PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist Make BiaB more GUI configureable

+!

The existing Prefernces window gives the impression of something of which PGM lost control many years ago.
The [Display] button and the [Colors] button seem to open the exact same window.
The [MIDI Driver] button diolog also includes a button to open the same windoe as the [Audio] button. I've never really understood why the MIDI page should open that.
Some dialogs remember their last position, some don't.
The [Practice] button, uniquely, closes the its parent window ... maybe that's logical if the next activity will be practice? Bizarrely, trying to open some of the practice tools from here is unreliable... when I asked about that some years ago, PGM said it was a resource conflict. I find the whole of this dialog very clutterd and, well, weird actually.

The left-hand pane you show, if PGM adopt it or similar, may well benefit from foldable sub-categories, e.g. on > and V symbols.

+1

robertw,
+1000 on settings menu suggestion.
The DAW that inspired the idea had it right from the start

Would you be so kind and start a new thread with your graphics on Settings, so it has a better visibility? It will be somewhat lost in this thread that got a bit polluted with unrelated blah.

Re GUI's.

some things to ponder.
(from a developers perspective.)

i discussed with my wife the whole issue of the biab gui.
to get an unbiased perspective. she has seen it many times.
she has significant experience not just as an end user manager
working with very large legacy applications (big exe's) serving
very very large user populations but also as a user tech.
(i was largely on the app development side.)

she made the following observations re legacy applications.

1..probably when bb was developed originally the developers
did the best they could given the confines of the available
development tools and operating system.
(same with systems she worked with years back.)
whereas today (eg some daws) a developer with modern development tools can make an app more flashy and user configureable.
eg i think it fair to say that the bb plugin/standalone are
flashier than the core bb app.
(i actually commend pg re the fact they didnt overdo the 'razamatazz' like some modern apps which, as i'm vision impaired i find can be an issue for me.)

2..when user groups clamoured much later for 'modernising' the legacy apps in terms of 'gui look' and user groups ability to configure the legacy app in a flexible way (ie their way) the issue often came down to 'budget'. for example more programmers would need to be hired and managed. but when users were asked to share the cost...
this became a major issue. often gui upgrades were not implemented therefore.
also there were many concerns by techs re disturbing the current code base which might introduce new testing and implementation issues and time to chase down.

3..now lets talk about money a bit more.
would bb users be willing to be charged a bit more in order that legacy bb be 'modernised' ? in terms of user flexible bb gui's ?
what about this idea.
keep the current bb price as is currently but if users want the new user configureable modernised gui bb there is an added charge ?
would this be acceptable ? or would users balk ?
thus pg could devote more programming resources.
(hire added coders).


a conundrum of course is some existing users are used to bb as it stands.
so they have to be taken into account also.
so this is a 'wrinkle'. as my wife found out some users preferred the 'old ways' to quote more than a few.
as one can see the developer is in a catch 22 as my wife found out.

given the above lets talk about the 'proverbial elephant in the room' like my wife encountered re legacy systems...'money'.
as often is the case in commercial life things come down often to money.

SO...i would be curious to know what percentage of pg users would be willing to pay more for a new 'modernised' flexible gui bb app.
and by how much eg ten percent increase ? more ?

there are some nice gui ideas in this thread i have to say.

(ps whats always amused me on the reaper forums is one user wants reaps to look like daw 'x' while another user daw 'y' and yet another user daw 'z'.
with the same kbd shortcuts they are used to. oh..the poor developer...)

happy new year to all.

om

@ Rustyspoon#.

If I start a new thread, it can also get side tracked!
How can we prevent that?

As long as it's brought back on track, that should be OK?, or should I just make a new thread for each problem I find, and suggestions I make?
I want to try and keep things on track regarding the GUI, which is showing the current state of Biab and how it could look. any new feature request will be on another post.


Robert

I like the standalone look as well.
PGM can save a lot of programming cost, by making 1 program that can do what currently 3 are doing (BiaB, Realband & Standalone DAW plugin).
Make BiaB a Very good program by combining Realband and the standalone DAW plugin into it.

Each program has things that others cannot do. Like "Realband & Standalone DAW plugin" can do 48k, BiaB cannot. Realband has a better looking mixer and control over tracks, Standalone DAW plugin so far has a better looking GUI.

As far as some want BiaB to stay looking the same way, I think of many of the OS's out there, they change and we have to get use to it.
And they, some times put something back when their is a lot of Hoop_La over the change.
Many of the users accept the changes and those that stay with the old, eventually come on board as to not be left behind.

Robert

justanoldmuso.
I must confess, I am having difficulty of deciphering manuscript above. However, I believe I have a basic understanding of where you going with this.

What is not clear to me is this: "from a developers perspective". WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
is it a observer developer? PGM developer? Refactoring developer? UI developer?
I am not a developer. But it's clear to me as bright day that BIAB UI and workflow are not made to standards and improving on that front is painfully slow compared to almost any other software.

Is it me? Or that is what is said about BIAB in nearly EVERY unbiased review? These days people don't like facts much, but I encourage you to do some reading. Wikipedia would be a good place to start. There is a section there specifically with constructive critique.

Good design is not about "flashiness". Good design is a combination of smooth, easy to grasp workflow, properly sorted menus structure, clear wording, supporting modern resolution and multi monitors and yes, flexible elements that do not look like 2005 software.

To PGM credit, there was some breakthrough progress made in 2024. Specifically: significant generational speed improvement utilizing multi CPU cores, MTP library and a few other tools made non-modal. But then, instead of doubling on workflow enhancements, progress for the most part stopped.

JAOM, If you are happey about how things are concerning GUI (and it seems you are), there is no need to lauwer for PGM. They are big boys and girls to stand up for themselves.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From AI perspective when asked about BIAB weaknesses. #2:

2. User Interface (UI) Complexity
Cluttered UI: The interface, while functional, can appear overwhelming and unintuitive to new users. It often requires a steep learning curve to understand all the available features and options, especially for beginners.
Outdated Design: Some aspects of the software's design look quite dated, which might be off-putting for users accustomed to sleek, modern DAWs like Logic, Ableton, or Cubase.

Robert,
I believe the mock you made for the main properties deserves a separate topic because it is a bit different from "Make BiaB more GUI configurable".

Secondly, some folks are happy with main UI, but might support main preference menu overhaul. I've seem some threads revived from years ago. For example, if PGM would give some long overdue love to main UI by the end of the year, second topic on "preferences" would still be relevant.

Concept Main UI



the UI would have the (Red Boxes), able to take toolbars and place wherever you want and if more than 1, it would have tabs to select the group you want.
The Green Square is for what is selected from the left side.




Robert

robertw

you make good points re combining features of bb/plugin/rb.
ive said for a long time it must be confuseing for example for new users that for example rb and bb are different in various ways as youve found out.

lets take bb new tracks view as one example.

i really like that pg did the new tracks view...
however for a new user it possibly is difficult to understand why in rb the rb tracks view not only 'looks different' from bb but also has lots of editing features built in that arent in bb tracks view.
and there are many many other differences tween not just bb and rb but also re the bb plugin...the latter which ive tried to love but keep on going back to rb for many reasons.

what i sense from an overview perspective is there are various user groups within the pg user community spanning the world that pg are trying to make happy...follow my logic please...

1..some want full steam ahead re the plugin to feed their daws.
ie like a food waiter in a restaurant.
2..some want the fab new bb tracks view and bb to have more daw features.
3..some dont want more daw features in bb.
4..some want bb to stay the same because they really dont to learn a new way of doing things.
for example maybe they dont want bb mixer to look like the rb one.
and there are many other viewpoints...not just re the gui.

the problem from a developers perspective is how to keep everybody happy takeing into account all the diverse opinions in the user base.
a salient example might be for those users that want bb to be more daw like have a 'turn these features on' feature and for those users who dont want more daw like features an option to 'turn off those features'.

in summary if pg try to keep all the diverse users happy it could turn into a maintenance nightmare. (been there done that.).
lets not forget pg also offers their apps in different languages...a further complication. some music apps dont have this added complication...
they offer one language only....it simplifies things.

i feel frankly there are no perfect solutions...includeing gui's.
lets also remember that only a fraction of pg's world user base probably are on these forums regularly. thus a possibility is the 'silent ones' might not agree with anything agreed on these forums between regular forum users.
we had the same problem in industry...even though we got very active powerfull user groups to agree and sign off on new features (after many battle royals and politicking...lol.)..then we had to contend with unhappiness from user groups not involved in design of new features. the 'silent ones' sometimes didnt like the new way of doing things...so more use squabbles occurred.

robertw...great ideas BUT what is the possibility that all pg users would actually be happy with integration of the various pg apps (bb/rb/plugin etc)....or would there be great complaining ?? therein lies the rub.
one reason i like your idea is that i'm tired of flitting tween various music apps (eg for many years flitting tween bb AND rb AND reaper.).
(robertw...the reason i like rb tracks view is because i can accomplish so much with it without flitting to another app....which drives me nuts as i spend lots of time tranferring tracks between the 3 apps.).

Rusty.

maybe you think i'm a 'suck up'...lol. but this isnt true..all i'm trying to make people aware of is a developers perspective and how very difficult it is for a developer to keep a user base all over the world happy. thats all.
a good way to see if i'm correct in my observations re user groups is i'll throw out a challenge...
have a core group of pg users come up with a groovy new gui philosophy and approach the core group is happy with.
now invite comments from anyone who wants to chime in.
and see if concensus can be reached with the wider pg user community.
honestly Rusty i'm not trying to be a pain in the proverbial...
its just its SOOO difficult to achieve user concensus often.
its the old 'not invented here' syndrome.

to be fair to pg also in some ways it makes sense re how things are currently ie seperately bb and the plugin and rb....
rather than one 'massive' app.
in industry we often found compartmenting apps easier to deal with.

just my 2 cents.

om

JOM,

You are correct on many points

1) maybe you think i'm a 'suck up'...lol. but this isnt true..all i'm trying to make people aware of is a developers perspective and how very difficult it is for a developer to keep a user base all over the world happy. thats all. No one can make everyone happy, and that should not stop change.

2) a good way to see if i'm correct in my observations re user groups is i'll throw out a challenge...
have a core group of pg users come up with a groovy new gui philosophy and approach the core group is happy with.
now invite comments from anyone who wants to chime in. and see if consensus can be reached with the wider pg user community. There will always be someone coming out of the wood work to complain.

3) in industry we often found compartmenting apps easier to deal with. PGM could make BiaB as the main app with Realband features with the Standalone modern look(dark mode but good contrast for people that have bad eye sight). and as you said, make a switch for users to use the new Biab or not. As for size, Well BiaB is already BIG


Robert

BiaB, may look different, if given a new GUI, if the same Icons are used and not changed, There would be very little o relearn. but allow users to switch them out. I can be done as some of my images already show


Robert

Robert,
as you might be already aware, most people use BIAB+DAW combination. A few years ago, I suggested same idea. Combine BIAB +RB... Unlikely to happen. The main issue, people who use RB are way too forgiving, or they are too deep in it. Because there were no hard demands, and the fact that it came as a complementary software, it wasn't developed aggressively when needed. Starting about 10+ years ago. As a result, it is what it is. Given democracy of Windows systems, it will likely stay "alive" for years to come, but personally I have not seen any major developments of that software since I started using BIAB. I would open RB every year, spend 30-40 minutes trying to like it, and close it till next.

BIAB is the main software across the board. (PC or Mac users). In 2024 Track view was introduced in BIAB...
All that needs to be done is make those tracks record audio / MIDI properly. Up to standard. As most audio software do. Just finish it the right way! Ironically, most (if not all) functions are in place. With 2 dozen available tracks, BIAB could become a "To-Go" all in one software for singer/songwriter that would need 2-12 tracks for their instruments or vocals. If one needs more features, there are many full fledge DAWs out there, free and/or inexpensive.

JAOM
"i'll throw out a challenge...
have a core group of pg users come up with a groovy new gui philosophy..."

It seems you didn't read what I said about UI. Good design is closely tied to workflow. It has little to do with "grooviness". Often times less is more.

Here is an eye opener:
Has it occurred to you that if PGM had the invested more in modernizing outdated UI + workflow design and minimizing redundancy, it would very likely have a much bigger and diverse "Core Group", and odds are we would not have this conversation. Judging from combination of user requests and outcries from this forum and what "internets" say, this makes perfect sense to me.

@ justanoldmuso

1..some want full steam ahead re the plugin to feed their daws.
ie like a food waiter in a restaurant.
Then don't stop with it's development, I want the plugin as well!

2..some want the fab new bb tracks view and bb to have more daw features.
I want it a little, but I do not want to become a DAW!

3..some dont want more daw features in bb.
Same answer as #3

4..some want bb to stay the same because they really dont to learn a new way of doing things.
for example maybe they dont want bb mixer to look like the rb one.
and there are many other viewpoints...not just re the gui.
What I'm asking for and showing, is for making it easier to use, not new features, but to only rearrange things to work better. They should use the icons they are currently using, so that users will still feel comfortable with the program and have little learning.

Do not get me wrong I see where you are coming from.
I don't think points; 1-4 should prevent PGM from developing BiaB with a better GUI.
Their ca$h cow is in the "*PAK's they sell" and even that could have some changes, Like let existing users pick and choose, their own package. Offer the ability for users to what Audiophile packs they want, like MegaPak Audiophile, etc....

Heck, many of us may not even be alive, by the time it gets here or BiaB might not be around. Right now they are the only ones that do what they do.
Maybe not for long, as the old program "Jammer" was bought by a company and working on updating it. competition is around the corner!


Robert

with respect much as various people might complain about various aspects of bb lets also remember the postives.

ie the thousands and thousands of songs done over the years by users all over the world.
the user showcase being just a sampling of the huge number of songs done with bb....not forgetting all the pleasure people have derived from bb etc each year.

when i get frustrated sometimes with a gui aspect or a workaround i remind myself that over the years bb (and rb ) have given me the tools to take ideas from my brainbox and get a slew of songs done.
i also remind myself that for a paltry under 100 bucks purchase of the entry level pak a muso is given a tool set that ive never seen in another music app.
lets remember that some music software alone can cost hundreds of dollars....


i'm interested to see what you all come up with re any new gui approach.

ps i'm surprised as an ex developer that nobody has said what extra amount they might consider paying for their favorite pak if all outstanding user concerns/issues were to be addressed includeing the gui aspects.
in the end like ones daily cost of living it all comes down to money.
so what do people on this thread think would be an equitable amount ?

pps Robert re competition for bb...we shall see what the future brings.
frankly if what pg does were trivial at the technical level,,,imho we should have seen competitors years before 2025.
imho pg has too much of a lead in this market space....and i'm sure if they were challenged at some point, as one sees in various markets the market leader always responds to competition.
the tech market leader isnt going to stand idly by and lose market share.
its just biz 101 or mba 101...lol.
fyi Robert...years back i contemplated doing an advanced music app because not only was i frustrated with market offerings but also because i knew working in tech
some brilliant developers who also were interested in music apps...as often it was their hobby. however once i drilled down into the tech implementaion details i decided not to proceed. this stuff isnt trivial imho.


happiness to all and interesting exchange of views.

om

Yes the old version I showed was more customizable. The elements should be able to be moved around and scalable to give different layouts as well as being able to remove icons so uses can create their own skin. Have custom menus to add whatever functions you like. This is all coming back to me again, as I remember posting animation of Adobe Audition skins/layouts and how easy it was.
There are also other DAW's that can have any skin from another DAW as well as behaviors.
IF it's going to be changed again allow it to be fully customizable (that means it can't be sold down the track with a different hard wired theme).
All this is so much easier to do with the JUCE BB Plugin and a lot better quality GUI, when it's programmed for Win it's also programmed for Mac at the same time not a half year later.
I think you need to take into account the future and the best way to make it sustainable.
A lot of us here are old users, you need to think about catering for new users down the track.

BIAB's GUI
band in a box GUI

"imho pg has too much of a lead in this market space...."

What? Seen what AI can do? Give it another year.

I like tinkering with software, but a good number of people just want to get from point A >B fastest possible way and be done.

Its our job, dedicated users to ring alarm bells, not hiding under our little comforts and excuses of past victories and possible "workarounds" . Giving constructive suggestions, not picking nose to find reasons to counter conversation. That is of course if we care about the future of BIAB=New members.

I am not preaching apocalypse, but saying - Train is coming, and if you have your bags lying in different benches on the station, better hurry...it will not wait.

Well said! And absolutely true!

I've been involved with computers from it"s very beginnings.
And I've also seen several times when large companies, with over $100,000.00 invested, switch programs they were using because they saw no improvement.
Jump one slow moving train and climbed aboard a faster moving train.
....So it could happen!


Robert