Re: [Finale] Dorico 2
That is very very unlikely to ever change. Steinberg has had a strict stance on copy protection for a very long time with Cubase and has documented very well that this is just how it is, and how it will always be. Of course of Steinberg goes out of business, which is unlikely to happen any time soon, then who knows..but overall…it just is what it is. If you want to use their stuff, you have to use an elicensor dongle and that is not ever going to change. I am hugely not a fan of dongles either, and have held a similar stance as you for a very long time and still do, but recently I decided to buy VSL products, which are even more strict then steinberg…and I just decided it was worth it to me to get the dongle and just deal with it like any other product that isn’t perfect. I have hardware keyboards that have strange quirks and things I have to work around also…it just is what it is. Yes my life would be easier without it, but its not the end of the world, and if you want to use that product, then it may be worth it. It was for me with VSL. Since I already have a dongle plugged into my machine anyway, I decided to give Dorico a try also. > On Jul 3, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz > wrote: > > On Tue, July 3, 2018 1:53 pm, David H. Bailey wrote: >> 1) Very strict anti-piracy! > > Yes, this is the deal-breaker for me. No company is trustworthy, especially > about their future, and Steinberg's continued use of user-punishing protection > is unacceptable. I don't use any of their protected products. > > Plus, they're not a US company, so in this political era and with changes both > here and in the EU, there's no telling what will happen to cross-border > authorization. I'm staying away until they change that policy. > > Dennis > > > ___ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: > finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
Re: [Finale] Fin2010 announced
If we're lucky maybe Avid will run another promotion like they did for Sib5 crossgrade from Finale. They did one promotion for under $100. Still, the sibelius users have to pay $99 to upgrade, so $150 to crossgrade is really quite affordable. Finale upgrades are usually that much and look how little you get. I see that www.audiomidi.com currently has Sib5 crossgrade priced at $145. Hopefully once they have sib6 the pricing will be similar. On May 28, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Bob Morabito wrote: heres the one from Sibelius--but the one below that is MUCH better:) http://www.sibelius.com/shop/professional.html Attention FINALE® Users! Sibelius 6 Competitive Crossgrade Edition US$199 Finale, Encore, Mosaic, and Sibelius Student Edition Users: Upgrade to Sibelius now. Special Offer terms and conditions apply. An even BETTER buy:) http://kellysmusicandcomputers.com/productinfo~id~1025548698.htm SIBELIUS 6 COMPETITIVE CROSSGRADE Our Price: $159.00 We save you: $40.00 Details for SIBELIUS 6 COMPETITIVE CROSSGRADE Need Help? Check out our Buyer's Guide for Notation Scoring Is this the latest version of SIBELIUS 6 COMPETITIVE CROSSGRADE? Manufacturer: SIBELIUS Platform: Hybrid Includes both a Mac and Windows version of the program. (Please see important note below on how to qualify for this price) If you don't qualify for the competitive crossgrade you can order the regular Sibelius. Note: Offer only available to Finale, Encore, Mosaic and Sibelius Student Edition users residing within North, Central and South America (Allegro, PrintMusic, Finale Guitar etc. are not eligible). Limit one competitive upgrade per copy of Finale, Encore, Mosaic, or Sibelius Student Edition, for own use only. You must provide proof of ownership of Finale, Encore, Mosaic, or Sibelius Student Edition by mailing the first and second pages of your table of contents in your user manual or send your original program CD to Sibelius. Photocopies of the manual pages will not be accepted. If unable to comply with requirements, registration will be denied. Please do not send this material to Kelly's Music Computers. You will need to send the documentation to Sibelius once you receive your order from us. Please note: Sibelius does not included a printed user manual with Sibelius 6. You may order one separately from Kelly's Music Computers. HTH Bob On May 28, 2009, at 2:09 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: I am waiting for a Sibelius competitive offer to spend my money on. Johannes ___ 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 - Steve Schow st...@bstage.com 206-724-8083 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2009 Announced
This has always been the tradeoff between Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft tends to value backwards compatibility, but moves very slowly to evolve their OS and software into superior products, since they are stuck in a quagmire of backwards compatibility. Even the ages old 8086 processor balonie(ie, interrupts, etc.) are antiquated and should have been superseded a long time ago, but haven't been in order to maintain backwards compatibility. That is a blessing and a curse. Apple on the other hand, has made serious advancements in its hardware and software over the past 5-10 years. On the other hand, backwards compatibility is often a nightmare for customers and software developers both. That is the price to pay for a technically much superior operating system that is evolving significantly I guess, but make no mistake, there is a price to pay. Pick your poison. In summary, in doggie years (Apple), 5 years is an eternity and yes, Panther is ancient. But 5 years for Microsoft is nothing. Are they out of beta yet? (just kidding). So yea, Panther is dated. Yes, XP is not dated. Leopard is awesome though. For me, lately I have fallen in love with Leopard and I'm getting rid of my PC's and going all mac. On Jul 11, 2008, at 11:34 AM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 11 Jul 2008 at 19:14, Johannes Gebauer wrote: But 10.3 is quite dated now. I just don't understand this mentality. According to Wikipedia, Panther was released Oct. 24, 2003, which means it's less than 5 years old. I'm running WinXP on my laptop and Win2K on my desktop, which means that both of my OS's are older than five years old. It's ridiculous for Apple to release OS versions that are not backwardly compatible and for software vendors to design their apps such they they are incompatible with OS versions that are only 5 years old. -- 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] Cheap, easy notation apps?
Uhmm, I think maybe finale Notepad will do what they need. Free. On Jul 6, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Paul Hayden wrote: I have a friend who sings in a non-professional choir and he would like to buy a Windows platform notation program that is inexpensive (say, less than $100US) and easy to use. He would be using it mostly for 4-part choral music (including lyrics) with keyboard accompaniment. He does not have a MIDI keyboard, so he'd like to use the computer keyboard for note input, if possible. I'm not up on the various incarnations of Finale (Allegro, PrintMusic, Songwriter) and Sibelius (Student), so I'm not sure what to recommend. Any suggestions -- not just Finale and Sibelius products -- would be much appreciated. TIA Paul Hayden Magnolia Music Press 6319 Riverbend Blvd. Baton Rouge, LA 70820 Voice Pre-arranged fax: 225-769-9604 www.paulhayden.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] Sib5 competitve upgrade is available for $80
Thanks to whomever made the audiomidi price known to us. I just picked it up. Can not go wrong at $80. Personally I am not really ready to changeover to Sibelius yet, I'm rather committed at the moment to learning Finale. But at least now I have the option. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean M. Estabrook Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 8:57 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Sib5 competitve upgrade is available for $80 Ah, thank you David ... that was another question I forgot to ask. I assume this registration process can be accomplished on line, yes? Dean On Oct 14, 2007, at 5:32 AM, dhbailey wrote: Michael Greensill wrote: I just ordered Sibelius from audiomidi.com and wasn't asked for any proof of Finale ownership! At that price it's a no-brainer. Mike Greensill www.mikegreensill.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale The proof of Finale ownership comes when you try to register the program -- without registering it you can't use it fully. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home Don't worry about the end of the world, it's already tomorrow in Australia. Charles Shultz ___ 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] Goodbye Finale
Richard it sounds like you are wasting your time on this mail-list. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Smith Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 11:08 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Goodbye Finale If you like Finale, it's the best tool for you . If you like Sibelius, it's the best tool for you. For some music one or the other is a better choice. Some people think like Finale and some (me included) think like Sibelius. Really, both of these tools are so developed we ought to just choose the one that suits us the best and deliver the final copy as a .PDF; and stop fussin' because someone else makes a different choice. man/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Goodbye Finale
Would it be such a drain on MM's resources to allow their employees to maintain a presence here officially, instead of making them do it on their own time and unofficially? First of all, MM does have its own forum and some of their employees do actively monitor it. I have gotten answers to some of my questions in the past, directly from MM employees. I've also seen [EMAIL PROTECTED] responding on Northernsounds. I haven't been lurking on this list very long, but the impression I have so far is that a large majority of the chatter on here is opinionated conjecture about how bad the bugs in Finale are and why they would so much rather be using Sibelius. They should change the name of this list to ex-finale-users, or pissed-off-finale-users. If not that, then often its criticism about how annoyed they are about simple questions which can be answered through the tutorials, etc, etc, etc.. There are a few extreme finale experts which reside on this list and when they are gracious enough to respond I suspect their answers to questions are as good as anything you would get from MM. I have also enjoyed the deeper discussions related to engraving and so forth, which this list tends to get into a lot in a very productive way. What you are really asking for is a way to give feedback to MM about bugs in the product and receive some kind of confirmation that they have heard you and are working on a fix. I can relate to that frustration. I would try the MM forum for that...which is no guarantee either, but they are more likely to at least hear your thoughts. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] whatever works
Deluxe Music Construction set. Now there is a blast from the past. -Original Message- Of Lawrence David Eden I can only hope that the boys at Samuel French will hire someone to clean up the books! Whether they choose Finale, Sibelius or Deluxe Music Construction Set makes no difference to me. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Goodbye Finale
Thanks for the scolding. I rest my case. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David W. Fenton Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 5:35 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: RE: [Finale] Goodbye Finale On 5 Aug 2007 at 11:29, Steve Schow wrote: I haven't been lurking on this list very long, Take that thought and meditate on its implications for a while. but the impression I That's the keyword in everything you've said... have so far is that a large majority of the chatter on here is opinionated conjecture about how bad the bugs in Finale are and why they would so much rather be using Sibelius. You are simply wrong. The discussion of the bugs in Finale is not by any means conjecture, and the severity of them is driving people who've been dedicated to using and Finale for a very long time (I started using Finale in 1991, for instance) to consider switching to the competition. That is a sea change in attitude on this list over the last two years. Finale 2007 and 2008 along with the new plateau reached with Sibelius 4 (and now 5, with it's scroll view) have added two new ingredients to the mix: 1. unacceptably buggy Finale releases 2. enhancements to Sibelius that make it more comfortable for Finale users. These factors changed the equation and have generated the dissatisfaction that you see expressed on this list in recent times. But it's coming from people who are really dedicated Finale users. MakeMusic *better* be paying attention to this forum if they want to survive, or they're going to lose one of their core constituencies. -- 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] Goodbye Finale
For people who have grown up with Finale and used it for many versions, it will remain easier to use until an equal amount of time is put into learning Sibelius. But for people just starting out with one notation program or the other, it's what they learn first which will seem easiest for most of them, once they've put in a certain amount of time using that program. Well, isn't there really more to it than that? Does Sibelius have the equivalent of speedy entry? How is Sibelius's Hyperscribe mode? How is Sib's Human playback? Perhaps for simple entry, it may be about as efficient as Finale and its simply a matter of learning the program, but the true finale power users use the power-tools that exist in Finale to be hyper-efficient at how fast they can enter music into the score. My impression is that Sibelius lacks some of that power-user capability. It very well may be able to format a score with a lot of flexibility...but if you have use the mouse to do everything than the simple fact is that a super power-user Sib user will not ever be quite as efficient as a super power-user Finale user. That's the impression I have. A lot of users are not destined to become super power-users, and perhaps Sibelius is more straightforward for them. But its not clear to me that Sib has the same level of support for super power-usage, as does Finale. I'm also a big fan of being able to specify things numerically...precisely...rather than nudging things around with my mouse until it looks pretty good. That is easy to do with the mouse, but HORRIBLY manual and creates carpal tunnel syndrome too! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Improved Sonata font
I know this is old school, but I am just really still in love with the Adobe Sonata font. one of the standard ones from MM really do it for me. Mostly I don't like the large noteheads, and petrucci is too small. Even Maestro, which is supposed to be half way, is just a little bit too large for me... I prefer Sonata. The problem with Sonata, as some of you know, is that its not a complete font. its missing a number of symbols. Has anyone ever made an extended Sonata set that includes everything? Or do people think perhaps I should just merge sonata and maestro together and it will be close enough? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Improved Sonata font
Sorry, there is a typo below. NONE of the MM fonts do it for me. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Schow Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 3:02 PM To: 'finale@shsu.edu' Subject: [Finale] Improved Sonata font I know this is old school, but I am just really still in love with the Adobe Sonata font. one of the standard ones from MM really do it for me. Mostly I don't like the large noteheads, and petrucci is too small. Even Maestro, which is supposed to be half way, is just a little bit too large for me... I prefer Sonata. The problem with Sonata, as some of you know, is that its not a complete font. its missing a number of symbols. Has anyone ever made an extended Sonata set that includes everything? Or do people think perhaps I should just merge sonata and maestro together and it will be close enough? ___ 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] Sibelius
I just wish they could figure out how to make the PDF's I produce on my windows box look as good as the PDF you produced on your mac. Nice looking score by the way -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kim Patrick Clow Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:51 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius On 7/17/07, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's something I'm working on for another composer; there are 17 more pages coming, and it goes into rehearsal August 1. Still corrections cleanup, but you get the idea: http://maltedmedia.com/images/finale/test202p4-12.pdf Tricky, but all native Finale -- nothing imported. How did you do the curvy staves?? Your score is beautiful btw ;) Kim ___ 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] Re: Fin 2008 arrived
Furtheremore, with keyboard macros and plugins, I can work so fast that I can't imagine Sibelius (or any other program) being any faster. Robert, as a new Finale user, let me just say that if you or someone like you wrote a book on how to become a Finale power user this way, I think it would sell like hot cakes. Not another book on how to format finale documents in every way possible. Rather, a book on how to use finale quickly using keyboard macros and plugins. I keep hearing from power users that this is one of the main benefits of Finale, but everytime I pull out Finale, I end up doing everything the hard way. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Re: Fin 2008 arrived
Dennis P.S. Where does one subscribe to the Sibelius mailing list? I'd like to lurk there a bit... Check yahoogroups.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Re: Fin 2008 arrived
I've been riding the fence for a long time. I still can't decide. Its not a cut and dried issue. This may sound silly, but I just can't get around Sibelius' insistence on showing a full page layout with margins (even with the new panarama view). Finale's scroll view is much better. Sounds like a sily differentiator, but that's just me. They both have bugs. I sure hear a lot of complaining for a long time about certain bugs in Finale that apparantly are commonly experienced and after years, MM has not addressed them. I work for a software company, and we address major bugs like that IMMEDIATELY. As a software engineer, I can't even stand the thought that something I did may have a bug. When I find out there is a bug in my stuff, I will stay up until midnight to deliver a fix, even if my boss doesn't write it into the schedule. But that's just me. Its troubling to me that MM has not addressed bugs which people on the forums have been SHOUTING about for years, including people like Robert Patterson. You would think they would listen to him. The cross grade to Sib cost is $199, BTW. Not a bad price, but it is double the price of upgrading to Fin08, and you will have to learn a new program, not to mention your existing Fin scores will not be compatible with it. So think long and hard about it. Sib has bugs too, don't be fooled into thinking otherwise. -Original Message- And what if they end up making a dent in their own sales? With more users switching to Sibelius? I must confess that I'm very tempted to put my 100 bucks towards a cross-grade (how much does it cost?). Not only they won't fix the bugs, they won't even acknowledge them, and that really gets very tiring. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] 2008 must be on the way
Yea I was thinking the same thing sadly. They missed the boat on a few key improvements that I think would have made it a must have. For example, why still no general purpose VST mixer? How about ASIO or WDM audio? If it comes in and turns out it fixed a bunch of known bugs, I'll think about it. Still, this new version isn't so sexy that I'd shell out $100 for it when I've only had FinMac 2K7 for less than a year. I'll be back next summer to see what Finale 2K9 looks like. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius as sequencer/sampler?
what is going to go on to his film as it will sound... If I have to do that performance version in Sonar seperately because finale is lacking the midi tweakability..then I have to maintain two seperate versions of everything...one in finale so that I can compose with notes on a staves and the other in Sonar where the final production version is being sequenced out. There are tremendous advantages to having just a bit more performance capability in Finale. Does this make it a full fledged sequencer? I don't know...but it certainly would be more useful to me. Otherwise, for practical purposes i would fundamentally HAVE to start working primarily in Sonar and learn to live without note-on-staff composing paradigms. In an ideal world, sure, I'd love a fully integrated sequencer in Finale, or, even, hooks between an existing sequencer and Finale so that Finale used the sequencer for editing MIDI data and the sequencer used Finale for notational output. You have it backwards. In an ideal world we'd all have access to real musicians to perform our work for us. We don't. But certainly most people in this forum realize how much better it is to compose with pen or ink on paper then by hitting record and playing your midi controller. the question here, is how can we compose that why and avoid having to redo it all over again in another sequencer just for the sake of hearing a superior midi/sample rendition. But in the real world, I don't don't think MakeMusic has the capital to do that. Whether or not Sibelius does is an open question. You don't know MM's financial position any better than the rest of us. But anyway, let's get back to my previous question. What specific sequencer oriented features do you think are not appropriate or perhaps not feasible for MM to implement? Simply saying full fledged sequencer built into finale is not enough info. That could mean anything. Certainly it has a few sequencer features already and probably could use a few more. Does it need to become a complete DAW with plugins and all manner of complicated routing..I certainly hope note. But where does the line need to be drawn? What specifically do you hope will never show up in Finale? - |Music is a manifestation of the human spirit Steve Schow | similar to a language. If we do not want such [EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our www.bstage.com | upmost to make the greatest number of people | understand their secrets -- Zoltan Kodaly - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Garritan [was: Finale/Sibelius as sequencer/sampler?]
Regardless of when or how the sax has been used in orchestras, i believe your are mischaracterizing Gary Garritan as he were someone that deliberately left out a particular instrument to try to get more money from you later. Many people know that Gary Garritan is one of the nicest people in the industry, he has a well earned reputation for backing up his product with both support and enthusiasm, perhaps unprecedented. On top of all that his price break through with GPO was unheard of at the time. To complain that he left out Saxes on purposes is a cry baby banter. Please. Sorry you don't have your saxes, but give Gary Garritan just a little more slack. - |Music is a manifestation of the human spirit Steve Schow | similar to a language. If we do not want such [EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our www.bstage.com | upmost to make the greatest number of people | understand their secrets -- Zoltan Kodaly - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius as sequencer/sampler?
Certainly it does. There is absolutely a provision for noting the key signature in a MIDI file. FInale has an option for inferring it, too, but if you write like I do, it will be useless. Well, basically I used a bad example to mean the same thing. The point is, with notation we write more information that makes sense for comprehension and playability. You're write a lot of people don't use key signatures because they are modulating all over the place anyway. But which enharmonic version of a note is not purely random, there is usually a method to the madness...and I'm not sure how you would extract that out of a midi file. that is just one simple example I was trying to think of. I'm sure there are many others. I feel your pain, but I have a completely different solution to the recalcitrant director who won't sign off on a cheesy-sounding MIDI mockup. I play him a MIDI mockup from a previous project, telling him, This is similar to what you are going to hear. MIDI only, synths in their untweaked glory. The cheesier, the better, because the contrast will be so much sharper. Then I play him the final version, with live musicians and first-rate mixdown engineer. He is blown away. Then I say, Keep in mind that the cheesy mockup you are about to hear is only a cheesy mockup. The final version will be this good. A good work around solution. I hope Finale can continue to evolve though. - |Music is a manifestation of the human spirit Steve Schow | similar to a language. If we do not want such [EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our www.bstage.com | upmost to make the greatest number of people | understand their secrets -- Zoltan Kodaly - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius as sequencer/sampler?
of the human spirit Steve Schow | similar to a language. If we do not want such [EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our www.bstage.com | upmost to make the greatest number of people | understand their secrets -- Zoltan Kodaly - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius as sequencer/sampler?
mind, not in a computer. The computer helps the human get the ideas down on paper so that other musicians can then reproduce them. Sequencers help the human get the sounds recorded so they can be played back. Neither aspect (notation or sequencing) is composition software, as I would use the term, although both aid in composition. Band in a Box and Jammer Pro are what I would call composition programs -- no musical skill necessary, enter the chord symbols, select a style, click play and you've got a composition. Heck, with Band-in-a-Box's Melodist function you don't even have to enter any chords, just select a style and click MELODY and the program generates the chord sequence, the melody, the title. Then you can also combine that with the Soloist function and it will play a smoking solo if you wish, resulting in a complete recordable song, interesting to listen to, with no effort other than some mouse clicks. Now *that's* composition software, to my mind. What you describe is currently available from Sonar or Cakewalk Home Studio or PowerTracks Pro from pgmusic.com -- but the downside is that their notation packages aren't nearly as robust as Finale or Sibelius. You might call them composition packages (but I wouldn't) with pseudo-notation capabilities. What does soundfont editing have to do with notation? Nothing. These are notation packages which have playback capabilities which get better with each new version. Microsoft may have integrated its discrete Office packages already, but that's a vastly larger market than music applications which include notation and sequencing and soundfont editing and all the other things you might wish for. The reason that what you want hasn't happened is that most musicians who are heavily into sequencing don't care about the finer points of music notation, they just want down and dirty notation for those times that it might be handy, and that's just what those programs provide. And those musicians who care about the finer points of notation tend to be less interested in sequencing, since they can put their ideas very nicely into notation. This is a very tiny niche market, so things don't progress as fast as in the huge market of office applications. So you have a choice -- a terrific sequencing program that has minimal notation capabilities or a notation program which has minimal sequencing capabilities. I do hope you're making these same complaints on the Sonar forums, also. :-) I've often held that an ideal marriage would be some merging of Sonar and Finale, but that ain't gonna happen. David H. Bailey [snip] -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 - |Music is a manifestation of the human spirit Steve Schow | similar to a language. If we do not want such [EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our www.bstage.com | upmost to make the greatest number of people | understand their secrets -- Zoltan Kodaly - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius as sequencer/sampler?
Well indeed it may have a ways further to go...but in my view its the closest thing.. But yes... i am more of a traditional composer, composing film scores and the like...which is at best very early post-tonal..nothing extravagant. There are a lot of people in my shoes..and we all consider ourselves to be composers by the way. ;-) Anyway, for this type of composing, I really can't think of a tool that is closer to providing the right toolset that we need than finale. And I have tried or own a bunch. Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 05:44 PM 10/5/06 -0700, Steve Schow wrote: These days, Finale actually *IS* the program that has come to closest to filling this whole. With plugins and notation and Human playback..it truly is the closest thing to being an ideal composer's tool. Nothing else is there. Unfortunately, that's not even the case with Finale, which is what I meant in my previous email. If you're exclusively a pen and ink composer working in 19th century notation, Finale may be close. I'm not of those, nor are thousands of others. About a third of what I write is electroacoustic, for which I have to use several programs and a pretty big chunk of utility audio (Sonar, Audio Mulch, CSound, Cecilia, Coagula, Midimage, Wavesurfer, SMS Tools, Prie, The Voice, ixi modules, AnalogX modules, some 400 VST and DX plugins...). Finale doesn't understand anything at all about that genre nor how to integrated it (even as a sound wave file) into the score. And the rest of what I do uses post-1920s notation which, although Finale is the best of the programs for doing this, stymies every program in handling it as normal notation -- which it has been for the better part of a century. We end up reverting to graphics. Finale can't even do staggered barlines natively or beaming across barlines without Robert's plugin or make any item stretchable as has been possible in every other vector-based program for years. I very much appreciate what you say about needing a true composer's toolkit. I'm still waiting for pen-recognition input to Finale, which would beat the pants off any other input method for me, or even lasso/drag/drop! (Every time I think of why I bought Finale in the early 1990s expecting these 'normal' functions would shortly be available...) Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST
Hmm, that seems more plausible to me...though for the life of me I don't know why the midi file should be any better. But I suppose that the midi playback engine in Finale may have timing issues or is just a very good playback engine..even if its attempting to playback exactly the same set of midi data that it would export to a midi file. On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 12:53:23 -0400, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 1 Oct 2006 at 11:30, A-NO-NE Music wrote: So, what is this thread really comparing? I am totally confused. I thought it was comparing playback direct from Finale (via MIDI data generated in real time by Finale) vs. playback from a MIDI file saved by Finale. There has always been a difference between these two, with the saved MIDI file sounding better (in my opinion) in all cases. -- 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 - |Music is a manifestation of the human spirit Steve Schow | similar to a language. If we do not want such [EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our www.bstage.com | upmost to make the greatest number of people | understand their secrets -- Zoltan Kodaly - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST
ok. first problem is that you can't compare GPO Finale to GPO Studio. You need to make sure you're using the FULL version of GPO as an AU plugin..the normal FULL GPO player...not the Kontakt2 player with FinaleGPO. (for the sake of a fair comparison). If you do that..the difference SHOULD be nil. THey are the same players being hosted either by Finale or by GPO Studio. There might be some difference about how much you can control the send to reverb..I have a feeling GPO STudio provides more control that way. but otherwise..should be exactly the same ah well..not entirely true. GPO STudio will be using the VST versions of the player..not the AU version...I think...(don't quote me on that..I'm not sure about the mac). But it should not make a difference. If it does, then Gary Garritan needs to be told. -steve On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:27:53 -0500, Randolph Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Darcy James Argue wrote: Not all hosts are equal. For instance, on Mac the external host (Garritan Studio) uses VST while Finale (which as of Finale 2006 requires no external host) uses AU. Garritan Studio also requires extra system resources compared to loading the instruments directly in Finale. For these reasons, Garritan Studio does not perform as well (on Mac). Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but I'm finding that the received wisdom about Garritan Studio (v, 2.00) being a poorer performer than the AU is just not what I'm finding on my system. Even though what you say makes sense and is what I would have guessed the reality to be, it just doesn't seem so when I test it. Where is it documented that the AU in Finale 2007 is a better performer than Garritan Studio 2? My ears tell me that Garritan Studio does a better job of rendering the MIDI data and it even sounds better. The AU gives me stuck notes, accents that are way too loud and has a rougher sound in the solo violin part that I'm testing, for example. (I do recognize that something can sound better, but not be a more efficient user of system resources.) But here is the kicker: I just tried using a program called Do I Need More Memory? which tells me how much RAM is being used at any given time as well as the number of pageouts. When I use both Garritan Studio and Finale 2007, the memory usage program says that I don't need any additional RAM. (I have 1GB RAM on a 13.3 GHz PPC G4 Powerbook.) When I restart the computer and load the same instruments, using the same parameters, into the AU, the program says I need 44MB more. I'm trying to be as scientific as possible by keeping the independent variables the same. I'm not trying to argue for the sake of argument (as we sometimes get on this list). I really want to find out what works and sounds better. So, let's keep an open mind and run these programs through a variety of tests. We may have to rethink our assumptions after all! -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale - |Music is a manifestation of the human spirit Steve Schow | similar to a language. If we do not want such [EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our www.bstage.com | upmost to make the greatest number of people | understand their secrets -- Zoltan Kodaly - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST
The finale version of GPO only has a few small differences. Go to www.northernsounds.com and search around in their forums to find out what they are. Mainly, the Finale version actually has a few small things setup slightly differently for playback...which make more sense for the way Finale works. I can't remember any more than that. I can't think of any reason why one version would sound better than the other. Its possible that the full version has a few more instruments (such as the steinway grand for example). As to why the overlap between notes is a tiny bit longer in the full version vs the Finale version..that is an interesting observation and it is possible that the legato programming is different...and again..I would encourage you to ask around on the GPO forum over there... actual guy that did all the GPO programming hangs out there. Lastly, please try to use the GPO player inside Finale instead of the FinaleGPO player. It will work. It would be nice to hear if you're assessment of these differences is related to using midi instead of built in VST. I suspect using full GPO directly inside finale will sound exactly the same as in GPO Studio. If you prefer full GPO over finale GPO, then there are advantages to using GPO studio however.For one thing, its an ASIO app, so very low latency. Secondly, you can control how much reverb on every instrument. But other than that...GPO should function exactly the same way inside Studio or directly inside Finale. Randolph Peters wrote: I've been noticing that playback is slightly different when you use MIDI as opposed to playing through the Native Instrument AU/VST. I kept all the parameters the same, using the same instruments, same reverb, same HP etc. GPO was loaded in AU for one case and in the other, I used Garritan Studio connected via their inter-application MIDI. I think I like the MIDI version better. HP worked better and was more noticeable (not always a good thing!). In one case the AU version simply would not play this one string harmonic within a passage of harmonics, but it played fine using MIDI. (I cannot figure out this strange anomaly. I've erased the passage and reentered it several times with the same result!) I also notice that the amount of overlap between notes is a tiny bit longer in the MIDI playback as opposed to AU/VST playback. YMMV, -Randolph Peters ___ 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] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST
I'm not familar with the Mac to know the issues. Sounds like the CoreMidi might not do a good job of getting midi events routed to external synths and does a better job of routing them to AU plugins. And also if you are talking about going over midi cables to actual external synths..that introduces more latency. Using a virutal midi port driver SHOULD in theory be much much better and approach close to zero latency..low enough that you would not notice any difference between that and a plugin, whether it be AU or VST or whatever.. Anyway, sounds like AU is working great on the Mac, so there is no point in using GPO studio. Darcy James Argue wrote: I'm talking about performance, specifically Mac performance. AU performance is objectively much better than performance via an external host, like Garritan Studio -- AU supports greater polyphony with fewer dropouts and less distortion on the same system. This is simply not up for debate. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY On 29 Sep 2006, at 2:32 PM, dhbailey wrote: Darcy James Argue wrote: On 29 Sep 2006, at 11:10 AM, Gerald Berg wrote: The fact is AU/VST stinks in comparison. That's utter nonsense. AU/VST playback has lower latency and is more efficient, allowing more simultaneous instruments/polyphony on the same hardware compared to a MIDI solution like Garritan Studio, which requires more computational overhead. AU/VST playback also hooks into Human Playback much better. utter nonsense may be a bit strong here -- how can you call utter nonsense something which someone else has heard with his own ears? I think this may be one of those if the computer is set up one way A sounds better, if it's set up differently B sounds better. But I am sure Gerald is able to distinguish what he has heard and knows which sounds better to him. :-) --David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST
Thanks for the clarification. That doesn't sound good at all. Is this something you've taken up with MM? It has been brought up many times over the past couple years on their forum. I suspect they are paying more attention to the Mac version and the windows version is an afterthought. Not using low latency audio drivers is a school boy oversight, particularly since it has now been 2-3 years since they started hosting VST plugins. When running Garritan Studio or another external VST host, Human Playback has no way of knowing what instruments you have actually loaded -- what the keyswitches are, whether they are sustaining or non-sustaining, what controllers are available, etc. It has to guess based on the staff name. At least with Kontakt Player 2 via AU, my understanding is that HP can theoretically see which instruments are in use and adjust accordingly. I don't think Finale actually SEES anything inside the AU plugin. I think when you use one of the GPO templates, it is loading in the AU plugins and also loading in Human Playback settings that make sense for FinaleGPO. As far as I know you could easily load one of the Finale GPO templates and then simply change the output of each staff to point to a midi port instead of the VST plugin..and the human playback should be the same as was being sent to the AU/VST plugin. For the most part, that should work for GPO. There are a couple of subtle differences between Finale GPO and regular GPO..but in general everything should be the same. If you use another library such as Kirk Hunter Emerald inside Kontakt, as an AU plugin inside Finale. Then the GPO templates won't work at all and Finale is not going to automatically SEE anything to figure out what to do. You would have to manually tweak all the Human Playback settings to work with that library. That is my undestanding anyway. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST
I'll ask around on the GPO forum. On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:59:48 -0400, Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 29 Sep 2006, at 4:26 PM, Steve Schow wrote: I don't think Finale actually SEES anything inside the AU plugin. This was the case with Kontakt Player 1. My understanding (though I could be wrong) is that this has changed with Kontakt Player 2. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale - |Music is a manifestation of the human spirit Steve Schow | similar to a language. If we do not want such [EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our www.bstage.com | upmost to make the greatest number of people | understand their secrets -- Zoltan Kodaly - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST
Also, inside finale there is very little ability to control reverb...how much reverb for each instruments, etc.. On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:49:16 -0500, Randolph Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Darcy Argue wrote: I'm talking about performance, specifically Mac performance. AU performance is objectively much better than performance via an external host, like Garritan Studio -- AU supports greater polyphony with fewer dropouts and less distortion on the same system. This is simply not up for debate. Sorry, but I think the debate is still open. Here's a case where the standalone version performs better than the AU. If you use the full standalone Kontakt 2 (not Kontakt Player 2), you get 64 channels of output. You can preserve CPU resources with K2 as a standalone by using, for example, only one convolution reverb for all instruments. Inside Finale, Kontakt can only take 8 of 16 channels of MIDI so you have to open multiple instances. As you know, lower CPU demands results in fewer dropouts and distortion. So it really depends on how you plan to use your sound resources. -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale - |Music is a manifestation of the human spirit Steve Schow | similar to a language. If we do not want such [EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our www.bstage.com | upmost to make the greatest number of people | understand their secrets -- Zoltan Kodaly - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
