extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Discussions about our next-generation scoring application, Dorico.
User avatar
gdball
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:51 pm
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by gdball »

althemusicwizard wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:58 pm
I think we're some way off being able to reproduce even 50% of what's doable in a DAW, simply because mixing and placing of instruments in a sound-field is as much a part of the whole thing as the notes and the genre.
Hello Wizard! Can I respectfully disagree?

https://youtu.be/Zs6QjDWH7Rs

The majority of this is Halion SE of all things, and all of it is mixed exclusively in Dorico...

I did have to export the two tracks of audio from Dorico and combine with video in another program. I felt handcuffed from using the libraries I wanted to the full extent, as my emergency purchased laptop still has criminally little RAM. (See me inserting various excuses here)

Blame me for whatever inadequacies the piece has, and I'll agree its not as realistic as I'd like - but it really was RAM and of course, me the user. :) With identical libraries and ample hardware, IMO I'd put what Dorico's audio is capable of against any DAW.
Dorico Pro 3.5+; EWQL Platinum; Windows 10 laptop 12 core SSD 16GB Ram; Studio One Pro v5; Scarlett 18i20;

althemusicwizard
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:34 am
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by althemusicwizard »

Of course you can disagree gdball with me.... that's what makes it interesting.

I just listened to the link and I think it kind of confirmed what I meant about the mixing. Mixing for me means having three dimensions to a sound. I was listening on reasonable headphones. I could hear the panning aspect(stereo / LR) of the mix, but the depth (front to back usually defined by different reverbs and eq) and the height of the mix (the frequency range) sounded limited to me by possibly the available parameters of control provided by Dorico (or the ease by which you can 'get at them'). I'm sure Dorico will get there eventually, and maybe you can now (with an awful lot of programming in 'PLY') but I haven't heard anything yet that sounds like a 'mastered' track.

Rob Tuley
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 4095
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 12:41 am

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by Rob Tuley »

Many sample libraries make it easy. Even for a "simple" situation like a solo piano, Pianoteq gives you the option to locate up to five different mics in 3-D space around the instrument (including underneath the soundboard or inside the lid), and a choice of mic characteristics, ranging from idealized frequency response and directional characteristics, to models of a dozen named real-world mics. It also has a convolution reverb with about 30 preset "spaces", plus option of loading your own impulse files.

Orchestra libraries often have their own VSTs, with similar options to locate the players on a virtual stage in a virtual hall, set up the mic configuration, etc.

Dorico doesn't need to "get there eventually" to handle VSTs with that sort of capability, but if you only use the samples and the version of Halion bundled with Dorico, you have to do it all the hard way. As is often the case, "free stuff" is worth what you paid for it.

User avatar
gdball
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:51 pm
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by gdball »

Hey Rob and Wizard.,

The criteria on this one wasn't a concert type three dimensional sound of the music, but for the music; to further the emotion of the scene without riding inappropriately on top of the dialog or any of the effects. Its not the same rules - Tire screechings, weapon loading, bullet hits need the space to express power and make you jump a little. I've heard some versions that did use that kind of reverb for example, and it sounds really weird in context - it makes the scene shift out of location, seem hollow like a play on the stage. IMO I probably should have made the sound more of a servant and less noticed. I've heard versions that sounded like you had the video sound turned nearly off and were streaming a different song or something while watching. Some whose bass made the engine sounds or explosions anemic.

Regardless, I really think any of that is (deservingly so) more a criticism of me. :)

I found nothing in Dorico that limited me any of those areas. There is nothing that I could have done better in a DAW because its a DAW. Barring a few built ins, I had the exact same palette of plugins/processing options/instruments to choose from in either tool. I chose not to use premium libraries and multi-mic positions for this purpose as it wasn't part of the contest criteria. Its 27 staves, so 27 * 7 articulation or so per template * 3 or so mic positions with convolution reverbs on top is - - more than I had memory for. That would just as true in a DAW, and I should have that fixed in a bit.

But as it stands (however self serving) I think its at least good enough to be worth challenging the 50% comment. And I'm standing up for Halion -I really regret not spending a BIT more time on the sound quality for this one as SE alone can do quite a bit more with some attention. I'm going to stop treating it like Sibelius sounds.

Thanks for not killing me - this one of those I wish I hadn't said anything. :)
Dorico Pro 3.5+; EWQL Platinum; Windows 10 laptop 12 core SSD 16GB Ram; Studio One Pro v5; Scarlett 18i20;

mducharme
Member
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 1:00 am
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by mducharme »

I'm not sure that anybody has the question of whether you CAN do this sort of thing in Dorico alone after jumping through a bunch of hoops. I think the question is really whether doing it in Dorico is currently less work or more work. At the moment I feel it is still a lot more work. I've been a Cubase user since SX3 and I believe I have paid to upgrade to every single .0 and .5 release since then, because each one had some new features that would help me, saving a bit of time for each project or giving me some ability I didn't have before. The user interface of the Cubase piano roll view is still light-years ahead of the Dorico piano roll view in all respects. Similarly, the Cubase mixer is still light-years ahead of the Dorico mixer, where it seems I cannot do my own group tracks among other shortcomings. I'm sure some of these will be addressed in future versions, at least I hope so. I don't understand why the UI experience in both Play mode piano roll editing and the mixer has to be so different between Cubase and Dorico - why not work together on UI for those shared parts?

However, I'm also not sure how much DAW functionality is desired in Dorico. Does Steinberg really intend for Dorico to become a complete replacement for Cubase for up to 75% of Cubase users, so that they will not feel the need to buy Cubase anymore? Is it really the best option for them to make Dorico so powerful that, for people like me who buy both Cubase and Dorico upgrades religiously, that Cubase no longer has a reason to be there?

User avatar
derBertram
Junior Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by derBertram »

mducharme wrote:
Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:21 am
... that Cubase no longer has a reason to be there?
Don't forget Cubase's audio capabilities!
In Dorico I do not mix with the mixer, which I do not use at all, but I control (like a conductor the orchestra with the notation in front of my eyes or in my ear) everything in the notation or in the "lanes". For my part, I "only" need an authentic sound without effects, it counts the musical substance.
Greeting
Bertram
***
Vergiss nicht die Audio-Fähigkeiten von Cubase!
In Dorico mixe ich nicht mit dem Mixer, den ich überhaupt nicht benutze, sondern ich steuere (wie ein Dirigent das Orchester mit der Notation vor Augen bzw. im Ohr) alles in der Notation bzw. in den "lanes". Ich für meinen Teil brauche "nur" einen authentischen Sound ohne Effekte, es zählt die musikalische Substanz.
Gruß
Bertram
Cubase Pro 11, Dorico Pro 3.5, The Grand 3.2, VST ... in spe: BBCSO pro

ptram
Member
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:37 pm
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by ptram »

mducharme wrote:
Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:21 am
However, I'm also not sure how much DAW functionality is desired in Dorico. Does Steinberg really intend for Dorico to become a complete replacement for Cubase for up to 75% of Cubase users, so that they will not feel the need to buy Cubase anymore?
I find that the type of user and scope is different, in Dorico and Cubase. Cubase is meant for electronic/hybrid music production, with support of basic scoring needs to communicate with real players in a fast working environment, like cinema. Dorico is meant for producing sophisticate scores, with support for realistic sound prototypes for the composer's sake, or as a guide for real players and members of competition juries.

Some of the more advanced features in Dorico's Play mode might never be of use for a typical Cubase users. Think about the ability of having different voices in a staff play different virtual instruments. Or the separation between shown and played notes, going much further than the "interpretation" of a DAW.

As a composer in score, I find Dorico has already a degree of integration between music symbols and musical meaning for virtual instruments, that is not in any DAW. The importance of the written score is so high in Dorico, while being replaced by actual playing in a DAW, that there wouldn't be any reason to do the same in a DAW.

I hope (and am sure about it) in further development of the Play mode, but I'm not sure the Cubase pianoroll can be entirely ported as it is in Dorico.

Paolo

User avatar
Daniel at Steinberg
Moderator
Posts: 19023
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:35 am
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by Daniel at Steinberg »

mducharme wrote:
Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:21 am
The user interface of the Cubase piano roll view is still light-years ahead of the Dorico piano roll view in all respects. Similarly, the Cubase mixer is still light-years ahead of the Dorico mixer, where it seems I cannot do my own group tracks among other shortcomings. I'm sure some of these will be addressed in future versions, at least I hope so. I don't understand why the UI experience in both Play mode piano roll editing and the mixer has to be so different between Cubase and Dorico - why not work together on UI for those shared parts?
The internals of Dorico and Cubase are very different at every level. When we started working on Dorico many years ago one of the first technical decisions we had to make was about whether we would be able to build Dorico on the same shared framework as Cubase and Nuendo. (WaveLab was already independent, and like Dorico is built on Qt.) Unfortunately there were many fundamental things that were going to be impractical to achieve using the shared framework, things that would have potentially delayed Dorico by multiple years, so we made the pragmatic solution to use Qt, which is a decision we do not regret at all. But it does mean that there is very little in common between how Dorico approaches anything and how Cubase approaches it. Again, I don't think we regret this either, as it has allowed us to build Dorico in such a way that it addresses its domain in the way we judge to be best, rather than having to try to squeeze everything through a Cubase-shaped hole.

The disadvantage of this approach is that it makes it quite difficult, if not completely impractical, to actively use bits of user interface from Cubase. So we do have to reimplement key bits of editing functionality like the piano roll and automation editors ourselves.

I am always very interested to hear from people with a lot of experience with Cubase or indeed other DAWs as to what are the main pain points in Dorico's editors in Play mode. There are several very experienced Cubase users on the Dorico team, but Cubase is such a deep application that in my own experience I can get a very different perspective on what the best or most efficient way to achieve a task is by talking to each user, and that is true even of my colleagues on the Dorico team.

So if you have a hit list of specific improvements you would like us to make to the editors in Play mode, please let me know what they are. Although we do not have the ambition to make the editors as functional and multi-purpose as their Cubase counterparts, we do want them to work as efficiently and painlessly as possible.

User avatar
gdball
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:51 pm
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by gdball »

Daniel,

What is your intention with the "power button" that appears next to the VSTi or MIDI instruments in the right hand side of the play panel? I'm sure you know better than anyone that lots of composers have monster Cubase templates so that they can quickly grab that Flute Flauntando or whatever that is their favorite when they need it - but they also don't want the weight of the world on their systems, or wait forever for a project to load. "Weight and Wait", I guess.

I'm thinking that "power button" could be used as a way to enable/disable instruments short of deleting and adding/recreate their configuration. With lazy loading - do not actually load them yet on startup if they are disabled. It would be a bonus if you can unload them when disabled, though I know not all of them will clean up their samples.

I'm sold on letting Dorico do things for me automatically wherever possible, and manually tweaking only when necessary. So while it appears that Dorico will eventually add more sends that can be used for grouping or whatever, I'd prefer just an option in the audio export to "export instrument groups as stems" using natural groupings or the instrument groups we've already made in setup.

I'm hoping those are bite sized enough to be reasonable to consider.
Last edited by gdball on Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dorico Pro 3.5+; EWQL Platinum; Windows 10 laptop 12 core SSD 16GB Ram; Studio One Pro v5; Scarlett 18i20;

User avatar
PaulWalmsley
Steinberg Employee
Posts: 2100
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 9:24 pm
Location: Steinberg, London
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by PaulWalmsley »

The button at some point will be a 'Project Activation' control similar to Cubase, where you can make one project active for playback and then swap to another project without all the VST plugins getting unloaded. We hope to have time to implement this in a future version.
Architect & Developer - Steinberg London

User avatar
gdball
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:51 pm
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by gdball »

Sounds sorta close Paul? The way you said sounds like its more global to the project but the buttons are beside each instrument. It would still be on a per instrument basis as that is where the buttons are now?
Dorico Pro 3.5+; EWQL Platinum; Windows 10 laptop 12 core SSD 16GB Ram; Studio One Pro v5; Scarlett 18i20;

User avatar
PaulWalmsley
Steinberg Employee
Posts: 2100
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 9:24 pm
Location: Steinberg, London
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by PaulWalmsley »

Ah sorry, I misread - I thought you were talking about the power button that's on the toolbar at the top of the document window. The power buttons next to each VST instrument function as they do in Cubase - they just temporarily disable it, which you might use to reduce CPU usage. I don't know whether that would prevent the plugins from loading their samples - I suspect that's at the discretion of the plugin.
Architect & Developer - Steinberg London

mducharme
Member
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 1:00 am
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by mducharme »

Daniel at Steinberg wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 12:43 pm
The disadvantage of this approach is that it makes it quite difficult, if not completely impractical, to actively use bits of user interface from Cubase. So we do have to reimplement key bits of editing functionality like the piano roll and automation editors ourselves.
Hi Daniel,

I didn't mean actually sharing code between the two programs. I know about the framework differences etc. I mostly meant differences in what mouse clicks you have to do or the keys you have to press to do the same task as in Cubase. For instance, scrolling vertically in the piano roll in Cubase is done with the mouse scroll wheel. Scrolling horizontally is done with Shift and the scroll wheel. In Dorico, these are exactly the opposite - the scroll wheel scrolls horizontally and Shift + the the scroll wheel moves vertically. Those are functions that are used all the time in the piano roll. When I am working in both programs quite often I keep doing the wrong thing in the wrong program. I imagine somewhere I can possibly reverse what those do. There may be a good reason why those are different, like perhaps to keep consistency within Dorico's different modes regarding the mappings. But there are quite a few small things like that which tend to add up.
Daniel at Steinberg wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 12:43 pm
So if you have a hit list of specific improvements you would like us to make to the editors in Play mode, please let me know what they are. Although we do not have the ambition to make the editors as functional and multi-purpose as their Cubase counterparts, we do want them to work as efficiently and painlessly as possible.
One of the main things I would like to see is a better design of the piano roll view. Dorico's piano roll view does not give a tall enough viewport so you have to scroll vertically much more often than you do in Cubase. In Cubase, the piano roll for the selected MIDI event appears in a pane in the bottom of the screen, or you can double-click on the event to open it in a popup window. In Dorico, the lack of vertical space means that you have to do a lot more scrolling. This is further impacted by how tall the piano keyboard is on the left hand side. In Cubase, the piano keyboard is shown as a nice small size by default which reduces scrolling greatly vs Dorico, where all the notes are extremely tall. The rectangles that let you change velocity are also a bit on the wide side in Dorico which can make editing more awkward in dense passages.

Dorico also does not currently have the ability to show multiple CC lanes at the same time - you can only select one. I also wish that Dorico's CC editor had a "parabola" tool since I use that all the time in Cubase.

On the other hand, there are a few things that I feel Dorico does better than Cubase in the piano roll. One is the playing techniques lane - in Cubase, the lane has to be made extremely tall because the articulations stack vertically. The way Dorico lays it out is actually more similar to Logic's articulation sets, just showing rectangles in the same lane for articulation changes. This is one area where I would like to see Cubase become more like Dorico. Also, the fact that Dorico allows drawing lines for MIDI CC's where it interpolates between the start point and the end point - Cubase does not have this feature and I think they should adopt it, because I think it would be really beneficial. When you draw lines in Cubase with MIDI CC's, it adds a series of discrete changes in between.

Obviously Dorico is a very different program from Cubase, and jumping into Play mode in Dorico should not feel like you have suddenly arrived in Cubase and end up making the program look completely different than the other modes, so I get that certain adjustments need to be made. But I get the feeling that things are sometimes different between the programs (quite a few of which I have mentioned above) for no obvious reason.

What I meant in terms of working together on UI on those common areas is that, if the Dorico team implements something new and beneficial in the piano roll feature that Cubase doesn't have, that the Cubase developers can consider implementing something similar on their side, and vice versa. If Dorico has different scroll wheel options and key modifiers for the scroll wheel than Cubase (and it does), it would be nice if either Dorico could adopt the Cubase method or Cubase could adopt the Dorico method, so that working in the programs becomes less dissimilar of an experience.
Last edited by mducharme on Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gdball
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:51 pm
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by gdball »

PaulWalmsley wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:47 pm
Ah sorry, I misread - I thought you were talking about the power button that's on the toolbar at the top of the document window. The power buttons next to each VST instrument function as they do in Cubase - they just temporarily disable it, which you might use to reduce CPU usage. I don't know whether that would prevent the plugins from loading their samples - I suspect that's at the discretion of the plugin.
Not that I don't like the other feature you describe! I've cursed myself for unthinkingly opening another project and forgetting what will happen as far as loading.
Dorico Pro 3.5+; EWQL Platinum; Windows 10 laptop 12 core SSD 16GB Ram; Studio One Pro v5; Scarlett 18i20;

andgle
Member
Posts: 692
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:36 pm
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by andgle »

Hi,
I only occasionally use the piano roll in Dorico, even though I do a lot of midi work in Logic. I might bring more of my midi work over to Dorico as Play mode evolves, but I'd never expect Dorico to replace a daw for my kind of work. Since you ask for some input, here's my ad hoc list of stuff I think could improve the piano roll in Dorico:

1) For the general feel, I too welcome improvements to scrolling and zooming in the piano roll. Neither of these are big issues, but they add up to a slight discomfort. I'm a heavy trackpad user, as I do a lot of 'field work', and I find using the trackpad to be quite wobbly in Dorico compared to Logic. In Logic, trackpad zooming is restricted to the horizontal axis, which is what I want to do most of the time. This works similarly with the Z and X keys in Dorico, but trackpad zooming works in both directions, which I find to be a bit disorienting. More importantly, trackpad scrolling in Logic sort of snaps to one direction, which makes moving around much smoother.

2) In Logic, clicking a key in the vertical piano selects all notes of the same pitch, and auditions the sound.

3) In Logic, you can quickly add notes by holding CMD without changing tool (provided the right click tool is set to pencil).

4) In Logic, there are key commands (. ,) for moving the playhead to the next/previous bar, which I use constantly. I haven't really missed this in Write mode, where I mostly use P, but when it comes to fine-tuning timing, I need more context than what 'Play from selection' gives.

5) I'm a big fan of the various lanes in Dorico, but wish the velocity was visible and adjustable without needing to open the lane in every track. I think this is done quite elegantly in Logic with velocity colors and the slider.

6) Various MIDI transform tools for randomization, scaling velocity etc.

7) This is probably far beyond the scope of midi editing in notation software, but the way Logic handles midi loops is brilliant for work that includes drums/percussion. If this could somehow be built around the existing Bar repeat function in Dorico, but visible and editable in Play mode, that would be totally awesome. I realize this is a huge task, and not something I'd really expect.
Anders

ptram
Member
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:37 pm
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by ptram »

andgle wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 9:52 pm
3) In Logic, you can quickly add notes by holding CMD without changing tool (provided the right click tool is set to pencil).
4) In Logic, there are key commands (. ,) for moving the playhead to the next/previous bar, which I use constantly. I haven't really missed this in Write mode, where I mostly use P, but when it comes to fine-tuning timing, I need more context than what 'Play from selection' gives.
These two can however already be done in Dorico.

- Type D to switch to the pencil, and S to switch back to selection. E is the eraser, and I assigned L to the line tool.

- Cmd-Right and Cmd-Left move the selection (both in Write and Play mode) to the next or previous bar.

Paolo

andgle
Member
Posts: 692
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:36 pm
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by andgle »

ptram wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:45 pm
- Type D to switch to the pencil, and S to switch back to selection. E is the eraser, and I assigned L to the line tool.
This isn't quite the same thing, though. I'm not a big fan of switching tools when doing related tasks - not because of the additional key presses, but because it feels as a change of mindset as well. This is probably just a personal preference, and possibly something that would grow on me if I spent more time in Play mode, but it's one of those minor things that makes midi editing in Logic flow so well for me.
ptram wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:45 pm
- Cmd-Right and Cmd-Left move the selection (both in Write and Play mode) to the next or previous bar.
Thanks, this is something I use all the time in Write mode, but it never crossed my mind to try this in Play mode. I'll give it a try, but I think I'd still prefer moving the playhead when working in a piano roll, as this gives visual feedback, gives you a consistent downbeat and generally is more predictable than navigating through "hidden" concepts of rests, voices, chords etc.
Anders

User avatar
gdball
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:51 pm
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by gdball »

andgle wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:28 pm

ptram wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:45 pm
- Cmd-Right and Cmd-Left move the selection (both in Write and Play mode) to the next or previous bar.
Thanks, this is something I use all the time in Write mode, but it never crossed my mind to try this in Play mode. I'll give it a try, but I think I'd still prefer moving the playhead when working in a piano roll, as this gives visual feedback, gives you a consistent downbeat and generally is more predictable than navigating through "hidden" concepts of rests, voices, chords etc.
F9 or F8 will move the playback head by a bar, Ctrl+ F9 or F8 will move the playhead for small amounts
Dorico Pro 3.5+; EWQL Platinum; Windows 10 laptop 12 core SSD 16GB Ram; Studio One Pro v5; Scarlett 18i20;

ptram
Member
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:37 pm
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by ptram »

andgle wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:28 pm
ptram wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:45 pm
- Type D to switch to the pencil, and S to switch back to selection. E is the eraser, and I assigned L to the line tool.
This isn't quite the same thing, though. I'm not a big fan of switching tools when doing related tasks - not because of the additional key presses, but because it feels as a change of mindset as well.
When using the pencil via Cmd-click, in Logic, you are in any case changing tool. The only difference with the method used in Dorico is that in Logic you are in latch mode, in Dorico in toggle mode.

An advantage I see in the Dorico way, is that you can switch between various different tools, without having to reassign them to the Cmd-click shortcut. I very often wish to be able to quickly switch between Select, Pencil, Scissors, and Line. Unfortunately, with Logic you can only switch between two tools.

Paolo

andgle
Member
Posts: 692
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:36 pm
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by andgle »

ptram wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:12 pm
When using the pencil via Cmd-click, in Logic, you are in any case changing tool. The only difference with the method used in Dorico is that in Logic you are in latch mode, in Dorico in toggle mode.
That's true, and a better description of my preference. When I edit and input in a piano roll, I use pointer and pencil interchangeably as my main tools, so I'm very happy with the latching behavior.
ptram wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:12 pm
Unfortunately, with Logic you can only switch between two tools.
Well, there's one more keypress involved, but you can easily change tools by bringing up the tool menu with T. T E for eraser, T V for velocity, etc.

There are obviously different cups of tea in this area, but since all modifier keys seem to be unused, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest expanding the mouse tool with latching behavior. I think this is fairly common in mouse-based editing in a wide variety of applications. The developers are obviously the ones that know what makes the most sense for Dorico, so this is not meant as a critique, and I'm not going to pursue this any further, I simply wanted to present what I like about Logic's piano roll, which I use quite heavily.
Anders

User avatar
Daniel at Steinberg
Moderator
Posts: 19023
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:35 am
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by Daniel at Steinberg »

Thanks for the feedback, Michael and Anders. Other people who read this thread and are heavy users of the piano roll and associated editors in Cubase, please keep the feedback coming.

robjohn9999
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:58 pm
Location: greater NYC region
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by robjohn9999 »

Here are the things I use all the time in Logic Pro’s Piano Roll that I’d love to see in Dorico Pro (apologies if some of these features are already there and I just haven’t noticed!):

- Logic has robust quantization options in the Piano Roll I use all the time - directly selecting a group of notes in a give region I’m editing and then setting whether to round them to the nearest 16th notes, swing values, etc. and also the percentage of 100% I’d like to move my performance to retain the “human” feel of the original input (but with more quantized accuracy). From what I understand, Dorico has the option of retaining the originally performed MIDI, OR “resetting playback overrides” to have the notes start times line up exactly with timing notated in Write Mode (but nothing that retains the perfect notation, but which then allows you to finesse the playback separately via quantization, other than by manually moving things note by note). For example, it would be nice to be able to have Play Mode set to show just played durations (as is now possible), and then to select those notes and have access to menu-based, more tweakable quantization options a la Logic Pro (including things like different swing values, etc.) that ONLY affect the playback (not the notation) (right now if I invoke the Quantization menu after selecting notes this way they also affect the way they’re notated, as far as I can tell).

- Love the presence of the Velocity lane in Play Mode in Dorico (a great start). However, it would admittedly be EXTREMELY helpful if the actual notes displayed in Piano Roll were colored (as they are in Logic) according to their velocities (or to at least have the option to turn this on). For example, in Logic, very high-velocity notes are colored red, medium green, all the way down to purple. This allows one to look at a range of Piano Roll notes and immediately grasp what the velocities are. Logic also allows you to then select a range of actual notes and quickly raise their relative velocities up or down as a group, or set them all to the exact same velocity and then raise or lower them. Logic also has a separate Velocity Lane below this similar to Dorico’s, where you can further act upon the data. To this end, it would at the least be helpful to be able to grab a group of velocities in the actual Dorico velocity lane and with a key command set them all to the same velocity, and then raise or lower them as a group (right now it appears that all I can do is Draw new velocities across them with the Draw or Line tool, though this is certainly also helpful).

Just in general in Dorico’s Play Mode it feels like you could do more with the utility of color (much as you use it in Write Mode already in Dorico optionally to differentiate voices or show red notes out of range). To facilitate this, it would also (admittedly) be nice if there was much less “brightness” in Play Mode in general (understandable for more of a “notation on paper” metaphor but with Piano Roll I’ve often seen things against darker backgrounds when you have to stare at them for long periods of time and do “micro-tweaks”, etc.).

- Would be helpful to be able to select a note in the Play Mode’s vertical “piano keyboard” (up the left hand side) and have all notes of that position/pitch be selected, as I believe others have mentioned (since right now this of course does nothing).

- More quick “zoom” options in Play Mode. In Logic’s Project Window, for example, you can set a zoom level for a given track (by dragging the height to where you want it), and then have that zoom level automatically propagate to any other selected tracks whenever you hit “Z”. This sort of thing could be very useful for all of the Play Mode windows to zip in and out of them more quickly.

Just a few quick things -
Best and keep up the great work -
- D.D.
2019 MacBook Pro with 64 GB ram; Apogee Ensemble 88; Mac OS Catalina 10.15.2

driscollmusick
New Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:16 pm
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by driscollmusick »

I think Dorico is on the verge of being the best option for notation composers looking for good mockups. Right now the simplicity of NotePerformer may still be more appealing to notation composers who are uncomfortable with MIDI programming, but soon, with a few well-constructed expression maps, the ability of Dorico to play well with the best sounding instrument libraries will put it over the top.

I am in the middle of switching my current workflow to load my orchestral template in Cubase, but control it with Dorico MIDI routing using virtual MIDI cables. I used to use Finale as the MIDI driver, but I think that time is over...!

As I continue to refine my expression maps, I will be able to apply them for all future pieces, until at some point I imagine my MIDI tweaking will be minimal and I'll just be working in notation (as it is with NotePerformer)

User avatar
PaulWalmsley
Steinberg Employee
Posts: 2100
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 9:24 pm
Location: Steinberg, London
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by PaulWalmsley »

mducharme wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 7:58 pm
For instance, scrolling vertically in the piano roll in Cubase is done with the mouse scroll wheel. Scrolling horizontally is done with Shift and the scroll wheel. In Dorico, these are exactly the opposite - the scroll wheel scrolls horizontally and Shift + the the scroll wheel moves vertically.

One of the main things I would like to see is a better design of the piano roll view. Dorico's piano roll view does not give a tall enough viewport so you have to scroll vertically much more often than you do in Cubase. In Cubase, the piano roll for the selected MIDI event appears in a pane in the bottom of the screen, or you can double-click on the event to open it in a popup window. In Dorico, the lack of vertical space means that you have to do a lot more scrolling. This is further impacted by how tall the piano keyboard is on the left hand side. In Cubase, the piano keyboard is shown as a nice small size by default which reduces scrolling greatly vs Dorico, where all the notes are extremely tall. The rectangles that let you change velocity are also a bit on the wide side in Dorico which can make editing more awkward in dense passages.
Where possible, we have modelled the UX of Play Mode in a similar way to Cubase. There are some constraints though that are more difficult to work around. The scrolling behaviour is controlled by the underlying Qt framework and that's harder for us to override to work in the _other_ way, but it's something we may look at in the future.

There are some other things though that do work like Cubase:
* Shift-G/shift-H to vertically resize the current lane (unfortunately 'G' in Dorico is used for note input so we can't use G/H for horizontal resize, but you can do this with Z/X)
* Drag the bar/beat ruler vertically to zoom in or out
* Change the vertical scale of the piano roll. In Cubase there's a scaler control in the scroll bar, but in Dorico you can shift-drag the piany keyboard vertically to rescale.

We do hope to add support for multiple automation lanes in the future.
Architect & Developer - Steinberg London

User avatar
derBertram
Junior Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: extensive sound library expression maps vs. just using Note Performer (opinions sought!)

Post by derBertram »

PaulWalmsley wrote:
Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:49 am
... The scrolling behaviour is controlled by the underlying Qt framework ...
Parts of this thread should be moved, I think ...

For me, Dorico's scrolling behavior in the piano roll is very practical. What I don't like is that it's the other way around in writing mode. That is annoying - is quite a challenge. ;)
greeting
Bertram
Cubase Pro 11, Dorico Pro 3.5, The Grand 3.2, VST ... in spe: BBCSO pro

Post Reply

Return to “Dorico”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: christian68, Craig F, Gareth Glyn, Joesson, Lillie Harris, pianoleo, PjotrB, TonH and 8 guests