Audio Track

Please add Audio Track function to the software.
It is very much needed for recording voices and other usages. :heart: :heart: :heart:
Best regards.


Welcome to the forum, @AlanYe. We do plan to add playback of audio tracks to Dorico in future, but I’m not sure about audio recording.


But the purpose of Dorico is notation. How would you edit the audio in Dorico given that it is not notated? Why not use Cubase? Isn’t that the right tool for the job?

There are some pretty clear use cases for Dorico that involve audio. There is a whole set of use cases around transcription, for example; another set around producing simple rehearsal or guide material (e.g. Dorico playback plus a solo voice or instrument); another set around adding pre-recorded material for mock-ups; another set around simulating performance of mixed media work such as ensembles consisting of acoustic instruments plus samplers or synthesisers; and so on.

This doesn’t mean that Dorico is going to become a fully-fledged DAW, not at all. But there’s a lot of utility in being able to play audio directly in Dorico, for a variety of use cases (and Dorico can already play one audio track back – that’s how the soundtrack in a video you attach to the project for composing to picture works).

Even if you won’t personally use any future audio features that Dorico might gain in future versions, you don’t need to worry that this means we take Dorico’s core use case of producing beautiful music notation any less seriously.


No, you cannot compose notation in cubase if your piece contains mixed media, as Daniel described. If I compose for ensemble and tape/live electronics, I still need to a)compose and b)provide material such as score and parts.

Transcribing also doesn’t work in Cubase, as again, there is (basically) no notation feature there.


But some of us that transcribe from audio have absolutely zero interest in mockups or piano roll, and just want to write straight to (beautiful) notation. What’s your issue with this?

It’s also functionality that already exists in Finale and Staffpad, among others. While it may not be relevant to your needs, users of those programs that are considering Dorico are perhaps less likely to move if they have to split their workflow across multiple programs.


Beautifully-arranged music notation is of course the first priority; Excellent Piano roll is another requisite; Being able to record audio and audio track functions are also desired too. We users want them all. :heart: Good job to Great Dorico team.! :heart:

1 Like

We users”?

I don’t dispute that audio playback will be a valuable addition when it becomes available, but I still balk when individual forum participants start lobbying for a feature on behalf of users they do not know just because they want the feature.


You mean “THE FEATURE” that is absolutely “VITAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES”… :slight_smile: yeah … Fairly sure they take it in stride most days, though Ulf said something about an entire pipeline’s worth of beer.


Actually, the score editor in Cubase Pro and Nuendo is no slouch. Print/engraving quality is rather dated, but it’s actually quite powerful as a notation editor and score interpreter (can use expression maps that can auto-translate various score markings). It can export the score as XML which can be imported into Dorico.

If you don’t want to invest in Cubase Pro/Nuendo, any DAW capable of syncing to MTC will work if you set up a virtual MIDI port and host TXL Timecode Plugin in Dorico. Such a side-app devoted to managing audio tracks could be locked to Dorico’s transport.


I believe you. Nothing a typical music student would do, though.

1 Like

This is the right place for offering requests and i am not lobbying any useless feature. I am fully convinced that these features are needed for many users but apparently except for you. Surely it leaves the Dorico team to judge if it is necessary. What is more, that Dorico is more than a notation software and a Daw is not awared by the Dorico team themselves maybe. :love_letter:

1 Like

I will +1 this request, thus validating “we users” :slight_smile:


I mean:
With intensive use of (e.g. BBCSO) samples, a memory-saving ‘freeze’ function would be possible via audio tracks.

For musicians who do not want to compromise on playback and do not want a printed publication, but want the notation to be used internally,
the notation editor built into CUBASE is, in my opinion, the very best notation editor. It’s fast, extremely flexible in editing and layout - without having to change the actual “music” in any way.
Ideal for composing on the piano. For each note selection, the displayed note length or start position can be changed - without changing the playback. Likewise, bar/beat time can be shifted or corrected without affecting playback -
with this option, tempo and note length are corrected accordingly and the playback is not changed!

I (as someone who first records his ideas on the midi piano) would be happy if DORICO wanted to keep up as the composition tool advertised.

Ich meine:
Bei intensivem Einsatz von (z.B. BBCSO) Samples würde über Audio-Spuren eine Speicherschonende ‘freeze’-Funktion ermöglicht.

Für Musiker, die keine Kompromisse im Playback eingehen und nicht eine gedruckte Veröffentlichung, sondern eine interne Verwendung der Notation wollen,
ist der in CUBASE integrierte Notations-Editor meiner Überzeugung nach der allerbesten Notations-Editor. Er ist schnell, extrem flexibel beim Editieren und im Layout – ohne dabei die eigentliche „Musik“ in irgendeiner Weise verändern zu müssen.
Ideal beim Komponieren auf dem Piano. Für jede Noten-Auswahl kann die angezeigte Notenlänge oder Anfangsposition geändert werden - ohne dabei das Playback zu verändern. Ebenso kann ohne Einfluss auf die Wiedergabe, Takt/Zählzeit verschoben bzw. korrigiert werden -
bei dieser Option werden Tempo und Notenlänge entsprechend korrigiert und das Playback nicht verändert!

Ich (als jemand der seine Ideen zunächst auf dem Midi-Piano festhält) würde mich freuen, wenn DORICO als beworbenes Kompositionswerkzeug hier mithalten will.

1 Like

No. Just “more than one user”.


I don’t think it’s particularly productive to divide the user base in different subgroups. In consequence, it would lead to several thousand subgroups with the size of one user, because each of us has a different approach and goal with using Dorico.

If we stick together, appreciate and support each others feature requests we can not only shape the development of the software but attract many more users to use it to their best way.

For example: I don’t use basso continuo myself (never even tried it yet), but I can see how it is an important feature for some users, thus I am happy it got implemented, because it makes Dorico a more complete and usable notation software.


Daniel has said in the past that they cant afford to exclude any group of users – lead sheets, education, band, contemporary, early, theatre, church, arrangers, orchestrators, etc, etc.

Making the software more appealing for more people is good for everyone.


I think I made clear, I do not object to the feature requested, but I do have qualms about someone claiming to represent “all users” or “most users” or “we users” to suggest more support for a request. Daniel has said that the Team reads all requests and evaluates them on the merits of the request: feature priority, Daniel has said, is not a democracy. I support Daniel’s and the Team’s approach.


Agreed. I’m not against an audio track at all. I’ve personally found it helpful to have them in those scoring suites that do have the ability.

I have no idea how high or low such a feature ranks in terms of user requests, how difficult it’d be to implement, or how long it might take for such a feature to show up in a release.

What I do know is that ‘today’ there are some options to get audio synced up with Dorico.

One option is to wrap audio into a compatible video wrapper and play it through Dorico’s built in Video player. Plenty of free software out there that can take a standard wav/aif/m4a/aac/flac/mp3/ogg audio file and stuff it into a proper MP4 container that Dorico can play. It’d be a couple of extra steps for your students to add audio you’ve prepared and send with a project, but it’s better than nothing.

It is possible to sync a nice tracking DAW to Dorico’s transport. It doesn’t have to be a bloated, expensive, or hard to use. It’s an option if you need it NOW. At this time you’ll need a virtual port (built into the Mac OS, or can be added free with something like loopMIDI for Windows users), and the TXL Timecode Plugin mentioned above. For Windows users, I’d also recommend something like ASIOLinkPro (also free) to get audio routed around from App to App.

Personally, I have Cubase Pro, which can do this. I’m pretty sure the much less expensive variants of Cubase: Artist ($199.00USD for qualifying students/teachers) and Elements ($66.99USD for qualifying students/teachers) can also slave to MTC timecode.

I believe Cubase LE is free? I ‘think’ it supports MTC slaving.

I don’t know too much about other DAWs at this time, but for students on a budget there are free to very inexpensive options out there.

Cakewalk is free now and might be worth a look. I’m pretty sure it’s a fully featured DAW that can sync to MTC.

Plenty of others exist as well. I’m not sure which ones support slaving to MTC, but it’s worth a little research if you have students in need of something ‘lite’ and ‘free’ to explore.
21 Best Free DAWs 2022 – Never Pay For A Digital Audio Workstation Again (


I think that second post from Daniel above, sums things up well. An encouraging response on a number of fronts, to the OP’s request and to others’ contributions here.

Although workarounds/options are needed presently for audio sync (thanks @Brian_Roland) - including turning to other apps either partly or entirely, or making use of Video files audio track - the scope of use-cases outlined in Daniel’s post tells me their ‘Dorico’ solution will be well worth the wait. My own interest would be in transcription.

An ability to record audio straight into Dorico, though not vital for me, would bring another level of high value into the app.

Finally, being an ‘Elements’ user, I could see this being added as a strictly ‘Pro only’ feature (though I’m sure iPad users would be ecstatic at its inclusion there - quick, easy transcription on the go.!). Any thoughts of a ‘transcribe light’ version, plumbed in to Elements, would not in my opinion be any real value-added solution; much that I’d love the facility there, it would need to be all or nothing.

As a ‘Pro only’ facility it then becomes, for me, an extra (fun.!) dimension in the whole ‘upgrade or wait’ decision making - something, despite tempting sales, I still cannot really justify… (hobbyist level; low activity needs).

Anyway, good thread…! :slight_smile:

1 Like