<< Now, that's an interesting statement, Charlie, for two reasons. One reason it's interesting is your use of the words "ultimate" and "satisfied." While I would be "satisfied" if this occurs, I have to say that the "ultimate" resolution I'd be "satisfied" with is if the 255 bar limit in BiaB was eliminated completely so that I wouldn't have to deal with one or more of the numerous workarounds to this limit for any of my songs that exceed it. I also wouldn't have to consider the option (along with the pros and cons) of using RB instead of BiaB for such songs of mine that are still being developed or that I may write in the future. But as you and I both know, the chances of this limit being eliminated in BiaB any time soon (or even at some point in the not too distant future) are next to none. >>
I think a Fix of BIAB and RB's 255 Bar limit would be your and anyone's ultimate satisfaction because a fix is necessary in order to complete the expected and ordinary task of creating a chord chart, choosing a style and pushing the play button and BIAB/RB generates its soundtrack of the song. Ultimately, this should happen whether the song is 25 bars or 255 bars or 555 bars. My comment was spoken to you but meant for everybody. If you read the statement I highlighted and responded to, it referred to version 4 (which I don't have) may 'fix' the issue. Those highlighted words I replied to are your words not mine.
Personally, I don't see the difference between "I have to say that the "ultimate" resolution I'd be "satisfied" with is if the 255 bar limit in BiaB was eliminated completely so that I wouldn't have to deal with one or more of the numerous workarounds to this limit for any of my songs that exceed it." you say today and " I'm hoping that the upcoming release of RB 2019 Version 4 will include a fix for this issue." you said on 6/21 other than the number of words you used.
<< The other reason your statement is interesting is that it could imply that the resolution of this issue in RB would mostly benefit me. >>
Not at all. Everyone that will ever create a project that taxes this limitation will benefit. This limitation has been known for years and requests have been made over those years for a fix.
<< From my perspective, this entire discussion of the existence of two problems at the 240/241 bar boundary in RB <Snip> The gist of these two problems are as follows:
1) a glitch that intermittently occurs at the 240/241 boundary as a result of an attempt to fix the other consistently occurring problem (by inserting a chord into bar 241), which is
2) an erroneous chord change to C when no chord exists in bar 241 and when the most recent chord in the song was not a C chord. >>
Yes. I agree with your statement completely. I thought it was an interesting and compelling problem and enjoyed all of the thought and comment the various posters have made to be pertinent and instructive.
<< Considering the fact that (please correct me if I'm wrong about this) I am the first person to discover these two problems <snip> they are not due to RB's alleged improper handling of .XML files or to MuseScore's improper creation of .XML files. >>
Correction regarding the 255 limit, that's been known for years and was already an old issue when I joined the forum years ago. Regarding the chord glitch, I don't know about that. I've never seen it mentioned before but I also have never previously participated in a discussion about these two glitches so it could have been mentioned and I missed it. But as far as I know, you're the first to mention the chord issue. It seemed to me in his response, and this is just speculation, but Joe with PGMusic seemed to be aware that approaching the 255 bar limit caused RB to begin to act in sporadic and unstable audio renders. Whether that came from PGMusic programmers testing or clients reports I don't know. My speculation could be completely wrong too.
<< Considering the fact that a substantial amount of time was spent on various workflow processes in this discussion, I also need to make it clear that these two problems have nothing to do with my workflow. In other words, because these problems are not related in any way to my .XML files, and because my standard use of both BiaB and RB is to begin (as my first step) by opening a .XML file that I exported from MuseScore (rather than by manually entering chords into the Chords window of either program, as most users of these programs normally do), these two problems also have nothing to do with my workflow (contrary to your assertion in your post on 06/20/19 at 08:07 AM PT and contrary to MusicStudent's subsequent post). >>
I agree with this for the most part too. As I noted above, your workflow is fine except that BIAB/RB doesn't react correctly to generate your audio without error. As I also noted earlier, for me, those glitch issues are no more an issue than turning down the gain knob to keep a channel's input signal from clipping. I don't encounter the glitches you discovered by using a method where I generate or record audio in sections small enough so the number of bars is never an issue. That's how my workflow works anyway so I'd never encounter the two limitations as you did even If I had a project in RB that exceeded the 255 bar limit. Others also work in a similar manner and that's why they say that RB is not subject to the 255 Bar limit the same as BIAB. My workflow will allow RB to have an unlimited amount of bars subject only to what my computer can tolerate. If RB in my computer can accept 1,500 bars, I can do that and there will absolutely be no audio glitches, guaranteed. I drop pre-recorded audio into RB or record short lengths of audio into RB rather and then if I apply any regeneration done by BIAB/RB, it's done in sections rather than one large single render. I do this utilizing multi track techniques called overdubbing and Punch in/out.
As it turns out, it does have to do with your workflow because apparently BIAB and RB utilize the same architecture to generate audio tracks, and because with your workflow, you attempt to generate more than 255 bars in a single render. It's something BIAB and RB should do, but neither does. If the two glitches are eventually fixed in both BIAB and RB, then you and everyone else will be able to generate tracks the same as those that now generate songs with a smaller number of measures.
If you happen to get the mixing book I referenced, it is all about developing a workflow and it will work with any DAW including BIAB/RB. It will also bypass the 255 bar limit. If you adopt its principals and techniques it will be a change in workflow and a workaround as far as the glitches in BIAB and RB go. By using the multi track recording techniques of overdubbing and Punch in/out and working in sections of your project rather than a single full length render, the issues presented in a full render attempt will never be an issue.
<< Considering the fact that, even though this discussion has been ongoing since 6/7/10 and has 190+ posts so far, as recently as 06/20/19 06:07 AM PT (per a PM he sent me two days ago and which he reiterated in his public post on 06/20/19 12:35 PM PT), Silvertones thought that the newest RB 2019 Version 4 release candidate had fixed these issues and that the .SEQ file he had created from that version (to which he provided a link in his post on 06/20/19 12:35 PM PT) was proof of that. <snip> >>
That's what I had read at the time I made my post. Who knows if or when a fix may come?
<< Finally, considering the fact that everyone who has used RB to automatically generate tracks for songs with more than 240 bars has ended up with an erroneous chord change at bar 241 of their songs (if there wasn't any chord already entered into bar 241 and if the most recent chord in their song was not a C chord), there shouldn't be any reason for anyone to assume that I would be the primary (if not the sole) beneficiary of a fix to these issues. Furthermore, I find it very surprising that no one else who has used RB for this purpose discovered these issues before I discovered them about two weeks ago. Surely, if someone had discovered them, either these issues would have been fixed long ago or I would have been informed early on in this discussion that these are known issues that Tech Support hasn't fixed yet. >>
I never assumed you to be primary anything other than you were primarily the person I was having the conversation with. As noted, the 255 bar issue is a long known issue, most of the others over time have abandoned generation lengths that get near or exceed the limitation.
Edited by Charlie Fogle (06/23/19 06:39 AM)
BIAB Ultra Pak+ 2023:RB 2023, Latest builds: Dell Optiplex 7040 Desktop; Windows-10-64 bit, Intel Core i7-6700 3.4GHz CPU and 16 GB Ram Memory.