Steinberg Dorico

[tisimst]

The fact that the music just sort of exists on its own and isn't locked into a measure or a grid is great idea

I am glad that you are as impressed as I was, Fred. I do sometimes get a little over-excited. When he explained what you are describing in the the quote above, I immediately thought: Schenkerian graphs. Finally there is a GUI program that can do these without workarounds. (I'll bet LilyPond has no trouble with these as well.)

This is true.

BTW, LilyPond also has a method for allowing notes to "spill across" barlines like Dorico, regardless of a note's duration. It's just not the default functionality.

It also can do open-meter notation just fine, but Daniel wasn't lying since he explicitly said Dorico is the first "GUI program" that can do it

[Knut]

One small concern - around the one hour and 4 minute mark he mentioned that the music spacing is a 1.4 ratio. I am assuming this will be editable, but he didn't actually say that it would. Ever since this comparison I've been using 1.5 and would like to continue to do so.

Like with the lack of chord symbols, I was surprised by Daniel's response to your post on the Steinberg forum, that the spacing ratio is fixed at 1.4 spaces for the time being. Seeing as that is the ratio I use most of the time, I'm personally in luck, but I would absolutely expect this to be editable in the not-too-distant future.

[Fred G. Unn]

Like with the lack of chord symbols, I was surprised by Daniel's response to your post on the Steinberg forum, that the spacing ratio is fixed at 1.4 spaces for the time being. Seeing as that is the ratio I use most of the time, I'm personally in luck, but I would absolutely expect this to be editable in the not-too-distant future.

I followed up on that post and posted some of the comparisons I had posted here last fall. I'm not terribly opposed to the square root of two, but I hate that sort of mindset that they sometimes took with Sibelius, that they knew the best way to do it and that's how it should be done. I've been using 1.5 in both programs since last fall, and I can more or less instantly tell if the spacing ratio is over or under that value now. I just want to be able to keep using that value. I don't really care if it's by changing a ratio like in Finale or by calculating the spacing values like I do in Sibelius. It seems like a pretty important thing to be able to adjust IMO.

[Knut]

Like with the lack of chord symbols, I was surprised by Daniel's response to your post on the Steinberg forum, that the spacing ratio is fixed at 1.4 spaces for the time being. Seeing as that is the ratio I use most of the time, I'm personally in luck, but I would absolutely expect this to be editable in the not-too-distant future.

I followed up on that post and posted some of the comparisons I had posted here last fall. I'm not terribly opposed to the square root of two, but I hate that sort of mindset that they sometimes took with Sibelius, that they knew the best way to do it and that's how it should be done. I've been using 1.5 in both programs since last fall, and I can more or less instantly tell if the spacing ratio is over or under that value now. I just want to be able to keep using that value. I don't really care if it's by changing a ratio like in Finale or by calculating the spacing values like I do in Sibelius. It seems like a pretty important thing to be able to adjust IMO.

I just added my support to your thread.

I agree about the presumptuous mindset. Hopefully though, this is just a matter of priority, and will be addressed in a reasonably early update. Finale is quite superior to Sibelius in this regard, since it gives the option between using a scaling factor or spacing tables. Hopefully Dorico will take the time to implement something similar, but one or the other will do for me as well.

[dspreadbury]

As I have done in the thread on the Steinberg forum, allow me to register my objection to your characterisation of the lack of an editable ratio for spacing as a presumption that "our way is best".

Adding options to software is not free: every option that is added takes time to implement, time to test, adds to the localisation burden, and adds to the cognitive load placed on the user.

I do not have any philosophical objection whatsoever to making the ratio editable. We haven't added it yet, but we can surely add it in future. What I cannot say with certainty this Friday morning in May is whether or not we will be able to add it before the release of Dorico 1.0.

[David Ward]

… … … and adds to the cognitive load placed on the user … … …

I certainly understand that. For a mere composer, it's bad enough remembering which trills are best (or even playable) on which keying system of bassoon, without also having to face a plethora of different spacing options. Equally, I do understand that pro-engravers may think rather differently about such things.

[DatOrganistTho]

I'm not sure whether these objections to Dorico are founded on necessity, or on current necessities of personal workflows.

Also, are we complaining about something not working because it should work, or because it doesn't match our current expectations of productivity within our own programs?

I think the distinction is fair, though nuanced, because I don't hear a lot of people talking about how wonderful Dorico will be for so many other things.

This is not the obligatory "be thankful for what you have post." On the contrary, I think raising valid assertions is great, but if you have a workflow that works well now, and a new piece of software enters the market that doesn't meet those expectations, why gripe about it?

Perhaps there is a subliminal hatred for products that already promise to work better than a clunky but effective system someone else has learned on, but that's no reason to go on a tirade about the first release of newly designed product.

How low can we go, on a semi-professional forum, to discuss the silliness of a name? Don't you guys have something better to do? If it bothers you guys that much, then go do something about it.

[OCTO]

I am "hopefully sure" that Dorico will be a great engraving software: following Daniel's blog, knowing his contributions to and openness with Sibelius and its community, and having some private conversation with him, I just believe that they will do as best as possible at the given moment to make as good as possible Dorico.
Furthermore, as composer that never 'compose' using Finale (but I use it purely for engraving) it is important for me to see how much effort is done to prioritize NOTATION over some makeups (such as "take photo by your mobile and get a score").

For now, as far as I know, there is not beta testing (and not even v1 available) therefore it is hard to know what Dorico is. We just need to wait to see.

[Fred G. Unn]

I'm not sure whether these objections to Dorico are founded on necessity, or on current necessities of personal workflows.

Also, are we complaining about something not working because it should work, or because it doesn't match our current expectations of productivity within our own programs?

Many of us that geek out about finer points of notation have our own publishing businesses and significant client lists as engravers. There is a standard of excellence that is expected of our work and a consistency of appearance that I try to keep across software platforms, as it is not always up to me which software I have to use for a given project. I'm not sure whether the spacing factor counts as "should work" or "expectation of productivity," but we are talking about multiplying or dividing something either by 1.4 or a user specified "n" value. This is not difficult to implement, and the fact that this value is quite different from how Sibelius handles spacing should have made it obvious to the developers that this needs to be flexible instead of fixed IMO. Something like chord symbols on the other hand, while I think it is a mistake to go to market without being able to produce a lead sheet, I acknowledge is certainly a substantial investment of time and programming resources to do correctly.

This is not the obligatory "be thankful for what you have post." On the contrary, I think raising valid assertions is great, but if you have a workflow that works well now, and a new piece of software enters the market that doesn't meet those expectations, why gripe about it?

Well, because I'm certainly going to purchase the v1.0 version, as will I imagine many of us here. As a (potential) customer, if I can point out roadblocks to a workflow in comparison to the competition before it's even released, and get the ear of the developers (thanks Daniel!), why shouldn't I? This especially seems true for something easily altered like a spacing ratio.

Many of the features sound great, but from a practical standpoint, a 2016 Q4 release will miss the "back-to-school" market in the fall that drives a lot of notation sales. They will get a lot of cross-grade sales of course, probably most classical publishers will give it a shot, and they may get some Xmas sales to students. Where do the new sales come from after that? The early reviews of the v1.0 software without chord symbols will likely hurt them in the 2017 "back-to-school" market as most students will probably purchase Finale or Sibelius, or skip the expensive software altogether and just use a free program or inexpensive iOS program.

The potential for an improved workflow in Dorico with the different modes, more advanced desktop publishing features, potentially better playback features, better beaming, accidental kerning, etc., all sounds very promising! They will have many strengths over the competition, but you can be sure that their competition will certainly highlight the weaknesses. I'm not pointing anything out that won't be highlighted by the marketing of the competition. The fewer weaknesses the better if they want to be successful in a market that will already be tough for sales.

[Fred G. Unn]

Furthermore, as composer that never 'compose' using Finale (but I use it purely for engraving) it is important for me to see how much effort is done to prioritize NOTATION over some makeups (such as "take photo by your mobile and get a score").

I sort of switch between the piano and Finale when composing, but arranging jobs I almost always just do directly into Finale. I too kind of gave an eye-roll when I saw Mark Adler's recent blog post on importing a photo. I guess they think that's a feature that will drive sales.