The instrument type concept is useful to a certain degree, i.e. when using orchestral instruments in a strictly classical context. As long as you don´t try to achieve more or less “unusual” things, it´s quite helpful.
With modern electronic instruments, with i.e. different tunings as usual, the list of instrument types covering all variations becomes huge (it already is, to be honest…).
I´d prefer a system, where I can freely edit the staff settings in every aspect, most importantly transposing to the right octave, guitar/bass tuning for TABs, clefs, and freely editing brackets.
Perhaps a “unspecific” intrument type, with user settings, could be the solution?
3 Likes
@r.u.sirius I’m afraid what you describe doesn’t lie in the scope of the Score Editor for Cubase.
(I assume you meant to reply here: Brackets and Braces - #3 by StefanFuhrmann? I can move your reply to that thread if you prefer).
I wasn´t sure where to reply, it matters for both topics somehow.
Sorry for my rant, here it comes:
I already changed my workflow to a high degree because of the new score editor. I use it for composing arranging and scoring all the time, since the 90s. But now with the new score editor I constantly run into limitations, that did not exist in the old score editor. What I miss the most is the way I could instantly change the layout of the score or parts of the score, to see what I need to see, to arrange certain parts. I.e. I was able to display a specified number of bars per line, I was able to move staffs, so that I could see more on one page. Situations where I didn´t go for the best look, but the best overview.
Now Cubase pretents to know better, how things should look, how certain instruments should be displayed, how long notes and rests should be displayed, and I have far less possibilities to edit things my way.
Same for the guitar tunings and brakets (from the other topic), too.
I´m now at a point, where I have to open the key editor with the score editor most of the time , and additionally have to use Guitar Pro on a third monitor. It´s time consuming and all in all inconvenient.
Still very disappointed how things took a turn with the new score editor, and judging from the way you defend the change and what is and what is not to be expected in the future, my hope is quite low.
Sorry again, rant over.
2 Likes
I’ve moved this out to a new thread, because it’s really a separate topic, which you’ve commented on several times before.
There isn’t much I can add to the discussion though. We can’t and won’t add tools to manually edit every aspect in the Score. That’s what Dorico is best suited for. We will certain evaluate workflows and improve the existing tools, and expand where required. The main focus will remain on having an editor that allows for immediately usable notation.
yes I know, so from now on the score editor is no longer a well equipped arranging and composing tool. This is a huge loss of functionality. No other DAW could keep up with Cubase in this area.
Not the most clever move in my humble opinion…
1 Like
I’m sorry it doesn’t suit your personal workflow as well as it did previously. We have got a lot of happy users, so on balance I feel we are moving in the right direction.
However, I need to remind you of our forum rules. As I’ve done so before, I must ask you to remain respectful, which also covers your last sentence in your post above.
2 Likes
I agree.
Cubase was unique with its old editor. It was the only major DAW with a very good, highly customizable notation function.
And that’s not the same with a dedicated notation program like Dorico, because those solutions lack good and complex DAW functionality.
I have to say, the latest version of the new Score Editor is applicable to my work.
But my opinion is that one shouldn’t rely so heavily on simulated intelligence (rules), but rather offer more flexible, customizable features for power users, because the representation of musical notation has many exceptions and specialties.
But I know that this opinion is unfortunately not popular among the Steinberg team.
I’m in the same camp as r.u.sirius. However, I’ve come to terms with the facts that I could go back to 13, stick with 14 or move onto Dorico. None of which truly assists in the work flow I use and require.
So…
I use 14 for new work, recording audio etc.
I use 13 for older works to get the midi files from them and place them in Dorico.
Problems…
Fussy way of doing things to get the results I need.
13 allows me to keep lyrics, already inserted from previous times and Dorico appears to accept the files, creating the correct (for the most part) scoring etc.
For some reason, I can get a discount for Dorico if I cross from Sibelius but not if I come from Cubase. That seems to be wrong from my point of view. For, if indeed Steinberg are hoping for Cubase users to move to Dorico for scoring, then encouraging that would be good business.
As it stands, the score edit on 14 is Dorico Lite as far as I’m concerned.
Plusses…
Dorico is powerful for a score
C14 is powerful as a DAW
All the best
Jonathan
1 Like
I assume that Dorico Elements would be more than enough for most people who used the old Cubase Score Editor.