I shouldn’t let this worry you. Most apps are under Rosetta are still faster than on the latest comparable Intel, and you’ll still get all the other advantages of the new machines. Apple has pulled lots of tricks on the hardware and software to make the ‘emulation’ as easy as possible. It’s not like PPC → Intel, where the architectures were radically at odds with each other (e.g. different Endian-ness).
It’s likely that M1 Pro Minis (or M2!) will be released ‘early’ in the new year: but then all the rumours pointed to the new MBPs coming out in August, and they’re still only just rolling out.
Apologies for diversion. Back on topic: I guess the real question with things like Iconica, BBCSO, VSL, etc, is “Are they £750 better than the £150 alternatives?” And that’s a very subjective thing.
hola intervengo por primera vez en este tema y solo podria decir que despues de haber gastado miles de € en diferentes bibliotecas ,yo que escribo para Bandas en la comunidad Valenciana tengo que decir que estoy super satisfecho con lo que me da NotePerformer sobre todo pk he estado intentando crear una plantilla con bbc ,saxos de vsl,session de native inastrument ,algunos intrumentos de Iconica y no se cuantas librerias mas y el resultado final no me ofrece mucho mas que el Note .
No me compensa el tiempo de carga de las muestras y la respuesta de las diferentes articulaciones que tengo que organizar es las distintas librerias ,en NOte lo tengo rapido sencillo y no pierdo tiempo organizando los expresions maps.
La satisfaccion total seria un paso adelante en las librerias con solo un poco mas de calidad en el sonido me haria muy feliz.
Como ha dicho @dan_kreider , por lo visto hay una versión 4 en camino. ¡Veremos lo que nos trae! Por mi parte, mis clientes están muy satisfechos con el resultado, y para mí es 0 trabajo.
However - I am now wondering (actually, hoping!) if some of his process can be applied to any library on the template level in a different way than I’m used to.
For example, I use several libraries, and my process has always been focused on volume balancing, panning and EQ in order to get the blending right and to get it to sound like one entity.
But if I use his approach, maybe I should make a template that imitates a specific recording instead? On my CDs the differences are genuinely huge - the panning, proximity, timber and reverb in Boston/Nelsons/Bruckner sounds like a different planet to LSO/Previn/Tchaikovsky. And I am probably so used to some genre-sound combinations, I’m expecting my template to sound a certain way when composing and always get disappointed.
I have never thought about it like that and would love to know if anyone tried this before and if there’s any merit to it. Thank you so much for posting this video!
I knew that it had to be more involved than simply entering the notes into a notation program, and then hitting the play button – which is allegedly all one needs to do, to hear people talk effusively about NotePerformer around here.
I recently compared Spitfire Symphony Orchestra’s playback of an excerpt of one of my own compositions to NotePerformer’s playback of the same. (The two samples represent playback from within Dorico. There is no amount of post-production.) Perhaps the (almost painfully unlistenable) NotePerformer version can be significantly improved, but anyone who cares to try will have a difficult time convincing me that the NotePeformer version can be made to measure up to Spitfire’s quality just by adjusting NP’s meager collection of sliders and knobs.
My suspicion is that the creator of the video wanted the NotePerformer output to shine, so he put major effort into achieving that objective. This, I’ve argued, is an unavoidable necessity for anyone who really cares about the quality of computerized playback. Personally, I prefer to put in the work on the VST side, instead of adjusting the score itself or effecting lots of tweaks in post. Perhaps the biggest advantage of this approach is that the score sounds great while I’m writing it, right from within Dorico.
The demos I did of my 1st and 2nd symphonies were absolutely outstanding with NotePerformer3.
I did no tweaking at all. The recordings are drawn directly from the Finale file which I sent to the printers.
I didn’t compose anything terribly avant-garde (actually, not at all), but using Finale and NP3 didn’t stop me from writing what I wanted, either.
It takes me a LONG time to write a piece of music. I’m a finicky perfectionist, and the score has to look right as well.
I simply don’t have the hours and hours required to sit and play with tweaking the recording of one of my pieces in a DAW.
I want it to sound as close to lifelike directly from the engraving software.
I rather take offense at those who refer to someone not wanting to waste time on tweaking a recording file with ultra-expensive libraries as being “lazy”.
I simply don’t have time for that kind of additional work on a piece that can be as long as a half hour already.
< nod > I reckon this is the case with most users of Dorico. Fortunately, it’s possible to achieve a very good (not production level, but still pretty realistic) sound with real-time playback in Dorico. It does take some initial work to get your personal digital orchestra sounding the way you want it to sound, though; I don’t know of any high-quality real-time playback experience that comes readymade. I’ve spent a lot of time working on my own VSTs, and I’ve gotten to the point where I can usually just compose without feeling any significant urge to tweak them further.
So would I, although I think you’re the first person here to use that adjective.
I don’t think that anyone here has slighted composers who are satisfied with NotePerformer. (I could be mistaken, I admit.) I don’t get paid to write music, myself, so I have the luxury of having only myself to please. Other folks have deadlines to meet, and from what I can tell, NP is tops in the “out-of-the-box” category. (Heck, if I had external expectations to satisfy, I might be using it, too.)
perhaps you would care to post a link to them – I mean quite apart from the question of NotePerformer, there is far too little original music posted here.
If anyone is interested this is a short excerpt from Vivaldi Concerto in G “Alla Rustica” I used Embertone Intimate Strings. Note performer could be my next purchase, although personally I find that if you have patience a library with high quality samples still gives better results, certainly the same concept of Note performer applied to higher quality sounds could really be a revolution.
thank you for the enlighment,
ok for the topic i guess, each library has it’s own workflow … such as CSS which clearly states that
“CSS isn’t designed to work with notation software such as Sibelius, Finale or Dorico, etc, and we cannot provide assistance if attempting to use CSS with these programs. The library relies on an intricate keyswitching and expression system which notation programs often don’t support. There are some 3rd party programs which aim to make Kontakt libraries compatible with notation, but we do not officially endorse these efforts.” while Dorico is clearly have that “DAW ability” but still has it’s own limitation, so does the library itself.
I’ve tried your dorico file Mozart – Eine kleine Nachtmusik NotePerformer.dorico on my MacBook Pro, really NotePerformer is the winner! If we could a bit adjust the ADSR parameters for every note it’d be great, Equalization too. Sinon, C’est top de top NP. Thanks for sharing the file by the way.
Both of the following files were made in Finale, mind you, not Dorico (I hadn’t started the migration process yet). For now I only have two pieces engraved in Dorico: a violin concerto, and a string quartet (string music, and solo on top of that… not the best choice for hearing NP3 at its best. I have yet to hear any library that really sounds all that convincing in the solo strings department… maybe the old XSample Chamber Ensemble?)
Here’s the Scherzo from my 1st symphony (it starts with an extended flute solo):
Noteperformer is in its element here. Both interesting pieces but I think the 2nd says more in less time – an impressive piece of concentrated writing. You’ll need your shopping trolley for solo strings, though. I did my best to try them out in a couple of my quartets and sometimes in scherzo’s (again often NP’s strongest point) they do just about convince but I’d go for VSL solo strings unless the somewhat bright edgy sounds puts you off. All the articulations are there and more. A smoother and darker alternative comes from the masters of legato, Cinematic Studio. I use both, depending on the nature of the work.
Personally, I couldn’t care less which notation software was used although of course, like most on the forum, I prefer Dorico. My migration process from Sibelius is, after around two years, only about a third of the way through!
