Yes, I know about the necessity to do all the cleaning up in the old editor.
But now I have none of this unnerving process (with mixed results anyways) to do, and can enjoy rendering fast, with much less effort, and without getting the incredibly ugly, space wasting results of the old editor, with all of its too small notes and wrong spacing of elements all over the place, after having had to do all the silly cleanup in the first place.
In contrast now we are able to export a very useable result, after minimal editing required for direct use, and for all advanced layout tasks directly to Dorico format (not just to midi or XML), to fine tune and engravee there, in the from my view best notation program, with a functionality which the Cubase score editor never could offer.
I’m sure in this first release we users will still find some issues with the new editor in Cubase 14, but those will be fixed. Already at this point I couldn’t care less about the old editor and never would want to go back.
If you really still want to use the old one, you could stll use it in Cubase 13.
Yesterday night it was my first contact with cubase 14 score. Do I understand correctly that currently it is not possible to show a tablature for guitars etc. ? Score offers the TAB clef for guitars and basses. Furthermore a wide reange of fretted instruments can be selected as instrument type - anf then showing the tablature is off ? Every guitar/bass payer has to work a lot on efficient finger settings esp. for left hand for a given standard notation. TAB is inevitable for 6/7/8 string guitars an 4/5/6 basses.
I’ve only just learned it and it’s a great function, for example if you start with just a sheet of music, you can then generate corresponding musical tracks from the notation.
I think Dorico will definitely be better than the old score editor if they could include some of those features.
I used the old editor a lot so I had a good work flow and could make good clean charts. But I never had a good understanding of how the layouts worked. That is much better in Dorico.
As stated in the Cubase 14 Release Notes, it’s just the initial version of the Dorico-like Score Editor in Cubase, and more feature are planned to come with the upcoming updates and upgrades.
Of course in order to become a more powerful Score Editor, it needs some time and many important features and improvements in Cubase itself, that will allow the Score Editor to become a much more advanced tool.
I’m pretty happy to see something that looks like Dorico in Cubase, just I would prefer it to be designed exactly as Dorico itself. The Tool Panels to be on the very same positions. The workflow to follow the one in Dorico, too…
Since the Score Editor looks like Dorico, and it’s advertised as re-vamped after Dorico, then the logical expectation is to function like Dorico, right?!
Currently it only looks like Dorico, but doesn’t function the same way, but as a completely different product.
I hope the Dorico direction will be embraced more in the future!
For those of us who are going to use the new Score Editor is important to have pretty much the same workflow as in Dorico.
I don’t really care about the look. What’s important to me are the functions and that there are functions to make the score compact (one or two pages if possible) and easy to read, since I mainly create a score from (MIDI) songs for live playing.
For those of us who are used to the old score editor, it is important to have important features of the old score editor.
Well, you’ll need to wait some time until the things you need re-appear in the newly designed Score Editor.
Still, there are some limitations you should be aware of:
MusicXML import is not supported yet, but it will be implemented in the future.
Some score symbols, such as Arpeggio, Glissandi, or Octave lines, are not available yet.
Since the technology behind the new Score Editor is completely new, importing scores from projects created with the previous Score Editor is only partially possible. We have created a Steinberg Help Article that documents the limitations in detail.
Cubase 14 marks the beginning of a new era in integrating our leading DAW with our music notation software. We are committed to extending the functionality of the new Score Editor and developing additional features to further integrate Cubase and Dorico in future updates.
So, many new and important features will be implemented in Cubase with the future updates and upgrades. Until the features you need become available you could use C13, or Dorico.
On this early stage of the new Score Editor development process, the most important thing is what we are expecting from it as a workflow and UI-UX.
We cannot expect everything we need to be there, be we could share our thoughts and requests.
Just add some thoughts to my previous comment here:
The current Dorico-like Score Editor just looks somehow similar to Dorico, but its not, nor even has the same workflow.
1.1. As stated by Daniel in a post related to the new Score Editor in the Dorico forum it was designed to look like Dorico, but to follow the Editors’ organization in Cubase. This was replied to me, because, I’ve said the organization of the Tool Panels in the Score Editor defers a lot from those in Dorico. Dorico’s Right Panel appears on the Left in the Score Editor, the Left Panel appears on Top…
1.2. Daniel also stated that they didn’t want to put too much Dorico idioms into Cubase.
My opinion on these two statements:
The majority of those who are going to be interested in the new Score Editor are Dorico or Sibelius, or Finale, or MuseScore users as well, and very few are those who are going to relate only on the Score Editor itself.
So, the logic, of the good UI-UX for an ecosystem, here is supposed not to force those who are using Dorico, already, to spend (waste) time learning the Score Editor in Cubase. It should look, feel and operate exactly the same way as it’s elder brother - Dorico > Write Mode.
Definitely it’s not a good decision to design the Score Editor to remind for Dorico, but to have slightly different UI-UX and very different workflow.
About the idioms…
Well, Dorico is pretty much oriented towards the musicians, arrangers and composers. Pretty much every idiom has a musical meaning. The same isn’t valid for Cubase. It has many Sound Engineering/Designing idioms as well, which is normal for a DAW. Still the Score Editor is the most musically (for educated/trained musicians) oriented feature in any DAW. So, I don’t mind to have more Dorico idioms in Cubase since they are going to bring more musical meaning in this nice DAW. By the way it needs more musical meaning.
Of course there is possibility that some Cubase users to be attracted by the Score Editor, and then they may decide to try Dorico.
Surely they won’t be very satisfied to find that Dorico and the Score Editor are actually very different in their essential functions and UI-UX.
It’s scientifically proven that the brain prefers what is familiar, over what’s unfamiliar.
I come from the old score editor and not from Dorico. I have been using it for several decades now. My main application is to generate compact sheet music for musicians (and for me) from a song (project) with MIDI data. (I’m not alone, by the way .)
I don’t care whether the editor looks like Dorico or not. I absolutely agree with you that the general point is that the score editor should generate in a flexible way something musically readable from the musical (MIDI) data of the Cubase project.
This function (e.g. with the old score editor) is something unique in the DAW world and very, very valuable for musicians. Cubase/Steinberg should continue and improve it as much as possible.
I agree with you that it would be good if this new score editor could be used in the same way as Dorico. We don’t need two different score editors. But I think that Steinberg wants to keep a functional difference so that they don’t create competition within their own company.
But at the moment the current new score editor has simply fewer functions and flexibility and can display significantly fewer musically useful things than the old score editor. Unfortunately, this is a step backwards at the moment.
I’m sure with the upcoming updates and upgrades more of the advanced features will be re-introduced in the newly designed Score Editor, no doubt.
Until then, keep using the previous Cubase version.
Even the functionalities are similar between Dorico and the Score Editor, there is no chance for competition between both apps.
The Score Editor could be a combination of Dorico’s Write and some Setup Mode functions. That way Dorico will remain far more superior as scoring software than Cubase.
As a representative of those who are using both Dorico and Cubase, the equality between Dorico Write Mode and the Score Editor is of high importance. I just don’t want to learn one more workflow within the same ecosystem.
I am interested to hear what your workflow looks like, and at what exactly you do when a project moves from one piece of software to another. However, please don’t assume you are representing anyone other than yourself. We listen to users on this forum, social media, internally, we meet users and potential users, online and offline, we listen to you. With all these different requirements coming together, it’s up to us to decide how to best build products that help our users be productive and creative.
I must assure you, we don’t keep them artificially different to avoid internal competition. The opposite is the case, because we want both Cubase and Dorico work together to the best of their respective abilities.
Thank you for your joining and reply here!
Well, as a part of those users who are using actively both Dorico and Cubase, I could a representative of this group of people. Of course everyone who belongs this group could be considered a representative of it.
When I’m talking about the workflow, I having in mind strictly Dorico vs Cubase Score Editor.
My workflow is based on “Single player > Single Staff > Single MIDI Track”
What are my expectations about the Score Editor:
To be designed exactly as Dorico Write Mode
The Tool Panels in the Score Editor have to be placed exactly the same as they appear in Dorico. Which isn’t the case at moment.
Currently the Right Dorico panel is on the Left in the Score Editor, and the Left Dorico panel is placed on the Top in the Score Editor. By design this is pretty unnatural and forces us to learn a new workflow.
In the future I would be very happy to see the following features
Pop-ups for techniques, holds, ornamentation, repeats, lyrics, text… (probably this will require a dedicated, editable, key commands for Score Editor itself which won’t affect the rest of Cubase). Would be nice if we could use those we are using in Dorico.
Restricted Expression/Percussion maps assignments to existing Playing Techniques, just like in Dorico. Currently if you are using Expression Maps by Art Conductor and if you open the Score Editor you will end up with complete musical nonsense, with no real musical symbols mapped. (Long time ago I’ve shared, with the team behind Dorico, the idea about Standard Expression/Percussion Maps across all DAWs and Notation apps. This could initiated by Steinberg. It will save so much time for the creators, and will allow Expressions from Cubase, or Dorico to be imported in Studio One, or Digital Performer, or MuseScore - once they have such a system).
The Condensing feature is another important future from Dorico that would be great to see in the Score Editor (Here the Independent Voice Playback maybe required for the Divisi).
The Flows are something that would be nice to have Cubase, especially for those who are composing film music (It will allow us to create different movements with different instrument setups. That way we’ll save a lot of vertical screen space, and computer resources)
Voices per Staff, in Cubase we could have up to 4, while in Dorico unlimited.
Some Dorico Setup functions like Single, Section Players and Ensemble (It will allow faster project creation, but probably will require Playback Templates to be implemented, which is a pretty good idea), Instrument Layouts…
In conclusion I would expect to be able use the new Score Editor as I’m using Dorico for entering and editing music with good looking output. I don’t expect and want fully functional Dorico. Probably in the future I would like to see real-time synchronization where I would be able to enter notes, techniques and dynamics in Dorico and having them as a MIDI Data in Cubase for further editing, humanization and post production.
I would like have the Score Editor in Cubase as my primary music editor and the Key Editor as secondary, just for fixing real-time recordings and editing CCs, exactly as I’m doing in Dorico.
But can you describe your actual workflow (Dorico/Cubase).? That was what I believe, the Steinberg dev was interested in reading/learning about… Not just another list of things you’d like to see in the new Cubase Score Editor.
What are you using Cubase for (apart from notation needs) in this equation.? Or have you now abandoned Cubase altogether.? On that basis, perhaps just stick with Dorico…
You’ve used C12/13 before and that wasn’t adequate, stating the score editor in there was next to ‘useless’ for you. I think you’ve described it as ‘terrible’. So, you then adopted Dorico for the notation part of your needs.
So the question/request to you is, how are you using Dorico alongside your Cubase use now.? Back and forth. They are keen to hear from you about that workflow.
My idea of the workflow is exactly the opposite.
As it was before when working with Cubase and its notation alone.
I produce a song until it sounds good. Audio tracks and MIDI tracks mixed.
If necessary, I transcribe the partially improvised audio tracks to have a MIDI track of it - just so I can create notes from it. This is not necessary for the normal VSTI tracks that you can also hear.
In between and afterwards, of course, I go to the score editor and make things readable. It worked well in C 13, but it was a lot of work.
I think C14 is really more practical and I really appreciate that you can quickly get adequate, if not perfect, music notation.
For this, I definitely want to avoid exporting everything again to Dorico. I recently bought Dorico, but I am glad that I have not yet dealt with the complex topic. Because Cubase will (I hope and am convinced) meet my needs.
The great point of a score editor within Cubase is that you don’t separate the notation from the production of the song.
In my experience, I’m rarely completely finished.
After exporting to Dorico (without a link)
you would have to maintain 2 projects from then on.
That’s why a “Dynamic Link” between Cubase and Dorico would be great for absolute notation pros.
Hm, are you suggesting something like ARA, but for MIDI? Apply an MRA plug-in to the MIDI part, and have an external editor load in a zone or a separate window?
exactly.
I knew this from Adobe’s connection between Premiere and After Effects.
Both programs are open, changes affect everything at the same time.
Just like it is within Cubase.
I think this discussion here is very valuable for Steinberg to develop the new Cubase Score Editor in a good direction that covers different use cases. For me it cannot be the main use case of Dorico, that is what Dorico is for and you should use Dorico for that.
My humble opinion to Score Editor in Cubase:
I think it is not possible to do everything and for me even to a certain extent not desirable to have all Dorico complexity in the Cubase Score Editor due to the difficulties of integrating it into Cubase and using it sensibly. The old Score Editor was a good compromise for me.
For me, the Cubase Score Editor should be a (more simple? I’m not sure) score editor that is embedded in a DAW environment and thus has as its main goal to translate the MIDI and other data from the DAW into music pages that are correct, easy to read, editable and compact. It is not about a complete music notation program with all the special eventualities of fine printing of music.
In Cubase the starting point is mainly the DAW data and not the music notation. In Dorico it is the other way around, the starting point is the music (perhaps only in your head) and as a result you also get MIDI data.
In both programs, however, it is not a one-way street, only in one direction, but the focus is different.
