Integration with Cubase

A little OT for this forum, but do you know whether there are any videos demonstrating the integration of Notion and Studio One? I have Notion 6 but am fairly new to the program. I subscribed to the Notion forum and posted a specific question but got zero feedback so far.

Anyways, back on topic, I mentioned Notion 6 in this forum as an example of how notation and DAW functionality might be integrated. I’m not saying that the Notion / PreSonus approach is the Holy Grail. It is just an example.

And no, I don’t expect that any of the advanced integration with audio playback will be there in version 1. But as long as it is on the radar screen I am more than happy.

In what sense? Do you mean that I don’t know enough about scoring software to know that the Cubase Score Editor is a load of old tripe? Or that I don’t know what I’m talking about in general? Or…?


Perhaps you’d like to explain why in 30 years of using notation software, I’ve never yet come across any professional working at the top level, either in the concert or commercial sector, who uses anything other than SCORE, Sibelius or Finale. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I don’t think you have the experience to know the difference.

What I meant is that you probably don’t know enough about “Cubase Score Editor” to state that “Cubase is not in the same universe as either Sibelius or Final”.

Firstly I precise that we’re talking about “Cubase Score Editor” and not “Cubase”.

The Score Editor in Cubase has always been underestimated and unknown, certainly because it 's not as intuitive as the other two.

As you may know, the Score Editor in Cubase is not a simple editor (like key editor etc …) to make adjustments or to create express scores. It’s a HUGE software, that could very well be a standalone … integrated into Cubase. And this is one of its biggest advantage over the other two.

Why do you think there is a separate user manual for the Score Editor only ?
Maybe the fact that this program is “hidden” in a tab in the Cubase menu could be confusing.

If you’ve had “really” used the Score Editor, you would have certainly known that it is as professional as Finale and Sibelius.

Because Finale and Sibelius are intuitive and best suited for music engravers.
Cubase Score Editor is not intuitive at all, it has a steep learning curve and you really have to be patient to learn it in order to get the results you expect. But only after you master the software that you can judge how professional it is. I write for orchestra and I’ve never faced any limitation.

The main advantage of Cubase Score Editor over other notation programs, once again, is the powerful audio engine in the hood. For a composer who also scores to film, like me, this in invaluable.
That’s why I look forward to a complete integration into Cubase.

Maybe the only problem with the SE is that it hasn’t been updated for a long time, and that’s certainly because of the Dorico project.

You have no evidence here to say that, my dear :wink:

1 Like

Completely agree. With CubScore you have to know exactly what you want, and the result isn’t automatic at all, but you can get it. In my opinion the biggest defect is the spacing algorithm, you have to correct by hand in many cases, but the results can be quite good. Also the three points standard slurs should be often changed with Bezier and there are many other small defects, but the integration with the rest is invaluable.

DG is absolutely correct. DORICO has been conceived and developed to surpass Finale and Sibelius, why would they otherwise offer crossgrade discounts for owners of those programs? And why would Steinberg spend millions on developing a new notation software if they thought “CubScore” was competitive? Personally, I have 30+ years experience as a composer and music engraver, having produced serveral thousands of pages of avant-garde, contemporary art music. I would go so far as to say that at least 30% of the projects I have been involved in could not have been completed in anything but Finale (or SCORE). With Sibelius you would have been forced to employ additional software like Illustrator and Indesign and spend a lot more man hours to get there. We are talking about an area of music notation where commercial and film composers rarely come.

But we may also be talking about an area of music notation for which there is a very limited need. So how to boost sales and attract a much broader user base? Maybe they established this pre-release forum just to find out?

OK, I can see that there is not really any point in continuing this discussion.

DG

Q.E.D.

:wink:

Going back to Notion 6, and the integration of notation software and DAW especially, I have some additional information.

First off, here is a video which explains the current integration of Notion 6, and Studio One.

That looks pretty cool, but if you drill a bit deeper, there are two major things missing:

  1. There is no automatic synchronization of the midi information between the scoring program, and the DAW program.
  2. More importantly, and this is really a deal breaker, while the midi is sent to Studio One, apparently there is no way to control any parameters like dynamics / expression / technique, even with a simple script.

See this discussion on the PreSonus forum:

In summary, this is NOT the direction I would like to see Dorico go … and I’m not even mentioning the clunky way to enter even basic score information into Notion, like entering notes, ties, sharps or flats … setting up a score … you click a note and sometimes you hear something, sometimes not … not to mention the crazy spacing … you can easily enter six quarter notes in a 4/4 score, but you have to manually add the rests. :unamused: Maybe I am spoiled in being used to Sibelius.

I am preaching to the choir, as I am quite sure that Daniel and Paul understand all of this perfectly well, way better than I do probably, and at the risk of repeating myself, here’s what I would really love to see:

  1. A notation program that is easy and intuitive to set up scores, with decent playback. Doesn’t have to be great, just decent. Along with all the other improvements, that will make the day for possibly half of the user base of notation programs today.

  2. For those people that like to use VSTs, a relatively simple way to incorporate their favorite VST, within Dorico, with a simple toolbox. There are dozens of VSTs now and the army is growing daily … no point in trying to provide programming for all those, just give people simple tools.

  3. Somewhere down the road, integration with Cubase or other DAWs.

I’ve no idea what theMaestro thinks “professional” means in that sentence. Obviously it was written by professional programmers - but even then “professional” doesn’t necessarily mean the same as “being paid a salary to do the job”.

I’ve never used it (and I haven’t used Cubase for about 15 years either), but I have looked some of the scores posted by one of the enthusiasts for it (both on this forum and elsewhere).

In terms of “marks out of 10 for the typical quality of output produced by non-professional engravers” I would give Finale about 7 and Sibelius about 5 (and I use both of them every day). Cubase Score Editor? From what I’ve seen, if I was feeling charitable, maybe 1. If I was feeling honest, 0.

Of course, it doesn’t have to produce beautiful engraving to be useful as a feature in Cubase itself - but judging it as a notation program is a different matter altogether.

Rob are you actually using Sibelius 4.1 or is your signature on the Sib forum just not updated?
If it’s 4.1 then surely it’s not a fair comment about its level of output compared to other programs. There have been improvements since then surely you would agree.

Yes. I found the initial marketing materials a bit misleading. They certainly implied a tighter integration than is actually being delivered.

With the Presonus solution, you can do a one-time transfer from StudioOne to Notion, or you can do a one-time transfer from Notion to StudioOne in a fairly seamless way. But from that point onward there is no synchronization, so you really cannot work in most platforms at the same point in the work flow.

In essence, this is just an easier way to export MIDI from the notation program and import it into the DAW. (or vice versa). That’s good, but far from the ultimate goal. I do believe that the Presonus people are aware of the power that will come from a fully integrated solution with real time synchronization and will keep working in that direction. They are supporting MIDI over Rewire, which is nice. The reality is that Notion still has some significant weaknesses. In another year or two, I would not be surprised to see Notion up to a “professional copyist” standard (not as strong as notation in Finale, SIbelius, or Dorico, but adequate for most professional notation jobs) and a tighter integration with StudioOne. If so, that will be the most attractive product for a significant slice of the market if nobody else delivers the DAW integration.

It’s probably to early to say how the integration will be, but since they started from the ground up I can’t imagine that they’ve not thought out a plan of how the two might integrate.

TBH, I don’t see the point of having Dorico inside Cubase or Nuendo; it would add more bloat, development time and increase chances of bugs and instead a symbiotic link between the two would imho be the preferred option.

If there was a bi-directional link where changing a note/item in Cubendo would do the same in Dorico, and vice versa, with a way of assigning instruments and targets inside Cubendo, you’d be there most of the way.
With instantaneous updates between the two, you could run them side by side and have the benefit of both.

The single window design could also mean Dorico could potentially run as a VST3 plug-in inside Cubendo, sharing the audio engine and allowing instant mixdowns from Dorico if wanted.

Well, Ok, Communication is different from Integration. There is Xml, obviously, rewire, or more efficient communications, but Integrations is another thing.

Obviously it’s a very long way, that can or cannot be followed to reach the end.

For me it’s just a hope for now :wink:

Cubendo - LOL

What would be the point? Both programs ultimately serve different needs and reach different markets. If Steinberg are smart (and I think they are), they’ll add to and emphasise those differences rather prioritise bridging the gap between them.

There definitely can be a need for the two programs to link up seamlessly but I’m guessing that more often than not, there won’t be. Most Cubase users won’t require their work notated professionally and most Dorico users will probably be happy enough with the audio / midi editing capabilities that Dorico provides. But there are always awkward sods (I’m one), and for those Cubase users who would like to print out high standard scores of their work with a minimum of fuss and bother, and for those Dorico users who would like to polish up their work professionally (and potentially see the results reflected back in their score), I can see a definite need for well worked links between the two programs.

An interesting angle would be to bring entry-level (lite) aspects of one program into the other. I’m fully expecting to recognise a fair bit of Cubase’s approach if not the actual processes in Dorico’s articulations and editing capabilities. Hope so as learning another set of skills wouldn’t exactly thrill me. And I would be astonished if Steinberg haven’t considered a cut down version of Dorico as Cubase’s score editor at some point in the future. A taster of both is a good way to show users the range that Steinberg programs cover and a good way to sell more copies…


Just a quick note to Daniel and the team wishing them well as the home straight beckons. I’d imagine the pizza delivery boy is wearing a hole in the carpet…

Well David, I think there are quite a few of us who say that was the state of play in 1995, but in today’s world there are many people who need to have their feet in both worlds (notation and production). And the point of integration is to get to the final product more quickly and face less rigid constraints throughout the creative process.

Personally, my inspiration comes when how the work SOUNDS. I am not terribly effective just looking at a bunch of notes on a screen. I need to HEAR the work taking shape. And when I have it to a certain point, I want to share that with others in the most polished form I can spare the time to produce.

In the niche where I work most often (big band jazz) it has become almost universal that any arrangement will either have a live recording by a professional band or else a very realistic-sounding computer rendering. In 100% of those later cases, it is necessary to move into the DAW realm. The notation programs can only get you 40% there in the best case. And lacking the integration discussed above, the work flow necessarily involves entirely completing the composition job, then moving everything over to the DAW for production. I would much rather work on both planes simultaneously.

This will happen. Presonus is onto this path now and I believe they understand the power that comes from the next level of integration. I would hope that Yamaha/Steinberg, of all companies, would also recognize this. My frame of reference is composition in the notation program. Many people have exactly the opposite work flow. That is, if the composer is most effective composing within the DAW, there are many cases where the end product must include professionally notated scores. For these folks, it is an exact mirror image of my work flow, with the same integration needs.

I agree with cparmerlee.

May be that persons who sit in front of Nuendo and Dorico are different musicians with different needs, even if Nuendo, with NEK, has Score. But in front of Cubase and Dorico there are often the same guys! Film composers, teachers, conductors, players; in a word musicians. In front of them, music is what needs to be. Not always obviously, but quite often.

I could not agree more with these last two posts. The world of music composition and production is changing very quickly and the lines between different disciplines in the industry are blurring. However I am sure Daniel and his team realize this, which is part of their motivation for starting an app like Dorico from the ground up; to cater for 21st Century needs. It’s not easy, but be patient folks and have faith. Call me an optimist, but I am convinced this application, given time, will mark a turning point in the history of modern music composition and arrangement. :smiling_imp:

Since decades I am one of those who produce music in Cubase and afterwords creates scores in Finale.
The best integration for this particular task has always been for me a small but very usefull function of Cubase Score editor: “Scores Notes to MIDI”

Anyone who has used the Cubase Score Editor will know how easy and fast it is, without editing a single midi note, to get a notation friendly look in the score editor (of course I am only talking about the notes quantizing).
You just have to tweak a little the Display Quantize settings and the Interpretation Options to very fast get an accurate Notation. After doing this a simple click calling the function “Scores Notes to MIDI” transform the notes so that when they are imported into Finale they look exactly the same as in Cubase.
Very important is that you can do this for a whole track but also for a part only.
So this function is usefull even if you have very different notes resolution within a track.
It has always been the best and fastest way for me to export my work from Cubase to Finale.
I must say that at each new Cubase update I pray that the developpers do not ommit this little but very usefull feature :wink:

I am aware that producing music first and then creating scores may not be the usual way for all composers, but I am sure many have to work this way.
So the possible integration of Dorico with Cubase is surely important to a lot of Musicians/Composers.

The kind of integration I would really love to see between both programs is a similarity for doing the same tasks.
For example the navigation functions through a score as well as the ability to reach a particular bar should be IMHO the same or at least as good as in Cubase.
I really love the transport bar in Cubase!
I find the concept of the left and right locators separated from the position locator very efficient.
I really appreciate how fast you can program the locators and how fast you can use them.
Also the fact that you can reach every bar without touching the mouse is an essential feature for me.
I really hate the way one has to navigate in Finale (as well as in some other Daws that I sometimes have to use!)

There is also a function that I love in Cubase Score: the easiness to select notes!
You can simply draw a rectangle on the screen and each note in this rectangle will be selected even if they are in different staffs or in distant bars!
Try to do this in Finale! It’s impossible.
And I can assure you that there can be a lot of situations where this is very usefull.

It already seems as if Midi Editing in Dorico will have great similarities to Midi Editing in Cubase.
I hope it will be as great as in the Cubase List Editor.

Please see–I hope this helps:

Re: Transport toolbar

Postby Paul Walmsley » Thu Sep 01, 2016 12:56 pm

We have several playback functions already:

  • play from the current position (the ‘play head’),
  • play from the selection,
  • play from the last place you started playback from,
  • play from the start of the current flow and
  • play from the start of the score

Hopefully that should give you a few options…



Re: Transport toolbar

Postby PaulWalmsley » Sat Sep 03, 2016 6:37 pm

In the main toolbar we have just one button for playback. I think the default behaviour is that it plays from the current playhead position. This is consistent with behaviour in most DAWs. In the separate transport window there are space for more buttons and we have two playback controls on there, however I can’t remember which functions we assigned to them. However you can bind keyboard shortcuts to any of these functions.

Thanks.
I am aware of this thread but I did not see anything mentioning Locators.