From Finale to Dorico5 : xml test and issues

Dorico
,
1

Here are some results of testing how to transfer a Finale 27 file to Dorico 5.1 using xml. I do this test on a MacBook Pro using Ventura, 32 Go, i9 .
The piece to transfer is a sting quartet part, using Kontakt 7 with string solo instrument (Stradivarius Violon, Amati Viola and Stradivarius Cello).

  1. The xml file seems well managed in term of graphics in Dorico5

  2. The features of for implementing the articulation in Dorico5, Expression map, offers great possibilities compatible with my Finale implementation.

  3. I tried first to import directly the xml file and to change the instrument and the articulations in Dorico5.
    The process is quite clear, but I faced a lot of strange behaviours in the routing. The violin 2 sometimes appeared in the routing, sometimes not. The articulations are unstable: some working, some working sometimes. As I did not see any logics in the behaviour, so I tried another solution. I tested the following way:

  4. I prepared a complete string quartet “frame” in Dorico5 with the Kontakt7 instruments and the articulations I needed in the Expression Maps, let’s call it “project1”. Then I open the xml (Finale27 file) in another project, “project2”.
    I copy the content of the project2 staffs in the clean Dorico5 project2.

  • In this scenario the routing is better. I see the four instruments and the sounds are well directed to the good tracks.
    -BUT, the articulations are unstable. The Expression Maps seems to work well, but sometimes the same articulation work a fist time and just by inserting another articulation on an other instrument and the previous articulation did not work anymore. I implemented a complete version of the piece which worked quite well, and just by changing a single articulation at the end of the piece and I loosed the articulations of the beginning of the piece.

It seems that the xml import in Dorico generates strange behaviours in the routing and Midi control of Kontakt 7. Does anyone face the same problems ?

2

If you are finding that the playback of the articulations is unstable, that suggests that there is a problem with the way the playback techniques are defined in your expression map.

The common error is that you define multiple playback techniques (e.g. con sord., pizz., legato, col legno) that are all mutually exclusive with each other (the sample library does not provide, for example, “legato+pizz” or “col legno+con sord”), so when Dorico is building up the notion of what playback techniques are required based on the articulations and playing techniques written in the score, it may first encounter, say, “pizz.” and then encounter “legato”, and now it is looking for “pizz.+legato” in the expression map. If it doesn’t find that combination, it will fall back on whatever it thinks the closest match is, and that may end up being the “legato” sound, which is bowed, and not plucked.

The solution to this is to make sure you define appropriate mutual exclusion groups in your expression map, so that Dorico knows that when “legato” is added, “pizz.” (and indeed “col legno” for example) must be removed.

3

OK. Thank you for the explanation. I will check the point.