You are absolutely right notator 
What I wanted to express wasnāt a comparison, but the fact that MIDI does its (limited) job, while Xml is something that doesnāt work as soon as the score is a bit complicatedā¦ 
The way I see this work, is pretty straightforward. By default Dorico has a standard set of instructions that translate anything you notate, into midi information. So forte might have a velocity of say 104. With the built-in virtual instruments that come with Dorico (Halion) the playback will be ok for most people. Dorico also has a built in āmini-midi editorā allowing you to manually tweak the velocity, bringing it back down or up to whatever you want it to be, without changing the notation part. Then, if you change the forte back to piano, the velocity would automatically be lowered to say 30 (or, alternatively, once you manually tweaked the velocity, you could have a user preference to leave it at whatever level you manually tweaked it to).
Using something similar to Cubaseās expression map you can also create a similar set of instructions for VSTs other than Halion, for example, if the note velocity is triggered not by velocity but by mod wheel. If you write forte in the score that will then trigger mod wheel midi information which, again, you can manually tweak as you deem fit.
And that goes for everything, from note duration to expression, technique (switching from arco to pizzicato and back), and so on.
This would be happening inside of Dorico. The ability to individually tweak note midi information is important if you want to create something that sounds human; yes it will be an opinion of the user, thatās the whole point.
I have no real ideas about how all this is going to work with Cubase; in theory it could be pretty similar but I have no idea how to send over midi information automatically such that the two programs are synchronized. In my view, if the ability to tweak notes in Dorico is pretty straightforward and user friendly, you can 90% of the work done in Dorico, without even having to go to Cubase. I am talking about a āclassicā notation based score (symphonic, film score, jazz or band etc.). If you going wild with all kinds of synths etc. obviously it makes more sense to do that in a sequencing program like Cubase or something else.
I do hope that anyone from Danielās team reading this thread is not thinking that the only integration people are going to want between Nuendo/Cubase and Dorico will be in the direction of Dorico >>> to Cubase (for making the audio more realistic etc) - in my own case the integration in the reverse direction will be equally, if not more, important
Best wishes to everyone (not long to wait now 
)
Mike
Iām pretty sure that Daniel and his team are keeping a keen eye on everything that is posted here (in fact, that is what Daniel confirmed in his video interview with Sonicstate, which was posted today; see link below).
For me, the most important thing is NOT the workflow from Dorico to Cubase, or vice versa, but rather how easy and user intuitive it is to manipulate playback within Dorico itself. The ability to have fairly basic expression mapping, and tweaking the midi notes in the āplaybackā mode, would go a very long way.
I have also always wanted a single software that handles the whole dealā¦Notation, Audio Playback and Film Integration. Actually, I donāt think it will be a big deal for Danielās team to integrate Cubase to Dorico. Dorico will already contain the biggest deal of Cubaseā¦THE AUDIO ENGINE! All that is needed is the ātypeā of integrationā¦or āwhat is needed from Cubaseā to be integrated for scoring requirements; eg. drawing volume, envelopes, velocities, panning etc. Dorico donāt need instrument setup as is done in Cubase. Dorico will already handle that so THAT integration of Cubase is NOT required.
My point is, we donāt need CUBASE in Doricoā¦but most of Cubaseās FUNCTIONALITY, which is already available in Doricoās AUDIO ENGINE. Dorico (and other notation software) IS a DAWā¦it just does not LOOK and FULLY DEVELOPED like one. Each instrument stave is actually a trackā¦with a lot of DAW functionality already built into each stave (track), like channel, panning, volume etc assignments. In a DAW, we see tracks, on which curves and audio manipulation can be done. The SAME is true for notation software. Instead of tracks, we see staves. now, Notion and StaffPad already āintegratedā more DAW functionality into THEIR software. One can draw curves and adjust many properties etc. So when Steinberg developed Dorico until they are satisfied with it, they just need to go back, and tap into the engine and create the visual elements for us to work with it. WHAT WE SEE, is the only real difference between a DAW and Notation Software. BOTH can manipulate MIDI Data (to different extents allowed by the developers), but we see tracks in a DAW and Staves in Notation Software. Iām convinced that Dorico can already do everything Cubase can. Maybe what you want is a āmodeāā¦instead of looking at staves, you click a button, and the staves turn into a ātrack viewā.
Thanks for the link. It looks as if Dorico is indeed going to have some pretty fancy MIDI capabilities of its own, so many Dorico users are not going need Cubase at all. Similarly, there are going to be Cubase users who donāt need Dorico because they are quite happy with Cubaseās less sophisticated score editing capabilities. Thatās all as it should be, of course ā but not really what this thread is all about.
It would be nice if users who want to use Cubase from Dorico could unload Doricoās less sophisticated MIDI module, and those who want to use Dorico from Cubase could unload Cubaseās less sophisticated score-editing facilities.
In general: Users should be enabled to tailor both programs to their own needs. Thereās no point in loading any MIDI-editing capabilities at all if you are not going to use them.
There are two approaches to this:
- Internal: Dorico could load a (Cubase) plugin. Cubase could load a (Dorico) plugin.
and/or - External: Dorico and Cubase could agree on a common file format.
In both cases, the (plugin or file) interface needs to include interconnected spatial (graphical) and temporal (MIDI) information.
We now know that its best to program to such interfaces when they have become well established public standards.
For Steinberg and other software firms, that means higher quality software (ideally, expertees from the whole industry has been involved in creating the standard) and reduced costs because expensive reprogramming becomes much less likely.
For users, it means that they can build on their own experience using third party software (as that software implements the standard). Which in turn means steady growth and improving software in the industry as a whole.
All the best,
James
My point is I need Dorico in Cubase, when it will demonstrate its superiority respect to CubScore, obviouslyā¦ 
What are you talking about ?
With all due respect, you should learn more about this software, your knowledge about it, like many others here and elsewhere, seems to be limited. Please begin by reading the previous pages of this thread (especially page 3), maybe youāll realize that the term you used is not appropriate !
Sure, they should integrate Cubase into Dorico ! It should be fine 
Seriously I guess that in the future there would be a standalone version with minimum/sufficient audio functionality for engravers and basic users who donāt need realistic playback, and an integrated version inside Cubase/Nuendo for advanced users who will USE the audio output coming from the DAW, as Peter explained so well in the previous page.
Iām sure Daniel and his team keep an eye on every post in this forum.
I suppose If he doesnāt jump in this discussion is because their only concern for now is to get the first release right, the integration being far from taking place.
No need to find compromises, at least between Dorico and Cubase, with your nĀ°2.
I think the fact that the former Sibelius team being part of Steinberg is a great opportunity for them to benefit from the best DAW features to have great audio capabilities for the standalone version. And vice versa, this is a great chance for Steinberg to have the best scoring program to compete with the standards, and when it will be integrated into the DAW it will probably be no possible competition !
So your first approach is the most plausible for me, with Dorico loading as a plugin in Cubase/Nuendo.
Absolutely.
1 Like
I guess that all depends on what āthe whole dealā is. Certainly if one program can do everything I want to accomplish, then I have no interest in linking 2 programs. But letās be clear. Todayās DAWs do a lot more than just providing a way to drive VSTiās. There are all sorts of techniques you can apply in the DAW that simply are not available in any notation program today. A good example is in the area of bus routing. I always use 2 reverb buses to manage the impression of blend and space. Some people use as many as 5.
I often will use a side-chain compressor to enable a vocal (or other solo instrument) to āduckā the other material.
And all the DAWs enable automation of the volume and any other control on the various synths and effects.
If all of that were in the notation program, then sure, one program would do the job.
Yes. And audio editing, ālogicalā editing of midi, track arrange functions etc etc etc - itās a very long list (Iām in Nuendo). Just integration between the two apps will do me fine
ā¦ then, there are the visionaries like Lawrence and yourself, who, as they see the possibilities, will make the appropriate feature requests.
Part of the problem is that this isnāt really a āfeatureā. It is a new phase, just as sequencers took on the ability to handle audio streams, giving rise to the DAW world. Who would ever consider going back to a sequencer?
There were plenty of people who complained about the move from command line operating systems to GUIs. It is the case that once the new environment is reliable and people have the chance to experience it, they would never consider going back. But it isnāt so easy to get people to look forward.
I wouldnāt want to go back to a world that didnāt include the kind of harmonies that Ellington explored (or Grieg for that matter). But there was a period of over 200 years where nobody could get their heads around that. That was ironic because JS Bach was already doing much of that, but people didnāt seem to understand. All they heard was the fugue motion, not the incredible harmonies that Bach slipped into those fugues. It took the romantics to see the way.
And so on with our favorite analogies about progress. The thing about progress is that the majority is always against it. If they werenāt, then progress would just happen on its own, and it always takes inspired leaders.
My purpose here is to not to criticize Steinberg, but to point out what a special opportunity they have to take a big leap that most others canāt understand yet. I certainly donāt expect much of this in the first release or two. But I think it would be very smart for them to evolve their architectural vision in this direction.
+1
+1. Apropos architecture:
Having a common file format would not just be a compromise. It opens the door for other applications. Browsers in particular. Scores that can be played interactively on the webā¦
Edit: Iām also not wanting to criticize Steinberg, but I would like them to embrace the idea of programming to open standards. To be very clear:
Programming to open standards increases the uses that can be made of music notation, and therefore increases the number of people who need its authoring tools. That means increased sales.
Part of the ānew phaseā is that we have finally left the paper (ādesktop publishingā) paradigm for music notation.
Writing music on glass changes the ball game completely.
All the best,
James
+1
Well said
Hi cparmerleeā¦you have not read my post properly. I mentioned 2 Notators (StaffPad and Notion), who can already perform quite a few DAW features. NOTION 5, eg, DOES support bus features, instruments as well as effects that can be routed through busses.
Like I said, Software Companies such as MakeMusic, AVID, STEINBERG etc only need to tap into their respective audio engines, design the appropriate visual elements for us to manipulate and VOILA!.
I agree with Peter Roos. He said the same thingā¦just from another angle. We CAN have only ONE software, but switched into 2 different modesā¦ORā¦ORā¦make use of layering, like StaffPad and Notion 5 does. Each stave has an invisible āDAWā layer and by clicking a button, the layer becomes visible and you can do your DAW-stuff on that layer.
Regarding BUSSES, PANNING, CHANNEL ASSIGNMENTS etcā¦that can be handled by the MIXER.
I tell you again, Dorico already has maybe 100% DAW capability (because Dorico uses Cubaseās Audio Engine) and all that is needed is some attention from the developerās side as soon as they are ready. Dorico does not have to LOOK like Cubaseā¦it is a notator after allā¦NO, we look at staves and all of itās musical visual elements. All that is needed is turning a stave into the APPEARANCE of a DAW track, and dim out the other tracksā¦opening a new mode with itās DAW windows and toolbars. The STAVE turns into a TRACK VIEW (like in Cubase). Then you can edit THAT STAVE/TRACK. Exiting this mode turns Dorico into NOTATOR MODE again.
I tell you, Daniel and his boys CAN do thisā¦much easier than you think. But when the time is right. Other stuff must be done first. Daniel and his team is going to surprise us stillā¦I have this gut feeling. Dorico is like a motherboard with LOTS of empty PCI slots. The PC can operate without those PCI cards but can even better when cards are added to those slots. They are creating Dorico the same way. As time goes by, Steinberg will create those Dynamic Link Libraries (DLLās) (Plug-Ins as Peter Roos suggested) and APIās and fill those slots that access the Audio Engine of Cubase.
So, we do NOT need Dorico to LOOK like Cubase, we need a Cubase LAYER/MODE that manipulate each stave (which is actually a track).
Here are a few examples:
OVERTURE 5: (Scroll a bit down and look): Overture ā Sonic Scores
NOTION 6: (Read about itās DAW features) Notion | PreSonus
StaffPad: (Read the āExpress Yourselfā section a bit down the page) https://www.staffpad.net/
As you can see, software companies are already creating Notator-Daw hybrids!!
Iām convinced Daniel and his team have even BETTER things planned. I know there were talks about Daniel and David (StaffPad) talking about possible teaming up to somethingā¦Iām not sure exactly.
I guessā¦we have to wait and seeā¦
Exciting possibilities!
Dorico is the name of an Editor of the past. So the program must become better than Finale for engraving scores. But also playing is important, and this is the Sibeliusā field, as Robby tells us; but for this task there is Cubase (or Nuendo).
Exactly for this reason integration is important and once reached will determine the best tool in the market.
No competitors.
Agreed, though, I think Notionās playback is superior to that of Sibelius.
Yes Hans, may be, but in my opinion the win factor resides in an engraving superior quality (if a decent integration with Cubase is reached)ā¦