Errors loading Halion SE playback engine

Whenever I start up Dorico, I see the error msg shown in attached scrren shot.The messages is bogus because Halion Sonic SE does load and its window appears. Even worse, there are sometimes TWO Halion Se windowns displayed (!1??) . And even WORSE, sometimes the Halion window(s) just disappears and playback completely fails to happen. HTH do I fix this? I think I should probably remove Dorico and Halion completely and then start over and re-downlod/reinstall. So far, I’m not impressed with Dorico, I must say… I MUST have correct PLAYBACK!!

Adding another screen shot - showing how there are TWO Halion SE windows displayed when I open a score. Very odd… can’t figure which one of them is supposed to be used for playback.

You have not installed HALion Symphonic Orchestra, it contains all the sound files for most of the orchestral sound patches.

So please run the Steinberg Download Assistant again and also download the third Dorico download package. I can’t remember the name anymore how it appears in there, but it is around 6 GB big. Probably that’s the reason why you did not get it in first place, because you thought it is too big and probably not needed.
Strictly spoken it is actually not needed, because you could use also another sound library for playback, but then you have to set up everything yourself.
For a smooth and easy setup we provided HALion Symphonic Orchestra with Dorico, so please install it.

Btw, you see sometimes two instances of HALion Sonic, because your score then uses more than 16 players. Install HALion Symphonic Library and you will see one instance completely filled with sounds and the second only up to as needed.

Excuse me, but I DID download all the Dorico components listed in Steiberg Download assistant: Dorico 1.2 App Installer, Dorico Playback 1 (Halion Sonic SE 2), Dorico Playback 2 (Orchestra Library) and Update to Dorico Playback 2.

However, I will try doing the whole thimg over again if you say so.

May I suggest that if Dorico gives an error because something is missing, the error message should TELL THE USER WHAT IS MISSING!!

May I also suggest that if the user does not correct the error, Dorico should not just start acting flaky and executing “playback” with no sound, etc.

May I also suggest that using two or more “players” for scores that have more than 16 parts is a very poor design for a system that is supposed to
handle orchestra scores. A typical symphonic score could easily have 48 or more parts. Imagin a user who has to configure 4 “players” and keep track
of them all!

John D

Using multiple players, as I understand it, is about utilising multiple processor cores as effectively as possible.

Just downloading is not good enough, you must also run the installer. Maybe you did run the installer, but then maybe something went wrong with it.
Fact is, Dorico detects at start up that it can’t find the Symphonic Library and issues the warning.

However, I will try doing the whole thing over again if you say so.

Yes please, but you just need to do it for the Symphonic Library. If afterwards it is still the same, then please choose from the main menu Help > Create Diagnostic Report. That will create a zip file on your desktop containing log data. Please send it to u dot stoermer at steinberg dot de.

May I suggest that if Dorico gives an error because something is missing, the error message should TELL THE USER WHAT IS MISSING!!

Sorry, the message says: “Please run Steinberg Download Assistant and install HALion Sonic SE and HALion Symphonic Orchestra.”
What is so misleading about it?

May I also suggest that using two or more “players” for scores that have more than 16 parts is a very poor design for a system that is supposed to
handle orchestra scores. A typical symphonic score could easily have 48 or more parts. Imagin a user who has to configure 4 “players” and keep track
of them all!

Quite to the opposite. Using a multi player - a VST instrument that can produce multiple sounds at the same time - is a better design, because it uses the resources (CPU and RAM) much more efficiently. Also, what would be the alternative? Imagine you would have 48 HALion Sonic instances, each producing only one sound. How about configuring that and keeping track of them all?

And if a single sound player were built to control more than 16 sounds/player (which none do AFAIK) consider the inefficient overhead for someone who just wanted to set up chamber ensembles.

Quite to the opposite. Using a multi player - a VST instrument that can produce multiple sounds at the same time - is a better design, because it uses the resources (CPU and RAM) much more efficiently. Also, what would be the alternative? Imagine you would have 48 HALion Sonic instances, each producing only one sound. How about configuring that and keeping track of them all?

You have completely misunderstood what I was saying.

Of course “a VST instrument that can produce multiple sounds at the same time” is a better idea than having “48 HALion Sonic instances, each producing only one sound.”

That is NOT what I was suggesting at all, how can you imagine something so stupid. What you need to have is ONE player that
will dynamically load and play AS MANY “Instruments” AS THE SCORE CALLS FOR, no more and no less.

That is what SIBELIUS can do!! Surely Dorico can do better than that!!??

That is also what any halfway decent MIDI sequencer or multitrack DAW will do. If the score calls for only one instrument, allocate and display a one-instrument player. If the score requires 64 instruments, allocate 64 instruments in one player! I’m astonished that anybody in this day & age would think of creating a bunch of fixed-track “players.” That is a design from the 1980’s.

The so-called “mixer” in Dorico is also crude to say the least. It is also redundant. You have better mixing capability already built into HAlion SE.No audio professional would consider using such a primitive mixer.

On the plus side, I think that using KONTAKT as a “player” is a much better solution. It is a pain to configure, but it seems to work pretty well on playback, and the sound quality is much better than the Halion instruments. And IMHO Dorico should support other such “players,” especially UVI FALCON.

Well, now I’m going to send an example of how Dorico fails miserably to import a MIDI file. This is a real serious error. The incoming MIDI file and resulting Dorico Project will be included. Please don’t try to put the blame on me this time.

Have you really never encountered software that allows the user to have a variable number of “instruments,” “tracks,” or whatever you want to call them? What do you mean that “none of them do AFAIK”? NOBODY uses a fixed-number-of-tracks design in the 21st century. Anyway, see my other message.

I think the user is missing something huge here. HALion is set up by default in Dorico to be a multi-output plugin. Each of the possible 16 MIDI channels get a dedicated stereo output on the mixer for a reason, this being so you can run independent effect chains on each one if desired. This is NOT going back to pre-1980s. It’s right the opposite. It’s congruent with premium tracking DAWS. It’s also opening the doorway to a better and more full implementation of VST3 protocols. Sibelius and Finale still cannot use VST3 plugins at all…

The Sibelius and Finale mixers are a total joke in comparison with Dorico. Dorico’s mixing matrix easily runs circles around the fore-mentioned scoring packages.

  1. Sibelius and Finale do not even support multiple output plugins. You only get a single Stereo Bus per plugin instance. With Dorico you can have up to 32 audio channels per plugin. If you only want a single stereo bus for each plugin you can force it to act that way (even with HALion, you can disable the audio outputs of audio channels you do not want faders for on the mixer in a new instance, swap things over, then delete the first instance), but why? In that case you’d lose the ability to apply independent effect chains on ‘each’ instrument/fader.

Here the user needs to realize that in HALion, you can disable any outputs you don’t want on the mixer. You can direct each of the 16 multi-timberal instrument slots to send output to which ever pair of outputs you choose. Just understand that by default, Dorico is going to call the thing up in full 32 channel mode (16 stereo channels) with the slots assigned in top down order to the faders on the mixer.

  1. In Sibelius and Finale, you only get a very limited set of ‘post fader’ Effect slots, there is no true FX send (making it easy to share a single convolution reverb across every instrument on the mixer. To do this in Sibelius or Finale, you first have to buy a convolution reverb plugin (for anything rivaling the one that comes with Dorico, prepare to shell out from $80 to $200 US), then put it in a master FX slot, of which you only get something like 4, and it’s a real PITA to get things to balance out when running a reverb in the master chain like that). The signal path in Finale and Sibelius is fixed and something of a nightmare. In Sibelius, each plugin ‘instance’ just gets a single mixed stereo bus thrown up on the mixer. In Finale it’s even worse, as you have to go through a different VST management menu work out an effect chain, and again, it’s all mixed down to a single stereo bus ‘per plugin instance’.

  2. Sibelius nor Finale come with the slate of effects one gets with Dorico (that can be applied in the Mixer). Unless you are using Sounds for Sibelius, or a plugin that has some built in reverbs of their own…you get NOTHING.

In contrast, Dorico comes with dozens of really good effect plugins. You get a full convolution reverb. You get regular reverbs. You get pitch shifters, chorus, notch filters/boosters, maximzers, compressor/limiters, equalizers, virtual amps, and much much more! You can run them on the FX send bus, or stack them up on individual mixer outputs!

  1. Every fader on the Dorico mixer gives you a built in 4 band paraboloic EQ, and true audio stream panners (they can also be surround sound panners). Finale and Sibelius provide ZERO per channel EQ.

As for the way Dorico loads and deals with multi-timbrel plugins, other than giving you full control over every output in a multi-output plugin, and going ahead and throwing up 16 faders (even if some of them are unused) for HALion, it’s no different than Sibelius or Finale. I use HALion 6, HALion 3 SE, Groove Agent 4, and so forth in Dorico, Sibelius, and Finale. It behaves pretty much the same in all three (except those cannot take advantage of multiple outputs). Again, the difference is that in Sibelius or Finale, if I want different effect chains on different instruments (or families of them), I have to go around the world to force things to split off into more instances. I can’t just load the multi-output version of ARIA for instance, and put different effect chains on each ‘output’, or pipe them through a shared FX Send.

Again, you don’t seem to understand what I’m saying. <> I give up… if you like messing about with one (for example) 48-part score, and trying to figure out how that relates to with 4 x 16-track plug-in windows (i.e. Halion), that’s your fetish I guess. This is NOTATION software we’re talking about, not a DAW. Why does anybody even need all that EFX-bussing capability in a notation program?

How would you know if you’re not going to try it? This is clearly just a matter of you seeing some useless faders on the mixer that are not being used. If it’s that big of a deal, you can learn to force them off the mixer until such time as there is something in the UI that makes it easier to make that ‘choice’ as a user. Personally I just pull the unused faders down to zero and tap the mute button for them…that duality makes it pretty easy to spot the unused stuff and keep track. I just scroll the mixer on by to find what I need. I only have to set it once for composing, and again when I get ready for a more polished ‘mix-down’. In the end, it’s far less ‘mixing headaches’ than I get with Sibelius and Finale.

The reason we need it is because we’ve been stuck in 32bit stereo land for 20 years. It’s 2018…a surround sound 64bit world. The reason we need it is because you can make simple tweaks to a mix that can cut down on listener fatigue when working. You can make cheap instruments sound much better in a final mix without spending a fortune on libraries that are even WAY harder to use than figuring out how to work an EQ and a compressor/limiter, and you can make the expensive library plugins sound as they should by putting them in the proper spacial and acoustic contexts. You can set your mix for whatever your audience uses to listen to your music (cheap ear buds, or 10k surround sound hi-fi systems?).

It’s time to move on. Some things are going to be ‘different’ from what we’ve gotten used to over the past 20+ years.

Workflow issues can be worked out in future versions, but the engine needs to be expansive. Otherwise, what’s the point?

I do agree, it would be nice if we had a little icon or something on the unused faders where we can easily hide them off the mixer. At some point we’ll probably get a ton of flexibility here…as in the ability to move faders into any order you like, etc. It’ll take some time though…and we users have to make those ‘requests’.

Ulf, Derrek and Brian, I take my hat off to you for maintaining cool heads. I’ve written but not posted various responses to this thread, as I just can’t find a healthy way to engage with it.

To the OP: this forum doesn’t seem to have an obvious set of rules, and is, as far as I’m aware, unmoderated. However, it’s frequented by many more users than Steinberg staff, and as such, most people responding to threads are doing so on a voluntary basis. I don’t know whether that might influence the way you post in future, but I thought I’d point it out.

Daniel, if I’m out of line, let me know.

PS, I’m not attacking you personally. I can easily see where the confusion and frustration lay. A ton of unused faders can clutter up the mixer.

I’m just trying to point out why it’s done this way. It is a progression.

Perhaps a good fix for user workflow would be to have a way to easily hide and bring back any unused faders that are in the way on the mixer display. Eventually, it’d also be nice to be able to ‘sort’ the mixer faders into any order a user likes…

We can make those feature requests…it’s just good to understand why things are currently the way the are…the ‘spread’ is a major improvement. We just need some nice workflow tweaks to make it all easier to use.

I see some of your points, given your design goals for surround sound and such (which I don’t care about, but many people do).

But with regard to only one point: there is not one sentence in the Dorico manual (PDF, which I just downloaded) about how to use all these fabulous multi-output features you’re talking about. Or any other mixing. eff-x-ing features it may or may not have. (I checked every instance of the word “mixer,” and in the whole manual, the reader is only told how to display the window).

Or are you talking about what it will do in the future? Even so, you should document what it does now, because I’m not going to buy what it may do someday. All I can do is look at the mixer and wonder what it’s for: a huge window with so many faders they won’t even fit on screen, to do what with? I’m fascinated to know: Why are there MIDI channels on this mixer? Again, the word “MIDI” occurs with great infrequency in your manual, and almost always having to do with MIDI input.

And so on. Do you wonder that I am frustrated after only 3 days of trying this software out? These are honest questions I’m asking you. And I don’t even care that much about your mixer, as long as it stays out of my way.

I want reliable, accurate, very flexible, and very modern notation of my musical ideas. Can you handle nested tuplets, for example? Or having different time signatures on different staves? Can you accurately notate and playback any of Elliot Carter’s String Quartets? I want convenient ways of getting these ideas into and out of the system, which is why I’m concerned about MIDI files and XML. I want what I’ve notated to be exportable to the DAW and other tools I use, and importable from them. With a DAW I can do all the tweaking, mixing, convolution-reverbing, effecting, surround-sounding, and so on that I need. I don’t even expect a notation program to perform these functions, I just want a decent approximation of what the score sounds like, and above all accurate timing. Many of the “instruments” I might use are my own creations, and I wouldn’t expect to notate anything more than their activation and release times anyway.

The above is a minimum description of what one might put into a notation program. Despite my complaining, I’m actually favorably impressed so far with what I’ve seen Dorico do in many departments. I’m not ready to buy just yet though.

And I don’t appreciate condescending messages from people (not you) telling me “it’s time to move on.”
I am going to “move on” out of this thread however. Strictly technical questions are all you’ll be hearing from me from now on. Thank you.

For what it’s worth, I’m not a Dorico Developer. I didn’t pipe in to go off on individual users, or to dispute that the mixer isn’t due for some UI/workflow improvements; but rather to point out the strengths of the Dorico mixing matrix ‘as is’.

I’m a music software user since the mid 1980s. It is not my intent to be ‘condescending’ other than to point out how the Dorico Mixer is a major improvement over the current competition’s mixers. Some extra clutter in the Mixer UI to learn to use, or to work around and ignore, in the short term is a minor inconvenience compared to not having these abilities at all in competing products.

Something as simple as a a little EQ tweak on the mixer, or a dynamic compressor plugin can improve a stave’s sonic quality and realism many times over. It only takes a few minutes of playing and practicing with such a plugin to start to learn why dynamic compression is and has been a major player in audio production since the 1960s. It’s totally optional to use it at all in Dorico, but for the money, you get the ability, out of the box. It’s simply not possible in other Scoring apps without expensive and rather difficult to get set up and working in those environments (they don’t have the mixing matrix to put a dynamic compressor on individual instruments unless you load individual instances for each individual instrument, and even so, it’s a more limited matrix than Dorico’s).

The condescending part is ripping apart without understanding, and demanding instead of asking “How can I make this better fit me?”, or asking, “What are some good work-flows people are using with this app to get maximum results with minimal effort?”, and/or suggesting and giving examples of how to improve the work-flow.

There are plenty of annoying things about all of our current day Scoring apps. Reading the mind of a composer and ‘interpreting’ the stuff he puts down on the page into ‘what he wants to hear’ is a very advanced and difficult thing to do. In a real orchestra it takes hundreds of a people a LIFE TIME to learn to play instruments and interpret symbols from a page into a performance. Even acoustical instruments themselves have seen changes in how they are built and played over the ages, so it stands to reason that ‘emulating’ performances in a digital realm will also involve time, and a heck of a lot of collaboration and communication among musicians and engineers.

There are ten mile long lists of requests for improving the functionality and workflow in all of our present day scoring packages. One of the reasons Dorico exists today is because developers have started butting heads with the brick wall limitations of the protocols and structures of older software and operating systems. CPUs, memory, motherboards, and OSes are designed quite differently today than they were in 1996. In part to do more with less material resources and energy consumption, but also to make better use of every single CPU cycle.

To begin to build the smarter and easier to use features people have been demanding requires some new approaches and some fresh starts. It requires everything the present day premium tracking DAWs offer in term of virtual instrument management and more. For some years yet, most of that is going to require a good deal of direct human intervention, as the AI to have computers learn and perform like people doesn’t exist yet for we, the average consumer. Before any new AI can start to automate more…we need the full blown ‘matrix’ at our finger-tips. Until the software is smart enough to ‘interpret’ things for us, we have to ‘teach the score what we want it to do’.

Mice and keyboards are already slowing us down. Other industries are already moving to voice commands, touch screens, custom user input devices such as motion sensors and wearable gloves, etc. To move music production into the realm of these other possibilities, we need the fresh platform under the hood.

At first we might ‘seem’ to go backwards in some ways until the engine is tested and users get more access to that engine’s capabilities through the UI. In my humble opinion the best way to help developers is to simply offer polite suggestions for simple UI changes or additions on how workflow might be improved.

There is not one single sentence in any of our modern day Scoring Apps on ‘how to play a violin’ either. There’s nothing in there that tells us when to interpret various marks on a page as staccato, martele, or sautellie, or when a passage should be ‘double tonged’, or vibrato applied, and the list goes on. The framework is there to do that stuff, but the manuals say very little if anything about it.

For what it’s worth, each VST plugin included in Dorico has a complete user manual of its own. It should be in the Dorico area as well, but for whatever reasons they have not gotten around to adding it there. So, until then, you can find the plugin documentation in the CuBase Elements documentation set under the Included Plugins section. In addition to these, you also get an advanced “REVerence” Convolution Reverb, and documentation for that can be found here. These plugins are totally optional to use, but you do get them for the price of Dorico, and learning to use them can majorly enhance your composing and mixing experience. Next, consider that if you went out and purchased comparable plugins one by one (I.E. from a company like Waves), to use with Sibelius or Finale, it would easily cost you $400 or more, and they wouldn’t be very easy to integrate in those DAWs. Finale and Sibelius ship with NONE of these plugins or abilities.

As for HALion SE. Documentation is out there for that as well. Right now Dorico Ships with version 2. Documentation for that can be found here. You can also elect to upgrade that to version 3 for free (and it’ll work in your other DAWs provided your Dorico key is on the system). Documentation for HALion SE 3 can be found here. Documentation also exists for the HALion Symphonic Orchestra Library, and that can be found here.

Moreover, something like an EQ or Compressor plugin is something of an instrument in it’s own right. Mixing consoles, and analog variants of the many plugins included in Dorico have been around a very long time, and the Dorico Mixer is very compliant to all of the industry standards for how a mixing console should be laid out and operate (ISO, ANSI, GM, VST, etc…). Dorico’s Mixer is well more ISO/ANSI friendly than anything in Sibeius or Finale. Yep, it could use some improvements, but the existing framework is ISO/ANSI…like pro audio mixing boards have been for decades.

Yes, it is true that there are major gaps in Dorico’s present documentation for a first time user. That will improve, but it’s important to understand that we’re talking about a quick culling of several dozen individual products (or plugins) into a single package. Until we get that improved documentation, simply ask here and people will be glad to help you. You’ll also find this portal very helpful when it comes to finding information on the various plugins:

People with years of experience in Pro Audio instinctively have ideas on how to quickly start using this stuff. We understand it all for the same reasons a trumpet player knows which horn to choose and which mouthpiece to grab for a given piece; or how a string player knows how best to set up his bow for a given style/period/genera of music. For those with less experience in pro audio…that’s OK…learn one new thing at the time, just like everyone else. Your alternative (speaking of people who have never used any kind of DAW or Scoring App…we all started as a newbie with something…) is to do like an old school composer/conductor, get out the wallet, and hire people to do what they do best (typeset and engrave, play instruments and gather/conduct musicians, set up mics, design and sound treat performance rooms, make recordings, etc.).


I believe so.

Not sure…probably. This is the sort of thing where the Dorico team has been placing top priority (playback priority currently lags behind advanced engraving, after all, it’s a scoring app).

Long range, you won’t need to move things to a different tracking DAW anymore unless you need advanced post-production (video/film/gaming) or audio tracking abilities. It’s not there yet, but the ground work is being put into place for complete and comprehensive virtual instrument management/mixing; hence, one of the reasons HALion SE is set up to work in the multi-output 32 channel mode by default in Dorico (technically it’s just a command line that Dorico is using when it calls up HALion SE that instructs it to assign instrument slots to unique stream outputs in channel order, we users cannot change this command line yet since we wouldn’t know all the HALion commands even if we could, but perhaps someday we might be able to get that kind of information about HALion and Dorico. In the meanwhile, you can load fresh HALion instances and force different settings if required to replace whatever Dorico called up by default).

Dorico is presently much better at ‘importing’ XML than it is trying to export it. Look for improvements with every single Dorico release for both importing and exporting, as we have seen several times up to this point. In my experience, anytime I import/export XML into any of my scoring apps (Finale, Sibelius, MuseScore, CuBase Pro, etc.), I end up having to make adjustments. Unfortunately they all lack some things, or simply interpret/implement them differently.

Exporting a raw MIDI peformance to pull into a different DAW is not a problem. It’ll faithfully export what we put into it (including the expressionmap performance events). Hopefully someday they’ll go a step further and support CuBase MIDIloops and things of that nature (so we can not only export the MIDI performance, but also the entire VSTi plugin setup).

Score interpretation abilities for playback is currently fair in Dorico. It uses an expressionmap system that is very similar to that provided in CuBase Score. You can access and manipulate the expressionmap system from inside Dorico himself (unlike Sibelius Soundworld, where you must use a separate editor, reinstall the sound-set, and restart the DAW each time you make a change). There’s plenty of room for improvements here, but you can get the basics as is.

We don’t yet have anything like the MIDi tool in Finale, or the tilde trick in Sibelius to plop custom MIDI events anywhere you want them; however, the play tab is going to grow, and will most likely eventually give us true ‘piano scroll key editor’ like control over the precise entry of note on/off events, as well as methods to introduce expressive controller data. Will there be a cc lane? Or will it be set up something like individual note expression in the CuBase Key MIDI Editor (you can double click a note, and can draw stuff into a dialog that pops up, and it’ll get attached to the note all neatly bundled into a VST3 note expression container)? It’ll be interesting to see what they come up with, and how this Play Tab will grow and evolve to accommodate various methods for expressive controllers.

Currently the play tab looks like this:

This already gives you control over precise note on/off positions for ‘playback’ on the timeline, and it keeps it separate from the proper note quantizations required for the traditional notation. I.E. If you were to slide note on events so they happen a little before the beat, it wouldn’t mess up your notation display on the score. If you look closely, you can see that the fatter bars represent what is being ‘played’ out’ over MIDI in terms of note on/off, while the skinny lines underneath each note bar represent the actual note values/positions on the stave. You can get in there with your mouse and drag the note on/off positions to exactly where you want on the time-line in cases where things don’t automatically work out as you’d prefer.

If you look closely, you can also see a node system by “Playing Techniques”. In some ways this is a little like SoundWorld in Sibelius, in that you can build maps so these nodes send slates of commands to your plugin (Such as CC messages, key switches, program changes, etc.).

So, it’s starting to give you a lot of DAWcentric MIDI editing abilities. It’ll ultimately be far easier to use than the MIDI tool in Finale, or typing in “~cryptic text stuff” in Sibelius.

When it comes to using third party VSTi plugins, you can get most things to work, but at this time you’ll need to manage plugins independently from their own UI through the Dorico Play Tab. I.E. We cannot yet call up sounds in a third party plugin from within’ the Setup tab of Dorico (where we build our flows). We cannot yet change the default slate of sounds (neither for HALion, or for third party plugins) like one can with ‘some’ plugins (ARIA, Kontakt, or a plugin that supports GM Program Changes) in Sibelius. In its current state Dorico is more like Finale in this respect (Score Manager can drive Garritan and Smartsynth instruments, but other stuff you must set up yourself in a plugin’s own UI).

At this time Dorico doesn’t offer groove or style engines, and these are areas that both Sibelius and Finale are pretty good at. The plus side is that timing and smoothness of the sequencing engine is top notch. It feels and sounds much smoother to me than any of the Plogue Engine stuff to date (and I’m a big fan of Plogue’s work on both Sibelius and Finale). More good news is that Dorico does have the framework for a much newer and far more modern/advanced scripting engine (LUA) than our older Scoring packages are using, which should give the Dorico team a major hand up in quickly developing groove engines and other automation or data morphing plugins when the time comes.

Another thing that’s a pretty big deal for many people. Dorico doesn’t yet support playback of repeats, codas, voltas, etc. You can easily draw them on score and they ‘look great’, but there isn’t yet a way to build any sort of arranger chain that will be ‘played back’ (follow repeats, codas, segnos, etc.). So for now, Dorico doesn’t play back repeats and such…

Props to you for taking the time (here and elsewhere) to explain so much about what Dorico can and will likely be able to do.

Yes, props to you for all that explanation, but why isn’t it in your user manual in the first place? Do you really expect your users to just guess what these little details in Dorico’s windows mean?

And I don’t care about “what Dorico can and will likely be able to do.” I want to know what it can do for me now, and I want it explained in voluminous and accurate detail.

Sorry, I said I wasn’t going to add to this thread… couldn’t help it. I do appreciate your explanations. If you put your explanations into your manual(s), you would’t have to answer so many questions from dumb, frustrated people like me.