Could anyone of Dorico devs please explain me why the VST instrument mapping configuration preset was named as “endpoint” in Dorico? I am reinventing a rotten wheel, and I need to know the true literary, logical meaning behind the term “endpoint” in this context in order to make sure my retranslation is correct.
// The reinvention process is a Japanese-to-Chinese translation with proofing process by reading the English texts at the same time. It is sad that contemporary Japanese translation prefers not translating but simply using katakana to spell English words, a regression of a language which was pretty brilliant in the early 20th century.
Obvs I’m not them, but in English, “endpoint” makes sense to me. It’s where the “command path” that carries instructions for the sample library terminates.
It may not be a Dorico invention, but a word used in the VST environment.
I’ve never quite understood exactly what it represents! I just know that when I “save an endpoint” (or ‘endpoint configuration’), I’m saving the VST presets that link to particular Dorico instruments.
Thanks for sharing me how you perceive this concept.
Maybe “传令终点 (literarily ‘Command Delivery End-Point’)” works in this case, unless that Dorico devs share their possible different opinions.
Maybe the word “endpoint” is a geek word among VST devs. At least, it is too geek for non-power users.
Arguably (I don’t know either) it does seem to be a point where Dorico ends and a different external tool (VST or external MIDI interface) begins. A hand-off point? I have no idea what might translate better.
// to gdball:
If that is the real meaning, then I guess “VST interface” is clearer than “endpoint”.
This nails it, in my opinion. As a non-developer, I find endpoint to be maddeningly vague and even misleading when taken together with playback template. When I first encountered these terms I thought they were two different ways to explain the same thing and I still struggle with the correct process and order for them.
Your own alternatives earlier upthread - VST mapping configuration, or VST preset - are a lot more meaningful and very easy to understand.
This isn’t the only example of unfortunate terminology in Dorico. The often mentioned duo of playback techniques vs playing techniques is another - almost purposefully designed to obscure the bright and clear difference between playback and notation.
And there’s more! The playback techniques are further subdivided into groups, one of which is some other kind of techniques- suddenly with a different meaning that’s now contrasted with lengths and ornaments. So, these are not techniques in the former sense, although they do belong together with playback techniques category.
So, in one instance we have the same term - technique - used to name 3 very different things at once, and in the other we have two different terms to name very similar ideas for routing presets. How is this not a complete mess?
Or, how about instrument change - is this to remove and replace an instrument as part of the project setup or is it a player instruction to play a different instrument?
I suspect the reason this is happening is because some terminology got carried over from Cubase and the missing terms were invented in the fly as the development went along. But there wasn’t an editorial effort focused specifically on clarity and logic of the software terminology (not the musical notation terms). Which is a shame, because a program that’s as logical and wonderful as Dorico would benefit immensely from an exercise like that…
Anyway, I didn’t mean to derail the thread. Apologies for the rant.
I second your idea, comrade @ebrooks.
Since your opinion is strong enough to persuade official devs to use a new term instead, I’ll leave this thread for a few hours until I woke up (to see what official devs comments about it).
P.S.: It’s UTC+8 here.
I’ve worked in the DAW world doing mock-ups and writing for over 10 years, and this is the first I’ve run across the term used in this way. Maybe it’s a Cubase thing (Use Logic and Reaper). I too, was confused when I first came across it.
I understand it has to have a different term in notation. You can’t use Instrument, because that is used already. It seems like “Patch” might be a better term - you are telling Dorico to use this Patch in this virtual instrument. to sounds these notes or part.
These terms make total sense to me coming from a recording background. We often say, “OK, let’s go listen to playback” after recording a take. So Playback techniques (to tell the VI to imitate Pizz, Arco, Staccatos…) makes sense and doesn’t confuse me with the playing techniques that a person would use in a live setting.
@ShikiSuen I really appreciate your efforts to improve the localization of the Chinese and Japanese versions.
As a Brit here in Japan, I’m using Dorico 3.5 Pro (in English), but my band-mates who produce scores are generally using free versions of Finale.
Of course the initial barrier to Dorico is 64bit Win 10 (and I fully understand why the team would want to set that threshold) but as their computers get upgraded I will definitely be recommending Dorico, and a correct Japanese UI will be beneficial.
I can translate these two as follows in Chinese:
Totally separated terms.
Official Japanese MUI is somehow acceptable at this moment, despite the overuse of katakana-spelt loan words. The Official Chinese MUI of Dorico 3.5 is a rotten wheel, requiring complete rebuild from scratch.
I have been through enough naming and taxonomy discussions, that I mostly wave the white flag and go with whatever the term is… There is rarely such a thing as one right best answer that doesn’t conflict somehow with something else given the variety of languages, cultures and backgrounds.
Here’s what I think Cubase is using for endpoint. Not ideal but probably clearer?
Firstly, while Shiki Suen’s efforts to retranslate Dorico’s user interface no doubt have noble intent, they’re not endorsed by Steinberg and nor are they something that we have asked him to do. We handle localisation for Chinese and Japanese in-house and we’re glad to receive feedback on the translation, which we then discuss with our translation team and they take into consideration when producing further translations.
The word “endpoint” in the context of Dorico means “a specific combination of device, port, channel, and sound”. “Device” may be a VST instrument (or, on iPad, an Audio Unit) or a MIDI device. “Port” is relevant only for those devices that provide multiple addressable banks of channels, such as VST 3 plug-ins, and each port provides a set of 16 MIDI channels. “Channel” is a MIDI channel, in the range of 1–16. “Sound” may refer to a specific patch loaded into a VST instrument, program number for a MIDI device, or simply the only sound produced by a monotimbral device.
We use the term “endpoint” because it would be inaccurate to use a term like “channel”, but you can perhaps think of it as analogous to a channel in a broad sense. I don’t think there is a single standard term that captures all of these concepts together, which is why we borrowed the term “endpoint”, which has an established meaning in the world of networking as being “the device at the end of a connection”.
An “endpoint configuration” is a saved set of endpoints, together with the preserved state of any VST instruments referenced by each endpoint, that can be recalled in future.
Feedback is good.
I’m sure most of us can sense and to some degree appreciate how hard must be to work with others in a language and culture that does not share the English and German environment where Dorico was conceived and built.
As someone who has at times had to decipher English instructions that are translations from the originators of Japanese (and other country’s) products, the same problem exists in reverse, even with products that are not remotely as complex as Dorico.
I’m sure also we can appreciate how, if we were put in the same complex situation as is the Dorico team with respect to the worldwide language cultural landscape, we would find ourselves faced with impossible choices.
I appreciate the hard and difficult work that the Dorico Team has in this area, and the progress they’ve made over their initial years. These are all on top of the constant demands on product development, demands that already exceed what can possibly be implemented any time soon.
Kudos to the team, and appreciation for those who are providing feedback.
At a certain point one simply has to learn the program as it is in order to become really proficient at it. I expect most of us had to learn new terminology when we studied algebra years ago. Whining about how the “order of operations” rules worked probably didn’t get one very far.
That explains the difficulties I have sometimes had: I did not know that they were two separate things and have often confused them!