# Dorico playback: samples vs noteperformer



## ed buller

As some of you may have guessed I am totally smitten with Dorico and what it can do. Yes there is a huge amount of effort needed to set it up and master it's many playback possibilities but it is so worth it.

This is a very simple 20 bar example of a bunch of chord inversion swapped between various combinations. The dynamics and a tweak of CC11 are doing all the work.

In the Dorico "samples" version the sounds are coming form commercially available libraries that we all love. The "Noteperformer" Version is just that.

I bounced straight from Dorico , NoFX


Noteperformer:

View attachment FOREST NOTEPERFORMER - Flow 1.mp3




Samples:

View attachment FOREST SAMPLES - Flow 1.mp3



Best

e


----------



## ptram

The NP version makes the music easy to recognize and understand. But the sample version sounds nearly real.

Paolo


----------



## dcomdico

The Noteperformer version sounds good until you hear the samples version. I just picked up Dorico 4 Elements. It's a bit overwhelming but your posts are clear proof that it's worth sticking with and learning.


----------



## jamwerks

Nice work. Hopefully we'll soon have the choice. Work in Dorico with a great midi editor, or work in Cubase with a great score editor!


----------



## Jett Hitt

Wow, that's eye-opening @ed buller I've been following your posts on Dorico for a while now. I spent the evening trying to build expression maps for BFC, and I had them sort of working for a while. The C0 in Sine did not correspond to the one in Dorico (by like 3 octaves). I am not sure why this would be, but then it just quit working altogether. I don't know whether it is user error or a Sine problem.

Was there some reference you found helpful for building these? Tutorial? Youtube video?

Thanks


----------



## joebaggan

Noteperformer is like $100 bucks. Obviously comparing that to expensive samples is silly. I mean, if you're paying big bucks for sample libs, then they best sound better or you're not getting your money's worth. But with NP, you get hassle free setup, no loading time of massive gb's of samples, no time wasted on midi/sample tweaking, and you get musical AI playback ( which a sample lib doesn't have ).


----------



## ed buller

joebaggan said:


> Noteperformer is like $100 bucks. Obviously comparing that to expensive samples is silly. I mean, if you're paying big bucks for sample libs, then they best sound better or you're not getting your money's worth. But with NP, you get hassle free setup, no loading time of massive gb's of samples, no time wasted on midi/sample tweaking, and you get musical AI playback ( which a sample lib doesn't have ).


This is totally true. I have said so myself. All i am trying to prove is it's worth spending time if you have Dorico and Samples to integrate the two. But if you are happy with NOTEPERFORMER ..then so be it

best

ed


----------



## ed buller

Jett Hitt said:


> Wow, that's eye-opening @ed buller I've been following your posts on Dorico for a while now. I spent the evening trying to build expression maps for BFC, and I had them sort of working for a while. The C0 in Sine did not correspond to the one in Dorico (by like 3 octaves). I am not sure why this would be, but then it just quit working altogether. I don't know whether it is user error or a Sine problem.
> 
> Was there some reference you found helpful for building these? Tutorial? Youtube video?
> 
> Thanks


I had a lot of help from the wonderful John Barron:




Anthony Hughes's videos are great too:



I can't lie..it was a serious ballache to get it to work but TBH when it didn't, I'd just tell myself I had done something wrong and went through it again. It was ALWAYS me screwing up NEVER the program not working properly . 

Start small. Get pizz and trem to work. The holy grail is the length condition : This is hard as it' tempo dependant 







This so worth doing though as it really helps the realism. You just have to find the right patches for the corresponding note lengths. Do it at 130 BPM. 

best

e


----------



## J-M

Huh, they doubled the player count to 24 for the elements version...If I've understood their player system right(?) then the Elements version is enough for a small orchestral score...I've been wanting to get more into composing with notation and the 100e wouldn't break the bank considering that I could throw in VEPro and my sample libraries in the mix...


----------



## Markus Kohlprath

A question that occurs to me after viewing the playmode video: Is it possible to import the Cubase tempo map into Dorico 4 and vice versa?


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

I just got NP and the main benefit of it for me is it just works. It’s very much plug and play. Grace notes, ornaments, dynamics, etc - all handled perfectly. Using other libraries, there will be much more effort required to set up the map and then augment your score with various symbols - great if that’s worth it to you and what you’re using Dorico for. Amazing that Dorico supports both so well!


----------



## dcoscina

ed buller said:


> This is totally true. I have said so myself. All i am trying to prove is it's worth spending time if you have Dorico and Samples to integrate the two. But if you are happy with NOTEPERFORMER ..then so be it
> 
> best
> 
> ed


I wish David William Hearn sold StaffPad to Steinberg... imagine have its playback capability in Dorico? Shudders when thinking about it


----------



## Bollen

dcoscina said:


> I wish David William Hearn sold StaffPad to Steinberg... imagine have its playback capability in Dorico? Shudders when thinking about it


That doesn't make sense to me. Staffpad's capability is in its notation input, Dorico far outclasses Staffpad when it comes to playback.... Confused.


----------



## ka00

Bollen said:


> That doesn't make sense to me. Staffpad's capability is in its notation input, Dorico far outclasses Staffpad when it comes to playback.... Confused.


Staffpad’s playback engine is amazing:



The Berlin libraries frankly sound better in StaffPad than in Sine.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

dcoscina said:


> I wish David William Hearn sold StaffPad to Steinberg... imagine have its playback capability in Dorico? Shudders when thinking about it


I don't think that was ever in the cards given Dorico has an iPad app. They would be getting very little by also acquiring Staffpad - the hand writing recognition is worse than what you can license off the shelf and the playback capability is something Dorico can build in-house (or if they were going to acquire somebody - acquire the leader in the space with Note Performer). All Staffpad has done is the work to sort through various commercial sample sets / pare them down to work with its engine - the sample developers don't do any work to make their libraries work with Staffpad.


----------



## dcoscina

ALittleNightMusic said:


> I don't think that was ever in the cards given Dorico has an iPad app. They would be getting very little by also acquiring Staffpad - the hand writing recognition is worse than what you can license off the shelf and the playback capability is something Dorico can build in-house (or if they were going to acquire somebody - acquire the leader in the space with Note Performer). All Staffpad has done is the work to sort through various commercial sample sets / pare them down to work with its engine - the sample developers don't do any work to make their libraries work with Staffpad.


The way Staffpad's engine analyzes notes and playback is generally superior to trying to accomplish the same thing with full libraries from the same developers. The note transitions especially in the Berlin Strings are done in a way that I've never heard with people using SINE or the Kontakt libraries. And frankly, I don't want to spend hours finessing a single line to make it sound as good as what Staffpad can do in seconds after I write a line in. 

Dorico of course is more powerful in many regards, but trying to set up playback that matches what StaffPad can do takes 10000% longer to accomplish. I was just wishing Dorico had some integrated bespoke library that would work seamlessly with the note information the way Staffpad's does (which will end up being in MuseScore at some point).


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

dcoscina said:


> The way Staffpad's engine analyzes notes and playback is generally superior to trying to accomplish the same thing with full libraries from the same developers. The note transitions especially in the Berlin Strings are done in a way that I've never heard with people using SINE or the Kontakt libraries. And frankly, I don't want to spend hours finessing a single line to make it sound as good as what Staffpad can do in seconds after I write a line in.
> 
> Dorico of course is more powerful in many regards, but trying to set up playback that matches what StaffPad can do takes 10000% longer to accomplish. I was just wishing Dorico had some integrated bespoke library that would work seamlessly with the note information the way Staffpad's does (which will end up being in MuseScore at some point).


Let's see - the benefit is Steinberg has Iconica already (a bespoke library) so that could conceivably be integrated into any custom playback engine in Dorico in the future. Playback is an easier problem to solve. In general, I think Daniel and team have prioritized the right things so far and no sign of stopping. Takes me 10000% longer to input notes in StaffPad so happy that as a _notation_ software, Dorico is progressing in the right direction.


----------



## dcoscina

I will add that I'm very happy with NP in Dorico for my compositional needs. In almost every case, when I work in Dorico, the end result will be performed by a live group so I don't care as much about mock ups or sonic realism. NotePerformer suits me fine.


----------



## dcoscina

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Let's see - the benefit is Steinberg has Iconica already (a bespoke library) so that could conceivably be integrated into any custom playback engine in Dorico in the future. Playback is an easier problem to solve. In general, I think Daniel and team have prioritized the right things so far and no sign of stopping. Takes me 10000% longer to input notes in StaffPad so happy that as a _notation_ software, Dorico is progressing in the right direction.


I've worked with Inconica- it's nowhere close to as good as the Berlin expansions in StaffPad. 

I agree that Dorico's development is a good one and heading in the right direction. 

Sorry that StaffPad has not been as good a compositional tool for you as it has for me.


----------



## Jett Hitt

I, too, wish that StaffPad had sold to a different company. It would have been amazing to have that playback engine in Dorico or Finale or Sibelius. I would have started using whichever one adopted it. I guess it may very well appear in Musescore this spring, and perhaps I will start using it. We will see how the follow-through is. It would be a breath of fresh air to finally not have to grapple with StaffPad's shitty handwriting recognition. 

As for Noteperformer, I call bullshit. If the developers of Noteperformer sold their souls to the devil, it still couldn't sound as good as that Firebird example above. For quick easy playback, StaffPad is the only game in town, and to achieve it, all you have to do is go crazy trying to enter the notes.


----------



## dcoscina

For complex rhythmic figures, StaffPad does provide trouble, for sure. Dorico is simple by comparison. The short cut keys I have programmed for Dorico make it almost as fast to enter notes for me.

Regardless, I seem to have found a good balance of using StaffPad vs Dorico and work with them both in tandem. As I have a M1 mac, I can have both apps open on my Mac Mini. Kinda cool.


----------



## ptram

Jett Hitt said:


> If the developers of Noteperformer sold their souls to the devil, it still couldn't sound as good as that Firebird example above.


Since you named it, here is my NotePerformer version of the Firebird's Finale:

Stravinsky, Firebird - Finale (NP)

Paolo


----------



## ed buller

ptram said:


> Since you name it, here is my NotePerformer version of the Firebird's Finale:
> 
> Stravinsky, Firebird - Finale (NP)
> 
> Paolo


Wonderful.
e


----------



## dcoscina

ptram said:


> Since you named it, here is my NotePerformer version of the Firebird's Finale:
> 
> Stravinsky, Firebird - Finale (NP)
> 
> Paolo


This is pretty nice! I don't hate NP- on the contrary, I feel it is more accurate as far as balancing in the orchestra. StaffPad sounds nicer to the ears of course but most of us are composing in Dorico or other notation apps with the idea of getting real musicians to perform their work so sonic realism isn't paramount.

I do hope that Arne continues to develop NotePerformer and it becomes even more realistic sounding. For me, it's a no brainer to use with Dorico. No worries about mapping or anything. it gets out of the way so I can compose.


----------



## sinkd

Even as late as five years ago, I would have never imagined that developers would be venturing very far into the "make notated music play back as realistically as possible with sample libraries" realm. Noteperformer and Staffpad are two powerful counterfactuals to that pessimistic and phlegmatic prediction. I am STUNNED, (stunned I say) with what I can do with Dorico, NP and other playback templates with a notation-based workflow. It's like a fever/pipe/composer wet dream come true. We are truly blessed to have these tools at our fingertips, and moreover to hope (expect, even DEMAND?) that they should be IMPROVED. Boggles the mind.


----------



## dcoscina

sinkd said:


> Even as late as five years ago, I would have never imagined that developers would be venturing very far into the "make notated music play back as realistically as possible with sample libraries" realm. Noteperformer and Staffpad are two powerful counterfactuals to that pessimistic and phlegmatic prediction. I am STUNNED, (stunned I say) with what I can do with Dorico, NP and other playback templates with a notation-based workflow. It's like a fever/pipe/composer wet dream come true. We are truly blessed to have these tools at our fingertips, and moreover to hope (expect, even DEMAND?) that they should be IMPROVED. Boggles the mind.


I agree. I jumped on Notion in 2005 because it had the roots of what we see today as far as composing with notation and instant playback without futzing around assigning different arts to keyswitches or notated indications. When StaffPad debuted in 2020 in iOS with all of those expansion libraries, I was floored. For the first time, I could hear music realized closest to the way I heard it in my head.


----------



## Jett Hitt

Ok, I am stunned. Not by Noteperformer, mind you, but that anyone thinks that sounds good. The strings sound like GPO 5.


----------



## sinkd

AND, I have delivered stems to directors/editors right out of NP (synched in Dorico) that got approved as final. Then I'm like wait--what? No. I need to re-sequence this stuff to give you the "better"version...


----------



## sinkd

Jett Hitt said:


> Ok, I am stunned. Not by Noteperformer, mind you, but that anyone thinks that sounds good. The strings sound like GPO 5.


I have better libraries, to be sure, but NP in Dorico sounds much better than GPO. Let's not get carried away.


----------



## Jett Hitt

sinkd said:


> I have better libraries, to be sure, but NP in Dorico sounds much better than GPO. Let's not get carried away.


You can't listen to that example next to the one from StaffPad and think that they are even remotely close.


----------



## sinkd

Jett Hitt said:


> You can't listen to that example next to the one from StaffPad and think that they are even remotely close.


You said GPO. Try to stay focused.


----------



## Jett Hitt

sinkd said:


> You said GPO


You're missing the bigger picture here. This started out as a comparison between StaffPad and Noteperformer.


----------



## sinkd

Jett Hitt said:


> You're missing the bigger picture here. This started out as a comparison between StaffPad and Noteperformer.


And my reply, that seems to have triggered you, lauds them both for doing amazing things that I never imagined. I did not realize that I was required (in order to properly contribute to the thread) to trash one in order to praise the other. I will demur, apologize to you now good sir, and withdraw.


----------



## dcoscina

I've said this earlier but I do think composers can get the benefits of both for different purposes. I wrote a crazy ass Don Davis-styled brass piece a year ago and StaffPad could NOT keep up. NotePerformer did. I mentioned it to David William Hearn and sent him both recordings. Quick repeated notes in Berlin Brass on StaffPad are a challenge. But lovely lyrical chorale writing is sumptuous.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

NP's strength is not the sound of the samples, certainly. But instead, it is their interpretation logic of the notation. If they can get higher quality samples, I think they can easily sound as good if not better than Staffpad (which is relying on the best sample libraries out there to sound good).


----------



## Jett Hitt

ALittleNightMusic said:


> NP's strength is not the sound of the samples, certainly. But instead, it is their interpretation logic of the notation. If they can get higher quality samples, I think they can easily sound as good if not better than Staffpad (which is relying on the best sample libraries out there to sound good).


I would love nothing more than to be able to make a notation program sound like StaffPad. The interpretation behind Noteperformer is indeed its strong point. If they could just harness better samples with it, it might be amazing. As I struggle with expression maps in Dorico, this seems very appealing.


----------



## dcoscina

ALittleNightMusic said:


> NP's strength is not the sound of the samples, certainly. But instead, it is their interpretation logic of the notation. If they can get higher quality samples, I think they can easily sound as good if not better than Staffpad (which is relying on the best sample libraries out there to sound good).


I think the brass is already pretty bloody good. The strings and winds could use a little improvement but generally it’s pretty impressive for a 1 gig library that loads instantly


----------



## dtoub

I’ve found NP has worked very well for many of my scores, but especially with regard to brass and winds. Less so for strings; YMMV. 
Here are a few examples if I might:

days of rage (string orchestra)
https://dbtmusic.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/sonance.mp3 (sonance) (piano, violin, cello)
air waves (brass + electronic organ)
torture memos (soprano, mezzo-soprano, flute, bass clarinet, marimba, electric bass, violin, cello, piano)

Some works do better with Garritan Personal Orchestra (the paid version, not the stripped-down version that comes with Finale), or Reason, but NotePerformer is quite good overall.


----------



## Gil

dcoscina said:


> I do hope that Arne continues to develop NotePerformer and it becomes even more realistic sounding.


Hello,
Arne seems to continue to develop NotePerformer, next version should provide better sounds:




__





BBCSO (Core) vs NotePerformer in Dorico?


Noteperformer allows you to concentrate on the composing without all the distraction of sample lib configuration and loading times, and the price is right. If I'm writing, I want to focus on the writing ( not getting bogged down in technical/sample minutiae ) and NP is fast and decent sounding...




vi-control.net




Regards,
Gil.


----------



## Bollen

Speaking as someone with 25 years of experience with the real thing (i.e. real musicians) and having an almost allergic reaction to computer generated music, I have to say these comparisons are silly.

I have Staffpad and have used it a lot. A few years ago I did all my drafts and sketches on it, then I would do the full fledge composition in Sibelius/later Dorico. As my music has developed more and more complex tuplets I have moved away from it and now do 99% of my work in Dorico. 

In comparing playback between the two there are only two possibilities that count for something: 1.- how good is the performance out-of-the-box without ANY tweaking and 2.- how realistic a performance can you get out of them. For no. 1 the examples provided above I can hear Staffpad has been manually tweaked—there are swells that no AI to date would apply contextually correct. It also soaked in reverb, hence hiding a lot of imperfections. The Dorico example on the other hand is quite dry, almost a classical recording, thus exposing imperfections much more. We also know that NP requires no tweaking and we don't know if this file has been or not, and if so how much? How much time spent tweaking between the Staffpad version and the Dorico one. Finally, NP is modelling not samples (I think). 
For no. 2 there is no discussion, since Staffpad does not let you use external libraries and in Dorico you have to do everything manually which takes a huge amount of time. If you rely on Expression Maps you will get a robotic and unnatural performance...


----------



## dcoscina

Bollen said:


> Speaking as someone with 25 years of experience with the real thing (i.e. real musicians) and having an almost allergic reaction to computer generated music, I have to say these comparisons are silly.
> 
> I have Staffpad and have used it a lot. A few years ago I did all my drafts and sketches on it, then I would do the full fledge composition in Sibelius/later Dorico. As my music has developed more and more complex tuplets I have moved away from it and now do 99% of my work in Dorico.
> 
> In comparing playback between the two there are only two possibilities that count for something: 1.- how good is the performance out-of-the-box without ANY tweaking and 2.- how realistic a performance can you get out of them. For no. 1 the examples provided above I can hear Staffpad has been manually tweaked—there are swells that no AI to date would apply contextually correct. It also soaked in reverb, hence hiding a lot of imperfections. The Dorico example on the other hand is quite dry, almost a classical recording, thus exposing imperfections much more. We also know that NP requires no tweaking and we don't know if this file has been or not, and if so how much? How much time spent tweaking between the Staffpad version and the Dorico one. Finally, NP is modelling not samples (I think).
> For no. 2 there is no discussion, since Staffpad does not let you use external libraries and in Dorico you have to do everything manually which takes a huge amount of time. If you rely on Expression Maps you will get a robotic and unnatural performance...


Staffpad for me is instant gratification. Its playback is much nicer than anything I'd used up until it- at least without spending hours refining lines in my DAWs. I love its portability too. I can sketch ideas anywhere. but for any finished works I need to submit to orchestras, I move it into Dorico and I find NP quite good in encompassing what I'm after. 

If Arne is indeed working on a new version with better sounds, I'm super excited about it.


----------



## Bollen

dcoscina said:


> If Arne is indeed working on a new version with better sounds, I'm super excited about it.


Yeah, me too sort of... Since I compose mainly contemporary (not quite avant-garde) music, none of those solutions really work for me. So I'm not sure if I'll ever use them. I constantly rely on specialist libraries.


----------



## dcoscina

Bollen said:


> Yeah, me too sort of... Since I compose mainly contemporary (not quite avant-garde) music, none of those solutions really work for me. So I'm not sure if I'll ever use them. I constantly rely on specialist libraries.


I find notating modern scores like aleatoric sections to be a bit of a graphic challenge (if not a playback challenge). Its the one area Sibelius seems to be a little easier at- hiding notes or stems and such... but I haven't tried it again in Dorico 4 so perhaps they made some improvements there as well


----------



## Bollen

dcoscina said:


> I find notating modern scores like aleatoric sections to be a bit of a graphic challenge (if not a playback challenge). Its the one area Sibelius seems to be a little easier at- hiding notes or stems and such... but I haven't tried it again in Dorico 4 so perhaps they made some improvements there as well


I hear ya! I haven't updated to 4 yet (waiting for tempo line edit), but so far I haven't encountered anything I can't notate in Dorico. It's sometimes fiddly, but then again that's the case in any program. I often use an added hidden staff for certain playback elements that wouldn't be notated.


----------



## ed buller

Bollen said:


> For no. 2 there is no discussion, since Staffpad does not let you use external libraries and in Dorico you have to do everything manually which takes a huge amount of time. If you rely on Expression Maps you will get a robotic and unnatural performance...


let's NOT discuss it then !

e


----------



## joebaggan

Bollen said:


> . If you rely on Expression Maps you will get a robotic and unnatural performance...


Yes, this has always been the problem with playback from notation software - robotic and unmusical playback. No matter how good your samples are, if the playback engine is dumb, you'll get nice samples played back robotically. NP helps with some AI logic, but hopefully there's more on the horizon with AI that can help. It's no wonder that with DAW's, playing the parts in tends to give a more musical performance.


----------



## dcoscina

joebaggan said:


> Yes, this has always been the problem with playback from notation software - robotic and unmusical playback. No matter how good your samples are, if the playback engine is dumb, you'll get nice samples played back robotically. NP helps with some AI logic, but hopefully there's more on the horizon with AI that can help. It's no wonder that with DAW's, playing the parts in tends to give a more musical performance.


See this is where I find StaffPad really good. Its playback sounds very organic, not robotic.


----------



## Jett Hitt

dcoscina said:


> See this is where I find StaffPad really good. Its playback sounds very organic, not robotic.


I 100% agree with this. It doesn’t work for everything, but 90% of the time, it works quite well.


----------



## RogiervG

joebaggan said:


> Yes, this has always been the problem with playback from notation software - robotic and unmusical playback. No matter how good your samples are, if the playback engine is dumb, you'll get nice samples played back robotically. NP helps with some AI logic, but hopefully there's more on the horizon with AI that can help. It's no wonder that with DAW's, playing the parts in tends to give a more musical performance.


In dorico you can ofcourse change the midi data without altering the notation. E.g. do note overlaps in the play module, so the legato's are triggered with library <name>, change the start time of the sample a bit earlier than the notes indicate, to compensate for the sample delays etc..
Or alter the CC information to your liking.. so it fits the libraries better (in a way like you would in a daw).
It's not instant ofcourse.. but it can work out well for the render.


----------



## Bollen

dcoscina said:


> See this is where I find StaffPad really good. Its playback sounds very organic, not robotic.


In my experience it does one thing well and that is W Hearn type music...


----------



## dcoscina

Bollen said:


> In my experience it does one thing well and that is W Hearn type music...


it definitely works best for melodic stuff but I did make it do some more whacked-out stuff. 

The last part has some aleatoric stuff


----------



## Jett Hitt

Bollen said:


> In my experience it does one thing well and that is W Hearn type music...


----------



## dcoscina

Jett Hitt said:


>



Conrado's music is amazing. I love how he gets those textures using StaffPad.


----------



## Bernard Duc

Jett Hitt said:


> I would love nothing more than to be able to make a notation program sound like StaffPad. The interpretation behind Noteperformer is indeed its strong point. If they could just harness better samples with it, it might be amazing. As I struggle with expression maps in Dorico, this seems very appealing.


The amazing thing with Noteperformer, and a big reason why so many composers and engravers use it, is that it's so light. No waiting time at all when loading a big orchestral score, and that's really important for professionals!


----------



## dcoscina

dcoscina said:


> Conrado's music is amazing. I love how he gets those textures using StaffPad.





Bernard Duc said:


> The amazing thing with Noteperformer, and a big reason why so many composers and engravers use it, is that it's so light. No waiting time at all when loading a big orchestral score, and that's really important for professionals!


Totally agree. No messing around, works on both desktop and laptop. Easy peasy.


----------



## dtoub

Bollen said:


> Speaking as someone with 25 years of experience with the real thing (i.e. real musicians) and having an almost allergic reaction to computer generated music, I have to say these comparisons are silly.
> 
> I have Staffpad and have used it a lot. A few years ago I did all my drafts and sketches on it, then I would do the full fledge composition in Sibelius/later Dorico. As my music has developed more and more complex tuplets I have moved away from it and now do 99% of my work in Dorico.
> 
> In comparing playback between the two there are only two possibilities that count for something: 1.- how good is the performance out-of-the-box without ANY tweaking and 2.- how realistic a performance can you get out of them. For no. 1 the examples provided above I can hear Staffpad has been manually tweaked—there are swells that no AI to date would apply contextually correct. It also soaked in reverb, hence hiding a lot of imperfections. The Dorico example on the other hand is quite dry, almost a classical recording, thus exposing imperfections much more. We also know that NP requires no tweaking and we don't know if this file has been or not, and if so how much? How much time spent tweaking between the Staffpad version and the Dorico one. Finally, NP is modelling not samples (I think).
> For no. 2 there is no discussion, since Staffpad does not let you use external libraries and in Dorico you have to do everything manually which takes a huge amount of time. If you rely on Expression Maps you will get a robotic and unnatural performance...


In terms of NP, I've found that in most cases, a lot of tweaking is necessary to get the balance correct. Sometimes that means adding a dynamic to one instrument so it is either sufficiently loud relative to the other instruments at that point, or softer. And for some things, it isn't worth all that, or else I'll use NotePerformer to play back string harmonics (which it does really well) and GPO5 for the other measures (so I create duplicate instruments, some for NP some for GPO5).


----------



## Jett Hitt

Bernard Duc said:


> The amazing thing with Noteperformer, and a big reason why so many composers and engravers use it, is that it's so light. No waiting time at all when loading a big orchestral score, and that's really important for professionals!


I agree, but I can't produce a final product with it. With StaffPad, I can most of the time.


----------



## Bollen

Jett Hitt said:


>



Lovely composition, but I think it proves my point... It sounds awful dated MIDI, the type that I'm allergic to!


----------



## joebaggan

Jett Hitt said:


>



Wow, thanks for dropping that in - never heard of him but fantastic composition. Finally someone drops some music in this forum that isn't that Hollywood Star Wars s__. Saw it when I was 12, moved on.


----------



## Bernard Duc

Jett Hitt said:


> I agree, but I can't produce a final product with it. With StaffPad, I can most of the time.


True, but I don't think many people use it to get final results.


----------



## ZenBYD

ALittleNightMusic said:


> I don't think that was ever in the cards given Dorico has an iPad app. They would be getting very little by also acquiring Staffpad - the hand writing recognition is worse than what you can license off the shelf and the playback capability is something Dorico can build in-house (or if they were going to acquire somebody - acquire the leader in the space with Note Performer). All Staffpad has done is the work to sort through various commercial sample sets / pare them down to work with its engine - the sample developers don't do any work to make their libraries work with Staffpad.


ok, i'll bite. staffpad is the leader in the space. by far. it's amazing that we're even comparing an iPad app with a 600 dollar desktop app. 

Note performer sounds like… note performer, always. the drums are terrible. It’s better than midi, but not by much. I've never had anyone at the studio bring me a noteperformer output. I've used staffpad output in final mixes many times.

I agree that steinberg should have bought staffpad, but like... 9 years ago when they were starting to build dorico... heck imagine if they'd spent 9 years and an entire dev team improving the score editor in cubase.

anyway if it's so easy to build a playback engine like staffpad... why has no one else done it? are you able to do this symphony chart with dorico for iPad and note performer? or even the full 600 bucks dorico and thousands of dollars of libraries with hours of expression map programming and days of midi blob wiggling? to me staffpad sorts the men from the boys, if your doing academic music then maybe it doesnt work very well... but for the jobs i get paid for, it knocks it out the park.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

ZenBYD said:


> ok, i'll bite. staffpad is the leader in the space. by far. it's amazing that we're even comparing an iPad app with a 600 dollar desktop app.
> 
> Note performer sounds like… note performer, always. the drums are terrible. It’s better than midi, but not by much. I've never had anyone at the studio bring me a noteperformer output. I've used staffpad output in final mixes many times.
> 
> I agree that steinberg should have bought staffpad, but like... 9 years ago when they were starting to build dorico... heck imagine if they'd spent 9 years and an entire dev team improving the score editor in cubase.
> 
> anyway if it's so easy to build a playback engine like staffpad... why has no one else done it? are you able to do this symphony chart with dorico for iPad and note performer? or even the full 600 bucks dorico and thousands of dollars of libraries with hours of expression map programming and days of midi blob wiggling? to me staffpad sorts the men from the boys, if your doing academic music then maybe it doesnt work very well... but for the jobs i get paid for, it knocks it out the park.



StaffPad is leader in which space exactly? Crappy handwriting recognition? It is excelling on that front. It is a toy compared to what is required by the main audience of notation apps. And maybe neither Sibelius nor Finale nor Dorico focused on the playback because it was never the priority *for a notation app*? Thought of that? Not because it is some challenging technical problem only the geniuses at StaffPad can solve.


----------



## Dewdman42

Staffpad is not the same audience as Finale/Sibelius/Dorico. Those apps added medicore humanized playback at some point..which StaffPad slays them at. But StaffPad is also not primarily geared towards typesetting and publishing printed music..that is what those programs are designed for. 

I would put staffpad more into the class of compositional tools. I find all three Finale, Sibelius and Dorico to be absolutely cumbersome for that kind of exploratory process. The process I would use when I'm sitting at my piano with some blank staves, pencil and eraser. That is what StaffPad handles...and much better then those above three programs. I think its very fair to call it the leader in that space. StaffPad has some compelling features related to the process of "conceiving" of the musical ideas and sketching them out. That's what iPad'ing is all about. Sketching ideas. And StaffPad's humanized playback is way better than NotePerformer in the others... Way better. So for a humanized sounding musical sketch pad app....it is an unequaled leader really..nothing else can do it even close to as well. StaffPad is not a market leader typesetting program, but a long shot, and nor is it a market leader midi sequencing device (like DAW's) for absolute mockup control. it is a market leader in automatic humanized orchestral playback, combined with a tool that keeps the musical idea sketching very simple and straightforward, similar to as sitting at the piano with some blank manuscript and a pencil. It is a different space.


----------



## Dewdman42

anyway, this thread is really about Dorico, so not sure why it's turning into StaffPad evangelism. The question is about using Dorico samples vs NotePerformer. In my view Dorico with sample libraries is NOT an automatic experience, its a highly technical experience similar to what has to be done in DAW's, but different from that too...but if you're willing to put in the time, the possibility is there to prepare music for printed purposes...and also being able to produce a pro quality mockup from the same project without having to export/import the data or enter it again in a DAW of your choice. I do not think Dorico's sample playback should be considered automatic. People will be spending untold hours trying to make it be that, tweaking their expression maps constantly, trying new sample libraries etc...but automatic humanized playback is not really being provided here...just a different approach to produce a final mockup with a lot of effort...from the same program being used to produce the printed music...which for certain users could become a time saver perhaps.

NotePerformer in Dorico is the option for while you're composing....automatic...great, doesn't sound as good as samples, even close.


----------



## dcoscina

joebaggan said:


> Wow, thanks for dropping that in - never heard of him but fantastic composition. Finally someone drops some music in this forum that isn't that Hollywood Star Wars s__. Saw it when I was 12, moved on.


I think you will find a lot of different music styles here beyond Star Wars.


----------



## dcoscina

Dewdman42 said:


> anyway, this thread is really about Dorico, so not sure why it's turning into StaffPad evangelism. The question is about using Dorico samples vs NotePerformer. In my view Dorico with sample libraries is NOT an automatic experience, its a highly technical experience similar to what has to be done in DAW's, but different from that too...but if you're willing to put in the time, the possibility is there to prepare music for printed purposes...and also being able to produce a pro quality mockup from the same project without having to export/import the data or enter it again in a DAW of your choice. I do not think Dorico's sample playback should be considered automatic. People will be spending untold hours trying to make it be that, tweaking their expression maps constantly, trying new sample libraries etc...but automatic humanized playback is not really being provided here...just a different approach to produce a final mockup with a lot of effort...from the same program being used to produce the printed music...which for certain users could become a time saver perhaps.
> 
> NotePerformer in Dorico is the option for while you're composing....automatic...great, doesn't sound as good as samples, even close.


As a huge advocate of Staffpad, I have to disagree with the notion that Dorico is mostly for engraving. With version 4, I've found it very easy to move notes around, change things on the fly. Earlier versions weren't quite as fluid compared to StaffPad but the new Dorico is very transparent when it comes to supporting creativity and composing. I'm not dissing StaffPad but Dorico 4 made huge strides towards being a composition tool not just an engraving one like Sibelius or Finale.


----------



## Dewdman42

please describe how. I find dorico's methods for entering music to be horrid sorry. If they changed something, please explain what they changed exactly. I am not motivated to upgrade it actually, on this point alone.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Dorico is blazing fast compared to StaffPad for composing for me. StaffPad’s concept is interesting - but concepts only go as far as their execution. And that’s where relying purely on handwriting recognition has gotten StaffPad in trouble - if your writing isn’t recognized, you’re out of luck completely. There’s no alternative for entering notes - which is the MAIN point of a notation software. Once you learn Dorico’s key commands and popovers (even easier now with the Jump bar), you can enter notes at a speed I’ve never been able to in any other software (even a piano roll editor) - outside of playing it in, which Dorico also supports with great quantization options. Tuples, ornaments, dynamics, slurs, duplicating, exploding / condensing, swapping staves, etc etc - no way StaffPad is coming even close to the speed of input on Dorico. Add Flows to that to manage ideas, and you have a brilliant sketch pad - that can actually turn into a final product (unlike SP).


----------



## Bollen

Dewdman42 said:


> please describe how. I find dorico's methods for entering music to be horrid sorry. If they changed something, please explain what they changed exactly. I am not motivated to upgrade it actually, on this point alone.


Quite interested myself too...


----------



## dcoscina

Bollen said:


> Quite interested myself too...


I've created lots of short cut keys to move notes, copy them from bar-to-bar, invert, retrograde, shorten and lengthen note durations, move notes around the bar (the new insert mode allows this and avoids affecting other bars)... I've only been working with Dorico 4 for a few days but I've written a fair bit on it. Plus the keyboard entry helps at times for chordal things- you can play chords in and select multiple staves so you can automatically divide up chords into respective instrument parts. Pretty slick (this has been around for a few other versions mind you).


----------



## Dewdman42

you lost me already at "lots of shortcut keys". I don't want to memorize a bunch of keyboard commands in order to enter music as I'm thinking about music.


----------



## dcoscina

Dewdman42 said:


> you lost me already at "lots of shortcut keys". I don't want to memorize a bunch of keyboard commands in order to enter music as I'm thinking about music.


I don't want to argue - all you have to do is look at all my posts that laud StaffPad. I'm not dissing it- I think it's terrific. But I also think Dorico is great as well. I use both and would not want to be without either.


----------



## Jett Hitt

I am grappling with Dorico. I really want to use my many libraries with notation, and so I’m gonna beat my head on it for a while. So far, I’m pretty impressed and infuriated. The concepts for typesetting scores and parts are unsurpassed. The interface just requires practice. Mastering it will come in time. Now using it with third party libraries. . . ahem . . . that maybe another matter. There is nothing intuitive about setting up expression maps, and the documentation is nonexistent. It has promise, but I’m not completely sold yet.


----------



## ennbr

Jett Hitt said:


> Now using it with third party libraries. . . ahem . . . that maybe another matter.


I just finished up a Dorico template for Nucleus after seeing the one for BBCSO. I figured it would go pretty fast well 10 days later it's finished not with the help of the documentation thats for sure.


----------



## gyprock

The pencil is still used despite having word processors or graphics programs. If I want to doodle some ideas I use a pencil. If I want to then develop these ideas I would probably go into a word processor or Photoshop. The latter have management features. This is what you want for larger projects.

I see a similar analogy between Staffpad and Dorico. The former is the pencil, the latter is the word processor with large scale management capability. Both have their uses. For me, I generally sketch ideas with a pencil on staff paper and then develop them in Dorico. I could use Staffpad for this but sometimes I just don't want the Dopamine hit of always working in a virtual world.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen

The Staffpad vs. Dorico discussion reminds me of the Ronaldo/Messi discussion from some years back 

"Ronaldo's the GOAT"

"No, it's Messi! Ronaldo is Penaldo!"

etc.

Instead of just recognizing they're good at different things and we're lucky to have them both.


----------



## sundrowned

I think Noteperformer and Staffpad have shown that for notation playback it's probably better for it to be a bespoke sample playback system rather than relying on existing technology designed for DAW use. That seems like the future to me.


----------



## ptram

Dewdman42 said:


> please describe how. I find dorico's methods for entering music to be horrid sorry.


Select the tracks you want to record, and start recording. It may be horrid, but it has been working for ages.

Paolo


----------



## ed buller

Jett Hitt said:


> Now using it with third party libraries. . . ahem . . . that maybe another matter. There is nothing intuitive about setting up expression maps, and the documentation is nonexistent. It has promise, but I’m not completely sold yet.


It's fiddly for sure but that's because the DORICO teams Mantra seem to be Flexibility in all things !. I have a bunch of expression maps I have done that I can share for various Library's. It's honestly unsuppressed as a Score input DAW...you can do so much. The people who are down about I suspect just haven't got to grips with it. And yes like many I fell in love with staffpad only to realise the handwriting recognition was very very buggy. Again practice makes perfect but I really can't comprehend why someone is prepared to spent eons learning how to write music on an IPAD but not a few hours to master expresion maps. !!..baffling

Most of the detractors here haven't learned how to use it. And complain about "note entry" !!!! It's a fuck of a lot easier than writing with a plastic pen on an ipad !

Complaints of "robotic".. Seriously ? It's a daw. Does Staffpad play back Like Karajan ?..it's a computer....add expression !!!. To me playback in all three, Staffpad, Sibelius and Dorico sounds identical in terms of feel !. But with Dorico your midi ( the play page ) can be totally different form the score page. Nudge a note, easy. ALL CC is available and the tempo function allowing drawing will return very speedily .

EXPRESSION MAPS:

these are complex...can't deny it. But I disagree that they are impossible . This is the area where I suspect all options were discussed and in keeping with the Flexibility Mantra at the heart of the program there are multiple points where things need to be baked in. Because it's really the heart of having the score talk to your samples it's worth getting right. But once it's done...it's done !

so the first thing to realise is that ALL expresion map DATA needs to be saved in the ENDPOINT configuration and THAT saved in the template to be always recalable in ANY score. Otherwise what you have spent the week making will only apply to the Score you had open when you made them. Again...flexibility ! They where thinking you'd want different sounds for different scores !!!!

Jolly decent of them really:

As to how long it takes ?..How many samples to you want to use in any given situation? I went over the top and now most of my 10 year buying spree of samples is accessible by adding playback instructions in the score. But it's set up. I load VSL ensemble 7 ( takes 5 mins ). Launch DORICO. Pick a score and it's pretty much instant that ALL the samples are now there.

Note entry:

This is so simple I really can't understand anyone moaning !. Hit record, there's a click. And Play !

Quantizing is much improved and there's also Polyphonic transcription:



This is unreal !......so after doing a piano score you can select the various voices and assign them orchestrally !...so quick and easy

As to the various discussions about quality of sound..............well i've been told so I'll say nothing

Finally: There is the Steinburg forum: Pretty much any question is answered very quickly. Daniel seems to be on there continually and I've yet to post a question and NOT get a speedy response.

Best

ed





best

ed


----------



## dcoscina

sundrowned said:


> I think Noteperformer and Staffpad have shown that for notation playback it's probably better for it to be a bespoke sample playback system rather than relying on existing technology designed for DAW use. That seems like the future to me.


I would absolutely LOVE the playback transparency of StaffPad in Dorico. But, as many have said, this is not the path that Dorico is taking and I get it. Most times, I just export my Dorico files back into StaffPad for the nicer playback. Not too hard, especially now that SP is also on my M1 Mac Mini. Fun.


----------



## Bollen

ed buller said:


> Note entry:
> 
> This is so simple I really can't understand anyone moaning !. Hit record, there's a click. And Play !


Or one could also get a Streamdeck... I bought two and use Dorico blazingly fast and have yet to learn any of the shortcuts!


----------



## dcoscina

Bollen said:


> Or one could also get a Streamdeck... I bought two and use Dorico blazingly fast and have yet to learn any of the shortcuts!


I have a streamdeck and did use it with Dorico 2 initially but find the key commands are far quicker for me now. I rarely have to use the mouse anymore.


----------



## Bollen

dcoscina said:


> I have a streamdeck and did use it with Dorico 2 initially but find the key commands are far quicker for me now. I rarely have to use the mouse anymore.


Well, I have it sitting on my MIDI keyboard with my wireless mouse and have configured the MIDI keyboard to also perform things like play, stop, replay, etc. I just couldn't be bothered learning so many keybinds and after 8 hours of continuous writing, the regular keyboard gives me wrist pains. Mostly due to the amount of SHIFT+ and CTRL+.


----------



## Dewdman42

none of this is as musically intuitive as writing notes on staves. Sorry, but listen everyone has their own way of working. I'm just saying, for me Dorico's entry method is good for typesetting work and not at all good for composing. I seriously gave it several months of trying to practice with its key commands, etc.. Way too cumbersome for that task. The only point I have been trying to make that some of you are needlessly arguing aagainst, is that both StaffPad and Dorico have their place. IMHO Dorico's place is not suitable for composing, not for me anyway, I'm glad some of you can think of so many things at once, but my old brain needs to not have to think about key commands while composing notes on staves. Dorico does have other brilliant typesetting features..no doubt about it..and they are making progress related to mocking up full blown mockups with all your favorite sample libraries. Its kind of pointless to sit here all day trying to say it can do what StaffPad can do or visa versa. Neither can...they are different products filling different needs.


----------



## Jett Hitt

ed buller said:


> It's fiddly for sure but that's because the DORICO teams Mantra seem to be Flexibility in all things !. I have a bunch of expression maps I have done that I can share for various Library's. It's honestly unsuppressed as a Score input DAW...you can do so much. The people who are down about I suspect just haven't got to grips with it. And yes like many I fell in love with staffpad only to realise the handwriting recognition was very very buggy. Again practice makes perfect but I really can't comprehend why someone is prepared to spent eons learning how to write music on an IPAD but not a few hours to master expresion maps. !!..baffling
> 
> Most of the detractors here haven't learned how to use it. And complain about "note entry" !!!! It's a fuck of a lot easier than writing with a plastic pen on an ipad !
> 
> Complaints of "robotic".. Seriously ? It's a daw. Does Staffpad play back Like Karajan ?..it's a computer....add expression !!!. To me playback in all three, Staffpad, Sibelius and Dorico sounds identical in terms of feel !. But with Dorico your midi ( the play page ) can be totally different form the score page. Nudge a note, easy. ALL CC is available and the tempo function allowing drawing will return very speedily .
> 
> EXPRESSION MAPS:
> 
> these are complex...can't deny it. But I disagree that they are impossible . This is the area where I suspect all options were discussed and in keeping with the Flexibility Mantra at the heart of the program there are multiple points where things need to be baked in. Because it's really the heart of having the score talk to your samples it's worth getting right. But once it's done...it's done !
> 
> so the first thing to realise is that ALL expresion map DATA needs to be saved in the ENDPOINT configuration and THAT saved in the template to be always recalable in ANY score. Otherwise what you have spent the week making will only apply to the Score you had open when you made them. Again...flexibility ! They where thinking you'd want different sounds for different scores !!!!
> 
> Jolly decent of them really:
> 
> As to how long it takes ?..How many samples to you want to use in any given situation? I went over the top and now most of my 10 year buying spree of samples is accessible by adding playback instructions in the score. But it's set up. I load VSL ensemble 7 ( takes 5 mins ). Launch DORICO. Pick a score and it's pretty much instant that ALL the samples are now there.
> 
> Note entry:
> 
> This is so simple I really can't understand anyone moaning !. Hit record, there's a click. And Play !
> 
> Quantizing is much improved and there's also Polyphonic transcription:
> 
> 
> 
> This is unreal !......so after doing a piano score you can select the various voices and assign them orchestrally !...so quick and easy
> 
> As to the various discussions about quality of sound..............well i've been told so I'll say nothing
> 
> Finally: There is the Steinburg forum: Pretty much any question is answered very quickly. Daniel seems to be on there continually and I've yet to post a question and NOT get a speedy response.
> 
> Best
> 
> ed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> best
> 
> ed



Wow, thanks, Ed! This was super nice of you! I would be delighted to have any Expression Maps that you are willing to share, though having created one myself (I didn't say it was well done), I understand that an expression map is a personal thing that may not have meaning to a stranger. I have tried to remain faithful to the naming convention in the one library that I have done. It makes for a cluttered score, but it seems easy enough to duplicate the score in a second flow and delete the playback instructions. I am not far enough along to speak with any real authority on the matter, but after 30 years of using Finale, I can see the serious potential and brilliant utility of the thinking behind Dorico.

I am left scratching my head at why the expression map creation had to be so complicated. I can't help but wonder why I couldn't just create some text, let's say "Sustain + Leg", and have an option to add parameters to that text all in the same place. Instead, I have to create a Playback Technique with the name, create an Expression Map that uses the technique, then create text as a Common Playback Technique in Write mode. (At least, this is the only way I have been able to make it work.) These are an awful lot of steps just to send a few playback parameters through a text entry.

My only serious complaint about Dorico would be the documentation; they have 1000+ pages, and I have yet to find anything seriously useful in those pages. There is a wealth of information in videos, especially the tutorial tips, but they aren't organized in any meaningful fashion. They seem to be scattered willy-nilly about the internet. I would have thought that they @Daniel S. would have created an in-depth video about creating expression maps for each of the major vendors. Instead, the usual example is Hallion Sonic (as if any composer truly interested in playback would use those sounds). If they took one library from each vendor and made a step-by-step how-to video from start to finish, I think it would open people's eyes. Imagine such a video for SCS or Berlin Woodwinds. You could use such a video to translate the remainder (mostly) of the company's libraries. One thorough example with a major Sine library would translate to the rest of the series. (I say all this noting that there is an existing BBCSO Pro template, and I have yet to hear anyone post a fantastic mockup with that library using Dorico.)

I may be on a wild goose chase, but I am going to try this with Dorico. I have become rather disgruntled with StaffPad and note entry. It just never gets any better. It could be so simple: all it needs is a palette with rhythmic values so that you could choose your value and tap on the staff to insert the note. StaffPad also needs to finally understand proper beaming, and it needs a tuplet tool. But DWH won't hear of this. He is an absolute butthead about it. "You will scribble on this tablet with this plastic pencil like a goddamned Kindergartner scrawling with a crayon, and by God, you'll like it."


----------



## youngpokie

Dewdman42 said:


> Sorry, but listen everyone has their own way of working.


I would be interested to understand this better. 

When I was using a DAW only (Cubase), my note entry was via recording to the click. I can continue to enter notes exactly the same way in Dorico, too. I also knew that in Cubase I could use step input, PC keyboard or drawing with a mouse, or drawing with a pencil in various editors. All these are also possible in Dorico and many are significantly better implemented.

I use MIDI keyboard for note entry (one hand) and PC keyboard for note duration (the other hand) and it's now physically faster than writing on paper. And from what I understand it's _way_ faster and way more accurate than Staffpad. 

So what are you missing? Or are you saying you can't/won't use notation software without handwriting recognition?


----------



## Dewdman42

youngpokie said:


> So what are you missing? Or are you saying you can't/won't use notation software without handwriting recognition?


I certainly did not make the statement you are now trying to say that I said. Please don't put words in my mouth.

It has been some time since I wasted any time with Dorico and I do not have time to go back and try to recall the exact details, but what I can say is that Dorico takes an approach that is heavily biased towards using a QWERTY keyboard heavily for efficient entry. I found it really just a headache to use honestly...couldn't even do simple things like click notes on a staff. I spent some months trying to find ways to actually "practice" the Dorico way of doing things with numerous discussions on their forum..but then I realized its ridiculous that I should have to do that..and I have moved on. Even Finale has easier ways to enter music for composing then Dorico which is trying too hard to not be Finale and their team is too stubbornly locked on the idea of QWERTY for entering music.

There are many threads on this topic on the Dorico forum, go research it yourself.

As I have already stated several times, Dorico has excellent automatic typesetting features which might be the future of publishing, we shall see. And if you need to mock up full scale mockups, then its the best notational for that, but not for automatic humanized playback, which is the other part of a nice compositional tool.


----------



## youngpokie

Dewdman42 said:


> Please don't put words in my mouth.


Sorry, I'm not trying to be confrontational - just to understand. I'm probably missing something as Dorico offers the same note input methods as a DAW (I think!?) and that's why I'm asking.

For me, note entry via PC keyboard only was very cumbersome too. I kept hitting Ctrl instead of Shift and so on. I switched to MIDI/PC keyboard entry because someone on Dorico forum suggested it, so now one hand enters the pitch and the other everything else - which I remapped to be more accessible. 

I do agree with you 100% about humanized playback in Dorico. In fact, Dorico is missing so much playback functionality I'm always wondering what goes into Note Performer programming to compensate for that.


----------



## Dewdman42

the devil is the the details. Dorico is not exactly the same as any DAW or notional in the way it works. As I said, I haven't used Dorico in quite some time so I can't give you those details now...but anyway if you love it then use it! I don't love it and don't use it. If they improve note entry in the future I might.


----------



## zolhof

Dorico 4 is huge step in the direction of a DAW-free workflow. It does take time and effort to built your own template, custom playback conditions, techniques, endpoints, etc but with instrument filters and the ability to hide pretty much everything, we can create very detailed mockups without sacrificing notation quality. 

Here are a couple examples of my Dorico template compared to NotePerformer:

Dorico
View attachment Love Theme D4.mp3

LLL reference recording 
View attachment Love Theme LLL.mp3

NP3 
View attachment Love Theme NP3.mp3


(continue below)


----------



## Dewdman42

youngpokie said:


> I do agree with you 100% about humanized playback in Dorico. In fact, Dorico is missing so much playback functionality I'm always wondering what goes into Note Performer programming to compensate for that.


THis is back on topic..thank you...

The key to NotePerformer and StaffPad is that the sounds are custom designed for notational playback... That is why NotePerformer cannot be used in any DAW. It is very tightly coupled with the three notational programs that it supports. 

The hope for expression maps in Dorico is that somehow this open ended system could provide the same tight control, but it would really require that a special sample library be developed that is exactly matched to Dorico and the expression maps in order to produce the same kind of automatic playback that NotePerformer and StaffPad provide.

most sample libraries are not that and its a deep rabbit hole trying to setup expression maps that might replicate it. i think someone can spend a lot of time and get something like that happening with Dorico and the sample libraries of their own choosing, no doubt some people here have done so and will report it, but Steinberg is not providing that out of the box...


----------



## zolhof

Dorico
View attachment Dogs Dorico.mp3

LLL reference recording
View attachment Dogs LLL.mp3

NP3
View attachment Dogs NP3.mp3


Woodwinds: BBCSO, Audio Modeling
Brass: CineBrass, Modern Scoring Brass, BBCSO
Strings: Adagio, Vista, BBCSO
Percussion: BBCSO, CinePerc

Scores included, in case you want to follow along.


----------



## Jett Hitt

@zolhof there is some real promise there! Thank you. Just not yet sure how much of a headache it is going to be to yield those results. The beauty of StaffPad is that it is instant (if you ever get the damned notes entered). But I am willing to try.


----------



## Markrs

@zolhof these are excellent mock-ups, if this is what Dorico can do with expression maps then it is pretty powerful.


----------



## RogiervG

Dorico has great powers indeed, going beyond traditional notation.
Still learning it (hotkeys etc, workflow), still doing setups/expression maps with my libraries etc.. but i see a composing wish coming true: using my favorite sounds within a notation program, playing the right articulations, having fx ready to apply (reverbs/whathaveyou).. etc.. even video intergration..
And if i don't want to do notation wise composing for a while, i could use cubase as alternative, but still having the same sounds i love (important: it's like you have the same orchestra available at all times!)  Best of both worlds.. Yes.. same sounds/fx plugins available in both composing methods is key.


----------



## ed buller

Dewdman42 said:


> the devil is the the details. Dorico is not exactly the same as any DAW or notional in the way it works. As I said, I haven't used Dorico in quite some time so I can't give you those details now...but anyway if you love it then use it! I don't love it and don't use it. If they improve note entry in the future I might.


I have no idea which version you used. But in 4. You click the bar you want to write in. You hit enter, select a note value ( numeric system ) and hit a note name ( or play your midi keyboard ) and viola !



best

e


----------



## ed buller

My Dorico Expression Maps: 


Best

e


----------



## ennbr

ed buller said:


> My Dorico Expression Maps:


Have you downloaded the Templates for BBCSO and VSL on the Dorico Resources page









Resources – Dorico







blog.dorico.com





the expression maps and percussion map are included in the templates


----------



## ed buller

ennbr said:


> Have you downloaded the Templates for BBCSO and VSL on the Dorico Resources page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resources – Dorico
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blog.dorico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the expression maps and percussion map are included in the templates


yes

e


----------



## synergy543

Ed, thank you for sharing your experience and being an advocate of using samples with Dorico. I've been testing the waters and I'm extremely impressed. With time, it will undoubtedly get even better. This is such a HUGE time saver!

Question 1 - Have you sync'd up Dorico playback with your DAW for further processing? On the Dorico forum, someone suggested using a MTC plugin to sync and they said that worked. I've also thought about just creating an audio click track in Dorico, but its really the other way around that I'd like to sync (to be able to utilize tempo mapping from the DAW). It would be nice to be able to play some lines in by hand in the DAW and utilize its effects automation features.

Question 2 - Do you know if its possible to do "subtle" tempo mapping in Dorico with graphic mapping? I know you can add tempo changes in terms of beats/minute, however, I'm not sure if there is a smoother way. In MOTU DP, I can easily calculate out markers and create smooth tempo maps and ideally, there would be a way to get these into Dorico. I assume you can do the same with Cubase and most other DAWs. Thus, my interest in syncing them.

Thoughts?


----------



## ed buller

synergy543 said:


> Ed, thank you for sharing your experience and being an advocate of using samples with Dorico. I've been testing the waters and I'm extremely impressed. With time, it will undoubtedly get even better. This is such a HUGE time saver!
> 
> Question 1 - Have you sync'd up Dorico playback with your DAW for further processing? On the Dorico forum, someone suggested using a MTC plugin to sync and they said that worked. I've also thought about just creating an audio click track in Dorico, but its really the other way around that I'd like to sync (to be able to utilize tempo mapping from the DAW). It would be nice to be able to play some lines in by hand in the DAW and utilize its effects automation features.
> 
> Question 2 - Do you know if its possible to do "subtle" tempo mapping in Dorico with graphic mapping? I know you can add tempo changes in terms of beats/minute, however, I'm not sure if there is a smoother way. In MOTU DP, I can easily calculate out markers and create smooth tempo maps and ideally, there would be a way to get these into Dorico. I assume you can do the same with Cubase and most other DAWs. Thus, my interest in syncing them.
> 
> Thoughts?


So at the moment the TEMPO line that was in the play window is missing. This will reappear very soon I suspect. I also suspect it's missing as they are adding features ...but that IS a guess. When it was there it was very easy to do what you asked, at least in terms of tempo. Again it's only a matter of time when tempo processing will be added as that will help with scoring to picture and that is a goal. 

As to synching , I'm at a loss to understand why you'd want to have Dorico and Cubase running together unless it was to hear audio. I haven't tried it . But pop over to the Steinberg forum ( please don't tell anyone I suggested this, lets keep it to ourselves ) and ask. I am sure somebody will know

best

ed


----------



## synergy543

ed buller said:


> As to synching , I'm at a loss to understand why you'd want to have Dorico and Cubase running together unless it was to hear audio. I haven't tried it . But pop over to the Steinberg forum ( please don't tell anyone I suggested this, lets keep it to ourselves ) and ask. I am sure somebody will know


I'm just trying to think through the workflow as I set things up. For example, what advantages does my DAW have over Dorico? Many of the previous DAW advantages just got crossed out with the latest release of Dorico. However, while I can still open up plugins in Dorico, I can't:

1. Use multiple FS sends (mostly for reverb)

2. Use FX automation (controlling FX parameters with CC)

3. Process audio (volume shaping and subtle adjustments)

4. Other DAW advantages? I'm stumped at the moment. This is a shockingly short list! 

What is amazing is that most of the audio processing I might want to do, I can accomplish with FX inserts on individual instruments as needed. For example, I can run a channel strip and add EQ and compression or gating. Or FabFilters, or Soothe2, or reverb, etc. To be able to run these plugins in individual instrument channels is quite powerful.

Still, the above DAW advantages are useful, so one idea would be to bring stems in from Dorico to the DAW for processing the three advantages mentioned above.

Here's my first sketch test with Dorico and BBCSO. Just samples straight out of Dorico.
http://talkstudiousa.com/Gregory_D_Moore_-_Marcs_4x4_Safari_Adventure_V01.05a_sketch.mp4


----------



## Dewdman42

@synergy543 Export a midi file from dp and import it as tempo Map in dorico.


----------



## dcoscina

synergy543 said:


> I'm just trying to think through the workflow as I set things up. For example, what advantages does my DAW have over Dorico? Many of the previous DAW advantages just got crossed out with the latest release of Dorico. However, while I can still open up plugins in Dorico, I can't:
> 
> 1. Use multiple FS sends (mostly for reverb)
> 
> 2. Use FX automation (controlling FX parameters with CC)
> 
> 3. Process audio (volume shaping and subtle adjustments)
> 
> 4. Other DAW advantages? I'm stumped at the moment. This is a shockingly short list!
> 
> What is amazing is that most of the audio processing I might want to do, I can accomplish with FX inserts on individual instruments as needed. For example, I can run a channel strip and add EQ and compression or gating. Or FabFilters, or Soothe2, or reverb, etc. To be able to run these plugins in individual instrument channels is quite powerful.
> 
> Still, the above DAW advantages are useful, so one idea would be to bring stems in from Dorico to the DAW for processing the three advantages mentioned above.
> 
> Here's my first sketch test with Dorico and BBCSO. Just samples straight out of Dorico.
> http://talkstudiousa.com/Gregory_D_Moore_-_Marcs_4x4_Safari_Adventure_V01.05a_sketch.mp4


Cool piece!


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

zolhof said:


> Dorico
> View attachment Dogs Dorico.mp3
> 
> LLL reference recording
> View attachment Dogs LLL.mp3
> 
> NP3
> View attachment Dogs NP3.mp3
> 
> 
> Woodwinds: BBCSO, Audio Modeling
> Brass: CineBrass, Modern Scoring Brass, BBCSO
> Strings: Adagio, Vista, BBCSO
> Percussion: BBCSO, CinePerc
> 
> Scores included, in case you want to follow along.


Would love more detail on how you’ve set this up if possible. Your PDFs look pretty clean - do you have various symbols added to trigger certain articulations that you are hiding in this export?


----------



## Bollen

Dewdman42 said:


> none of this is as musically intuitive as writing notes on staves. Sorry, but listen everyone has their own way of working. I'm just saying, for me Dorico's entry method is good for typesetting work and not at all good for composing.


I hear ya buddy! I never thought I would move away from paper. Until not that long ago, I would write the full composition in regular manuscript, then input it into Sibelius. Then, if the client requested it, export the MIDI and mockup in Cubase. Painfully slow procedure. Now I'm exhilarated at being able to do all that in one program. Again, Streamdeck takes the headache out and it's quicker than handwriting.


----------



## synergy543

dcoscina said:


> Cool piece!


Thanks. That's an honor coming from you (I've been admiring your posted work). Its a MITA challenge still in sketch form. I need to clean up the orchestration quite a bit but I'm still figuring Dorico out!


----------



## zolhof

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Would love more detail on how you’ve set this up if possible. Your PDFs look pretty clean - do you have various symbols added to trigger certain articulations that you are hiding in this export?


Yes, there are several hidden custom playback techniques, in order to keep the score readable and clear. Now that we have Instrument Filters in galley view, you can add as many player layouts as you need (for mockup purposes) and remove them from the full score in Setup mode.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

zolhof said:


> Yes, there are several hidden custom playback techniques, in order to keep the score readable and clear. Now that we have Instrument Filters in galley view, you can add as many player layouts as you need (for mockup purposes) and remove them from the full score in Setup mode.


Would love to see a screenshot showing the techniques - just to get a sense of how extensive it needs to be to get the playback you’re getting.


----------



## dcoscina

synergy543 said:


> Thanks. That's an honor coming from you (I've been admiring your posted work). Its a MITA challenge still in sketch form. I need to clean up the orchestration quite a bit but I'm still figuring Dorico out!


I think it’s terrific! I like your orchestration and harmonies in particular. It’s always great to hear a piece take the listener into unexpected directions.


----------



## zolhof

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Would love to see a screenshot showing the techniques - just to get a sense of how extensive it needs to be to get the playback you’re getting.


Sure, I will share some thoughts and examples on how I've been using Dorico for the past two years, hopefully it will give you a few ideas.

PT:



Layering:



In sum, PT for keyswitches and basic stacks; anything more intricate, I layer tracks (aka players) and edit them individually, as I would in Cubase. Expression maps cut a few corners, but there's simply no avoiding the MIDI grind, not if your aim is production-quality deliverables.

NotePerformer practicality is unmatched. I'm a synth programmer by heart and can easily lose myself tweaking parts, so even if NP sounds are dated, it excels in interpreting the score like nothing else I have seen. The composer I assist was a Finale user and I sav... converted him to Dorico hehe. We usually start cues in NotePerformer, I then get his (very detailed) sketches and turn them into full mockups. Before Dorico, I would import the MIDI data in Cubase, "finish" the mockup, and tidy things up back in Finale. The horror... not a fan. Being able to do the heavy lifting in a single program (Dorico) was a huge time saver for me. And there's something soothing about how Dorico's notation output looks on the screen, it makes the MIDI editing much more enjoyable.

I still rely on Cubase for audio, synth based cues, mixing and printing stems_—_thankfully Dorico can export separate instruments, so that helps. I experimented with TXL Timecode and ASIOLink Pro, in order to sync Cubase/Dorico, and it sorta worked, until it didn't. I'll patiently wait for proper interoperability between the two programs.

Finally, the 1 million dollar question: can I feed another score into this template and will it instantly sound good? Unfortunately not. I do have a basic template that consists of NotePerformer, BBCSO and Cinesamples, but I always layer instruments and create custom techniques as I go, again, the same way I would do in Cubase. All samples are hosted in VEPro, pre-routed and balanced. I use Patchboard to catalog everything, with detailed information on keyswitches, microphones, performance notes, etc so it's really easy to find the sounds I want and patch them up in Dorico_—_Dorico makes it effortless to add or duplicate players (think MIDI tracks) to existing endpoints.


----------



## lucor

How do you guys deal with the different attack times/latencies of different libraries? Let's say you have a violin section, where the legato has a delay of -140ms, the spiccatos have a delay of -60ms and the pizzicatos have -30ms, how do you sync those up and also make them work with the other instruments?
The obvious solution would be if the expression maps would allow for different predelays for each articulation, but I don't think Dorico has that yet, right?

I'm especially impressed by how tight the timing is in your examples @zolhof, did you have to nudge notes around to get this result, or is there some feature in Dorico I'm not aware of?


----------



## RogiervG

Still busy setting up my template/expression maps for my libraries. (currely using noteperformer still)
curious about this too..

Only way i know, is manually skew the midi notes via de midi editor in de play mode





Which is quite annoying


----------



## Ivan Duch

Great thread!

I've been on the fence about Dorico for a while now. I really like working on notation, and what I do most of the time is a short score on paper and then switch to Reaper where I play it down and make adjustments as needed. 

I kinda love the flexibility and full picture of the paper and how fast I can get a decent-sounding mockup out of my DAW. 

So, my main concern is speed and expression when considering a workflow change. My mockups are pretty much always the final product for me. 

*So, I have a few questions...*

1. Regarding speed, how do you compare note input between a DAW and Dorico? I've seen videos of people inputting notes at blazing speed on Sibelius. With enough practice are you way faster that way than inputting notes by playing? 

2. How good is the midi recording option for when you need human expression?

3. @zolhof I do a lot of layering with my libraries as well. How fast can you layer, hide and navigate through hidden instruments? In a DAW it's a fairly simple task, not sure with notation. 

4. Have you all been able to replace your DAW with Dorico?


----------



## youngpokie

lucor said:


> How do you guys deal with the different attack times/latencies of different libraries?





RogiervG said:


> Only way i know, is manually skew the midi notes via de midi editor in de play mode


Dorico is more powerful and flexible than a DAW when it comes to track offset. You don't need to drag anything in Play Mode if you use key commands and you can set many/all tracks at once.

The basic idea is to select any number of notes you want/need - in one or many staves simultaneously - and then apply the offset in the properties:






The selection is in orange and the playback can be offset at start as well as end.

This step of "selection" is truly *the secret sauce* because it gives a huge number of options that are not possible in Cubase. It really pays to learn what's possible to select, how the selection can be expanded horizontally or vertically across the score, and so on.

What I do is make a selection using the hand tool (my default for screen navigation):






It highlights everything inside the selection (notes, dynamics, etc):






And then I use a shortcut to filter out this selection so I keep only the notes selected:






... after which I open properties and set my start/end offsets.

It takes approx. 3 seconds. I can also hit playback repeatedly, keeping the selection and changing the properties to hear how it sounds.

I do this phrase by phrase because I want a different offset on legato than sustains. But I can select the entire staff(s) from beginning to end to do the crude Cubase-like track offset.


----------



## youngpokie

Ivan Duch said:


> I do a lot of layering with my libraries as well. How fast can you layer, hide and navigate through hidden instruments? In a DAW it's a fairly simple task, not sure with notation.


One option is to use the layering instruments as if they were real players, set up and routed like everyone else, and then simply exclude their parts from _visibility_ in "Full Score" layout. So if you wanted to, you could have 5 or 150 different Violins I and only display the traditional unison or divisi staves.

You control which players are shown in the final score and you can make a custom layout that only shows the instruments you're working with.







You can create a template upfront in VEPro that includes every single library you have on your PC. For example: 30 flutes and 50 French Horns and 12 Harps. Routing everything to/from Dorico properly and saving the routing (so-called endpoints). Then you can draw from that giant template in a new project to recall the number of instruments you need (e.g. for layering) in the Setup mode and only make visible some of them in the "presentation/final" layout.


----------



## lucor

youngpokie said:


> Dorico is more powerful and flexible than a DAW when it comes to track offset.


Thanks, that's definitely a very helpful feature and much easier than Cubase + Expression Maps, but I gotta say that's still a ton of manual work that you repeatedly have to do again and again for every piece of music.
I'd much rather have to do this once and save it as a template, and then only touch it for single notes here and there which have sloppy editing.
I guess this would only be possible with a articulation-specific track delay in the Expression Maps like I mentioned above, which I hope @Daniel S. and the guys at the Dorico will consider for future versions.


----------



## ed buller

Ivan Duch said:


> Great thread!
> 
> I've been on the fence about Dorico for a while now. I really like working on notation, and what I do most of the time is a short score on paper and then switch to Reaper where I play it down and make adjustments as needed.
> 
> I kinda love the flexibility and full picture of the paper and how fast I can get a decent-sounding mockup out of my DAW.
> 
> So, my main concern is speed and expression when considering a workflow change. My mockups are pretty much always the final product for me.
> 
> *So, I have a few questions...*
> 
> 1. Regarding speed, how do you compare note input between a DAW and Dorico? I've seen videos of people inputting notes at blazing speed on Sibelius. With enough practice are you way faster that way than inputting notes by playing?
> 
> 2. How good is the midi recording option for when you need human expression?
> 
> 3. @zolhof I do a lot of layering with my libraries as well. How fast can you layer, hide and navigate through hidden instruments? In a DAW it's a fairly simple task, not sure with notation.
> 
> 4. Have you all been able to replace your DAW with Dorico?


1. Faster for me 

2. Superb

3. This is still tricky

4. It's really down to what is your priority. There some forensic tasks that are still fiddly


But I love it

e


----------



## RogiervG

youngpokie said:


> Dorico is more powerful and flexible than a DAW when it comes to track offset. You don't need to drag anything in Play Mode if you use key commands and you can set many/all tracks at once.
> 
> The basic idea is to select any number of notes you want/need - in one or many staves simultaneously - and then apply the offset in the properties:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The selection is in orange and the playback can be offset at start as well as end.
> 
> This step of "selection" is truly *the secret sauce* because it gives a huge number of options that are not possible in Cubase. It really pays to learn what's possible to select, how the selection can be expanded horizontally or vertically across the score, and so on.
> 
> What I do is make a selection using the hand tool (my default for screen navigation):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It highlights everything inside the selection (notes, dynamics, etc):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then I use a shortcut to filter out this selection so I keep only the notes selected:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... after which I open properties and set my start/end offsets.
> 
> It takes approx. 3 seconds. I can also hit playback repeatedly, keeping the selection and changing the properties to hear how it sounds.
> 
> I do this phrase by phrase because I want a different offset on legato than sustains. But I can select the entire staff(s) from beginning to end to do the crude Cubase-like track offset.


Nice 

However, i would like a template type of predefined articulation delays on playback.
Many libraries have different sample delays for different articulations, So with your selection method, i think it (if having many articulation succeeding eachother alot) it may be still quite a bit of work. (making the right selection of notes, of one type of articulation, then properties etc..)

Maybe i can select them (same articulation) via a filter.. i shall look into that 
thanks anyway for your tip


----------



## youngpokie

RogiervG said:


> Maybe i can select them (same articulation) via a filter.. i shall look into that
> thanks anyway for your tip



Let me know what you find out please?

I do remember it's possible to filter out playing techniques from a selection but I think this means selecting the indicated technique (the text, not the notes). So probably the second step of this string might have to be one of the "Navigate to" options from the list of possible key commands. Perhaps the end result would be 2 or 3 key strokes (or even shorter with the new Jump feature?).


----------



## Bollen

lucor said:


> How do you guys deal with the different attack times/latencies of different libraries? Let's say you have a violin section, where the legato has a delay of -140ms, the spiccatos have a delay of -60ms and the pizzicatos have -30ms, how do you sync those up and also make them work with the other instruments?
> The obvious solution would be if the expression maps would allow for different predelays for each articulation, but I don't think Dorico has that yet, right?
> 
> I'm especially impressed by how tight the timing is in your examples @zolhof, did you have to nudge notes around to get this result, or is there some feature in Dorico I'm not aware of?


Personally I don't. Having spent years studying real human performance I can tell you the world's best musicians can easily be off by as much as 300ms. This gets tighter on faster tempos, but it's never perfect. I often just leave it alone unless something really sticks out as off and in that case I follow @youngpokie 's procedure.

Case in point: listen to VSL's scale runs and then try to replicate it with say Dimensions. You'll notice you have to offset every player a lot to get the same sound!


----------



## youngpokie

Bollen said:


> the world's best musicians can easily be off by as much as 300ms. This gets tighter on faster tempos, but it's never perfect. I often just leave it alone unless something really sticks out as off



I must say I do see the value of the some very "rough" track offset as part of the template or expression map, but just to align some extreme gaps (almost 100ms in some cases in my template). 

Other than that, there are so many points in the chain where offsets are introduced - sometimes randomly, it can create its own problems. In Dorico, humanization is active by default in expression maps for note starts. Some libraries have tightness CC for shorts - and I actually use that to program tighter shorts for faster notes in expression maps using note length conditions.

It wouldn't hurt having a "bulk" adjustment in Expression Maps set once and for all for truly bad gaps, but honestly, I prefer to listen to things that jump off as wrong and fixing them surgically in Dorico.


----------



## Dewdman42

Adding humanization is a seperate task from making sure articulations are aligned with the same latency. MOTU is ahead of everyone in this regard!

In LogicPro you can correct this with scripting.

If I were using Cuberico or other DAWs I would script around this using BlueCatAudio PlugNScript...but since i'm using DP now...I don't have to worry about it.


----------



## ptram

Not wanting to open a new thread for a simple question, I'll ask it here: does anybody know if one can set the Pitch Bend range in NotePerformer? Currently, it is one octave up or down. I would like to limit it to one tone up or down, to gain more resolution and preserve compatibility with the majority of other instruments,

@Wallander , maybe?

Paolo


----------



## Wallander

ptram said:


> Not wanting to open a new thread for a simple question, I'll ask it here: does anybody know if one can set the Pitch Bend range in NotePerformer? Currently, it is one octave up or down. I would like to limit it to one tone up or down, to gain more resolution and preserve compatibility with the majority of other instruments,
> 
> @Wallander , maybe?
> 
> Paolo


Unfortunately not. The notation program and the playback device must always agree on the pitch bend range since it may be used for glissando and bends. Changing the range in the plugin would break such functionality. 

Pitch bend is a high-resolution MIDI parameter. Provided that the resolution is not limited by the host control lane or MIDI controller (which may very well be the case), you could do smooth bends also with a one-way octave range.


----------



## ptram

Wallander said:


> Unfortunately not. …
> 
> Pitch bend is a high-resolution MIDI parameter. Provided that the resolution is not limited by the host control lane or MIDI controller (which may very well be the case), you could do smooth bends also with a one-way octave range.


I see. Well, an example is a quarter tone oscillation that I want to write in Dorico, and the range is ±100 for the whole range. Maybe it's not noticeable with such a small interval, but the curve can't be very smooth.

I'll take note, but will also file it as a feature request!

Paolo


----------



## dtoub

On that note, I'd love to see NP have Finale compatibility with regard to glissandi. I can get it to work, at times, sort of, and it is is a known incompatibility at present with Finale and NP 3. Thanks. Not sure if it's doable but would at least like to ask...


----------



## musicbox

ed buller said:


> As some of you may have guessed I am totally smitten with Dorico and what it can do. Yes there is a huge amount of effort needed to set it up and master it's many playback possibilities but it is so worth it.
> 
> This is a very simple 20 bar example of a bunch of chord inversion swapped between various combinations. The dynamics and a tweak of CC11 are doing all the work.
> 
> In the Dorico "samples" version the sounds are coming form commercially available libraries that we all love. The "Noteperformer" Version is just that.
> 
> I bounced straight from Dorico , NoFX
> 
> 
> Noteperformer:
> 
> View attachment FOREST NOTEPERFORMER - Flow 1.mp3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samples:
> 
> View attachment FOREST SAMPLES - Flow 1.mp3
> 
> 
> 
> Best
> 
> e


Would it be possible to see the score for this comparison of playback?


----------



## curry36

I just saw this and I am afraid to say that using sample libraries (at least the ones you used) didn't sound like the selling dream of Dorico (a notation software that combines the precision and composing workflow of score writing and the perfect sound of sample libraries). 

The issue for my ears were those un-tight legato transitions - most sample libraries have different pre-delay values for different legato speeds, and also most can't handle quick and fluent note transitions. In that regard I can't imagine any commercial sample library achieving the results of Note Performer without having a lookahead feature. Or am I wrong with this? 

Just in case - have I missed any specific combination of Dorico and library X which nails it? 

And for Dorico itself - would you recommend Dorico (with Note Performer) over Sibelius? I'm using Sibelius only a few times a year and I feel like I have to relearn the workflow of Sibelius every time I open it. :/


----------



## benwiggy

curry36 said:


> And for Dorico itself - would you recommend Dorico (with Note Performer) over Sibelius?


There's a big "Dorico vs Sibelius" thread here:





Sibelius vs Dorico in 2022


Are there any Sibelius users here that still prefer Sibelius after trying Dorico? I'm not talking about familiarity reasons like memorized key commands but actual features or things you can do better in Sibelius than in Dorico? I'm likely going to be purchasing Dorico Pro after completing my...




vi-control.net





But bear in mind that almost everyone who now uses Dorico used either Sibelius or Finale beforehand, and took the deliberate step to 'jump ship'.


----------



## pefra

ed buller said:


> As some of you may have guessed I am totally smitten with Dorico and what it can do. Yes there is a huge amount of effort needed to set it up and master it's many playback possibilities but it is so worth it.
> 
> This is a very simple 20 bar example of a bunch of chord inversion swapped between various combinations. The dynamics and a tweak of CC11 are doing all the work.
> 
> In the Dorico "samples" version the sounds are coming form commercially available libraries that we all love. The "Noteperformer" Version is just that.
> 
> I bounced straight from Dorico , NoFX
> 
> 
> Noteperformer:
> 
> View attachment FOREST NOTEPERFORMER - Flow 1.mp3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samples:
> 
> View attachment FOREST SAMPLES - Flow 1.mp3
> 
> 
> 
> Best
> 
> e


Of course the difference is there. But then again I just today listened to Bernard Herman's unused score for Hitchcock's Torn Curtain, and it's absolutely astonishing how near NP comes to it.


----------



## swinkler

For those using multiple libraries that mostly rely on CC1 for volume control, how do you balance your template across libraries? I could see adjusting CC11 but not sure if that takes away some of the available dynamic range. If that's the case would it be better to use the faders in VEP? 

Sorry for the pedantic questions. 

Steve


----------



## PhilA

swinkler said:


> For those using multiple libraries that mostly rely on CC1 for volume control, how do you balance your template across libraries? I could see adjusting CC11 but not sure if that takes away some of the available dynamic range. If that's the case would it be better to use the faders in VEP?
> 
> Sorry for the pedantic questions.
> 
> Steve


I assume you mean when you use different libraries for different articulations on the same instrument? If so I use the sample players built in channel output. Otherwise it’s down to the Dorico mixer. Maybe there are better ways?


----------



## swinkler

PhilA said:


> I assume you mean when you use different libraries for different articulations on the same instrument? If so I use the sample players built in channel output. Otherwise it’s down to the Dorico mixer. Maybe there are better ways?


Not that sophisticated I'm afraid. Maybe I'm not thinking about this the right way, but for horns I have 1&2 assigned to VSL/SE and 3&4 assigned to BBCSO. So I scored a couple measures all 4 at piano dynamic then again forte. I'm trying to balance the section within itself but just not sure where the best place to do that is. 

I think I understand what you're saying and for me that's possibly a later step. Though right now I have a full orchestra and already had to bump latency in my audio driver up to 10ms and change VEP to 4 threads per instance without stutter on playback. I'd love to get some better brass sounds for example but don't think my PC could handle it. 

This is all really fascinating to me and something I've only dreamed about being able to do and still work the way I feel most comfortable and efficient. Very excited.


----------

