Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread
Print Thread
Go To
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 34
Enthusiast
OP Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 34
>>umm, I think you missed my reference
>> ...I agree, there is significant room for improvement in the BIAB UI

yeah, right. sorry

Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 15,544
PG Music Staff
Offline
PG Music Staff
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 15,544
>>> one improvement could be greying out those options which are not possible in the current use case. i suspect that some crashes just result from not allowed operations.

For example?


Have Fun!
Peter Gannon
PG Music Inc.
Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 34
Enthusiast
OP Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 34
one which immediately comes into my mind is pressing the panic button during playback could lead to a crash.

Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 15,544
PG Music Staff
Offline
PG Music Staff
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 15,544
Greying out the panic button during playback??

That is when panic is used most, and it is definitely allowed during playback.
I have never seen the panic button crash BB or a PC. If it does, you deselect the menu option "Panic also resets DXi", because maybe your DXi/BB combination is crashing when reset.


Have Fun!
Peter Gannon
PG Music Inc.
Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,783
R
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
R
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,783
If they made no more upgrades for a while except more real tracks, a better way to enter notes, and lastly a 4 output midi port setup where you could use up to 4 synths, I would be happy a clam!


Lenovo Win 10 16 gig ram, Mac mini with 16 gig of ram, BiaB 2022, Realband, Harrison Mixbus 32c version 9.1324, Melodyne 5 editor, Presonus Audiobox 1818VSL, Presonus control app, Komplete 49 key controller.
Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 30
S
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
S
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 30
To overcome the issue with so many different types of users, you generally spend a bit of time developing "user personas," which are generalized stand-ins for each type of user. "Jimmy Jukebox" uses the program differently than "Carl Composer," who is different than "Larry Longtime." You need to understand each user very well, and develop new functionality keeping each one in mind. Using this methodology, and a bit of lightweight usability testing, it is quite possible to develop a new user interface that meets user needs without alienating one segment or another.

The Development of RealBand is clearly designed to remove the "Carl Composer" from BiaB into a new area where this kind of user will be happier. That immensely simplifies the task of making BiaB work better for the rest of the users who aren't composers.

I still want to see that upgrade that Peter mentioned, the one where StylePicker gets a makeover. In my mind, StypePicker is the #1 issue with BiaB, and it will get more important as more Styles, RealTracks, and RealDrums are created.


Scott Emery
WienSam #5559 01/08/09 01:21 PM
Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5
C
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
C
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5
I tend to go in the other direction, which is to have floating windows, rather than everything inside the main window. I use Digital Performer on my mac, and it allows me both - tabbed and float. The only way to go (as far as I'm concerned) when using dual monitors.

Having said that, I think Bnb is functionally great as is. Anything that distracts the developers from "real" work, should be avoided. Spending time on UI candy should not take time from what Bnb is best known for.

Chuck

Last edited by Chucko; 01/08/09 02:48 PM.
jford #5560 10/08/09 11:54 AM
Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 17
D
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
D
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 17
Quote:

Quote:

what you don't need right now should not be visible




One of the problems with this is that many people use BIAB in different ways. So what you need right now is different that what I need right now. Someone who uses BIAB to compose will use a different set of tools than one who uses BIAB to gig live, which will be different from someone who is mainly into bringing in MIDI files to jam along to, which will be different from someone who uses BIAB as a somewhat limited, but useful recording studio. So what should be visible? If you polled folks, my guess is that the answer would be, well show me everything I (and that's I with a big capital letter) need. Might not be what you need.




Look at Photoshop. How many functions does that thing have? But its screen is not cluttered. They group related items into toolbars, which can be opened or closed at will either from a menu or by a key command. It's a very comfortable way to work. Logic Pro does many more things than BIAB does. It varies the screen so that you're not confronted with everything at once, but it still makes its numerous options quickly accessible. Hey, maybe some people do want everything visible- so allow customization. Like Photoshop, where you can dictate what toolbars are going to be open and where.

Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 32
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 32
I absolutely love all PG products and they are so reasonably priced. I suspect most of the money goes into improving the functionality of the product rather than the look.
I always have the feeling that BIAB is one of the musical world's best kept secrets and I think the GUI is partly responsible. Those who go for flashy looks may well be put off after just one glance and maybe longtime users like it that way, a bit like an old boys club.
However, I personally think it's time for a make-over, nothing too drastic, but something a little more sophisticated. Many softwares have user created 'skins' which are shared via the forums. Is BIAB not adaptable to that?
I hope so because I think that the wonderful contribution that the Gannon's have made to really authentic song-based music making needs to be known by all, right down to the hip-hoppers and the beat makers on the street, and these days - image counts!

Anyway, whatever happens with the GUI.... go you Gannon's, go!

CD


Makin' it right, makin' it real!

http://www.reverbnation.com/chrisdavies
CeeDee #5562 11/02/09 02:37 AM
Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,900
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,900
Quote:

BIAB is one of the musical world's best kept secrets




Shh! Didn't you know that already?


Follow That Dream

Sam
Karaoke King

--------------------

Turning that corner again - I have to keep following that dream, no matter what
Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 60
M
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
M
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 60
One possible big reason for BIAB to keep its classic aka legacy looks could be the very super low PC requirement.
While BIAB web page mentioned a fairly up-to-date PC hardware required, the minimum OS preferred is Windows 98 on at least 256MB available RAM. This could limit the choice of programming tools to write BIAB.

IMHO there are hardly anyone still using 10 year old OS to run current new BIAB. Old CPU and bus speed would stutter just to play back melody.

I would suggest that for new release of BIAB, the minimum required is a 5 year old PC, i.e. XP and 512MB ( and the equivalent in Apple OS).

Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 6
D
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
D
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 6
As a relatively new user of BIAB and as a retired Microsoft software development engineer and program manager, here's my $.02 on what BIAB needs to do.

The first problem goes deeper than the GUI and has been mentioned in several posts. BIAB is used for many different purposes. In many cases, like mine, it's used as a boot-up starter to get some tracks laid out and imported into a more advanced DAW where you can do what you need to with them and not have to deal with the inherent limitations of BIAB. Other people tend to use it as a learning tool, or as a back-up band for practicing...the list probably goes on.

In the world I come from we referred to these as 'user scenarios' and they can often be pretty diverse. I think I saw an earlier post that referred to different personalities, and I think that shows some promise. In other words, a way in which you could have presets (a term many recording musicians are familiar with) the arranges the interface so that the most used functions are easily available and arranged for quick use. Likewise, the ability to define these user interface presets would allow a user to customize the layout to their liking. The downside to this: Yet another level of complexity added to an already overly-complex program

That being said, I still have to say that BIAB's biggest issue is NOT the GUI, but it's inability to really define itself as a program so that it makes sense to the typical user. In trying to be everything to everybody it's become a jack of all trades and master of none. It doesn't help that BIAB uses it's own 'alien' vernacular that isn't even close to what musicians use in real life. Who refers to an entire song as a 'chorus?' We use the terms verse, chorus, bridge, intro, outtro or ending. In my opinion the most serious flaw in BIAB is not it's GUI, but it's SERIOUS deficiencies in arranging (in BIAB-speak = frame) a song. What makes this such a serious flaw is that arranging a song is the most important part of creating a song.

The only hope I see for this program to graduate into some form of professional tool is a serious reconstruction effort from the ground up. And for that, you have to start with a vision of what you want your end product to be. Is it a song construction program? Is it a live backup track player? Is it a learning tool? If you can't define the end game you can't get there.


Personally, I think BIAB needs to be a core set of functionality around song construction, with add-in elements that allow you to make it function specifically to your needs. The core set of functionality needs to be a simple, straight-forwared song-layout and arrangement product, that functions both in a stand-alone mode or as a VSTi plug-in to professional DAW's. That would be more consistent with the market they are in. In stand-alone mode they could allow for the other uses through personality presets or whatever. But ultimately they need to have a much stronger product definition, and a much stronger set of song construction and arrangment features that operate in the domain of the user and industry vernacular.

Sorry for being so long-winded on my first post, but I really had to get this out of my system.

DD

Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
M
Mac Offline
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
M
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Whether Jazz, Classical, Country or what have you, BIAB actually labels the Chorus correctly.

--Mac

Mac #5566 11/06/09 09:08 AM
Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 6
D
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
D
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 6
I'm sure that's a great consolation to the thousands of users and customers they confuse with it...

DD

Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
M
Mac Offline
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
M
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Confusion is solved by study and learning.

Mac #5568 11/06/09 10:40 AM
Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 6
D
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
D
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 6
Quote:

Confusion is solved by study and learning.




Which I would strongly recommend for the BIAB product development team!!

Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 812
E
Expert
Offline
Expert
E
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 812
I've been asking for improved/updated GUI for years.

Although BIAB is a wonderful program, it get's dissed right from the start at major studios because of its cartoonish Windows 3.1 look!

First of all, there is WAY to much going on in the default screen.

Colors really don't make sense.

Why do we need rows of keys, 88 would be fine.

As Peter pointed out, it is important to have the OPTION to do things different ways. But my point is, why not make it an OPTION to have ONLY what you need on the screen?

PLEASE look at Garageband or Logic or Sibelius, they all have a very streamlined pro look.

While I'm on my soapbox, PLEASE update the notation! Yes, it does look good, but It would not take much more truly have a pro look. And the ability to enter notes as in Finale or Sibelius. The grid thing is just way too frustrating and time wasting.

Again, my comments are nitpicking, but thats what we need to keep BIAB on the cutting edge, and to get MORE pro studios and musicians to see its worth!!
Ed

Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,992
M
Expert
Offline
Expert
M
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,992
DunedinDragon
i feel compelled to comment ..
(as also a seasoned retired puter bloke like your good self)..
on some of your comments.

application developers, as well you know,
are often limited by the underlying hardware technology at any point in time as well
as the development tools available and limitations of the OS itself.
so i'm gonna turn your comments around.
its not exactly easy developing music apps in the win environment imho.
ive looked at the win audio n midi programmer api's for example because once
years back i was getting frustrated with music software not doing what i wanted.
and i was at one point very seriously thinking bout putting a team together
of seasoned blokes to build a bonzo music app.
but when i looked at the those api's frankly i felt they were overly
complex and not easy to use.
which is why i laud the pg developers that they could bring to market and build a large
user base. initially around biab and then follow on products.
i'm sure Mr Gannon and team had many hair pulling moments n hair going grey dealing
with various technical issues.
its intersting to note in many respects biab is unique in the market.
i bet because seasoned developers would realise the technical challenges involved.

then i looked at the underlying OS.
its purpose originally was to be a general purpose OS..correct ??
ideally for music apps a proper real time OS imho should be de rigeur.
but that is not the case , so programmers of various daw software have had to
resort to various "tricks".
for example to create the "illusion" of things happening in real time playback
for example..
for the end user...
reading time slices for mixing into main memory before they are needed.
ie "look ahead" techniques.
seek time and limitations of disk drive technology
also play their part, as well as memory speed and various other factors.
for example one problem with high level api's is time to execute at the kernel level in the OS
itself. wouldnt you agree ??

in summary with all due respect you cant lay all the blame with
application developers like pg.
they are limited by forces outside their control often.
as well you know mate. a developer can only do so much and is often faced with
changeing OS versions, changeing api's, changes in underlying pc hardware architecture,
etc etc. this constant change of underlying platform plus trying
to keep a diverse user base happy represents a major challenge to even the
most seasoned "been round the block many times" developer.

now lets turn to the gui itself.
on this one imho pg are on a hiding to nothing imho.
ive used some of the flashy gui's in music daw software n fancy shmancy stuff.
as well you know, there is overhead with every bit of source code.
more features..result in more source code.
and frankly some of the new fancy gui's can be problematic on
earlier clunky pc's with old OS versions.
what i perceive is good old pg have tried to make it so the products will
not only work on the latest uber power pc's but also older pc's because
not everyone can afford a new i7 with all the bells n whistles.
the other problem is if pg redesign the gui..lots of long time users
might not like it cos they are used to it.
ah ah !! i hear some people say. so offer an option..new style and old style.
heck lets even let the user configure the gui anyway their hearts desire.
why not go the whole hog and include a gui generator just like one might find in
a programmers compiler.
BUT THAT POSES ANOTHER PROBLEM.
more source code and more bloat being but one problem.
and more maintenance of source code.
as i said pg are on a hiding to nothing.
this is one of the problems one encounters as a developer trying to keep
as many people in the world happy as possible.
ive been there done that with user bases myself many times in the past.
and the conclusion i came up with is ..
you can never keep everyone happy.

dont even get me started on programming on the pc mate, and the fact if one uses
cetain C++ compilers one has to deal with loverly big run times.
why werent the compilers designed to create stand alone executables ??
instead of needing big run times ??
(eg like purebasic.com with in line assembler).
someone can correct me if i'm wrong but its my understanding pg used
borland compilers in the past because with those no big run time
was needed. a logical choice imho at the time.

in summary your post is critical of certain pg aspects..
but in many respects dont you think many of those aspects
are a result of design and programmer tool decisions made way back in the development of win
itself ?? some people like the mac os. me i'm this way and that.
i like small elegant real time OS's like menuetos.org.
(give it a gander sometime.but no music software for it)
and feel that music software developers lives could have been made
a whole lot easier over the years with a proper elegant small OS
dedicated to the music creation vertical market with easy to use
development tools and of course most importantly a extremely fast low latency os kernel
relating to audio applications .

i just find it amusing your critiqueing a product that runs on the environment that you
once worked in. an environment itself that some might say is not perfect.
and which created lots of the tools devs work with on a daily basis.


just my 2 cents n wishing you only the best.


retired puter engr....powertracks on amd......NICE !
"what is the black art of audio engineering ?"
my silly songs...motagator.com/bmanning
see my tips in the tips section.
Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,826
J
Expert
Offline
Expert
J
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,826
Hi

One thing i like about BIAB is the Humour that it sparks of in musicians, keep it up Peter we need much more in this humourless world and if you change anything it will only sadden us BIAB fanatics, they say a good laugh a day is worth more then any pills and most days their is something to chuckel at(like my spelling and grammer)


regards Dave Hoskins


I always play the right notes but not always in the right order
Band-in-a-Box Wishlist
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,783
R
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
R
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,783
GUI SCHME-UI, i just want to use the software to make music. It is not a graphic program, it is a music creation tool, I don't need my hammer to sparkle or shine just drive nails!!!

I don't need my music software to look like the console of a spaceship, i need it to make music. Every forum i go on people praddle on about GUI updates, i have seen it on PG, Cakewalk, Reaper, you name it, same old arguement. What difference does it make, just use the hammer. Everyone wants to change the program to meet there personal needs, one wants to build backing tracks, the other wants to practice songs, others want to do other things. Funny but last time i checked BIAB does all of these, and a ton of folks around the world use it as such.

Someone earlier said look at Sebilus, or Logic, or Freakin Garageband, heck those three combined do not do the things BIAB does, They are each one separate program, Sebilus is a notation software, logic a nice DAW, and Garageband os some sort of hybrid looping DAW, kind like a cheap version of AcidPro with built in loops. All do a nice job, BIAB does most of that, except the full on DAW recording, which can be done in PT or RB.

If you want added features or targeted refinement great, but why ask the programer to funnel the program just for you. If you do not like the program just because of the GUI use something else. Or get a sparkling hammer to driver your nails.


Lenovo Win 10 16 gig ram, Mac mini with 16 gig of ram, BiaB 2022, Realband, Harrison Mixbus 32c version 9.1324, Melodyne 5 editor, Presonus Audiobox 1818VSL, Presonus control app, Komplete 49 key controller.
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Go To
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
ChatPG

Ask sales and support questions about Band-in-a-Box using natural language.

ChatPG's knowledge base includes the full Band-in-a-Box User Manual and sales information from the website.

PG Music News
Convenient Ways to Listen to Band-in-a-Box® Songs Created by Program Users!

The User Showcase Forum is an excellent place to share your Band-in-a-Box® songs and listen to songs other program users are creating!

There are other places you can listen to these songs too! Visit our User Showcase page to sort by genre, artist (forum name), song title, and date - each listing will direct you to the forum post for that song.

If you'd rather listen to these songs in one place, head to our Band-in-a-Box® Radio, where you'll have the option to select the genre playlist for your listening pleasure. This page has SoundCloud built in, so it won't redirect you. We've also added the link to the Artists SoundCloud page here, and a link to their forum post.

We hope you find some inspiration from this amazing collection of User Showcase Songs!

Congratulations to the 2023 User Showcase Award Winners!

We've just announced the 2023 User Showcase Award Winners!

There are 45 winners, each receiving a Band-in-a-Box 2024 UltraPAK! Read the official announcement to see if you've won.

Our User Showcase Forum receives more than 50 posts per day, with people sharing their Band-in-a-Box songs and providing feedback for other songs posted.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed!

Video: Volume Automation in Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows®

We've created a video to help you learn more about the Volume Automation options in Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows.

Band-in-a-Box® 2024: Volume Automation

www.pgmusic.com/manuals/bbw2024full/chapter11.htm#volume-automation

Video: Audio Input Monitoring with Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows®

We've created this short video to explain Audio Input Monitoring within Band-in-a-Box® 2024, and included some tips & troubleshooting details too!

Band-in-a-Box® 2024: Audio Input Monitoring

3:17: Tips
5:10: Troubleshooting

www.pgmusic.com/manuals/bbw2024full/chapter11.htm#audio-input-monitoring

Video: Enhanced Melodists in Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows®!

We've enhanced the Melodists feature included in Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows!

Access the Melodist feature by pressing F7 in the program to open the new MultiPicker Library and locate the [Melodist] tab.

You can now generate a melody on any track in the program - very handy! Plus, you select how much of the melody you want generated - specify a range, or apply it to the whole track.

See the Melodist in action with our video, Band-in-a-Box® 2024: The Melodist Window.

Learn even more about the enhancements to the Melodist feature in Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows at www.pgmusic.com/manuals/bbw2024upgrade/chapter3.htm#enhanced-melodist

Band-in-a-Box® 2024 DAW Plugin Version 6: New Features Specifically for Reaper®

New with the DAW Plugin Version 6.0, released with Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows: the Reaper® Panel!

This new panel offers built-in specific support for the Reaper® DAW API allowing direct transfer of Band-in-a-Box® files to/from Reaper® tracks!

When you run the Plugin from Reaper®, there is a panel to set the following options:
-BB Track(s) to send: This allows you to select the Plugin tracks that will be sent Reaper.
-Destination Reaper Track: This lets you select the destination Reaper track to receive media content from the Plugin.
-At Bar: You can select a bar in Reaper where the Plugin tracks should be placed.
-Start Below Selected Track: This allows you to place the Plugin tracks below the destination Reaper track.
-Overwrite Reaper Track: You can overwrite previous content on the destination Reaper track.
-Move to Project Folder: With this option, you can move the Plugin tracks to the Reaper project folder.
-Send Reaper Instructions Enable this option to send the Reaper Instructions instead of rendering audio tracks, which is faster.
-Render Audio & Instructions: Enable this option to generate audio files and the Reaper instructions.
-Send Tracks After Generating: This allows the Plugin to automatically send tracks to Reaper after generating.
-Send Audio for MIDI Track: Enable this option to send rendered audio for MIDI tracks.
-Send RealCharts with Audio: If this option is enabled, Enable this option to send RealCharts with audio.

Check out this video highlighting the new Reaper®-specific features: Band-in-a-Box® DAW Plugin Version 6: New Features Specifically for Reaper®

Band-in-a-Box® 2024 DAW Plugin Version 6: New Features Video

The new Band-in-a-Box VST DAW Plugin Verion 6 adds over 20 new features!

Watch the new features video to learn more: Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2024 - DAW Plugin Version 6 New Features

We also list these new features at www.pgmusic.com/bbwin.plugin.htm.

Forum Statistics
Forums66
Topics81,389
Posts732,446
Members38,440
Most Online2,537
Jan 19th, 2020
Newest Members
ingridguerci94, Izzy, BenChaz, Csofi, mmpartee
38,439 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
MarioD 195
Al-David 124
DC Ron 113
dcuny 87
rsdean 85
Today's Birthdays
CeeDee, SethMould
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5