|
|
| MakeMusic Forum > Public Forums > Finale - Windows - FORUM HAS MOVED! > Finale 25, ReWire, DAWs and Bidule | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
CraigP
Registered Member
      
Date Joined Apr 2013
Total Posts : 313
| Posted 8/26/2016 2:10 PM (GMT -6) |   | Derrek said...
It is notable that Notion and Dorico are both owned by companies that own their own DAW's. That would make (eventual) connections between their notation and DAW offerings easier to manage. Finale seems to be going the flexibility route, which is in some ways more difficult, since they can only attack the problem from one end.
Still, there are those who still want Finale to focus more on notation features than playback. The question is whether they are a large enough group to affect MM's efforts in that direction.
There are plenty of well-defined interfaces available to Finale. Rewire is widely used, but Finale gave it the bare minimum support -- not including any of the ReWire 2 stuff. Try to drag a MIDI drum loop into Finale. That is a complete disaster. Finale has better drag-drop support (mechanically) than any other notation program and it is one of Finale's greatest strengths, yet it fails so badly when we talk about dragging clips from external sources. You can't even drag an external MIDI clip into an existing score. You have to drag it into a whole new score and then move it from there. And good luck ever sorting out the drum mappings. When I drag drum loops into any DAW they play perfectly immediately.
The "mixer" is really lame with the minimum function necessary to even call it a mixer, and you can't even stretch the mixer window to accommodate more than about 12 tracks, no matter how big the monitor is. The VST support is better with the 64-bit version, but we are still limited to just one effect per track and no other buses. Meanwhile Notion is very open-ended, even before you hook it to StudioOne.
Finale is trapped by a user base full of people who want to use the product more or less the way they did in 1998, just with fewer bugs. Those that are living in 2016 have mostly moved on. That is the real problem of listening to the user base. This is the base that has guided Finale to this sad point. They should be asking themselves why they got such poor guidance from that base, and why all the competitive products seem to be going in directions that seem to be a foreign language to the Finale community.
And then there are the new battlegrounds, such as much more automated layout (Dorico), pen entry (Notion and StaffPad), and realistic playback (all products all the time) These are so far from Finale's thinking that they might as well be in a different universe.
Having said all that, at least V25 does make an attempt to start this game of catch-up, but it is 10 years late. A lot has changed in 10 years -- and especially the past 2 years. I would really like to hear the company lay out its strategic vision for the product. The last thing we heard on that level, it was to explain that making music was all about getting in enough reps each day. I'd like to hear if the executive leadership of the company has gained any awareness of the things that are going on in the outside world and what it will take for Finale to be considered even a serious contender in 2018. | | Back to Top | |
|
Credo
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2016
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 8/26/2016 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | CraigP said...
{Snip for Brevity}
Having said all that, at least V25 does make an attempt to start this game of catch-up, but it is 10 years late. A lot has changed in 10 years -- and especially the past 2 years. I would really like to hear the company lay out its strategic vision for the product. The last thing we heard on that level, it was to explain that making music was all about getting in enough reps each day. I'd like to hear if the executive leadership of the company has gained any awareness of the things that are going on in the outside world and what it will take for Finale to be considered even a serious contender in 2018.
Well stated...
Finale's last 'major' advantage at the moment (In my 'opinion') is that they seem to have some people that will bend over backwards to help you get whatever paperwork you need to have Finale implemented on whatever 'scale' one needs. They have NOT moved to 'subscriptions' and contracts that shift the 'upgrade schedule' over to MM's terms. Their attitude seems to be (at least in my experience), "What do we need to do (as people serving people)....given the options (good with the bad) on our table, to get you to use our software for your institution (how ever large or small it might be)? They seem to be much more flexible in meeting you somewhere in the middle so you get software, and they turn a profit (or advantage of market share...or something). Meanwhile, some of the others out there seem to be more like, "We only work over email and web-forms that are 98% automated. This is our model...don't like it...don't click it and put in your credit card number!"
It's actually one of the reasons I often must recommend Finale to clients who work in 'schools', do things on 'grants and endowments', or other 'highly beaurocratic' institutions. It's not unusual that another product actually fits their needs and wants better....but the chances of them getting their institutions to do the whole 'subscription thing' goes way down. The individual teacher can't just buy it, slap a state inventory label on it, and use it till he's got some money in a budget somewhere to 'upgrade' anymore if it's 'subscription ware'.........someone has to spend more time/money writing up darn Implementation Plans than it's worth (At that point...the heck with buying Scoring software....just commission the work out, or buy methods books and such from publishers)...then dozens of people have to see and approve it...the number of budgets it can come from are fewer.
The cloud managed subscriptions form a whole new level of red tape on the process of making a purchase for things like public school music programs.
If it involves 'monthly or yearly' payments, credit card numbers, internet access, passwords on third party servers, etc...it pretty much rules it out for many 'educators' or 'composers' who work on grants/endowments. To even request the software requires a one hundred page 'implementation plan', and after that the chances of it being 'approved' are slim to none for many music programs around the world.
At least with Finale's current model one can buy the thing from a choice of budgets (in some cases even budgets for consumables like paper or workbooks) and control his own 'upgrade' schedule (when funds permit) and implementation processes. Subscriptions just don't work out so well for many public school programs that are lucky to have a 'mobile trailer' to meet in, chairs to sit in, and a few music stands...let alone be granted 'software/service' budgets.
Even the Dongle thing is better than 'subscriptions'....as one can slap an inventory label on the thing and treat it like any other 'musical instrument' that a program might need (I.E. Piano, Tuba, etc...). There are far more possible budgets that need less scrutinious approval processes than products that are only available through 'subscription' plans.
I hate to say it, but if Finale moves to a subscription only model as well (and doesn't have some alternative version that doesn't need internet or 'subscriptions', then many people around the world aren't going to have much choice but to shift to MuseScore, use 'personal money' to get it, or make parents sell more popcorn and candy (they already are pushed to the limit just getting kids in uniform, and helping subsidize some of the costs on things like travel, music/methods books/reeds/pads/strings/etc.
Music software isn't like Adobe, or some office suite, where hudge Corporations put high charged/well paid sales folks on air planes to travel the world and cut sweet multi million dollar kick-back deals with politicians and CEOs over 18 holes of golf on an expense account to buy thousands of subscriptions for a state all at once...put them on every employee/student's PC, and FORCE them all to use it (often even making the individual employee or student pay 'out of pocket' for the 'training' to use the 'force-ware' out of their own pockets to 'keep their jobs'...I.E. Continuing Education Units to remained 'licensed' in given professions).
Music programs tend to be more like;
Teacher: "May we have a PC to manage our music library and build custom lessons for our students?"
And the answer is usually something like;
Principal: "We have some left over PC's that were decommissioned from the typing lab 5 years ago...go take one out of the supply closet."
Teacher: "OK, Can I get some software to go with it?"
Principal: "Sure...IF there is some money left over at the end of the fiscal year we might can get you some stuff. For now...here is a list of 'approved software' you can have (it's 2016 and they're still running XP, and are working off enterprise seats they purchased 10 years ago with some ONE TIME federal block grant money). Oh, and fill out this paper work (hands you a binder with more than 80 pages of stuff that has to go through 3 different advisory boards)."
Teacher: "There's not a single music application on this list!"
Principal: "Well, can't your band/choir parents have a 'fund raiser'?"
Teacher: "Sure, that might be possible, but we'll need internet access to get it working."
Principal: "Sorry, we can only have that in certain buildings, we already don't have enough tech money and staff to maintain what we've got." Or "Sure." (but then you find out it's firewalled to hell and back, and your 'applications' are not 'approved' to get the open ports needed to 'log in' and 'use your software'.
I do hope MM is listening....
Even with a sorely outdated product....being 'flexible' on the business end, taking care of PEOPLE, and helping make life easier on them when it comes to jumping through the hoops of beurocratic institutions will help keep them alive for a few years yet...perhaps long enough to 'catch up' with the rest in terms of 'technology and user friendliness'. Ironically, I think this is one thing that being gobbled up by an 'athletics' minded company might actually help with. Those guys know what it's like to help a coach find pools of money to get the tools they need to keep their EXPENSIVE programs going year-round. They understand school administrations (since more than 2/3rds of those are Ex Coaches anyway). In contrast, we have a bunch of 'studio oriented' companies cranking out products with terms of use/service that put a significant damper on their potential markets.
If they misinterpret the needs of Music Educators around the world (and how we get money to buy these products) just to play 'copy cat' with folks like Adobe and AVID.....they could push many many many educators into a corner where they've no choice but to go with free license options, or move to dongleware (and ironically, the same people who've never tried to work up an implementation plan to get a 'service' installed in a music hall, that has 'recurring fees', are begging companies like Steinberg to 'copy' the AVID/Cakewalk/Adobe/etc. models as well...I guess they're fortunate enough to work in districts where austerity hasn't gotten rid of all their 'cooperative implementation plan writers' and 'grant writing' folks....or....they spend more time doing paper work than teaching?).Post Edited (Credo) : 8/26/2016 5:29:03 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | |
|
CraigP
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2013
Total Posts : 313
| Posted 8/26/2016 11:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Credo said...
I hate to say it, but if Finale moves to a subscription only model as well (and doesn't have some alternative version that doesn't need internet or 'subscriptions', then many people around the world aren't going to have much choice but to shift to MuseScore, use 'personal money' to get it, or make parents sell more popcorn and candy (they already are pushed to the limit just getting kids in uniform, and helping subsidize some of the costs on things like travel, music/methods books/reeds/pads/strings/etc.
I don't think a subscription model is even remotely a viable business option for Makemusic, given where they sit today. A subscription model requires a certain amount of trust that there will be regular, continuous improvement to the product. On that particular point, the trust factor must be about as close to zero as is mathematically possible. They have gone through two consecutive 2-year stalls, and at the end of each one is a product version that a large body of the customer base thinks may be a step backward.
I paid for 25 but there is absolutely no way I would enter into a subscription without a solid expectation of regular fixes and enhancements -- at least once per quarter. They have a lot of work to do before they can even think about a subscription model, IMHO. | | Back to Top | |
|
Credo
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2016
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 8/27/2016 3:22 AM (GMT -6) | | CraigP said...Credo said...
I hate to say it, but if Finale moves to a subscription only model as well (and doesn't have some alternative version that doesn't need internet or 'subscriptions', then many people around the world aren't going to have much choice but to shift to MuseScore, use 'personal money' to get it, or make parents sell more popcorn and candy (they already are pushed to the limit just getting kids in uniform, and helping subsidize some of the costs on things like travel, music/methods books/reeds/pads/strings/etc. I don't think a subscript ion model is even remotely a viable business option for Makemusic, given where they sit today. A subscript ion model requires a certain amount of trust that there will be regular, continuous improvement to the product. On that particular point, the trust factor must be about as close to zero as is mathematically possible. They have gone through two consecutive 2-year stalls, and at the end of each one is a product version that a large body of the customer base thinks may be a step backward. I paid for 25 but there is absolutely no way I would enter into a subscript ion without a solid expectation of regular fixes and enhancements -- at least once per quarter. They have a lot of work to do before they can even think about a subscript ion model, IMHO.
Totally agree....
Plus it's just not a viable model for a good portion of Finale's most loyal user-base. | | Back to Top | |
|
Garcia
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2009
Total Posts : 150
| Posted 8/28/2016 10:06 AM (GMT -6) | | I was very happy with this Rewire implementation, but when realize your description about a tremendous kludge involving other software to make some proper rewire, I think I quit.
I saw the description offered by you guys, and thanks a million for trying to do Makemusic's bonus work (yes I know that Finale doesn't belong to Presonus or Steinberg), but compared to simple and elegant Notion rewire technology, is just time consuming... and ridiculous!
Very briefly, I believe that Finale will be used only by scorewriters and teachers (I mean, not by the audio industry). As I understand it, users who want a better midi editing and rewire will abandon the platform very soon. Six coworker that deal with production of sheet music for audiovisual medium announced that they will leave Finale, while a very conservative software indeed. They sent me these two links. So, Here it is, the long awaited first try out relating to an amazing integration between musical notation and a Daw:
Introducing Notion 6:
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEhDajR9YM
and
What's New in Studio One 3.3
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=45hko6O9lP0
Seeing these videos, I seriously regretted not having invested in Notion a few years ago. This new rewire tech it's clean, easy and fast!
I really like Finale, but honestly, the software offers few innovations and does not invest in breaking down paradigms. As I said a few years ago here in this forum (which generated a tremendous fight because some very passionate users came out in defense of Finale disregarding the needs of other users), the company that first integrate a DAW and a music notation software will change the direction of musical creation. Studio One have set out ahead, but I believe Steinberg's Dorico have good chances to turns this game around!
If things continue like this, I do not see a happy ending for Finale.
Garcia: Composer and teacher. Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64bits; Intel Core I7-4770 3.40GHz, 16 GB RAM and Edirol FA-66 FireWire. Finale 2011b, Finale 25, Kontakt 5 v5.5.2, Aria Player v. 1.872, Samplelord 1.5.6, EWQLSO Gold Edition\PRO XP Gold, Miroslav Philharmonik, Garritan Instruments for Finale, GPO5, J&BB, Garritan Harps and an exelent custom Soundfont Bank plus a lot VST audio plugins.Post Edited (Garcia) : 8/28/2016 10:53:35 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | |
|
CraigP
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2013
Total Posts : 313
| Posted 8/28/2016 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Garcia said...
Very briefly, I believe that Finale will be used only by scorewriters and teachers (I mean, not by the audio industry). As I understand it, users who want a better midi editing and rewire will abandon the platform very soon. Six coworker that deal with production of sheet music for audiovisual medium announced that they will leave Finale, while a very conservative software indeed. They sent me these two links. So, Here it is, the long awaited first try out relating to an amazing integration between musical notation and a Daw:
...
If things continue like this, I do not see a happy ending for Finale.
Or for Dorico, for that matter. Even though Dorico is owned by Steinberg, one of the biggest forces in DAW technology, they have mostly left the Dorico team alone to explore the outer reaches of arcane notation minutia. I think both companies (Steinberg and Finale) have been poorly served by listening way too much to a very narrow base of users that are only interested in "the ultimate engraving" so to speak. And many of them are very slow to move to new releases anyway, so provide very little revenue to fund additional development.
I have been giving Notion much more of a look than before. I have used Presonus hardware mixers in the past with good results, but recently switched my rig to a Behringer X32 which is about 1000 times more powerful. I still use a Presonus audio interface. I logged into my Presonus account and discovered somewhere along the line I became a StudioOne 3 Artist owner. That must have been part of a bundle because I have never installed StudioOne. I am really happy with SONAR and not eager to absorb the learning curve of another DAW. However, the integration between Notion and StudioOne is beyond impressive. it looks like a home run to me. This is a company that gets where music technology is going.
Back on the Finale front, I spent about 4 hours yesterday working on a simplified configuration compared to that described in earlier posts above. This time, I am simply trying to get SONAR to be the "audio engine" for Finale, and not trying to synchronize the transports. I have a big band arrangement I wrote a couple of years ago and now need to expand, so it was a good project on which to experiment. Listening to the playback recording I did in 2014, it is really poor. So this time, I ran Finale in MIDI mode through LoopMIDI. I used Aria Player and various other synths in SONAR. That all worked pretty well except that the Aria voices occasionally would go silent, and I couldn't find any way to get them back short of lading a recent autodsave copy of SONAR.
After I had all the instruments set up, I did stereo placement, some multi-band compression, a stereo field widener, and two reverb buses (for blend and space). They I did a little more tweaking on the synth voice (ahhhs) to make them cut through without being too loud. This all was a huge improvement over what Finale can do directly, but still had the convenience of remaining in Finale all the time. SONAR basically just sits int he background doing the mix in real time.
And here's the payoff. The improved clarity of the mix allowed me to find numerous things that either were simply wrong notes or poor voicings, and also stylistic things that could be improved with Finale articulations. This was a lot of work to set up, but I can use this same SONAR project with any Finale score that has the same instrumentation, and it will go very quickly.
At this stage, I don't think that it will be worth the effort to try to get the transports to sync up consistently. If I want to render this material to a WAV, I have to do a 2-step process. The first step is to record all the MIDI content into SONAR (at the regular song speed). The second step is to render that entirely within SONAR, which is about 5 times faster than song speed. Then I delete the MIDI in SONAR and go back to my real time mode.
It is a pretty good solution, even though quite tedious to set up. I should mention that according to the Presonus videos, most of that tedium is condensed into a single click with the Notion solution. But I am sure there are plenty of things I would find inadequate about Notion, so my plan is to ride with this platform for a little while and see how the market develops, especially as Dorico emerges. | | Back to Top | |
|
Credo
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2016
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 8/28/2016 4:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Garcia said...
I was very happy with this Rewire implementation, but when realize your description about a tremendous kludge involving other software to make some proper rewire, I think I quit.
I saw the description offered by you guys, and thanks a million for trying to do Makemusic's bonus work (yes I know that Finale doesn't belong to Presonus or Steinberg), but compared to simple and elegant Notion rewire technology, is just time consuming... and ridiculous!
Much of what you and CraigP say is quite true for Producers, Pro Studio Engineers, and 'home studio enthusiasts'; however...
1. It is the 'first release' of Finale with any kind of 'rewire support' at all. Older versions of Finale were able to slave to a DAVW or DAW over MIDI without all the fuss described above. It simply used MTC/Sync...a tried and true process since the 1990s. I think it's fair to give MM a chance to get it working better. It's already at the same point of functionality as their primary competitor (Sibelius).
2. A huge portion of the Finale/Sibelius user base are not terribly interested in 'score interpretation' and playback quality. They'll take it if it's free, but it's not the sort of thing that convinces the bulk of the user-base to upgrade Finale, when they really need 3 new tubas, 6 new euphoniums, 4 F horns, a pair of bassoons, a Bari sax overhaul, a set of timpani heads, 200 Uniforms, and multi million dollar liability insurance policies. We're talking about music theory/composition teachers/students, band/orchestra/choral directors/students, and instrumental/vocal specialist teachers/students. The next sizable chunk of the user base is going to be 'Composers, Pedagogy Specialists [methods books and etudes], and Publishers'. We audio-centric electronic score translation enthusiasts are a very small percentage of the overall market share equation.
More schools and universities are starting to demand Finale provide the groundwork for introducing composers to the basics in the craft of Film and Game engine scoring; because there is demand for quality professional composers in these areas. However, they want to focus on the musical content aspect of scoring for 'real musicians' in the beginning (the machines do little good without instructions in the form of MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS). The thing is, under a 2, 4, or even a 6 year degree program....it's nearly impossible to do a decent curricula for BOTH 'orchestration and composition' AND 'audio engineering or commercial 'producing''. Those who choose to specialize in 'composing' are sent to Finale/Sibelius labs to hone the skills of music theory, instrument/voice pedagogy, and to start building a portfolio of COMPOSITIONS (and still must make some choices in further specialization ....I.E. brass/woodwinds/percussion/piano/voice/etc.).
Those who choose to specialize in 'audio and acoustical engineering' are sent to advanced physics/acoustics courses, software design and coding classes, and spend time in rather different labs getting a different skill set (and still must make some choices in further specialization. These engineering students also require a very different kind of 'ear training' and 'harmonic theory' than a composer. Plus many of them also need considerable study/practice in fields of psycho-acoustics and anatomy of the ear. Add systems analysis, programming, manufacturing, chemistry, electronic networking, etc.).
It's not really fair to assert such users (Finale/Sibelius/MuseScore) are daft or inflexible and need to 'get with the wheels of progress'. They're often running the stuff on 12 year old hardware on 'borrowed time', using stock configurations of Laptops or higher end Tablets. The feature sets they are most interested in have less to do with a playback engine. Instead, what they need (and can get from Finale, but not from most of the Studio DAW attachments) are:
A. Ability to mass deploy over isolated laboratory networks, for multiple user accounts, containing many workstations and NO access to any outside servers/clouds.
B. They also need free or inexpensive 'collaboration tools' for 'home work' or 'basic collaboration'...such as Finale Note Pad (Sibelius, in its rush to get trendy and progressive seems to have broken their Scorch platform...so some have had to switch to Finale or MuseScore for this purpose).
C. A company that is geared to accept Purchase Orders, wait for payments, and otherwise help clients deal with the bureaucratic institutions controlling their 'purse strings'. This is a rather tedious and unpleasant process, as it often includes months (or sometimes even years) of following up on accounts and chasing down the money that various states/schools/companies owe. They can't just throw the product up on the web as an 'automated store' and live off 'credit card' subscriptions like most of the small DAW companies are doing.
D. Be able to provide versions that can run on ancient systems with minimal resources.
E. Have feature sets that focus on dealing with minute engraving details for both Notation and Text.
F. Have feature sets that make the process of splitting a score into properly formatted 'parts' as fast and easy as possible.
G. Provide enough 'bread and butter sounds' that don't cost a fortune or require much in the line of system resources to Compose, but not necessarily produce 'realistic studio quality mock ups'.
H. The ability to import/export a large variety of score formats.
I. Seamless integration with OCR software.
J. Tools to create 'courses' for things like Moodle, Whiteboard, CourseMill, RAW HTML with SCORM compatibility, etc...
K. A wide variety of specialist tools for Publishers such as supporting massive printers and image setters...crop marks...water-marks, etc...
Finale has never really been at the top of most folk's list for Syncing with Video/Game Engines/or even a Basic DAW/DAVW. For that Nuendo and/or StudioOne is far more appropriate (Add many times the price by the time 'premium sound libraries', pro audio interfaces, media large and fast enough to deal with higher sample rates and bit-widths, and a core machine powerful enough to tie it all together are put together). To heck with trying to 'synchronize' a score engine...just export a MIDI file and go to work 'mixing' and matching video 'cue points', while also throwing in whatever voice and FX tracks go with it.
In short, a private teaching studio or public school lab can probably implement 20 Finale seats (machines and OSes included) for less than it cost to set up a 'single' modern Professional Film Scoring workstation! Given a few phone calls...Finale Teams have the people and experience to help clients jump through the hoops to get these labs paid for, and up and running.
As for Steinberg...
Again you have a very mature line of products built around 30+ years of legacy support. Studios that have been around since the 1960s still have kit going back to those eras (and older) that get used DAILY. It's long paid for...allowing for some profit out of current and future contracts. If they 'get with the progressive trends' and neglect that legacy support....a LOT of studios get screwed to the point of possible bankruptcy. It would be down right irresponsible for them to chunk all of those users to the curb. Commitment to continuing support for 30+ years of 'legacy' system components does slow down 'progress' in many ways. When they do decide to cut out some legacy support in favor of progress, they have to do it very carefully, and still at least have a back-door solution or bridge to 'legacy'.
This latest release of Finale is chock full of RISK. I'm thinking of it kind of like Finale 'Vista' (Windows reference). Unhappy users are inevitable given the size and scope of the bridge Finale is trying to cross. Much of the legacy support had to go for this version (or they could have waited another 2 years adding back what the transition to 64bit cost them). Given the progress of hardware and OSes...they really did need to take the risk and go ahead and put this release out there.
For the most part, it's now neck and neck with Sibelius....surpassing it some respects, and lagging behind in others. The 'foundation' is now set to 'move forward'. I'm kind of predicting some future changes in pricing...and maybe different more specialized versions for various sets of user needs.
Let DAW companies worry about playback engines...
There is plenty of need for 'Cloud Based Course Building', integrated with advanced LMS (Learning Management Systems) tools that NO Notation Package on the market has even bothered to really delve deeply into just yet. Case in point: Make a module that exports an 'interactive' lesson all ready to plug into something like Moodle (or even a MetaVerse like Secondlife or openSIM), and you've earned yourself tens of thousands of customers and possibly millions of indirect 'end users' :)
Personally, I'd like to see a version of Finale that doesn't have a plugin host at all...just add enough hooks to bridge it with Bidule and still have control over ARIA through score manager (Plogue does the sound engine for Finale and Bidule....and I suspect for Sibelius as well). It could have a skinned 'default' configuration that looks and works pretty much like the current Finale Host (but through Bidule), but also gives you the option to pull up the 'full fledge Bidule system' and implement your own 'power user' configurations.
As a 'personal user' I was quite happy with 2014.5, and didn't really need this new release, but I got it so I can be prepared for whatever my clients might need. For more modern hardware...I think it's a fairly decent release, but I also know it's going to tick a bunch of long term users off. In this case, it's really about the 'next generation' of Finale consumers, and creating some breathing space to 're-evaluate' what markets are going to bare and demand from hence forward.
Dorico is still a baby in Alpha/Beta missing massive chunks of the abilities that Pros are going to need. Who really knows what that App is going to bring to the table in the long haul?Post Edited (Credo) : 8/28/2016 5:49:14 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | |
| 32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Tuesday, December 19, 2023 8:19 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 403,820 posts in 58,165 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2023 |
|
|