Hi Barb,I second Eric's suggestion of Melodyne. This is the only thing that really comes close.http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=m3_comparisonThey have several products out which you can compare. You can also download a demo and see if it will do what you need it to do. The demos are full
There is no software that is remotely capable of doing this reliably. You need it done, hire someone with good ears. - Darcy-[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://secretsociety.typepad.comBrooklyn, NY On 25 May 2006, at 12:23 AM, Barbara Levy wrote: Howdy! Does anyone have any suggestions as to how one can
Nor does anything do it really well. You might want to check out
Melodyne.
http://www.celemony.com/
Barbara Levy wrote:
Howdy!
Does anyone have any suggestions as to how one can convert common
audio files (mp3, wav, wma, rma, e.g.) to midi format? As near as I
can determine, Final
Howdy!
Does anyone have any suggestions as to how one can convert common
audio files (mp3, wav, wma, rma, e.g.) to midi format? As near as I
can determine, Finale does not do anything like this.
Barb Levy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing lis
I generally import pages to PageMaker, which can certainly do that for you
(as Christopher suggests).
And as an aside to the Mac G5 thread, PageMaker has not been updated for OSX
so I still need to use Classic or an OS9 boot. It's a perfectly good
program, does more than I need, and I see no reaso
hello finalisters,
i'm writing a piece where the there's a solo part and another second very
complementary less demanding part. as some notes are played with the same
duration i put both notes on the first staff and then i cross-staff the
bottom note. no problems with that. but as i'm recurrently
On 24 May 2006 at 21:23, Robert Patterson wrote:
> I don't understand how can there can be any argument about the level
> of backwards compatibility on the 2 platforms. I've used both, and
> there is no comparison.
>
> Asking, "why would you want to do that?" is merely changing the
> subject. Pos
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 05:15 PM 5/24/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 24 May 2006 at 22:20, dc wrote:
Agreed. As a professional translator, I still use Office 97, some ten
years old.
Likewise here. I don't care for any of the later versions of Office
apps.
Make that at least t
On May 24, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Dragoş Oltean wrote:
I want to write in automat text page number romanic style: I, II, III,
IV
Dragos,
Unfortunately, I don't think Finale can do this for you. It doesn't
seem to support Roman numerals at all, except for entering them
manually.
Sorry
On May 24, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Michael Cook wrote:
On the iMac G5 that I bought just over a year ago, I can run every
version of Finale from 3.7 (the earliest I have) to 2006. I still use
Pagemaker 4.0 (1990) and Jim Leitch's Address Book (1994).
Address Book has an OSX version now (thank good
On May 24, 2006, at 3:36 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Exactly. Apple has an EXCELLENT record of keeping support for old
applications while moving forward with new things. So you can't use OS
9 programs under classic with the new Intel macs. So? Companies have
had years to move programs over to O
I want to write in automat text page number romanic style: I, II, III, IV Thanks,Dragos(f2006, winxp)
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
At 05:15 PM 5/24/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>On 24 May 2006 at 22:20, dc wrote:
>> Agreed. As a professional translator, I still use Office 97, some ten
>> years old.
>
>Likewise here. I don't care for any of the later versions of Office
>apps.
Make that at least three of us.
Actually, I w
I don't understand how can there can be any argument about the level of
backwards compatibility on the 2 platforms. I've used both, and there is no
comparison.
Asking, "why would you want to do that?" is merely changing the subject. Posts
along those lines, while perhaps interesting, are not on
On 24 May 2006 at 22:20, dc wrote:
> Aaron Sherber écrit:
> >Again, that's far too general a statement. In what way does Office
> >2003 make better use of my new computer than Office 2000? In fact,
> >since Office 2000 was designed for slower hardware, I would argue
> >that it actually runs *bette
On 24 May 2006 at 12:30, Scot Hanna-Weir wrote:
> On 5/24/06 11:20 AM, "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > So, you're admitting that your comments are made in complete
> > ignorance of the situation with Windows?
>
>I think "complete ignorance" might be a little strong. In p
On 24 May 2006 at 12:31, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
> But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
> computer??
Because it works?
Because it is no longer made?
Because later versions of the same software introduced design
problems that make it unusable?
Because newer software
I'd probably still use it on a piece of hardware that it runs it. So, if
Finale 2008 is the last version, and it runs on Intel Macs, but didn't
run on the Quad Core Intel Macs in 2014, I don't think I'd be fussing.
I'm sure whatever succeeds Finale (assuming it ever dies) would have
some sort o
Older versions of software are a *very* big deal.
For example, the Library of Congress is so concerned about this issue they commissioned a study of potential issues for digital files of music (either music performed or PDFs or Finale/Sibelius files for example). The issue being, in 200 years, pr
At 03:31 PM 5/24/2006, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
>But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
>computer??
I was trying to stay out of this slugfest, but I find myself pulled in.
Sometimes old software runs just fine, and there's no need to spend
money on an updated UI and ne
At 12:31 PM 5/24/06 -0700, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
>But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
>computer??
>I think that if you buy a program, and use it, and then buy new
>hardware, you'd want to update all your programs to take advantage of
>the new hardware.
Ah, I see.
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Exactly. Apple has an EXCELLENT record of keeping support for old
applications while moving forward with new things. So you can't use OS 9
programs under classic with the new Intel macs. So? Companies have had
years to move programs over to OS X. Does anyone really want to
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
computer??
I just don't get the mentality of people who want to run old software on
new hardware. Did bitch and moan when your 8 track tapes couldn't be
played anymore? Or when those LPs couldn't be playe
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
computer??
Because some software only runs in ms-dos. Score for example (vintage
music notation software).
Barbara
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
h
On 24 May 2006, at 21:36, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Are these Classic, Rosetta, etc., components automatically launched
in the
background when the program is run? Or does the user have to leave one
environment and enter another?
They are launched automatically. You can keep different apps
On the iMac G5 that I bought just over a year ago, I can run every
version of Finale from 3.7 (the earliest I have) to 2006. I still use
Pagemaker 4.0 (1990) and Jim Leitch's Address Book (1994). I can
still play Fool's Errand (1987), use Word 5.1 (1992) or Word 2001 (no
need to pay Microso
At 09:01 PM 5/24/06 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>I must say that I cannot follow. When the PPC came out, they insured
>backward compatibility with the 68k Emulator. That was almost 100%.
>When OS X came out, they included the Classic operating system, which
>insured compatibility with probably
Exactly. Apple has an EXCELLENT record of keeping support for old
applications while moving forward with new things. So you can't use OS 9
programs under classic with the new Intel macs. So? Companies have had
years to move programs over to OS X. Does anyone really want to run 1984
Mac programs
But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
computer??
I just don't get the mentality of people who want to run old software on
new hardware. Did bitch and moan when your 8 track tapes couldn't be
played anymore? Or when those LPs couldn't be played in your CD player?
On 24.05.2006 Phil Daley wrote:
A MAC user HAS to upgrade their software every time a new kind of MAC comes
out, and they buy one.
Windows users can decide to upgrade at their own convenience, even though they
upgrade to the current Windows version.
MAC has NEVER supported this.
I must say
On 24.05.2006 Phil Daley wrote:
AFAIK you can still run the oldest versions of Finale on any pre-Intel
Mac. This may perhaps exclude MIDI, but they should run in Classic.
I have a MAC SE. I have not been able to run ANYTHING new on it because it
runs OS6.
I have a problem imagining OS7 or la
On 24.05.2006 Phil Daley wrote:
"5/6 years"
So you say you cannot run MAC software from 2000.
I can run MS software from 1980.
I rest my case.
In your previous post you made a very different case.
Which was rejected because it was complete nonsense.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.
"5/6 years"
So you say you cannot run MAC software from 2000.
I can run MS software from 1980.
I rest my case.
At 5/24/2006 02:03 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
>That simply is not true. A Mac user does not have to upgrade their
>software EVERY time a new Mac comes out. You can run a ton of progr
On 5/24/06 12:47 PM, "Phil Daley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The only problem I am aware of, with respect to programs "running too
> fast", was games.
>
> There were many free programs available to slow down the computer
> intentionally.
>
Very true...and it's not a current problem for
That simply is not true. A Mac user does not have to upgrade their
software EVERY time a new Mac comes out. You can run a ton of programs,
including Microcrap Office, on the new Intel macs. No need to upgrade
there. Some with Adobe's software. Same was true when Apple went with OS
X. You could
At 5/24/2006 01:30 PM, Scot Hanna-Weir wrote:
>On 5/24/06 11:20 AM, "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So, you're admitting that your comments are made in complete
>> ignorance of the situation with Windows?
>
> I think "complete ignorance" might be a little strong. In pointing o
I also have an Apple IIe.
Just the other day I set it up and printed out my household expenses from
when I built my house.
If I could buy a Finale that ran on my MAC, I could use it instead of my
Windows computer.
The point is:
A MAC user HAS to upgrade their software every time a new kind
On 5/24/06 11:20 AM, "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, you're admitting that your comments are made in complete
> ignorance of the situation with Windows?
I think "complete ignorance" might be a little strong. In pointing out
that there was a shift from 3.1 to '95, I was mainl
Ok...and your point is what? That's great you still have a
functional SE, but, seriously, my Laser Printer has a more powerful
processor than it. And my PDA. Perhaps my wristwatch as well.
Phil Daley wrote:
At 5/24/2006 11:01 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>On 24.05.2006 dc wrote:
>> B
At 5/24/2006 12:20 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>Had I the disks, I'm sure I could install and run Finale 2.0.1, the
>first version I ever had. It was a Windows 3.0 program, from before
>Windows had TrueType fonts (so you could get decent printing only
>with a PostScript printer).
Good point.
I t
At 5/24/2006 11:50 AM, Scot Hanna-Weir wrote:
>If Win really has such backwards compatibility, and we are saying that these
>really old versions will run in XP, if you are dual-booting the new intels
>to windows, wouldn't you theoretically be able to run any version that would
>still work on a wi
At 5/24/2006 11:10 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
>If Finale is a yardstick, and I think it is typical, there simply is no
>comparison between Win and Mac on backwards compatibility and productive
>life. Win is the uncontested winner. I also fully expect Longhorn to
>maintain the same or close level
At 5/24/2006 11:01 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>On 24.05.2006 dc wrote:
>> But how old is the oldest version of Finale you can run on a 2006 Windows
>machine. And how old is the oldest version of Finale you can run on a 2006
>Mac? Platform shifts aren't a problem as long as backward compatibility
On May 24, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
AFAIK you can still run the oldest versions of Finale on any pre-Intel
Mac. This may perhaps exclude MIDI, but they should run in Classic.
Just barely. FinMac 2.X will run in Classic, but will not print.
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
At 5/24/2006 10:39 AM, dc wrote:
>Scot Hanna-Weir écrit:
>>While that all may be true -- I guess I should point out that 1995, of
>>Windows '95 fame was only 11 years ago. (I remember when my notice came that
>>DOS Magazine would no longer be printed due to the new OS...sad days).
>
>But how old
David Fenton:
> The wisdom or benefit or downside of breaking backward compatibility
> aside, there is just no comparison at all between Microsoft and
> Apple.
I find myself in complete agreement with David Fenton on this point. I should
add that breaking backwards comptibility is great for dev
On 24 May 2006 at 10:50, Scot Hanna-Weir wrote:
> On 5/24/06 10:01 AM, "Johannes Gebauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > With the move to Intel this will change. The oldest version that can
> > technically run on current Intel Macs is Fin2k4.
>
> If Win really has such backwards compatibilit
On 24 May 2006 at 9:17, Scot Hanna-Weir wrote:
> On 5/24/06 8:49 AM, "Robert Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Johannes Gebauer said:
> >>
> >> You are obviously not aware of the current situation of Mac models.
> >> This is not a normal situation.
> >
> > It seems all too nauseatin
On 5/24/06 10:01 AM, "Johannes Gebauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the move to Intel this will change. The oldest version that can
> technically run on current Intel Macs is Fin2k4.
If Win really has such backwards compatibility, and we are saying that these
really old versions will run in
Glad to hear it.
Dean
On May 23, 2006, at 11:23 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 24.05.2006 Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
And, I guess, if you wait six more weeks after that, you can
replace the replacement for a fraction of its price ad
nauseum. We have been lured by the siren song of te
Dennis wrote:
> But how old is the oldest version of Finale you can run on a 2006 Windows
> machine. And how old is the oldest version of Finale you can run on a 2006
> Mac? Platform shifts aren't a problem as long as backward compatibility is
> preserved.
>
This is such an important point. Th
On 24.05.2006 dc wrote:
But how old is the oldest version of Finale you can run on a 2006 Windows
machine. And how old is the oldest version of Finale you can run on a 2006 Mac?
Platform shifts aren't a problem as long as backward compatibility is preserved.
AFAIK you can still run the oldest
While that all may be true -- I guess I should point out that 1995, of
Windows '95 fame was only 11 years ago. (I remember when my notice came that
DOS Magazine would no longer be printed due to the new OS...sad days).
-Scot
On 5/24/06 8:49 AM, "Robert Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
Johannes Gebauer said:
>
> You are obviously not aware of the current situation of Mac models. This
> is not a normal situation.
It seems all too nauseatingly normal for Mac models. Apple has subjected Mac
users (of which I am one) to three (count em!) major platform shifts in the
last 12-15
54 matches
Mail list logo
