larger max file size for recordings

[avdb]

Hello Arlo,

first of all, I think you are doing a wonderful job and have an absolutely great product with BH. I am now using it for several years and have built a sizeable repertoir with backingtracks, .MID for light, automation. In short, the works.

But what remains a little nagging is the file-size limitation you put on the recordings.
I have read all the posts and I know your reasoning in regards to syncing of larger files. I get that.

However, with 4G/5G/LTE and large storage spaces on devices, I think this argument is becoming mood. Furthermore, we all have become used to syncing processes with Nextclou/Dropbox et-al.
May be it should be up to the user to decide if he wants to sync large files or not?

As other users pointed out, I would gladly be willing to pay a little more for the feature that allows me to add recordings as .wav.
The other route could be to forego the storing all together and allow the user to have his recordings in a dropbox folder, so you do not have to deal with the syncing.

Whatever you prefer.

But I do think the file size arguments that where used in the past are not really valid anymore and that there are many users that would like to store their backing tracks in full .wav formats

What do you think?
What do other users think?

[arlo]

Thanks for the nice feedback. I can reconsider the individual file size limit. One concern I don't think I mentioned before is that many people don't have an intuitive understanding of how big various file types are. For example, many people don't realize a single MP3 file is larger than their entire account database, and a single WAV file is about 10x larger than that. But I'll think more about whether it would be technically and economically feasible.

[avdb]

Hi Arlo,
Thanks for your reply, and i am glad that this ancient topic is at least being reconsidered. Thank you for that!

I do realize that the Audio (and video recordings for that matter!) require a multitude of the storage space of common txt/midi/pdf based songs.
There is no dispute about that.
and eventhough I tend to agree that there are many users out there that can't e bothered to spent a little time to learn/understand issues, I think that there a good sized section of BH users deserves a bit more credit.
After all, if a user has invested the time to create a repertoire with songs containing txt,chords, pdf/scans, automation with auto-track or .mid, create/mix/attach appropriate backing tracks, they probably fully understand the impact of storing large files onine.

and even for the lesser power-users; we all are now fully affluent with the concepts of Dropbox/nextcloud et al. where big files do not just magically appear immideately across devices.

Having said that, i do not underestimate the technical challenges of managing large files/storage spaces that you would need to conquer.
I can imagine this would be a huge task for a single programmer.
But may be a different approach to that challenge could be to hook on to existing technologies or platforms.
i mean with that some sort of hook into existing platforms like Dropbox/Nextcloud/Onedrive that would handle the actual syncing of these large files, where BH "just' keeps track of which files beling to what song. I admit I do not have the full overview on technical requirements on this approach, but it my be something to pounder a bit further?

Finally, I think that the majority of powerusers understand that extended functionalities/storage cost money.
If such functionality can be purchased as an add-on, I would suspect that those users who may have invested hundreds and hunderds of hours getting the repetoir right in BH and depend upon its ongoing flawless performance are willing to pay for premium features.

Regards,
Arie

Keep up the good work Arlo and thank you for an already wonderful product

[Neill00]

Is the point of being able to add the higher quality recording to the device to have better sounding backing tracks? 

[avdb]

Yes, definitely Neil but that is only partly my point and I definitely do not want to start a discussion if MP3 sound worse as WAV, FLAC or any other format. As I wrote before in my messages, it is not very 2022 anymore to worry about online storage space and/or download speeds. So it should be up to the user to decide what format to use. WAV 48/24 broadly being the main format around the pro audio world for file exchange , I think it is kind of weird that we as pro bandhelper users cannot practically use this format because of the filesize restraints.

[arlo]

With today's release, the individual file size limit has been raised to 75 MB for Plus accounts and 500 MB for Pro accounts. It has been lowered to 15 MB for new Basic accounts, but preexisting Basic accounts will still use the previous 50 MB limit. The overall storage limits have also been raised accordingly, to 15 GB for Plus accounts and 50 GB for Pro accounts.

This should be enough to accommodate compressed recordings (MP3, M4A) for Basic accounts, uncompressed recordings (AIF, WAV) for Plus accounts and unusually long recordings or high-quality videos for Pro accounts.