Finale 2008 vs Sibelius 5
sheets
horrified that the playback is terrible. I'm not talking about the
quality of the sounds. I'm talking about the accuracy of the rhythms.
For example, quarter note triplets are off as well as 16th note
triplets. The 1/4 note triplets are just off but when I had a group of
3 16th note triplets and 2 16th notes, the playback actually slows
down. I'm not sure what it was doing but it was as if the tempo
dropped in 1/2 during the execution of the 16th note triplets and then
speeds back up afterwards.
For a release where the playback features are paramount, this is
incredible how bad it is.
On the other hand, I downloaded the trial version of sibelious 5 and
was very impressed with it. I exported the same file that wouldn't
play properly in Finale 2008 and imported it into Sibelious and it
played it back with no issues.
Bill Ribas
Sibelius, but after looking at pricing, I figure, what's the point? I don't
have the cash to upgrade either my Finale 2005, or do the competitive
switch. ah well. thanks for the update though.
"sheets" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194444522.1...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
sheets
> well, that's good to know about Finale at least. I'd like to try the
> Sibelius, but after looking at pricing, I figure, what's the point? I don't
> have the cash to upgrade either my Finale 2005, or do the competitive
> switch. ah well. thanks for the update though.
You can get the competitive upgrade for $99 from sweetwater.
Bill Ribas
like software GAS now . . .
"sheets" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194447280.2...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
sheets
> holy moly. that is cheap. does it import the finale docs okay? sheesh, it's
> like software GAS now . . .
I tried it on a few files. What you have to do is save the file as a
musicxml file and then import it into finale. It seems to work very
well but it imports the chord symbols as text into the finale
document. The # and b get converted properly but you can't edit the
chord with sib's chord editor. It's no big deal to simply delete if
and add your own though.
Bill Ribas
RickH®
The calculation of deltaTime appears to be weird for triplets when it
generates it's own internal midi file from the notation for playback.
I noticed that each notation program outh there does tuplets of 3, 4,
5, n... etc a little differently; some simply divide the total beat
length milliseconds by the number of notes in the tuplet then assign
deltaTime values evenly to all the NoteOn event messages in the
tuplet; others have algorithms to weight the duration of the notes in
the tuplet differently so they sound more "human". Some programs give
you a pop up dialog so that you can assign default weighting to the
notes in the tuplets yourself. I was always taught that good sounding
tuplets do not weight evenly, so when you do hear an evenly weighted
one it sounds very mechanical.
I'm killing time writing a little midi program right now (for hobby
purposes) so struggling with this now too.
If you save a midi file from Finale, then play it in VanBasco it will
probably have the same ugly weighting, (unless Finale uses a different
algorithm in preview as opposed to saveas). Maybe they use a lousy
but fast "divide by n" algorithm in preview, then use the good one for
SaveAs midi. VanBasco does not change any deltaTimes in your file.
chickenhead
Finale 2005 to Sib 5.
I've pretty much given up on the whole playback aspect of scoring/engraving
programs. I really don't care about the playback and would rather see them
focus on ease of use and flexibility for engraving/scoring. It's a little
annoying to me how Finale has dumped so much of their resources into the
playback aspect of the program instead of making it easier to use and less
cumbersome -- and playback still sucks compared to any decent MIDI editor.
What a waste.
I'd rather just dispense with playback entirely and simply have what I want
where I want it graphically. If I want to hear it back, there are better
ways, like, for example, reading (gasp!) the freakin' notes. Having a
scoring program play back your score is a bit like having a word processor
that reads your text back to you: It's just not an important feature
compared to most everything else.
Designing an engraving/scoring program around playback makes about as much
sense as building a word processor around it's ability to read text out
loud. Maybe even less sense. I wish they'd just stop with that and move
on.
"Bill Ribas" <thisis...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:JumYi.20296$ya1....@news02.roc.ny...
enamon
ok, but you had no control over the measures per line setting, which
was very annoying.
I updated to "finale printmusic" for $89 (from notepad) and it handles
most things perfectly, it also has swing playback but this is still
quite poor compared to my old sib and encore (both now on my old
pc.....sib was best).
I am very happy however with finale printmusic at the moment, and it
seems a good alternative to spending a lot of money.
It seems to do quite a lot in terms of layout , but as you say
playback is poor!
As far as playing of files , it will play ALL old files (it also seems
to offer an import encore/rhapsody/midiscan and smartscore) but a
finale 2008 file will not play on say finale 2007 or older.
paul
and it supports VSTs, so you can use your own midi instruments if you
like (however, sibelius essential sounds which comes with sib 5 is
great). seriously, you can get very realistic sounds for many, many
instruments. string quartet sounds ridiculously good.
--paul
sheets
<kuNOrtshapiroSPAM@NOSPAMhotTHANKSmail dawt cawm> wrote:
> I'd rather just dispense with playback entirely and simply have what I want
> where I want it graphically.
You're preaching to the choir. If you visit the finale and sibelius
boards, you'll be outnumbered 10-1. It turns out in today's world of
loopers and non-musicians writing techno music, folks use the computer
to play the music because they can't play it themselves (though
admittedly if you're writing big band arrangements or orchestral
pieces the playback is valuable).
It's just like BIAB where they ignore the basic functionality and
spend all their time on bells and whistles. It's just surprising that
even though they've focused on playback they still get it wrong
because apparently the loopers haven't noticed that tuplets exist...
sheets
I was very disappointed with Finale 2008 *AND* Sibelius 5's trumpet
and Sax sounds. Even going through their garritan vsts, they both
sound toy-like when playing a melody. In the context of a full band or
orchestral arrangement they sound better but the jazz trumpet doesn't
sound anything like a trumpet in either program to me.
Bill Ribas
sheets
> Say Jack - can you scan in a lead sheet with S5?
paul
> I was very disappointed with Finale 2008 *AND* Sibelius 5's trumpet
> and Sax sounds. Even going through their garritan vsts, they both
> sound toy-like when playing a melody. In the context of a full band or
> orchestral arrangement they sound better but the jazz trumpet doesn't
> sound anything like a trumpet in either program to me.
yeah, I have garritan jazz and big band library and it sounds good for
big band, but the individual instruments you really have to manually
spruce up if you want them to sound decent. for big band though, it
does sound really nice.
the main advantage of playback for me is most of my writing is done
for instruments I don't play. so even if I can get an approximation of
timbre, it really buys me a lot as I can hear if some intervals will
work with the instrument combination or not.
Bill Ribas
"sheets" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194474218.7...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
chickenhead
programs for that. There's zillions of sample players and MIDI
sequencers/editors, VST, DX, standalone, whatever. You could always use
something like Rewire or a separate box if you were dead set on using your
scoring program as a MIDI sequencer but want better sounds.
If Finale doesn't play back anything EVER, I couldn't care less. All I want
from a scoring/engraving program is to get the graphics where I want when I
want and to have the printed pages look good. I bought it for writing
charts and scores that will be read by humans, not for sequencing.
My decision to bag playback with Finale has more to to with my having to
trick the program so much to get what I want to see on a page, that getting
it to play it back doesn't work more than half the time anyways. It could
have the best samples on earth, and unlimited polyphony, and I still
wouldn't use it for playback. It just makes a horrible and crappy
sequencer. Even when it works as a MIDI sequencer, it's cumbersome,
glitchy, and very limited.
On a side note: That "human" playback feature/business is the most
ridiculous thing on earth. I understand the need to swing 8ths so that your
8th note charts play back in appropriate time feel, but that's as human as I
ever want. Bad enough to gum the whole program up by trying to make it into
a sequencer, but then to put that "human feel" crap in there is icing on the
cake.
It's moot with Finale for me anyways, because I just don't even want to
waste the time on playback. If it did it flawlessly and effortlessly, I
MIGHT use it now and then just for grins, but that is NOT why I buy a
program like Finale. I'd happily sacrifice EVER being able to play back the
parts for fast, flexible and error-free WYSIWYG engraving and scoring.
If I want playback, I'll use a MIDI sequencer/editor like Sonar, or Cubase,
or even Reaper, or maybe Logic or Alsihad if I was a Mac dewd. Or even an
ancient hardware box. You'd almost think a lot of the folks buying scoring
programs never got around to working with MIDI sequencers. After a few
afternoons with a decent MIDI sequencer/editor, using Finale for sequencing
becomes kind of ridiculous.
Oh well, I'm sure there are plenty of folks who disagree with me -- and
perhaps it's my own ignorance of how to properly use the program. So, of
course, this is only my ignorant and biased opinion. There's gotta' be more
than a few though whom agree.
"paul" <pcsa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194461121.3...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
chickenhead
wilderness on this one.
I guess there's just not enough real musicians buying scoring programs to
have as much market influence as dabblers and dilettantes.
Kind of funny, when you think about it, since loopers' and
quasi-musician-techheads' needs would be better served by other programs.
As far as big band and orchestral, yeah, I suppose it might be a little
useful, but the glitches caused by trying to make the program into a
sequencer far outweigh the value that would have. If I was writing
humongous scores, I'd probably use a separate MIDI sequencer just so I could
have more control and flexibility on the playback.
I'd guess they were future-waring when they started trying to integrate
it -- figuring that in a few years the bugs would iron out. Unfortunately,
instead of giving up and going back to the drawing board, they keep trying
to flog it into working. It would have been a good idea if it worked
seamlessly and didn't screw everything up. Tuplets and split units? Yeah,
that's just the beginning. When I start using repeats and mixed staves
(like an intro with a written bassline or instrumental part that later
disappears or comes back for 1/2 a chorus), or start weaseling with the
articulation tool and chord tool, adding invisible staves, changing the look
of barlines or using graphic tools to create things that the program doesn't
easily do, then the whole playback thing turns into a sadder joke than it
already was.
Again, I'll admit a lot of it is probably my ignorance as to the proper way
to do things in Finale.
"sheets" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194462754.1...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
sheets
articulations and the upstroke happened to be the same character code
finale uses for a fermata so after turning off fermatas int he human
playback the rhythms play back correctly now. So at least there's a
fix for it. Unfortunately, the program seems to crash when you make
certain changes to the human playback engine. This one worked but
several others crash the program...
Michael Quooss
never used it before-
I prefered to write all down by hand.
One problem I have is to make the proper format.
For example a Leadsheet with 8 systems, 4 bars per system, on one
page.
Or how can I insert some measures music in a text page (for
educational perpuses)
Maybe Im overlooking something but I cant figure it out!
The playback issues dont bother me I would use Sibelius only for
notation
Michael.
sheets
wrote:
> I downloaded the demo of Sibelius 5 and I like the workflow although I
> never used it before-
> I prefered to write all down by hand.
>
> One problem I have is to make the proper format.
> For example a Leadsheet with 8 systems, 4 bars per system, on one
> page.
> Or how can I insert some measures music in a text page (for
> educational perpuses)
I don't use notation programs for that. I use layout programs. I use
adobe indesign and paste the music in. That being said, both finale
and sibelius support making exercises and intermingling text and
musical examples.
uio...@hotmail.com
>
> One problem I have is to make the proper format.
> For example a Leadsheet with 8 systems, 4 bars per system, on one
> page.
I think Layout > Auto Layout will do that for you.
chickenhead
Do you use a notation program to create the notation before pasting it into
InDesign?
"sheets" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194529764.8...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
sheets
<kuNOrtshapiroSPAM@NOSPAMhotTHANKSmail dawt cawm> wrote:
> Wow! Never thought of that! That could end up solving a lot of my issues.
>
> Do you use a notation program to create the notation before pasting it into
> InDesign?
huh?!?
chickenhead
"sheets" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194567801....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
sheets
<kuNOrtshapiroSPAM@NOSPAMhotTHANKSmail dawt cawm> wrote:
> I guess not.
>
Not sure if you're serious. In the past, I generated the notation in
Finale, saved into a PDF file and then imported the PDF into indesign.
Joey Goldstein
Used to be that you had to use .tiff or .eps files, or .pict on the Mac
in most DTP programs. Now .pdf is the standard.
Finale is not a DTP program. It's a music notation program. Its text
capabilities are extremely limited as are its DTP capabilities.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/joeygoldstein
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Michael Quooss
Ok Thanks.
I will try it.
Michael
Chickenhead
Finale into the DTP prog. I've never had to do it, and don't even have a
DTP prog, so I was curious.
Why .pdf, rather than another image/graphic format? Yes, I'm serious.
I really don't know, though I'm flattered you'd think I'd actually know
enough to be joking. I've never had to deal with desktop publishing or
graphics, so it's out of my zone of familiarity. I'm quite curious about it
though, both because I'd like to know how it's done, and because it might
actually make it easier to crank out some of my charts. I like the idea of
using a notation program to produce the notation, but then using a DTP to
arrange things on the page in a way that suits my flexible small combo
quasi-arrangements. It never occured to me to use a separate program for
arranging the stuff on the page after producing it in a notation program.
"sheets" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194638406....@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
jimmyb
moving from one computer to another is a real drag and it never
works. So I still use finale. An old version that still works very
well
Joey Goldstein
all the information, both bit map and vector, that most printers need to
print the graphic properly. Plus it looks good on screen.
Tiff files are just bit maps. Hi-res bit maps take up quite a bit of
disk space too.
EPS (Encapsuled Postscript) files were the predecessor to PDF. When
viewed on screen within the DTP program EPS files had only lo-res
rudimentary "previews" but they print to a printer in hi-res. EPS has
the potential to embed any special fonts, like music fonts, that the
document needs to print properly.
PDF files look good on the screen as well as on the printed page. PDF
also has the capability to embed fonts.
sheets
<kuNOrtshapiroSPAM@NOSPAMhotTHANKSmail dawt cawm> wrote:
> Yes, believe it or not. I was wondering how you got the notation from
> Finale into the DTP prog. I've never had to do it, and don't even have a
> DTP prog, so I was curious.
>
> Why .pdf, rather than another image/graphic format? Yes, I'm serious.
PDF utilizes vector based fonts and graphics so like .EPS, it's fully
scaleable without losing any quality.
> using a notation program to produce the notation, but then using a DTP to
> arrange things on the page in a way that suits my flexible small combo
> quasi-arrangements. It never occured to me to use a separate program for
> arranging the stuff on the page after producing it in a notation program.
That's the only way to get full control over all aspects of the
layout. Don't worry - I'm sure Finale will add DTP to it's next
release since they're already incorporated BIAB importing, sequencing
and VST support. :)
Joey Goldstein
all the information, both bit map and vector, that most printers need to
print the graphic properly. Plus it looks good on screen.
Tiff files are just bit maps. Hi-res bit maps take up quite a bit of
disk space too.
EPS (Encapsuled Postscript) files were the predecessor to PDF. When
viewed on screen within the DTP program EPS files had only lo-res
rudimentary "previews" but they print to a printer in hi-res. EPS has
the potential to embed any special fonts, like music fonts, that the
document needs to print properly.
PDF files look good on the screen as well as on the printed page. PDF
also has the capability to embed fonts.
Joey Goldstein
sheets
> I like Sibelius as it is easier than finale but the registration thing
> moving from one computer to another is a real drag and it never
> works. So I still use finale. An old version that still works very
> well
>
I have the same problem with Finale.
Chickenhead
"sheets" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194705480....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...