MakeMusic Forum

The original version of this page can be found at : http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6&m=487965

Posted By : Bill Spencer - 11/3/2016 7:00 PM

I hope it's OK to ask this here, but have any of you tried out the new competition from Steinberg?

Thanks (ducking)

MacBook Core 2 Duo 2.9 GHz 16GB Ram OS 10.11.6
Finale 2014.5
MOTU DP 9
Kurzweil PC3K
Minimoog

Posted By : Michel R. E. - 11/3/2016 7:03 PM

let's just say that it isn't anywhere near being ready for prime time.

Finale (started with ver. 3.0) using 2012 (2014 has been shelved for its lack of support for older Garritan libraries), putting Finale 25 through its paces.
Windows 8.1
basically ALL Garritan libraries, plus XSample Chamber Ensemble.

"Art critics suffer from Pigeon Syndrome. Pigeons like to leave their mark on monuments. But at the end of the day, the pigeon remains a pigeon, and the monument remains a monument."

Posted By : Fred G. Unn - 11/3/2016 7:27 PM

From their own site:

"Dorico has many unique and innovative features not found in any other software, and presents a whole new way of working with music notation, but because it is brand new, it does not yet have every feature necessary for every kind of score. Dorico will receive a number of updates in the coming months that will be free to existing users, adding new functionality. Some of the functionality that is planned to be added in these updates includes*:

Chord symbols
Repeat ending (1st, 2nd time or volta) lines
Fingerings
Jazz articulations
Rhythm slashes
More flexible unpitched percussion notation
Improvements to playback and support for third-party virtual instruments"

Additionally, it can't do piano pedaling, staves are not independently adjustable other than the program's own collision avoidance feature, the documentation is minimal, and there's no demo. So ... if you don't need any of those things, go ahead and buy it!

Posted By : Bill Spencer - 11/3/2016 7:32 PM

I'm are of the incomplete feature set. Have any of you seen/tried it?

MacBook Core 2 Duo 2.9 GHz 16GB Ram OS 10.11.6
Finale 2014.5
MOTU DP 9
Kurzweil PC3K
Minimoog

Posted By : Michel R. E. - 11/3/2016 8:16 PM

it also can't do cues in an orchestral part yet.

I haven't bothered trying since it's simply lacking so many features that are basic it would feel like completely wasted time.
besides, no demo. they're not getting a penny from me until I know the program can actually fulfil its "gold standard in engraving".

Posted By : OCTO. - 11/4/2016 4:59 AM

... in other words, check Dorico in a couple of years.

Finale 2014.5 • OS X: Yosemite, MPB 15', 16GB RAM

Posted By : John Ruggero - 11/4/2016 5:52 AM

And it remains to be seen whether Dorico will ever have the flexibility that would attract Finale users or just turn out to be Sibelius on steroids.

Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Finale 2014d (Finale 2011 as a backup) with GPO 4
Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2, Adobe InDesign CS4 SmartScore X Pro, JW Plug-ins
www.cantilenapress.com

The better the composer, the better the notation.

Post Edited (John Ruggero) : 11/4/2016 5:56:25 AM (GMT-5)

Posted By : stringtapper - 11/4/2016 8:33 AM

I purchased the educational crossgrade so I could see what the buzz was about.

It's definitely not finished. Lots of very routine things it can't do at all yet, like manually change the spacing of staves.

The foundation is promising though. I personally like the user interface and the paradigm shift in its underlying concept of players, flows, and layers is an interesting design choice that makes setting up a document very flexible.

The Engrave Mode and the ability to have frames of musical content placed however you want are the features that interest me most.

So yeah, it is kind of a "wait a year or so" situation to see where they go with it.

2.9 GHz i5 27" iMac 8GB 10.10.1 / 2.5 GHz i7 17" MacBook Pro 16GB 10.10.1 / Finale 2014d / GPO4 / Kontakt 5 / Logic Pro 10.0.7

Posted By : Motet - 11/4/2016 11:10 AM

So, they've been at it about 4 years. As a very rough guess, let's say it's costing Steinberg $1M/year (more?). If they make $400 per copy sold, at this point they have to sell 10,000 copies to break even. ($400 may be high, since there would be a lot of cross-graders.) Each development year requires another 2,500 copies be sold until at some point paid upgrades kick in. Is the market big enough? I could be way off in my estimate of costs, of course.

Finale 2014.5, 2011b, 2005, TGTools
Windows 7, MIDI input
Finale Transposition Chart

Post Edited (Motet) : 11/4/2016 11:14:59 AM (GMT-5)

Posted By : Motet - 11/4/2016 12:00 PM

The Dorico Wikipedia page lists seven developers, not including Spreadbury, so $1M/year is probably low.

Finale 2014.5, 2011b, 2005, TGTools
Windows 7, MIDI input
Finale Transposition Chart

Posted By : MikeHalloran - 11/4/2016 3:57 PM

Motet said...
So, they've been at it about 4 years. As a very rough guess, let's say it's costing Steinberg $1M/year (more?). If they make $400 per copy sold, at this point they have to sell 10,000 copies to break even. ($400 may be high, since there would be a lot of cross-graders.) Each development year requires another 2,500 copies be sold until at some point paid upgrades kick in. Is the market big enough? I could be way off in my estimate of costs, of course.

Steinberg is a wholly owned subsidiary of Yamaha. I'm pretty sure that they can afford the tab—as long as they see a future payoff.

I can understand the release before it's ready—try t generate enthusiasm, generate some positive cash flow and expand the Beta base.

Not with my money, of course. No...

Finale 25, 2014.5, SmartScore X Pro II, Encore 5.07, GPO 5
2010 iMac i7, 32G RAM, 2T SSD, Late 2013 MacBook Air, OS 10.12
MOTU Digital Performer 9.12, 9.02, Logic Pro X 10.2.4

Posted By : Dr. Wiggy - 11/5/2016 4:58 AM

Can anyone tell me whether it requires a hardware dongle on a Mac? That's a big turn-off right there.

Finale v.25, 2012 MacMini; 2012 MacBook Pro (10.11.6)
Edirol FA-66; Roland A-49, HP Laserjet 5200 DTN
Ancient Groove Music www.ancientgroove.co.uk

Posted By : MikeHalloran - 11/5/2016 9:09 AM

Dr. Wiggy said...
Can anyone tell me whether it requires a hardware dongle on a Mac? That's a big turn-off right there.

My understanding is that it uses the Steinberg eLicenser, a convoluted pain, IMO.

www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/articles/how-do-i-activate-dorico-by-steinberg/

Finale 25.1, 2014.5, 2011c, SmartScore X Pro II, Encore 5.07, GPO 5
2010 iMac i7, 32G RAM, 2T SSD, Late 2013 MacBook Air, OS 10.12.1
MOTU Digital Performer 9.12, 9.02, Logic Pro X 10.2.4

Post Edited (MikeHalloran) : 11/5/2016 2:47:17 PM (GMT-5)

Posted By : Dr. Wiggy - 11/5/2016 9:14 AM

MikeHalloran said...
My understanding is that it uses the Steinberg eLicenser, a convoluted pain, IMO.

Yes. Any third-party software that sinks its teeth into the OS in the name of DRM is likely to cause problems, IME.

Daniel says the dongle is an "option" here:
/www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=246&t=99045&sid=ac1363171368b2fdc8ee956b7c07d8ae

I can't see how many installations you are allowed for the price. Is it .... one?

Finale v.25, 2012 MacMini; 2012 MacBook Pro (10.11.6)
Edirol FA-66; Roland A-49, HP Laserjet 5200 DTN
Ancient Groove Music www.ancientgroove.co.uk

Posted By : MikeHalloran - 11/5/2016 10:39 AM

Dr. Wiggy said...

MikeHalloran said...
My understanding is that it uses the Steinberg eLicenser, a convoluted pain, IMO.

Apparently so unless you use their dongle.
/japan.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=246&t=97395&start=100

I'm ok with iLok but multiple dongles? No thanks.

Finale 25.1, 2014.5, 2011c, SmartScore X Pro II, Encore 5.07, GPO 5
2010 iMac i7, 32G RAM, 2T SSD, Late 2013 MacBook Air, OS 10.12.1
MOTU Digital Performer 9.12, 9.02, Logic Pro X 10.2.4

Posted By : Vaughan - 11/5/2016 10:50 AM

You have a choice of the eLicenser on one machine or plugging in a hardware dongle to any machine where you have the software installed.
I find the new program very promising and it's already able to do a lot of things Finale has never been able to do without extensive workarounds or 'cheating'. I agree with stringtapper's assessment (BTW, the update coming out this month will have the ability to space staves manually, plus a number of other features and fixes), especially about setting up documents. Dorico's output is also very good, with good spacing, proper kerning of accidentals, good placement of dynamics and hairpins, etc. Many things are a lot easier than in other scoring programs, like entering a series of dotted quarters in 4/4 and not having to change note values to compensate for barlines. And it's sometimes handy to able to enter notes on the fly without time signatures and to apply these afterwards. And imagine being able to select two non-contiguous notes and type in p<f>p and not only have the dynamics and hairpins placed perfectly, but watch them adjust intelligently when time signatures, spacing, or anything else changes. about flexibility: there are already options for practically every contingency and the team is taking responses from users very seriously. Pretty amazing for version 1.0 and sure, it obviously still needs development, but it already surpasses the existing programs in a number of ways and I would think more in terms of months than in years before it surpasses them completely.

Vaughan

Finale 3.2 - 25, Sibelius 4 - 7
Patterson's plugins, Tobias' plugins, full version, waiting for Jari's plugin update
MacOS 10.12
MacPro (2016) 16 GB, MacBookPro (2011) 8 GB

Amsterdam

Posted By : Dr. Wiggy - 11/5/2016 11:12 AM

Vaughan said...
Many things are a lot easier than in other scoring programs, like entering a series of dotted quarters in 4/4 and not having to change note values to compensate for barlines.

SimpleEntry will do this, FWIW.

Finale v.25, 2012 MacMini; 2012 MacBook Pro (10.11.6)
Edirol FA-66; Roland A-49, HP Laserjet 5200 DTN
Ancient Groove Music www.ancientgroove.co.uk

Posted By : Motet - 11/5/2016 11:22 AM

I'm not sure what that means--it automatically ties over the barline? Speedy entry will also do that, albeit rather clumsily.

Finale 2014.5, 2011b, 2005, TGTools
Windows 7, MIDI input
Finale Transposition Chart

Posted By : N. Grossingink - 11/5/2016 12:39 PM

Vaughan, I've noticed your posts on the Dorico forum. It's obvious that you are really tearing into the program and will become a very competent early adopter. You deserve a lot of credit.

I continue to have mixed feelings about Dorico. I am dependent on a few features unique to Finale to produce work to my client's satisfaction. If Dorico will not adopt some of these features, I probably won't be interested at all.

As an example, Finale has a Measure Tool option called "Extra Space at Beginning/End of Measure". I use this feature extensively for a number of scenarios. Plus the ease with which articulations and expressions can be created, added and manipulated within a Finale file.

N.

OSX El Capitan 10.11.6
Finale 2011c, 2012c for production work

Finale 2014.5, not used by my clients

(Finale v25 - not interested yet)

TgTools, Patterson Plugins, JW Change and Staff Polyphony, QuicKeys 4
Mac Mini 2.4 Ghz Intel, 8GB RAM
New Belgium Fat Tire Ale

Post Edited (N. Grossingink) : 11/5/2016 1:03:17 PM (GMT-5)

Posted By : MikeHalloran - 11/5/2016 2:56 PM

What it can do now isn't the issue. How nice it looks isn't important if it can't do the bread and butter stuff.

It does not have the functionality I need to knock out simple lead sheets for students or a praise band chart.

Finale 25.1, 2014.5, 2011c, SmartScore X Pro II, Encore 5.07, GPO 5
2010 iMac i7, 32G RAM, 2T SSD, Late 2013 MacBook Air, OS 10.12.1
MOTU Digital Performer 9.12, 9.02, Logic Pro X 10.2.4

Posted By : Christopher Smith - 11/5/2016 5:39 PM

Motet said...
The Dorico Wikipedia page lists seven developers, not including Spreadbury, so $1M/year is probably low.

Really? You think each developer gets over $100k per year salary? Where do I sign up?

Christopher Smith

Mac Mini (Late 2014) 2.8 Ghz Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM
OSX Yosemite 10.10.5
Finale 2014.5 and V. 25
or
Macbook Pro (Retina, 13 inch, early 2015) 2.7 Ghz Intel Core i5, 8 GB RAM
OSX Yosemite 10.10.5
Finale 2014.5 and V. 25

Posted By : Motet - 11/5/2016 5:46 PM

A master developer in the U.S. makes over $100K, but I was figuring on benefits and other overhead, which add 50-100% to what the person is paid.

Finale 2014.5, 2011b, 2005, TGTools
Windows 7, MIDI input
Finale Transposition Chart

Posted By : ttw - 11/5/2016 6:06 PM

I have seen an estimate that it costs about 2.5 times one's salary for a company to hire a worker. This includes the costs of medical insurance, worker's comp, Social Security, office help, office space, utilities, computers, parking space, etc. Some of these are not obvious; it costs to heat and cool and put furniture in, and office; this is part of doing business. Everyone uses office help, even if it's only getting one's checks delivered. Of course my estimates are based on 15 years ago when mandated spending on employees was lower. An employer can cut back on this overhead, but it might become harder to find employees.

Finale 2014.5, 25
GWI, GPO4, GPO5, JABB 3, Steinway Basic, COMB2

Windows 10 Pro HP Envy Desktop
Windows 10 Home HP Portable

Posted By : Motet - 11/5/2016 7:55 PM

Yes. I think $1M/year spent on Dorico is probably low. Now that the marketing phase has begun, they're spending money on that, too. I am pulling for them, but I wonder how big the market is.

Finale 2014.5, 2011b, 2005, TGTools
Windows 7, MIDI input
Finale Transposition Chart

Posted By : Vaughan - 11/6/2016 7:50 AM

Dr. Wiggy said...

Vaughan said...
Many things are a lot easier than in other scoring programs, like entering a series of dotted quarters in 4/4 and not having to change note values to compensate for barlines.

SimpleEntry will do this, FWIW.

True, but one nice thing about Dorico is that, depending on how you set your notation options, it will also break the note values intelligently at the half-bar, etc.

I spend an inordinate amount of time tweaking things in Finale that the program should do itself without workarounds or resorting to third party plugins. The makers of Dorico are trying to create a program that understands what you're trying to do while giving you the flexibility to alter everything to specific needs or tastes. On the one hand, the excellent defaults of such a program will cater to users who have neither the desire nor the knowledge to concern themselves with the nitty-gritty of correct musical notation, and it will thereby not add to the numerous examples of really abominable engraving which abound nowadays. It will also, however, be flexible enough to cater to users for whom the look of the engraving is important and who need everything to be fully editable.

The fact that a basic function like chords is not yet available attests to the programmers' desire to do it as well as possible from the outset, which is no simple task. Sure, Finale has a chord function, but try using the chord suffix editor or changing the suffix font. This forum is full of complaints about the user-unfriendliness and antiquated UI of the chord tool.

I just set a piece using multiple time signatures and it was a breeze: no workarounds, no hiding barlines, no graphic elements, no independent time signatures with the resulting problems with smart shapes, perfect spacing automatically, etc. Pretty good for a fledgeling program. Just one example.

As I said, it's not ready for a lot of users, including myself, but I believe in the concept and the willingness of the programming team to take all suggestions and complaints seriously.

Vaughan

Finale 3.2 - 25, Sibelius 4 - 7
Patterson's plugins, Tobias' plugins, full version, waiting for Jari's plugin update
MacOS 10.12
MacPro (2016) 16 GB, MacBookPro (2011) 8 GB

Amsterdam

Posted By : John Ruggero - 11/6/2016 8:56 AM

Vaughan said...
It will also, however, be flexible enough to cater to users for whom the look of the engraving is important and who need everything to be fully editable.

I have no doubt that Dorico will eventually give the user complete control over all elements. But what kind of control? Will the program punish me for overriding the spacing of individual notes by making me type numbers in a menu? If so, I won't be able to use the program in spite of all its great automatic features.

This issue was posed on the Dorico forum and received no response from the developers, who generally jump in immediately. This gave me the impression that they are not in sympathy with the kind of hands-on adjusting that I do. The following response did appear in the thread:

Jim Druckenmiller said...
BUT, clicking on and dragging notes around... I don't think this is currently possible. And I'm not sure if there are any plans on extending this type of editing into the workflow.

from /www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=246&t=104167&hilit=how+mouse+friendly

Posted By : Vaughan - 11/6/2016 9:45 AM

N. Grossingink said...
...Finale has a Measure Tool option called "Extra Space at Beginning/End of Measure". I use this feature extensively for a number of scenarios. Plus the ease with which articulations and expressions can be created, added and manipulated within a Finale file.

N.

I'm just curious what you use this feature for. I use it quite a bit, as well, but hen I use it, it's generally because Finale hasn't done something properly, like space the music in a measure or allow enough space for cross-layer accidentals.

Vaughan

Finale 3.2 - 25, Sibelius 4 - 7
Patterson's plugins, Tobias' plugins, full version, waiting for Jari's plugin update
MacOS 10.12
MacPro (2016) 16 GB, MacBookPro (2011) 8 GB

Amsterdam

Posted By : Vaughan - 11/6/2016 10:09 AM

John Ruggero said...
...Will the program punish me for overriding the spacing of individual notes by making me type numbers in a menu? If so, I won't be able to use the program in spite of all its great automatic features...

Just for the sake of playing the devil's advocate, one could ask why would you would want to override the spacing of individual notes if the program does it well in the first place. I'll admit that it also makes me nervous if a notation program doesn't allow me to move notes horizontally manually but, when I think about it, whenever I've wanted to be able to do this, it was because Finale hadn't done it properly. Dorico even takes things like hairpins into consideration while spacing music, thereby avoiding squashed hairpins and removing the need for manual adjustment in such instances. Many complaints on this forum are from users who have reacted to poor spacing (sometimes as a result of user error) by dragging notes around with the mouse in the Speedy Entry frame or by using the note position tool in special tools. Using either of these handy manual editing tools in this way creates other problems, like poor vertical alignment, etc.

Vaughan

Finale 3.2 - 25, Sibelius 4 - 7
Patterson's plugins, Tobias' plugins, full version, waiting for Jari's plugin update
MacOS 10.12
MacPro (2016) 16 GB, MacBookPro (2011) 8 GB

Amsterdam

Posted By : Jetcopy - 11/6/2016 10:31 AM

Vaughan said...

I also use this feature extensively. One example I use frequently is with rehearsal numbers. On instruments which are typically written higher in the staff (flutes, violins, etc...) often the first note is touching or too close to the rehearsal number. If I need to keep the positioning of the rehearsal number consistent, then it's necessary to move the notes slightly to the right in a specific measure.

How does Dorico deal with this situation?

Unrelated to this scenario. In Finale, grace notes in a score do not line up vertically if some grace notes contain ledger lines and other grace notes don't. What's Dorico's handling of this?

Retina Macbook Pro OSX 10.9.5, 2.5GHz Intel Core i7, 16 GB RAM, El Capitan on separate drive

Posted By : N. Grossingink - 11/6/2016 11:15 AM

Vaughan said...

I make lots of small adjustments similar to what Jetcopy has described, usually no more than 1/2 space. To make room for "other stuff". Additionally, I'll add 2 or 3 spaces to the end of a whole note measure, in order to widen the measure in a way that survives music spacing. This is for those whole notes that have a crescendo wedge visually placed to start mid-measure.

Another scenario is where upstem beamed 16ths appear at the end of a measure - the last stem usually crowds the right barline. Adding 1/2 space fixes this.

I'm an "extra space" maniac.

N.

Posted By : John Ruggero - 11/6/2016 1:22 PM

Vaughan said...
Just for the sake of playing the devil's advocate, one could ask why would you would want to override the spacing of individual notes if the program does it well in the first place. I'll admit that it also makes me nervous if a notation program doesn't allow me to move notes horizontally manually but, when I think about it, whenever I've wanted to be able to do this, it was because Finale hadn't done it properly.

As good as it might be, I have my doubts about the infallibility of Dorico's spacing, having already run into basic issues at Notat.io

But even if it reaches "perfection", there is the question of personal taste. And this can not always be set on a global basis.

I also sense basic mistrust of the user by the designers of the program. That bothers me deeply.

Posted By : Dr. Wiggy - 11/6/2016 2:50 PM

Jetcopy said...
Unrelated to this scenario. In Finale, grace notes in a score do not line up vertically if some grace notes contain ledger lines and other grace notes don't. What's Dorico's handling of this?

I've just tried this in Finale, and it looks OK to me. Possibly the teensiest bit off. However, accidentals on one of the grace notes will cause a mis-alignment.

Finale v.25, 2012 MacMini; 2012 MacBook Pro (10.11.6)
Edirol FA-66; Roland A-49, HP Laserjet 5200 DTN
Ancient Groove Music www.ancientgroove.co.uk

Posted By : N. Grossingink - 11/6/2016 2:56 PM

Dr. Wiggy said...
I've just tried this in Finale, and it looks OK to me. Possibly the teensiest bit off. However, accidentals on one of the grace notes will cause a mis-alignment.

Try it with 3 or 4 grace notes. It will be a lot less teensier.

N.

Posted By : Dave Lang - 11/6/2016 3:00 PM

John Ruggero said...
I also sense basic mistrust of the user by the designers of the program. That bothers me deeply.

I've felt the same since I watched this "soundnotion" youtube video with Daniel Spreadbury.

For example check the discussion between 25 mins and 35 mins if you like and don't want to watch the whole thing.

(careful, the video starts with loud music)

/www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBhPyTNkXKI

There seems to me to be a strong emphasis on forcing users of the product to notate "the right way" vs. letting them notate how they want.

re: moving notes - I do it all the time to make space for / properly align chord symbols in Finale

MacBook Pro Retina 15" (late 2013), OSX 10.11.6, Finale 2014.5, Finale 25

Post Edited (Dave Lang) : 11/6/2016 2:06:03 PM (GMT-6)

Posted By : Jetcopy - 11/6/2016 4:09 PM

Dr. Wiggy said...

I've just tried this in Finale, and it looks OK to me. Possibly the teensiest bit off. However, accidentals on one of the grace notes will cause a mis-alignment.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Here's the scenario I'm referring to.

Retina Macbook Pro OSX 10.9.5, 2.5GHz Intel Core i7, 16 GB RAM, El Capitan on separate drive

Posted By : Dr. Wiggy - 11/6/2016 4:46 PM

Ah. Good one. Thanks.

Finale v.25.1, 2012 MacMini; 2012 MacBook Pro (10.11.6 / 10.12.1)
Edirol FA-66; Roland A-49, HP Laserjet 5200 DTN
Ancient Groove Music www.ancientgroove.co.uk

Posted By : Vaughan - 11/6/2016 5:22 PM

Even in version 1.0, Dorico vertically aligns grace notes correctly, and it also spaces them correctly, something Finale is still unable to do. The examples of needing to add space at the beginning of the bar to make room for rehearsal numbers or at the end to keep from crowding a final stem, or to move notes manually to make space for or to align chord symbols properly are all examples of inadequacies in Finale's abilities. As an example: rehearsal numbers are shifted to make room for top staff elements which would otherwise collide with it, and this is taken care of intelligently and automatically for score and parts separately. Also, I haven't yet seen a crowded final stem in a bar. For the longtime users among us it's hard to escape a distrust of automation or the perceived need for ubiquitous manual tweaking but this attitude is based on our experience with a program which needs manual adjustment at many turns.

Vaughan

Finale 3.2 - 25, Sibelius 4 - 7
Patterson's plugins, Tobias' plugins, full version, waiting for Jari's plugin update
MacOS 10.12
MacPro (2016) 16 GB, MacBookPro (2011) 8 GB

Amsterdam

Posted By : Michel R. E. - 11/6/2016 5:36 PM

I've seen people complain about Finale's steep learning curve, but it would seem that Dorito is worse in that respect.

Posted By : Vaughan - 11/6/2016 6:13 PM

John Ruggero said...
I also sense basic mistrust of the user by the designers of the program. That bothers me deeply.

We've all seen (including in published editions) and some of us have even had to clean up the unacceptably shoddy work of users who lack the knowledge and/or interest to produce good engraving when using a program like Finale which gives you the freedom to do pretty much whatever you want but also the ability to screw things up royally. That bothers me deeply.
Dorico seems to be trying to be the best of both worlds.

Vaughan

Finale 3.2 - 25, Sibelius 4 - 7
Patterson's plugins, Tobias' plugins, full version, waiting for Jari's plugin update
MacOS 10.12
MacPro (2016) 16 GB, MacBookPro (2011) 8 GB

Amsterdam

Posted By : Motet - 11/6/2016 6:54 PM

I'm all for good defaults, as long as they're not mandatory. Finale's defaults could certainly be better.

Finale 2014.5, 2011b, 2005, TGTools
Windows 7, MIDI input
Finale Transposition Chart

Posted By : Knut - 11/6/2016 7:25 PM

Michel R. E. said...
I've seen people complain about Finale's steep learning curve, but it would seem that Dorito is worse in that respect.

I strongly suspect this is true only for those with intimate familiarity with another scoring application.

On a more general note: My early frustrations with Finale (particularly the infamously buggy Finale 2004) lead me to switch to Sibelius, only to discover, as my engraving knowledge and skills developed, what made Finale the superior option.

John Ruggero put it beautifully in a recent post on the notatio forum:

John Ruggero said...
For me, the best computer tool for engraving will do the things that a computer does best supremely well, but also honor and facilitate the things that a human does best.

This is what it's all about for me as well, and I won't ever choose Dorico over Finale unless it can provide me with the same quality of output, even if it's somewhat faster and easier to use. That being said, some of Dorico's current engraving and layout features would save me huge amounts of time in tedious manual work, so I am very hopeful that Dorico will become exactly what I'm looking for in a scoring app: the best of both worlds, so to speak. Finale, on the other hand, has seemed much less concerned with improving it's abilities as an engraving tool, which leads me to a final point:

Dorico's focus on automation may indeed prove to be a bad thing for those of us willing to spend days tweaking a score to perfection or discussing engraving minutiae on online forums into the wee hours of the morning. For the vast majority of users, however, not to mention for those poor players who have to deal with badly notated and engraved music on a daily basis, I think an application that will automate very sophisticated tasks to produce correctly notated, well-engraved music with minimal effort for the vast majority of situations will be most welcome. After all, users dabbling in the finer points are likely to be in a very small minority, regardless of the ability of the software they use.

Edit: Vaughan, I took some time writing my post, so forgive me for parroting some of your points above.

13" MacBook Pro 2.8 Ghz. Intel Core i5, 16 GB RAM, Apogee Duet 2, Samsung SyncMaster 245b
OSX 10.9.5, Finale 2011c and 2014b (not using it yet) w/GPO & JABB, Patterson Plug-Ins, TG-Tools and QuickKeys 4; Sibelius 6, Logic Pro X, Adobe CS3, FontLab Studio 4, FontExplorer X Pro 3

Post Edited (Knut) : 11/6/2016 6:28:40 PM (GMT-6)

Posted By : Vaughan - 11/6/2016 7:31 PM

I agree wholeheartedly and I'd actually written (but erased) something to the effect that a lot of ills could be avoided if Finale had better defaults, but it's also a matter of a lack of functionality requiring extensive tweaking in many areas. Trouble is, we're so used to the drudgery that we don't always realise that things could be different.

Vaughan

Finale 3.2 - 25, Sibelius 4 - 7
Patterson's plugins, Tobias' plugins, full version, waiting for Jari's plugin update
MacOS 10.12
MacPro (2016) 16 GB, MacBookPro (2011) 8 GB

Amsterdam

Posted By : John Ruggero - 11/6/2016 9:29 PM

Vaughan, I (and probably every user) agree completely with you that Finale is grossly inadequate in doing all kinds of nuts and bolts things that a machine can do far more efficiently than a human being. It was for that reason that I eagerly awaited Dorico. But I was astonished to learn that the Dorico designers had made cumbersome and even impossible some of the fine manual adjustments that depend more on the taste of the engraver than someone's rule book.

Dorico already has its own very basic spacing and positioning issues, and there are a no workarounds for them because the program does not allow the user to override the program. For example, apparently even cumbersome number input doesn't solve an issue with the spacing of seconds between two voices because the 0 starting point positions the notes too far apart for the slim Bravura note-heads and the designers ruled out the input of negative numbers to allow one push them closer together.

http://notat.io/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=213
https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=246&t=104381&p=573809#p573809

And even if this were fixed, I would never use a program that uses number input for tasks that are better suited to a mouse. It is too unpleasant and inefficient.

Knut, thank you for quoting me and the compliment!

Post Edited (John Ruggero) : 11/6/2016 8:35:45 PM (GMT-6)

Posted By : Dr. Wiggy - 11/7/2016 4:08 AM

So, to sum up: Finale doesn't do enough automatically and lets you do it manually, and Dorico does too much automatically and doesn't let you do it manually.

Finale v.25.1, 2012 MacMini; 2012 MacBook Pro (10.11.6 / 10.12.1)
Edirol FA-66; Roland A-49, HP Laserjet 5200 DTN
Ancient Groove Music www.ancientgroove.co.uk

Posted By : Jetcopy - 11/7/2016 10:29 AM

Dr. Wiggy said...
So, to sum up: Finale doesn't do enough automatically and lets you do it manually, and Dorico does too much automatically and doesn't let you do it manually.

The automation is what I have always disliked about Sibelius. When using Sibelius, I felt as if the programmers thought the program was "smarter" than the user and the program knew what was best.

I'm hopeful that they can find a happy medium with Dorico.

Retina Macbook Pro OSX 10.9.5, 2.5GHz Intel Core i7, 16 GB RAM, El Capitan on separate drive

Posted By : Mike Halloran - 11/7/2016 10:38 AM

John Ruggero said...
...And even if this were fixed, I would never use a program that uses number input for tasks that are better suited to a mouse. It is too unpleasant and inefficient....

Ahhhh... handicapped users will be unable to use it. Thanks for the heads up.

No reason for me to waste any more time on Dorico. That includes reading about it.

Mike Halloran

Finale 25.1 & 2014.5, SmartScore X Pro II, Encore 5.0.7
2010 iMac 2.93G i7 Quad w/ OWC eSATA mod, 20G RAM, OS 10.12.1, 2T SSD
DP 9.1, 8.07, 7.24, Logic Pro X 10.2.4, DSP-Quattro, PSP, IK, NI, Eventide, Izotope & Antares plugins
G4 running OS 10.4.11 & 9.2 with legacy apps

Posted By : Michel R. E. - 11/7/2016 10:44 AM

Mike Halloran said...

John Ruggero said...
...And even if this were fixed, I would never use a program that uses number input for tasks that are better suited to a mouse. It is too unpleasant and inefficient....

Ahhhh... handicapped users will be unable to use it. Thanks for the heads up.

No reason for me to waste any more time on Dorico. That includes reading about it.

The designers/creators of Dorito seem to be very proud of the fact tat they designed the program to be used on a laptop.
I don't understand how this is any sort of "plus" for the program.

I understand that it should WORK on a laptop, but to emphasize that it is actually designed specifically with a laptop in mind seems counter-intuitive.

I think the vast majority of users won't be "on the move" when working on their music. maybe I'm wrong, but then I'm not a jet-setting musician spending all my free time in airports and on buses going from concert premiere to concert premiere.
The times I HAVE travelled for a premiere I honestly couldn't give a crap about working on more music. I was happy to be a silly tourist and snap pictures of nothing through my airplane window.

Posted By : N. Grossingink - 11/7/2016 11:17 AM

Another thing to remember about Dorico is that the music font must be SMuFL compliant. That's likely to be a big/impossible hurdle for publishers and individuals who favor a custom or 3rd party font. The font designed for Dorico, Bravura, is indeed a very classy font and should satisfy most.

Speaking of SMuFL, I've been given to believe that Make Music is somehow associated with the organization that has pioneered this particular standard. That begs the question, when will Maestro become SMuFL compliant, and how incomplete or screwed up will its first appearance be?

N.

Posted By : John Ruggero - 11/7/2016 11:17 AM

Michel said...
The designers/creators of Dorito seem to be very proud of the fact tat they designed the program to be used on a laptop.
I don't understand how this is any sort of "plus" for the program.

Haven't you heard that desktop computers are now obsolete and multiple and large monitors are passé? Who needs all that screen real estate and the ability to select and move things around with a mouse? Laptops bring back the glorious days of typewriters and word processors and are the future! Soon the only Mac will be a MacBook.

I also disagree that one should spend any time away from electronic devices. How can one enjoy the beauty of the glorious Fall day we are having today unless one is staring at some sort of electronic screen?

Post Edited (John Ruggero) : 11/7/2016 10:21:42 AM (GMT-6)

Posted By : John Ruggero - 11/7/2016 11:31 AM

N. Grossingink said...
when will Maestro become SMuFL compliant

I asked this question on this forum and received the following response:

forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6&m=483981

I much prefer the Maestro Font to Bravura and would not switch to Dorico on that basis alone. Bravura is, however, a useful repository of symbols not available in Maestro, and in some cases has for me better versions of certain characters, like the tremolo slashes, for example.

Jetcopy said...
The automation is what I have always disliked about Sibelius. When using Sibelius, I felt as if the programmers thought the program was "smarter" than the user and the program knew what was best.

Posted By : N. Grossingink - 11/7/2016 12:50 PM

Thanks, John.

I hope users that use other fonts are prepared for the switchover to SMuFL. I would save a "Maestro Font Default" that is un-SMuFLized and a number of template formats with the current font mapping. Otherwise, your 3rd party font aint gonna work anymore on the new setup.

N.

Posted By : OCTO. - 11/8/2016 1:38 AM

As Wiggy described somewhere, it is possible to have Maestro SMuFL-compatible AND to have it working for old files. The question is if MM or Avid want to make their property fonts SMuFL compatible. I don't think they want. Personally I have very mixed feeling for SMuFL.

BTW, no one is talking about MuseScore 2 and v3. It has more features than Dorico and many other features that I would like to see implemented in Finale. It is a greatly designed software.

Finale 2014.5 • OS X: Yosemite, MPB 15', 16GB RAM

Posted By : Knut - 11/8/2016 3:59 AM

As a font designer, I can't for the life of me figure out why SMuFL is controversial. It's primary objective is to standardize glyph mapping for any musical symbol in the literature, which surely benefits both software designers and users.

SMuFL does not stipulate any mandatory glyphs; it only recommends them, so the scope of a SMuFL font is entirely optional. It is true that it can be very hard to find a single symbol in a huge SMuFL font. However, the mapping is entirely systematic; the glyphs are sorted in categories and follows an entirely standardized naming scheme which facilitates the implementation of improved search and navigation functionality within the software itself.

Beyond glyph mapping and naming, SMuFL includes an extended set of glyph metadata, including registration, spacing, bounding box coordinates and coordinates for stem connections, optical centering of dynamics and cutouts in accidentals and other shapes. This metadata set eliminates the need for font annotation files and application specific stem connections, and may be used by software developers to improve an application's placement and spacing functionality.

The SMuFL specification is a joint effort, initiated by Steinberg, developed and maintained by the W3C Music Notation Community Group and chaired by Michael Good (MakeMusic), Joe Berkowitz (Noteflight) and Daniel Spreadbury (Steinberg).

Posted By : Robert P. - 11/8/2016 5:55 AM

++1

Posted By : tisimst - 11/8/2016 12:56 PM

+++1! A couple of thoughts as the topic of SMuFL has come up...

Knut said...
As a font designer, I can't for the life of me figure out why SMuFL is controversial. It's primary objective is to standardize glyph mapping for any musical symbol in the literature, which surely benefits both software designers and users.

I personally agree with you, Knut, but I can see how management/developers who are trying to find ways of keeping market share would not want to get away from their own model/format/encoding. "Why would I make it easier for someone to use it on the other guy's software?" I'm only guessing this is really the line of thinking, but it's a possibility. The other logical issue is code refactoring to using a different font encoding. This is no small task. I can understand some hesitancy there. And what about backward-compatibility with program versions that don't support SMuFL? That can be another tricky feat to tackle smoothly.

Knut said...
Beyond glyph mapping and naming, SMuFL includes an extended set of glyph metadata, including registration, spacing, bounding box coordinates and coordinates for stem connections, optical centering of dynamics and cutouts in accidentals and other shapes. This metadata set eliminates the need for font annotation files and application specific stem connections, and may be used by software developers to improve an application's placement and spacing functionality.

At first I wondered if SMuFL would catch on, but I think it has become clear it is here to stay. The more I think about it, the more I realize SMuFL is heaven-sent for us designers. It makes font maintenance MUCH easier and gives us the ability to better support each application and more users, making more elaborate fonts available for everyone! I am a huge fan of SMuFL.

N. Grossingink said...
That's likely to be a big/impossible hurdle for publishers and individuals who favor a custom or 3rd party font.

Maybe big, definitely not impossible. There are a good handful of us that have experience working with 3rd-party fonts and what's involved in converting them to/from the SMuFL encoding. Publishers and individuals can always reach out to one of us if they need help doing that.

Posted By : OCTO. - 11/9/2016 12:20 AM

I am not against SMuFL, as said, I have mixed feelings. What you all say above I agree with.

On the contrary, the main SMuFL problems I myself see is the following:
- zero compatibility with old files;
- not developed by community in the strict sense - as long as you have the leaders who are interested in their commercial product, it is not. It is not like Debian - no commercial interest by a company. I see here a strong interest from Steinberg/Dorico;
- extreme ranges - unless it is developed a "music"-language keyboard, it is very hard to use it outside of one product (Dorico); very hard to use in Word, or Sibelius etc.
- repetitive symbols found over again;
- a monster size font table, imitating Unicode of everything possible, but hey - who will ever use g clef with 0?
- the border between musical and non musical symbols is not clear;
- how will other types of notation be used, such as indian, byzantine? What software?
- as an engraver or composer you will perhaps need one symbol that is not found in SMuFL: you can apply for that symbol to SMuFL, if rejected (very possible) you need one font MORE to use in your music, or tweak already existing font;

- The Main Question: why do we need only ONE font file to cover all music symbols, and why do we need these Unicode ranges? Why cannot f be typed as a keystroke f?

I know that Daniel S is coming from Sibelius where they struggled with symbols spread across many fonts, but this, is in my opinion, as well extreme.

Another feeling about just Bravura: it is not a balanced and well designed font. Some symbols are very beautiful another are just plain ugly. It is my personal opinion.

Finale 2014.5 • OS X: Yosemite, MPB 15', 16GB RAM

Post Edited (OCTO.) : 11/9/2016 12:34:29 AM (GMT-6)

Posted By : Knut - 11/9/2016 3:57 AM

OCTO. said...
- zero compatibility with old files;

That's true, but it doesn't prevent you from keeping your old fonts installed, so this argument seems irrelevant to me.

OCTO. said...
- not developed by community in the strict sense - as long as you have the leaders who are interested in their commercial product, it is not. It is not like Debian - no commercial interest by a company. I see here a strong interest from Steinberg/Dorico;

Which industry standards are, really? I'm not an expert in the tech field, but my impression is that the vast majority of software and hardware industry standards are fueled by some kind of commercial interest and developed by either established or entrepreneurial entities. As I've stated previously, SMuFL is a joint effort between a large community of engravers, publishers and software developers, lead by representatives from MakeMusic, Noteflight and Steinberg.

OCTO. said...
- extreme ranges - unless it is developed a "music"-language keyboard, it is very hard to use it outside of one product (Dorico); very hard to use in Word, or Sibelius etc.

If SMuFL indeed is widely adopted, this is a passing issue that quickly will be solved by software developers. Any software which supports SMuFL needs to provide the means of symbol selection from any supported glyph categories. As the need for these means become apparent, this issue will likely take care of itself.

OCTO. said...
- repetitive symbols found over again;

This seems to be a recurring argument whenever this topic is discussed. As I've said before, duplicate symbols in SMuFL is the natural result of it's structure, and is also closely related to concerns about accessibility. One example is microtonal accidentals, which has been represented in many different ways at different times and by different composers. There really isn't one single system which has caught on enough to exclude all others. Yet, very few of these systems are entirely unique; they usually build on the traditional accidentals or some other related system, which means that many of the symbols will be the same across different systems. How, then, should a font be structured if not by category? And if no duplicate symbol was allowed in a font, in which category should common symbols reside?

Of course, any font designer is free to exclude any duplicate symbol if so inclined. Bravura has to include them, though, to fulfill it's purpose of being a showcase for the entire SMuFL range.

OCTO. said...
- a monster size font table, imitating Unicode of everything possible, but hey - who will ever use g clef with 0?

How would you suggest going about symbol selection if not by their presence in the literature?

OCTO. said...
- the border between musical and non musical symbols is not clear;

How so?

OCTO. said...
- how will other types of notation be used, such as indian, byzantine? What software?

At this point, who knows. For SMuFL to be a viable standard it needs to be suited for the future needs of software developers.

OCTO. said...
- as an engraver or composer you will perhaps need one symbol that is not found in SMuFL: you can apply for that symbol to SMuFL, if rejected (very possible) you need one font MORE to use in your music, or tweak already existing font;

I'm not sure what you're basing this statement on. If the symbol you're requesting is to be found in any published work, I highly doubt that it will be rejected, since this is basically the sole requirement for inclusion.

OCTO. said...
- The Main Question: why do we need only ONE font file to cover all music symbols, and why do we need these Unicode ranges? Why cannot f be typed as a keystroke f?

I know that Daniel S is coming from Sibelius where they struggled with symbols spread across many fonts, but this, is in my opinion, as well extreme.

From my perspective as a font designer I can tell you that this is a no brainer, and even as a user of Sibelius, I've found it quite a hassle to deal with numerous different fonts for musical symbols, seemingly without any means of categorization except 'common', 'special' and 'extra special', which isn't very useful at all.

Post Edited (Knut) : 11/9/2016 3:02:49 AM (GMT-6)

Posted By : OCTO. - 11/9/2016 6:28 AM

Knut said...

OCTO. said...
- zero compatibility with old files;

That's true, but it doesn't prevent you from keeping your old fonts installed, so this argument seems irrelevant to me.

...Not being able to reply to all other, this is very relevant. Guess that in 5 years the "New Finale" will support ONLY SMuFL. How will you open your old files if the old Finale is not installable on the current system?

Finale 2014.5 • OS X: Yosemite, MPB 15', 16GB RAM

Post Edited (OCTO.) : 11/9/2016 5:31:15 AM (GMT-6)

Posted By : Dr. Wiggy - 11/9/2016 6:59 AM

OCTO. said...
Guess that in 5 years the "New Finale" will support ONLY SMuFL. How will you open your old files if the old Finale is not installable on the current system?

1. It's possible that a SMuFL-compatible Maestro might also be "Maestro-compatible", like November2.
2. Loading a Library that maps the old character glyphs to the new ones should solve most issues. Or perhaps a round-trip through MusicXML.

However, there may come a time when backwards compatibility presents such an obstacle to future progress, that a clean break needs to be made with .mus files (as opposed to .musx). As I posted elsewhere, how many other apps can open 20-year old files? Quark XPress can't. InDesign CC can't open PageMaker files. Even ancient Illustrator files may change the text (position, outlining) and other elements on opening.

Finale v.25.1, 2012 MacMini; 2012 MacBook Pro (10.11.6 / 10.12.1)
Edirol FA-66; Roland A-49, HP Laserjet 5200 DTN
Ancient Groove Music www.ancientgroove.co.uk

Post Edited (Dr. Wiggy) : 11/9/2016 6:02:26 AM (GMT-6)

Posted By : Knut - 11/9/2016 7:27 AM

Dr. Wiggy said...

OCTO. said...
Guess that in 5 years the "New Finale" will support ONLY SMuFL. How will you open your old files if the old Finale is not installable on the current system?

Posted By : OCTO. - 11/9/2016 8:08 AM

OK, I give up! Not because I don't agree with you about SMuFL, but because I do now agree. You have convinced me! :)
Particularly you who work with the music font design - simply I must trust you.

BTW, back to the topic, check MuseScore 2 - really a good software.

Finale 2014.5 • OS X: Yosemite, MPB 15', 16GB RAM

Posted By : Knut - 11/9/2016 8:13 AM

OCTO. said...
OK, I give up! Not because I don't agree with you about SMuFL, but because I do now agree. You have convinced me! :)
Particularly you who work with the music font design - simply I must trust you.

BTW, back to the topic, check MuseScore 2 - really a good software.

Hooray!

You are a class act, OCTO!

Posted By : MikeHalloran - 11/9/2016 8:54 AM

OCTO. said...
...BTW, back to the topic, check MuseScore 2 - really a good software.

Are you kidding?

No real time note entry. Mouse entry is convoluted at best. No video support. PDF export is unwieldy and bloated. MusicXML export and import barely works.

Oh yea, it's free—and worth every penny as far as I'm concerned.

Finale 25.1, 2014.5, 2011c, SmartScore X Pro II, Encore 5.07, GPO 5
2010 iMac i7, 32G RAM, 2T SSD, Late 2013 MacBook Air, OS 10.12.1
MOTU Digital Performer 9.12, 9.02, Logic Pro X 10.2.4

Posted By : Vaughan - 11/9/2016 10:27 AM

I had fleeting experience with MuseScore v2 because a colleague did a rather large project using it. While I appreciate the open source aspect of it, as well as certain aspects of its interface and the willingness of the makers to listen to and give assistance to users, it wasn't even close to being able to produce consistently professional results. Having said that, they're working hard on v3 which is supposed to have a large number of improvements and refinements, like an equivalent to Sibelius' magnetic spacing. It's about time Finale had something similar and it would surprise me if MM weren't working on it.

Vaughan

Finale 3.2 - 25, Sibelius 4 - 7
Patterson's plugins, Tobias' plugins, full version, waiting for Jari's plugin update
MacOS 10.12
MacPro (2016) 16 GB, MacBookPro (2011) 8 GB

Amsterdam

Posted By : tisimst - 11/9/2016 12:00 PM

Sorry to get back to this, but I thought I'd share a couple of last thoughts...

OCTO. said...
- repetitive symbols found over again;

Part of this is compliance with Unicode itself. There are a few locations within Unicode where musical symbols are already expected to be. So, SMuFL (or rather, Bravura) copies glyphs to those code points as well in case someone is using those to access music symbols.

OCTO. said...
why do we need only ONE font file to cover all music symbols, and why do we need these Unicode ranges?

Why not? Sure it makes it slightly less convenient to access the glyphs outside of the ASCII range, but that's true for almost every text font as well. So, what have word-processors and the like done? They've created ways to make accessing the glyphs easier for users. I'd much rather have everything in a single file. It's much easier to manage (at least for me).

OCTO. said...
Why cannot f be typed as a keystroke f?

This has long puzzled me as well. Good news is, it's not hard for font designers to do (and maybe *should* do) and makes a lot of sense to me to at least have a copy of the dynamic letters also available in the normal ASCII code points.

Posted By : Dr. Wiggy - 11/9/2016 1:17 PM

tisimst said...

OCTO. said...
Why cannot f be typed as a keystroke f?

This has long puzzled me as well.

Moving music symbols out of the ASCII range means that a music font could also include a useful text font. This is particularly useful with regard to something like Bravura Text, which is designed to accommodate music symbols within a text environment. (But not actually Bravura Text, which doesn't have ASCII chars.

) Also, for Unicode compliance, "if it's not the letter A, it shouldn't go in the letter A's slot".

The dynamic letters are only fmrspz. You would either have to make an entire italic face to match these highly stylised forms, or just negate the idea of reserving that range for ASCII symbols.

Furthermore, a decent music notation package should be able to provide easy keyboard entry of high-order Unicode symbols. In Finale, you can program an expression meta-tool to use F for forte and P for piano, if you'd prefer, instead of the number row.

Finale v.25.1, 2012 MacMini; 2012 MacBook Pro (10.11.6 / 10.12.1)
Edirol FA-66; Roland A-49, HP Laserjet 5200 DTN
Ancient Groove Music www.ancientgroove.co.uk

Post Edited (Dr. Wiggy) : 11/9/2016 12:20:29 PM (GMT-6)

Posted By : OCTO. - 11/9/2016 2:36 PM

tisimst said...
Sorry to get back to this, but I thought I'd share a couple of last thoughts

OCTO. said...
why do we need only ONE font file to cover all music symbols, and why do we need these Unicode ranges?

Well, not completely. Do you have one font that covers roman, italic, semibold, bolditalic, semicondensed......? No.
That was my point. I would simply organize the font family. Clefs, noteheads, flags.... everything is grouped in families.
And than you could have NUMEROUS variants under the flag style, and not limited, you could also expand it by yourself. So when one wants to change a flag, goes to font menu - flag family and choose the symbol. That would be more smart than one large endless font file, with limited flags.
And now, there is Bravura Text. Well...
But I go with SMuFL as it is. I just need to accommodate.

The problem with Sib is not able to add any number of fonts. Also Opus Std doesn't mean so much.

Finale 2014.5 • OS X: Yosemite, MPB 15', 16GB RAM

Posted By : Knut - 11/9/2016 4:49 PM

OCTO. said...

tisimst said...
Sorry to get back to this, but I thought I'd share a couple of last thoughts

OCTO. said...
why do we need only ONE font file to cover all music symbols, and why do we need these Unicode ranges?

I can see your point, OCTO, but I don't think you can compare the concept of separate font styles to separate musical symbol categories. Text font styles like regular, italic and bold are separated into different files because they're stylistically different representations of the same character set. This would not be the case with separating each symbol category into different files, which, in regards to the full scope of SMuFL would result in over 100 different files! Some of these could be easily combined into larger categories, but the number of files you'd have to deal with if you wanted to install a complete SMuFL font would still be very high.

By this principle, if I wanted to create an alternate version of a SMuFL font specifically designed for smaller staff sizes, it would indeed make sense to separate this stylistic alternate version into a dedicated font file, but parsing an entire font into different files by category would be contrary to what most people would expect a font to work. It would be more like separating a text font into upper and lower case latin letters, numerals, latin diacritics, cyrillic letters etc. Very cumbersome indeed.

Posted By : OCTO. - 11/9/2016 9:43 PM

Hm.. I understand you Knut. And trusts you as well. :)
My knowledge about fontt "engines" is limited, and I am perhaps a bit naive in my ideas.... :(

Finale 2014.5 • OS X: Yosemite, MPB 15', 16GB RAM

Posted By : Knut - 11/10/2016 7:44 AM

I wouldn't say naive. After all, this isn't necessarily something you have to think about unless you're designing fonts.

Anyway, I totally agree that it can be a drag to deal with a font with a huge number of glyphs, but I think it's better than the alternative, not least for software developers to help improve the situation.

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual