music developers are ready to do so we don't know. Rewriting BIAB for modern Cocoa framework will likely break compatibility with older macOSes which means many customers with older OSes will not be pleased about.
But the bottom line here is eventually PG-Music will have to do this transition. Otherwise many customers will have to stick forever on their current Macs with High Sierra or run Windows in Virtual Machines and use Windows version of BIAB.
With Mac going to 64bit only, it seems inevitable that Biab will have to go Cross-platform 64bit re-write now. This will give you the same version/features/release date on both Win and Mac. I can't see any other way, can anyone else see another solution ? Maybe it's already in the pipeline.
You won't like this (and I doubt PG will do it) but:
PG COULD SIMPLY DROP MAC SUPPORT!
As someone else was just today threatening to never buy BIAB again if there wasn't a RB for Mac next time, I could argue PG is already halfway there, to dropping it.
Again, I just don't see the "musical end of the world" need to go there, but that's just me.
Larry
Win10Pro,i9,64GB,2TBSSD+20TBHDDs,1080TI,BIAB'24,Scarlett18i8,Montage7,Fusion 8HD,QS8,Integra7,XV5080,QSR,SC-8850,SPLAT,FL21&others,Komp.14,IK suite&others, just a guitar player-AXE FX III &FM9T, FishmanTP, MIDIGuitar2, GK2/3'sw/GI20
I assume you are correct but since I don't really care if APPLE lives or dies, it means I don't care if BIAB works on Macs or not.
In case there was confusion as to my post when I said:
"...I just don't see the 'musical end of the world' need to go there..."
I was referring to 64-bit, as in "lack of a 64-bit BIAB is not music ending," not RB/BIAB for Mac's.
Larry
Win10Pro,i9,64GB,2TBSSD+20TBHDDs,1080TI,BIAB'24,Scarlett18i8,Montage7,Fusion 8HD,QS8,Integra7,XV5080,QSR,SC-8850,SPLAT,FL21&others,Komp.14,IK suite&others, just a guitar player-AXE FX III &FM9T, FishmanTP, MIDIGuitar2, GK2/3'sw/GI20
Yes Apple is a bugger for stuffing around software developers, they have a new OS just about every month and you find programs that don't run anymore, so the developers have to go back to the drawing board. They went through every Cat OS you could think of, now it's Mountain Ranges OS and each time something don't work anymore.
Look at Windows Program Compatibility Mode, old Win apps just keep working.
Originally Posted By: Larry
PG COULD SIMPLY DROP MAC SUPPORT!
LOL, I heard that in my head before you even posted
I did liked it when we used to have a Biab/RB 2009 then a 2009.5 release though !
Looking in the forum how many are viewing what, there's about 20% Mac, so it's still a bit of a slice to loose.
"While High Sierra will continue to provide complete support for 32-bit apps, later updates will likely discontinue official backing for the older apps. The current version of the macOS gives developers ample time to update their existing apps to a 64-bit version, if they haven't already, by June of next year."
"Ample Time" I think means "if they cancel all annual leave, run 2 shifts (OK, maybe 3), and work every weekend" they will have achieved the required development in 'ample time'
BIAB & RB2024 Win.(Audiophile), Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors, AKG K271 Studio H'phones
Seems that bullying the developers and blackmailing the users has worked pretty well so far for Apple, isn't it?
Ha! Indeed!
I mean no offense to any Mac users here (and I once was one) but I view Apple as more of a cult these days! People standing in long lines to buy an iPhone make me chuckle!
I choose based on technology/features/performance and not brands! Need a new computer? I don't care if it is HP or Dell or whatever as long as it is powerful enough and cheap (but I am kinda stuck with Windows.) Need a new cellphone? Don't care if it is HTC or Samsung or LG. Just needs to be Android and cheap. Need a new car? Prolly gonna be a Hyundai because they offer me a solid cheap car with a long warranty! Need a t-shirt? Don't care if it is plain or advertising Nike as long as it was cheap! Even with instruments. Need a new guitar? Don't care if it is Gibson or Martin or China special. If it sounds good and is cheap!
I just noticed a theme here...turns out I am cheap!
rather than saying no that's way too hard it'll never happen - get your thinking caps on and come up with some ideas how it can be done - if Peter came on here asking you for ideas on how to do it you would be straight in there - we would not say oh no Peter forget it that's way too hard Doc. The original post was about programming language but you guys said that would never happen as it's way too hard to do, don't rock the boat. Why not make a list of what is possible and what is not and pin it to the top of the forum, that way anyone coming here with "crazy ideas" will be cut off quick smart and sent on their merry way never to return again - how dare they ! Men on the moon, off to the insane asylum for you mister !.
Come on you Guys, I know you have it in you, I'm sure each one can come come up with an idea, don't be embarrassed it won't sound silly, come on do it for ol' pipeline
LOL I remember this now that was back in 2015, well we have 64bit but no crossplatform as the Mac version has just been released only now. If there was more encouragement and enthusiasm back in 2015 it could be a different story now. I have posted an absolute ton of stuff since then showing direct track source file transfer to Reaper, direct source editing, BBPlugin generating instantly and playing direct from source files without creating tons of wav's, but other users need to get onboard and get more involved in the development otherwise Biab will get left in the past. Go over to the KVR MusicDevelopments constant beta forum and see how it works, you are getting new features and improvements all the time at the same time on Mac as Win. You can't just keep waiting for father xmas to come each December and hope there's something good and just take what's given, that sends a message "we don't care give us anything, feed the chickens".
Look what's posted below, are these JUCE guys crazy too like me wanting a crossplatform language that's compiled at the same time to Win Lin Mac Plugin/Standalone ? Can you see now looking back how Biab has been held back in the past when it has so much potential ? You need to look at it as a whole not just "I only care about Biab Win and not Mac and not the Plugin and not RealBand". What's posted below by these crazy JUCE guys will give all that at the same time.
Originally Posted By: musocity
quantum leaps Synonyms of quantum leap : an abrupt change, sudden increase, or dramatic advance
I see all the bumped backlogs in the wishlists. There needs to be a better ways to implement as it seems to be harder for PG compared to other software to implement improvements. Maybe put new features on hold and just do some releases with lots of content only while you are working on new ways in the background of doing things crossplatform new language as it looks like you have zero spare time to do anything else.
JUCE is the most widely used framework for audio application and plug-in development. It is an open source C++ codebase that can be used to create standalone software on Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS and Android, as well VST, VST3, AU, AUv3, AAX and LV2 plug-ins.
JUCE allows developers to focus on the most valuable parts of their software by taking care of the differences between operating systems (both desktop and mobile) and plug-in formats. With JUCE’s library of digital audio processing (DSP) building blocks you can quickly prototype and release native applications and plug-ins with a consistent user experience across all supported platforms. Using JUCE also future-proofs your products against operating system and plug-in host updates.
Operating System Compatibility JUCE is a cross platform framework allowing a single codebase to compile to native applications and plug-ins with the same user experience on Windows, macOS, Linux...
Audio Software & Plug-in Compatibility JUCE makes it easy to create both standalone audio applications or plug-ins that can be loaded inside digital audio workstations (DAWs) like Logic, Live, Pro Tools, FL Studio or Cubase. A single JUCE project can be used to create VST, VST3, AU, AUv3, AAX and LV2 plug-ins from the same source code, and also provides the functionality required to host these plug-in formats in your own software.
Audio Processing & MIDI JUCE provides an abstraction for processing audio samples and MIDI from the native audio devices on each platform or a host DAW. With JUCE’s library of digital signal processing (DSP) building blocks you can rapidly prototype and deploy different audio effects, filters, instruments and generators.
User Interface & Graphics JUCE provides a versatile UI abstraction that can run on any platform, with the option of hardware acceleration via OpenGL. JUCE handles the rendering of 2D and 3D graphics, and a selection of image formats and fonts. All JUCE UI widgets can be themed, allowing you to have a consistent user experience across multiple different products and platforms.
I'm amazed I remembered it ! PG would have to have some development going on in the background to future proof the applications wouldn't they ? The Mac and Win both use all the same support files, it's just the audio files that are different, if they both used to same audio file format then you could have a crossplatform installer to install the content files, as a search will show these are available for software developers. They repeat themselves doing all the Win content installers then have to then do the same for Mac, WHY ? Kontakt uses crossplatform file sample format and a crossplatform installer. Right now they can release the Win/Mac Plugin/Standalone at the same time if you have the crossplatform content installer using a common audio file format. The Plugin uses JUCE so this should be an obvious way to go. All this should be like a No Brainer.
New! XPro Styles PAK 7 for Band-in-a-Box 2024 for Mac!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 7 with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 50 RealTracks and RealDrums that are sure to delight!
With XPro Styles PAK 7 you can expect 25 rock & pop, 25 jazz, and 25 country styles, as well as 25 of this year's wildcard genre: Celtic!
Here's a small sampling of what XPro Styles PAK 7 has to offer: energetic rock jigs, New Orleans funk, lilting jazz waltzes, fast Celtic punk, uptempo train beats, gritty grunge, intense jazz rock, groovy EDM, soulful R&B, soft singer-songwriter pop, country blues rock, and many more!
Special Pricing! Until September 30, 2024, all the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 7 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea)! Supercharge your Band-in-a-Box 2024® with XPro Styles PAK 7! Order now!
XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2024 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
New! Xtra Styles PAK 18 for Band-in-a-Box 2024 for Mac!
Xtra Styles PAK 18 for Band-in-a-Box version 2024 is here with 200 brand new styles to take for a spin!
Along with 50 new styles each for the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, we’ve put together a collection of styles using sounds from the SynthMaster plugin!
In this PAK you'll find: dubby reggae grooves, rootsy Americana, LA jazz pop, driving pop rock, mellow electronica, modern jazz fusion, spacey country ballads, Motown shuffles, energetic EDM, and plenty of synth heavy grooves! Xtra Style PAK 18 features these styles and many, many more!
Special Pricing! Until September 30, 2024, all the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 18 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea)! Expand your Band-in-a-Box 2024® library with Xtra Styles PAK 18! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of the Xtra Styles PAK 18 here.
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 18 requires the 2024 UltraPAK/UltraPAK+/Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version because they need the RealTracks from the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
New! Xtra Styles PAK 18 for Band-in-a-Box 2024 for Windows!
Xtra Styles PAK 18 for Band-in-a-Box version 2024 is here with 200 brand new styles to take for a spin!
Along with 50 new styles each for the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, we’ve put together a collection of styles using sounds from the SynthMaster plugin!
In this PAK you'll find: dubby reggae grooves, rootsy Americana, LA jazz pop, driving pop rock, mellow electronica, modern jazz fusion, spacey country ballads, Motown shuffles, energetic EDM, and plenty of synth heavy grooves! Xtra Style PAK 18 features these styles and many, many more!
Special Pricing! Until September 30, 2024, all the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 18 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea)! Expand your Band-in-a-Box 2024® library with Xtra Styles PAK 18! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of the Xtra Styles PAK 18 here.
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 18 requires the 2024 UltraPAK/UltraPAK+/Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version because they need the RealTracks from the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
New! XPro Styles PAK 7 for Band-in-a-Box 2024 for Windows!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 7 with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 50 RealTracks and RealDrums that are sure to delight!
With XPro Styles PAK 7 you can expect 25 rock & pop, 25 jazz, and 25 country styles, as well as 25 of this year's wildcard genre: Celtic!
Here's a small sampling of what XPro Styles PAK 7 has to offer: energetic rock jigs, New Orleans funk, lilting jazz waltzes, fast Celtic punk, uptempo train beats, gritty grunge, intense jazz rock, groovy EDM, soulful R&B, soft singer-songwriter pop, country blues rock, and many more!
Special Pricing! Until September 30, 2024, all the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 7 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea)! Supercharge your Band-in-a-Box 2024® with XPro Styles PAK 7! Order now!
XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2024 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
Video - Band-in-a-Box® DAW Plugin Version 6 for Mac®: New Features for Reaper
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 includes built-in specific support for the Reaper® DAW API, allowing direct transfer of Band-in-a-Box® files to/from Reaper tracks, including tiny lossless files of instructions which play audio instantly from disk.
Already grabbed your copy of Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Mac®? Head to our Support Page to download build 803 and update your Band-in-a-Box® 2024 installation with the latest version developed by our team!
One of our representatives will be happy to help you over the phone. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday, and 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST Saturday. We are closed Sunday. You can also send us your questions via email.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you on our Live Chat or by email. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST (GMT -8) Saturday; Closed Sunday.