# Switching to Dorico 4?



## Jett Hitt

I have spent the past week switching to Dorico 4 from StaffPad. (I'll still use the latter for sketching.) I might be halfway there, though I doubt it. For those of you considering making the switch--and I know there are a number of you--my advice at this point would be to wait.

As brilliant and exciting as all of the new additions to Dorico 4 are, the omissions are a bit baffling. Dorico 4 seems to be a partial release. Features that existed in the past were just left out in favor of going to market. The tempo map no longer works. (They say they will fix it soon.) The tooltips are no longer there. (Also supposed to be fixed soon.) So if you're new to Dorico, you're screwed because there is no way to know what something is called and you can't look it up. Even if you did know what it was called, you still might not be able to look it up because the documentation is also incomplete. (And it is not very special when it is complete.) There are lots of really nice video tutorials on the website, but they are scattered over 30 pages with four or five to a page and no index.

Being a new user, I don't really know how many components were left out of this version, but I found another one last night. I was testing my expression maps, and I started adding a few dynamics to see how it was going to work. I couldn't get the dynamics to work. I tried everything I could think of, but no dice. Of course, I went digging on the Interwebs. At long last, I discovered it: the Dynamics Lane. Problem was, I couldn't figure out how to open the Dynamics Lane. After much searching, I went back to the Interwebs only to finally discover guess what? Yep, they left that out of Dorico 4 as well. (They say they will fix it too, but not soon.)

In short, I don't really know why this has come to market at this time. It is simply incomplete. If you're still reading and still thinking about making the switch, it will be a good decision in the long run. But I'd wait awhile.

Now for the really ugly--the part that won't get better any time soon, if ever. Expression Maps. OMFG, what a nightmare! I have spent the last week creating expression maps for the Berlin Mains, and I am about halfway there. The process is unbelievably cumbersome and tedious. First, you need to create a Playing Technique. Then you need to recreate the same technique again as a Playback Technique. (Yes, you read that right.) Now you need to create a keyswitch in your Expression Map and assign the Playing Technique. If you want to actually employ the keyswitch when it appears in the score, you have to then add it to a mutual exclusion group. Now you have finally created one keyswitch. If you are doing Berlin Strings Violin 1, you only have 42 more to go before you get to start on Violin 2.

I have heard several say, "Once it's done, it's done." Yeah, not really. Once you have them all set, you can export the expression map and import it into another file. But guess what? All of those Playing Techniques that you created aren't part of the expression map. Yep, you get to recreate all of them again.

This is a heinous process, and I fear that it will deter a lot of would-be pro users. Despite being part of Steinberg, I don't know why they couldn't have embraced something simple like Logic's Articulation sets. The implementation of expression maps has a long way to go before most will have the patience to mess with it.


----------



## Daniel S.

I'm very sorry for the omission of the tempo and dynamics editors from the new and rebuilt Play mode. We know this is a big impediment to the use of the new Key Editor at the moment and we're working hard to get these features rebuilt as soon as possible. This coming week we will have an initial update that includes some small quality of life improvements for the Key Editor as well as fixing a bunch of bugs, and work is continuing apace on restoring the missing editors as quickly as we can manage.

It's never our intention to release obviously unfinished software, and I don't expect users to care about our internal issues, but we needed to release Dorico 4 when we did in order to get the initial version of Steinberg Licensing out into the hands of customers so that we could check that it is properly battle-hardened before the forthcoming release of Cubase 12, which, given Cubase's much larger user base, is something that we considered essential. The good news is that, with the exception of some initial problems concerning getting free grace period updates to people who needed them (which is actually more to do with the existing eLicenser system than the new system), Steinberg Licensing has worked practically perfectly so far, so we are feeling positive about Cubase 12's release, which is coming quite soon.

I did write about the omissions in Play mode in the Dorico blog when announcing the new version, and the details of the missing bits are also detailed in the Dorico 4 Version History PDF that we encouraged everybody to read, so we certainly haven't tried to hide this information. Nevertheless, I'm sorry that there are missing pieces, and you can rest assured that we are working hard to reinstate these editors, in better, more ergonomic forms, in free updates coming in (we hope) a matter of weeks. (As things stand we are planning another maintenance update before the end of February, and if things go well we will have at least one of the missing editors reinstated in that release.)

As for the awkwardness of setting up expression maps in Dorico, we have chosen to work at a slightly higher level of abstraction than, say, the comparable expression maps features in Cubase to provide greater flexibility (you have total freedom of choice over the appearance of the item that is printed in the music that triggers the change in playback technique, and can even define multiple items with different appearances that trigger the same playback technique), and greater portability (the use of playback techniques as an abstract representation of the actual physical technique employed by the human player rather than as a direct mapping between a symbol or text item in the score and a keyswitch or CC value makes it possible for the same markings in the score to trigger different MIDI, making it possible to use the same score to play back both with e.g. NotePerformer and with your custom VE Pro template, without any reconfiguration).

I think the design is sound, but there are certainly areas in the user interface that it would be good to improve.

For example, and as I said to you in the thread you posted on the Dorico forum on the Steinberg web site, the fact that the printed markings in the score are called play*ing* techniques and the abstract triggers that you define to connect the printed markings to the specific MIDI actions defined in the expression maps are called play*back* techniques is clearly sub-optimal.

The fact that you need to define a playing technique (i.e. the marking that you add to the score), the playback technique (i.e. the description of what physical playing technique, sound or articulation a human player should produce when they encounter that marking), and the action in the expression map (i.e. the specific MIDI notes and/or controller values that are required to trigger that playback technique in your particular sound library or patch) is perhaps a little unwieldy, but without this separation you can't achieve the flexibility and portability that we are trying to achieve.

Finally, when you have defined these three things – the playing techniques, playback techniques and expression maps (and potentially also percussion maps, to describe the mappings beween the MIDI notes used to trigger specific sounds in an unpitched percussion patch and the combination of percussion instrument and playing technique that you want to notate in your score) – you can combine them together in what we call a playback template.

When you define a playback template, you don't need to worry about whether or not you have imported all of the individual components: they are all bundled up together in a single file, along with the state of the plug-ins that you're using, so that the whole thing can be recalled upon demand in another project.

We are definitely open to suggestions about how to smooth out the process of creating playback templates, but I'm convinced that the constituent parts of the playback template that I have outlined (playing techniques in the score; playback techniques to describe the actual sound produced by the instrument in an abstract portable way; expression maps that describe the concrete MIDI actions to produce those playback techniques; percussion maps to map between MIDI notes and combinations of percussion instruments and their playing techniques; and the saved plug-in configurations) are the minimal set of things needed to create a flexible, portable way of mapping today's sophisticated sample libraries onto a written score in a reasonably automated fashion.


----------



## jbuhler

Thanks for the heads up, Jett. How is the editor for dealing with the expression maps? A tedious process is one thing. A tedious process with a hostile editor, like the one for articulation sets in Logic, is enough to make me want to throw the whole rig out the window. So please tell me that the design of the expression maps editor at least shows that the Dorico folks understand how someone is likely going to use it!


----------



## youngpokie

Jett Hitt said:


> Now for the really ugly--the part that won't get better any time soon, if ever. Expression Maps. OMFG, what a nightmare! I have spent the last week creating expression maps for the Berlin Mains, and I am about halfway there.


My suggestion is - stick with it. I think most people who come to Dorico from the DAW side go through a kind of a cultural shock. I certainly did and it wasn't pretty.

Dorico expression maps are UGLY and the interface is horrible. But the logic is quite transparent and the flexibility already surpasses what's possible in Cubase. It's just that with Cubase we got used to a primitive table just to assign key switches, nothing more. With Dorico, you really have to think through this step and set time aside for that. I started off expecting I'll click through things like I did in Cubase, but it doesn't work like that here because Dorico is linking a graphic symbol or text in the score to trigger samples and there are many more samples in a library that reflect the performance rather than just notation (especially the various legatos that have only one score symbol). This is the big challenge - the difference between what's used in notation and the various performances of that notation.

In Dorico we can link _a combination_ of score symbols to trigger a sample, to have note length trigger different samples and even to create our own score symbols to trigger samples. Once you get the hang of it and see what you can do, you'll be on the forums like the rest of us asking for even more features, conditions and complexity. There's still a lot of missing functionality - playback of glissandos, some tremolos - and it's frustrating that's been just promises for a couple of years now.

So yes, the template and maps are a nightmare and will take serious time and effort to set up. I went through several versions of expression maps and several versions of the templates. All in all, it's been several months of work. But once it's done or even nearly done - it's a joy to use. I am certainly not going back to a DAW.


----------



## J.K.

Expression Maps are a dealbreaker for me and the only thing holding me back from using Dorico.


----------



## Jett Hitt

jbuhler said:


> Thanks for the heads up, Jett. How is the editor for dealing with the expression maps? A tedious process is one thing. A tedious process with a hostile editor, like the one for articulation sets in Logic, is enough to make me want to throw the whole rig out the window. So please tell me that the design of the expression maps editor at least shows that the Dorico folks understand how someone is likely going to use it!


I know that you hate the Logic editor every bit as much as I do. Imagine having to perform all of the Logic steps three times to make one keyswitch. Dorico is much worse in my estimation. It is just because there are so many steps and variables. I understand the bulk of what they are doing and why, but it doesn't make the process any less painful. I have a suggestion to make it better which I will disclose below to Daniel.


----------



## ssnowe

Dorico developers like Daniel getting on this forum and communicating with us is why I bought Dorico. Seeing how they interact with us and really offer help here and on the Steinberg Dorico forum has been like a breath of fresh air. I agree that Dorico 4 appears a bit rushed but based on the open communication I see here and other places I have confidence they will make things work.


----------



## Jett Hitt

Daniel S. said:


> I'm very sorry for the omission of the tempo and dynamics editors from the new and rebuilt Play mode. We know this is a big impediment to the use of the new Key Editor at the moment and we're working hard to get these features rebuilt as soon as possible. This coming week we will have an initial update that includes some small quality of life improvements for the Key Editor as well as fixing a bunch of bugs, and work is continuing apace on restoring the missing editors as quickly as we can manage.
> 
> It's never our intention to release obviously unfinished software, and I don't expect users to care about our internal issues, but we needed to release Dorico 4 when we did in order to get the initial version of Steinberg Licensing out into the hands of customers so that we could check that it is properly battle-hardened before the forthcoming release of Cubase 12, which, given Cubase's much larger user base, is something that we considered essential. The good news is that, with the exception of some initial problems concerning getting free grace period updates to people who needed them (which is actually more to do with the existing eLicenser system than the new system), Steinberg Licensing has worked practically perfectly so far, so we are feeling positive about Cubase 12's release, which is coming quite soon.
> 
> I did write about the omissions in Play mode in the Dorico blog when announcing the new version, and the details of the missing bits are also detailed in the Dorico 4 Version History PDF that we encouraged everybody to read, so we certainly haven't tried to hide this information. Nevertheless, I'm sorry that there are missing pieces, and you can rest assured that we are working hard to reinstate these editors, in better, more ergonomic forms, in free updates coming in (we hope) a matter of weeks. (As things stand we are planning another maintenance update before the end of February, and if things go well we will have at least one of the missing editors reinstated in that release.)
> 
> As for the awkwardness of setting up expression maps in Dorico, we have chosen to work at a slightly higher level of abstraction than, say, the comparable expression maps features in Cubase to provide greater flexibility (you have total freedom of choice over the appearance of the item that is printed in the music that triggers the change in playback technique, and can even define multiple items with different appearances that trigger the same playback technique), and greater portability (the use of playback techniques as an abstract representation of the actual physical technique employed by the human player rather than as a direct mapping between a symbol or text item in the score and a keyswitch or CC value makes it possible for the same markings in the score to trigger different MIDI, making it possible to use the same score to play back both with e.g. NotePerformer and with your custom VE Pro template, without any reconfiguration).
> 
> I think the design is sound, but there are certainly areas in the user interface that it would be good to improve.
> 
> For example, and as I said to you in the thread you posted on the Dorico forum on the Steinberg web site, the fact that the printed markings in the score are called play*ing* techniques and the abstract triggers that you define to connect the printed markings to the specific MIDI actions defined in the expression maps are called play*back* techniques is clearly sub-optimal.
> 
> The fact that you need to define a playing technique (i.e. the marking that you add to the score), the playback technique (i.e. the description of what physical playing technique, sound or articulation a human player should produce when they encounter that marking), and the action in the expression map (i.e. the specific MIDI notes and/or controller values that are required to trigger that playback technique in your particular sound library or patch) is perhaps a little unwieldy, but without this separation you can't achieve the flexibility and portability that we are trying to achieve.
> 
> Finally, when you have defined these three things – the playing techniques, playback techniques and expression maps (and potentially also percussion maps, to describe the mappings beween the MIDI notes used to trigger specific sounds in an unpitched percussion patch and the combination of percussion instrument and playing technique that you want to notate in your score) – you can combine them together in what we call a playback template.
> 
> When you define a playback template, you don't need to worry about whether or not you have imported all of the individual components: they are all bundled up together in a single file, along with the state of the plug-ins that you're using, so that the whole thing can be recalled upon demand in another project.
> 
> We are definitely open to suggestions about how to smooth out the process of creating playback templates, but I'm convinced that the constituent parts of the playback template that I have outlined (playing techniques in the score; playback techniques to describe the actual sound produced by the instrument in an abstract portable way; expression maps that describe the concrete MIDI actions to produce those playback techniques; percussion maps to map between MIDI notes and combinations of percussion instruments and their playing techniques; and the saved plug-in configurations) are the minimal set of things needed to create a flexible, portable way of mapping today's sophisticated sample libraries onto a written score in a reasonably automated fashion.


Thank you for the long and detailed reply. I realize that it was not your call, but it is too bad that Steinberg decided to use us as guinea pigs, though the elicenser debacle is a unique event. No matter. It will work itself out in time.

Being new to Dorico, I am not always certain where to look for resources. I have owned both Dorico (didn't use it) and Cubase for a long time, but I have never found Steinberg's site to be particularly user-friendly. (In its current state, I get a dialogue box asking about cookies on literally every page.) I learned about Dorico 4 right here like I do most products. So I apologize if I missed some information about the update somewhere. As I have searched for solutions, a general lack of organization and a central locale have made things more difficult. The best info I have found is often buried in an hour+ video on Youtube. Those short tutorials that I mentioned above are brilliant, but please make an index. Those things are so handy for quickly learning the basics. Lastly, I would mention that one of the things that made Finale successful was its award-winning documentation. You can do literally anything in Finale with the manual. I don't think that this is true of Dorico, despite its far superior design.

The elephant in the room is the expression map. I have a suggestion that I think would greatly facilitate both making and using them. Consider omitting the necessity of a Playing Technique. I don't need to see that in my score anyway because I can see what is assigned in the key editor. If I could simply select a note or a series of notes and then right-click, one of the menu options could be "Articulations." And within the Articulations menu are the various options in my expression map. Not only does this cut out clutter in my score and a step in creating the keyswitch, but it also cuts out yet another step of having to hide them all when I am done with the score. (Since the Playback Techniques are likely to be where the naming takes place, it would be nice if they exported with the expression map, thus making the maps more useful to other users while still not negating your playback template premise.)

These are just some thoughts that I have had after a week of messing with it but also after 30 years of messing with music software. The expression maps are a stumbling block, and you need to simplify that if possible. It is a brilliant product. Just gotta iron a few wrinkles.


----------



## Jett Hitt

youngpokie said:


> My suggestion is - stick with it. I think most people who come to Dorico from the DAW side go through a kind of a cultural shock. I certainly did and it wasn't pretty.
> 
> - it's a joy to use. I am certainly not going back to a DAW.


I am pretty sure that you're dead on the money with this. I hate piano rolls with a passion. It just irks me to mess with them. It makes my blood boil every time I think about some damned computer programmer tossing 1000 years of notational tradition to the wind in favor of a primitive idea that looks like a video game from the early 1980s. 

I'm gonna make this work.


----------



## ptram

Making expression map entries for extended techniques not included in the standard set is a convoluted operation. Making them for more standard techniques, and for the many extended techniques already included, is extremely easy. You just create an e.m. entry based on that technique, and enter the corresponding keyswitches and dynamic controls.

Paolo


----------



## Daniel S.

Jett Hitt said:


> I have a suggestion that I think would greatly facilitate both making and using them. Consider omitting the necessity of a Playing Technique.


Certainly I think we could potentially streamline this by having Dorico offer to create you a simple text-based playing technique, perhaps one that would even be hidden by default, when you define a new playback technique. Definitely something we will think about.


----------



## ed buller

J.K. said:


> Expression Maps are a dealbreaker for me and the only thing holding me back from using Dorico.


they really are NOT that hard. Byzantine perhaps but with a good reason. They are a lot more flexible and powerful than any others I have come across and yes time consuming to program but once done totally free up the software to access any sample at any point. To me this is a huge part of the software that I love. And makes writing music a blast TBH. 

There does need to be a new video tutorial on how they are made in 4 . There are loads of good videos on the dorico youtube channel, and I think all the long ones that John does ( which are really worth watching ) have time stamps

best

ed


----------



## devonmyles

ed buller said:


> they really are NOT that hard. Byzantine perhaps but with a good reason. They are a lot more flexible and powerful than any others I have come across and yes time consuming to program but once done totally free up the software to access any sample at any point. To me this is a huge part of the software that I love. And makes writing music a blast TBH.
> 
> *There does need to be a new video tutorial on how they are made in 4 .* There are loads of good videos on the dorico youtube channel, and I think all the long ones that John does ( which are really worth watching ) have time stamps
> 
> best
> 
> ed


 Yes, this would be very helpful. Especially as the other excellent Dorico videos (although in-depth, and detailed) are easy to follow.


----------



## Vik

Daniel S. said:


> As for the awkwardness of setting up expression maps in Dorico, we have chosen to work at a slightly higher level of abstraction than, say, the comparable expression maps features in Cubase to provide greater flexibility (you have total freedom of choice over the appearance of the item that is printed in the music that triggers the change in playback technique, and can even define multiple items with different appearances that trigger the same playback technique), and greater portability (the use of playback techniques as an abstract representation of the actual physical technique employed by the human player rather than as a direct mapping between a symbol or text item in the score and a keyswitch or CC value makes it possible for the same markings in the score to trigger different MIDI, making it possible to use the same score to play back both with e.g. NotePerformer and with your custom VE Pro template, without any reconfiguration).


I bought Dorico 1 and soon gave up using it due to two reasons:
– an IMHO large amount of missing features
– a user interface often dominated by unnecessary complexity. In several cases stuff that could be done easily was implemented in a way that requires a lot of steps; steps that weren't at all obvious. 

Being able to work in a DAW or a score editor without totally having to enter left-brain mode is essential for me. If I'm in the middle of a creative process, I don't want to lose focus due to a user interface that may be 'logical' – but counter-intuitive or confusing.

I saw a number of features in the Dorico 4 presentation that made me consider upgrading from version 1, but thanks to this thread's info about the complexity of Doricos expression maps and the explanation about Steinberg almost using Dorico users as beta testers of their new licensing system*, I understand that I need to wait. 

'Thought is the enemy of flow' according to Vinnie Colaiuta, and I totally agree. Please give us tools that are as simple and self-explanatory as possible – especially for something as complex as orchestral notation – otherwise we'll end up making music when we're in 'logical mode' instead of musical mode.

IMO Steinberg/Dorico and Daniel Spreadbury has done a lot more in terms of notation and adding compositional features that Apple has. 

Please don't get the following wrong: Looking at the quote at the top pf this post, we may see a hint about why certain features in Dorico are/have been unnecessary complex. When writing so much text within one sentence, it's likely that one also will design a user interface that is harder to get than a UI with massive focus on how users learn and understand what you write/code/design. 

Again, this isn't meant as critique so don't get this wrong – I'm often writing too long sentences myself. The lack of notation improvements in Logic (or a dedicated score editor from Apple), combined with the lack of composing oriented features is another reason why many Logic users are interested in Dorico. I really want to like Dorico – especially if the Sibelius features I was missing in Dorico 1 now are implemented. Since the feature list of Dorico 4 looks as good as it does, I'm kind of optimistic about the seeing improvements in the UI as well, hopefully before Dorico 5. 


*"we needed to release Dorico 4 when we did in order to get the initial version of Steinberg Licensing out into the hands of customers so that we could check that it is properly battle-hardened before the forthcoming release of Cubase 12"


----------



## youngpokie

The first time I made an expression map for Dorico I did what I thought was straightforward - assign a _sustain_ sample to "Natural" (default playback for any unmarked notes in the score).

But to my ears this playback does not sound _musical_ at all. Sure, it's a fast way to make a map, but in fact, it can sound downright terrible, and it requires lots of fiddling with controllers to fix that. Then I realized that in music I deal with, the most common _default_ note length is probably in the range of eights to quarter or half note. So I reprogrammed "Natural" to trigger "Portato" samples instead and this drastically reduced the amount of controller tweaking and sounded so much better. I also set up a separate playing technique for "Sustain" samples. Maybe this is obvious to anyone reading this, but to me it was a revelation.

This led to a different mindset for me when thinking about Dorico expression maps - how to obtain the most _musical_ playback through them, rather than how to quickly get them out of the way. Are the expression maps a tedious administrative task or can they be a creative tool for better quality and more natural playback that can reduce the need to fiddle with controllers? I also wanted to reduce as much as possible the creation of random playing techniques and rely as much as possible on accepted notation.

The one dream I have coming from all this (for @Daniel S. consideration) and possibly related to what Jett talked about:

- it would be great to have two levels of visibility for playing techniques. One level is what you show in the score, the traditional notation. The second one, _hidden_ in the score bit shown in properties at the bottom panel, is a sub-type to specify with more granularity how that particular notation is _played _or what_ version of it _is played back_. _

In other words, if the notation symbol has several technical ways of playing it, then these options are shown at the bottom panel. It's the same principle that's already used for Trills and many other notational elements, where you can fine-tune their properties at the bottom.

Taking "legato" as an example. In notation, it is just a slur. However, many libraries have several types of legato performances recorded: single string slide, cross string legato, etc, etc. It would be amazing to write a standard slur in the score and then select the desired sub-type of legato at the properties panel, based on what samples were added to expression maps.


----------



## ed buller

youngpokie said:


> This led to a different mindset for me when thinking about Dorico expression maps - how to obtain the most _musical_ playback through them, rather than how to quickly get them out of the way. Are the expression maps a tedious administrative task or can they be a creative tool for better quality and more natural playback that can reduce the need to fiddle with controllers? I also wanted to reduce as much as possible the creation of random playing techniques and rely as much as possible on accepted notation.


THIS !...it takes time because you HAVE so many possibilites . Up to five note lengths can be pe-programed for every instruments. So to be fair..what took eons wasn't a result of the Softwares failings but the reverse. The possibilities of sifting through and picking the right sample playback for the correct articulation. AND..these WILL vary dependant on tempi. 

hence "ballache" but so worth it

best

ed


----------



## dcoscina

ed buller said:


> they really are NOT that hard. Byzantine perhaps but with a good reason. They are a lot more flexible and powerful than any others I have come across and yes time consuming to program but once done totally free up the software to access any sample at any point. To me this is a huge part of the software that I love. And makes writing music a blast TBH.
> 
> There does need to be a new video tutorial on how they are made in 4 . There are loads of good videos on the dorico youtube channel, and I think all the long ones that John does ( which are really worth watching ) have time stamps
> 
> best
> 
> ed


I actually find the Steinberg help site for Dorico very helpful. Anytime I've needed to know something, I find I can get it pretty quick. Perhaps my requirements aren't as deep as others however...


----------



## ptram

youngpokie said:


> Taking "legato" as an example. In notation, it is just a slur. However, many libraries have several types of legato performances recorded: single string slide, cross string legato, etc, etc. It would be amazing to write a standard slur in the score and then select the desired sub-type of legato at the properties panel, based on what samples were added to expression maps.


Just create as many Legato entries you need in the expression map. All of them including Legato as the playback technique, but coupled with the different case: Legato + Slide, Legato + CrossString, etc.

Each of these pairs go to a different patch in the virtual instrument. In the score, write a legato passage, and add a playing technique depending on the variation (Slide, CrossString, etc.). There is no need to use a control panel, as if you were controlling a robot: just write it in the score!

Or, let Dorico do it for you. If you have a different patch for slow and fast legato, or for fully sustaining notes and shorter ones, or for staccato and spiccato, make a separate entry for the different note lengths. Dorico will automatically choose them during playback.

Paolo


----------



## dcoscina

I'm also wondering if all this focus on DAW properties stems from those who ultimately wish to use Dorico for convincing mock-ups. I guess everyone's purposes vary but notation apps like this have always been relegated to composing and basic mock-ups for live groups to reference- not directors/producers/etc. I can imagine it would be more laborious in this capacity.... 

Me, I'm happy with NotePerformer playing back my stuff. I do bounces to audio for the groups and a screen record so they can follow the score in real-time. Seems to work ok at least at this time for me. 

I just finished a 4 movement work for brass quintet and found Dorico's layout page to be especially great. I had no issue reformatting and spacing staves or systems. I love this program.


----------



## joebaggan

Very surprising that Dorico would release a new version that leaves out or breaks things that were working before. That's software dev 101 right there - it's called Regression Testing - don't break what was working before.

And this from Steinberg:

"I don't expect users to care about our internal issues, but we needed to release Dorico 4 when we did in order to get the initial version of Steinberg Licensing out into the hands of customers so that we could check that it is properly battle-hardened before the forthcoming release of Cubase 12"

Seriously, you're using Dorico users as tester guinea pigs for another Steinberg product, and you're charging users a handsome fee for the privilege too? I don't know how that could be considered acceptable. That is what a QA test team is for ( who are presumably being paid for the work! )


----------



## ssnowe

I think the new Steinberg authorization system pulled one of more members from the Dorico development team longer then expected. It also looks like the Play engine may have had a bit of an architectural rewrite to provide new capabilities. Combine missing team members with new architecture and things don't arrive on schedule.

Software publishing is a tough business, publish or perish. Haven't had a new version release in the past twelve months, customers and the marketing department aren't happy. Some times things are released before they are ready.


----------



## youngpokie

ptram said:


> There is no need to use a control panel, as if you were controlling a robot: just write it in the score!


I use this approach all the time. At some point, this doesn't look like notation anymore but rows and rows of text. Or the VSL style abbreviations that no sane normal person would ever remember (and they do get migrated into actual names of custom-made techniques). The ugliness of this approach and how unprofessional it is - it's something to behold.


----------



## Jett Hitt

Daniel S. said:


> Certainly I think we could potentially streamline this by having Dorico offer to create you a simple text-based playing technique, perhaps one that would even be hidden by default, when you define a new playback technique. Definitely something we will think about.


This would be a most welcome addition. I want to stress the need for the expression maps to be totally portable. A user needs to be able to get the expression maps from another source and then plug and play. This would create a secondary market for these maps to be offered by companies like babylonwaves. Anyone who has created an expression map for Berlin Strings would happily pay for one. Please, take my money. It just makes your product a lot more user-friendly.

I understand your playback template concept. I have not tried it yet. I am currently creating separate templates for each of the choirs in the orchestra, and I am trusting that when I build a template from all of these smaller templates all of those playing techniques will be there. I shudder to think what the playing techniques panel will look like with all of those articulations.

This presents another problem that I touched on above. Once I have all of this in one template, I still don't have a very good idea of what is available. I can look over there and see Portato Long, but I don't know if that is really available in Oboe 1. So I have to open VEPro and see whether Oboe 1 actually has that articulation. On the other hand, if I had the option to right-click and see what was available in my Oboe 1 expression map, I could simply choose the desired articulation and cut out these steps. It is about speed and flow.


----------



## ptram

youngpokie said:


> I use this approach all the time. At some point, this doesn't look like notation anymore but rows and rows of text.


Uhm. Isn't it as a traditional score works? This is Mahler:






And this is a typical score in Dorico (with VSL instruments), here:






Paolo


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

dcoscina said:


> I actually find the Steinberg help site for Dorico very helpful. Anytime I've needed to know something, I find I can get it pretty quick. Perhaps my requirements aren't as deep as others however...


Same - the web manual explains a lot. The only question I had so far that the manual didn’t cover and I had to ask in the Dorico forum was around atonal key signatures. Either way, the community over there is very helpful.

I bought Dorico to use as a notation software. Sibelius doesn’t have expression maps - seems to have done ok for itself over the years. Dorico + NotePerformer (or the BBCSO or VSL playback templates) work great for me - for doing notation and composition.

No reason to wait to jump into Dorico 4 IMO - it is excellent and far better to use than Sibelius for me.


----------



## dcoscina

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Same - the web manual explains a lot. The only question I had so far that the manual didn’t cover and I had to ask in the Dorico forum was around atonal key signatures. Either way, the community over there is very helpful.
> 
> I bought Dorico to use as a notation software. Sibelius doesn’t have expression maps - seems to have done ok for itself over the years. Dorico + NotePerformer (or the BBCSO or VSL playback templates) work great for me - for doing notation and composition.
> 
> No reason to wait to jump into Dorico 4 IMO - it is excellent and far better to use than Sibelius for me.


I suspect for those who are primarily using Dorico as a composition and engraving app, it suits them more than fine. For those wanting it to be a full-fledged dAW, that is where the bumps can occur. I'm sure it will be something for everyone, but even at present, I find it's quite a bit better than Sibelius or Finale in terms of playback and ease of use. again, everyone has different requirements and mine are probably pretty simple compared to others.


----------



## wcreed51

AT this point I just stick with VSL on Dorico, as they provide basic expression maps for their libraries.


----------



## dcoscina

wcreed51 said:


> AT this point I just stick with VSL on Dorico, as they provide basic expression maps for their libraries.


yes I find either VSL or BBCSO to be fine when I want a nicer sound than NotePerformer


----------



## Jett Hitt

For those just looking for a notation program, I am not sure that it matters which you choose. They all do pretty much the same thing. The way that Dorico handles parts is pretty fantastic, though, but for general notation, there is nothing that I can't do with Finale. The beauty of Dorico is that it is quickly becoming one-stop shopping: DAW, notation, and parts all rolled into one. As things were, I was composing in StaffPad, recreating that in my DAW for a better sound, and then notating it all in Finale for a score and parts. I want to do it all at once, and Dorico seems like it is going to be the ticket.


----------



## ed buller

Jett Hitt said:


> This would be a most welcome addition. I want to stress the need for the expression maps to be totally portable. A user needs to be able to get the expression maps from another source and then plug and play. This would create a secondary market for these maps to be offered by companies like babylonwaves. Anyone who has created an expression map for Berlin Strings would happily pay for one. Please, take my money. It just makes your product a lot more user-friendly.
> 
> I understand your playback template concept. I have not tried it yet. I am currently creating separate templates for each of the choirs in the orchestra, and I am trusting that when I build a template from all of these smaller templates all of those playing techniques will be there. I shudder to think what the playing techniques panel will look like with all of those articulations.
> 
> This presents another problem that I touched on above. Once I have all of this in one template, I still don't have a very good idea of what is available. I can look over there and see Portato Long, but I don't know if that is really available in Oboe 1. So I have to open VEPro and see whether Oboe 1 actually has that articulation. On the other hand, if I had the option to right-click and see what was available in my Oboe 1 expression map, I could simply choose the desired articulation and cut out these steps. It is about speed and flow.


the problem with this logic is that a lot of these decisions are personal. If you just want a basic template then Noteperformer is the answer. Works fine.

But everything else depends on what you have. I have a triple wind template. So for every instruent I have a different expression map. 






They are all different. Each of the flutes is a totally different map. But using the SAME text !.....so "softly" will trigger 27 completely different choices. That I think work. I really don't think that can be shared very easily nor to I think that's a worthwhile endeavor. To me, the strength of this software is that it allows this degree of complexity. And yes this ALL can be saved for instant recall.

Now, If I create a player with a flute, The first time will always be VSL. The second will always be BBC and the third will always be Berlin. Each will have their own custom expression maps.



best

ed


----------



## Jett Hitt

ed buller said:


> the problem with this logic is that a lot of these decisions are personal. If you just want a basic template then Noteperformer is the answer. Works fine.


I don't even understand this statement. Noteperformer does not work fine. I have never heard one example of Noteperformer coming even remotely close to a live recording. On the other hand, I have heard some DAW mockups that were truly outstanding. If my Dorico mockups with OT libraries aren't going to sound any better than Noteperformer, tell me now and I'll go back to my DAW.




ed buller said:


> They are all different. Each of the flutes is a totally different map. But using the SAME text !.....so "softly" will trigger 27 completely different choices. That I think work. I really don't think that can be shared very easily nor to I think that's a worthwhile endeavor. To me, the strength of this software is that it allows this degree of complexity. And yes this ALL can be saved for instant recall.
> 
> Now, If I create a player with a flute, The first time will always be VSL. The second will always be BBC and the third will always be Berlin. Each will have their own custom expression maps.


I don't follow your logic here because each of my flutes has a different expression map too, but they have different articulations because that's the way OT made them. You can write Marcato Long in the score for Flute 1, but nothing is going to happen because it doesn't have that articulation, but Flute 2 does. So you can't use the SAME text. It doesn't work.


----------



## Eric G

Jett Hitt said:


> For those just looking for a notation program, I am not sure that it matters which you choose. They all do pretty much the same thing. The way that Dorico handles parts is pretty fantastic, though, but for general notation, there is nothing that I can't do with Finale. The beauty of Dorico is that it is quickly becoming one-stop shopping: DAW, notation, and parts all rolled into one. As things were, I was composing in StaffPad, recreating that in my DAW for a better sound, and then notating it all in Finale for a score and parts. I want to do it all at once, and Dorico seems like it is going to be the ticket.


Agreed. I am a StaffPad junkie too but the devs have lost their way. Dorico is going where I always knew it was going; a DAW replacement. ProTools for Mastering with Audio. And I have a good feeling that note recognition is going to be cracked by Dorico IPAD in the near future. I have despised MIDI from day one and I can't wait to remove it from my workflow.


----------



## ed buller

Jett Hitt said:


> I don't even understand this statement. Noteperformer does not work fine. I have never heard one example of Noteperformer coming even remotely close to a live recording. On the other hand, I have heard some DAW mockups that were truly outstanding. If my Dorico mockups with OT libraries aren't going to sound any better than Noteperformer, tell me now and I'll go back to my DAW.


Obviously I am NOT telling you that !....please don't add melodrama to you erroneous conclusions. I have said here AND elsewhere (and even given examples) that DORICO ( when using third party libraries ) is miles better than Noteperformer .


Jett Hitt said:


> I don't follow your logic here because each of my flutes has a different expression map too, but they have different articulations because that's the way OT made them. You can write Marcato Long in the score for Flute 1, but nothing is going to happen because it doesn't have that articulation, but Flute 2 does. So you can't use the SAME text. It doesn't work.


again , you are incorrect. The text CAN trigger different samples. THAT is the power of the system. I think, quite honestly, you haven't yet familiarised yourself with how the expression maps work. Each expression map is unique . YOU assign what sound is triggered by the name. The name can be used on multiple instruments but each expression map is unique. Respectfully , I'd suggest you stop posting about how this software isn't doing what you need it to do and find out that it actually is !!!

best

ed


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Jett Hitt said:


> For those just looking for a notation program, I am not sure that it matters which you choose. They all do pretty much the same thing. The way that Dorico handles parts is pretty fantastic, though, but for general notation, there is nothing that I can't do with Finale. The beauty of Dorico is that it is quickly becoming one-stop shopping: DAW, notation, and parts all rolled into one. As things were, I was composing in StaffPad, recreating that in my DAW for a better sound, and then notating it all in Finale for a score and parts. I want to do it all at once, and Dorico seems like it is going to be the ticket.


With that logic though, every DAW is the same. Hell, a 4-track is the same. But workflow matters - and that's where Dorico is excelling compared to existing notation software IMO. So, like everything, it does matter what you choose (or it doesn't if workflow differences don't matter to you).


----------



## Jett Hitt

ALittleNightMusic said:


> With that logic though, every DAW is the same. Hell, a 4-track is the same. But workflow matters - and that's where Dorico is excelling compared to existing notation software IMO. So, like everything, it does matter what you choose (or it doesn't if workflow differences don't matter to you).


I've been using Finale for 30 years. I can do it in my sleep. My workflow with it is just fine. When it comes right down to the big three, they all print notes on a page, and I doubt the players will care which program printed them. The end result is the same.


----------



## youngpokie

Jett Hitt said:


> You can write Marcato Long in the score for Flute 1, but nothing is going to happen because it doesn't have that articulation, but Flute 2 does. So you can't use the SAME text. It doesn't work.


This is true, of course. But there is also some confusion between the names developers use for articulations and oftentimes the same sample can be used for more than one thing. 

I am using OT Flutes "portato short" for my regular eighth notes (those without any score markings) and portato long for the halfs and quarter notes. In fact, I have _never_ used a specific "portato" marking in the score - partly because no other library I have is using that name. Same with "tenuto" from Spitfire. It's the only library I have that's using tenuto and I think Spitfire's tenuto is not too different from OT's portato. 

With Dorico, I want the same articulation names that I would use for pen and paper, the ones that make sense to me musically, apply across the board and not become just shortcuts for this or that developer. So it made sense for me to go through my samples and think - how would *I* name this on paper if I need to write a marking for this exact sound in the score?


----------



## ed buller

youngpokie said:


> This is true, of course. But there is also some confusion between the names developers use for articulations and oftentimes the same sample can be used for more than one thing.


but it isn't true !..."Marcato long" can play whatever sample you want it too !...It can play a Pizz in the double bass and a trill in a piccolo ! at the same time !...its all up to what you have put in the expression map. 

best

ed


----------



## Jett Hitt

ed buller said:


> Obviously I am NOT telling you that !....please don't add melodrama to you erroneous conclusions. I have said here AND elsewhere (and even given examples) that DORICO ( when using third party libraries ) is miles better than Noteperformer .
> 
> again , you are incorrect. The text CAN trigger different samples. THAT is the power of the system. I think, quite honestly, you haven't yet familiarised yourself with how the expression maps work. Each expression map is unique . YOU assign what sound is triggered by the name. The name can be used on multiple instruments but each expression map is unique. Respectfully , I'd suggest you stop posting about how this software isn't doing what you need it to do and find out that it actually is !!!
> 
> best
> 
> ed


Who is creating drama now? I simply quoted what you said. You said, "Noteperformer works fine." It does not work fine, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation. God, I wish it worked fine.

Do you really think that I don't know that I can trigger any sample with any text? I can call it anything I want to call it, but what I want to call it is what is in the library so that I know what I am working with. I can assign that text to multiple different samples in different maps, but how is it helpful to assign "Portato Long" in the map of an instrument that doesn't have that technique? And how is it helpful to use generic descriptions like "softly"? That doesn't tell you a damned thing about the sample you are using.


----------



## Jett Hitt

youngpokie said:


> This is true, of course. But there is also some confusion between the names developers use for articulations and oftentimes the same sample can be used for more than one thing.
> 
> I am using OT Flutes "portato short" for my regular eighth notes (those without any score markings) and portato long for the halfs and quarter notes. In fact, I have _never_ used a specific "portato" marking in the score - partly because no other library I have is using that name. Same with "tenuto" from Spitfire. It's the only library I have that's using tenuto and I think Spitfire's tenuto is not too different from OT's portato.
> 
> With Dorico, I want the same articulation names that I would use for pen and paper, the ones that make sense to me musically, apply across the board and not become just shortcuts for this or that developer. So it made sense for me to go through my samples and think - how would *I* name this on paper if I need to write a marking for this exact sound in the score?


I can see how this approach would be useful.


----------



## ed buller

Jett Hitt said:


> Who is creating drama now? I simply quoted what you said. You said, "Noteperformer works fine." It does not work fine, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation. God, I wish it worked fine.
> 
> Do you really think that I don't know that I can trigger any sample with any text? I can call it anything I want to call it, but what I want to call it is what is in the library so that I know what I am working with. I can assign that text to multiple different samples in different maps, but how is it helpful to assign "Portato Long" in the map of an instrument that doesn't have that technique? And how is it helpful to use generic descriptions like "softly"? That doesn't tell you a damned thing about the sample you are using.


that would require all sample libraries using the same names consistently for all their articulations ! Again unlikely.
a far better approach would be to have a list of standard articulations as text. Then find the right sounds to go with...what ever they are called ! I respectfully think you are making this harder than it needs to be !


best

ed


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Jett Hitt said:


> I've been using Finale for 30 years. I can do it in my sleep. My workflow with it is just fine. When it comes right down to the big three, they all print notes on a page, and I doubt the players will care which program printed them. The end result is the same.


I don't understand what point you're trying to make in response to me stating the notating workflow on Dorico is what makes it special? Why are you complaining about Dorico if you can do what you need in Finale? The focus of Dorico has never been on playback - they just happen to have more playback features than other notation apps. You're telling people not to buy it _because_ of that "better than most but not like Cubase playback ability"? If you really want complete playback tweaking and configuration ability...write in Finale, export to MIDI, mock up in a DAW. Or if you really want, use the score editor in your DAW.


----------



## Jett Hitt

ALittleNightMusic said:


> I don't understand what point you're trying to make in response to me stating the notating workflow on Dorico is what makes it special? Why are you complaining about Dorico if you can do what you need in Finale? The focus of Dorico has never been on playback - they just happen to have more playback features than other notation apps. You're telling people not to buy it _because_ of that "better than most but not like Cubase playback ability"? If you really want complete playback tweaking and configuration ability...write in Finale, export to MIDI, mock up in a DAW. Or if you really want, use the score editor in your DAW.


I think you should read the thread before you reply.


----------



## sinkd

Jett Hitt said:


> I've been using Finale for 30 years. I can do it in my sleep. My workflow with it is just fine. When it comes right down to the big three, they all print notes on a page, and I doubt the players will care which program printed them. The end result is the same.


Wait, what? I thought you were completely on about realistic playback. I have also been using Finale for 30 years (since v 2.69, circa 1992) and Dorico is blowing me away and increasing my productivity, especially with NotePerformer. Really not sure what your deal is.

Players may or may not care that I can generate parts in Dorico faster than I ever could in Finale. But I sure do!


----------



## Jett Hitt

sinkd said:


> Wait, what? I thought you were completely on about realistic playback. I have also been using Finale for 30 years (since v 2.69, circa 1992) and Dorico is blowing me away and increasing my productivity, especially with NotePerformer. Really not sure what your deal is.
> 
> Players may or may not care that I can generate parts in Dorico faster than I ever could in Finale. But I sure do!


I have more Finale experience than you do because I started with 2.61.😂

The thing about Finale is that I can already use it, and I can use it quite proficiently. Somehow people think that I am advocating for Finale. I am not. Finale is dead. I would never suggest that someone buy it. I have been recommending Dorico for about three years now. You’re not following the conversation. 

From a notation standpoint, Finale remains the more capable of the two. It is the publishing industry standard. But Dorico will soon change that. The advancements being made are pretty astonishing. 

And you’re right, I’d much rather do parts with Dorico.


----------



## Jett Hitt

ed buller said:


> that would require all sample libraries using the same names consistently for all their articulations ! Again unlikely.
> a far better approach would be to have a list of standard articulations as text. Then find the right sounds to go with...what ever they are called ! I respectfully think you are making this harder than it needs to be !
> 
> 
> best
> 
> ed


No, I don't think I am making this harder than it needs to be. It is a given that you will have to create new expression maps for every library if you want to take full advantage of the library. How can you have a standard set of articulations that works with every library? Spitfire has flautandos. Berlin doesn't. Berlin has pattern and rapid legatos. Spitfire doesn't. It would never work well with a standard set of articulations.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Jett Hitt said:


> I think you should read the thread before you reply.


I have.


----------



## ennbr

Jett Hitt said:


> It is a given that you will have to create new expression maps for every library if you want to take full advantage of the library.


Thats not really true you can purchase or download Cubase Expression Maps and then import them into Dorico. There not totally complete at this point but will get you about 90% of the way.


----------



## Jett Hitt

ALittleNightMusic said:


> I have.


I didn't say any of those things you said. If you read the thread, you'd know that I switched to Dorico and have no intention of going back. I never said I could do what I needed in Finale. Notation wise? Sure, Finale is fine. But that is all it does. And I am not telling anyone not to buy Dorico. To the contrary, it is the only notation app that I tell anyone to buy.


----------



## Jett Hitt

ennbr said:


> Thats not really true you can purchase or download Cubase Expression Maps and then import them into Dorico. There not totally complete at this point but will get you about 90% of the way.


I explored this briefly with Marc at babylonwauves, but he advised against it.


----------



## ennbr

I don't know why Marc would advise against using existing Cubase Expression Maps for example I took the Audio Imperia Expression Maps they recently posted on there site imported them into Dorico. It took me most of the way in getting Nucleus, Jaeger, Areia, etc up and running in Dorico.

I then finished the job and created Dorico Play Templates for all of there products. Everything is working except the Percussion I'm missing a step just not sure what I missed at this time.


----------



## Jett Hitt

ennbr said:


> I don't know why Marc would advise against using existing Cubase Expression Maps for example I took the Audio Imperia Expression Maps they recently posted on there site imported them into Dorico. It took me most of the way in getting Nucleus, Jaeger, Areia, etc up and running in Dorico.
> 
> I then finished the job and created Dorico Play Templates for all of there products. Everything is working except the Percussion I'm missing a step just not sure what I missed at this time.


Thank you. This is really good to know. I see Spitfire has expression maps of quite a few libraries. Maybe I will try to import one and see what I get.


----------



## ennbr

And don't forget Spitfire has a Play Template online for if I recall all versions of BBCSO easy to install just drag and drop the temple over the Dorico Hub and it's installed with all the expression maps setup automatically.

It can be then setup as the default Play Temple in Dorico's preferences.


----------



## Jett Hitt

ennbr said:


> And don't forget Spitfire has a Play Template online for if I recall all versions of BBCSO easy to install just drag and drop the temple over the Dorico Hub and it's installed with all the expression maps setup automatically.
> 
> It can be then setup as the default Play Temple in Dorico's preferences.


Thanks. I have it. I have just been trying to use some of my higher-end libraries.


----------



## ennbr

I think one of my favorite features of Dorico are the Play Templates and Endpoint Configurations especially the way they can be loaded quickly to hear different sample libs. Plus the endpoints can be mixed from different libs like what I have for my Audio Imperia Play Template


----------



## dcoscina

@Jett Hitt you should also talk to @Robin who also uses Dorico extensively.


----------



## glyster

With all the buzz about Dorico I was really excited. But they really poured cold water on new users with so many bugs in the 4.0 release. With close to 100 fixes in the first update? That's beta quality. 

If anyone's considering to buy or upgrade, I'd recommend wait for a bit until they fix most of the issues. It's simply not as polished as their other products (cubase/wavelab). I certainly regret to upgrade to 4.0 Pro, but they won't give me my money back.


----------



## ed buller

glyster said:


> With all the buzz about Dorico I was really excited. But they really poured cold water on new users with so many bugs in the 4.0 release. With close to 100 fixes in the first update? That's beta quality.
> 
> If anyone's considering to buy or upgrade, I'd recommend wait for a bit until they fix most of the issues. It's simply not as polished as their other products (cubase/wavelab). I certainly regret to upgrade to 4.0 Pro, but they won't give me my money back.


They are pretty tiny fixes too be fair. I didn’t even notice them !

best
e


----------



## glyster

ed buller said:


> They are pretty tiny fixes too be fair. I didn’t even notice them !
> 
> best
> e


If all I do is input notations, I'll probably be fine. As soon as I venture into their VST integration world, it wasn't long I ran into multiple bugs. Some were fixed in the update, some not yet. Their official forum is a testament.


----------



## dcoscina

ed buller said:


> They are pretty tiny fixes too be fair. I didn’t even notice them !
> 
> best
> e


^ +1


----------



## ed buller

glyster said:


> If all I do is input notations, I'll probably be fine. As soon as I venture into their VST integration world, it wasn't long I ran into multiple bugs. Some were fixed in the update, some not yet. Their official forum is a testament.


i use it JUST for VST . so far no problems

e


----------



## glyster

ed buller said:


> i use it JUST for VST . so far no problems
> 
> e


If that’s the case, before the recent update, as soon as you change VST from Halion SE to something else, it would disconnect the send to the FX channel. And there was no way to reconnect them. This was confirmed and fixed. They also have problem that the meter didn’t update properly, which I also ran into. This is also confirmed and yet to be fixed.


----------



## ed buller

glyster said:


> If that’s the case, before the recent update, as soon as you change VST from Halion SE to something else, it would disconnect the send to the FX channel. And there was no way to reconnect them. This was confirmed and fixed. They also have problem that the meter didn’t update properly, which I also ran into. This is also confirmed and yet to be fixed.


and this is worth asking for your money back ? As you are stuck with it I implore you to spend time with it. It's a fantastic program. 

best

e


----------



## glyster

I haven’t lost hope. I like the direction it’s going. There isn’t many alternatives out there. But I want to be more objective here. Because so many good things are said about Dorico. For new users it has to meet some very high expectations. And that’s dangerous for anything to be praised so much. I am being critical to push the devs to make it better.


----------



## ed buller

glyster said:


> I haven’t lost hope. I like the direction it’s going. There isn’t many alternatives out there. But I want to be more objective here. Because so many good things are said about Dorico. For new users it has to meet some very high expectations. And that’s dangerous for anything to be praised so much. I am being critical to push the devs to make it better.


I hear you , but they really Don't need a push. Trust me !...they are working very hard on this. It's kinda a one off really and I'm surprised nobody else has tried it. But they designed this from the bottom up. It's NOT a CUBASE spinoff. And even though a lot of the team are EX Sibelius , they saw this as a chance to create the definitive Score software...that also is a DAW...it's been ten years since they broke ground. They spent a year just on the FONT !!!!! 

best

e


----------



## dcoscina

ed buller said:


> i use it JUST for VST . so far no problems
> 
> e


I was going to say, if anyone can vouch for the real-time or performance aspects of Dorico, it would be you Ed.


----------



## dcoscina

glyster said:


> I haven’t lost hope. I like the direction it’s going. There isn’t many alternatives out there. But I want to be more objective here. Because so many good things are said about Dorico. For new users it has to meet some very high expectations. And that’s dangerous for anything to be praised so much. I am being critical to push the devs to make it better.


Heaven forbid we have a thread that doesn't have as much criticism as the rest of them on this forum...


----------



## Leigh

A wise friend used to say, "Expectations are the seeds of resentment."

My brother used to say, "Expect the worst and be pleasantly surprised."

**Leigh


----------



## Jett Hitt

There is no way around it, this release was premature so that Steinberg could test its licensing before releasing Cubase 12. And Daniel flat out said so in his post. The Tempo and Dynamic editors are outright missing, and the velocity editor does not work properly. I had a nice note from Daniel stating that they were hard at work on the velocity editor and hope to set it right in the next update.

I have put Dorico aside for the short term until these items are functioning properly, but I did quite a lot of work building expression maps for my OT libraries. The potential is just incredible. I won't know how well it all works until the updates are complete, but I am optimistic that this could replace my DAW. It may be that it is still necessary to export to my DAW to put on the finishing touches, as some of the editors seem a bit primitive--but I won't truly know that until I see it completed. In any case, I am quite optimistic about my future with Dorico. It is just not quite ready yet, but soon. . . .


----------



## HappyLion

Wow, I don't remember any applications where the developers publicly admitted they released a beta version of their software costing nearly £500. More bafflingly, they decided to work on and release v2 for iPad instead of fixing the obvious deficiencies of the desktop application. Looking at the official forum, version 4 seems to be the worst release in terms of bugs and crashes so far. The same is true for the iPad release.

It seems that Steinberg is not very committed about Dorico as a product if they are happily sacrifice a major release of it as a testing ground for Cubase.


----------



## gyprock

HappyLion said:


> Wow, I don't remember any applications where the developers publicly admitted they released a beta version of their software costing nearly £500. More bafflingly, they decided to work on and release v2 for iPad instead of fixing the obvious deficiencies of the desktop application. Looking at the official forum, version 4 seems to be the worst release in terms of bugs and crashes so far. The same is true for the iPad release.
> 
> It seems that Steinberg is not very committed about Dorico as a product if they are happily sacrifice a major release of it as a testing ground for Cubase.


Comments like these are total rubbish coming from a new member that joined 59 mins ago. I've been using Dorico since v1 and am amazed how committed the Dorico team have been in bringing the product to what will very soon (if not already) the leading Notation product on the market.


----------



## Daniel S.

Welcome to the forum, HappyLion. You've certainly hit the ground running! Makes me wonder who you might be behind your mane...

This is quite a mischaracterisation of the situation, and about as conspiratorial a reading as you could muster.

We in the Dorico team actively campaigned to be the first product out of the gate to use Steinberg Licensing. Our product has suffered in comparison to its main competitors in terms of the flexibility of its licensing system, and we took the first opportunity we could to leave eLicenser behind and give our users the chance to use the new activation system, which we have also been deeply involved in building. It is in all of our interests if Steinberg Licensing is successful, as it will remove one of the few remaining reasons why someone might legitimately choose one of our main competitors instead of Dorico.

Another benefit of Dorico going first is that it allows us a larger set of users than our relatively small set of beta testers (numbering in the hundreds) who were the first people outside of Steinberg to get a chance to use the new system, but smaller than the tens of thousands of people who will update to Cubase 12 within days of its release. It's sensible and pragmatic to use a product with a smaller userbase than Cubase to ensure that everything will go as smoothly as possible when Cubase 12 arrives.

As a company, we agreed that we wanted to leave a certain amount of time between Dorico 4's release and Cubase 12's release, to ensure that we had sufficient time to take action on anything that required attention. The reality of any business is that there are bills to pay and targets to make, and of course Cubase is a very significant part of Steinberg's business, so we in the Dorico team were very willing to set our schedule to support the Cubase 12 release, for the greater good.

I'm also happy to stand behind the quality of Dorico 4 when it released. It is our largest release to date, with new functionality and changes across the whole application. We fixed hundreds of bugs and issues in the course of its development, and had dozens more queued up for release by the time Dorico 4.0 was available. We then reacted very quickly to reports of issues and were able to fix the vast majority of them within two weeks of release, resulting in last week's Dorico 4.0.10 release. It is curious to chastise us for fixing bugs quickly. Any sophisticated software has bugs – but not every application has a team willing to communicate so transparently about them, and to address them so quickly.

The issue that is causing people consternation – and rightly so – is that some of the Play mode functionality was not present in Dorico 4 at the time of its initial release, and of course in this particular community those features are among the most important in the software. We have been transparent and up-front about it throughout, and published information on our blog and on the documentation that ships with the software explaining the omissions and limitations, and committing to closing those gaps as quickly as possible. We are in the process of doing so, and over the course of the next couple of updates (the next of which is just two or three weeks away) those gaps will be closed.

Across Dorico's incredibly broad audience, there are other communities of users for whom those Play mode features are of less overall significance. All things considered, we had to make a judgement call about shipping the software, and although of course I would have preferred to have been able to take additional time to close those gaps before the initial release, when taken as a whole, I believe we've played our hand as best we can.

Dorico is available for three platforms: macOS, Windows, and iPadOS. We develop all three versions hand-in-hand, from the same code, with the same tools. It was our ambition to ship Dorico for iPad 2.0 on the same day as Dorico 4.0 for macOS and Windows to reinforce that we consider all three operating systems our target platforms. In the end, we needed a little more time, but you should not characterise the fact that Dorico for iPad 2.0 was released yesterday as the team deciding to down tools on Dorico for macOS and Windows immediately after Dorico 4.0 was released in order to focus on the iPad version. It's simply not true.

You should have no doubt about the Dorico team's commitment to our products, or about Steinberg's commitment to Dorico. It is no small thing to staff up a completely new team and put them to work for several years building a new application to go up against two entrenched rivals, with an up-and-coming free and open source application nipping at everyone's heels, and to fund that team for more than four years before seeing even a single penny of return on that investment. Steinberg has demonstrated nothing *but* commitment to the Dorico team and to the product, and that commitment is bearing fruit. Dorico 4 has been well-received by its existing users (I think it has been the best-received of any of its updates, in fact), and is already attracting even more new users from competing products. Dorico for iPad is the highest-rated music notation and composition app on the App Store.

We're certainly not claiming that Dorico is perfect, or that there aren't things about the Dorico 4 and Steinberg Licensing launches that could have gone better, but I'm incredibly proud of the work we have done as a team, and continue to do. We are not resting on our laurels, that's for sure. Dorico has made bigger, more significant strides in its five years on the market than our rivals have in the ten years since we were chewed up and spat out the purple people eating company. Just watch us go.


----------



## Robin

I can only confirm that the transparency, dedication and communication that the Dorico team shows is unsurpassed by any other software I have ever used and should be a role model for any developer.

Just the other day I was having an email exchange with Daniel about an issue in Dorico that was bothering me personally and he did not only take time to reply but had a deep dive into the code to isolate the issue and confirmed that the next update would behave as expected in my case. Try getting hold of any developer of Dorico's competitors in such a way and you will even more appreciate the work ethics shown by the Dorico team.


----------



## sinkd

glyster said:


> I haven’t lost hope.


Well that is a relief, anyhow.


----------



## dcoscina

Robin said:


> It feels very much like personal vendetta for whatever reason.


Sorry I took my post down. I think Daniel’s response is good enough. I’m all for feedback to developers but some days it seems the virtriolic entitlement by some is far too destructive and not really aiming to help improve these tools. They are tantamount to a child holding their breath until they get their way… 

Oh and like you Robin, if I have some issues with something, I contact the developer either through their support avenues or, because I’m in music retail and have some connections to various developers, direct communicating. I don’t think airing out my issues on a public forum is good form. My 2 cents…


----------



## sinkd

Daniel S. said:


> Welcome to the forum, HappyLion. You've certainly hit the ground running! Makes me wonder who you might be behind your mane...
> 
> This is quite a mischaracterisation of the situation, and about as conspiratorial a reading as you could muster.
> 
> We in the Dorico team actively campaigned to be the first product out of the gate to use Steinberg Licensing. Our product has suffered in comparison to its main competitors in terms of the flexibility of its licensing system, and we took the first opportunity we could to leave eLicenser behind and give our users the chance to use the new activation system, which we have also been deeply involved in building. It is in all of our interests if Steinberg Licensing is successful, as it will remove one of the few remaining reasons why someone might legitimately choose one of our main competitors instead of Dorico.
> 
> Another benefit of Dorico going first is that it allows us a larger set of users than our relatively small set of beta testers (numbering in the hundreds) who were the first people outside of Steinberg to get a chance to use the new system, but smaller than the tens of thousands of people who will update to Cubase 12 within days of its release. It's sensible and pragmatic to use a product with a smaller userbase than Cubase to ensure that everything will go as smoothly as possible when Cubase 12 arrives.
> 
> As a company, we agreed that we wanted to leave a certain amount of time between Dorico 4's release and Cubase 12's release, to ensure that we had sufficient time to take action on anything that required attention. The reality of any business is that there are bills to pay and targets to make, and of course Cubase is a very significant part of Steinberg's business, so we in the Dorico team were very willing to set our schedule to support the Cubase 12 release, for the greater good.
> 
> I'm also happy to stand behind the quality of Dorico 4 when it released. It is our largest release to date, with new functionality and changes across the whole application. We fixed hundreds of bugs and issues in the course of its development, and had dozens more queued up for release by the time Dorico 4.0 was available. We then reacted very quickly to reports of issues and were able to fix the vast majority of them within two weeks of release, resulting in last week's Dorico 4.0.10 release. It is curious to chastise us for fixing bugs quickly. Any sophisticated software has bugs – but not every application has a team willing to communicate so transparently about them, and to address them so quickly.
> 
> The issue that is causing people consternation – and rightly so – is that some of the Play mode functionality was not present in Dorico 4 at the time of its initial release, and of course in this particular community those features are among the most important in the software. We have been transparent and up-front about it throughout, and published information on our blog and on the documentation that ships with the software explaining the omissions and limitations, and committing to closing those gaps as quickly as possible. We are in the process of doing so, and over the course of the next couple of updates (the next of which is just two or three weeks away) those gaps will be closed.
> 
> Across Dorico's incredibly broad audience, there are other communities of users for whom those Play mode features are of less overall significance. All things considered, we had to make a judgement call about shipping the software, and although of course I would have preferred to have been able to take additional time to close those gaps before the initial release, when taken as a whole, I believe we've played our hand as best we can.
> 
> Dorico is available for three platforms: macOS, Windows, and iPadOS. We develop all three versions hand-in-hand, from the same code, with the same tools. It was our ambition to ship Dorico for iPad 2.0 on the same day as Dorico 4.0 for macOS and Windows to reinforce that we consider all three operating systems our target platforms. In the end, we needed a little more time, but you should not characterise the fact that Dorico for iPad 2.0 was released yesterday as the team deciding to down tools on Dorico for macOS and Windows immediately after Dorico 4.0 was released in order to focus on the iPad version. It's simply not true.
> 
> You should have no doubt about the Dorico team's commitment to our products, or about Steinberg's commitment to Dorico. It is no small thing to staff up a completely new team and put them to work for several years building a new application to go up against two entrenched rivals, with an up-and-coming free and open source application nipping at everyone's heels, and to fund that team for more than four years before seeing even a single penny of return on that investment. Steinberg has demonstrated nothing *but* commitment to the Dorico team and to the product, and that commitment is bearing fruit. Dorico 4 has been well-received by its existing users (I think it has been the best-received of any of its updates, in fact), and is already attracting even more new users from competing products. Dorico for iPad is the highest-rated music notation and composition app on the App Store.
> 
> We're certainly not claiming that Dorico is perfect, or that there aren't things about the Dorico 4 and Steinberg Licensing launches that could have gone better, but I'm incredibly proud of the work we have done as a team, and continue to do. We are not resting on our laurels, that's for sure. Dorico has made bigger, more significant strides in its five years on the market than our rivals have in the ten years since we were chewed up and spat out the purple people eating company. Just watch us go.


Daniel,

You saintly patience is surpassed only by your commitment to the product and to user support. Cheers and thanks. as ever.

Damon


----------



## Jett Hitt

Daniel has been very transparent and communicative. I also don’t know another developer with whom you can interact in the same way.


----------



## ed buller

Jett Hitt said:


> Daniel has been very transparent and communicative. I also don’t know another developer with whom you can interact in the same way.


Yup, special folk the Dorico Folk

e


----------



## PhilA

I have nothing to add but agreement in the sheer brilliance, transparency and dedication of Daniel and the Dorico team. I work (and have worked in) enterprise IT for over 30 years, in all that time I’ve never had as good support as I get from the Dorico team. A large number of big software houses should take note and learn from Daniel and his team.


----------



## Vlzmusic

If the next iteration of Noteperformer will stay with the current hosts - F/S/D, Dorico will surely get a healthy flow of new customers, probably myself included. The last thing I want is to get back to Sibelius


----------



## aeliron

Daniel S. said:


> It is no small thing to staff up a completely new team and put them to work for several years building a new application to go up against two entrenched rivals, with an up-and-coming free and open source application nipping at everyone's heels, and to fund that team for more than four years before seeing even a single penny of return on that investment. Steinberg has demonstrated nothing *but* commitment to the Dorico team…



An amazing gamble, and a great reminder of the huge risks these companies take to create something they hope customers will appreciate (and support with their pocketbooks).

Worth remembering before we jump to conclude they are just “evil capitalist villains” just trying to squeeze us dry 😅 (although such do exist)


----------



## joebaggan

Well Dorico happened to get staff from one of the entrenched rivals so certainly had insider knowlege of the competitor's product inside and out, so it wasn't such a long shot to think that a competitor could be surpassed. And those entrenched rivals happened to be products that haven't been in active development really, or put significant resources into their products for many years. I mean, Dorico is the pretty much the only one of the 3 that has been in active development over the last few years, which gives them the advantage that they are the one company in the field actually doing something currently!


----------



## Vlzmusic

joebaggan said:


> Well Dorico happened to get staff from one of the entrenched rivals so certainly had insider knowlege of the competitor's product inside and out, so it wasn't such a long shot to think that a competitor could be surpassed. And those entrenched rivals happened to be products that haven't been in active development really, or put significant resources into their products for many years. I mean, Dorico is the pretty much the only one of the 3 that has been in active development over the last few years, which gives them the advantage that they are the one company in the field actually doing something currently!


Sorry, a few BUT here:

1) That competitor has been on the market for so long, that "insider knowledge" would be the least of their worries.
2) It WAS in active development - on another platform. Probably still is.
3) There is more to the score notation market than these 3. And Dorico does have competition, especially on that other platform.


----------



## joebaggan

As a developer myself, if you work for a company for a long time and get to see the codebase on a daily basis, it becomes very clear what the limitations are and how to do things better, especially given that tech changes so quickly that even 5 year old code often looks laughably ancient compared to current tech/practices. I'm sure even Steinberg looks at the earliest code they wrote in Dorico and would do things differently now some years later ( e.g. they just re-wrote the Play functionality that was only written a few years ago - hindsight is a powerful thing ). The fact that Dorico employees/developers worked for their main competitor gave them a huge advantage in understanding requirements, how things were done, and how to do things better. It's why some large companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft have non-compete agreements with their employees.


----------



## Vlzmusic

joebaggan said:


> As a developer myself, if you work for a company for a long time and get to see the codebase on a daily basis, it becomes very clear what the limitations are and how to do things better, especially given that tech changes so quickly that even 5 year old code often looks laughably ancient compared to current tech/practices. I'm sure even Steinberg looks at the earliest code they wrote in Dorico and would do things differently now some years later ( e.g. they just re-wrote the Play functionality that was only written a few years ago - hindsight is a powerful thing ). The fact that Dorico employees/developers worked for their main competitor gave them a huge advantage in understanding requirements, how things were done, and how to do things better. It's why some large companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft have non-compete agreements with their employees.


I didn't say there wasn't an advantage, but having experience and talent, and eventually moving on with your life, is a different story.
The older company has had several generations of geek users who knew all ins and outs of the program, created additional scripts and plugins for it etc. Barely Hollywood "lets sneak out this cutting-edge knowledge elsewhere" type of situation.


----------



## jbmaxwell

joebaggan said:


> Very surprising that Dorico would release a new version that leaves out or breaks things that were working before. That's software dev 101 right there - it's called Regression Testing - don't break what was working before.
> 
> And this from Steinberg:
> 
> "I don't expect users to care about our internal issues, but we needed to release Dorico 4 when we did in order to get the initial version of Steinberg Licensing out into the hands of customers so that we could check that it is properly battle-hardened before the forthcoming release of Cubase 12"
> 
> Seriously, you're using Dorico users as tester guinea pigs for another Steinberg product, and you're charging users a handsome fee for the privilege too? I don't know how that could be considered acceptable. That is what a QA test team is for ( who are presumably being paid for the work! )


Nobody has to buy the x.0 release of any piece of software; if something from 3.5.n isn't available in 4.0 then don't upgrade. Also, the x.0 release of any piece of software is always glorified beta.


----------



## ptram

joebaggan said:


> The fact that Dorico employees/developers worked for their main competitor gave them a huge advantage in understanding requirements, how things were done, and how to do things better.


It must be said, however, that the other company changed all the software developers (two times), the product manager (two times), the company's top management. There shouldn't be anything left of the old practices. All that's still there is a lot of very old code.

Paolo


----------



## pinki

Long time Notion user here as it's always been the _composition_ notation software. 

But I just noticed Dorico now has 'Insert Mode' which has piqued my interest as this is the very thing that makes Notion so wonderful for composition and why I've tried all the big names and always gone back to Notion. When you are composing music as opposed to transcribing or arranging etc..insert mode is the way to go. Just my thoughts...


----------



## Robin

pinki said:


> Long time Notion user here as it's always been the _composition_ notation software.
> 
> But I just noticed Dorico now has 'Insert Mode' which has piqued my interest as this is the very thing that makes Notion so wonderful for composition and why I've tried all the big names and always gone back to Notion. When you are composing music as opposed to transcribing or arranging etc..insert mode is the way to go. Just my thoughts...


Insert mode has been in Dorico for a long time. They just expanded its functionality in version 4.0


----------



## pinki

Robin said:


> Insert mode has been in Dorico for a long time. They just expanded its functionality in version 4.0


Ah OK, I guess I've not been keeping up. I demoed version 1 of Dorico and moved on, so maybe i need to take another look.


----------



## dcoscina

pinki said:


> Ah OK, I guess I've not been keeping up. I demoed version 1 of Dorico and moved on, so maybe i need to take another look.


oh it has by miles... I wasn't knocked out by V1 but by the time they got to 3.5, I was hooked. 

V4 is even better!


----------



## ptram

pinki said:


> I demoed version 1 of Dorico and moved on, so maybe i need to take another look.


You'll see they added a couple features - or some more - since then!

Paolo


----------



## pinki

ptram said:


> You'll see they added a couple features - or some more - since then!
> 
> Paolo


Sure thing. It wasn't ready for prime time if I recall correctly. Anyhow, good to see it's progressing.


----------



## jbmaxwell

No version 1.0 application has ever been "ready for prime time" when measured against the current industry leader(s). I recall that I didn't actually _switch_ from Finale to Sibelius until version 4 (and even then I remember missing some features).


----------



## tressie5

After years of experimenting with Sibelius and Finale, and only coming up with minor ditties, I gave Dorico a looksee and, so far, I'm liking it, especially since it contains a much sought element I've been craving for years - a snap to key/scale function. It's funny how Dorico looks nothing like Cubase/Nuendo. I don't know its history but I'm guessing it was software acquired by Steinberg who then added their own functionalities?


----------



## dcoscina

tressie5 said:


> After years of experimenting with Sibelius and Finale, and only coming up with minor ditties, I gave Dorico a looksee and, so far, I'm liking it, especially since it contains a much sought element I've been craving for years - a snap to key/scale function. It's funny how Dorico looks nothing like Cubase/Nuendo. I don't know its history but I'm guessing it was software acquired by Steinberg who then added their own functionalities?


Steinberg hired all of the old Sibelius team when Avid turfed them. Dorico has been built from the ground up under Steinberg. It was never ported over…


----------



## tressie5

In that case, I'm doubly impressed. There is a learning curve; luckily, it does have some Cubase architecture in it such as both user manuals clocking in at 1500 pages each! Could be worse. Could've been a notation version of Halion 6. In that case, it'd take me forever to learn it. Could do without trying to remember Dorico's shortcuts, though. I'm not a young whippersnapper anymore so my memory isn't as sharp.


----------



## DaddyO

tressie5 said:


> I'm not a young whippersnapper anymore so my memory isn't as sharp.


What are we to do when we realize the old adage "We are too soon old and too late smart!" should be "We are too soon old and the young guys are smarter than I am too!"

(Not saying that is true for you.)


----------



## Daryl

tressie5 said:


> In that case, I'm doubly impressed. There is a learning curve; luckily, it does have some Cubase architecture in it such as both user manuals clocking in at 1500 pages each! Could be worse. Could've been a notation version of Halion 6. In that case, it'd take me forever to learn it. Could do without trying to remember Dorico's shortcuts, though. I'm not a young whippersnapper anymore so my memory isn't as sharp.


Get yourself a Stream Deck. Problem solved.


----------



## tressie5

@Daryl - You just gave me an idea. Given that I'm on a fixed income, a Stream Deck is a little out of my price range at the moment. However, I already own a Nektar Impact LX88+. Maybe I can map Dorico controls to those on my keyboard? I'll investigate now.


----------



## tressie5

Yay! It worked. Problem solved. Using Dorico's Key Commands I was able to map pitch directions to Impact's drum pads. I can now die a happy man.


----------



## Rudianos

Awaiting my heavily discounted Dorico crossgrade via Best Service. Long time Finale lover, expert user. That platform really isn't going anywhere. What can I look forward too?


----------

