Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
Darcy James Argue / 2006/08/11 / 04:18 PM wrote: You've actually got it backwards -- OS X has progressively been offloading more and more drawing tasks to the graphics card. It began with the introduction of Quartz Extreme, and continued with Tiger's Core Image. (Of course, if the Mac's graphics card isn't powerful enough to support Quartz Extreme or Core Image, those features are disabled.) Are you saying Finale is now a Quartz app? Porting QD app to Quartz isn't trivial as I heard, and I would think MM will advertise it if they did. The introduction of Quartz 2D made audio metering apps to be lighter on cpu load, but they offer either mechanism to detect Quartz presence or user switch to disable it because running Quartz app on non Quartz machine takes cpu down heavily. If Finale is still QD app then graphic card isn't doing much for its 2D drawing _on Mac_ as I believed that was your point as well, but somehow I found you are disagreeing with me so I am veiling out on this thread. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] NI into FinMac
I have a stoopid question, and has been afraid to ask because surprisingly I found no one seems to have the same problem. When you purchase NI V.I., how do you make FinMac to see it? UPS tracking shows my FinMac2007 is due Monday so I guess new install will solve my problem, but I just wanted to ask. When I got JaBB, I had to run FinMac2006 installer again to make JaBB appear in Finale, then I copied GarritanJazzinstrument.txt to the 2nd machine. I just bought Kontakt2. Do I have to run FinMac2006 installer again? I hoped there is a better and easier way. Any help appreciated. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
On 13.08.2006 A-NO-NE Music wrote: If Finale is still QD app then graphic card isn't doing much for its 2D drawing _on Mac_ as I believed that was your point as well, but somehow I found you are disagreeing with me so I am veiling out on this thread. Hiro, Finale uses Core Graphics since 2k6. That's why anti-aliasing became possible. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale mailing list probe message
On 13.08.2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would appreciate being kept in the loop regarding others to whom you sent this message. Isn't there an extremely easy solution to the problem? Just get another email address, like gmx, hotmail, or whatever. Use that for Finale, and you are done. No problems, no bounces. Johannes (who used to have an AOL address years ago, and gave it up because it is simply not worth the effort. Never looked back...) -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
Richard Smith wrote: Yes. On the keypad (under the second tab) there is a button the toggles between full size and cue size. Select any note or passage, click the button and it becomes a cue. Click it again and it's full size. Disabling the sound (if you want) is a second step found in the properties panel. Again, just a single click for any selected note or passage. If your not familiar with Sibelius, the keypad is an on screen representation of the ten keypad on a full size keyboard. The buttons may be clicked on screen with the mouse or selected at the actual keyboard. There are selectable five tabs on the keypad and the cue note switch is under the second. The entire process can be carried out (except note selection) without a mouse. but to be honest, Sibelius only recognizes cue notes as small notes of a particular size and has provided a convenient way to change music entered into a staff into that size. Sibelius doesn't recognize cues as relating to some other part so that edits in the original part are not reflected in any cues which were copied from that original part. And cues don't remain in the original clef if the clef for the part which the cues are in is changed. such a mirrored function would be a wonderful feature for whichever software product introduced it first! -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
Richard Smith wrote: I think different people think and work differently and this is why a feature some like is deplored by others. Although I had almost 10 years of successful Finale experience before moving primarily to Sibelius, I much prefer the way Sibelius works. I have frequently said it seems to think more like me. Perhaps Finale thinks more like you do. I think this is why we have to very mature and very capable notation packages that are quite different from each other. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] David W. Fenton wrote: On 12 Aug 2006 at 15:31, Richard Smith wrote: If your not familiar with Sibelius, the keypad is an on screen representation of the ten keypad on a full size keyboard. The buttons may be clicked on screen with the mouse or selected at the actual keyboard. There are selectable five tabs on the keypad and the cue note switch is under the second. The entire process can be carried out (except note selection) without a mouse. I find this interface incredibly difficult, as I'm constantly having to switch between the different keypads to find what I want (which never seems to be on the tab that I expect). This is one of the reasons I find Sibelius difficult to use -- it just seems to me to be a false limitation of the GUI because of a binding to the keyboard. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Richard's points in the top paragraph are very true. I, like David Fenton, find the numeric-keypad paradigm of the Sibelius interface to be very unintuitive and have a hard time, no matter how much I try. But there are those who love it and who flourish with it. Curiously though, there are also some heavy-hitter Sibelius users (admittedly not many) who don't like it either and who use Sibelius' wonderful key-mapping feature to map most of their most commonly used keypad commands to qwerty-keyboard commands. The biggest of these (and maybe some others) came to the current Sibelius versions from the old Acorn computers, which apparently had a different interface. But there is definitely a huge difference between the two and I have yet to meet anybody who likes both -- there are quite a few folks who use both, but I haven't read any messages from anybody who really likes both. Most prefer one over the other. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale mailing list probe message
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Finale mailing list has received a number of bounces from you, indicating that there may be a problem delivering messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regarding bounced messages, I posted two or three months ago with a subject line that indicated that I was receiving a majority--but not all--of the Finale List posts. I knew that was the case because occasionally I would read a post that quoted something written previously that I had definitely not received. The result: no one responded to my post. Perhaps no one got it, or no one was interested. As I review the names and address of others who are bouncing posts, it includes some of the most active members of the list, such as Lawrence Yates. On the other side of the ledger, all of the members you listed were on AOL. I don't know if that's a representative sample of members who are bouncing posts, or whether you simply batched your AOL subscribers. If the former, then it's clearly an AOL problem. Listen: nobody knows what the hell is wrong with AOL, including, or especially, AOL. People (like me) use it because it's a handy way to keep in touch with colleagues using IMs. That may all change. I don't know exactly what the critical mass of discontent is that will cause people to change their ISP, but I think we're getting very close. I would appreciate being kept in the loop regarding others to whom you sent this message. You don't need to be a member of AOL to use AIM -- perhaps it's time to get a different ISP? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ways Finale could get ahead of Sibelius
dhbailey wrote: WinFin offers 5 control points: 2 end points, center point of the curve and 2 others which are half-way between center and each end. The center control point is merely a UI feature that allows the real control points to be moved simultaneously and symmetrically. I'm talking about true, independently moveable control points. FWIW: The UI also constrains the endpoints and moves the interior control points when you drag an endpoint. This is also a UI feature. The actual graphic is implemented as parallel bezier curves, which have exatly four independent control points. A likely solution for what I want is 2 sets of parallel beziers, joined in the center and automatically smoothed. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
On Aug 12, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 12.08.2006 Richard Smith wrote: If I understand your question, Sibelius will allow you to select a note or entire passage and, with one click, convert it into a cue. You can also easily turn off the sound in the passage (or note by note if you prefer). Does this mean that Sibelius can define notes as cues? That sounds like the first step of what I imagine. Finale doesn't actually know anything about cues, it just knows small notes in a different layer, which is not quite the same... If you are using Finale's Create Cue plugin, you get just about everything you need, except, of course, mirror behaviour. You can turn off playback for Layer 4 on any staff with a cue, assuming you are reserving Layer 4 for cues. It seems to me that adding a mirror behaviour option (or even a non- playback option) to the existing plugin should be an easy enough task for some programmer. Feature Request! And of course, the plugin already works fine on staves with music already entered in the same measure. TG Tools' similar plugin gives you even more options, so you can choose whether the cue stems are up or down, etc. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
Johannes Gebauer / 2006/08/13 / 03:32 AM wrote: Hiro, Finale uses Core Graphics since 2k6. That's why anti-aliasing became possible. Then Mac too suffers from drawing speed in Finale when graphic card is inferior, which contradicts with Dercy's claim, does it not? -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
I've never argued that the graphics card doesn't matter. My argument all along has been that today's graphics cards are so powerful that even inexpensive models can easily render 2D faster than the CPU can feed it. Therefore, if you only care about 2D, there's no real performance gain to be had when opting for a more expensive video card. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY On 13 Aug 2006, at 10:07 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Johannes Gebauer / 2006/08/13 / 03:32 AM wrote: Hiro, Finale uses Core Graphics since 2k6. That's why anti-aliasing became possible. Then Mac too suffers from drawing speed in Finale when graphic card is inferior, which contradicts with Dercy's claim, does it not? -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Bounces and AOL
Friends, we are currently within a week of the new Fall Semester. I will review these concerns with the tech who has charge of the maillists run from our server. Normally bounces occur when a listmember's mailbox has been allowed to overflow from inattention. Fairly quickly our listserv cancels the offending site and bars them from re-enroling without my intervention. There was expressed to me (offlist) concern about a vulnerability in the archives. The archives are available only to list members, so I will also inquire how they might appear in a search engine. Henry Howey Professor of Music Sam Houston State University Box 2208 Huntsville, TX 77341 (936) 294-1364 http://www.shsu.edu/~music/faculty/howey.html Owner of FINALE Discussion List ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Finale 2006 slow on 30 monitor
Is anybody running Finale @ 2560x1600 resolution on Dell 3007WFP or Apple 30 ACD monitor? My Finale 2006 seems sluggish on Dell 3007 with GeForce 7800GTX (Win XP Pro). It feels like Sibelius 1 did on Mac when it came out. I know this is a lot to ask of a music program (or any program) to be responsive on 4 Mega pixel monitor but Finale 2005 runs beautifully. Sibelius 4 is also slow with all drawing options enabled. Dejan Badnjar Musette Desktop Music Publishing 1 Eastview Cres. Orangeville, Ontario L9W 4X3 CANADA Tel.: (519) 942-0407 Fax: (519) 942-4417 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MacMini as semi Receptor?
Sure, that would work. You'd set up GPO or whatever software synth on the other PC, have it respond to whatever midi channels you want, hook it up to the other computer via midi, and connect the output from the synth computer into the input of the other computer or mixer what whatever you have. You'd need to get another ASIO sound card, like the 2496. Advantages-More and better sounding sounds. Disadvantages-heat and noise from two computers being on. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I was interested in this discussion and have some of my own questions. Is it better to use a separate dedicated computer for soft synth or just use one box for everything? What are the advantages/disadvantages? Currently I'm using one PC (P4) that has 1G of RAM and a 2496 for everything. But I have another PC (Athlon 2000+) which has 1.5G (3G max) which I'm not using which could be set up as a soft synth box. If I wanted to do something like what you describe but with two PCs instead of a Mac and a PC, would that work? Which box would get the 2496, the one with Finale installed or the one being used as a soft synth? Or would I need to get a second 2496? And how exactly do you connect them via MIDI? Thanks. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Best method of re-authorizing?
I first registered Finale 2006 in March. Now I've reformatted my hard drive and reinstalled Windows XP (and Finale) and Finale says it needs to be registered. (Again). When I log in to Authorize Product on FinaleMusic.com and then enter subsequent info (product/version/ownertype/serial number) and click on Submit Authorization it says: We recommend that you authorize directly from Finale. If you are experiencing trouble with authorization directly from Finale, feel free to enter your Location and User Code below. How do you authorize directly from Finale? Or if I enter my location and user code on the web and it eMails me an authorization code, where/how would I enter the authorization code they give me into Finale?I guess what I'm asking is is there a way to re-authorize without re-registering. Because it doesn't make sense to me to register all over again. Or is that just how it's done? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
It seems that Video Card/Display adapter reviewers assume (without providing evidence that I can find) that 2D performance is acceptable on all adapters from 2003 on. Adobe says that ...hardware, operating system settings, and software settings...(and a) damaged font. Doing stuff other than gaming or viewing such editing, manipulating, and saving images is essetially ignored in the reviews I have found. It is likely that GPU/CPU tradeoff occurs in these tasks ignored by reviewers but central to this thread and the tasks that most of us perform. 1. 2006 QA to the point: Topic Title: What matters in a video card for 2D windows acceleration? http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27threadid=1908172 refers to Adobe's site: http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/331412.html 2. 2004 Article http://www.a1-electronics.net/Graphics_Cards/Various/2004/Review_Dec04.shtml What will you be using it for? Is perhaps the first question asked. What will the intended use be of your ATI or Nvidia video card. Will you be mostly working with 2D applications or 3D such as games. If you are only looking to run say 2D office applications such as Corel WordPerfect, Photoshop and alike then you do not need to buy an expensive top of the range card but something from the mid-range of ATI or Nvidia will give you the all the performance you need and more for 2D work while still giving you acceptable 3D performance. 3. 2002 Article. The issue may be drivers as in the article linked and quoted below. ... it's a real problem. Now that graphics chips are getting the internal precision to produce some truly stunning images, we'll want to capture that high-quality output and store it. http://techreport.com/etc/2002q3/agp-download/index.x?pg=1 ..today's graphics subsystems have gobs of bandwidth, from main memory (2.1GB/s or greater) to the AGP bus (1GB/s for AGP 4X) to the graphics card's own internal memory (20GB/s in some cases). Graphics cards can render hundreds of frames per second for display. But once the frames have been sent out the RAMDAC to a monitor, standard operating procedure is simply to discard them. That's all well and good when all you want to do is play video games, but for other uses, it's a real problem. Now that graphics chips are getting the internal precision to produce some truly stunning images, we'll want to capture that high-quality output and store it. Unfortunately, even the very newest cards and drivers don't seem to be up to the job. Despite over 1GB per second of potential bandwidth on the AGP bus, current cards transfer data back into main memory much, much slower than needed. At least, that was the claim of more than one person who wrote in response to my article. Roger -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David W. Fenton Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 3:04 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled On 11 Aug 2006 at 22:47, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 11 Aug 2006, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: So, then, you're saying that, on the Mac at least, my use of the analogy of printer drivers and vector-based font descriptions does not hold? Again, David, if you're interested in learning more about how drawing is handled in OS X, I highly recommend the Ars Technica pages I linked to earlier: Im not really interested in how drawing works on OS X. What I'm interested is your assertion about how drawing interacts with graphics cards *on PCs*. My reading and understanding lead me to believe that it works differently than the way you've described the process. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Best method of re-authorizing?
When you did it originally, they should have sent you an email that would have the codes to reauthorize it (I think). You do get two authorizations with each Serial Number (or copy) of Finale.You can authorize your newly formated computer, and then email MakeMusic and tell them the situation, and they will deauthorize the other computer (even though it is the same computer). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I first registered Finale 2006 in March. Now I've reformatted my hard drive and reinstalled Windows XP (and Finale) and Finale says it needs to be registered. (Again). When I log in to Authorize Product on FinaleMusic.com and then enter subsequent info (product/version/ownertype/serial number) and click on Submit Authorization it says: We recommend that you authorize directly from Finale. If you are experiencing trouble with authorization directly from Finale, feel free to enter your Location and User Code below. How do you authorize directly from Finale? Or if I enter my location and user code on the web and it eMails me an authorization code, where/how would I enter the authorization code they give me into Finale? I guess what I'm asking is is there a way to re-authorize without re-registering. Because it doesn't make sense to me to register all over again. Or is that just how it's done? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 GPO Usage
Muchas gracias ... Dean On Aug 12, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Tyler Turner wrote: --- Dean M. Estabrook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, I've sort of been paying attention so, if I were to upgrade to Fin2007, using my one year old Mac G5, there should be no prob accessing both GPO and SoftSynth libraries, and no diff in my FinGPO playback ... right? We're just talking about the newer Intel based Macs having some issues, yes? Correct. You shouldn't notice a difference, other than perhaps improved performance using Finale GPO with Kontakt Player 2 (and if not, you can still use the old player). Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Speed of 2007 on Intel Macs?
Just out of interest, can anyone inform us about the speed of Finale 2007 on Intel Macs compared to, for example, 2006 under Rosetta? Is the speed boost as significant as perhaps it should be? Matthew ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Best method of re-authorizing?
It's a different computer so I probably need a new auth code. But regardless of whether I call to get one or request it be eMailed to me on the web site, I don't understand how or where to enter the new auth code into Finale. On 8/13/06, Eric Dannewitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you did it originally, they should have sent you an email thatwould have the codes to reauthorize it (I think).You do get two authorizations with each Serial Number (or copy) ofFinale.You can authorize your newly formated computer, and then email MakeMusic and tell them the situation, and they will deauthorize theother computer (even though it is the same computer).[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I first registered Finale 2006 in March. Now I've reformatted my hard drive and reinstalled Windows XP (and Finale) and Finale says it needs to be registered.(Again). When I log in to Authorize Product on FinaleMusic.com and then enter subsequent info (product/version/ownertype/serial number) and click on Submit Authorization it says: We recommend that you authorize directly from Finale. If you are experiencing trouble with authorization directly from Finale, feel free to enter your Location and User Code below. How do you authorize directly from Finale? Or if I enter my location and user code on the web and it eMails me an authorization code, where/how would I enter the authorization code they give me into Finale? I guess what I'm asking is is there a way to re-authorize without re-registering. Because it doesn't make sense to me to register all over again. Or is that just how it's done? ___Finale mailing listFinale@shsu.eduhttp://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
Anyone else find that even with a computer that has 256Meg of RAM you cannot install Finale 2007?? When trying to install, I get a message that says that since I don't have 256meg of RAM (I do) the install does not continue. (The system requirments that MakeMusic advertises says nothing about having a 'minimum' of 256, just 256 minimum). Why should a notation software program require sooo much RAM in the first place? James Gilbert www.jamesgilbertmusic.com PS. WinSupport at MakeMusic has been notified. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Speed of 2007 on Intel Macs?
In my experience, quite significant. But I have not done a great deal of comparing. What's even more revealing, perhaps, is to compare Fin07-Intel with Fin07-PPC under Rosetta. Unfortunately, if you depend on TGTools (Pro), you will be forced to run Fin07 under Rosetta to use it on your Intel Mac. I hope Tobias is working on a Universal Binary of TGTools, but I haven't seen one yet. Matthew Hindson Fastmail acct wrote: Just out of interest, can anyone inform us about the speed of Finale 2007 on Intel Macs compared to, for example, 2006 under Rosetta? Is the speed boost as significant as perhaps it should be? Matthew ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
256 Megs of Ram? Why not treat yourself and get more RAM? I mean, you can get a Gig of RAM for about $100. I'd say they probably assume most people have 512 Megs of RAM as most computers seem to ship with that now, and if you really want performance out of a system, you need more RAM. I can't imagine Windows XP on 256 Megs of RAM. Actually, I've seen it before. A friend was running an old PC with Finale 2006 with just 256 Megs of physical ram. It was dirt slow. Adding more ram seemed to turn night into day on that machine. James Gilbert wrote: Anyone else find that even with a computer that has 256Meg of RAM you cannot install Finale 2007?? When trying to install, I get a message that says that since I don't have 256meg of RAM (I do) the install does not continue. (The system requirments that MakeMusic advertises says nothing about having a 'minimum' of 256, just 256 minimum). Why should a notation software program require sooo much RAM in the first place? James Gilbert www.jamesgilbertmusic.com PS. WinSupport at MakeMusic has been notified. __ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Best method of re-authorizing?
Under HELP-Register Finale. I believe there are a couple of options there. I can't tell as mine is already registered. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a different computer so I probably need a new auth code. But regardless of whether I call to get one or request it be eMailed to me on the web site, I don't understand how or where to enter the new auth code into Finale. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Speed of 2007 on Intel Macs?
I'm new at all this. What is TG Tools and how do you use it? - Original Message - From: Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] Speed of 2007 on Intel Macs? In my experience, quite significant. But I have not done a great deal of comparing. What's even more revealing, perhaps, is to compare Fin07-Intel with Fin07-PPC under Rosetta. Unfortunately, if you depend on TGTools (Pro), you will be forced to run Fin07 under Rosetta to use it on your Intel Mac. I hope Tobias is working on a Universal Binary of TGTools, but I haven't seen one yet. Matthew Hindson Fastmail acct wrote: Just out of interest, can anyone inform us about the speed of Finale 2007 on Intel Macs compared to, for example, 2006 under Rosetta? Is the speed boost as significant as perhaps it should be? Matthew ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] NI into FinMac
Hiro, Copy the contents of the FinaleAU folder inside your Finale 2006 folder into the FinaleAU folder inside your Finale 2007 folder. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY On 13 Aug 2006, at 3:06 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: I have a stoopid question, and has been afraid to ask because surprisingly I found no one seems to have the same problem. When you purchase NI V.I., how do you make FinMac to see it? UPS tracking shows my FinMac2007 is due Monday so I guess new install will solve my problem, but I just wanted to ask. When I got JaBB, I had to run FinMac2006 installer again to make JaBB appear in Finale, then I copied GarritanJazzinstrument.txt to the 2nd machine. I just bought Kontakt2. Do I have to run FinMac2006 installer again? I hoped there is a better and easier way. Any help appreciated. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] 2007, FULL GPO, AND KONTAKT 2
Hi, all... My 2007 will arrive tomorrow, I hope. I am hearing that the bundled Kontakt 2 player will NOT load the Full GPO...the Full GPO has to go in the old Kontakt player. True? Also--does the Finale Kontakt 2 player have scripting capability?? Jim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
On 13.08.2006 Christopher Smith wrote: If you are using Finale's Create Cue plugin, you get just about everything you need, except, of course, mirror behaviour. You can turn off playback for Layer 4 on any staff with a cue, assuming you are reserving Layer 4 for cues. No, that plugin regularly requires _a lot_ of manual tweaking to get correct display. It really is the one area I spend most time in -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
On 13.08.2006 A-NO-NE Music wrote: Then Mac too suffers from drawing speed in Finale when graphic card is inferior, which contradicts with Dercy's claim, does it not? Not really. All Darcy is claiming is that currently sold graphic cards already have enough 2D power to cope with all this, with very little difference between the medium quality and the higher quality cards. Whether this is true is beyond what I know, although personally I have a feeling that Darcy is correct, at least as far as Finale on the Mac goes. I really do not think that a better graphic card will improve my Finale _experience_. A faster machine might... Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
On 13.08.2006 James Gilbert wrote: Anyone else find that even with a computer that has 256Meg of RAM you cannot install Finale 2007?? When trying to install, I get a message that says that since I don't have 256meg of RAM (I do) the install does not continue. (The system requirments that MakeMusic advertises says nothing about having a 'minimum' of 256, just 256 minimum). Why should a notation software program require sooo much RAM in the first place? Sooo much RAM? You must be joking. The standard these days is at least 512 MB. I think Finale's requirements are low if anything. However, if you really think you have 256 MB I don't know why Finale doesn't seem to recognize it. But I guess you are on Windows, and I don't know much about windows... Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
On 12 Aug 2006, at 4:59 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Tyler is telling you that he's demonstrated that the graphics card on Windows *does* greatly affect 2D operations. You continue to deny it, but that's what his experiment has shown. No, Tyler's experiment has shown that the settings on that slider greatly affect 2D performance on his specific computers (both of which are budget video cards using 3-4 year-old chipsets). Tyler may be right that his video cards are underpowered for his computers. Anyway, I regret getting bogged down in that issue because it doesn't actually have much to do with my central point, which was that adding a faster video card to the *Mac Pro* probably won't significantly improve 2D performance -- in either Mac OS X or WinXP. For me, everything you've written has been very confusing. When you provide citations of articles that show the way OS X works, it is to show how much the CPU is involved. Quite the opposite -- did you even read those articles? They talk about how OS X 10.4 uses the Mac's graphics card more heavily than before (much like Vista will). However, today's video cards are so powerful that even the additional 2D demands of OS X are easily handled by any card currently on the market. And you have minimized the main point, which is the only reason he brought up the issue of 2D drawing and graphics cards, which was that investing in the graphics card gives more bang for the buck for application performance *in Finale* than adding processor cores. I don't think you've contested that point (just minimized its importance) No, I absolutely contest that point. Adding an additional core or additional processor may not improve Finale performance much on Windows, but I *also* think it's unlikely that upgrading the Mac Pro a more powerful graphics card than the nVidia 7300 GT would make much of a difference to 2D performance on that machine. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Speed of 2007 on Intel Macs?
An immensely useful plugin collection: http://www.tgtools.com//index-en.htm I'm new at all this. What is TG Tools and how do you use it? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
On 14.08.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote: No, I absolutely contest that point. Adding an additional core or additional processor may not improve Finale performance much on Windows, but I *also* think it's unlikely that upgrading the Mac Pro a more powerful graphics card than the nVidia 7300 GT would make much of a difference to 2D performance on that machine. May I just add that on my iBook graphics performance in Finale improved dramatically with 2k6, the first version of Finale to use CoreGraphics as opposed to QuickDraw. Considering that the iBooks don't exactly have state of the art graphics adapters and perform very poorly with games this seems to show that a) CoreGraphics makes very good use of the 2D capabilities of compatible graphics cards, but b) even the meager graphics cards in the iBook is pretty sufficient for Finale. Now, in my experience I have literally no wait time for anything in Finale that is screen related, while I have lots of wait time for things like plugins doing their jobs on whole files, re-spacing, and, in Fin2k7, especially vertical collision removal, which is the biggest slow-downer I currently have in Finale. Now, honestly, that does certainly not rely on the graphics card, at least as I understand it, and adding a better one (impossible on the iBook) would not solve that problem, while getting a faster machine with a faster CPU undoubtedly would. I am by no means an expert on all this, and I would not even try to claim that the same is true on Windows. However, I sort of doubt that vertical collision remover would run faster with a faster graphics board. On the other hand I do not doubt it would run significantly faster on a faster processor. On Windows just as much as on Mac. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] 2007, FULL GPO, AND KONTAKT 2
On 13 Aug 2006, at 6:18 PM, Williams, Jim wrote: Hi, all... My 2007 will arrive tomorrow, I hope. I am hearing that the bundled Kontakt 2 player will NOT load the Full GPO...the Full GPO has to go in the old Kontakt player. True? Yes. GPO full and JABB will eventually be updated for the K2 Player, but Garritan have not announced a timeframe for this yet. Also--does the Finale Kontakt 2 player have scripting capability? I'm not sure. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
Hi James, On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 17:41 -0400, James Gilbert wrote: Anyone else find that even with a computer that has 256Meg of RAM you cannot install Finale 2007?? When trying to install, I get a message that says that since I don't have 256meg of RAM (I do) the install does not continue. (The system requirments that MakeMusic advertises says nothing about having a 'minimum' of 256, just 256 minimum). Why should a notation software program require sooo much RAM in the first place? Does your motherboard have onboard video? If so, part of that 256MB is being used as RAM for your video card, resulting in the report that you don't have at least 256MB. Best, Scott ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Logic to Finale
This is the kind of job that can range anywhere from somewhat painless to completely nightmarish. It depends largely on the music and the way it has been sequenced, and of course on how well the client knows Logic. Yes, it pretty much has to be a MIDI file import. I cant think of another way to go from Logic to finale. My experience of this is that the more a midi file has been quantized prior to exporting, the slightly easier it is to work with the file. To put it another way, if the file has been quantized, the notes should be in the right place, if not exactly the right duration. (I think there is a way to quantize durations also in Logic, but I can't remember where it is, and I dont have Logic currently installed.) As to quantize values, this is completely dependent on the music. If it was all 8th notes, then obviously a quantize value of 8 would be correct. Logic also has hybrid quantize options such as 8th + 12th, for music which consists of 8th notes and also 8th triplets. The chances are its like most music and varies throughout, and so would the quantize values have to. But basically if on the whole it has been quantized, it should make your life a bit easier. Remember also however that Finale also has quantize options while importing, and so if you know what the fastest note durations in the music are, you can for the most part sort it at your end. The other thing that happens a lot with realtime MIDI sequencing is that notes overlap slightly when having been played on a keyboard, e.g. the C hasn't quite come up before the D is pressed down. Logic has an option called something like Remove note overlap which will eliminate this. If it comes across what it thinks is a chord, it prompts you and asks what to do. you could try running this on the sequence. I think it is in the Function menu, under Sequence parameters. It's probably not a bad idea to get the client to export the logic file using this function and again without using it, and send you both files. Similarly, its not a bad idea when importing into Finale to do so a few times with different quantize and import options. Settings that work well on one section often arent so good elsewhere, so if you have multiple files, you can copy and past from each one . Anytime I have done this kind of work, I have set up a fresh score with the appropriate staves and pasted material from the MIDI import file, rather than make the MIDI file look like a score, it can save a lot of messing around with staff groupings, brackets and transpositions to name a few. Finally, If I were you, I'd get a hold of an audio recording of the music as well, for those moments where the notation may come out looking like Sanskrit. If all else fails you should at least be able to trust your ear. Hope this helps. Good luck. C. _ The new Windows Live Toolbar helps you guard against viruses http://toolbar.live.com/?mkt=en-gb ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale
Darcy James Argue wrote: Hello, It's possible I may need to create Finale files based on a client's Logic (sequencer) files. I've never done this before, so I have some questions: 1) I assume the fasted way to go would be to have Finale import MIDI files exported from Logic. Is there anything the client should do (in terms of quantization or whatever) to make this process easier? Have your client only use half notes, quarter notes, and if he's daring, 8th notes. No nested tuplets, no complex rhythms of any kind, no cross voicings. Finale's midi import feature for anything more complex than Mary Had A Little Lamb (melody only with maybe whole-note sustained chords) is really awful. Perhaps if you have a frustrating time with it and complain about it, your voice will come through to Finale's development team, or whomever sets the priorities for what gets improved/fixed with each new version, because those of us who would like to use it have complained about it for years, to no avail. Seriously, though, quantization should be done at whatever resolution the client feels suits the music best, and he should tell you what resolution he used so you can set Finale's quantization to be the same. And if you could get him to save each channel to its own midi file, it will open into Finale much better (I think) and then you can simply copy/paste the different channels into one score for him. 2) What would be the recommended settings for importing the MIDI files into Finale? Listen carefully to audio files of what your friend has come up with, and listen especially for tuplets. If there aren't any, then be sure to tell Finale that in the quantization settings. You may have to play around with the settings for allow grace notes and such to find what will import the file the most accurately. 3) Does anyone have any useful tips for efficiently cleaning up the notation of the imported MIDI files? Have your friend write his music down and then work from the manuscript and input the whole file by hand from scratch. There really isn't much encouraging to say, other than be prepared for a long, arduous time if the music is at all complex. You may well end up having to select a measure or two (either from a single part or the whole score) and have Finale re-transcribe that measure with different quantization settings. Eventually you'll have a final score which should resemble the original. Answers to these questions, plus any other advice/input, would be greatly appreciated. Buy a wig and wear it, so that when you start tearing your hair out in frustration it won't actually be your own hair. Does Logic work with MusicXML? If it does (www.recordare.com should be able to tell you if it does) have your friend export the file as MusicXML, as it is so much more accurate than Finale's midi import. Good luck, and I hope I'm wrong about everything I said. (other than the wig, you'll definitely need that!) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] NI into FinMac
Darcy James Argue / 2006/08/13 / 06:12 PM wrote: Hiro, Copy the contents of the FinaleAU folder inside your Finale 2006 folder into the FinaleAU folder inside your Finale 2007 folder. That's what I did from machine A to machine B for JaBB as I mentioned. For Kontakt 2 I just bought, nothing is in the said FinaleAU folder. Also as I said, I had to run Finale installer disk to produce the JaBB instrument.txt file in the _FinaleAU_ folder when I got JaBB, and I want to avoid running the installer again for Kontakt 2. I hope this is clear. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, dhbailey wrote: Then there is the ram that the OS uses simply to run. So there won't be 256MB of free ram when installation comes around, and there may be such a small portion available that the installer simply won't run. The MakeMusic site says NOTHING about FREE memory, only that your system should have 256meg installed. I wouldn't of wasted my money to upgrade if it needs 256M of free memory. (Along those lines, I can't justify spending more money to upgrade my computer just for this program. Finale 2006 works well enough). I have plenty of programs that require 256M system memory that run just fine (and as fast as any computer I've used). I still want to know why a notation program has to use SOOO much memory to notate music. (I can understand why playback or GPO or the like might need a lot more, but why can't those be loaded in only if needed instead of bloating the whole software? It seems like bad programming). Oh, my sound and video card are separate from the system RAM. James Gilbert www.jamesgilbertmusic.com 640K ought to be enough for anybody. (Bill Gates, 1981) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
--- Johannes Gebauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, I sort of doubt that vertical collision remover would run faster with a faster graphics board. On the other hand I do not doubt it would run significantly faster on a faster processor. On Windows just as much as on Mac. That's not the debate. The debate is whether a second processor or a faster graphics card would have a better chance of helping. Since Finale doesn't use more than one processor, adding a second processor, at least on Windows, would do extremely little over a single dual core processor. There were two things in this discussion that I was claiming: 1. Modern graphics processors are not identical in 2D performance. Darcy wants to get me to talk specifically about the 7300GT, but that isn't the only modern graphics card out there (nor is it one I'd consider, since I am doing 3D activities that would benefit from a better card). I believe that my one year old computer that was purchased with the best graphics chip available from the manufacturer at the time, is in all fairness using a modern processor. I don't care what's shipping with the Mac. All I'm saying is that there is definitely some variance in 2D performance among modern graphic cards. The fact of the matter is that the video card in my machine is still sold today, and I believe I have shown good cause to believe that a different card would perform 2D tasks more effectively. 2. For Windows software, it currently makes much more sense for me to purchase a computer with a single Core 2 Duo processor and a high quality graphics card than it does to purchase a machine with 2 Core 2 Duo processors and a bottom of the line graphics card or integrated solution. This is because I will see more performance gain from a high quality graphics card than I will from a second dual core processor. Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
--- Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for that link, Roger. Tyler was extremely insulted when I asked I'm assuming you've installed the latest drivers for both these cards, correct? -- but based on the Adobe article you referenced, the most common cause of Tyler's problem is old/bad drivers. That may not have been a factor in Tyler's specific case, but it wasn't an inappropriate question. Why don't you also point out that the article mentioned that users might see better performance from a video card with at least 128MB of memory? That doesn't sound like universal equality among 2D performance to me. Your comment was insulting because it treated me as if I was an idiot. I think by that point in the conversation I had shown plenty of reason for you to believe that I had at least enough knowledge of Windows and all of this for you to just kindly assume that I know how to keep my Windows computers up to date. How many Windows PC's have you put together and maintained? Fewer than me? Good - just give me credit for some beginner stuff then. Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
http://finalemusic.com/finale/system-requirements.aspx I think 256 Megs of Ram means free Ram. Why are we complaining about this? Just go and get some ram. You spent $99 on the upgrade, why not splurge for a stick of 512Megs? I'm going to assume you have an older system, and Ram for those is cheap. James Gilbert wrote: On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, dhbailey wrote: Then there is the ram that the OS uses simply to run. So there won't be 256MB of free ram when installation comes around, and there may be such a small portion available that the installer simply won't run. The MakeMusic site says NOTHING about FREE memory, only that your system should have 256meg installed. I wouldn't of wasted my money to upgrade if it needs 256M of free memory. (Along those lines, I can't justify spending more money to upgrade my computer just for this program. Finale 2006 works well enough). I have plenty of programs that require 256M system memory that run just fine (and as fast as any computer I've used). I still want to know why a notation program has to use SOOO much memory to notate music. (I can understand why playback or GPO or the like might need a lot more, but why can't those be loaded in only if needed instead of bloating the whole software? It seems like bad programming). Oh, my sound and video card are separate from the system RAM. James Gilbert www.jamesgilbertmusic.com 640K ought to be enough for anybody. (Bill Gates, 1981) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
--- James Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still want to know why a notation program has to use SOOO much memory to notate music. (I can understand why playback or GPO or the like might need a lot more, but why can't those be loaded in only if needed instead of bloating the whole software? It seems like bad programming). Oh, my sound and video card are separate from the system RAM. There are many things that eat up memory. The soundfont is loaded into memory. Plug-ins take up memory. The application is going to load things into memory to speed up access to them. There are a lot of graphics being thrown around here, and part of Finale 2006 getting much faster at redrawing probably included making more use of system RAM. Keep in mind that Windows XP is supposed to be given 128MB of memory, and so MakeMusic has to require an amount that takes this into consideration. Looking at Finale in the task manager right now, it's using about 110MB of memory. That doesn't strike me as being extreme. -Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
On 13 Aug 2006 at 14:51, Eric Dannewitz wrote: I'd say they probably assume most people have 512 Megs of RAM as most computers seem to ship with that now, and if you really want performance out of a system, you need more RAM. I can't imagine Windows XP on 256 Megs of RAM. Actually, I've seen it before. A friend was running an old PC with Finale 2006 with just 256 Megs of physical ram. It was dirt slow. Adding more ram seemed to turn night into day on that machine. Give me a break. Before the addition of GPO, Finale was a very low- consumption application in terms of using computing resources, except for screen drawing. Finale should run just fine in 256MBs on a computer that is 500MHz or faster. If you saw Finale running on 256MBs very slowly, then it was probably a slow computer. Additional RAM might speed up such a computer somewhat, but probably the graphics subsystem and a slow hard drive were more to blame than the RAM. It also might depend on the Windows version involved. WinXP needs a minimum of 256MBs to be usable, and I choose 512 for systems for cheap customers and 1GB for those who aren't cheapskates. If it's Win2K, then 128MBs is going to work OK, but 256MBs is better. I run a P4 500 with 768MBs of RAM (which is maxed out for this computer), and it's fine. Finale 2005 (the last demo I've downloaded) runs just as fast as Finale 2003, which is just fine. The recommendation to add RAM is a good one, though. But I, too, am puzzled why the installer is refusing to install on a machine that has the stated minimum of RAM. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
On 13 Aug 2006, at 9:36 PM, Tyler Turner wrote: Why don't you also point out that the article mentioned that users might see better performance from a video card with at least 128MB of memory? That doesn't sound like universal equality among 2D performance to me. Because -- again -- this whole thing started when you complained that the stock video card in the Mac Pro was not reasonable, and that you wish they had gone with a better video card (instead of the second processor). The only claim I have any desire to defend at this point is that upgrading from the nVidia 7300 GT -- which has 256 MB of video RAM -- would not noticeably improve 2D performance on this computer. Also, I haven't done an exhaustive study by any means, but I had trouble finding a computer being sold today equipped with a video card that has less than 128 MB of memory. (Apart from the computers with integrated graphics, obviously.) Your comment was insulting because it treated me as if I was an idiot. Well, that certainly wasn't my intention, which is why I phrased the question the way I did (I assume... right?). I thought it was overwhelmingly likely that you had downloaded and installed the latest drivers from ATI's website, but I just thought I'd mention the possibility that the behavior you were seeing might be a driver issue -- if only to eliminate it. Anyway, I apologize for the question, but I can assure you there was no malice in it. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
On 13 Aug 2006 at 20:24, dhbailey wrote: Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 13.08.2006 James Gilbert wrote: Anyone else find that even with a computer that has 256Meg of RAM you cannot install Finale 2007?? When trying to install, I get a message that says that since I don't have 256meg of RAM (I do) the install does not continue. (The system requirments that MakeMusic advertises says nothing about having a 'minimum' of 256, just 256 minimum). Why should a notation software program require sooo much RAM in the first place? Sooo much RAM? You must be joking. The standard these days is at least 512 MB. I think Finale's requirements are low if anything. Finale doesn't require much in resources compared to many other modern programs, but to me, even 256 as a minimum is a ridiculously high requirement. Minimums always mean the minimum needed to launch this program by itself with nothing else running. If Finale 2007 is using 256MBs or some large proportion of that by default, then it is a real pig in comparison to previous versions of Finale. However, if you really think you have 256 MB I don't know why Finale doesn't seem to recognize it. But I guess you are on Windows, and I don't know much about windows... The fact that there is a ram card in the slot which says it has 256MB of ram doesn't mean the operating system gets it all. Depending on the graphics processor and the sound card (especially if these are built into the motherboard) some of that RAM is used for video memory and soundcard memory. Then there is the ram that the OS uses simply to run. So there won't be 256MB of free ram when installation comes around, and there may be such a small portion available that the installer simply won't run. None of that makes any sense. Why would an installer check the RAM available when it's *running* rather than the *installed* RAM? Perhaps you're right, though, if the system RAM grabbed by the onboard devices is showing up as unavailable. I don't know how those kinds of things work, since I'd never buy a system that is so poorly designed as to be using system RAM for those purposes. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
On 13 Aug 2006, at 9:26 PM, Tyler Turner wrote: I believe that my one year old computer that was purchased with the best graphics chip available from the manufacturer at the time, is in all fairness using a modern processor. As I've pointed out several times already, the ATI X600 uses the same chipset as the ATI 9600, which was originally released in 2003. It's unfortunate that the manufacturer did not allow you to select a better graphics card at the time, but as you know, when it comes to computers, three years is an eternity. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
David W. Fenton wrote: Give me a break. Before the addition of GPO, Finale was a very low- consumption application in terms of using computing resources, except for screen drawing. I'll give you a break. I saw the Task Manager and it was using a LOT of virtual Memory. In fact, the friend was using Finale 2005 not 2006. My mistake. So, no GPO. But Finale 2005 was using soundfonts, so, there might have been some overhead there. But it was chewing up a lot of memory, and the Paging file usage was great fun to watch when Finale was doing stuff Finale should run just fine in 256MBs on a computer that is 500MHz or faster. Yeah, if you like virtual memory. It would be like running a car on deflated tires. If you saw Finale running on 256MBs very slowly, then it was probably a slow computer. Additional RAM might speed up such a computer somewhat, but probably the graphics subsystem and a slow hard drive were more to blame than the RAM. It also might depend on the Windows version involved. WinXP needs a minimum of 256MBs to be usable, and I choose 512 for systems for cheap customers and 1GB for those who aren't cheapskates. Nope, it was a 600 Mhz Pentium III. It has a 7200 RPM drive, and the graphics card I don't know what it was. The friend has upgraded to 768Megs of Ram (added a 512Meg DIMM) and he reports that he is flying now compared to earlier. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
On 13 Aug 2006 at 18:41, Eric Dannewitz wrote: http://finalemusic.com/finale/system-requirements.aspx I think 256 Megs of Ram means free Ram. I've never ever seen any pieces of software list system requirements in that way and assume you'll understand they mean *free* RAM instead of *installed* RAM. You may be right that that's what they mean, though, in which case, they should say so explicitly. . . . Why are we complaining about this? Just go and get some ram. You spent $99 on the upgrade, why not splurge for a stick of 512Megs? I'm going to assume you have an older system, and Ram for those is cheap. While I agree that RAM is cheap and that adding it is an excellent way to speed up an old system, additional RAM actually has very little effect on how fast *Finale* runs, because it's not a RAM- hungry program in the first place. Secondly, if the upgrade was bought by someone who is poor on the basis of the system requirements listed at the URL above, then I think it's reasonable for that purchaser to be upset to find out that it means FREE RAM instead of INSTALLED RAM. I still don't believe that's the case, though, as it would make no sense, as you'd sometimes be able to run the installer and sometimes not. Secondly, Windows calculates free RAM using the swap file, so changing your swap file size could allow you to end up with the system reporting more than 256MBs of free RAM, even though you haven't added any actual RAM to the system. It just doesn't make any sense to me for MM to mean FREE RAM instead of INSTALLED RAM. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
--- David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: None of that makes any sense. Why would an installer check the RAM available when it's *running* rather than the *installed* RAM? Perhaps you're right, though, if the system RAM grabbed by the onboard devices is showing up as unavailable. I don't know how those kinds of things work, since I'd never buy a system that is so poorly designed as to be using system RAM for those purposes. I believe if you look at the amount of memory reported by Windows as being installed on the system, system memory that has been dedicated to video will not be reported. So a system with 256MB of Ram with integrated video that uses 32MB from this will only report that it has 224MB of memory. If the program isn't installing and is reporting that the computer doesn't have enough memory, this would be my guess as to what's going on. -Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
On 13 Aug 2006 at 18:48, Tyler Turner wrote: --- James Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still want to know why a notation program has to use SOOO much memory to notate music. (I can understand why playback or GPO or the like might need a lot more, but why can't those be loaded in only if needed instead of bloating the whole software? It seems like bad programming). Oh, my sound and video card are separate from the system RAM. There are many things that eat up memory. The soundfont is loaded into memory. . . . Not if you're not using it. . . . Plug-ins take up memory. . . . Not when you're not running them, and even then, only a very small amount. . . . The application is going to load things into memory to speed up access to them. . . . If Finale 2006 runs just fine on this James's system, then I can't see why Finale 2006 would not. Can anyone with both 2006 and 2007 profile memory usage? Perhaps the code to support linked parts has vastly bloated Finale. . . . There are a lot of graphics being thrown around here, . . . . You of all people should know that this is much less an issue of system RAM than it is of the graphics card installed on the machine. . . . .and part of Finale 2006 getting much faster at redrawing probably included making more use of system RAM. . . . Perhaps. But James says Finale 2006 runs just fine on his system, so that makes this point completely irrelevant. . . . Keep in mind that Windows XP is supposed to be given 128MB of memory, and so MakeMusic has to require an amount that takes this into consideration. . . . The WinXP RAM minimum does not mean that WinXP takes over 128MBs of RAM, it is only the basic amount of RAM that is needed to boot the OS and run an application or two. . . . Looking at Finale in the task manager right now, it's using about 110MB of memory. That doesn't strike me as being extreme. Maybe not, but I just loaded up a large file in Finale 2003 and it's taking only 23MBs. The same file loaded into the Finale 2005 demo takes up 57MBs. If each version of Finale is doubling the RAM needs, that would be 120MBs for Finale 2006, and 240MBs for Finale 2007, but it would be ridiculous to assume such a doubling with every version. What version of Finale do you show using 110MBs? All that aside, the VMM of Windows should still allow you to run such an application that grabs that amount of memory, albeit slowly. I know of no software that specifies its minimum RAM requirements as FREE RAM instead of INSTALLED RAM, as free RAM is so incredibly variable with operating environment and dependent on things like swap file settings that don't really get you additional performance (swap files only stretch what you can barely run). -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
David W. Fenton wrote: I've never ever seen any pieces of software list system requirements in that way and assume you'll understand they mean *free* RAM instead of *installed* RAM. You may be right that that's what they mean, though, in which case, they should say so explicitly. Well, isn't it assumed that it means free Ram? It is confusing though. http://www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/productinfo/systemreqs/ Says 256Megs of Ram as well. http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html And this says 320Megs. So, if I have a system with just that I can run it? While I agree that RAM is cheap and that adding it is an excellent way to speed up an old system, additional RAM actually has very little effect on how fast *Finale* runs, because it's not a RAM- hungry program in the first place. I think we have had this debate before, and Finale does run better with more Ram. I think it was a discussion about using a Ram disk for temp files or something of the like. Secondly, if the upgrade was bought by someone who is poor on the basis of the system requirements listed at the URL above, then I think it's reasonable for that purchaser to be upset to find out that it means FREE RAM instead of INSTALLED RAM. I still don't believe that's the case, though, as it would make no sense, as you'd sometimes be able to run the installer and sometimes not. Secondly, Windows calculates free RAM using the swap file, so changing your swap file size could allow you to end up with the system reporting more than 256MBs of free RAM, even though you haven't added any actual RAM to the system. It just doesn't make any sense to me for MM to mean FREE RAM instead of INSTALLED RAM. I suppose you can argue that running photoshop with just 320Megs of actual ram is possible, but who really does it? Again, $20-$40 and the problem is solved (IE: more RAM). ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
--- Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I've pointed out several times already, the ATI X600 uses the same chipset as the ATI 9600, which was originally released in 2003. It's unfortunate that the manufacturer did not allow you to select a better graphics card at the time, but as you know, when it comes to computers, three years is an eternity. I did my research at the time of the purchase though. The X600's were not slow for notebook graphic solutions. While I'm guessing the mobile 9700's would have been faster (if you could find them), the mobile X800's hadn't been released at the time I purchased my system (they came a couple of weeks later). Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
On 13 Aug 2006 at 8:25, dhbailey wrote: Curiously though, there are also some heavy-hitter Sibelius users (admittedly not many) who don't like it either and who use Sibelius' wonderful key-mapping feature to map most of their most commonly used keypad commands to qwerty-keyboard commands. The biggest of these (and maybe some others) came to the current Sibelius versions from the old Acorn computers, which apparently had a different interface. Even though I'm a keyboard person, I don't find keyboard shortcuts in visual programs like Finale to be terribly helpful. My problem with the keypad UI is that the freedom in the visual interface has been sacrified to the limits of the keyboard. Of course, perhaps it's because I think of the onscreen keypad as a toolbar, and I'm frustrated that too many of the things on the toolbar are in hard-to-reach locations (I keep all my main Finale toolbars active at all times). Secondly, it's modal, which means the same location onscreen has different meaning for each tab. This can be OK, but in this case, it just gets in the way of my being able to remember what's what. The one thing that I really liked about the Sibelius UI was the note selection, where you could ctrl-click individual notes to add them to a selection and then use the keypad to apply multiple things to the group of notes at once. This non-contiguous selection is something I'd *really* like to see in Finale. It would make the decomposition of combined parts much easier, for instance. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale
On 13 Aug 2006 at 20:34, dhbailey wrote: Does Logic work with MusicXML? If it does (www.recordare.com should be able to tell you if it does) have your friend export the file as MusicXML, as it is so much more accurate than Finale's midi import. Isn't Sibelius much better with MIDI import? If so, and it's available, what about importing the MIDI into Sibelius, then exporting to XML for import into Finale. Lots of steps, but might be easier if the software is all available. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
On 13 Aug 2006, at 10:39 PM, Tyler Turner wrote: As I've pointed out several times already, the ATI X600 uses the same chipset as the ATI 9600, which was originally released in 2003. It's unfortunate that the manufacturer did not allow you to select a better graphics card at the time, but as you know, when it comes to computers, three years is an eternity. I did my research at the time of the purchase though. The X600's were not slow for notebook graphic solutions. While I'm guessing the mobile 9700's would have been faster (if you could find them), the mobile X800's hadn't been released at the time I purchased my system (they came a couple of weeks later). I've linked to this before, but here is a chart comparing ATI's graphics card offerings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units You can see that the Radeon 9600 Pro uses the RV350 chipset and has a fillrate of 1600 MT/s. The Radeon X600 Pro uses the RV380 (which is derived from the RV350) and has exactly the same fillrate -- 1600 MT/s. I don't know about ATI, but nVidia definitely had faster options for laptops at the time. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale
Hey David, I'm afraid I don't own a copy of Sibelius anymore. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY On 13 Aug 2006, at 10:46 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 13 Aug 2006 at 20:34, dhbailey wrote: Does Logic work with MusicXML? If it does (www.recordare.com should be able to tell you if it does) have your friend export the file as MusicXML, as it is so much more accurate than Finale's midi import. Isn't Sibelius much better with MIDI import? If so, and it's available, what about importing the MIDI into Sibelius, then exporting to XML for import into Finale. Lots of steps, but might be easier if the software is all available. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
On 13 Aug 2006 at 18:33, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 12 Aug 2006, at 4:59 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Tyler is telling you that he's demonstrated that the graphics card on Windows *does* greatly affect 2D operations. You continue to deny it, but that's what his experiment has shown. No, Tyler's experiment has shown that the settings on that slider greatly affect 2D performance on his specific computers (both of which are budget video cards using 3-4 year-old chipsets). Tyler may be right that his video cards are underpowered for his computers. You're missing the point of Tyler's comparison. He showed that with a better graphics card, a computer with an older and slower CPU (i.e., much less CPU processingn power) could perform better in Finale than a newer computer with a lesser graphics card and beefier CPU/performance. That's incontestable. Yet you insist on contesting it. You can't have it both ways, Darcy. If 2D performance of graphics cards has not changed in 10 years (which you've argued at certain points in the discussion), then Tyler's experiment is relevant to current hardware. Anyway, I regret getting bogged down in that issue because it doesn't actually have much to do with my central point, which was that adding a faster video card to the *Mac Pro* probably won't significantly improve 2D performance -- in either Mac OS X or WinXP. And it seems to me that Tyler has shown that for Windows that is simply not true. For me, everything you've written has been very confusing. When you provide citations of articles that show the way OS X works, it is to show how much the CPU is involved. Quite the opposite -- did you even read those articles? . . . I skimmed them. . . . They talk about how OS X 10.4 uses the Mac's graphics card more heavily than before (much like Vista will). . . . And the way Windows already does (and has for a long time), according to my understanding. Vista only adds the same kind of ridiculous graphics overhead that Aqua's useless transparency added to OS X. It may very well be that for these kind of layering and the new 3D requirements, the newer graphics cards add a great deal (I don't doubt it). But none of those things are involved in Finale's 2D rendering (though, of course, on Mac, the new anti-aliasing is part of Quartz, though it didn't need to be, seems to me). You seem to be arguing that all these new things that have been added (and will be added) to the OS make Tyler's arguments about 2D rendering irrelevant, at the same time you are saying that 2D issues have not changed in a long time because those were highly optimized a very long time ago. . . . However, today's video cards are so powerful that even the additional 2D demands of OS X are easily handled by any card currently on the market. If the Mac now uses the graphics card for graphics operations, then I'm very happy for Mac users that they now have what Windows users have had for ages. What *I* learned from the articles you cited was that the CPU was still pushing massive numbers of pixels around once they came out of the GPU. And you have minimized the main point, which is the only reason he brought up the issue of 2D drawing and graphics cards, which was that investing in the graphics card gives more bang for the buck for application performance *in Finale* than adding processor cores. I don't think you've contested that point (just minimized its importance) No, I absolutely contest that point. Adding an additional core or additional processor may not improve Finale performance much on Windows, but I *also* think it's unlikely that upgrading the Mac Pro a more powerful graphics card than the nVidia 7300 GT would make much of a difference to 2D performance on that machine. Again, You're smiply refusing to see the whole point -- you've turned Tyler's argument on its head. He wants to spend his money on more graphics performance, not on a second pair of CPU cores. I'm sorry, but it's impossible to continue this discussion with you. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
On 13 Aug 2006, at 10:58 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: You can't have it both ways, Darcy. If 2D performance of graphics cards has not changed in 10 years (which you've argued at certain points in the discussion), I have never claimed this. I have explicitly denied this multiple times. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
On 13 Aug 2006 at 19:30, Tyler Turner wrote: --- David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: None of that makes any sense. Why would an installer check the RAM available when it's *running* rather than the *installed* RAM? Perhaps you're right, though, if the system RAM grabbed by the onboard devices is showing up as unavailable. I don't know how those kinds of things work, since I'd never buy a system that is so poorly designed as to be using system RAM for those purposes. I believe if you look at the amount of memory reported by Windows as being installed on the system, system memory that has been dedicated to video will not be reported. So a system with 256MB of Ram with integrated video that uses 32MB from this will only report that it has 224MB of memory. If the program isn't installing and is reporting that the computer doesn't have enough memory, this would be my guess as to what's going on. James has already reported that this does not apply to his system, that there are no devices utilizing system RAM, so it's not the reason Finale is refusing to install. I have no experience with such machines, as I would never buy one or allow one of my clients to buy one. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
On 13 Aug 2006 at 19:38, Eric Dannewitz wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I've never ever seen any pieces of software list system requirements in that way and assume you'll understand they mean *free* RAM instead of *installed* RAM. You may be right that that's what they mean, though, in which case, they should say so explicitly. Well, isn't it assumed that it means free Ram? I've never made such an assumption, as free RAM is going to be completely variable, which means the installer could run at one point and not run at another. That would result in lots of tech support calls. . . . It is confusing though. http://www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/productinfo/systemreqs/ Says 256Megs of Ram as well. One I hear 256Megs of Ram I hear 256MBs of RAM chips installed in the computer. If someone means FREE RAM, they should say 256MBs of MEMORY or they should specify AVAILABLE MEMORY. http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html And this says 320Megs. So, if I have a system with just that I can run it? While I agree that RAM is cheap and that adding it is an excellent way to speed up an old system, additional RAM actually has very little effect on how fast *Finale* runs, because it's not a RAM-hungry program in the first place. I think we have had this debate before, and Finale does run better with more Ram. . .. Almost every program does, but some programs benefit more. Also, programs like Finale with low relatively resource requirements will plateau sooner and get no further benefit from additional RAM. . . . I think it was a discussion about using a Ram disk for temp files or something of the like. RAM disks on Windows have never made any sense whatsoever because Windows always managed virtual memory and disk caching better than the old Mac OS. I don't know if under OS X disk caching and VM are now comparable to what Windows had in 1993. Secondly, if the upgrade was bought by someone who is poor on the basis of the system requirements listed at the URL above, then I think it's reasonable for that purchaser to be upset to find out that it means FREE RAM instead of INSTALLED RAM. I still don't believe that's the case, though, as it would make no sense, as you'd sometimes be able to run the installer and sometimes not. Secondly, Windows calculates free RAM using the swap file, so changing your swap file size could allow you to end up with the system reporting more than 256MBs of free RAM, even though you haven't added any actual RAM to the system. It just doesn't make any sense to me for MM to mean FREE RAM instead of INSTALLED RAM. I suppose you can argue that running photoshop with just 320Megs of actual ram is possible, but who really does it? Again, $20-$40 and the problem is solved (IE: more RAM). That's not the point. If Adobe says Photoshop will run with 320MBs, then it had better install and run, however slowly. In this case, MM is saying it will install and run with 256MBs (however slowly), but it's refusing to install on a machine that really has 256MBs of RAM (with no blocks of RAM permanently allocated to video processing/etc.). Either the installer is broken, or MM really *does* mean 256MBs of FREE RAM. In either case, MM has a problem, one that the end user shouldn't have to solve by buying more RAM. The end user should be able to trust what the software maker says, and in this case, either MM is untrustworthy (by using misleading terminology) or the installer is broken. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
I think I was unclear about the Keypad in Sibelius. Most of the time (laptop on the go excluded) I use the 10 key pad on the keyboard. Clicking on the toolbar on the screen is slower. The features I like to have close at hand are almost all on the top tab on the keypad (or in the right click context menu). Others working differently or with different musical requirements might have a different experience. In general, Sibelius works better with more keyboard and less mousing and has extensive keyboard shortcuts. I find Finale's many toolbars, icons, sub-menus, and pop-ups more frustrating. But that's just me and the way I like to work. Interesting that you mention the difficulty with decomposing combined parts. I had to do a job recently that involved making keyboard reductions from some string quartet pieces. This was a Finale job. Finale would not let me reassign the layer (or voice) of individual notes so that dissimilar rhythms could live happily in the same bar. Only the entire measure could be reassigned. Posts to this list and MMs tech support confirmed that Finale was unable to do what was needed. Sibelius would easily do it but the customer had to have Finale. Much of the job had to be re-input from scratch. I agree with David Baily. While some of us work frequently with both programs, most everyone has a (strong) preference. I think that's because one of the two comes closer to the way we think about music. I'm glad both are so mature and capable. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] David W. Fenton wrote: On 13 Aug 2006 at 8:25, dhbailey wrote: Curiously though, there are also some heavy-hitter Sibelius users (admittedly not many) who don't like it either and who use Sibelius' wonderful key-mapping feature to map most of their most commonly used keypad commands to qwerty-keyboard commands. The biggest of these (and maybe some others) came to the current Sibelius versions from the old Acorn computers, which apparently had a different interface. Even though I'm a keyboard person, I don't find keyboard shortcuts in visual programs like Finale to be terribly helpful. My problem with the keypad UI is that the freedom in the visual interface has been sacrified to the limits of the keyboard. Of course, perhaps it's because I think of the onscreen keypad as a toolbar, and I'm frustrated that too many of the things on the toolbar are in hard-to-reach locations (I keep all my main Finale toolbars active at all times). Secondly, it's modal, which means the same location onscreen has different meaning for each tab. This can be OK, but in this case, it just gets in the way of my being able to remember what's what. The one thing that I really liked about the Sibelius UI was the note selection, where you could ctrl-click individual notes to add them to a selection and then use the keypad to apply multiple things to the group of notes at once. This non-contiguous selection is something I'd *really* like to see in Finale. It would make the decomposition of combined parts much easier, for instance. begin:vcard fn:Richard Smith n:Smith;Richard email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] url:http://www.rgsmithmusic.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale
*Golf clap* Bravo! Darcy James Argue wrote: Hey David, I'm afraid I don't own a copy of Sibelius anymore. Cheers, - Darcy ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale
I'm not sure Sibelius is better than Finale at midi import. Both seem to make quite a mess of it. in my experience, Sibelius seems to leave more debris around while Finale gives a cleaner initial look but tends to truncate complex data. MusicXML is very effective but, unlike Finale, Sibelius requires you to buy the full plug-in to export MusicXML. So if you don't have the plug-in, this may not be a good choice. Importing MusicXMLis, however, free and has become the best method for moving from Finale to Sibelius. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] David W. Fenton wrote: On 13 Aug 2006 at 20:34, dhbailey wrote: Does Logic work with MusicXML? If it does (www.recordare.com should be able to tell you if it does) have your friend export the file as MusicXML, as it is so much more accurate than Finale's midi import. Isn't Sibelius much better with MIDI import? If so, and it's available, what about importing the MIDI into Sibelius, then exporting to XML for import into Finale. Lots of steps, but might be easier if the software is all available. begin:vcard fn:Richard Smith n:Smith;Richard email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] url:http://www.rgsmithmusic.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
--- David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are many things that eat up memory. The soundfont is loaded into memory. . . . Not if you're not using it. I'll have to check again, but I believe this isn't the case. Essentially, as long as the soundfont file and the aiolib.dll file are in their correct places, these will be loaded upon running Finale. . . . Plug-ins take up memory. . . . Not when you're not running them, and even then, only a very small amount. Again, I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Removing plug-ins from the plug-ins folder decreases the amount of memory Finale takes to run. . . . The application is going to load things into memory to speed up access to them. . . . If Finale 2006 runs just fine on this James's system, then I can't see why Finale 2006 would not. Can anyone with both 2006 and 2007 profile memory usage? Perhaps the code to support linked parts has vastly bloated Finale. This is an installer issue, right? It's basically checking to see how much memory is reported as installed? I think Finale 2007 includes new latin percussion soundfonts as well as new plug-ins that would take some additional memory. This could have been enough to make them decide to up the requirement. . . . There are a lot of graphics being thrown around here, . . . . You of all people should know that this is much less an issue of system RAM than it is of the graphics card installed on the machine. Yes, but the actual Finale data that it's keeping track of? . . . .and part of Finale 2006 getting much faster at redrawing probably included making more use of system RAM. . . . Perhaps. But James says Finale 2006 runs just fine on his system, so that makes this point completely irrelevant. Not if we're talking about small changes that pushed the requirement up to the next level. After all, you make a requirement for the amount of memory that's going to safely run the software - not the bare minimum to keep it working reliably. We typically see packaging reporte requirements for 128 MB or 256MB... how often do we see a requirement for 206.5MB? It's just normal for companies to express requirements in amounts that match typical configurations. . . . Keep in mind that Windows XP is supposed to be given 128MB of memory, and so MakeMusic has to require an amount that takes this into consideration. . . . The WinXP RAM minimum does not mean that WinXP takes over 128MBs of RAM, it is only the basic amount of RAM that is needed to boot the OS and run an application or two. Nevertheless, MakeMusic is going to consider the stated OS requirements when it makes its own requirements. . . . Looking at Finale in the task manager right now, it's using about 110MB of memory. That doesn't strike me as being extreme. Maybe not, but I just loaded up a large file in Finale 2003 and it's taking only 23MBs. The same file loaded into the Finale 2005 demo takes up 57MBs. If each version of Finale is doubling the RAM needs, that would be 120MBs for Finale 2006, and 240MBs for Finale 2007, but it would be ridiculous to assume such a doubling with every version. What version of Finale do you show using 110MBs? I'm looking at Finale 2007. But keep in mind that the memory usage is going to depend on how much RAM you have installed. On computers that have more memory, Windows XP will let Finale use a greater portion of it (assuming it's not being used by another app). After working with the program for a while, the amount of RAM used can vary by hundreds of megabytes, depending on the machine. Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
--- James Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The MakeMusic site says NOTHING about FREE memory, only that your system should have 256meg installed. If you right-click My Computer and choose Properties, what does it state the amount of RAM is? Thanks, Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
On 13 Aug 2006 at 20:33, Tyler Turner wrote: But keep in mind that the memory usage is going to depend on how much RAM you have installed. On computers that have more memory, Windows XP will let Finale use a greater portion of it (assuming it's not being used by another app). After working with the program for a while, the amount of RAM used can vary by hundreds of megabytes, depending on the machine. My machine has 768MBs of RAM and so I don't think that the RAM reported for Finale 2003 and Finale 2005 is going to be less than what they'd use on a machine with 256MBs of RAM. And in any event, your last sentence points out the absurdity of interpreting the 256MB requirement as meaning FREE RAM, since the amount of free RAM depends entirely on what's running already. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
--- Richard Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I was unclear about the Keypad in Sibelius. Most of the time (laptop on the go excluded) I use the 10 key pad on the keyboard. Clicking on the toolbar on the screen is slower. The features I like to have close at hand are almost all on the top tab on the keypad (or in the right click context menu). Others working differently or with different musical requirements might have a different experience. In general, Sibelius works better with more keyboard and less mousing and has extensive keyboard shortcuts. Keyboard shortcuts are a big reason that I prefer Finale to Sibelius. The keypad system in Sibelius is not as efficient as Simple Entry in Finale. There are some elements that Sibelius allows to be entered via keystroke that Finale does not, but these are not the most common elements. For the most common elements, Finale's system is faster. (and actually, for the other elements, I've created my own system for working with Finale that is more efficient than Sibelius). Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
On 13 Aug 2006 at 22:11, Richard Smith wrote: I think I was unclear about the Keypad in Sibelius. Most of the time (laptop on the go excluded) I use the 10 key pad on the keyboard. But I have to use the onscreen toolbar to know what the hell the keys do on the keypad. Clicking on the toolbar on the screen is slower. The features I like to have close at hand are almost all on the top tab on the keypad (or in the right click context menu). Others working differently or with different musical requirements might have a different experience. In general, Sibelius works better with more keyboard and less mousing and has extensive keyboard shortcuts. I don't like cluttering up my mind with remembering keyboard shortcuts, especially for things I use only very seldom. Thus, I depend on the visual representation to clue me in on how to accomplish a task (this is what's meant by discoverability when talking about UIs). -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
--- David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And in any event, your last sentence points out the absurdity of interpreting the 256MB requirement as meaning FREE RAM, since the amount of free RAM depends entirely on what's running already. When did I ever suggest in the least that it did? The only thing I've ever stated is that the installer looks at the reported amount of installed memory. My only guesses here are that either the system isn't really reporting 256MB of memory or the installer is really expecting a larger amount of installed memory to be reported. I've never thought this had anything to do with how much memory is currently being used. If I had any other guess, it would be that perhaps the installer is trying to make sure there's enough room for Finale GPO... Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
Hi Richard, I may not totally understand the difficulties your job presented, but layers can easily be reassigned if view active layer only is selected, and all four layers are not in use (doable, but not what I'd describe as easy when all layers are busy). I believe that there is also a plugin to convert voices to layers but I have never used it so I can't really comment on that. Don Hart on 8/13/06 10:11 PM, Richard Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting that you mention the difficulty with decomposing combined parts. I had to do a job recently that involved making keyboard reductions from some string quartet pieces. This was a Finale job. Finale would not let me reassign the layer (or voice) of individual notes so that dissimilar rhythms could live happily in the same bar. Only the entire measure could be reassigned. Posts to this list and MMs tech support confirmed that Finale was unable to do what was needed. Sibelius would easily do it but the customer had to have Finale. Much of the job had to be re-input from scratch. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
--- Don Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Richard, I may not totally understand the difficulties your job presented, but layers can easily be reassigned if view active layer only is selected, and all four layers are not in use (doable, but not what I'd describe as easy when all layers are busy). I believe that there is also a plugin to convert voices to layers but I have never used it so I can't really comment on that. Don Hart My first thought, assuming the notes were in a single layer and he wanted to split some of them out to a second layer, was that perhaps explode music or TGTools part extraction could have been used to get them to a second staff. Or perhaps something with the Notemover Tool, moving them to a different staff. But the people on this list are all-too-familiar with these solutions, so if they didn't find the solution, there probably wasn't a good way to do it in Finale. This is an area where Sibelius is ahead. Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
Say two violin staves are to be combined into one treble clef piano part. In one measure, violin one plays dotted quarter, eighth, and half notes. Violin two plays two half notes. After the two are combined, the second violin part has become dotted quarter tied to eighth followed by half. These kind of errors are common with either Finale or Sibelius when combining several parts on one stave. I would like the first two beats of the measure to have the second violin part in voice 2. I don't want the entire bar in voice 2 because it's a piano part and I don't want unneeded stems hanging around. Finale will let me reassign the music's voice *but only a measure at a time. *I cannot select a *single note* in Finale and change it's voice or layer independently of the other notes in the measure. In Sibelius I can select the half note in the second violin part and change it's layer without changing the rest of the bar. That's what I was referring to. In this particular job I frequently had to rewrite voice 2 from scratch because I could not change just the individual notes that needed changing. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tyler Turner wrote: --- Don Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Richard, I may not totally understand the difficulties your job presented, but layers can easily be reassigned if view active layer only is selected, and all four layers are not in use (doable, but not what I'd describe as easy when all layers are busy). I believe that there is also a plugin to convert voices to layers but I have never used it so I can't really comment on that. Don Hart My first thought, assuming the notes were in a single layer and he wanted to split some of them out to a second layer, was that perhaps explode music or TGTools part extraction could have been used to get them to a second staff. Or perhaps something with the Notemover Tool, moving them to a different staff. But the people on this list are all-too-familiar with these solutions, so if they didn't find the solution, there probably wasn't a good way to do it in Finale. This is an area where Sibelius is ahead. Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale begin:vcard fn:Richard Smith n:Smith;Richard email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] url:http://www.rgsmithmusic.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
On 13 Aug 2006, at 9:26 PM, Tyler Turner wrote: All I'm saying is that there is definitely some variance in 2D performance among modern graphic cards. The fact of the matter is that the video card in my machine is still sold today, and I believe I have shown good cause to believe that a different card would perform 2D tasks more effectively. Oh, one more question... I don't believe you ever specified, but all along I've been assuming that the computer with the Radeon X600 is outperforming the computer with the Radeon 9000 (in Finale, with the hardware acceleration slider up). Do I have that right? Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
