Rob, I agree that keeping BiaB as BiaB and not a DAW is paramount.

I also agree that RB could stand an upgrade. BUT if RB has all of the bells and whistles of a full DAW like Studio One, Cubase, Reaper, etc, will consumers be willing to pay for those upgrades? If one has to fork out $100 to $400 USD for RB might they be better getting an already established DAW?

As far as BiaB goes I am a firm believer that it needs a major rewrite. I should include all open tracks for user discretion, include real time signatures other than just 2/4, 3/4 and 4/4, etc, while keeping its main function of a backing track generator. Sure it may take some time to work out the bugs but IMHO that would be better then continuing getting 50 new features while ignoring what is wrong with the program now.

For the record I am not a BiaB hater. In fact virtually all of my songs start in BiaB. BiaB is the second most used music program in my arsenal, with Studio One being used more.

YMMV

I want my last spoken words to be "I hid a million dollars under the........................"

64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware