John Ruggero wrote: ↑
11 Oct 2017, 21:40
As far as the quality of the actual output, I don't think they have a clue. I am afraid that Dorico is a publisher's and editor's dream come true: no more worrying about that pesky engraving stuff and expensive high quality engravers: Dorico achieves perfect results; every time, no matter who does the engraving. (Irony intended)
I'm not surprised to hear that. In my work as a copyeditor and typesetter, I have to deal with book publishers on a regular basis. In my experience, there are only a few people who know about typography in a way that allows them to make an informed decision, and even fewer who actually care about typographical matters. Sometimes it's economic considerations that get in the way of producing a "beautiful" book. But often it's not even that: they just don't care.
@ Knut: Thanks for the Dorico example. To be honest, after what you've said earlier, I'm pleasantly surprised at the default output that Dorico produces. The biggest advantage over Sibelius is probably note spacing. There are so many places where spacing needs to be adjusted in Sibelius, it's quite annoying. And it's not enough to push notes to the left or right to do so. In mm. 1, 3 and 11, for example, if you make the necessary adjustments using Alt+Shift+Arrow (thereby keeping the notes in their proper rhythmic slot), the distance between notes might "collapse" completely: at one point, the notes are too far apart, you push a note one unit to the left and they are next to each other; there is no in-between. You have to use the "Inspector" (or Properties Window) to manipulate the horizontal position of notes (thereby creating all kinds of other problems).
Even slurs and ties look much better in Dorico than expected. (In earlier examples, slurs seemed to be a weak point in Dorico.) They are far from perfect, but they are a much better starting point than the Sibelius default.