PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists RealBand Wishlist Better metering on multitrack setups

It would be nice if the Input meters at the bottom of the screen showed input from whatever the selected input is.
It seems locked to inputs 1 & 2 only.
Many users have USB interfaces with multiple inputs and this would be a nice base feature improvement.
I have my keyboards going into 3 & 4 so when I record my keyboards I get no signal in the meters.
Same with the other channels (5 & 6 are setup for my guitar processor; again no signal shown)

+1.

Another vote of support. Good idea.
+1

How is it that you're able to record on 3+4 without also recording on 1+2 unless you deselected 1+2 in the Audio Drivers dialog? What I'm getting at here, is that if you had multiple groups of inputs selected in the Audio Drivers dialog such 1+2, 3+4, 4+5, etc. and then you record on a stereo track it will record 1+2 on that track and 3+4 on the next track, and so on. So how is it that you're able to select 3+4 and not also recording on 1+2 and 2+5 in this example, if you have all 3 pairs selected in the Audio Drivers dialog? The only way that I'm aware to do that is to only select 3+4 and not the other pairs in the Audio Drivers Dialog. If you only have 3+4 selected in the Audio Drivers dialog, then the program will treat that as if it's the 1st pair, not the 2nd pair, and the VU meters will show what's on 3+4 (with the numbers 3 and 4 being relative to the interface not Realband's port numbers).

Are you saying that even if you select ONLY the 3+4 pair in the drivers dialog and don't have 1+2 selected, then the VU meters will still show 1+2? I don't think that's really the case, since the program would not even be receiving input from 1+2 in that situation?

Looking at the VU meter code, it looks like, if say, you were to change to a different current track AFTER you start recording, AND that current track is set to the same output port number as whatever input port is associated with that track, then the input VU meter will show the levels for that input port number. So if you're recording multiple tracks, you could start recording with Track 1 being the current track, and then change the current track to track 2 once recording starts, and if track two as the output port set to 2, then it should show the levels for the 2nd pair of audio input ports rather than the 1st pair. I haven't tested this yet, and realize it could be inconvenient changing the current track after recording starts.

What I'd like to do is see if I can get the input levels that show up on the tracks themselves during recording in the audio overview section of the Tracks Window to show the levels for the extra ports rather than duplicating the levels of the first port(s).

I only select 3&4 inputs in Drivers and the VU meters at bottom show nothing, it does not change to using 3&4 in place of 1&2 here. If I rearrange cables to make the desired inputs work on 1&2 it would but that is inconvenient and sometimes downright complicated, so that's why I asked.

Yes, that is really inconvenient, not intuitive, and not even I would think to operate that way .. and I look for workarounds
I like your final solution better; showing the recording on the track VUs themselves, but I thought that would be asking too much.
If you could pull that off, even better!

The plan for RB 2024 is to have the VU levels for the higher ports show up on the tracks that are receiving input from the higher ports during recording, rather than duplicating what's input to the first input port. That will be an improvement for when multiple input ports are in use.

The plan for RB 2024 is to also have the floating VU Meters window (Window - Show VU Meters) display all of the input and output ports rather than just 1 input and 1 output port.

Still haven't been able to duplicate selecting one input port in the Drivers dialog and not have the input VU meters indicate the levels for that port. If you're only selecting one port for input in the drivers dialog, then it shouldn't matter which port it is as long as it actually receives an input signal.

Jeff.

this is fab news that multi input sound interfaces (mi's) are being addressed further in rb for 2024.
cos for ages looking at rb tracks view ive thought very deeply the best way to handle mi's particularly for a totally new rb user….and given over the years new users to rb (and ptw) have posted on the forums their frustration/asking for help with sound interface setup….and god bless him…rharv to the rescue.
this is not limited just to pg forums…but…go on any daw/recording forum and one will see 'i'm having trouble setting up interface X.'

thus the question becomes the best way to handle mi's, eg let's take a 16 input mi.
Here's the best ideas I could come up with and feel free to boot me up the 'A' lol.

1..on boot up of rb , rb detects mi device.
2..thus a little light goes on (maybe on the main vu meter at the bottom of rb) that says 'Multi input mode enabled'. …then…
3..rb waits for user input as to being directed which mi inputs will go to which tracks ?

In the above scenario let's consider an extreme example of 4 tracks of a 16 input mi being recorded ... .as follows…(note the fact the user might not want consecutive tracks to be recorded ... .cos might only have certain tracks free.)

rb track 44 input 3 of mi.
rb track 52 input 5 of mi.
rb track 62 input 12 of mi.
rb track 98 input 14 of mi.

how to handle above ?? best way i felt was when the user arms a track for recording a likkle mini mi input channel display pops up. and the user directs the mi input to the track.

so in the case of rb track 44 input 3 of mi….the user would arm track 44
and choose input 3 of the mi from the likkle display.
and the track 44's level meter would reflect the input from input 3 of the mi.

Am I 'out to lunch' ? or does this make sense ?

happiness.

om

Thanks for the feedback. Currently the plan for 2024 is just to have the VU meters (floating VU meters window and the levels on the tracks during recording) be able to handle the multiple inputs, and the floating VU meters window to handle both multiple inputs and multiple outputs. There's no plan to change the way it works now in which the current track (say, track 1 for example) automatically is assigned to the first input port when Record is pressed, and the tracks afterward (2, 3, etc.) receive the additional inputs during recording, with the RB being able to insert tracks if needed.

EDIT: There also wasn't any plan to change the way setting up an interface works, but I'll have to see if there could be some message offering to go into the ASIO drivers dialog if multiple ports are detected.

Jeff.

please could you provide clarification re multi input sound cards and rb in a windows environment.

1..I assume that at the code level that rb is talking to the win os via an api layer ?...If so…
2..does win impose a limit on the numbers of i/o on an interface..?
What is the max ? 16 ins and outs in the usb audio interface ? more ?
3..how is adat expansion in a multi i/o interface handled ? Does rb care ? ie win just tells the rb app how many ins/outs are available ?
4..for arguments sake let's say a usb audio interface has a huge number of ins/outs…eg 32/32…

https://klarkteknik.com/product.html?modelCode=P0BIF

(ie the outs are going out into line ins on a pro level
audio mixing console which does the mixing etc etc…goodness i'm glad i dont own a big console anymore with all the maintenance worries and keeping spare parts/op amps etc.) as a bigger studio might have.
if such a beast of a interface is married to an old clunker pc with clunker old hard drives/slow usb…does rb have 'fail safes' for this ?
ie saving the user from a potential crash condition if things go 'pear shaped' ?
as in warning the user 'your old aunties hand me down pc cant handle things'...lol. In summary in a more serious vein, how does rb save the user from a potential 'crash condition'...due to the chosen pc being sub par for handling lots of usb audio i/o ?
5..I'm trying to understand the 'consecutive aspect of inputs' in rb re a multi in interface. Please bear with me. Let's take the case of a usb audio mixer that is capable of sending 16 audio streams at the same time over usb to win/rb.
For example, maybe the usb mixer is sending 8 streams from 8 microphones and 8 streams from mixer line ins. eg keyboards whatever.
THUS are we saying that in the above scenario a rb user would enable for recording consecutive groups of 16 tracks ?

eg…tracks 01 thru 16 or tracks 25 thru 41 ie consecutive track assignment ?
which begs the question what if a user has already recorded on a track..eg the first 01 thru 16 track group track 09 for example.
Will track 09 be overwritten ? OR will rb say 'oops there's data already on 09.' and direct the incoming audio stream to a spare track rather than overwriting track 09.

Jeff..the reason i'm asking the above is i'm using a 2/2 audient interface currently with rb, and have been sooo impressed with it i'm thinking going multi input next go around.
Also if i can get rid of the pain from a pulled muscle i might go to my fav gear store and do a 'rent before buy' deal to test with the next beta round.

respect mate.
ps if 2024 all works great for this crazy rocker maybe i'll send a 'tim hortons card' to cadillac ave…lol.

happiness.

om

RB supports up to 16 inputs and 16 outputs. If 16 inputs are selected in the drivers dialog and you record on track 1 then track 1 would receive the first input and tracks 2 through 16 would receive the input from port 2 through 16, with RB offering to insert tracks if there were already, say, MIDI tracks somewhere in 2 through 16.

Jeff.

cheers for info.

correct me if im wrong but i assume even if the user has a higher count eg 32x32 device one can still use it but will be limited to 16x16 ??
or am i wrong ??

in addition after lots of research and looking at public msoft docs on the web i am unable to determine if win imposes limits on the upper number of interface inputs and outputs. are there any limits ?? eg 64x64 ?


Jeff i do realise there are lots of aspects out of your control viz
audio interfaces...eg win os and drivers etc etc all i would suggest given particularly for people new to building a project studio that might get befuddled ...that anything that helps the new user diagnose problems would be nice.
i have no magic ideas..and its obvious from different daw user forums that setting up a sound interface can be frustrating for some folks.
one reason i like my interface is ease of install and use with any music apps.

thanks/happiness.

om

I remember years back just after I left school posting a pic for all this showing being able to select any input on any track stereo/mono:

mcity.

yep i was hoping for something like that...look at my post upthread. eg click on track no and select interface input.

eg i want audio interface input 9 of a 16x16 device to be recorded on rb track 11.
so user clicks on rb track 11 and from the pop up selects 09.

happiness.

om

I remember now the issues it was too hard to get what you need where, and it needed arm to record.

mcity.

you said 'its too hard'.
i'm befuddled...why ? other apps let one do that.
or am i being dumb ?

please go into more detail.
is it a win os prob ? accessing sound interface features ?
a technical issue somehow ?

it would seem to me that ...ok even have a button on each track
added for accessing certain audio interface params..lets call it the
'interface routing button' 'herb' lol.
user simply clicks on a tracks herb button . and selects input ?

maybe jeff can jump in please as to why its difficult.?
cos if it was a win os issue or api how do other apps do it ?
maybe a delphi code issue ?

its early here..maybe i'm dumb or missing some big pproblem for a deve!oper re routing.
question ...are we saying when recording in rb useing a 16x16 fancy
interface one cant record one track at a time ? or say 5 ? instead of the whole 16 ?

the analogy is yonks ago with a commercial studio with ssl's and neves and studers out the ying yangs if one wanted to record mic input 19 from a mixer to track 23 on the studer one could do that.

maybe i'm missing something big ??

oh well back to my nice tea i brewed up.lol

happiness.

om

It was too hard for me to get what I want recorded on the track I want as you can see in the pic, I was sending the tracks via Rearoute but it's the same deal if I use a multi input audio device.
You need to be able to tell RB: I want to arm this track for record from this audio input source stereo or mono.
You can do that at the moment how it is, it's too hard.
PG should be able to do this but as stated I posted all this years ago. Maybe they think it's not worth putting this work into it and just keep it as a basic usable extra ? but then it was mentioned they have big plans for it, but then they may have run out of time ????

2015:

2014: Live Multitrck Recording

RB currently draws VU levels on the track during recording, and will have improved handling of the VU levels when recording multi-inputs for 2024.
In, RB, if you want multiple inputs on tracks 1 through 8, you just click on track 1 so it's the current track and inputs 2 through 8 would go on tracks 2 through 8. You don't need to press "arm" 8 times. EDIT: And also without having to set the input for each track individually as well With RB, you can record on multiple tracks without having to do all that.

Since you appear to be taking credit for the individual Solo buttons, or at least saying it's better with the individual Solo buttons, I'll mention that the soloing method in RB now (with individual solo buttons having been added a while ago) does makes it a lot more difficult if you just want to A/B compare 2 tracks, even if they are are next to each other. You used to just be able to click on the track and it would solo because it was the current track (and the Solo button on the toolbar was pressed), and then you could click on the down arrow or click on the next track to have that one be soloed. (and you could also solo multiple tracks by selecting multiple tracks) Now you have to un-solo one track and and then solo the next track, or you could click on the next track and then press the Solo Tracks button twice which is still more difficult. I guess adding a special key combination would now be necessary to get it to solo JUST the current track without having to press multiple buttons in the case of another track already having been soloed. This is because the other method was eliminated in favor of individual solo buttons.

EDIT: Maybe I’ll try to make it so that, for RB 2024, pressing a key like Ctrl while pressing an individual track’s solo button would cause it to solo just that track which would make it easier to go from, say Track 1 being the only track soloed to Track 2 (or any other track) being the only track being soloed.

You can keep RB how you like it won't bother me in the least. I remember selecting tracks I wanted soloed with the old one button method then when I highlighted a section of bars in the chord sheet i wanted to play it lost all the selected tracks.
Every other DAW has a solo button and you can arm the tracks you like, please don't make any mods because of what I say I hate having to force things to happen if it's kicking against the pricks, you want to do things joyfully not begrudgingly.
That's why I said to old muso, as it was 2014 when it was suggested, old muso is keen for RB to become "better" and I try to help him but I have been at it a long time and know the saga and it's very draining so that's why I gave up with it. So you are best just to do some easy things to change it a little for 2024 and users can make do with it how it is, I'm sure you have many loyal users that will be happy no matter what you do, it is what it is. I think you can put that single Solo button back as it could be a new feature selling point.
Sorry old muso I tried n tried n tried and tried, I hope you see what the story is now that I have been trying to tell you and that there are other better ways of doing things now
I think your quote was correct than what I thought, it is too hard...for PG !

Jeff.
re arming tracks for a multi input scheme.
Very good point you made about arming tracks.
so if one is recording from 16 interface audio inputs it means a user has to arm 16 individual tracks in rb which takes longer than just one and
do the consecutive idea.

so haveing thought about the above and your points i cant think of a perfect solution no matter the solution implemented.
a classic catch 22. ...cos i'm thinking about in the future as computers get even more powerfull eg quantum.
in the future if one were recording from a 128 input interface eg an orchestral date ...it would be a pain individually going thru 128 tracks in rb and arming each.
which makes me wonder how are other daws gonna handle a large number of inputs interface or lets consider a usb mixer with a slew of channels.

kudos Jeff ..good thinking mate.
lol...i'm now gonna take a bath and think about this conundrum.
maybe one idea might be , the user sets up a template whereby the rb tracks are pre armed and routing from interface to rb track is pre determined ?
yep thd time to arm 8 tracks is nothing compared to 64 or 128 tracks
in the future.

happiness.

om

mcity ..yep im very keen on rb becoming wonderfull cos it has sooo much potential imho. my apologies...i wasnt aware about the history of all these aspects.
maybe im too ardent in wanting rb to really make inroads in the daw user community.

i see what jeff is getting at re time to arm lots of tracks and deal with routing of each..which becomes more and more time consuming the more io the interface has.
tis a conundrum...lol.

best regards mcity and i wish i had your graphic skills.

om

I should look into a way to get directly to the Audio Drivers dialog from the right click menu which would make it easier to change the currently selected audio ports(s) in the drivers dialog without having to go into Audio Prefs first. I should also look into duplicating the "Input channel for Mono Tracks:" into the Audio Drivers dialog, or maybe instead add it somewhere onto the right-click menu.

Also, RB 2024 will have lots more tracks, so if someone just wants to re-record only bass/drums instead of bass/drums/guitar/piano/etc. they could always just record to a different group of multi-tracks and then they delete any unwanted tracks from the now group. Maybe not as convenient as with the arm method but still doable.

"maybe im too ardent in wanting rb to really make inroads in the daw user community."
are you trying to give Jeff a heart attack ?

24 users died last week while arming tracks:
Fit Screen

Or from having to delete extra WAVs in the case of having forgotten to disarm previous tracks?

You should promote that idea in other forums for other DAW's, I think that will go down well, show them PowerTracks while your at it and maybe they will see the light and convert over.

But maybe still a little better than you go over. 😆

all.

throw eggs at me if you think this is a daft idea ...lol.

1..imagine a new dialog called the track arming guide..tag.
2..displayed in tag are 8 boxes ..four labelled source (ie the audio interface) and four labelled destination (rb tracks).

so an example ..an outrageous example...lets say the user wants to record interface inputs 9 to 14 to rb tracks 23 to 28 and interface inputs 17 to 19 to rb tracks 68 to 70 and interface inputs 23 to 28 to rb tracks 1 to 6 then the appropo source (interface) and destination (rb tracks) box ranges would be filled in. yes i know the concept is kinda addling but i'm trying to think of the most flexible concept.

in addition lets say a user wants just to record usb mixer mic inputs 20 to 24 to rb tracks 34 to 38 THEN the user would just enter one source and one destination range.

ok i stand ready for the egg throwing...lol.

happiness.

om

RealBand Wishlist WT# ! I see old muso wishing year after year and disappointment year after year, look at all the mock ups I made for him they served ZERO PURPOSE there is not one iota of interest in making RB better, it's 90's thinking and 90's stuck, it's been that way all along, only half asss things are implemented and very begrudgingly with arm twisting.
If you have no enthusiasm, interest or pride in it just retire from it, don't lead users on with RealBand Wishlist it's like Oliver asking for more, false hope, you even had me going for a while but you have shown your hand, the truth comes out.

Would the track arming dialog be instead of having individual arm buttons, and when would it be launched?

I inadvertently missed one of the posts from Musocity earlier.

In general, don’t think the priority has been to make everything work identically to others, and the time involved in rewriting something to work more like others needs to be factored in.

If we were to have RB use a track arming method, I think it’s gotten too close to 2024 for that to occur for 2024 release, but interested in hearing more about the dialog. Thanks.

It may sound crazy to some, but whenever I want to record a song, I use RB and can’t imagine having to be using certain other non-PG recording programs, but maybe that’s just me. I can see for , say, looping EDM type stuff that RB might not be the ideal choice, but I actually find using RB easier to use than others,and not difficult to use. And 2024 will be an improvement over 2023.

Guys, I posted all this 10 years ago ! and now they are doing something or gonna do something..maybe ? I hope it's not from big fights that something gets done, there's got to be a better way surely
It's like I said way back in another lifetime, clutch, brake and accelerator (solo mute record) I can get in any car and it's the same, it's not a Russian car that I need to learn. All the time and energy is spent on Biab and fixing Mac Biab regularly as well as the extra 6 months that it takes that's why you have a crappy RealBand and don't bother with it. (not to mention the crossplatform JUCE Plugin had to wait all the time for bbw4 to be worked on, hope to God this is not still the case in December)
Look at Audacity they are learning, it's more like a real DAW now.

Jeff/All.

Re you asked for More ?
here goes...

here's some things ive been mulling over in my mind.
jeff ..yes the idea is the tag would be used as an option
on recording lots of sources at once instead of laboring over each track arming it...etc.

the conundrum and how to find a practical user solution is sorta like
'the letter carrier making sure the right letters go to the right houses' or 'the air traffic controller making sure the planes go to the right taxiways'.
ie sources and destinations....routing sound interface multi inputs to tracks.

nowv let's throw into the mix a major event eg as pg and jeff are canadian
a future re-creation of the fab 'conquistador' by procol harum and the edmonton symphony orchestra….or for americans a re-creation of stairway to heaven live (like the brilliant heart did)…or for us brits a re-creation of ac/dc classic rock at castle donnington.

all the above are major events that might encompass large massed choirs
(I miss singing in one.) rock groups and symphony orchestras ie lots of musos and singers coming together to create a memorable music event.
maybe such a large event might hold clues as to how a smaller event might be handled ? given how many mics
etc etc are going to be used.
now throw into the mix higher transfer speed/ computer cpu tech eg usb 4
(and I'm sure usb 5 and usb 6 are on the horizon as are faster processors.)
and thus the question becomes what tech to use for such a event ?

Obviously audio mixers with loads of inputs will be used (plus back ups.)

and irrespective of daw being used and computer platform how are the audio engineers going to set things up on that chosen daw/computer platform ?
The only way I can see is via some sorta TAG methodology.
i.e. allocate sources to destinations once again. as in…'ok chaps the choir mics will be recorded on tracks xx thru yy.' and rinse and repeat for the orchestra and the rock group or groups
etc etc. ie logically connecting and arranging sources to destinations.

now obviously most gigs are lots smaller, e.g. a small jazz combo or rock group or a bunch of mates getting together, but the problem remains…
sending sources to destinations.
Hence I can't see any way other than using something like a tag dialogue to organise which sources are recorded on which destination tracks. i get jeffs point re user time needed to go through a track at a time and matching it with its sound device input.
hence using a tag dialogue simple example …5 drum mics going to rb tracks 25 thru 29 or choir tenors going to tracks 31 thru 34 etc etc.
i'm sure the event producers will use loads of computer daw tracks so they have flexibility in re-mixing a major music event back at their commercial facilities.

given the above it would seem some sorta flexible tag dialogue that allows
production people to allocate ranges of like musicians eg source violins mic group to destination ranges of tracks will be 'de rigeur'.
maybe also thought be given within a tag dialogue for any range having mute and solo buttons…maybe also multiple take buttons ?
then of course the old chestnut needs to be addressed of ensuring new takes dont erase previous takes the user wants to keep.

In summary…not trivial stuff….with lots of potential problems doing a major or even minor event where a small combo gets together including things like a computer or audio console going on the fritz etc etc.

hope i make some sense…I await once again any rotten eggs.
(my wife makes a superb egg sandwich…lol.)

i think at this point if everyone is in agreement that a new dialogue dedicated to connecting sources to track destinations is warranted…that the discussion now address what user features should such a tag have other than source and destination ranges. eg how should multiple takes be addressed and mutes and solos etc. for example maybe a user wants to solo the rock band rhythm section coming from source range 32 to 39 and destined for tracks 64 to 71….cos tracks 32 to 39 have already been recorded on.

see what i mean ?
anyone else…who wants to put their oar in the water feel free.
cos the above aint trivial.
also at the core of my thinking is how to ensure if rb is called upon at some future event no matter how trivial with various musos/mics/instruments etc etc it wont fall flat on its face.
how do other daws handle big events of the sort ive alluded to ?
how do they solve the conundrum ?..cos i'm not seeing lots of info re neat solutions.

happiness to all

om

addendum.
to show that this issue of sources to track destinations is not just a pg rb issue...
ive been trying to see how the big boy daws do it by googling 'daw name plus arming tracks multiple input usb audio interface'.

someone else have a bash cos maybe i missed something.
but im finding no info on big boy daws how they handle track arming for recording loads of tracks at once. so maybe rb can be the leader with the tag idea ?

If we were to go with track arming for a future version of RB, a routing dialog likely does make sense. The question is would multiple tracks (like tracks.1 and 2) both be allowed to receive the same input during recording. There’s a way that could still be allowed in a routing dialog, but, if that is allowed, then after a take is kept, you would get a duplicate recording onto tracks 1 and 2 if they were both set to the same input and both armed. (Especially if you didn’t visit the routing dialog and they were both armed but set to a default of Input 1).

Jeff.

i'm not sure what your saying mate …are you afraid of inadvertent duplicate tracks resulting from an incoming input from say a 32x32 interface or usb mixer ? eg if usb mixer mic input 9 is for harp, i would not expect the harp to end up on two rb tracks by using the TAG feature. further i wouldnt expect the harp necessarily to end up on rb track 9.
cos 9 might already have been recorded on. for example in the past in a big studio just because harp was on big console input 9 it wouldnt necessarily end up on track 9 of a 2 inch studer mtr if the studers track 9 already were filled.

Well actually prior to recording normally track layouts are agreed in advance ...so these kind of probs dont occur.
i would suggest that a daw like rb would mirror things.
ie its not rb's fault if the harp is directed to more than 1 input on a 32x32 usb mixer unless the user wishes to do so.
i would suggest in the track range routing boxes in tag that maybe rb might warn the user if a track in the user entered range had already been recorded on.

If I wanted a dupe of a track I would do that using rb duplicate feature post recording. Did I answer the question ? Do I make sense ?

I'm also mulling around having worked once for a telecommunications company…that in the future as telecoms tech gets cheaper for smaller studios ..very cheap ultra fast telecomms features/pipes might obsolete current ways of getting audio data into a daw.
though of course usb 4 is very fast in data transfer. even usb 2 is sufficient for lots of sound interfaces. it really depends on data transfer volumes.

well jeff ive been looking more and more how other daws deal with recording large track ranges/track counts cos of the prob of say arming 64 or 128 daw tracks. It seems many are just doing things the old ways of arming tracks. but maybe i'm missing something.

happiness.

om.

This conversation has drifted from my initial request.
I would simply like to SEE what I am recording as it records, regardless of Ports used.

If other suggestions here affect HOW this gets implemented, that's likely a good thing moving forward. So I appreciate the dialogue and thinking effort of contributors, but I would like to see my initial request happen, and not be held up because of additional requests. (since Jeff already said some suggestions won't happen before 2024)

Just a thought .. one step at a time is how I approach things
Can't frame an addition to the house until you have a foundation, and painting it is further down the line ..

2013 Draw Waveform While Recording
It draws those color bars that I can't go by, it should draw proper waveform and It should have a track vu for each level.
In the pic the vu meters on the left, if they go hot the red peak will stay there showing it's been over.
The far right is the result different from what is shown while recording.

erm...lol.

i got a question re inputs recorded from a multi input interface.
each rb track has a level meter....cant these be used for input monitoring
like some other daws ?

or am i misunderstanding ?

om

LOL
Maybe we were a bit too hopeful with this pic and using flac files, if Reaper can't come to RealBand we can take RealBand to Reaper:

mcity.

ive given up ever seeing that rb pic come to fruition....sigh.



happiness.

om

I could convert all the RB track bmp's to png and create a reaper RB skin then just script the functions you need in reaper. You could even create a toolbar in reaper with all the RB toolbar buttons.

mcity.

actually as ive said before my preference is to do everything in rb so i'm not wasting creation time f!itting tween various song production apps...

right now all i need is a few features to be added to rb so i can achieve such. one major one being in the rb pickers the ability to audition styles/rd's/rt's etc with my song chord sheet arrangement.rather than canned demos which dont give me perspective viz an original song.
i'd be dancing around the house...lol.

imho rb could be up for tek awards with a more aggressive development cycle. everytimei i use rb i look at it and sigh as an old tech re its potential.
and thinking to myself 'it doesnt even need a lot'...double sigh.
it baffles me why just a few things are done each year for us rb users when there
are big opportunities to make big inroads into the daw marketplace.
please dont get me started...lol...

back to metering if were me i'd just add a feature to the track metering already there by adding input monitoring.



happiness.

om

If they go ahead with the BBPlugin how I have illustrated so many times it will be able to play demos using the chord sheet instantly rather than having to get bbw4 to render the song into RAM then render down to wav, this then could be used in RealBand the same way but it too would have to get rid of bbw2 running in the background and integrate the code directly into RealBand but this would be a massive job for old RealBand and probably why they didn't do it in the first place. I think RealBand will remain what it is neglectedware that will get a few tweaks now and then.
I said about be able to SEE what is being recorded in 2013 and only now there is talk about this that it might be added.
In the Biab forum users are asking why no updates or and fixes since July:
Jeff might of been given a 5min break from full time Biab programming to add a few things to RB ??
That's why I look towards the BBPlugin with the self contained crossplatform JUCE C++ code to develop independently without having to wait for Delphi programmers to work on bbw4.
I did love RB at one time https://www.realband.org/

I think Jeff made one real good point here the focus has never been on making RB just like every other DAW. Does it need some upgrades, yes, and at the same time it does just about every thing every other DAW does just a bit different. I remember as Mcity put it in another thread, he remembered that i resisted his idea 10 years ago on individual solo buttons. I did because the global solution worked just fine in my personal workflow as I am sure it did for many others as well, but i admit that in retrospect the solo button upgrade was a good idea. Was it necessary? No but either way it works, just different. I recent dialog with Jeff I have come to see that well over half the time i make a suggestion regarding a change in RB to match the "norm" in other DAWs he shows me a way RB handles that request that while different it is actually very effective and sometimes better. We have to also look at why RB is different, first off it was designed from the get go to marry BiaB with PT. and in that respect it is very different. Comparing it to Studio one, Cakewalk, and Reaper can at times be silly since none of them even come close to doing what RB can do in regards to Track generation. Some of the "odd" features at odd to those who are familiar with more mainstream DAWs are their for a reason and it has to do with the family relationship with BiaB and the native access to BiaB files. I do think the references to 90s thinking are not only un necessary but actually somewhat rude and condescending. Since the 90s only BiaB has been able to accomplish what they have with generating audio Loops, Midi, and such on the level they do. No other DAW can even begin to touch this as they have and that includes RB It is truly amazing.

There are few things that are needed. Some of those are being addressed hopefully in 2024 and others maybe in 2025. I think those that use RB on a daily basis while looking forward to annual upgrades would also be very unhappy if it became a hybrid of Studio one and RB, or Reaper for that matter. RB is what it is and hopefully it will continue to grow and upgrade. The one thing i truly believe that PGM is missing out on with RB is it should be Win and Mac. I know they say that is difficult but BiaB was once Win only and now it is both Bite the bullet guys and port it over to Mac. Mac may be a smaller audience but as Peter noted this year, it is the faster growing one. Have a meeting and get that done by 2025. I will tell you that for me my primary studio is Mac. If RB was Mac i would probably use it full time for everything but final mixing as i do that in Mixbus. However i just bought the Mixbus 32C plugin to use in other DAWs. If i can use that in RB and I also have the SSL master strip i can emulate all that Mixbus 32C does right in RB

Let's talk about the plugin, MCity you said the plugin is the future as it blends with many DAWs and gives all DAW users access to the Basics of BiaB generation in their DAW of choice. I whole heartedly agree with you on that. I truly hope that it gets some love this cycle, and that opens up more sales to new users. Direct to disc is a great upgrade. I would love to see PG cut it loose from BiaB and sell it separately with a nice selection of RTs and RDs and maybe some Library upgrades that would be a winner.

Look everyone on this thread is a solid contributor to this product, lets going forward refrain from derogatory and inflammatory comments and stay positive. offer good ideas, but allow PGM to progress at the pace they can swallow. The world is to filled with negativity for that to happen here. We are here because we all have a love for music and it's creation. Let's remember this is supposed to be fun and relaxing, not stressful and hurtful. Best to you all, and go make a new song.

If you get a few long term uses saying I love RB, it's different, it's quirky, I'm used to it. That makes PG feel good.
But at the end of the day unless you get new younger users coming here and saying WOW this is great,.... but in reality do you get this ?
Can you show your post to a younger audience and convince them RB is the future ?
Is the continuation of RB and the few little tweaks it gets at the end of the year just to appease a few long term users that are happy with whatever father xmas gives them ?
I see old muso year after year try really hard to get things added, and I see him year after year disappointment, I FEEL THAT, I feel the pain. Is there really any purpose in this wishlist other than to give false hope ?
At it's current development what do you see the life span to be, how far into the future do you see it going let alone getting a Mac version ?
I showed Reaper reading the Biab wav instructions and instantly loading those wma/wav tracks giving full creative control. I do this for PG, all the time and trouble I go to over the years doing deep dives into it, I don't sell this myself and make money on it.
When I came here back in 2009 maybe I should of went with the status quo and not complain about issues, don't rock the boat, don't speak out, be happy at xmas time with whatever PG gives, what would be the easiest thing to do and be liked ?
I liken it to exactly what's going on in the USA now, it says it all.

I'm using the single Solo button method in another DAW but it doesn't loose the selected tracks when I highlight the chord sheet or bars:
Zoom++


Zoom++

If anyone needs the 2009 with the single Solo button and the customizable modular button panels, there's even a Fax number:
(you can't run an old version on a Mac, Win no problem)



Zoom++

In the Tracks Window, shift click on overview section can change the highlighting without affecting selected tracks. Also clicking on time line in Tracks Window, and then pressing F7 for the start of highlighted area or F8 for the end of highlighted area.

Adding more tracks to RB and all this wav data needs still to be saved in the SEQ, these could grow immensely.
If you could load a wma or wav file non destructively this would increase RB's usability no end

Here's the thread you can see them getting Reaper to play wma direct with Media Foundation, after some dramas it all worked out.
v6.56+dev0430 - April 30 2022

This would be a very big step, allowing RB to read frozen SGU tracks instantly into RB,
it could just read the wav instructions from bbw2 directly into RB without bbw2 having to decompress wma, load sections into RAM then render down to wav then load into RB.

Agree, but that would involve a major rewrite of the track structure. In the meantime, with the advent of NVMe SSDs, the decompression and rendering to disk is faster than it used to be.

You still need to fill M2 or SSD up with wav files unnecessarily.
Major rewrite, if you had to go that way maybe it would be better to go for major, major rewrite like JUCE and have a version at the same time for all operating systems: Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS and Android, as well as VST, VST3, AU, AUv3, AAX and LV2 plug-ins.

I don't know, you need to look down the track a bit, what would be the best way to go ??
The BBPlugin will be released in a few days that should give an idea of the way things will go depending on what state that is at now. Hopefully it should have all the generate code contained within the JUCE and to play the wma files direct like sforzando, or playing the wma files direct from the bbw4 wav instructions, or with not much change how it is now.

How major was the track view and Riff Edit write in BB24 ?
You were probably the one working on it

This is a frozen SGU and all the sections are shown instantly, and you can edit them non destructively.

Poor old RealBand it just needs some love, a neglected little brother, what if you just copy that BB24 tracks code over when nobody's looking

LOL