|
Post by Tim Marko on Aug 29, 2017 21:15:19 GMT
Has any one tried "Dorico" since it came out?
I went through the demo version (30 days) but have to admit, I wasn't that impressed. Perhaps when they get more of the features they are still developing...
THoughts from anyone else (in case I missed something.)
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Aug 30, 2017 17:57:33 GMT
I did the trial (I had to really mess about to get it working since I don't use that OS). My experience was different because I was really hoping the piano roll was implemented as an input option, something you music readers might not need. It wasn't and I gave up. Has any one tried "Dorico" since it came out? I went through the demo version (30 days) but have to admit, I wasn't that impressed. Perhaps when they get more of the features they are still developing... THoughts from anyone else (in case I missed something.)
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Aug 30, 2017 18:25:16 GMT
Strange, I glanced quickly at their website and it gave me the impression that piano roll input was an input option. Perhaps I misread it. But then their website had a lot of hype about how Dorico will be the be-all and end-all of music software, so my skepticism red flags were all flying.
In any case, it's understandable why piano roll input wasn't an option -- it's mighty hard to produce decent notation from a piano roll without additional information. The usual result is notation that looks so strange your players would have a hard time understanding what you really meant. It's easier to go the other direction, because notation carries more information (in some ways, but possibly not others -- but the point is that the mismatch is not easily reconciled, esp. in the roll-to-notation direction).
|
|
|
Post by king2b on Aug 31, 2017 10:58:52 GMT
If you use a notation package you can change the shortcuts to ones that you are familiar with. I have managed to get a few to sibelius.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Aug 31, 2017 14:54:08 GMT
Dave,
Does that mean that there is no mac demo version? Kind of adds to my impression that this software is not really ready. Though I have seen so many times were software developed in Windows has problems when reworked for mac.
I work with both OSs(though nothing in depth on a mac). I think in this day and age it's good to be able to get round, at least a little, in both.
|
|
|
Post by king2b on Aug 31, 2017 16:16:30 GMT
The demo comes in windows and mac. I have both.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Aug 31, 2017 19:49:43 GMT
Not unless they updated very recently. Piano roll is there, but only as a view/edit, not input. Piano roll input in the barest form, like score input, creates the exact same information - piano roll isn't a barrier to that, nor does it automatically create strange consequences. It's just a different display, and everything I've done so far has started in the roll. As someone who can't read music, I'm much more comfortable visually with piano roll before then being fairly comfortable editing and notating the resulting information in score view (and I doubt I'm alone there) so having NS with piano roll input would be of great use. Strange, I glanced quickly at their website and it gave me the impression that piano roll input was an input option. Perhaps I misread it. But then their website had a lot of hype about how Dorico will be the be-all and end-all of music software, so my skepticism red flags were all flying. In any case, it's understandable why piano roll input wasn't an option -- it's mighty hard to produce decent notation from a piano roll without additional information. The usual result is notation that looks so strange your players would have a hard time understanding what you really meant. It's easier to go the other direction, because notation carries more information (in some ways, but possibly not others -- but the point is that the mismatch is not easily reconciled, esp. in the roll-to-notation direction).
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Aug 31, 2017 19:52:30 GMT
There is, but only for recent OS (10.9 and above I think) and since I'm sticking with 10.8 for stability I had to get out my old mac, install a new OS and use it to test only to find it wasn't suited to me anyway. The impression is that it's practically beta but released as finished, with the developers seeking feedback. Hefty price tag to become involved in QA, though I could have the wrong of it. Dave, Does that mean that there is no mac demo version? Kind of adds to my impression that this software is not really ready. Though I have seen so many times were software developed in Windows has problems when reworked for mac. I work with both OSs(though nothing in depth on a mac). I think in this day and age it's good to be able to get round, at least a little, in both.
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Aug 31, 2017 20:27:35 GMT
[...] Piano roll input in the barest form, like score input, creates the exact same information - piano roll isn't a barrier to that, nor does it automatically create strange consequences. It's just a different display, and everything I've done so far has started in the roll. As someone who can't read music, I'm much more comfortable visually with piano roll before then being fairly comfortable editing and notating the resulting information in score view (and I doubt I'm alone there) so having NS with piano roll input would be of great use. [...] I don't argue that there's a lot of information in common between piano roll input and score input. But there are many areas where the two don't agree, or where 1-to-1 conversion will produce odd results. For one thing, piano roll is better at notating off-rhythms in a precise way. Want a whole note that starts a 32nd before the barline? Sure, no problem. Just shift the note over. Want a note that lasts for 31 32nd notes starting a 64th after the 2nd beat? Sure, no problem. A naïve translation of that into notation, though, would be pretty difficult to read. And no guarantee the performer will be able to actually play it as written. Want notes in a phrase to slightly overlap because your samples sound too "clipped" otherwise? In piano roll, sure, no problem, just lengthen each note slightly and off you go. In notation, you can't even write that without producing a whole bunch of "superfluous" rests, ties, and unreadable "polyphonic" notation for something that isn't actually polyphonic. The best you can do is to use "hidden" parameters to lengthen the underlying notes in the playback, yet without visually changing the score. While cases like these are trivial for us humans to decide, for a computer it's much, much harder. At what point does a computer decide, in the course of converting piano roll to notation, that two notes overlap sufficiently to qualify as 2 voices, vs., just a single voice in legato (simulated by slightly overlapping durations)? Human input is required in this case, because there isn't going to be a default that will work in every case. Not to mention that if you decide to do polyphony in piano roll, it's pretty easy (just write more notes vertically). (Not saying that's a good idea, of course, but it's a possible input that the software will have to handle correctly.) But in converting to notation, you may potentially need a lot of cleanup work with beaming the proper notes together, have stem directions pointing the right way, etc.. Again, routine (if tedious) work for a human, but non-trivial for an automated algorithm to solve. Then there's the minefield of articulation marks (not to be confused with actual articulations as supported by the underlying sample -- the mapping may not be 1-to-1), slurs, etc., which are represented in score but difficult to reconstruct from just bare notes in a piano roll. I don't question the value of having piano roll input -- as you said, many like yourself would find it immensely helpful. But given Dorico's stated goal of being the "ultimate" software that can produce the best notation automatically (big claims, I must say), having piano roll input would put the programmers in a very difficult place indeed. They will either have to be total geniuses to invent some fancy algorithm that can actually do the "right thing" (unlikely, given the track record of software that tries to be similarly "smart"), or the piano roll to notation conversion will end up being totally subpar, thus marring their "best notation" slogan significantly.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Sept 1, 2017 18:33:41 GMT
No doubt, in the past it has created some weird results. I'm talking purely about the mechanical business of inputting the notes though, without any additional information - I guess the analog would be using a mouse vs using a stylus for any given task.
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 1, 2017 18:46:59 GMT
Ah, I see what you're getting at. If you're just looking to input notes, I suppose it would work just as well. TBH I'm still on the fence about what's the best way to input music. Piano roll is simple, straightforward, has an easy 1-to-1 mapping; notation is nice too, if there's an input method that doesn't involve aneurysm-inducing clicking of the rodent and dragging note shapes from a toolbar. Currently, I'm using Lilypond text-only input so I can keep my hands on the keyboard. Faster that way, but Lilypond syntax is somewhat klunky and I still feel it's not completely streamlined for fast inputting when inspiration strikes. Maybe input via MIDI keyboard is the way to go, but you need to setup the right quantization levels (and I can't keep to the beat if my life depended on it, so there'd be a lot of cleanup work afterwards to fix the notation). So yeah, still haven't found the ideal thing that works best for me yet, though Lilypond text input is pretty close since I can do that anywhere I can connect remotely over SSH to my PC.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Sept 2, 2017 11:49:52 GMT
Teoh,
In Sibelius, you can input via a midi keyboard without performing or recording live. You just choose your duration, for example a bar of 4/4 quavers and play 8 notes in as you please, at your leisure - the duration you choose is what it will engrave at that time and it will do it sequentially, so hit a C, go and put the kettle on and when you've decided on the next note, hit that and it will be next to the original C. If the next bar is full of semis, just change the note length and repeat etc. It is very flexible in this respect.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Sept 2, 2017 15:05:25 GMT
I'm not really interested in the fastest way to enter notes. Anything is faster than me writing with a pencil. But what I have heard of is having an external data pad. You run that with your left hand ( to change note values, etc) and run the mouse with you right. If your right handed.
|
|
luis
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by luis on Sept 25, 2017 8:48:59 GMT
Hi. I also tried the Dorico demo for Mac. And, finally, I bought it (educational and crossgrade is the cheapest). I know Dorico has to improve a lot. However, I could easily do some things that were a "nightmare" for me in Finale. For example: writing without time signature and without bars (yo can do it in Finale but you have to change time signatures many many times and hide them all), writing very complex tuplets, putting non standard key signatures, etc...
So, I'm using both...
|
|