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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifteen years, to be precise.

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

You're kidding, right? RIGHT?

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

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

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

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

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

Rob, you're a romantic. Keep on dreaming!

Last edited by LtKojak; 12/22/19 11:29 AM.

Pepe aka Lt. Kojak
Milano, Italy
https://soundcloud.com/theodore-kojak/tracks
Hy-Bro Test Sound Files