Actually, not. A fair and valid competition of software only would be to find some musicians with computer competence, but with no exposure to notation software, give them each a shrink-wrapped version of one of the programs and then have an independent panel of judges observe the whole process. Then give each entrant a shrink-wrapped package of the other software (assuming there are two entrants Finale and Sibelius, with Score and Igor being omitted) and repeat the process.
Then have the entrants write up their observations, have the judges on the panel write up their observations and include the finished one-page output from each entrant with each software package for comparison. But that doesn't address any of the advanced engraving issues which most of us on this list take seriously and spend so much time over. So then have the same panel of judges observe a user of each Sibelius and Finale, on their own machines with their own fonts and their own plug-ins, recreating the several types of output which have been mentioned. Then have the engravers switch computers and try to do the same thing on the other program. Have the engravers write their observations and have the judges write their observations and include the finished engraving examples. For this stage of the comparison the times spent to produce each page of output would be monitored and recorded as part of the comparison. Too much work for me to organize! Richard Yates wrote: >>And then it becomes a competition between engravers rather than a >>competition between engraving software. >> >>Which is fine, if that is what is desired, but it should be made clear >>what type of competition this would be before it begins. >> > > Yes, it should be made clear. But I do not think that it can be. The output > is always a result of both Engraver variables and Software variables. There > is no easy way to separate these. Imagine two scores submitted to a software > competition. Their appearance is identical. One was made with Sibelius and > one with Paint. Would you conclude that the programs were equal? No, you > would marvel at the eye and persistence of the engraver who used Paint. Now, > this is an extreme example, a thought experiment. But, how could you draw > valid conclusions about the ranking of two programs intended for music > scoring whose features are roughly similar to start with? > > Well, you might then say to control the amount of time that was spent on the > project. But then the differences might be due to the engraver's efficiency > with the program. So, you require that the engravers be similarly > experienced and knowledgeable about their respective software. Now, the > differences might be due to typing speed. Require similar typing speed and > the differences may be due to motivation (assuming anyone was left in the > competition after so many restrictions). > > All of this just says that there are innumerable confounding factors in > trying to set up a competition between music scoring software programs. > > Richard Yates > > > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
