Dorico 5 Most Wanted

The same way they find out that they have to press S to start it – the manual, or the tutorial videos. Slurs behave like tuplets and other objects that can be ‘nested’.
I’m not convinced that you can obtain all the information needed to use any app just by looking at the icons and menus.

Some things toggle, but not most things. Ties, gracenotes, tuplets, fermatas, playing techniques, clefs…

I’m guessing you’re on Windows? It seems (from what I can gather in posts here) that Windows audio drivers are variable. Doesn’t the Preference for default mixer level fix this?

1 Like

One thing I’d like to see that I’m not sure I’ve mentioned before: I’d really like to be able to select multiple notes and apply breath marks to all of them at once. As it is now, you have to repeat the action one by one on every stave even when all the marks occur at the same rhythmic position. This is incongruous behavior from a workflow standpoint, because there are tons of other things you can do to multiple notes at the same time.

3 Likes

Thank you Daniel.

There is no reason why DAW and notation apps must be at cross purposes. The only thing that I can think of which might lead a person to think that they would be is in respect of whether an app’s notation reflects exactly what the user played - or instead what they likely want to see notated for scoring purposes. And this isn’t an issue - an app could have an editor window dedicated to each need. And an app can hide functionality from the user until the user wishes to make it available.

We should take the time to patiently show people who still imagine that notation apps and DAW apps have aims which are at cross purposes to see that they are not - and also to realise the capabilities they might benefit from which don’t currently exist in their app. We must show them that:

  • Any combined app could be designed to ensure that it did not impose any additional burden on a new user.

  • Any DAW app which provides the user with more substantial notation capabilities will give some users what they absolutely require. Some require Hollywood composer like capabilities in a single app (a Hollywood composer needs to score their work and also create first rate audio demo masters of it - while being able to make last minute edits to both score and audio masters - without having to constantly import and export data). And then others not having these needs may still benefit from the capabilities that currently exist outside their app - such as for example when a notation person wants to hear back a notated vocal part that they are able to record themselves - or get someone else to sing. Or when a user wishes to compose straight into their app in a notation environment - while having the more modular capabilities of a DAW (being able to make multiple arrangements - and to move music around more easily as blocks).

It makes sense to me that Steinberg would not only wish to recognise the way to best help its customers but also to demonstrate its unique strength - which is also its unique opportunity in the market - no other company has within two separate apps (Nuendo and Dorico) the functionality needed to build an all in one app with all the functionality that a Hollywood composer requires - or may potentially require. Apple doesn’t have the notation app - or seemingly the interest. Avid has yesterday’s notation app and a DAW user base which includes many audio engineers who are not musicians. Presonus offer no Dolby Atmos support in Studio One - their paid Notion app doesn’t yet share the same code base as Studio One - Studio One does not have the advanced audio editing features of Nuendo - nor features that make it possible for people working on audio to share their work while working alongside those editing video. No company currently offers a combined DAW app with full traditional notation capabilities.

I can see why Dorico’s becoming a stable code base separate before being to any substantial extent integrated in Cubase/Nuendo could turn out in the long run to be the preferred path towards substantial and effective integration. Notation is - as Tantacrul is now admitting - really really complex stuff. And so is building a powerful DAW.

Having a powerful combined app is also the best means for companies to prepare themselves to operate in a market in which there are going to be increasingly powerful free audio and notation options.

I take it from Daniel’s comment that the coding environments and programming languages of Dorico and Cubase/Nuendo would not stand in the way of Dorico work finding its way into Cubase/Nuendo (recognising that these are only two factors of no doubt many in this integration work being done!) should any decision be made for greater integration to happen.

2 Likes

How much would you be willing to pay for such an app, both for the app itself and for a computer system powerful enough to run it? Not everyone has the budget a Hollywood composer would have for professional purposes, and an app only affordable by a few might not be sustainable.

Absolutely agree with this one. As I recall, you can set one and then copy to staff below, but it makes more sense to be able to apply the breath mark to everything that is selected at once.

It seems to me there are several other elements that have this same behavior, but I can’t remember offhand which ones they are.

Presonus has StudioOne and Notion, with some of the integration we have been talking about. But I wouldn’t say that combination has all the functionality a Hollywood composer requires. It is, nonetheless, a good example of how to start on that journey toward greater integration.

I would note that DAWs didn’t emerge out of thin air. They were, in fact, the merger of MIDI sequencers and audio recording functions. It seems perfectly obvious now, but I suppose before there were DAWs, many people doubted there were any good reasons for the functions to be brought together.

1 Like

I believe that is a marketing issue more than a technology issue. In any product set, there is always the option for entry-level versions with affordable entry points.

1 Like

Hi Derrek,
It’s a case of a company transitioning their code so all of it can operate within a single app environment. Having done that they are then free to sell versions of their product (as Steinberg does with Dorico) that have some but not all of the functionality that the most full featured app has. It’s already clear that DAW functionality and notation functionality are a part of Steinberg’s present - the question is whether they will invest so that people can have whatever features they want in an app by uniting their code.

I like your observation @cparmerlee about the fact that there was once a period where MIDI sequencers did not have audio capabilities. I believe that when it comes to the best interest of notation users we have reached a time when this kind of transition is necessary.

I don’t think it’s clear yet what Presonus are intending to do. Correct me if I am wrong Studio One 6 has all the features of the new free Notion mobile app - enabling files created within it to be opened in Studio One (and exported from Studio One back to the Notion mobile app) - but not the full features of Notion 6 - their paid notation app. There is no proof that Presonus intend to make Studio One a full blown notation app - or even evidence that they intend for Notion to become an app with anything like Dorico’s capabilities.

To say nothing of the fact that there are people who will balk at the price of Dorico, and turn around and spend just as much on ProTools, StudioOne Pro, or any of the $$$ sample libraries out there. Heck, even the stupid Kontakt just to HOST other libraries cost $300. If you live in this world, the cost of Dorico is not too much. I’m sorry, but it just isn’t. (I’ll grant that, if you’re young and trying to penetrate into this world, it’s difficult at first. But by the time you reach any proficiency the cost is certainly justifiable.

3 Likes

I notice my question, “How much would you be willing to pay for such an app?” was never answered. It’s easier to dismiss an idea when specifics are absent. But melding Dorico and Cubase (or another Steinberg DAW) would presumably cost quite a bit more than Dorico or Cubase alone.

1 Like

Do you agree Derrick that the operative question is whether Steinberg can afford the additional up front costs of transitioning Dorico into the Cubase/Nuendo code (while ensuring the individual apps advance) and whether they then will be able to pay back some or all of that cost by charging more than the cost of Nuendo and Dorico together for a period (maybe only by not offering discounts for the combined Cubase/Dorico app - and the Nuendo/Dorico app)? After those costs are covered and the work is complete the price for the combined app could then be whatever it costs to buy Cubase and Dorico Pro separately - or to buy Nuendo and Dorico Pro separately. There is still freedom for Steinberg to price all subset versions of their total tech in a manner which competes as much as they feel the need to compete on price with others - and they remain free to re-jig what features each product includes when new versions come out.

It’s not as if these questions are playing out in an environment where what Steinberg charges is strongly dictated by competitors. Apple has already undercut everyone on price - Avid will most likely not change from charging as much as they can for their software. Presonus wants enough revenue to operate - just like Steinberg.

2 Likes

Anyway surely we are pretty much done (I certainly am) - we have attempted from our less than full view to consider the issues we can foresee that a combining of code would have on:

  • Steinberg’s potential position in the market against free and paid competitors
  • Steinberg’s upfront costs
  • Steinberg’s ability to provide users every feature they want and none they don’t want
  • Steinberg’s ability to control pricing.
    And on this occasion without any protest whatsoever. Thank you to the forum for the opportunity to re-examine these things in the light of Daniel’s comment.

A final observation - might the difference in response to the issues being raised now to when they were raised not that long ago be an indication that customers are in constant change regarding how they see their needs going forward? (Not that we know for sure that there was any substantial resistance to the concept of seeing code combined in a single app in the past).

A few months back I purchased a full version of Cubase Pro 12 in anticipation of the integration of Dorico’s forthcoming integration with it. This was based on a conversation with Daniel in which he outlined the strategy he mentions in an above post. My prefered DAW is Studio One but this integration would inspire me to convert even though I find Cubase a little less (still excellent, mind you!) to my liking.

This integration would be well worth what I spent and more to me.

Chris

2 Likes

I would be willing to pay at least 50% more for both products if they included real points of integration that save me significant time and make it easier for me to get much better results.

I am not particularly price sensitive when we are talking about products that are several hundred dollars per major release. I would never pay $1000 for a smartphone because I don’t see any value proposition there. I don’t spend money on “cool factor.” But I’m happy, even eager, to give money to people who make my life easier or more productive.

4 Likes

I forgot to repeat one thing - young users are the future and they are mostly DAW users - to introduce them to acoustic music it would be preferable if notation capabilities moved towards them instead of them being required to move towards acoustic instruments and notation (I cannot believe how much Dorico functionality is both a present and potential gift to music education and to the understanding of orchestral instruments! Someone should be knighted for this…).

1 Like

The slash, rather than parentheses, seems peculiar to me. I’d read those as Bm7/F and C7/F#; not quite the same thing as Bm7(b5) or C7 (#11). He may have a specific need for that notation, though. I’ve not seen that particular kind of chord notation in any charts I’ve played.

2 Likes

Yeah, I’ve never seen that either. Chord suffix editing is such a time consuming PITA I figured I’d throw him that doricolib file in case it was helpful. It only took me about five minutes, and he’ll spend hours and hours trying to do that for all roots with the Edit Chord Symbol Component window. Not my cup of tea either, but hoped it might save him an afternoon’s worth of work.

Everytime I dive into doricolib files, I’m amazed at how powerful they are. I’m always curious if others are using custom doricolib files too, and for what sort of custom edits.

I’m afraid that, as of now, at least, this library- editing stuff is beyond me😏

1 Like