# Staffpad v Dorico for composing



## sundrowned

Current Staffpad user. Thinking about getting Dorico to overcome some of the staffpad limitations. 

Three main reasons: 

1. More control over the performance.
Often I hit a bug or performance issue that can't easily be worked around, or don't want to work around, and wish I could tweak things a bit more. 

2. Ease of Note entry. 
Staffpad is fine, but the pen entry system isn't perfect. Having a more reliable and potentially quicker option is appealing. 

3. More instrument and sound options. 
Self explanatory really. 


Any thoughts? 

Do you find Dorico helps with those issues? Or not so much? Maybe it brings its own issues? Do you compose as quickly in dorico as staffpad with as good playback results? 

The main libraries I'd use with dorico are BBCSO and HWO. 

Thanks.


----------



## giwro

I use both, and I find (after learning the workflow in Dorico) that it’s the fastest I’ve ever put notes down. Sometimes, I’ll do a score in Dorico using Noteperformer, then export via XML to StaffPad for rendering. If rendering in Dorico, I rarely compose using BBCSO, often I’ll get the notes down using Noteperformer, then switch the template for tweaking and rendering.

I still think StaffPad is amazing, but it treat it more as a render engine and a scratch pad for ideas.


----------



## Jett Hitt

I own Dorico but don't use it, so let that qualify this right up front. I do, however, sometimes enter notes in Finale and transport them via XML to StaffPad. Finale is my choice because I have used it for so long, thus I am quite adept at it, and because XML is Finale's creation, thus they do it better than anyone. (You can read more than a few posts about troubles with Dorico and XML.) I had originally planned to use Dorico with BBCSO to render playback, but honestly, I have yet to hear anything from that combination that I find as convincing as StaffPad. @dcoscina has some experience with this and can probably contribute to this thread.

80% of the time, I find pen entry into StaffPad efficient and swift. However, when the music gets complicated, entering notes into StaffPad becomes very cumbersome. I write a lot for piano, and there are a lot of notes. Once rhythmic durations reach the level of 32nds or tuplets such as 11 in the time of 8, you've got a real headache on your hands. Once there gets to be too much of this sort of thing, I stop, open Finale, and enter the notes for XML export. This is, in my estimation, the weakest link of StaffPad, and I don't get the impression that any relief is coming anytime soon.


----------



## sundrowned

Jett Hitt said:


> I had originally planned to use Dorico with BBCSO to render playback, but honestly, I have yet to hear anything from that combination that I find as convincing as StaffPad.


Same I haven't heard any great examples from dorico either, although maybe I haven't researched enough. But there shouldn't be a reason why not? Unless I'm missing something. I'll give the dorico trial a go and see how it goes.



> I write a lot for piano, and there are a lot of notes.


I find the lack of dynamic layers with cinepaino an issue sometimes. Which means getting into tweaking the volume which is fiddly and not ideal.


----------



## dcoscina

Jett Hitt said:


> I own Dorico but don't use it, so let that qualify this right up front. I do, however, sometimes enter notes in Finale and transport them via XML to StaffPad. Finale is my choice because I have used it for so long, thus I am quite adept at it, and because XML is Finale's creation, thus they do it better than anyone. (You can read more than a few posts about troubles with Dorico and XML.) I had originally planned to use Dorico with BBCSO to render playback, but honestly, I have yet to hear anything from that combination that I find as convincing as StaffPad. @dcoscina has some experience with this and can probably contribute to this thread.
> 
> 80% of the time, I find pen entry into StaffPad efficient and swift. However, when the music gets complicated, entering notes into StaffPad becomes very cumbersome. I write a lot for piano, and there are a lot of notes. Once rhythmic durations reach the level of 32nds or tuplets such as 11 in the time of 8, you've got a real headache on your hands. Once there gets to be too much of this sort of thing, I stop, open Finale, and enter the notes for XML export. This is, in my estimation, the weakest link of StaffPad, and I don't get the impression that any relief is coming anytime soon.


Perhaps having cross-compatibility with a desktop MuseScore app will help, although that takes away the allure of the portability of SP and the iPad..


----------



## Jett Hitt

sundrowned said:


> I find the lack of dynamic layers with cinepaino an issue sometimes. Which means getting into tweaking the volume which is fiddly and not ideal.


This is indeed a real headache, and the only solution that I have found is doubling certain notes in a second piano. This is anything but ideal.


----------



## MadLad

Jett Hitt said:


> This is indeed a real headache, and the only solution that I have found is doubling certain notes in a second piano. This is anything but ideal.


I have both CinePiano and the Berlin Steinway pianos and they both have the same problem. There should be more dynamic layers. I have no idea what they were thinking? There is no way anyone could think that the switch from mf to f can be tolerable to your ears? The Forte should actually be the fortissimo and there should be a quieter version between the mezzoforte and the fortissimo


----------



## Jett Hitt

MadLad said:


> I have both CinePiano and the Berlin Steinway pianos and they both have the same problem. There should be more dynamic layers. I have no idea what they were thinking? There is no way anyone could think that the switch from mf to f can be tolerable to your ears? The Forte should actually be the fortissimo and there should be a quieter version between the mezzoforte and the fortissimo


CinePiano needs about 5 more dynamic layers, but I don’t see that happening. I find Berlin unusable for almost everything. Chords play back rolled. I doubt any of these issues will ever be addressed.


----------



## MadLad

The chords thing is hit and miss for me. Sometimes they play back fine, sometimes not. When I composed my solo piano album I only used Berlin Piano because it just sounds better. My work-around for the chord problem was to write everything in four staffs. One would be the "melody" the other 3 staffs were for everything else. Whenever I had the problem with chords playing back rolled I could just correct that in a DAW with multiple tracks.


----------



## Jett Hitt

MadLad said:


> The chords thing is hit and miss for me. Sometimes they play back fine, sometimes not. When I composed my solo piano album I only used Berlin Piano because it just sounds better. My work-around for the chord problem was to write everything in four staffs. One would be the "melody" the other 3 staffs were for everything else. Whenever I had the problem with chords playing back rolled I could just correct that in a DAW with multiple tracks.


Wow, I suppose that would work, but jeez what a lot of work. I only use it for single melodic lines when the music permits because it does indeed sound better.


----------



## MadLad

Jett Hitt said:


> Wow, I suppose that would work, but jeez what a lot of work. I only use it for single melodic lines when the music permits because it does indeed sound better.


Oh, it was a pain, believe me. But I really like the brilliant sound of the Berlin Steinway D so it was worth it.


----------



## youngpokie

sundrowned said:


> .... Thinking about getting Dorico to overcome some of the staffpad limitations.
> 
> .... The main libraries I'd use with dorico are BBCSO and HWO.


About a couple of weeks ago I was going to get Staffpad but at the last minute I ended up getting Dorico instead.

The reasons I got Dorico:
- works with VE Pro and my existing libraries
- expression maps already infinitely better than Cubase (though still tedious as hell)
- praise from users regarding speed of entry

My impressions so far:

- if you take time to learn key commands and give up the mouse, note entry speed is simply incredible. It's faster than handwriting. You can enter notes in several staves at once, copy/paste across staves, etc - most note entry steps are simple and intuitive

- I typically make a lot of sketches when I orchestrate, so for me "flows" is a godsend. I have multiple sketches, clearly organized, in a single project file. Galley view is super convenient for composing, especially if you create custom layouts (e.g. show only instruments playing the main theme as you write it, etc).

- it's not yet possible to use negative offset on a whole track or on a single articulation, only on individual notes. I use copy paste a lot to take advantage of this. I think Dorico 4 might address this later this year

- most score symbols can already be linked to samples via the expression maps, but there are still some artics where it's only possible to have Dorico auto-generate. For example unmeasured rolls are already mappable, but measured rolls still only Dorico-generated. Trills over whole steps are only auto-generated. Crescendo too (however, volume swells are already mappable)

- expression maps are a huge pain in the rear. However, your libraries are already mapped, free maps downloadable on the forum

- playback and mixing is one of the things that you'll clearly recognize as "work in progress", I guess they're just starting to really get into it. Rather basic so far...

All in all, I'm pleasantly surprised (and I tend to expect a lot!). I don't know when exactly Dorico 4 is coming out, but am really looking forward to it...


----------



## Leigh

youngpokie said:


> About a couple of weeks ago I was going to get Staffpad but at the last minute I ended up getting Dorico instead.
> 
> The reasons I got Dorico:
> - works with VE Pro and my existing libraries
> - expression maps already infinitely better than Cubase (though still tedious as hell)
> - praise from users regarding speed of entry
> 
> My impressions so far:
> 
> - if you take time to learn key commands and give up the mouse, note entry speed is simply incredible. It's faster than handwriting. You can enter notes in several staves at once, copy/paste across staves, etc - most note entry steps are simple and intuitive
> 
> - I typically make a lot of sketches when I orchestrate, so for me "flows" is a godsend. I have multiple sketches, clearly organized, in a single project file. Galley view is super convenient for composing, especially if you create custom layouts (e.g. show only instruments playing the main theme as you write it, etc).
> 
> - it's not yet possible to use negative offset on a whole track or on a single articulation, only on individual notes. I use copy paste a lot to take advantage of this. I think Dorico 4 might address this later this year
> 
> - most score symbols can already be linked to samples via the expression maps, but there are still some artics where it's only possible to have Dorico auto-generate. For example unmeasured rolls are already mappable, but measured rolls still only Dorico-generated. Trills over whole steps are only auto-generated. Crescendo too (however, volume swells are already mappable)
> 
> - expression maps are a huge pain in the rear. However, your libraries are already mapped, free maps downloadable on the forum
> 
> - playback and mixing is one of the things that you'll clearly recognize as "work in progress", I guess they're just starting to really get into it. Rather basic so far...
> 
> All in all, I'm pleasantly surprised (and I tend to expect a lot!). I don't know when exactly Dorico 4 is coming out, but am really looking forward to it...


I agree with all of this. 

The Lanes for CC's work well but the mixer is wretched. Using VEPro for mixing is a delight so, for me, the Dorico mixer is a non-issue.

**Leigh


----------



## did

youngpokie said:


> - if you take time to learn key commands and give up the mouse, note entry speed is simply incredible. It's faster than handwriting. You can enter notes in several staves at once, copy/paste across staves, etc - most note entry steps are simple and intuitive


As my point of view, handwriting is THE reason why StaffPad is for. This is the most direct path beetween the brain and the music you want to write, as a writer prefers the pen than a text processing to write a novel. Ok after writing I'm using Logic to achieve the work, and the mix is done in Protools. But I'm convinced that the writing process, with hand, remains more natural to compose, ever it's conscious or inconscious.


----------



## youngpokie

did said:


> ... the more direct path beetween the brain and the music you want to write


I would agree that when you stare at a blank page your mental gears shift in some profound way, compared to DAW. You "hear" differently and you "think music" differently.



did said:


> ... a writer prefers the pen than a text processing to write a novel.


But this, however, is a stereotype that enables an entire mythology - and it's factually wrong. Today 99.9% of writers use a word processor. And several generations before them, it was typewriters. A few hundred years ago, writing by hand was predominant but even then Dostoyevsky and a few others didn't write at all - they dictated.



did said:


> ... the writing process, with hand, remains more natural to compose



There is this great confusion about two common and equally _natural_ types of composing: "composing with your mind" and then writing it down with pen/paper; and "composing with your fingers" that comes from improvisational field and that's maybe more easily relatable to DAW. In each case, either writing or recording is simply an act of capturing a creative _idea_, trying an experiment (i.e. an _idea_), etc. An idea always comes first.

So when it comes to pen and paper, I think it's important to separate the tools that we identify with a mental process from the mental state itself. If we don't, the tools can become the gates that open and shut creative flow on their own; and possibly cause the "writer's block".

I think this is the real reason why some people can't accept software score-writers even when they are demonstrably and provably faster and easier to use than handwriting.

From my own experience, I can confirm that it took some effort and time to mentally re-orient myself and learn the key commands. To my surprise, zooming in and out of the page actually takes longer to get used to than any type of note entry or key command. Everything else is a hundred times easier in Dorico. It would be a huge step backwards now to return to pen and paper...


----------



## did

I admit I’ve never read anything about this subject, and I’m sure many research has been done on this.
But that something I feel. Perhaps it depends from the people, and some will do the job in the exactly same way, with a pen or not (but how to be sure in artistic context ?).
Of course, if the writing process isn't the most important reason to get Staffpad, this app doesn’t remain a necessity...


----------



## Jett Hitt

Whether you are using StaffPad, Dorico, or a DAW--these are just tools for capturing your ideas. What works for you might not work as well for someone else. For those of us with a traditional background, notation is the ultimate means of expressing and sharing our ideas. The method that works best for you is likely the one you have spent the most time learning. The beautiful thing about StaffPad is that many of us learned to write music on paper as children. We've been doing it a really long time. The learning curve is minimal. 

The process for me used to start with a sketch on paper, progress to Finale where I would flesh out the details entirely, then transport the finished piece to my DAW. StaffPad has almost entirely eliminated two of these processes. That is the most beautiful thing about StaffPad to me.


----------



## dcoscina

I use Dorico to compose occasionally. I'm doing some engraving work as a third-party contractor and I have to use Sibelius which, for the nature of this work, is still miles faster to use for layout... Dorico to me feels like a very good composing tool but some things are unnecessarily hard to work with (if you are doing graphic notation/scores, Sibelius is far quicker). There are some things Dorico does well, like editing note lengths in a bar, or mass dynamics using the karot (sic) pop over. I also prefer how Dorico handles tuplets... And of course, lately, I've been messing around with MuseScore which is also fairly brilliant insofar as ease of use. Very easy... I kind of dig it. 

But for sheer speed, honestly StaffPad does 90% of what I need it to do the first time. It's portable and allows me to chip away at larger works when I have the chance, no matter the locale. This is a huge selling point for me. I'm a little disappointed that the playback/library updates have appeared to go backwards compared to earlier versions from summer 2020, but I trust DWH to rectify the issues (the biggie is the dynamics for Berlin percussion and harp or even short arts for the strings... anything under _mp_ is inaudible).


----------



## Jett Hitt

dcoscina said:


> I'm a little disappointed that the playback/library updates have appeared to go backwards compared to earlier versions from summer 2020, but I trust DWH to rectify the issues (the biggie is the dynamics for Berlin percussion and harp or even short arts for the strings... anything under _mp_ is inaudible).


This has been particularly annoying. It seems like every time there is an update, I have to completely re-edit my scores. The Berlin libraries seem to suffer the most. I have said before and will say again that the Achilles heel of StaffPad is the need to manipulate the playback engine to accommodate multiple different libraries. Tweaking to improve one adversely affects another.


----------



## dcoscina

Jett Hitt said:


> This has been particularly annoying. It seems like every time there is an update, I have to completely re-edit my scores. The Berlin libraries seem to suffer the most. I have said before and will say again that the Achilles heel of StaffPad is the need to manipulate the playback engine to accommodate multiple different libraries. Tweaking to improve one adversely affects another.


We can hope DWH is working on his own bespoke library that will eschew these issues with the third party ones- of course, that means alienating the customers who all bought into them... so it is a bit of a tight rope walk here...


----------



## cmillar

Paper...nothing beats it as far as being able to 'flip around' to see what you've written, where you are in the process, and how you want to proceed and perhaps draw from some of your previous ideas, motifs, tonalities, etc.

If you've got the whole form laid out in your head, and you're abel to work all the time on a 12" screen, then all the more power to you!

I'm not that gifted. My worst music has usually come from when I totally devote my composing time to being 'in the software'. After I actually hear it played by real people, I have to 'slash and burn' and edit much of it because the sense of 'form' and cohesiveness was really lacking. (....yes, sometimes it's helpful to have something like NotePerformer handy before putting parts on the stands!)

But, that's just me. The software is amazing, but don't let it get in our way of creating something artful!


----------

