very slow adding of instruments to players in Setup...

Was just doing this manually to accommodate an orchestral score I’m doing that requires each of 6 woodwind players to do 4 instruments/player and was surprised at how long it too to “add instruments to player”, with very long pauses before the command was carried out in each case (I’m using Note Performer so presume the program also needs to load in the appropriate Note Performer patch). I just thought I’d mention this in case there was any way this could be sped up in the future. Certainly, eliminating the pauses would give me a much greater sense of freedom about trying out different instrumental combinations when starting from scratch. As it stands, it definitely makes it feel much more like a chore (as much as I love the actual concept of players - not instruments, etc., which is amazing).

It might also be nice if there were a way to add multiple players and their respective instruments in one go vs. having to do them all separately and then waiting for that (at present, admittedly pretty interminable) pause each time. For example, saying: “create 1 player with alto flute/Bb clarinet/Bb tenor; another player with alto flute/tenor sax/Bb clarinet; a violin string section, 2 french horn players in F” (etc) all in a single dialogue (like they do in DAW’s) and then have the program add everything at once (I know you have this for certain group combinations, but I’d love to be able to do it with a specific instrumentation in mind)…Just my two cents of course.
Best!

  • D.D.

Do you have 2.1? The snappiness of this functionality was greatly improved in the update.

Me too: https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=246&t=142796&p=768179&hilit=ensemble#p768179

I am on 2.1 and unfortunately it’s still quite slow. I’m using a 2015 Macbook Pro (16 Gigs Ram) with Sierra and the program is otherwise running acceptably fast, so this sort of sticks out.

re: that previous thread - in addition to being able to save manually created instrumental groups (as you’ve suggested they add), what I’m also suggesting (though sorry if this has also already been mentioned) would be a way to create all those groups the first time (that have previously not been created/saved, etc.) in a single go, rather than having to spend an hour (total) clicking on each player, choosing “add instrument to player”, waiting, etc., etc. when putting together a custom orchestral score, as I just did (though it would then, of course, also be nice to save this as a group for the future as well). In other words, it would be great to create an example as I cited above ("“create 1 player with alto flute/Bb clarinet/Bb tenor; another player with alto flute/tenor sax/Bb clarinet; a violin string section, 2 french horn players in F” (etc) all in a single dialogue (like they do in part in some DAW’s) and then have the program add everything all at once…
Best!

  • D.D.

It depends on the size of your project; how many flows there are, and it’s made worse if multiple flows are allowed to start on the same page.

Basically Dorico has to go through each layout and add or remove staves accordingly, and possibly then reflows (casts off again). It should be much quicker at the beginning of the project rather than when the project contains lots of music.

It takes sightly less than 2 seconds from clicking “Add” until the Player shows up in the side-panel, on a 2014 MBP with 16GB RAM. This speed seems consistent as more instruments are added, with as many as 20.

If you are seeing significantly more than this on similar hardware, then perhaps there is some problem with the audio setup or the VST or Sound Library. I’m not using NotePerformer, though. Perhaps someone else could report.

I’m seeing much longer pauses (in a Dorico session containing 2 unedited orchestral flows with not much note data), so perhaps it IS a problem specifically with Note Performer (?) I’d be curious to know if anyone else experienced the same problem.
Best -

  • D.D.

I’m using NP3, and I’m getting similar load times to what Wiggy is describing.

Ben… you were Wiggy on the Finale Forum… assuming that’s still an ok moniker… :laughing:

Very strange then. It felt at times like more like 15 seconds + per change (though maybe I was also impatient) - definitely not just a couple of seconds…

  • D.D.

Just a reminder that number of cores seems to make more of a difference here than either processor speed or RAM. Anybody want to share their specs?

4 cores for me on a Dell Precision laptop. And as you said, it may not matter, but… i7-7700 at 2.8GHz. Solid machine, but nothing special.

4 cores for me on the 15" 2014 MBP. The 13" MBPs for 2014 and 2015 have only 2 cores.

Apropos this thread (https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=246&t=125409#p680296), from last October, I emailed a particularly troublesome file to Daniel. I don’t think he’ll mind me screenshotting his response here (with some irrelevant bits redacted) :

Obviously things have changed since Dorico 1.1. That said, I’ve just done some experimenting (in Dorico 2.1) and my quad-core HP still handles these sorts of actions much quicker than my dual-core Macbook pro

edit: figured out how to get a slightly crisper image.

2 cores on my 2015 Macbook Pro (Core i7) and definitely slower than I’d expect. I’m planning to upgrade whenever Apple finally comes out with those new Mac Pro’s so will I guess have to make due until then. I was previously running Dorico on an 8-core Mac Pro, but it was an Early 2009 model (albeit with 32 gigs of RAM vs. 16 on my Macbook Pro) and I was finding Dorico unusably slow (which was one of the reasons I’ve temporarily switched over to the more recent-vintage MacBook Pro as a stopgap measure)…

  • D.D.

Four cores good! Two cores baaaaaad!

(with apologies to George Orwell)