# Exhausted with Finale -- is Dorico the answer?



## JohnG

What do you think?

I usually am importing a midi or MusicXML file from Digital Performer as a starting point to orchestrate in Finale. I have been using Finale for over 20 years and its workflow remains frustratingly clumsy.

If I'm importing a MusicXML file, how is Dorico as an orchestration / parts extraction platform?

Thank you,

John


----------



## jamwerks

Hi John,

I can't speak to the Music XML translation into Dorico, but the dealing with parts is one of the strong points.

It's conceived a bit like DP is that you (can) have a master project file that contains many smaller movements or cues. You'll save yourself a lot of time on that end...


----------



## mducharme

My main complaint about handling parts in Dorico is the collision detection for system spacing - I end up having to turn it off for parts and resolve the collisions by moving things myself. I really want to see them improve this, because either way it is time consuming to deal with.


----------



## prodigalson

Long time pro finale and sibelius user here. Tried Dorico on a project recently and it's really very impressive. It feels like the first notation software actually developed in the 21st century. There are some things that are perplexing initially especially coming from mindsets firmly informed by Finale and Sibelius but once you start to get your head around how they're thinking about notation it's actually kind of a dream. I was shocked at how quickly I got up and running writing pretty fluently and actually was almost at the point where it actually felt like "handwriting" much more so than Finale or even Sibelius. 

I can't speak towards the XML to Dorico workflow yet but Steinberg just released a couple of videos on youtube where Alan Silvestri talks about his workflow going back and forth from Cubase to Dorico and the features that Dorico has that make it easy. Worth a watch


----------



## JohnG

The last week I've been lucky to be orchestrating for a 90 piece orchestra, plus choir, plus rhythm section, and Finale does get the job done. But having to move practically every dynamic or hairpin around a little to make it go where I want is just getting really old.


----------



## prodigalson

JohnG said:


> The last week I've been lucky to be orchestrating for a 90 piece orchestra, plus choir, plus rhythm section, and Finale does get the job done. But having to move practically every dynamic or hairpin around a little to make it go where I want is just getting really old.



Well then you might just love dorico and never look back. Not only does dorico have the magnetic layout/automatic collision avoidance that Sibelius has but it has multi-edit where for example you can add things like dynamics etc to many staves at once. Granted Sibelius added that a year or so ago but Dorico takes it one step further: you can link and unlink dynamics etc so that if you move one they all move...or not


----------



## mducharme

The thing that is problematic in Dorico with the collision avoidance in parts is that it bases its decision for spacing between staves based on the default positioning of objects.

As an example, suppose you have a rehearsal marker above a system that collides with a dynamic below another. Dorico's collision avoidance increases the spacing between those two systems so that it won't collide. That part works fine. The problem is that now, to fix that unnecessary extra spacing between systems, what you naturally want to do is move the rehearsal marker perhaps a bit closer to the lower system or the dynamic closer to the upper system (or both). The problem is in this case Dorico does not adjust the spacing between the systems, so now there are two systems further apart for no apparent reason on the page, which looks stupid.

To fix this spacing without turning off collision avoidance, you need to move that system (and, individually, every system below it on that page) a bit higher. This is time consuming. The negative aspect of this (as I discovered) is that any editing whatsoever resets the spacing to default. So you can't even go in and respell a note from C# to Db without losing all of the custom spacing settings, and the part looking stupid again.

If you turn off collision avoidance in parts, then if you make minor edits like note spelling changes you only need to manually adjust the one or two problematic systems, instead of everything below that point on the page. You still do lose custom spacing adjustments obviously, but in this case there are fewer staves that needed their spacing adjusted.

Sibelius's algorithms for this are better at the moment. I'm still glad I moved to Dorico (because I save time in other areas), but I think they really need to fix this.


----------



## cmillar

I use DP as well, and will have to try some exporting/importing to Dorico.

After being all over the map between my likes and dislikes of Sibelius vs Finale over the last year, and thinking I should maybe get back into Finale after using Sibelius for several years...I got the Dorico trial, and after 2 days of using it said "That's it!" to myself.

Dorico....love it....
- standard music fonts are great...don't have to spend hours customizing things
- chord symbols....love how they work and how super-easy to tweak anything (but, you don't have to do much)
- excellent version of 'Simple Entry'...new and improved
- very interesting Playback features if needed; NotePerformer works great; you can mix out stems for further improving of music for demos
- great implementation of 'properties', 'popovers', cues, layout tools,
- default settings can pretty much be left alone!
- etc. etc. etc.

I've just been wanting something to feel comfortable; like pencil and paper. I can see Dorico approaching that and I'm just scratching the surface. (...but, I'll never ditch a pencil and manuspcript for getting initial inspirations going)

I'm not an Alan Silvestri, not a Broadway copyist or big-time commercial publishing company or anything...my needs are really pretty simple....and Dorico is heaven-sent. (....I'm a free-lance musician composer/arranger/trombonist writing music for my own projects in different genres and doing some commissions for other performing groups; and scoring work for smaller independent film/video people where I'm basically a one-man show for the overall production)....but I play with great musicians who have given me great feedback on their views of what 'reads' best for chord changes, etc. etc......which had me re-considering Finale....but, life's too short....Dorico saves hours and hours of drudgery! And Sibelius is starting to look like a bad video game. Dorico is actually making me like notation software again!

Everything I've moved over in MusicXML has been easy to clean up when sent from Sibelius of Finale. Some small things to deal with, but worth it.

I say try Dorico!


----------



## jamwerks

You can turn off collision avoidance on a per item basis (in the properties in the lower pane) which usually solves problems. For extremely tight and full pages you'll see in professional publishing it's not 100% effective yet, but for most film music it's perfect.

In the scores I would like to be able to show the bar numbers in more than one place which is not yet possible unfortunately. But is easily done in Acrobat.


----------



## JohnG

These are great comments.

For those who've switched, how long does it take to start moving at a decent speed?


----------



## JohnG

cmillar said:


> ...but, I'll never ditch a pencil and manuspcript for getting initial inspirations going



Yep; nothing faster, not only because you can scribble down quickly, but because you don't get the mental interference of "oh, that French Horn patch is not quite right...." [ten minutes later] "...where was I again...?"


----------



## jamwerks

John, I spent 2 full days with the manual & and YouTube channels always open, and was then able to start working.

Dorico is pretty deep & can seem overly complex at times, but it's really a complexity that in the end simplifies. The Dorico forum is pretty active and any questions are usually quickly answered. I shot about 10 of them there in the first week, and that was a huge help. The manual is well written, but doesn't always have all the answers to someone who is learning!


----------



## JohnG

jamwerks said:


> John, I spent 2 full days with the manual & and YouTube channels always open, and was then able to start working.



Sounds worth it then. Feels as though I sometimes take 2 full days to find which unintuitively-named "tool" or sub-pulldown menu you need in Finale for a very ordinary purpose!

One other question -- is it easy to replicate some of the key combinations from Sibelius or Finale into Dorico? Example: Using articulation tool in Finale, if you hold down the '2' key and drag across a series of notes, accent marks appear on all of them.


----------



## jamwerks

Yes, there are literally hundreds of key-commands that you can assign in Dorico.

Although the one area that Dorico is maybe a little slower than Finale on the data entry level is adding text (Arco) and arts. There's probably one click more needed in Dorico, but that time is made up in the other areas.

I'd also suggest an assignable multi-button mouse. Once you get working (editing) you'll be alternating between two modes (write & engrave) all the time. Better to have that done with your mouse hand leaving the other free for other commands!


----------



## JohnG

jamwerks said:


> I'd also suggest an assignable multi-button mouse. Once you get working (editing) you'll be alternating between two modes (write & engrave) all the time. Better to have that done with your mouse hand leaving the other free for other commands!



Good tip -- thanks


----------



## stigc56

I have taken the jump from Finale - Sibelius and now Dorico, I don’t think you will regret it. The XML import works really well.


----------



## JohnG

Thanks Stig and everyone who chimed in.

Waiting for my crossgrade authorisation and then I'm in. I have a lot of music to orchestrate this year and am hopeful this will help.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

JohnG said:


> Thanks Stig and everyone who chimed in.
> 
> Waiting for my crossgrade authorisation and then I'm in. I have a lot of music to orchestrate this year and am hopeful this will help.



Please let us know how it works for you, John. Following this thread with interest...


----------



## JohnG

marclawsonmusic said:


> Please let us know how it works for you, John. Following this thread with interest...



I will probably have to defer my actual launch for some weeks as I'm in the middle of a project that I started with Finale, but I'll get back to this thread.

Thanks again everyone.

Kind regards,

John


----------



## mducharme

jamwerks said:


> Although the one area that Dorico is maybe a little slower than Finale on the data entry level is adding text (Arco) and arts. There's probably one click more needed in Dorico, but that time is made up in the other areas.



Really? I don't remember Finale being noticeably faster in that area. What method are you using to enter text like "arco" in Dorico?


----------



## jamwerks

mducharme said:


> Really? I don't remember Finale being noticeably faster in that area. What method are you using to enter text like "arco" in Dorico?


As you know Finale has the advantage of libraries of text and arts that we can assign a key to. So putting in that text is really just a one-click ordeal. In Dorico (iinm), it would be a click (on a note) then keystroke for staff text, then type "arco" (or click "arco" in the right-hand pane. Have you found a faster way?


----------



## Ben

I moved from Sibelius to Dorico when I was working on the second edition of a choral book with ~300 songs. Still was worth the effort to export and import everything, because I could directly export as printable PDF, without the need for saving everything as eps, merging in InDesign and then finalizing in Acrobat. And the score layout was way better too, without much manual work.

@JohnG : I've created a cheat-sheet for Dorico a while back. Maybe this will make it easier for you to learn the new key-commands. You can find it here: https://github.com/bbelius/notation/tree/master/Dorico2_2


----------



## JohnG

@Ben that is quite something. A bit daunting how long it is, but thanks for posting.

John


----------



## Ben

You will just need the basic set with the most common short-cuts and the short-cuts for the popups. The popup input is mostly intuitive. This makes it easy to remember.


----------



## prodigalson

JohnG said:


> These are great comments.
> 
> For those who've switched, how long does it take to start moving at a decent speed?



Honestly, it only took me persevering about an hour of hands on work before I began to feel like I was actually writing music. Again, some things will seem to stump you initially and it will seem frustrating because you expect it to work like finale or sibelius but once you get a handle on the basics and how they think about notation it becames exponentially easier. And I have to say that once I got my head around a certain feature that I initially found frustrating, almost every time I realized that actually I preferred it that way. 

An example: notes that are tied are considered ONE music item. i.e. move one note in a sequence of tied notes and they all move. change an accidental on one and they all change. want to add a hairpin to just one note in a sequence? good luck, the hairpin will stretch the whole sequence of notes. silly right? WHY would you ever want every single note in tied sequence to behave the same way. Well, once I figured out how to deal with that - simply hit U on one of the notes and all ties will disappear allowing you to edit as you wish - I realized just how much actually having all the notes in a tied sequence genereally behave the same way was saving me time. 

But be prepared to have your google and youtube at the ready. There really isn't a huge learning curve.


----------



## JT

mducharme said:


> Really? I don't remember Finale being noticeably faster in that area. What method are you using to enter text like "arco" in Dorico?


Using Finale's metatools makes adding text quite fast.Even in the default document, pizz is assigned "p' as a metatool and arco is assigned "o". Just hold the correct letter key down and one click on a note puts it in place.


----------



## mducharme

Yes I used the metatools years ago, but I didn't have them all memorized. I used the ones for dynamics of course. I didn't start composing orchestral music until after I moved to Sibelius, so speed wasn't a big problem.

I'm not sure that Dorico is going to add anything like metatools, but the keypresses with the popovers can be decreased by shortening the popover text. For instance, you could assign pizz to "p" instead of "pizz" and then press Shift-P p ENTER ENTER to get pizz. Not quite as fast, but still saves a bit of time vs. the default entry method.

Another option that will become more interesting is the use of Macros. Currently the problem is that you can only have one Macro recorded at a time. But for instance, you can record adding the "pizz." technique as a macro and then add it to another note by choosing the option to run previous script. If they had the ability to run named scripts with hotkeys, you could create a script for each articulation, assign each one a different hotkey, and then you could very quickly add certain articulations.


----------



## JT

Another Finale shortcut that a lot of people don't know about.

Let's say you need to add "marcato" text to all woodwinds in an orchestral score. You probably won't have a metatool for marcato, so you go through the various keystrokes and add it to the top woodwind staff. Now you need to add marcato to the 11 woodwind staves.

While you're still in the expression tool with the marcato text selected, press opt-down arrow. It adds marcato to the next staff. If you hold opt-and press down arrow 11 times really fast, all the woodwinds will get that text.

Same thing works copying text from the bottom up, just use the up arrow.


----------



## mducharme

In Dorico you could copy and paste the marcato text to all 11 staves just by selecting all 11 with shift->down arrow and paste (if you copied the text at first). A little bit longer, but still reasonably fast.

The grouped/linked dynamics in Dorico save some time. I remember how much time I used to have to spend in Finale (that was with Finale 2012) aligning hairpins with dynamics.


----------



## JT

mducharme said:


> The grouped/linked dynamics in Dorico save some time. I remember how much time I used to have to spend in Finale (that was with Finale 2012) aligning hairpins with dynamics.


 The TGTool Align/Move plugin aligns hairpins and dynamics quickly. I do hate Finale's aligning hairpins with specific beats. I always have to adjust them because I think they should end slightly before the barline. But once I've adjusted the first hairpin, I can right click and align all hairpins in a measure to the one I've adjusted.


----------



## Parsifal666

JohnG said:


> What do you think?
> 
> I usually am importing a midi or MusicXML file from Digital Performer as a starting point to orchestrate in Finale. I have been using Finale for over 20 years and its workflow remains frustratingly clumsy.
> 
> If I'm importing a MusicXML file, how is Dorico as an orchestration / parts extraction platform?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> John



I've used Finale since 2006 and it is indeed a pain in the butt. I kind of forsook it in the past few years because I stepped up my game in writing midi. At this point I might never go back from Cubase.


----------



## cmillar

I find that between the actual Dorico key commands, maybe editing a few of them, and also using 'Keyboard Maestro' in conjunction with Dorico.....that I'm able to duplicate any 'Sibelius-like' custom keystrokes I got used to. (I have an external keypad for my left hand while my right hand is on my MIDI keyboard when entering notation or when trying to do some composing right in the software.)

I created a custom (Keyboard Maestro) key command to enter/exit 'note input' mode instantly with the 'return' key (so I can switch note-input off, noodle around, and then come right back into it. And, I can use the '+' or '-' keypad keys to move the 'orange chosen note' forward or backward and then entering 'note input' instantly wherever I want. Much faster than Sibelius, and more precise. 

But I also like the way Dorico has 'popups' (like for Dynamics, typing in 'shift-<' and then extending with 'shift-alt-arrow right' (and other popup commands with text as well for other functions). I'm taking the advice of others and trying to immerse myself into the Dorico 'paradigm' and retrain the brain. 

Between the YouTube channel videos, the Steinberg support (...Daniel Spreadbury and the other developers are actually there to answer questions!), Facebook users group, etc......I'm off to a good start on Dorico. 

Also!....so easy to find, copy, and move any key command preferences, other preferences, etc. from one computer to the other. They're where you expect to find them.... in Users/Library/Application Support....not in several different places or numerous folders. Again...just a little time saver and stress reliever.


----------



## SillyMidOn

Interesting thread. 

The thing that has stopped me so far from jumping from Sibelius to Dorico is that I have many, many older scores in Sibelius (and am familiar with Sibelius, even if I find it frustrating), and if I don't keep paying my subscription I will eventually not be able to open them anymore. At least it is my understanding that I cannot import Sibelius scores to Dorico (other than through Xml), or am I wrong?


----------



## Ben

Only via MusicXml (or Midi). Sibelius uses a proprietary file format, so no way they can support this (the fileformat changes after each update).
But there is a script in Sibelius to export a folder full of scores to XML. This speeds up the process.


----------



## Dewdman42

some of you might find this interesting, just heard about it today...

https://www.nycmusicservices.com/no...5ZWo_rSJgPbWGNr7Z6E0Kzr2D8WhsY1cCMYCZJXM_bPpw


----------



## mducharme

JT said:


> The TGTool Align/Move plugin aligns hairpins and dynamics quickly. I do hate Finale's aligning hairpins with specific beats. I always have to adjust them because I think they should end slightly before the barline. But once I've adjusted the first hairpin, I can right click and align all hairpins in a measure to the one I've adjusted.


Dorico has a special "end before barline" optional setting for hairpins that end on the first beat of the following bar. It can be set individually or as a global default.


----------



## Desire Inspires

It works for *Alan Silvestri:

*


----------



## JT

mducharme said:


> Dorico has a special "end before barline" optional setting for hairpins that end on the first beat of the following bar. It can be set individually or as a global default.


That does sound nice. Dorico is tempting, but all of the music production companies I work with, use Finale. I could learn Dorico now to prepare for the future, but I'm a lot older than the average VI member, I'm not sure I want to bother learning a new notation app.


----------



## Desire Inspires

JT said:


> I could learn Dorico now to prepare for the future, but I'm a lot older than the average VI member, I'm not sure I want to bother learning a new notation app.



That is exactly the reason you should learn Dorico.

You have wisdom, so just add Dorico to your skill set to grow even wiser.


----------



## Saxer

JT said:


> That does sound nice. Dorico is tempting, but all of the music production companies I work with, use Finale. I could learn Dorico now to prepare for the future, but I'm a lot older than the average VI member, I'm not sure I want to bother learning a new notation app.


I belong to the older ones too (58) and learning Dorico is a good experience. Keeps the brain fresh.


----------



## cmillar

Ha! Yes...being of that age group too, I spent hours experimenting with different pencils, leads, paper, pens, ink, erasers, etc. etc. (....and, I still do...notation software is still a pale imitation of what's possible with pencil/paper for getting what's out of your brain onto a score for initial musical thoughts)

Having bought and used Sibelius, Finale, and now finally sticking to Dorico....I'm glad to have all the past experiences from the viewpoint of being both a player and a composer/arranger.

It's a great tool! A great stress-reliever...., and does keep the brain fresh. 

But, in a great way. I find it much more intuitive and natural to use instead of the other notation programs at my point in life/career.

And I haven't even scratched the surface of what's available as far as the DAW aspects of Dorico are yet. Keeps life interesting!


----------



## whiskers

Does Dorico have any integration with cubase (e.g. import cubase projects to help auto fill a Dorico score?)

Guessing not, but figured I'd ask.


----------



## jamwerks

whiskers said:


> Does Dorico have any integration with cubase (e.g. import cubase projects to help auto fill a Dorico score?)
> 
> Guessing not, but figured I'd ask.


At present I don't this so. But I can imagine that at some point, Cubase would get a new score editor essentially lifted from Dorico, at which time import-export might become a reality.

I can't help but think that 5-6 years ago when Steinberg-Yamaha invested in Dorico, they were thinking of 10 years down the line when that would happen...


----------



## Saxer

It's not a direct connection from Cubase. But you can already import a lot. Tempo list, midi notes, keys, meters, controllers and markers via midi file and written notes via MusicXML. As a Logic user I'm happy this formats are not restricted to Cubase/Steinberg world.


----------



## whiskers

Saxer said:


> It's not a direct connection from Cubase. But you can already import a lot. Tempo list, midi notes, keys, meters, controllers and markers via midi file and written notes via MusicXML. As a Logic user I'm happy this formats are not restricted to Cubase/Steinberg world.


Gotcha. I figured I wouldn't want to start from scratch in score editor after writing in cubase. Otherwise why not use a cheaper (kludgier) alternatives like musescore for few instruments


----------



## Saxer

whiskers said:


> Gotcha. I figured I wouldn't want to start from scratch in score editor after writing in cubase. Otherwise why not use a cheaper (kludgier) alternatives like musescore for few instruments


I don't know how good MusicXML export from Cubase works. Importing it from Logic into Dorico works really fine except text and chord symbols. So everything notated in Logic opens in Dorico including ties, accents, note length... even polyphonic drums, slashed note heads and 2stem-instruments like pianos. For fewer instruments Dorico Elements might be an alternative. But if you are fine with Cubase note editor or MuseScore: why spend money?


----------



## whiskers

Saxer said:


> I don't know how good MusicXML export from Cubase works. Importing it from Logic into Dorico works really fine except text and chord symbols. So everything notated in Logic opens in Dorico including ties, accents, note length... even polyphonic drums, slashed note heads and 2stem-instruments like pianos. For fewer instruments Dorico Elements might be an alternative. But if you are fine with Cubase note editor or MuseScore: why spend money?


Yeah, I might only buy if it was in sale, just curious. Just wondering if you could select a track from your DAW to export to Dorico for a score view without much rework. Though I understand why it's not really easy to do


----------



## Saxer

whiskers said:


> Yeah, I might only buy if it was in sale, just curious. Just wondering if you could select a track from your DAW to export to Dorico for a score view without much rework. Though I understand why it's not really easy to do


Dorico doesn't work linke a score editor inside Cubase. You can im- and export like I wrote but it's dealing as a separate app with it's own timeline, file structure, key commands and learning curve. I don't think it will ever be an integrated part with full function range. The tasks are too different and even the key commands of Dorico are in the same quantity as in Cubase. Notation apps are used by a lot of people who doesn't care for DAW functions at all (like engravers and publishers). I could imagine they will implement a faster exchange between Cubase and Dorico and probably a parallel timeline. Maybe a score editor similar to Dorico. But I don't think both apps will work as one.


----------



## JohnG

whiskers said:


> Just wondering if you could select a track from your DAW to export to Dorico for a score view without much rework. Though I understand why it's not really easy to do



well -- at the risk of mentioning ideas of which you are probably already aware, most higher-end DAW programs have a "score view" or "notation view" or something that is not bad. I have mine open constantly in Digital Performer, for example.

It's easy to export a MusicXML file and that imports very nicely into Finale; I would guess it also does (maybe someone already confirmed that it does -- sorry) into Dorico?


----------



## MrCambiata

I record piano parts with Digital Performer because of its wonderful transcription engine and import the xml files into Dorico. Works great.


----------



## DocMidi657

Can any Dorico /Logic Users tell me if Dorico will import markers created in Logic and the exported as XML into Dorico? Unless I am doing something wrong I have not been able to get markers to come up in Finale after I have exported an XMl file out of Logic.


----------



## BlackDorito

Saxer said:


> I belong to the older ones too (58) and learning Dorico is a good experience. Keeps the brain fresh.


58? ... still a pup.

I fired up the Dorico Pro (latest version) 30-day trial for the first time this week. I want to love Dorico, given that the playback features (my main concern with Sibelius .. as shared in a separate thread recently) seem better designed for driving modern VI libraries - but performance of this version is a problem. I think I will love Dorico when I learn it better, but as far as the playback features go, I'll be loving the next major version. [I'm happy to see there are expression maps, many imported from Cubase format, for many of the major libraries] 

Below is what Steinberg replied to my first-impression issues (my email to them is below it). Of course, these playback concerns need to be tempered with all the many fine things people have already mentioned about Dorico.
-----
Hello Chris,

Thank you for providing your feedback about Dorico.

We are aware of the slow performance of the Mixer and improving that is something that we are hoping to address in our next major version; we understand the nature of the performance problem and have some ideas about how to solve it, so we are hopeful that we'll be able to improve this substantially soon.

There's a small bug in the UI of the Endpoint Setup dialog that means you cannot assign more than four ports at the moment, but this will certainly be addressed in our next release.

When you end up with just a number showing in the Endpoint Setup dialog instead of the name of an instrument, it's because that instrument is no longer found in the project. Although it would mean losing any other manual setup you may have done, you can resolve this by resetting the default playback template.

You can hide unused outputs for plug-ins using the options at the bottom of the Endpoint Setup dialog.

Improving the setup of complex playback templates involving third-party sound libraries is one of the chief focuses of the work we are doing on the playback side of the product in advance of the next major version, and I think you will find these improvements useful when they arrive in due course.

Steinberg Support
------
My original email to Steinberg Support:

Subject: Dorico issues
Description: Hello,

I have recently downloaded the latest version of Dorico Pro 2 trial to determine if it can replace Sibelius for me. I have a moderately large score that I imported using MusicXML - 50 staves, 250 bars. I am driving eight VST instances of VE Pro which are talking to a slave system.

First of all let me compliment you on all the wonderful training videos - I've watched a lot and have many more to go.

Below are my issues and suggestions - please take these in the spirit of first impressions of how Dorico could make it easier for new users. I am investigating whether I can switch mainly due to the lack of DAW playback features in Sibelius - so my issues (so far) have nothing to do with notation/engraving and everything to do with driving a large slave template of Spitfire, Orchestral Tools, Cinematic Studio, etc. VI libraries.

Issues:

- Dorico seems to be very slow. I have a powerful Windows 7 PC with lots of memory and yet I am often (indeed, usually) waiting for the completion of simple interactions. The mixer is particularly slow. Dorico seems to be constantly saving a copy (slowly) which interrupts my progress.

- it seems I can specify a maximum of 4 devices for a Vienna Ensemble Pro VST instrument in the Endpoint dialog ... this is a bit restrictive.

- the Endpoint dialog (called from the VST rack) sometimes shows a number instead of an instrument name ... not sure why.

- I have not figured out the Mixer yet except that it seems particularly unusable for a few reasons:
+ unacceptably slow: horizontal scroll is very slow when there are many channels; audio latency (between hitting a note and seeing the level meter jump on the channel strip) is huge, totally non-realtime.
+ no control over hiding individual channel strips, except by type.
+ there seem to be many audio channels labeled "HSSE" that I don't use. I will not ever use the HALion libraries. If I add an instance of Kontakt 6 as a VST instrument into Dorico, then add extra outputs within Kontakt and route the loaded .nki instrument to the extra outputs, they seem to be routed to the HSSE2, HSSE3, etc. channels ... is this explained anywhere?


Suggestions:

- it is very inconvenient that I cannot rename instruments in the VST rack to say "Winds", "Brass", etc. instead of "Vienna Ensemble Pro" for all of them. I have eight VE Pro instruments and it is not always easy to tell which orchestral sections are attached to them - they appear identically in Dorico.

- Allow user-supplied names for each channel strip in the mixer. I particularly like the way Reaper handles track/channel display.


- it seems the Endpoint dialog would be a good place to select/specify the instrument linkage ... but you cannot do it there, you can just set the Expression Map. If nothing else, give a message on how to do it.

- if you require me to establish a time signature before creating new bars, don't just silently not do it - tell me.

Any helpful suggestions would be appreciated,


----------



## Saxer

DocMidi657 said:


> Can any Dorico /Logic Users tell me if Dorico will import markers created in Logic and the exported as XML into Dorico? Unless I am doing something wrong I have not been able to get markers to come up in Finale after I have exported an XMl file out of Logic.


It doesn't import markers via MusicXML (at least not in my test). But if I import a tempo track exported from Logic as a midi file I can import Logic's markers. 
So exporting MusicXML and Midi file from Logic and importing MusicXML and tempo track (using the Midi file) into the same Dorico project imports notes, tempo, markers.


----------



## DocMidi657

Saxer said:


> It doesn't import markers via MusicXML (at least not in my test). But if I import a tempo track exported from Logic as a midi file I can import Logic's markers.
> So exporting MusicXML and Midi file from Logic and importing MusicXML and tempo track (using the Midi file) into the same Dorico project imports notes, tempo, markers.


Thanks Saxer!


----------



## dcoscina

JohnG said:


> These are great comments.
> 
> For those who've switched, how long does it take to start moving at a decent speed?


I was initially resistant to Dorico but I totally dig it now. Pretty quick to move around on after a week use and doesn't rely on the number pad the way Sibelius does. Easy for laptop composing as well. Very impressed with it especially in use with Note Performer.


----------



## mducharme

whiskers said:


> Does Dorico have any integration with cubase (e.g. import cubase projects to help auto fill a Dorico score?)
> 
> Guessing not, but figured I'd ask.



Yes, but it is not much. At the moment you can drag and drop MIDI regions from Cubase into Dorico. However, I don't necessarily think that that is any more useful than exporting and importing MIDI.


----------



## Jimbo88

Hey How is Rewire? Can you rewire Dorico into Cubase. I do that easily with Cubase-Sibelius.


----------



## mducharme

Jimbo88 said:


> Hey How is Rewire? Can you rewire Dorico into Cubase. I do that easily with Cubase-Sibelius.


Not yet supported.


----------



## BlackDorito

Update after one week of Dorico Pro ... bringing over a score from Sibelius that drives Spitfire and Cinematic Studios (Brass, Strings). Many good things to say, especially the ability to switch easily between Write mode and Play mode - wonderful. J

However, to share some of the more recent impediments I've encountered (since my previous whines):

*harp glissandi* - easy to show in the score, but how do you specify the playback? [Sibelius has an awesome plug-in that allows you to specify the scale you will run up & down]
*Muting and Soloing* - unclear how to mute/solo individual MIDI track sends to VSTi instruments. The documentation & videos seem to be related to earlier versions and don't work. Sibelius makes it fairly intuitive to audition just a few selected tracks/instruments from anywhere in the score.
*CC lane* - make it horizontally resizable (as it is in Reaper, Cubase and other DAWs) so we can draw curves more accurately. [It's great that we can do this at all ... not easy in Sibelius] Also, since only one can be displayed, how do we remember which CC's are sending values on this track? Need to somehow show which CC's we've drawn curves on.
*Chase* - haven't figured out how to specify that CC values and Techniques should be chased. Huge problem .. can't imagine that Dorico would not do this. Hoping it is my ignorance.
*Expression Maps* - more simplistic than Cubase. This makes it easier to use ... and less useful. No way to specify that a 'dynamic' marking is implemented with a keyswitch - e.g. switching to 'sfz' for CSBrass - because 'sfz' is a dynamic, not a 'technique' in Dorico. Several other head-scratchers which I won't bore you with. Furthermore, no way to specify 'global' techniques - e.g. to create a track-initialize technique (set initial volume/pan/mod/expression/mics on a channel) - that could be used on every channel independent of instrument. This is simple to do in Sibelius using the Dictionary.
*Playback Options* - velocity curves should be instrument-specific. If you have tuned the dynamics of multiple instruments over several hundred bars, and then add a new instrument that needs a unique vel-curve, you can't risk changing the global vel-curve.
If I am wrong on any of the above, please let me know ... it will help me immensely. Meanwhile I will keep pressing for answers from Steinberg.


----------



## JohnG

Thanks for the details -- not focused especially on playback other than to check notes, but I realise I am possibly in the minority.

Very helpful though!


----------



## BlackDorito

Sadly, following is a note I just sent to Steinberg Support. If you care deeply about playback and driving a large and diverse set of VI libraries directly from Dorico (like a DAW), be careful and expect frustration.
---
John,

I'm giving up for the time being ... Dorico simply is not ready for prime time re. playback. I am wasting all sorts of time maneuvering around issues I don't have with Sibelius. Your Expression Map feature is just not working at the level of a professional tool at this point. It does not chase controllers/keyswitches correctly and I can see it in the MIDI stream. No matter what Playback techniques I define, it seems to think that it is always in Natural mode and doesn't bother to send the commands. Not chasing controllers correctly absolutely destroys my ability to tune/mix my piece and to create effective swells, crescendos, etc.

It's back to Sibelius for me. Please emphasize to your developers that effective playback is a key element of the attractiveness of Dorico and they should fix all playback bugs, improve the mixer and make the Expression Map feature more like Cubase for version 3.0.

Regards,
Chris


----------



## Elephant

Thanks Chris - very useful and specific. If that is what is going on, then +1 from me. 

By the way, has the latest version got any other colour schemes than white/grey/black ? For me a major problem was that even the light theme was illegible in comparison to Sib. Tiny typeface, and insufficient contrast.


----------



## BlackDorito

Well, I'm no expert on Dorico, but I don't know that it has the equivalent of Reaper, i.e. lots of colorful and configurable UI themes floating around. Since I have a 4K main screen and lots of music/audio software is delivered with gray themes I often find myself struggling to find a scroll bar or to know exactly where the mouse is. [Windows does allow you to increase the size of your mouse pointer] Regarding font sizes .. the bar numbers displayed in Play mode are particularly small. I find myself dragging the Dorico window over to my secondary display (2K res) in order to see things.


----------



## Michael Antrum

Dewdman42 said:


> some of you might find this interesting, just heard about it today...
> 
> https://www.nycmusicservices.com/no...5ZWo_rSJgPbWGNr7Z6E0Kzr2D8WhsY1cCMYCZJXM_bPpw



I started out with Notion, and then went to Sibelius, but I really dislike the Sibelius GUI. Stuff is all over the place and makes little sense to me. So I recently moved over to Dorico, and so far it is just clicking with me.

I've just bought streamdeck XL and I am really liking it. I was about to start work on creating my own profile for Dorico, but this will save me a ton of time. I am hoping they will update it for the bigger XL.


----------



## cmillar

Agreed....after being on Dorico the last 2 months (...and after 20 years of Finale/Sibelius)....I can't go back to the other programs. 

I'm loving the Dorico presets keystrokes, and program some other in 'Keyboard Maestro'.

All's good!


----------



## JohnG

cmillar said:


> after being on Dorico the last 2 months (...and after 20 years of Finale/Sibelius)....I can't go back to the other programs.



What about your copyist?


----------



## cmillar

JohnG said:


> What about your copyist?



You mean me? (...as pretty much my own copyist?)

Years ago (when there were still pen, velum, paper, real score and parts, etc.) I was a young pro musician looking for extra work, so I did some music copying for others in the '80's.

Painstaking work for me, as I would have rather have been doing my own charts and music, and I wasn't really that great a hand copyist; but, maybe a tad better than some scribble I often had/have to play!

So, I quit copying for others because of my own expectations.

In my brain and imagination, I'd be walking the streets of Toronto and I'd worked out a software program that would translate hand copying into a computer program...(but this was all in my imagination!) Would sit in many coffee shops thinking about something that would save time and, most importantly, be legible for sight reading.

Wow, if I'd had connections I could have started up a software company that would be a combination of 'Music Staff/Notation/Dorico/Sibelius' !


----------



## Jacob Moss

Simply put: Yes, Dorico is the answer. Though it is a younger program the potential is far greater.


----------



## DMiram

JohnG, have you considered the new Perfect Layout plug-in for Finale? 
It works excellently on MusicXML imported files, doing all the collision removal and fine-tuning of the layout automatically. Still lots of parameters to adjust - if you need them.

They have many examples and demo videos on their homepage, also on MusicXML import.








Perfect Layout for Finale® - Examples


The Ultimate Finale® Plug-in



elbsound.studio


----------



## Jaap

I have been using Finale since I started on the conservatory in 1997, but got interested in Dorico when it was announced, but held back for a while to see how it would evolve.
This week I made the switch and gosh, so far it feels really really good. I must say the transition so far does not seem to be that difficult, but maybe it helps that I use Cubase already for a long time.

I am having a commisioned work for a follow up for a music theatre production that I wrote 3 years ago and will now carry on with Dorico and actually looking forward to it.

Also for my daily composing work I see a bright future as I still love to work with notes and I find the note editor in Cubase a bit a pain and I am now setting up a VEP template that the transition of scores from Dorico to Cubase will be a smooth transition. I could have done the same with Finale, but dunno, always held me back, but with all the recent improvements in Dorico I look forward to this.


----------



## JohnG

I think as soon as Dorico becomes used by copyists I will look at a switch. In the mean time, although I'm not keen on orchestrating my stuff I'm even less keen on copying parts. Therefore, any switch is going to have to come when the copyists give me the green light.

Ironically, the guys who are copying my project right now all use Sibelius so I had to quickly learn that.

Definitely will check out the Perfect Layout plugin for Finale -- thanks @DMiram


----------



## gussunkri

Curious about Dorico but am I right in thinking that there is no demo or trial version?


----------



## BlackDorito

Steinberg has said the trial version of Dorico 3 will be out in a few weeks.


----------



## Dave Connor

gussunkri said:


> Curious about Dorico but am I right in thinking that there is no demo or trial version?


I just asked for a demo license a few days ago and they sent one straight away. (You need elicensor and dongle.) Dorico 2


----------



## ptram

Elephant said:


> has the latest version got any other colour schemes than white/grey/black ? For me a major problem was that even the light theme was illegible in comparison to Sib. Tiny typeface, and insufficient contrast.


On the Mac, I’ve switched to the clear mode, and everything is now much more readable.

Paolo


----------



## JJP

JohnG said:


> Ironically, the guys who are copying my project right now all use Sibelius so I had to quickly learn that.



Your copyists required you to orchestrate in a different program?!  Yikes!

We do our copy work in Finale, but regularly have people send us scores in Sibelius or even hand-written. Sometimes it's various formats from different orchestrators on the same project. It's our job to make the parts from their file. We can't be asking the orchestrators to change the way they work.


----------



## JT

JJP said:


> Your copyists required you to orchestrate in a different program?!  Yikes!
> 
> We do our copy work in Finale, but regularly have people send us scores in Sibelius or even hand-written. Sometimes it's various formats from different orchestrators on the same project. It's our job to make the parts from their file. We can't be asking the orchestrators to change the way they work.


This!


----------



## Guillermo Navarrete

Hello,



gussunkri said:


> Curious about Dorico but am I right in thinking that there is no demo or trial version?



As mentioned above, currently you can Demo Dorico 2 and the trial for Dorico 3 will be available in a couple of weeks. 

https://www.steinberg.net/en/products/steinberg_trial_versions/dorico 

Best regards,
GN


----------



## JohnG

JJP said:


> Your copyists required you to orchestrate in a different program?!  Yikes!
> 
> We do our copy work in Finale, but regularly have people send us scores in Sibelius or even hand-written. Sometimes it's various formats from different orchestrators on the same project. It's our job to make the parts from their file. We can't be asking the orchestrators to change the way they work.



lol -- Finale is not used by this team -- they are in Europe and it's kind of a package situation. To be fair, the guys working for me here don't use it either. I've been a bit shocked that MusicXML exported from Finale can't always be opened in Sibelius at all. Besides that, there have been some odd missing-in-action accidentals in Finale itself, when using transposing instruments, that I can't quite explain.

Of course you're right that the copyist normally does whatever one asks and works with whatever. But it's a changing world and I just keep changing to try for the best result.

It's an unusual situation -- recording in Los Angeles, Tokyo and Europe. Nobody uses the same sized paper (of course); in Tokyo they don't even use a standard Japanese size for the parts. So the amount of flexibility required is not inconsequential.


----------



## JJP

JohnG said:


> It's an unusual situation -- recording in Los Angeles, Tokyo and Europe. Nobody uses the same sized paper (of course); in Tokyo they don't even use a standard Japanese size for the parts. So the amount of flexibility required is not inconsequential.



John, I know you are a true professional who makes sure everything is done right. That's why it pains me to hear that copyists don't take this off your plate. I'm also replying for the benefit of everyone else reading this.

Software and paper sizes shouldn't be your problem. We just did orchestration and copying for some projects for live performance and recording in SE Asia. We had the composer put us in contact with the orchestra manager or librarian and we coordinated everything regarding printing from there. It would have been unprofessional of us to put that on the composer. That is why we are being paid. The composer hands off materials to us, and shouldn't have to worry about anything after that.


----------



## JohnG

JJP said:


> John, I know you are a true professional who makes sure everything is done right. That's why it pains me to hear that copyists don't take this off your plate. I'm also replying for the benefit of everyone else reading this.
> 
> Software and paper sizes shouldn't be your problem. We just did orchestration and copying for some projects for live performance and recording in SE Asia. We had the composer put us in contact with the orchestra manager or librarian and we coordinated everything regarding printing from there. It would have been unprofessional of us to put that on the composer. That is why we are being paid. The composer hands off materials to us, and shouldn't have to worry about anything after that.




You are 100% right, as always!

Most of the time I wouldn't even review the orchestrations, let alone the copies. This is the rarest of opportunities -- a "real" symphony orchestra is recording seven pieces for a project I'm on. Regular performing orchestras, naturally, are accustomed to scores that have been around often for a hundred years or so, and they are perfect-ish. The kinds of vagaries that session players see in parts are unfamiliar and risk tilting their caps in a bad direction, so I've checked everything humanly possible.

But...
...they are rehearsing(!) And they are ludicrously good players, who know each other and play together all the time.

Apart from that there is almost four hours of additional music we'll be recording.

It's not infrequent for composers to say how honoured they are to be hired on jobs, but this one really _is_ an honour; it's a spectacular bull's-eye that hits a bunch of my interests and inclinations, musically and otherwise.

Consequently, as you might imagine, I am trying to avoid leaving anything to chance.


----------



## JJP

JohnG said:


> You are 100% right, as always!



I think that statement is 100% wrong and I'm confident 100% right about that. 😜


----------



## mducharme

JohnG said:


> Besides that, there have been some odd missing-in-action accidentals in Finale itself, when using transposing instruments, that I can't quite explain.



When I've encountered missing accidentals like this, it is usually because they are hidden somehow. You might need to run some kind of plugin in either Finale or Sibelius to restore the accidentals to their defaults (shown or hidden).


----------



## JohnG

mducharme said:


> When I've encountered missing accidentals like this, it is usually because they are hidden somehow. You might need to run some kind of plugin in either Finale or Sibelius to restore the accidentals to their defaults (shown or hidden).



You may be right but holy $#^#@ what a mess these programs are? I mean, every five minutes when something isn't working, if I go on Youtube or just do a search, the solution is this or that plugin.

*What's Wrong With You People???*

These are pretty expensive pieces of software that, at least in Finale's case, have been around over 25 years. 

It's ludicrous to have to squirrel around the internet and start downloading bits of code from who-knows-who to make basic functionality (like spacing of score elements) halfway decent. The menus make zero-zilch-no sense. Why not "articulations" or "dynamics" or "slurs and ties" as titles, instead of the goofy ones they have come up with? And why is it that expressions that people almost never use are right in the top of some of the menus, while really, really common items are nested???? 

I've been doing music a long time and it would be SO HANDY if they would JUST USE the terminology that is in common use among -- ahem -- musicians.


----------



## ptram

JohnG said:


> if they would JUST USE the terminology that is in common use among -- ahem -- musicians.


Oh, so, now the musicians pretend to make the rules about music software?!? Tsk!


----------



## mducharme

JohnG said:


> You may be right but holy $#^#@ what a mess these programs are? I mean, every five minutes when something isn't working, if I go on Youtube or just do a search, the solution is this or that plugin.



Well you have really hit on what the biggest problem is. If you build the software wrong for the beginning it can be extremely difficult to fix later. The core architecture of both Finale and Sibelius were both created in a very short-sighted away (Finale particularly). They both did the simplest implementation they could from the beginning to get the job done and get the program to market as quickly as possible. Then somebody wants a new feature - they ask what is the quickest and easiest way to add that feature? Oh lets make a quick plugin addon and get it out of the way. Then they do that for the next new feature, and the next, instead of improving the core of the program.

After many years of doing this, what do they end up with? The core of the program still doesn't have that many features, but they have a giant patchwork quilt mess of plugins that really act as temporary workarounds instead of fixing it the proper way. At this point, fixing it becomes quite difficult, because if they refactor to bring some of these plugin features into the core of the product, and greatly improve those features, the problem is that existing files may not convert properly.

For instance, once you add a certain specific feature like "piano pedaling" into a product, it is really hard to say "you know, we designed this pedaling feature poorly, let's remove it and rewrite it from scratch" because now how do you convert all of the existing files done with the old badly written feature so that those pedal marks show up correctly? It can be quite difficult. So instead of rewriting, they try to address issues with even more workarounds. Once you have a feature, you are pretty much stuck with that implementation due to the work of rewriting.

This is a problem for Finale moreso than Sibelius but both are impacted. It is like if you spend years digging a big hole in the ground, but then you decide you really didnt pick the best place to dig. It is too much work to move the hole, so you try to make your existing hole work.

Dorico has a different design ideology - they are not adding features unless they are sure they are implementing the feature in the best possible way and have a plan for the future. For instance, version 1.0 couldn't even do piano pedal markings. Instead of throwing in a half-baked feature and then not being able to improve upon it (for possibility of breaking older pedal markings), they waited until version 2 where they could do a really full featured pedal system. They didn't allow arrows ex for articulations (essential for contemporary classical music, for instance ord ---------> sul tasto) at first so until version 3 you had to use an arrows font and then it wasn't right in the part etc. Then in version 3 they made the best articulations transition feature where you can just literally select the notes, type ord->sul tasto, and you get ord and an arrow and sul tasto, and they are linked so that if you move the sul tasto the arrow still points at it.

They are trying to do it the right way from the start instead of running into the same pitfalls as Finale and Sibelius, and so they really have a better long term strategy in that regard. The only downside for the current users is certain features, instead of being implemented in a very basic way, simply aren't there at all (although thankfully that number is getting smaller). But I much prefer that to having the big mess of plugins that you need with other software.


----------



## joebaggan

mducharme said:


> They are trying to do it the right way from the start instead of running into the same pitfalls as Finale and Sibelius, and so they really have a better long term strategy in that regard. The only downside for the current users is certain features, instead of being implemented in a very basic way, simply aren't there at all (although thankfully that number is getting smaller). But I much prefer that to having the big mess of plugins that you need with other software.



I think you're confusing the new thing with the best thing, but Dorico is far from having all the features of Finale/Sib at this point. Not to say it won't eventually, but just because it's new code and built in 2019 doesn't necessarily mean it's better and that it's going to have the legs to last as long as its competitors. We've all seen the new thing become the old thing pretty quickly. As for features being not complete. the Dorico Playback fucntionality is as half baked as it gets, and Dorico isn't much different from any other business that needs to get features to market fast, it will cut corners sometimes, whether it be Playback or the dreadful thing it released as 1.0.


----------



## mducharme

joebaggan said:


> I think you're confusing the new thing with the best thing, but Dorico is far from having all the features of Finale/Sib at this point.



IMO, It is quite close to feature parity with Sibelius now. But Finale? No. I switched from Sibelius to Dorico last year after having used Sibelius since 2012, and used Finale before Sibelius, so I have experience with all three. That includes creating full orchestral scores and parts etc. for live performance.

They have cut corners (1.0 was unusable because too many features were not implemented at all), but not where it counts in the long term. Where they cut corners is not implementing features at all instead of implementing features half-baked. If they implement the feature in a poorly thought out way, and they have to rebuild it from scratch, then you end up having conversion issues with old files. Most companies at this point will just leave the poorly thought out implementation in place and try to patch it to make it better, or introduce plugins to handle awkward situations.

I think one reason that playback hasn't been developed as quickly is that they can build it in stages without running into conversion issues later - because aside from the playback template, the note lengths etc are just MIDI data, making conversion quite simple. For other features, if they add them at all, they are stuck with that implementation for the long term. At least we have NotePerformer.


----------



## JohnG

mducharme said:


> playback



I am not fussed about playback even one little bit. If it can play a basic sine wave so you can check pitches great but otherwise, there's Logic, DP, Cubase, Reason etc. for that.


----------



## Bollen

mducharme said:


> Well you have really hit on what the biggest problem is. If you build the software wrong for the beginning it can be extremely difficult to fix later. The core architecture of both Finale and Sibelius were both created in a very short-sighted away (Finale particularly). They both did the simplest implementation they could from the beginning to get the job done and get the program to market as quickly as possible. Then somebody wants a new feature - they ask what is the quickest and easiest way to add that feature? Oh lets make a quick plugin addon and get it out of the way. Then they do that for the next new feature, and the next, instead of improving the core of the program.
> 
> After many years of doing this, what do they end up with? The core of the program still doesn't have that many features, but they have a giant patchwork quilt mess of plugins that really act as temporary workarounds instead of fixing it the proper way. At this point, fixing it becomes quite difficult, because if they refactor to bring some of these plugin features into the core of the product, and greatly improve those features, the problem is that existing files may not convert properly.
> 
> For instance, once you add a certain specific feature like "piano pedaling" into a product, it is really hard to say "you know, we designed this pedaling feature poorly, let's remove it and rewrite it from scratch" because now how do you convert all of the existing files done with the old badly written feature so that those pedal marks show up correctly? It can be quite difficult. So instead of rewriting, they try to address issues with even more workarounds. Once you have a feature, you are pretty much stuck with that implementation due to the work of rewriting.
> 
> This is a problem for Finale moreso than Sibelius but both are impacted. It is like if you spend years digging a big hole in the ground, but then you decide you really didnt pick the best place to dig. It is too much work to move the hole, so you try to make your existing hole work.
> 
> Dorico has a different design ideology - they are not adding features unless they are sure they are implementing the feature in the best possible way and have a plan for the future. For instance, version 1.0 couldn't even do piano pedal markings. Instead of throwing in a half-baked feature and then not being able to improve upon it (for possibility of breaking older pedal markings), they waited until version 2 where they could do a really full featured pedal system. They didn't allow arrows ex for articulations (essential for contemporary classical music, for instance ord ---------> sul tasto) at first so until version 3 you had to use an arrows font and then it wasn't right in the part etc. Then in version 3 they made the best articulations transition feature where you can just literally select the notes, type ord->sul tasto, and you get ord and an arrow and sul tasto, and they are linked so that if you move the sul tasto the arrow still points at it.
> 
> They are trying to do it the right way from the start instead of running into the same pitfalls as Finale and Sibelius, and so they really have a better long term strategy in that regard. The only downside for the current users is certain features, instead of being implemented in a very basic way, simply aren't there at all (although thankfully that number is getting smaller). But I much prefer that to having the big mess of plugins that you need with other software.


I've never really thought of that... I feel bad now about all the criticism I gave them from the beginning...


----------



## JohnG

Bollen said:


> I've never really thought of that... I feel bad now about all the criticism I gave them from the beginning...



I think we can all agree to blame you, personally, for any software notation deficiencies, real or imagined.


----------



## BlackDorito

mducharme said:


> Well you have really hit on what the biggest problem is. If you build the software wrong for the beginning it can be extremely difficult to fix later. The core architecture of both Finale and Sibelius were both created in a very short-sighted away (Finale particularly).


Being myself a developer of software that renders music notation, I can tell you the layout issues are devilishly complex, particularly if you want to render multiple voices on one staff. What the developers of Encore, Finale, Notion, Sibelius and Dorico (and others) have accomplished in that arena is amazing and easy to take for granted. Now, retooling your internal data structures, classes and algorithms to incorporate new capabilities is an unfortunate fact of software life and is a good indicator of future commitment.

On top of that, now that we are used to good music notation layout ... for those of us that want to compose in notation, and hear a good mockup directly from the notation tool, we need the next amazing step - flexibly driving VI libraries. In my view, Sibelius playback is pretty darn good ... but the Sound ID system they developed simply did not work out to a level that handles modern VI libraries. Still, I can make it work. Meanwhile, the Dorico 2 playback capability is simply not there yet - it does not chase controllers correctly, it has a complex/buggy system of defining score markings to trigger articulation changes or CC# control, it has a simplistic expression map capability, it has editing issues wrt. controller lanes ... it's simply NOT THERE YET. 

As soon as the Dorico 3 eval is available, I'm going to check it out on a project. I still believe my future is Dorico ... when it has the playback capabilities of Cubase.


----------



## Ivan M.

BlackDorito said:


> Being myself a developer of software that renders music notation



I'm curious if you use programmatic / automated testing, or does it all have to be manual for notation software?


----------



## BlackDorito

Test automation is a godsend for software developers but I don't use it in my situation because I am generating notation from MIDI. Simple scripts would allow me to see that any generated layout matched the 'correct' layout simply by comparing graphics files ... but any change to the layout algorithm could invalidate all the tests, so I do it visually. And I don't need to worry about interactively moving items around the layout .. I can't imagine how anyone could easily automate testing for 'correct' interactive behavior.


----------



## SymphonicSamples

I loved Finale but haven't used it for years, I stopped doing music a long way back now, but still read the forum from time to time. But this was from over 6 years back now when I was developing it, it's a real-time recording of a Finale 2012 score playing back using the Finale Library Extensions . All instrument dynamics controlled by standard score markings , no pre-recorded runs , no repetition patches , and no recorded crescendo / decrescendos used . I was recently going through old drives and still have a lot of the files for the Finale extension I worked on back then, I was contemplating putting them on my webpage for free if I can find all the templates and required files.


----------



## Bollen

SymphonicSamples said:


> I loved Finale but haven't used it for years, I stopped doing music a long way back now, but still read the forum from time to time. But this was from over 6 years back now when I was developing it, it's a real-time recording of a Finale 2012 score playing back using the Finale Library Extensions . All instrument dynamics controlled by standard score markings , no pre-recorded runs , no repetition patches , and no recorded crescendo / decrescendos used . I was recently going through old drives and still have a lot of the files for the Finale extension I worked on back then, I was contemplating putting them on my webpage for free if I can find all the templates and required files.



Wow! That's freakishly impressive for a Notation program! You should've never stopped making music man, a talent like that needs to be let free....!


----------



## mducharme

I agree that is really impressive for notation export.

You can get a reasonable playback from a combination of Dorico 3 and NotePerformer 3 in terms of balance etc. Obviously it doesn't sound realistic enough to act as any sort of a DAW replacement (and is not anywhere near as realistic as SymphonicSamples' example) but it is still pretty decent. See below:


----------



## Rob

SymphonicSamples said:


> ...I was contemplating putting them on my webpage for free if I can find all the templates and required files.


That'd be really great...


----------



## SymphonicSamples

Bollen said:


> Wow! That's freakishly impressive for a Notation program!


Cheers Bollen much appreciated, back years ago when I was using Finale daily I spent a lot of time developing and testing with the intent to bridge the vast gap back them from Finales standard VI output quallity to Cubase. I was also able to output midi tracks per instrument realtime so I could just drop them into a Cubase project and shift quickly from Finale which was handy at times but still have all the CC data from Finale's Score ready to go. The piece below was exactly that, a direct output from Finale to Cubase. I output the piece realtime from Finale and dropped the midi tracks into a Cubase template, if I compare the original Finale wav output to Cubase wav ouput they are almost identical except for a couple of changes for samples library choices in Winds when I output the piece which gives a reference to where I got to when I stopped developing it.


----------



## Bollen

SymphonicSamples said:


> Cheers Bollen much appreciated, back years ago when I was using Finale daily I spent a lot of time developing and testing with the intent to bridge the vast gap back them from Finales standard VI output quallity to Cubase. I was also able to output midi tracks per instrument realtime so I could just drop them into a Cubase project and shift quickly from Finale which was handy at times but still have all the CC data from Finale's Score ready to go. The piece below was exactly that, a direct output from Finale to Cubase. I output the piece realtime from Finale and dropped the midi tracks into a Cubase template, if I compare the original Finale wav output to Cubase wav ouput they are almost identical except for a couple of changes for samples library choices in Winds when I output the piece which gives a reference to where I got to when I stopped developing it.



This is insane! If I had known Finale had such incredible playback I would've stayed with at the beginning (never used playback when I had it, it was early days for me.)

Still, I find it offensive that you no longer make music... . It should be some sort of crime not to exploit your natural given talent...💕


----------



## Jacob Moss

This is playback direct from Sibelius (not exported to a DAW, no velocities/midi expression lanes edited). I built this sound set around Spitfire Instruments with a custom sound set. This is the point I got to before giving up on the idea.


----------



## Bollen

Jacob Moss said:


> This is playback direct from Sibelius (not exported to a DAW, no velocities/midi expression lanes edited). I built this sound set around Spitfire Instruments with a custom sound set. This is the point I got to before giving up on the idea.



Yeah, it's as bad a Dorico... I have developed what could almost be seen as an allergic reaction to the performance of notation programs. It's not even in uncanny valley territory...
That is not to say, that you can't get so,e decent playback from Dorico, if you are willing to tweak things to death... But at least we can, which is not something Sib really allowed very much.


----------



## Jacob Moss

I would love actually to see the same sample library (not Noteperformer, because that's cheating) hooked up with all the notation softwares with no additional editing (from raw MusicXML maybe) and see what they come up with.


----------

