|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056 |
Gordon….Mcity or another user….
can someone confirm something re flac for me ?
to make sure i'm not going bonkers in my dotage.
some background….
as we all know a typical daw multitrak music production software recording and playing back wav files uses 'look ahead' programming techniques ie filling buffers with wav data before its actually needed…THUS..
it seems to me in an all flac capable multitrak software like reaps that the same thing is occurring ie filling buffers with flac data instead of wav data.
as a step further ive happily had a mix of wav and flac traks in reaper.
eg importing wav bed traks from biab on different traks then adding my vocals and say any guitar traks using flac…in summary ability to create the final song stereo mix from mixing down flac and wav trak mixtures.
eg simple example…traks 1 thru 12 in reaps being biab genned wav rt's…then another 12 traks of my vocs//geetar flac..giving 24 traks total.
now to my question…please confirm for me when recording//playing back flac files with the biab wavs i see no additional files created in the song project dir when using flac ?
am i correct in this thinking..ie no added conversion files or anything xtra over wav ?
from what i see reaps is simply reading the flac audio into look ahead buffers like as in wav. am i correct ? also when reading flac into the look ahead buffer is some extra process occurring with flac over wav ? or not ? ie buffer manipulation ?
bottom line i'm trying to figure out WHY…on lower power junk pc's…useing flac makes the old pc seem more 'nimble' using flac. its a feeling thats 'bugging me' which i'm trying to understand at a technical level…
WHY DOES FLAC ON OLD PC'S SEEM TO RESULT IN A MORE NIMBLE USER EXPERIENCE OVER WAV ?? WHAT ARE THE TECHNICAL REASONS ?? IS IT TO DO WITH HOW AUDIO DATA HEADERS ARE HANDLED ?? OR SOME OTHER FACTORS LIKE WAV IS BIGGER THAN FLAC ON DISK ??
i would love to know the answer to the above questions, cos its been ages since i coded software and i cant see the answers googling. i would love other peoples perspectives on these questions.
a merry xmas to all.
om
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,329
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,329 |
justanoldmuso,
Thanks for taking time to respond to my question. That was a well thought out answer.
Jim Fogle - 2024 BiaB (1113) RB (5) Ultra+ PAK DAWs: Cakewalk by BandLab (CbB) - Standalone: Zoom MRS-8 Laptop: i3 Win 10, 8GB ram 500GB HDD Desktop: i7 Win 11, 12GB ram 256GB SSD, 4 TB HDD Music at: https://fogle622.wix.com/fogle622-audio-home
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,818
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,818 |
it seems to me in an all flac capable multitrak software like reaps that the same thing is occurring ie filling buffers with flac data instead of wav data. After further study of Flac I don't think this is true at all .. eventually the DAC needs audio data (which is what gets buffered along the way) Your DAC doesn't decode the Flac to audio ..that decompression/conversion would happen inside the box earlier on before being buffered .. I may be wrong, but I don't think so If I am it wouldn't be the first time, even in this thread 
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome
Make your sound your own!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056 |
Rharv//All.
what i'm wrestling with is , if your comment was true wouldnt this imply that the programmer would have to add code/procedures/tasks to implement flac ?
ie more code than a wav implementation ?
but then on large trak count projects on a old junk pc wouldnt this imply that the old junker pc would be slower with a flac implementation ?
but ive found the opposite…the old junk pc is more 'nimble' with a flac implementation.
see what i'm wrestling with ? maybe i'm stupid and missing something...lol.
i guess the only solution is to talk to a programmer of multitrak software that has coded for both wav and flac.
this afternoon i'm doing further tests to see if i can pinpoint pc resource differences (other than storage)..
re wav versus flac. .. the problem is my new pc is fast ryzen with m2 so it might be only on junker pc's does one see a difference…dunno.
i'm having probs coming to reasoned technical arguments why one shouldnt use flac…cos…all i can say having used flac for boatloads of song traks for years..…flac just 'floats my boat'.
have a great xmas rharv.
om
ps jim.
thanks for your comment. merry xmas.
i'm interested to see how pg handles year over year increases of the 'content library'. ie rt's//demo songs etc etc.
Last edited by justanoldmuso; 12/17/22 06:52 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,156
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,156 |
I can't answer the specific question as I don't know how Reaper handles things, but I suspect any subjective improvement in performance may relate to what proportion of time is spent reading in the files vs what proportion is spent decompressing.
Jazz relative beginner, starting at a much older age than was helpful.
AVL:MXE Linux; Windows 11
BIAB2024 Audiophile, a bunch of other software.
Kawai MP6, Ui24R, Focusrite Saffire Pro40 and Scarletts
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056 |
All.
ok…i have some hands on results re wav vs flac and why use of flac on a junker pc might make the junker seem more 'nimble'. particularly as trak counts climb on the
junker with older drive technology. (i hate to be beaten by this stuff …lol.)
keying off gordans excellent comment, and given there is a read//write 'path' or 'pipe' tween the drive and the music software ( in this case reaps )...its obvious that using wav results in more data (writes//reads)...being stuffed thru' the 'pipe' per second while much less is being stuffed thru the pipe using flac…which ive always thought must be the case...and confirmed by my testing this afternoon.
THEREFORE….
on old junker pc's , the 'pipes' are often slower right ? and slower drives etc.
thus as trak counts climb using flac the old junker seems more nimble to the user cos less data (read//writes)... is being stuffed thru the junkers 'pipes' versus wav…and also remember the clunker will have a slow clunky drive.
excellent insights gordon. my real life testing confirms your point.
btw…i looked in the dir after recording 8 flac tracs at a time. all was as i suspected...
on stop recording ie 8 flac files stored obviously.
in the wav case 8 waves in the dir resulted obviously.
of course the flacs took up less storage than the waves as would be expected.
so where is the 'magic conversion' of flac taking place ? that might lead to slowness versus wav ? cos i'm not seeing any slowiness in flac.
of course it cant be in the A>>D chips that digitise the incoming analogue audio…
SOOO what i cant figure out is where is this 'flac conversion' taking place ?
also maybe any overhead of the flac conversion task has less impact than the 'pipe stuffing//lookahead buffer creation process ' ? right ? ie the major performance impact is the 'pipe stuffing' task.
maybe i'm being dense ??…as i'm a big dumb oaf my wife says sometimes…lmao.
i find the wav vs flac a very interesting discussion topic. thanks for everyones thoughts.
if i'm correct it would seem advantageous for a user with an old clunker pc to use flac for recording rather than wav…particularly if such a user envisions very high trak counts on the clunker pc.
have a merry xmas all.
om
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,329
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,329 |
justanoldmuso, You and others may find +++ THIS +++ comparison of audio file formats interesting. Plus, I think it answers some of the "why" questions you've asked. A little background. Digital audio data can archived in a lossy digital audio format, where some of the audio data will be forever lost or lossless digital audio format, where no digital audio data is lost. MP3 and WMA are examples of lossy audio formats. This conversation is about two lossless digital audio formats, WAV and FLAC. Digital devices require a CODEC to (1) encode digital audio data into a file format and/or (2) convert an audio file into a digital audio stream suitable for playback. Each digital audio format requires a unique CODEC. A software application may include an audio format encoder but not the decoder. This is generally utility applications where you a doing format conversions. An application may include a decoder but not an encoder. An example is a compact disc player in your vehicle that does not include "burn-a-CD" capability. The base line audio formats are WAV for Windows and AIF for Apple. Both are audio formats, or containers, that are lossless and hold the actual audio data and metadata that describes the audio data inside the format. But, remember an application needs a CODEC to read ANY audio file format, including WAV and AIF. Now, here is some interesting news. The FLAC CODEC is lossless but is capable of compressing audio data a little more than 60 percent as compared to a comparable WAV or AIF file! More interesting news. The FLAC encoder takes a little more than 20 percent longer to encode an audio file as compared to the time it takes to encode a comparable WAV or AIF file. Whoa, it's pretty slow when encoding a file. Best interesting news. The FLAC decoder is FAST, 60 percent faster than any other digital audio format except WAV or AIF. The article confirms your decoding experience. My guess is the FLAC developers anticipate FLAC's use by streaming sites and archival file storage. Professional don't mind the extra encoding time as long as they can make it up by selling customers fast CD quality or high definition audio file services.
Jim Fogle - 2024 BiaB (1113) RB (5) Ultra+ PAK DAWs: Cakewalk by BandLab (CbB) - Standalone: Zoom MRS-8 Laptop: i3 Win 10, 8GB ram 500GB HDD Desktop: i7 Win 11, 12GB ram 256GB SSD, 4 TB HDD Music at: https://fogle622.wix.com/fogle622-audio-home
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056 |
Jim and All.
jim thats a v good link/treatise. kudos.
one interesting aspect is it looks like flac is one of the best alternatives to wav.
the wavpk stats were interesting vs flac.
now heres a 'BRAIN TEASER'...lol…(****see footnote at post end.)....as follows.
lets consider again that old junk pc with a slow hard drive, and lets also consider the situation where instead of playing a multitrack project from the beginning (pre loaded look ahead buffers filled)...INSTEAD…the user wants the ability to 'flit around' the time line'…ie user clicks the mouse to start playback at any time point….eg 1min30secs, 2min05secs whatever time point the user wishes…ie any time point ideally…
BUT there are problems for the poor software coder of music production software….
1..the coder doesnt know where the user might playback from ie the time points.
2..the tech foundation is not 'real time'. its just an 'illusion'. in summary its easy to create pre filled buffers when user is playing back from song start…cos they are prolly created on previous stop…BUT…WHAT ABOUT RANDOM USER DECIDED PLAYBACK TIME POINTS ?? thats the 'elephant in the tech room' !!
3..add in the fact the coder is prolly dealing with windows audio api's.
(some coders i believe use assembler sub routines i assume to keep things speedy rather than C++)
do you feel sorry for the poor programmer of music software yet ??...i do.
in summary when the user clicks on any time point then quickly those 'buffers' have to be filled with audio data. THUS…on a slow clunker pc the user might notice a 'lag' before playback starts.
now lets add more and more traks the clunker must playback (and add in fx//instrument plug ins etc)...
OOPS ! PROBLEMS !!
major LAG can occur.
which is one reason big time recordists go for custom built studio powerful pc's etc etc. to minimise lag.
but even those in the past might get lag as trak and plug in counts reached crazy levels.
in summary the programmer of multitrak software faces very interesting tech challenges…particularly with the user that cant afford a 'big boys computer'.
SO where does FLAC figure into the above discussion re the user that can only afford an old junker pc ? ?
all i can say is it seems from my testing that on an old junker pc flac offers benefits for the user that will playback from any time point where the 'audio buffers' cant be pre filled. cos with wav more audio data has to flow thru the 'pipe' per second than flac.
this results i might suggest in less 'lag' before playback using flac.
thus ive found that recording and playback of multitrak projects on a clunker pc might be more fluid compared to wav. of course there are 'limits' if the user needs insane trak counts. (note reaper even runs on very clunky pc's compared to some other software...but even reaps has limits obviously depending on trak//plug in counts)
i hope i make a modicum of sense...lol.
(****re 'brain teaser' …my doc says creating songs , and doing crosswords//soduku is great for the brain as one ages.)
merry xmas to all
om
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,818
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,818 |
Enjoyed the article Jim
om, did you notice the Encode time of flac compared to decode
it decodes quickly but is slower encoding . so how would this apply when 'recording' to flac?
Last edited by rharv; 12/18/22 05:48 AM.
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome
Make your sound your own!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,156
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,156 |
Some of the article worried me a bit. I think I know what's being said, but I thought it was fairly easy to misunderstand things. One of those things was reporting WAV as "100% compression ratio" ... in my book, WAV has no compression, so is 0%. I was also uncomfortable about Samples/mcs ... I presume (never presume!) that mcs is microseconds. I worried that I was filling in too many blanks for myself. Of course any compression is going to handle data as blocks, not samples, so perceived latency will be block-size dependent.
An old PC will likely have a mechanical hard drive and the biggest impact then on random playback, assuming the data is still to be read, will be seek and read time. If all the data is already read in, then it's fairly likely that its already in decompressed for inside the application.
In an embedded sampler with which I was briefly involved, samples were requested from bulk storage at the moment of a MIDI note. The software then came back 'later' to collect the new instrument and if the instrument wasn't ready, it just waited for it, letting the existing sound continue to play instead. How much, I wonder, would one actually notice a, say, 10ms delay before a new sound started? The impression I had was that the delay was very rarely anything like that long, though the data was in SSD.
If one were to start play at a random point, would one even notice a 50ms delay before the sound started?
Jazz relative beginner, starting at a much older age than was helpful.
AVL:MXE Linux; Windows 11
BIAB2024 Audiophile, a bunch of other software.
Kawai MP6, Ui24R, Focusrite Saffire Pro40 and Scarletts
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056 |
Rharv.
yep i noticed the flac encoding stats.
possibly this is just one aspect in the overall picture tho' ??.
i would suspect the only way to get to the truth is to actually get input from a developer who has coded music software incorporating flac support as an option to wav.
(eg one of the developers of reaps.)
allow me to explain….eg…
from what i see both flac and wav create headers includeing properties eg wav RIFF.
i dont know much about flac.( see the xiph web site.)
maybe the reaper devs have some funky assembler sub routines to speed things up and have built their own custom libs. from what ive seen they are uber smart.
in summary , and looking at the big picture , the truth is probably that there are several factors relating to plusses and minuses of flac and wav.
for example i dont think anyone can argue the fact that with flac less audio data is being pumped thru the 'pipe' per second than the wav format.
maybe this aspect outweighs the flac encoding speed…i just dont know.
as i said only a developer//coder would know.
all i CAN SAY is ive never had 'glitches' using flac to record.
i suspect its the old he/she conundrum…lol…ie 'he said' and 'she said' ….but the real truth lies somewhere down the middle. thus i suspect encode speed is just one aspect and maybe overridden by other things like 'data thru the pipe' speed//sec, and hard drive and memory and cpu speed.
all i can relate are my own experiences with flac creating loads of songs.
(see my soundcloud sig where most of the songs used flac for various recording tasks…but of course some people might feel the songs suck…not flacs fault…lol.)
have a fantastic xmas rharv.
(and big respect to you for helping so many people on the pg forums every year.)
om
Gordon.
re 50 ms delay...thats an excellent point.
my goodness your good technically.
have a merry one.
Last edited by justanoldmuso; 12/18/22 07:47 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,818
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,818 |
I noticed this too, and made the same assumptions regarding mcs and wav actually being 0% compression
other than that Jim's inked article made sense
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome
Make your sound your own!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,410
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,410 |
Re..why pg might support flac (or another lossless format eg wavpak) How slow is your internet that this is a real issue anymore? Just for kicks, I took the Stones "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" , a track that runs 7 minutes 15 seconds off the 2009 remastered Sticky Fingers CD and did some comparisons: 44.1k/16 (off the 2009 remastered CD) — 77,009,864 bytes (77 MB on disk) FLAC — 51,015,139 bytes (51 MB on disk) m4a iTunes (MPEG4 lossless) — 51,661,874 bytes (51.7 MB on disk) mp3 (VBR Highest Quality) — 15,143,151 bytes (16 MB on disk) WMA (320kps — highest quality) — 30,045,344 bytes (30.2 MB on disk) WMA (160kps) — 10,016,544 bytes (10.6 MB on disk) WMA (128kps) — 7,514,144 bytes (8.4 MB on disk) Note that PGM "normally ship(s) RealTracks audio files as compressed WMA files (usually 128 or 160 kbps) … Note that it is possible to uncompress the 'regular edition' M4A files to AIFF, however these will not be the same as the original WAV files, having already been compressed once." PGM ships "m4a files (usually 128 or 160 kbps)" instead of WMA in the Mac version. There was never a need for FLAC in BIAB and even less now that internet speeds are much faster and storage much cheaper. It ain't gonna happen and all the screenshots and rambling drivel to the contrary will not change this. There has to be a business reason for PGM to do this. Look at the file size comparisons—it's not there. As for using WMA (or m4a) in a DAW? That's just silly. Why would anyone want or need to do that? What — is there a new class of computers being used for music production limited to 100mbs and 128GB storage? Oh wait, the SATA bus broke those limitations in 2000. Apple was shipping in 2003 and Intel followed soon after. Things have only gotten better in the last 20 years. Yes, really.
BIAB 2024 Audiophile, 24Core/60CoreGPU Core M2 MacStudioUltra/8TB/192GB Sonoma, M1 MBAir, 2012 MBP
Digital Performer11, LogicPro
Finale27/Dorico/Encore/SmartScorePro64/Notion/Overture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056 |
Mike.
please tell me where my logic is wrong given the following.
1..millions of people in the world cant afford a fancy expensive computer..
(eg where i grew up that i mentioned upthread.) and can only afford a cheap pc clunker with a clunky hard drive.
many cant even afford that.
2..do this test sometime…on an old clunker pc…using monitoring software
record one trak wav…then playback the wav noting read/write stats.
then record one trak flac , then playback the flac noting once again read/write stats.
3..extrapolate the read/write stats for ever higher trak counts.
4..now add in the fact the clunker pc has just one slow internal drive and that biab's'content library' (eg rt's) will continue growing year over year…and is installed on that one clunky drive as well, and the conclusion ive made is that the old clunker will be asked to 'push too much data through the pipe'....as trak counts go up.
my concern mike is purely for the 'young un' ' maybe with a hand me down pc that wants to produce a song.
you asked for a business case…i hope you see from above fewer people might purchase pg products (biab/rb) if they hear that they need a expensive high end computer to reach their song creation goals...ie lost sales.
i hope i make a modicum of sense.
for me personally i love being able to use flac for recording and playback and would be a very happy bunny if biab had the option to save a genned trak as flac.
best and have a merry one.
om
Last edited by justanoldmuso; 12/20/22 06:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,651
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,651 |
..i love being able to use flac for recording and playback and would be a very happy bunny if biab had the option to save a genned trak as flac... If you are using flac in Reaper, you can either use the track injector to give you flac tracks instantly by batch converting the RT RD source files to flac or you can get Reaper to batch convert the folder you save the wav files to from Biab export. In the Reaper's Save dialog you have a Convert Media option to flac. You should be able to script it to do it all automatically and replace the source wav currently in the project with flac and delete the wavs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,651
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,651 |
Right Click Save Link/Target As Change selected wav item to flac.lua Copy the path to the file from the source properties paste that in the batch window add selected files convert run script you could script it to delete the wavs but best to do manually Full Screen 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production
|
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,056 |
MCity.
you never cease to amaze me. huge kudos.
may you have a wonderful xmas and 2023.
i dont want to cause you lots of added work, but if you ever have time…
maybe a very detailed step by step video 'for newbies' showing all your tips n' tricks for users of reaper//biab//rb together in song creation.. eg your posts on this thread and tricks on other threads….ie a 'central repository' of tips/tricks etc etc..
i'm sure not just new biab users but also even more experienced users would find it very very usefull.
let me add , ive never had such a great recording experience as useing flac in conjunction with m2 ssd tech on my new mini ryzen pc. i'm stoked. but then i dont create songs needing zillions of traks n' plug ins...
which might require i9's // threadrippers etc.
the m2 ssd tech is so blinkin' crazy fast for music production.. biab n' rb n' reaps are running great….useing the m2 tech the only way i can describe it is 'like a breath of fresh air'....
once again i laud you for the time and dedication you put into helping pg users useing the reaps//biab//rb combo.
om
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box 2024 Italian for Mac is Here!
Ci siamo dati da fare e abbiamo aggiunto oltre 50 nuove funzionalità e una straordinaria raccolta di nuovi contenuti, tra cui 222 RealTracks, nuovi RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, "Songs with Vocals" Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 3, Playable RealDrums Set 2, due nuovi set di "RealDrums Stems", XPro Styles PAK 6, Xtra Styles PAK 17 e altro ancora!
Tutti Pacchetti | Nuove Caratteristiche
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 German for Mac is Here!
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 für Mac Deutsch ist verfügbar!
Wir waren fleißig und haben über 50 neue Funktionen und eine erstaunliche Sammlung neuer Inhalte hinzugefügt, darunter 222 RealTracks, neue RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, "Songs with Vocals" Artist Performance Sets, abspielbare RealTracks Set 3, abspielbare RealDrums Set 2, zwei neue Sets von "RealDrums Stems", XPro Styles PAK & 7, Xtra Styles PAK 17 & 18, und mehr!
Paket | Was ist Neu
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 French for Mac® is Here!
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 apporte plus de 50 fonctions nouvelles ainsi qu'une importante de contenus nouveaux à savoir : 222 RealTracks, des RealStyles nouveaux, des SuperTracks MIDI, des Etudes d'Instruments, des Prestations d'Artistes, des "Morceaux avec Choeurs", un Set 3 de Tracks Jouables, un Set 2 de RealDrums Jouables, deux nouveaux Sets de "RealDrums Stems", des Styles XPro PAK 6 & 7, des Xtra Styles PAK 17 & 18, et bien plus encore!
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!
Learn more and listen to demos of XPro Styles PAKs.
Watch the XPro Styles PAK 7 Overview & Styles Demos video.
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.
Watch the Xtra Styles PAK 18 Overview & Styles Demos video.
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.
Watch the Xtra Styles PAK 18 Overview & Styles Demos video.
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!
Learn more and listen to demos of XPro Styles PAKs.
Watch the XPro Styles PAK 7 Overview & Styles Demos video.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums65
Topics83,105
Posts753,675
Members38,996
| |
Most Online2,537
Jan 19th, 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean