There is a manual in several languages. The study is worthwhile. GA is a great tool. Look at the editable control of the patterns. You can set their complexity and intensity, as well as other properties, and also control this in Dorico via CCs quite individually and precisely. The output sounds of the Acoustic Agent are of course originally recorded audio samples.
The midi trigger regions in Dorico send only the midi key numbers associated with them to GA or other plugins like TGuitar or even players that work with vocal phrases (very handy).
In a hurry
Greetings
Bertram
This. My (Windows) upgrade from 4 to 5 was a total breeze. I didn’t even have to restart Dorico to fix font issues, which @dan_kreider had to remind me to do a couple times for past upgrades.
If anyone is still having problems migrating to the new software, he should definitely take a long and hard look within.
I had installation issues, but they were actually Firefox-related, and John Barron (I think it was John?) very graciously helped me to fix the issue.
everything went perfectly smoothly.
I haven’t had a crash with Dorico at all, and this goes back to my first installation of it, with version 3.
Finale, on the other hand, was crashing multiple times per day, continuously, for years.
I’d gotten into the habit of saving my files every few seconds. Like after ANY action, I’d hit ctrl+S.
CORRECTION:
the invaluable aid I received was from Ben@steinberg!!
(not to diminish John’s help over the last few years, but credit owed where credit due)
I’ve installed it on several computers with zero issues.
Previously I had a mac cylinder that seemed otherwise fine but frequently had crashes and issues with Dorico - I pitched it and got dedicated Windows setups and no problems ever since. Maybe some computers have some reason or another to just not play well with Dorico. If it’s old and due for an upgrade might be worth a try.
I expect the vast majority of Dorico users installed the Version 5 with no difficulty; but some users, likely because of some configuration in their computer have had difficulties which cause them significant distress.
This must be very frustrating for Daniel, Ulf, and the rest of the Team. Some of the difficulties have been identified and either solved or will be referred to additional specialists after the weekend, and of course a few of the difficulties were the result of user oversights.
@Derrek Just an aside, imagine the problems Microsoft has getting Windows to install on millions and millions of different computer systems! Software is hard. Given this, I think Steinberg does a pretty good job in general.
Every computer is, to some extent, unique. The permutation of hardware, drivers, third-party software added, and exact configuration of all of that runs into billions. Frankly, I’m amazed any of it works.
I’ve been supporting Dorico since version 1 (even though I’ve only recently done the full switch from being a 2 decade+ Sibelius user) and I really enjoy the updates. For me upgrading to version 5 is a no brainer and I’ll continue to support the effort because I believe in most areas, Dorico is the best in class for notation software… But…
I’m a little disappointed that, unless I’m missing where it was mentioned, there weren’t many (any?) improvements in the following areas, which I find are pretty important when working in projects with many flows:
Overall increased lag as you create more flows within a project. I know I can avoid the performance hit if I split my project out so that not all the flows are within the same project, but this seems counter-intuitive. I’m working on a musical that currently has 24 flows with 9 players and saving takes a few seconds. Other actions feel similarly slow I’m on a top of the line spec’d MacBook Prod M1 Max. Editing video in Final Cut Pro or large sessions in Pro Tools, Logic, etc. performs better than my Dorico project with 24 flows. I don’t want to pretend this is easy, and I’m sure that performance gets constant attention from development, but in my opinion this particular aspect of Dorico has a long way to go.
More print options for flows: can I still not use a token for the flow name in “Filename Options…”? Dorico seems so heavily centered around flows, that it surprises me this isn’t an option. Additionally, much of the process around printing within flows doesn’t seem to align with what feels like common workflows to me and I think they’ve been discussed pretty thoroughly here in the forums. There are a number of other process improvements that would be great to have in a flow-centric project when it comes to printing that I think a lot of us are waiting on.
Better remembering where in a project you are editing as you switch between Write and Engrave and between layouts. The process of going from Write to Engrave mode, hitting Command+G to go to the current flow, then switching to another layout (say, from the Full score to a Flute part), then being jumped to the beginning of the entire project, having to hit Command+G again to get to bar 1 of the flow I’m working on makes for a maddening experience. While I’m talking about the “Go to bar” feature, I feel like it should either CENTER me on the destination or set the destination anchored on the LEFT of the screen. The destination sometimes is anchored to the RIGHT of the screen while for other destinations it is on the LEFT. For example, in one flow in my project if I go to the first bar then that flow appears anchored to the left of my screen. For others, bar 1 is anchored on the right of my screen. Even after doing this hundreds or maybe thousands of times, it takes me a few moments to figure out what happened and decide if I need to reorient myself.
I hope the Dorico team/Steinberg continues the great updates, but I also hope they focus a bit more on common workflows when it comes to preparing printed music. The things I mention above are pretty small in isolation, but then having to perform these tasks countless times during the process of working on a project, the lack of efficiency starts to feel like a real productivity drain.
I think that most people who wish to export the audio for professional reasons (myself included) probably don’t want it to be a viable substitute for a DAW. I share my work with clients and so on nearly always so that they can hear a reasonable mockup of how it will eventually be played live. I have no particular professional interest in “faking” anything, just making a basically cheerful noise which is not a million miles from what it will be like.
I am now going to do something unforgivable and address an example you gave as if it is the point you were making; in this case, fermatas.
I also made this complaint several months ago and the answers made a lot of sense to me when I thought about it. The thing is, all fermatas play back differently (assuming you are going for post-1997 sound quality). So, it was put to me, writing a whole bunch of code to try and second guess how every fermata played back would be a massive amount of work for what would, in the end, be a rubbish feature.
In fact, some helpful person (Maybe @pianoleo ?) pointed out to me that if you go to the “play” screen and the “Tempo” part of the playing techniques, you can fanny about with drawing your own tempo speeds and make your fermatas exactly how you want them, at really very little cost of your own time.
The playback feature I am loving in v5 is the ability to specify muting specific notes on each round of repeats. That was a feature that didn’t have any other possible workaround (beyond expanding out the repeats, which totally stuffed up the score), and so I am very grateful it appeared.
I agree with you in suspecting that you would struggle to produce a very complicated production quality track from Dorico, and I also agree that attempting add all of the functionality of a DAW would be a mistake - not least because such a thing already exists, it’s called Cubase, and I understand it to be really rather good.
I suspect the more useful thing would be to concentrate on making Dorico and Cubase talk to each other in a more intuitive way - although I must stress here that I don’t use Cubase so I don’t know if they already do or not.
True, and if one is uncertain about playing with those line tools, one can add hidden tempo marks in Write mode to slow down just the beat(s) involving the fermata and then resetting the former tempo.
Oh. I can’t wait to return to working with a DAW, with its separate tracks for each articulation, an ID numbers instead of musical terms to select them!
I just meant that if you’re wanting that level of perfection and control, that is literally what a daw was designed for (and these sample libraries were designed to primarily work in daws anyway). I’m all for improved automatic playback. Don’t get me wrong. But I think we need to be a little realistic here too. Working toward the goal of automatic excellent renders is great, and we get closer with every innovation, but we aren’t there yet.
I only worry about lag when entering notes or things like switching modes. I believe the latter was worked on a few releases ago, previously it was slow but now it’s instantaneous
Put separate monitors up and multiple windows. Fastest way to do it.
Just use the same combo VST’s as are you are probably using in Dorico. And besides just do all the CC work in Dorico, export the MIDI and use the DAW for mixing. Don’t touch the MIDI there at all, no need to.
DAW’s are great for mixing that Dorico will never have (multi channel, ATMOS, complex bouncing etc)
As far as I know, DAWs were designed to work with various forms of EDM in mind. They have never tried to be tools for classical music. This also shows in how rudimentary their notation part is still, so many decades after their first appearance.
Composers who have ventured to compose orchestral music in DAWs have done it by inventing all sorts of workarounds. One of them, still considered the norm by many, is that of separating articulations into different tracks. Record long notes on a first pass, and then the short ones! My mind blows, when I think to such a monstruosity.
The pure reality is that there hasn’t been a software for orchestral composing, as of now. Composers have had to adapt, and invent odd ways to deal with this severe omission. These ways may have become the normality, but not something that can be considered “natural”.
Sample library don’t have anything particular that makes them behave better in DAWs than in notation programs. Their integration depends on how the host software supports them. Logic has a way to select patches by ID numbers and colored notes in the pianoroll. Dorico, that is supposedly not good for working with these libraries, can call them by means of musical symbols.
My sounds are hosted in Vienna Ensemble Pro, that is a mixing environment I much prefer to that of Logic or Cubase. I find it much more elegant than others, and it also offers fine, powerful effects with presets designed for orchestral instruments, not pop/rock/EDM ones.
At the moment I only need a stereo output, so i’m fine with the lack of multichannel output in Dorico. But it is true that I’ve started experimenting with surround, and want to go further into it. Hopefully, Dorico will add the same multichannel support found in Cubase, sooner or later. At that point, I will be completely covered for the future.
Yeah I do same, and both Dorico and Nuendo can connect to that for rendering. But I don’t use it for mixing as I need ATMOS and the Nuendo bounce automation. NP4 is used for making temps.
Yeah I’m kind of hoping it doesn’t. Too much like a DAW at that point, and at best it’ll be a baby multichannel implementation and probably 5.1 at best. Steinberg wisely has a strategy here, Cubase only goes to, I think 5.1 (might be 7.1, but barely), but for anything beyond you go with Nuendo. If Dorico is 5.1 then it competes with Cubase, a better strategy would be to keep Dorico stereo and get in the DAW link that’s been talked about - IMHO.
Another thing to check is whether you’re saving a preview of the file each time you save. You can do this in the Project Info dialog and scroll down to the bottom. This can save you some saving time.
Are you sure Cubase can’t mix up to 7.1.4? It’s still limited compared to Nuendo, but still in the domain of advanced use. I would personally be more than happy with this implementation in Dorico, and leave more extreme situations to a specialist tool like Nuendo.
I would guess that the different programs are better differentiated by targets, instead of bare numbers. There is a type of user that will never be interested to notation, because he can barely read it. Others who prefer to stay away from the glitchy and depressing look of a mainstream DAW. There would be enough difference even with similar numbers in the spec list
This. My (Windows) upgrade from 4 to 5 was a total breeze. I didn’t even have to restart Dorico to fix font issues, which