Bridge the gap between DAW and Score program

Cubase
,
1

All these years starting from Atari with Cubase and Notator in late 80s we are working with two separate programs a DAW and score program we are on the same page even today.

Today we have Logic or Cubase for example that they have very basic score editors and we have to get Sibelius or Dorico to write a proper score.

But those programs that have good score don’t have certain features that a DAW got it is still 80s I assume.

In order to have decent playback we have to do so many thing on Sibelius, Dorico on the other hand is better for sure but we can not even have an audio file and synchronize it with the score or just put reverb on an Instrument for example.

Midi file is a joke. MusicXML is a pain and problematic format for now that we can not communicate easily from one program to the other we have to fix things in order to get the score correctly.

I use Logic as a DAW the score is basic the MusicXML is a pain. Logic is not really a serious program it is a program for Loopers mostly. It got so many useless loops and useless synths and FXs the last years that it is not a program for a proper composer same with Cubase. Protools is the worst but it is for sound engineers mostly anyway that is a different story.

When Avid bought Sibelius it was very promising movement that many thought that we will have Sibelius in Protools nothing happened.

Now Steinberg is coming out with Dorico which is really good but it is separated from Cubase that is another problem.

Lately Presonus combined Notion with Studio One I don’t know how well.

Can Steinberg combine Cubase or Nuendo with Dorico finally?

Or Something like that please.

Is it 2020 or still 1986 (Atari age) still?

2

Saying that the Score section in Cubase is “very basic” leads me to think that you don’t have real experience with the Score Editor.
Am I right?

3

Can you compare Cubase score editor to Dorico or Sibelius?

4

All the DAWs are adding features towards looping and EDM music. You see all of them have 808 and 909 drum machine which got the worst sound ever. It is more important to have 808 and 909 sounds than having a proper score.

None of them have improved the score editor.

Logic now became Ableton live but the score is the level of Notator score in 1986 it is exactly the same.
Cubase and Nuendo might be a little better ok.

So finally DAWs are concentrating on LOOPS and synths that are totally useless. All Logic’s synths can not come close to Omnisphere or UVI Falcon etc. Logic’s sampler can not come close to Kontakt this is another joke. Hallion is good but not like UVI Falcon and the library is outdated on the other hand.

All the companies wanted to provide a super DAW with everything that finally forgot very important aspect the score editor.

Can anybody believe that if you want to extract the score parts of the instruments in Logic you have to do it one by one the instruments I assume it is the same in Cubase and Nuendo. It is 2020 and companies want to please the loopers…
Then the score softwares are more elite like they don’t want to deal with audio or proper DAW features because this is for loopers.

Score programs should not be only engraving and printing programs should be programs for composer and creator not for engravers and publishers.

Sibelius missed the boat it is the same almost when it firstly came out. Sibelius refuses to add DAW features and lately added some colors and a little better MusicXML import.
Nice colors hahahaha.

I have high expectations on Dorico but please don’t become Sibelius and Finale and please add more and more DAW features that will make the difference don’t separate those two worlds it is a big mistake it is not 1986.

Cubase and Nuendo are following the same mentality like Logic that score program is a different program and it should not be part of a DAW although Dorico is an amazing program.

Either we have softwares for Loopers or softwares for engravers and publishers we don’t have a program for musicians and composers that is complete yet that’s the truth.

We have to have Cubase as a midi and limited audio program. Wavelab for serious audio editing. Dorico for score.
These three different programs that you can not really go from one to the other.
Actually from Cubase to wavelab you can go but Cubase to Dorico forget it.

5

it’s a broad subject!
The biggest strength of the Score Editor over the other two is its integration with Cubase, thus its MIDI and playback functionalities.
That being said, regarding the produced score, the Score Editor is able to output quite professional scores which meet the standards, and without necessarily needing to export to other scoring programs.
If you are a composer who needs perfect scores, the Score Editor is for you.
If you are an engraver, or a composer mainly or exclusively interested in laying down your score on paper, Dorico/Sibelius/Finale is the best choice.

Then it also depends on your specific needs for notation, workflow etc. but in this case you will have to try them by yourself.

Just know that The Score Editor is not some sort of gap filler gadget in Cubase, a rudimentary score function to put some notes on the staves in order to make very simple scores!
It’s the general idea of the Score Editor, and it’s wrong.
It’s much deeper than you and others seem to imagine.

6

Almost all score editor in all DAW are very basic that is why we are working on separate application like Finale, Sibelius and Dorico.

All the DAWs are adding features towards looping and EDM music. You see all of them have 808 and 909 drum machine which got the worst sound ever. It is more important to have 808 and 909 sounds than having a proper score.

None of them have improved the score editor.

Logic now became Ableton live but the score is the level of Notator score in 1986 it is exactly the same.
Cubase and Nuendo might be a little better I am not sure.

So finally DAWs are concentrating on LOOPS and synths that are totally a joke. All Logic’s synths can not come close to Omnisphere or UVI Falcon, Avenger Vengeance etc. Logic’s sampler can not come close to Kontakt this is another joke. Hallion is good but not like UVI Falcon and the library is outdated on the other hand.

All the companies wanted to provide a super DAW with everything that finally forgot a very important aspect which is the score editor.

Can anybody believe that if you want to extract the score parts of the instruments in Logic you have to do it one by one the instruments I assume it is the same in Cubase and Nuendo. It is 2020 and companies want to please the loopers…
Then the score softwares are more elite like they don’t want to deal with audio or proper DAW features because this is for loopers.

Score programs should not be only engraving and printing programs should be programs for composer and creator not for engravers and publishers.

Sibelius missed the boat it is the same almost since it firstly came out. Sibelius refuses to add DAW features and lately added some colors and a little better MusicXML import.
Nice colors hahahaha.

I have high expectations on Dorico but please don’t become Sibelius and Finale and please add more and more DAW features that will make the difference don’t separate those two worlds it is a big mistake it is not 1986.

Either we have softwares for Loopers or softwares for engravers and publishers we don’t have a program for musicians and composers yet that’s the truth.

7

As I understand it, Only Cubase Pro has a “proper” score editor. All other versions have something very basic (which sounds like what you are describing). I thought I really needed a good score editor, but because I don’t have one, I work in piano roll. If I am starting from a printed score, I kind of convert it to piano roll in my head, if that makes any sense.

8

I’ve been looking at Notion by Presonus and am trialling Score Writer 5 by Sonic Scores. Both of these allow midi data to be displayed and edited on the staff. I would love that kind of functionality in a DAW!

9

Almost all score editor in all DAW are very basic that is why we are working on separate application like Finale, Sibelius and Dorico.

10

My (perhaps unreasonable) guess is that people who think the score editor in Cubase is basic haven’t really explored it in depth, or read through the 210 page manual. Having said which, I have bought Dorico well, as I find it easier to use for the type of composing I usually do. I wouldn’t be without Cubase and its score editor though.

1 Like
11

It’s useless to you, but not to a huge market of potential users who are looking into a DAW to produce that type of music.

If Cubase doesn’t deliver the goods, then they go to Ableton, or FL Studio, or Bitwig, or Logic, or some other DAW. At the end of the day, Steinberg probably wants to increase it’s revenue from Cubase - which would allow them to invest more in development to deliver the features entitled users like you are begging for.

People are acting like economics doesn’t exist in this equation, and like Steinberg should feel beholden to a specific - and relatively small, I’d add - segment of the market.

Those EDM people don’t care about Hans Zimmer. They care about the DAW delivering the goods they expect from it - especially at a $560 price tag (with yearly upgrade fees - basically a subscription de facto if you’re going to stay on top of upgrades).

12

I am all in with what TheMaestro said.

The Score editor is all you need! I gave up on anything else decades ago, and I do orchestration all the time. The idea behind it is perfect.

It does take some time to get used to it, I imagine. BUT… you don’t really need anything else. Even Dorico.

I just wanted Cubase to have a proper native export score to pdf. I’m not on 11, I don’t know if it’s there though.

my 2 cents

1 Like
13

Also agree. I tried many different options but once I got my head around it, I found it to be quite powerful and flexible. I’m really appreciating the recent update.

14

While I can understand that for some people the Score Editor in Cubase is not advanced enough, I do think that for the majority of people the Score Editor is more than enough. I know it’s the case for me. But Anyway - The idea of integrating Doricio together with Cubase is nice in theory, but in practice it has some huge disadvantages (and not only economically-wise).

Let’s name that imaginary program Doricubase. Now let’s see what disadvantages there are.

First of all. It would make Doricubase a development monstrosity. Combining two programs and squash them together will be a programming nightmare, because the interaction between the two would be necessary on so many levels that huge parts of both of the programs must be rewritten. Even only maintaining Doricubase would be a huge challenge. Do not forget each Dorico and Cubase are very complex programs in themselves, so combine them to one program would not simply double the complexity, but would add to the complexity in an exponential way.

Secondly - The cost of such a program would be huge. Do not forget you have to pay two development teams combined to one huge team. The cost of that would maybe not be double, but at least very huge (thinking about that, the increased complexity would maybe make it necessary to have even more programmers than the two teams combined). To pay for all that stuff the third disadvantage pops up.

Third - The cost for the costumer. Merging two expensive programs to one huge program has to be payed. The same goes for the maintenance of this monstrosity. Expect the program will cost something in the order of the two programs combined. A price point of €1200 ~ €1600 will not be unreasonable, thereby putting the program out of reach for most people. To compensate for that lower sale rate the end price could be even much higher.

Forth - Updates would be very expensive too, because the development cost would be much higher. Even if you could afford to buy the combined program, the updates would be so high that it’s not practical to keep everything up to date. It certainly will put the program out of reach for a lot of the present users of Dorico and Cubase.

So - Taken all this in consideration it’s probably not a good idea to merge Dorico and Cubase to form one program. I think that this was the same case for Sibelius and Pro Tools. People that hoped for a merge underestimated the complexity an high cost that would be involved in such a merge.

What we CAN hope for is a tighter integration (and cross-pollination) of the two programs, so interaction and exchange would be more straightforward. In that case Cubase would act like a add-on for Dorico, and Dorico would act like a add-on for Cubase. Those that want to have the “best of both worlds” (and would not have problems with the higher costs) would simply buy both programs. It could be a good idea to give people that have Cubase a kind of “cross-grade” price for Dorico, and vice-versa.

So - That are my ideas about it.

15

The OP doesn’t tell us in their signature what flavor of Cubase they are using. If it is Artist or Elements then it is a very basic Score Editor compared to the version in Pro. So maybe there is some apples & oranges going on?

16

One thing I learned over all these years: this back and forwards between daw and score editor is very prone to generate errors.

With the Score editor, I am sure I’ve got any changes right, and changes occur all the time.

When you have an orchestral soundtrack score to record and no errors in the parts, you don’t want anything else.

17

I agree on every point.



It’s an experiment for reckless adventurers! :smiley:
In my opinion, this is madness.



This is what I expect too.
But in the meantime, just a piece of advice, upgrade to Cubase 11! the Score Editor improvements alone worth every cent.

18

But in the meantime, just a piece of advice, upgrade to Cubase 11! the Score Editor improvements alone worth every cent.

Hi Maestro, I wish I could. But I am in the middle of two projects and am still on widows 7. I’m sticking to 10.0 until building a new box.

But… You got my attention! It’s a relief to see our Score Editor being in full development. When Dorico was released, I was concerned about the Editor’s future.