# Advice Requested about VSL for Sibelius vs NotePerformer



## Paul T McGraw

I have tried using sequencers like Sonar and Cubase, but I really prefer to work with notation and Sibelius. Still, I would like the best playback sounds possible.

I found NotePerformer and that was a giant leap forward in achieving better playback sounds. (Thank you Wallander!) I know there are soundsets for some other products available, and I might explore some of those later, but I am curious about VSL instruments. VSL has obviously made a big effort to be usable with Sibelius. I would really like to hear from users about their experience with VSL in Sibelius, and how it compares with NotePerformer.

Is it all or nothing? Can you mix VSL and NotePerformer in the same score? This would be particularly helpful in trying out a few VSL instruments to compare the difference with NotePerformer. Can you use an entire orchestra with VSL and Sibelius on one computer, or does it require Slaves? I have what was a top of the line system a few years back with fast CPU 48GB memory and 3 SSDs.

Thanks in advance for any advice, tips or warnings


----------



## wcreed51

I don't have NotePerformer, so can't give you a comparison, but can say the VSL is excellent, and very well suited for orchestral music. With SSDs, you can adjust the pre-load buffer size in half, and load that many more samples; so single machine should work fine. They also have great support.

Their samples are very dry, so you'll need a good reverb to bring them to life. You might consider using their MirX spacial verb that places instruments in the sound stage.


----------



## Paul T McGraw

wcreed51 said:


> I don't have NotePerformer, so can't give you a comparison, but can say the VSL is excellent, and very well suited for orchestral music. With SSDs, you can adjust the pre-load buffer size in half, and load that many more samples; so single machine should work fine. They also have great support.
> 
> Their samples are very dry, so you'll need a good reverb to bring them to life. You might consider using their MirX spacial verb that places instruments in the sound stage.



I see from your signature that you also have EWQL. Do you ever mix EWQL and VSL in the same score? After watching the VSL video on YouTube concerning using VSL with Sibelius, I got the impression that adding in VSL changes all of the instrument definitions and the sound library set. I wonder if you could have, say, VSL woodwinds and everything else EWQL? (Sorry if I am asking too detailed a question. I don't want to waste money, but just as important I don't want to waste time.) Thanks for any help.


----------



## muk

The playback in notation programs always sounds rather robotic to my ears. It's missing all the subtle nuances in timing, phrasing, volume etc. that together form a nice interpretation. NotePerformer does a pretty good job at alleviating these problems. As far as I understood Arne created some algorithms from real performances that mimick these variations in real performances. In my opinion it's a huge step forward from notation programs stock playback. But it's still not quite a human performance either.

The sounds do a great job at what they are supposed to do: give an aural impression of a score that lets you judge your instrumentation accurately. I love NotePerformer for that. With it you can proofread your scores by ear - you hear immediately if something in your orchestration doesn't work. Which instrument(s) get overpowered, which timbres don't go well together, and so on. That's a huge timesaver and great help.

However, the sounds are rather so so if you intend to use them as final rendering of your piece. In that department VSL would be a step up. But then again, you won't get NotePerformer's playback algorithms with VSL. Pick your poison. Personally I'd stick with NotePerformer in your situation Paul. VSL will have a better sound, but the playback from Sibelius will be horribly mechanical. And that spoils any kind of listening pleasure way more than a soundbank that's not quite there. Your tastes may differ, though.

Be it NotePerformer, be it VSL or any other lib, at the current time you won't get a satisfying playback from a notation program alone. DAWs have the firm advantage that you can actually play your music in, and shape and tweak parameters finely until it resembles a real interpretation more than a machines playback. That's where sample libraries start to shine in my opinion, not in automatic playback.

So, what are you to do then? I see a few options:

Learn to work with a DAW (which you wrote you don't intend to). You can still work with notation and Sibelius, and use the DAW only to create a mockup of your already finished pieces. That way you would be using both programs - notation and DAW - to their according strengths.

Learn to live with the somewhat limited quality of notation program playback. NotePerformer is as good as it gets currently in my opinion. You can try VSL, or Xsample Chamber Orchestra - which has pretty good notation program integration as well - for different flavours. They will be different than NotePerformer, but not really better for that purpose.

If you have some of your pieces performed then notation playback may be acceptable. If not, maybe you'll want to hear them in a better rendering quality eventually. In that case you can either try to fix performances of your pieces, maybe by local players/orchestras etc. Or you could hire somebody to make a mockup for you.

That's my two cents.


----------



## JimVMusic

Paul T McGraw said:


> I have tried using sequencers like Sonar and Cubase, but I really prefer to work with notation and Sibelius. Still, I would like the best playback sounds possible.
> 
> I found NotePerformer and that was a giant leap forward in achieving better playback sounds. (Thank you Wallander!) I know there are soundsets for some other products available, and I might explore some of those later, but I am curious about VSL instruments. VSL has obviously made a big effort to be usable with Sibelius. I would really like to hear from users about their experience with VSL in Sibelius, and how it compares with NotePerformer.
> 
> Is it all or nothing? Can you mix VSL and NotePerformer in the same score? This would be particularly helpful in trying out a few VSL instruments to compare the difference with NotePerformer. Can you use an entire orchestra with VSL and Sibelius on one computer, or does it require Slaves? I have what was a top of the line system a few years back with fast CPU 48GB memory and 3 SSDs.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any advice, tips or warnings



Last I checked, NotePerformer requires a little bit of time to "read ahead." I haven't tried it but I bet if one were to run NotePerformer with VE Pro, Kontakt etc. the timing would be off between the "NotePerformer Instrument" and the "non-Note Performer Instruments."


----------



## wcreed51

I believe Jim is correct about mixing NotePerformer with other libraries.

Otherwise, you can load multiple house styles in Sibelius to accommodate mixing different libraries. Muk is also correct, but you can use the better libraries in both Sibelius and your DAW. Unless you have the skill to play in all the instruments parts (into the DAW) the playback quality isn't so different, though much easier to make manual tweaks.


----------



## Paul T McGraw

Hi muk, thanks for the advice. I really appreciate your taking the time to post such a complete response. I think you must be correct in your conclusions. I sort of suspected I would not find exactly what I wanted, but you never know if you don't ask.

My guess is that to get a good performance with VSL and Sibelius you would need a lot of very detailed articulation and dynamics changes written into the Sibelius score. Please, take a look at this video if you have time.



*The music in this video was produced by Tormod Tvete Vik*. He states on the YouTube page that he did this entirely with Sibelius and VSL instruments as a Sibelius sound set.

Notice that it is almost impossible to find a measure without a dynamics change or articulation change? But the result is very good, isn't it? Or perhaps most people could surpass this result with their DAW? I really don't know.

So to get results like this in a DAW I would need lots of CC changes and key switches. To get similar (I think) results in Sibelius, lots of dynamics and articulation marks. Either way, a lot more work than NotePerformer. And a lot more expensive. One way or the other a big investment of time and money. When I started typing this reply to you, I was just going to renew my efforts to learn to use Cubase. Now I am wavering again. Ugh.


----------



## muk

The result is good in my opinion, very good even considering it was done with a notation program only. But you could definitely do much better in a DAW. Notice the dynamics? There's lots of hairpins and stuff that helps a lot. But still there is no dynamic variation within single notes - real performers could never play so statically - and between the instruments. When there's a crescendo all instruments swell with the exactly same timing to the exact same volumes. That doesn't sound too good, at least not to my ears. Then there are situations where you would want to shape the attack of a note a bit. You can easily do that in a DAW. In a notation program, not so much. With real players, the timing will not be exact. One plays a note a bit early, another a bit late. There's always some variation between the players. I'm not sure if you can do that in a notation program. If you can, it'll be tedious. In a DAW you play the parts in yourself, and you already have these variations naturally.

In the end you can get quite good playback from a notation program, but it needs A LOT of tedious work. Inputting dynamic markings on every other note, shaping the tempo (at the end of each phrase you may want to slow down a bit for example). Basically you have to overload the score with markings, which undermines it's primary purpose: provide legible and playable parts for musicians (true you can alleviate that problem by hiding not needed markings, but still). No matter how much work you put into it, for this kind of task you will be faster and have much more control working in a DAW. Because that's what DAWs were created for.

Sounds like I'm advising you to learn a DAW? Well, honestly I'm not certain about that. Because it takes a lot of time and effort to learn to use it efficiently, to customize it according to your needs, to create templates, to balance your instruments... And if you have done all that, it still will take quite an amount of time to make a good sounding mock up. That's time you won't be writing new music. On top of that there's the cost for sample libraries and plugins.

All in all it's a tough decision. I guess you'll have to decide how good your results need to sound. I think NotePerformer gives fine approximations, and maybe you can just sit down at your piano and play a piano reduction of your piece. It's not the same as hearing an orchestra, but it will be a very musical sounding experience. If you are not content with that, then there's the question how much time and money you want to invest in better results. Depending on how you answer these question it will be sticking with NotePerformer, learning a DAW, or hire somebody to do mock ups for you.


----------



## Paul T McGraw

Thanks muk for your words of wisdom and for your PM! I'll be in touch again soon.


----------



## Maximvs

Hi Paul,

I have been in a similar situation as yours and lately have been contemplating the possibility to buy Vienna SE to use with Sibelius 7.5.

I have been using Sibelius for a long time and I am much more adept at working in a notation environment than in a DAW. I have been using Note Performer since its release and I commend Arne for creating such a wonderful instrument library for Sibelius. I have managed to create a few pretty good sounding mock-ups with NP but the time delay that it requires to read ahead has been a limitation in allowing the possibility to integrate NP with other libraries and also being able to use the Sibelius flexi-time feature. Having said that, Note Performer is doing a very good job anyhow...

Regarding the fact that in order to create a more realistic sounding mock-up from Sibelius, it is important to use MIDI CC and extra dynamic markings, I totally agree. Remember that in Sibelius you can hide extra dynamics and MIDI CC so to avoid cluttering your scores.

If you are not aware, Overture 5 (https://sonicscores.com/overture/) looks like a great solution for people like you and I that prefer to work in a notation environment but at the same time need some powerful features to shape the performance of a score.

Best regards,

Max


----------



## Mike Marino

Paul, it might also be worth reaching out to Robin Hoffmann here on VI-C as I believe he also completes his mock-ups using a notation program (mostly if not exclusively). His mock-ups sound pretty good although I'm not sure of what libraries he's using/ Also, keep in mind that it seems that most of his final products are completed with live orchestra, not MIDI mock-ups. But it might be worth it nonetheless.


----------



## Paul T McGraw

Thanks Massimo. I am looking forward to finding out more about Overture. So far not many videos. Looking forward to reviews and user experience. 

Thanks Mike, I might try sending him a PM.


----------



## ed buller

Hi Paul

I'm afraid what you are after doesn't yet exist. Which is a Notation program hooked up to a DAW with the best samples. But i suspect this will be with us quiet soon from Daniel Spreadbury and his team. At the moment for ease of use and playability NOTEPERFORMER is the way to go. But the sounds are pretty basic. I have spent a lot of time trying to get Sibelius to control Kontakt with my sample Library and gave up. It's just too much of a faff and Sibelius is dreadful at controlling MIDI. Overture 4 looks interesting but I will probably wait for Daniel. As it's a cubase product I suspect it will play very well alongside a DAW setup. 

happy hunting

ed


----------



## Reactor.UK

Paul, as you wrote in my post, as I'm now very much realising, you and I are in a 'very' similar position of interest.

I've not used noteperformer, though I must say you've certainly done a fantastic job with Sibelius and I'm personally mighty impressed.

You clearly have a keen ear. I'm going to make a presumption that Sibelius is holding you back in terms of say; dynamics, crescendo's etc.

With my Mahler 6th I know I want to adjust note velocities almost everywhere and as such my dilemma is how far do I push what I can get out of Sibelius or should I (which I know I want to do) reserve time using samples and a DAW so as to focus on the tiniest detail.

I'm no expert by any means, far from it. Though, I guess, like yourself in that we have Cubase, it certainly is a means to capture and refine details of expression, timbre using samples and have a finer control over tempo.

I was expecting some possible news from NAMM re: Daniel Spreadbury and their (Steinberg's) notation software. Will it give Sibelius et al. a run for their money, I hope so, though, as to how long it's integration into or combining into Cubase I don't know (other than they will use a lot of the engine code from Cubase), as detailed primary it's focus and purpose is notation so it's yet unknown how long it will be until it will offer the degree of control you and I may want.


----------



## Paul T McGraw

Reactor.UK said:


> Paul, as you wrote in my post, as I'm now very much realising, you and I are in a 'very' similar position of interest.
> 
> I've not used noteperformer, though I must say you've certainly done a fantastic job with Sibelius and I'm personally mighty impressed.
> 
> You clearly have a keen ear. I'm going to make a presumption that Sibelius is holding you back in terms of say; dynamics, crescendo's etc.
> 
> With my Mahler 6th I know I want to adjust note velocities almost everywhere and as such my dilemma is how far do I push what I can get out of Sibelius or should I (which I know I want to do) reserve time using samples and a DAW so as to focus on the tiniest detail.
> 
> I'm no expert by any means, far from it. Though, I guess, like yourself in that we have Cubase, it certainly is a means to capture and refine details of expression, timbre using samples and have a finer control over tempo.
> 
> I was expecting some possible news from NAMM re: Daniel Spreadbury and their (Steinberg's) notation software. Will it give Sibelius et al. a run for their money, I hope so, though, as to how long it's integration into or combining into Cubase I don't know (other than they will use a lot of the engine code from Cubase), as detailed primary it's focus and purpose is notation so it's yet unknown how long it will be until it will offer the degree of control you and I may want.



Please forgive me if I gave the wrong impression about the linked YouTube video above. The music in the video was written by someone else, not me. It was written by Tormod Tvete Vik using Sibelius and VSL samples. I simply posted the link as an example of what seems to be achievable. I wish it really was my music.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDndz8lzB17HSxqpyBNuyrA
If you are composing with Sibelius, I can not say enough good things about NotePerformer by Wallander instruments. It really, really improves the experience and is very reasonably priced.

It has now been quite a few years since Spreadbury went over to Steinberg. I have lately been wondering when or even if they will ever release a functioning product. And the blogs with Spreadbury don't ever seem to focus on playback issues. I don't know if playback quality is or is not a priority. Personally I don't find anything drasticly wrong with Sibelius as far as notation. I rarely find anything I want to do that I can't do.


----------



## Reactor.UK

Paul T McGraw said:


> It has now been quite a few years since Spreadbury went over to Steinberg. I have lately been wondering when or even if they will ever release a functioning product. And the blogs with Spreadbury don't ever seem to focus on playback issues. I don't know if playback quality is or is not a priority. Personally I don't find anything drasticly wrong with Sibelius as far as notation. I rarely find anything I want to do that I can't do.



There WILL be a functional product that's for certain, what isn't certain is sadly the date. However, it's certainly been demo'ed (at the stage it was in late last year) to select persons within the industry.

Sibelius works perfectly fine for me, I certainly don't dislike it (albeit with complex notation alignment can be cumbersome). My issue is that of the infamous subscription model that applies to v8.xx+, which to date seems to moving development focus to touch screen devices.

The priority is notation which conforms closer to printed scores. This is achieved through more intelligent calculations of understanding of where accidentals, ties, slurs etc are spaced.

As far as I'm aware the playback engine will be in some form or shape from Steinberg's other product/s such as Cubase. What has never been discussed it whether it will have it's own soundset. Whatever the case, in it's first release it's focus is very much weighed towards notation, though, it is their intention (from what has been voiced) to have quality playback at a later date/version.


----------



## Reactor.UK

Paul T McGraw said:


> Please forgive me if I gave the wrong impression about the linked YouTube video above. The music in the video was written by someone else, not me. It was written by Tormod Tvete Vik using Sibelius and VSL samples. I simply posted the link as an example of what seems to be achievable. I wish it really was my music.



Phew, I listened to what I've done thus far and was seriously worried as my sound (especially the depth of the strings) is nowhere near what I'm achieving from Sibelius.


----------



## ed buller

Paul T McGraw said:


> It has now been quite a few years since Spreadbury went over to Steinberg. I have lately been wondering when or even if they will ever release a functioning product. And the blogs with Spreadbury don't ever seem to focus on playback issues. I don't know if playback quality is or is not a priority. Personally I don't find anything drasticly wrong with Sibelius as far as notation. I rarely find anything I want to do that I can't do.



They are just making sure it's awesome. It will be well worth the wait. And as Daniel worked for Sibelius for many years I suspect he is taking his time as he knows how high the bar is. But from what I have heard it will be just what I am looking for. 

e


----------



## Reactor.UK

ed buller said:


> They are just making sure it's awesome. It will be well worth the wait. And as Daniel worked for Sibelius for many years I suspect he is taking his time as he knows how high the bar is. But from what I have heard it will be just what I am looking for.



Yes, his knowledge from working on Sibelius is a massive advantage. As Daniel has said, Sibelius evolved, with more and more being added to it, therefore core changes would have required a lot of re-coding. He seems to be a perfectionist, it's not being rushed and that alone has me excited.


----------



## wcreed51

"we want to see our application develop into a professional tool that is flexible and allows the kind of tweaking both to graphical appearance and playback that you want to see. However, it’s important to know that we won’t get to that completely ideal solution in our very first version: it will take time to build tools of comparable sophistication and power as those found in very mature existing applications like Finale. We have done our best to design the architecture of our application in such a way as to make these features easier to build in future, but we are a relatively small team and we are faced with some very tough prioritisation in the months ahead as we work towards our first public release. Hopefully there will be enough of interest in the first release that you will consider adding our application to your toolbox."

-Daniel Spreadbury


----------



## Paul T McGraw

wcreed51 said:


> "we want to see our application develop into a professional tool that is flexible and allows the kind of tweaking both to graphical appearance and playback that you want to see. However, it’s important to know that we won’t get to that completely ideal solution in our very first version: it will take time to build tools of comparable sophistication and power as those found in very mature existing applications like Finale. We have done our best to design the architecture of our application in such a way as to make these features easier to build in future, but we are a relatively small team and we are faced with some very tough prioritisation in the months ahead as we work towards our first public release. Hopefully there will be enough of interest in the first release that you will consider adding our application to your toolbox."
> 
> -Daniel Spreadbury



Seems that he is "lowering expectations" doesn't it? Hmmm. Sounds like he expects early adopters to be disappointed in either the graphics, or playback, or perhaps both? I am 63, so I hope we will see something actually being offered to the public while I am young enough to try it.


----------



## almound

ed buller said:


> Hi Paul
> 
> I'm afraid what you are after doesn't yet exist. Which is a Notation program hooked up to a DAW with the best samples.
> ed



You mean like this: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbJ3UqfveVHWxm4wsaSpo_qa_BhZL1Nc0


----------



## ed buller

well...Not really. Sibelius is not a good MIDI editor. But impressive none the less.

e


----------



## jonathanparham

has anyone have notes on Als process of rewiring or using Sibelius as a front end of a sequencer? All the videos are down


----------

