Basically I need help with figuring this program out. If anyone else has questions like me ask them.
Alright i have quite few questions but ill keep them to one at a time.
When you are playing a MIDI instrument is there any way to turn the metronome on to keep time?
Quote from: c#minor on September 05, 2008, 03:57:27 PM
When you are playing a MIDI instrument is there any way to turn the metronome on to keep time?
Dunno; I don't play MIDI instruments.
I made good progress with Sibelius in doing up
The Angel Who Bears a Flaming Sword. Now, to turn to an orchestral score . . . .
Will read the handbook again, first. A little experience with the program hands-on, has made the manual read entirely different, somehow.
Luke! How does one handle the two following (admittedly commonplace) practices:
1. A percussion staff which must include different noisemakers (by turns serially, and simultaneously).
2. A (f'r instance) cello solo line peeling away from the section (including, how is this cooridnated with the part?)
Thanks!
Quote from: karlhenning on October 09, 2008, 06:31:07 AM
Luke! How does one handle the two following (admittedly commonplace) practices:
1. A percussion staff which must include different noisemakers (by turns serially, and simultaneously).
There must be a better way than mine, I'll say that before I even begin. This is a big problem, but I've never properly looked into ways of solving it, so I can't blame Sibelius 100%. My solution is usually a combination of:
1) Choosing 'percussion - 5 lines' from the instrument list and if possible letting the Sibelius defaults for this stave take the strain (IOW, if a notehead on the second line produces the sound I want it to, then that's fine). However, usually this won't work, so
2) I usually prepare one score for printing and one for MIDI. The print one comes first, then I create a MIDI score in which each percussion instrument has its own stave. Then it's simple to copy+paste the multi-percussion stave into each percussion stave and delete the bits which aren't relevant. It doesn't take that long to do, actually.
But as I say, there's probably a much better solution than this which I've never looked into finding.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 09, 2008, 06:31:07 AM
2. A (f'r instance) cello solo line peeling away from the section (including, how is this cooridnated with the part?)
This would depend very much on how you wanted the score and the part to look - separate stave for the solo part? Could you describe a little more? I'm better at score layout than at part layout, which is something I've not had to do much of so far, but I'd imagine that this sort of thing won't be coordinated automatically when one extracts parts - you'll have to do it manually.
Thanks, Luke; I need to do a little more investigating myself.
Percussion-wise: What I would do in Finale was tweak the percussion map on a five-line staff, sounds much like your tack . . . I remember needing to do that more or less at the outset of 'building' the document.
Split-staves: In leafing through the Sibelius 5 Handbook, I get the impression that it is possible to . . .
Wait; here's what wants doing:
Separate line for a solo cello for say ten measures, while altri continue playing their accompaniment. So in the score, that will be a distinct staff for a page (say), but it's got to be on the page of the cello part.
The Handbook (which is just a 150-page affair) has 40-odd pages devoted to How To, but these are just sample score pages with captions referencing chapters in the on-line reference (thus, not so very informative when I'm reading the Handbook on the train last night ;D )
Looks like it ought to be workable, but I need to check the on-line reference . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on October 09, 2008, 07:03:21 AM
Thanks, Luke; I need to do a little more investigating myself.
Percussion-wise: What I would do in Finale was tweak the percussion map on a five-line staff, sounds much like your tack . . . I remember needing to do that more or less at the outset of 'building' the document.
Split-staves: In leafing through the Sibelius 5 Handbook, I get the impression that it is possible to . . .
Wait; here's what wants doing:
Separate line for a solo cello for say ten measures, while altri continue playing their accompaniment. So in the score, that will be a distinct staff for a page (say), but it's got to be on the page of the cello part.
The Handbook (which is just a 150-page affair) has 40-odd pages devoted to How To, but these are just sample score pages with captions referencing chapters in the on-line reference (thus, not so very informative when I'm reading the Handbook on the train last night ;D )
Looks like it ought to be workable, but I need to check the on-line reference . . . .
When I've needed to create a separate solo cello/violin/whatever part, as on the 'Largo' I wrote in 1992 that's recently been on my thread and which I set into Sibelius a few days ago, I simply create it as a separate, distinct cello part at the beginning of the process (you could do it later, of course) and hide it until it's required, hiding it again after it's finished with. You could do the same process in making the part - it doesn't take long.
Many thanks; it is exactly that sort of experienced expertise which is such an enormous help!
Quote
2. A (f'r instance) cello solo line peeling away from the section (including, how is this coordinated with the part?)
Wow, but this
does look like it works very easily in Sibelius,
Luke.
Now if only I can find some percussion-mapping guidance . . . .
Percussion . . . okay, looks much as it did in Finale. So now my rough question is about, say, a percussion I part in which the player will switch from a single-line staff triangle to a grand-staff vibraphone. But I think that the line opened up by the cello solution may serve here, as well.
I think it's time to go back to Sibelius itself . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on October 12, 2008, 10:00:11 AM
Percussion . . . okay, looks much as it did in Finale. So now my rough question is about, say, a percussion I part in which the player will switch from a single-line staff triangle to a grand-staff vibraphone. But I think that the line opened up by the cello solution may serve here, as well.
I think it's time to go back to Sibelius itself . . . .
No, if you're asking about layout here, rather than MIDI playback, that's an easy one.
Right-click
-> Other
-> Staff type change
-> percussion (or whatver is appropriate)
-> choose from drop-down menu (actually, as instruments are specified here this may have positive MIDI implications too, I wouldn't know as I've never used it)
Click where you want the change and hey presto. If you're viewing hidden objects you will see a small rectangle appear where the change occurs - you can drag this or use arrow keys to change the position of the change.
The last pages of the E+A score just posted do this a lot, switching back and forth between 'hidden' and 'five lines no key signature'
To fine tune my response - I'd have a grand staff vibraphone as the stave you choose initially here, so that it's always 'there' even if you hide or change one or both of its staves as you go. But that's not entirely necessary (see my score to the Rhythm Study I wrote when I was 15 or whatever, a few pages back on my thread - it switches between 2 and 4 staves, but is basically a 4 stave score with 2 of them hidden most of the time)
Thanks! Will report.
Apart from my getting a different set of options when I right-click on a staff, Luke . . . the percussion alterations are quite easy.
I am enjoying Sibelius a great deal!
Quote from: karlhenning on October 12, 2008, 01:22:05 PM
Apart from my getting a different set of options when I right-click on a staff, Luke . . . the percussion alterations are quite easy.
Hmm - th different options are maybe because you're running a different version. Or perhaps because you're clicking
on the staff, whereas I was referring to clicking in empty space. But both get you to the same place.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 12, 2008, 01:22:05 PM
I am enjoying Sibelius a great deal!
Pleased to hear it! It gets to be intuitive, doesn't it, so that the biggest problem in trying to give advice is to reconstruct what one would do automatically and unthinkingly in the same situation.
How does one selectively hide staves, page by page? I have a feeling this must be easy, but I'm not doing it.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 16, 2008, 08:37:18 AM
How does one selectively hide staves, page by page? I have a feeling this must be easy, but I'm not doing it.
Hide as opposed to change the stave properties so that it's present but invisible (as at the end of Ascent)?
To get rid of unused staves, so that each system only contains staves that are being used, select the area of the score you want to apply it to and then go to 'Hide empty staves' in the layout section. Once they're hidden you can get them back by reversing the process, or by forcing them to appear by other means.
If an empty stave doesn't disappear when you expect it to, it's usually the case that something small - say a dynamic marking - that belongs to another stave has mistakenly attached itself to the empty one, so that Sibelius doesn't see it as empty after all. To check this, highlight the stave in question and examine if there's any indication of stray attached objects.
Thanks!
Have yet to try out the staff-hiding advice.
Meanwhile . . .
Near the beginning of the Overture, I have a fermata over a ingle measure's rest, which I want to last five-ish measures' duration. Suggestions on how to get playback to reflect that?
TIA!
I've taken a few Sibelius workshops so I've gotten on their mailing list. I just got an e-mail soliciting names for their newsletter. I'm sure they'd be happy to sign up anyone who's interested.
Sibelius World
Do you know someone who might like to receive this newsletter? If so, simply send them a link to www.sibelius.com/sibeliusworld and they can subscribe for free.
I get that in the in-box, too.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 17, 2008, 09:24:23 AM
Have yet to try out the staff-hiding advice.
Meanwhile . . .
Near the beginning of the Overture, I have a fermata over a ingle measure's rest, which I want to last five-ish measures' duration. Suggestions on how to get playback to reflect that?
TIA!
Invisible metronome marks before and after (right-click to hide)
Knew it had to be easy; and, thanks!
Is there way of replacing Sibelius' midi sounds with better ones?
Yes (look into substitute devices and editing sound sets and all the rest). But I wouldn't know the details of how to do it.
Luke? Little help? 8)
With what, Karl? Sorry, I've only come on for the first time today and am a little out of the loop.
If you download this score-in-progress (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,92.msg291635.html#msg291635) . . . the last two bars of notation, I've figured out how to add an arpeggio sign, but I don't know how to shift things so that there's room for it . . . guidance? TIA!
For precise alteration of positions I tend to alter x or y coordinates in the 'General' drop down of the 'Properties' box. I'm not sure precisely what you're trying to do, mind, but this feature is a great help when one wants to override default positions, and often works when drag-and-drop doesn't.
Mille grazie! Perfect.
Another question:
Consider m. 226 below. In my MS., I actually had the A and G connected with the same stem. This is a case where I don't particularly need to insist on that 'style' for that measure . . . but I wound up making them independent stems.
I entered both notes on the treble clef, and tried to cross the G down to the bass clef . . . what happened was, that both notes were crossed down.
As I say, this measure I can leave be; but in the closing section practically every bar will have eight-note chords, and the stemming will indicate the two hands, and the right hand will often have notes on both staves.
Help! :)
While I'm at it . . . the final eighth-note dyad in m.224 . . . how may I add 'let-ring' "ties"?
Thanks again!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 30, 2009, 10:42:13 AM
Another question:
Consider m. 226 below. In my MS., I actually had the A and G connected with the same stem. This is a case where I don't particularly need to insist on that 'style' for that measure . . . but I wound up making them independent stems.
I entered both notes on the treble clef, and tried to cross the G down to the bass clef . . . what happened was, that both notes were crossed down.
As I say, this measure I can leave be; but in the closing section practically every bar will have eight-note chords, and the stemming will indicate the two hands, and the right hand will often have notes on both staves.
Help! :)
OK.
In the case of the bar given, try flipping the stem of the lower note (press X) and then lengthening it artificially (by clicking on the end and dragging, or using arrows) until it joins the higher note's stem
In the case of you later examples, similar. But you won't need to flip, I assume, because your lower stave will have chords in two voices, so the upper voice's stems will automatically point upward.
It's a cheat, I suppose - the stems aren't really joined, one is simply extended to overlap the other. But it ought to work (haven't tried it as far as I remember) and I'd guess it would stay fairly rigid if you started pulling staves about later, as long as the overlap was sufficiently long.
Thanks!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 30, 2009, 10:45:40 AM
While I'm at it . . . the final eighth-note dyad in m.224 . . . how may I add 'let-ring' "ties"?
Thanks again!
Well, I'd have thought simply adding ties but not tying them to anything would do it! That's what I did here, for instance. Maybe this isn't what you mean, though
That is what I mean; looks simple 8)
With parts for The Mousetrap, I borrowed one of Hindemith's ideas (or anyway, as a performer, I noted this practice first in the Hindemith Clarinet Sonata). Where there isn't the layout space for full cues on a separate staff, to cue the rhythm of the other part on a single line. This was quite a time-sink in Finale, but it paid dividends in efficient rehearsal with Pete Cama-Lekx for so involved a piece. I should be so delighted to learn that such a cue-line in Sibelius is as simple and intuitive as so much else in the software . . . .
Guidance, please?! :)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 08, 2009, 09:52:10 AM
With parts for The Mousetrap, I borrowed one of Hindemith's ideas (or anyway, as a performer, I noted this practice first in the Hindemith Clarinet Sonata). Where there isn't the layout space for full cues on a separate staff, to cue the rhythm of the other part on a single line. This was quite a time-sink in Finale, but it paid dividends in efficient rehearsal with Pete Cama-Lekx for so involved a piece. I should be so delighted to learn that such a cue-line in Sibelius is as simple and intuitive as so much else in the software . . . .
Guidance, please?! :)
Create your part, and then add another staff above either as another 'instrument' or, maybe better, as an 'ossia' stave (better because it is smaller, cue size).
After this, you can change the upper staff to a single line. I'm not at the right computer, so I can't remember the exact sequence, but essentially
highlight staff
right click
create
staff type change
and follow your nose.
Again, there's probably a more 'official' way to do this, but this way works for me. I used it with the parts for
Elegy and Ascent, and whatever the problems with the piece, the parts were OK! ;D
Mille grazie!
My question to Sibelius fans: Why is Sibelius' Symphony No. 7 constantly rising up the ChamberNut charts with every additional listen? Is it just a natural phenomena?
0:)
To know it, is to love it!
Below is a sample of the old Finale version of Irving's Hudson. (I don't have with me the new Sibelius version.)
Getting the double-slash repeat marks, and managing their positioning, was gawdhelp me a teejus long time. I did it, though, because when you have a good player willing to read your stuff, there is no substitute for your music looking its best.
In comparison, the work to get 'slash notation' in the Sibelius file was easy; however . . .
What I have got at present is a single slash, with a dot (for the dotted-quarter, I suppose). Is there an easy way to change that to a double-slash? If not, I can live with the dotted-single-slash; but it looks a little funny, and I'd prefer the double-, if it can be managed.
I have been using Sibelius 5 and have had a big layout problem for months! In the piano part I use the whole registre and therefore I made 4 staves, first the traditional g-clef and f-clef, above I added a 2 octaves higher g-clef staff and below a 2 octaves lower f-clef. By spacing the staves so there are only room for one biline (not sure that is the right word in english) between the middle and room for 2 between the others, I could make cross-staff-notes. The strange problem is, that the bilines are slightly thicker than the normal lines, and you can really see it, when you make the cross-staff-notes manually. Is there any way to change the thickness of the bilines? And why the f*** are they supposed to be thicker than the normal ones?
Luke, I have a question (so what else is new . . . .)
Fire away - though I suspect you are as Sibelius-conversant as I am by now! (you've certainly had cause to use it more than I have recently :) for you; :'( for me)
Well, I can't say that I figured it out . . . I did find it in The Manual :)
When I added the ossia lines to The Angel Who Bears a Flaming Sword (the trumpet original), an unintended consquence was, system dividers between every pair of lines throughout the piece. I had to go into document options (IIRC . . . wasn't all that lon gago, but . . .) and deselect the critturs.
And, you've had beastly distractions, mon cher.
Oh, sieur Luc . . . if you can entertain a query (nothing urgent).
Looks yummy! How can I (try to) help?
Good of you to rally 'round, dear fellow! I'm still getting the hang of large ensemble work in Sibelius, and I am a little nervous about [ what I ought to have done in setting up the document ] making it difficult to make adjustments afterwards. (And yet, as you see, I don't much let it stop me from rolling my sleeves up . . . .)
The flutes in m. 3; I don't want to change a note of it, but they do crowd one another on the one staff. What should I do here in Sibelius to 'split them up'? (I almost ought to do that for the trumpets at the opening, only that first page looks crowded as it is.)
I'm sure there is a better and neater way than this, and my Sibelius-handling is seriously out of practice (it's been months since I last set a note down), but when I've had this sort of issue I found the easiest thing to do was to create another flute stave running through the whole piece, but to make it invisible except for in this bar (or wherever else you need it). Sometimes this creates issues with layout - easiest might almost be to create a couple of staves for any instruments that might need them, write out the piece in this messy format, and then simply 'hide empty staves' when you're done. With a few tweaks where necessary this ought to work...
FWIW that's how I would do it too.
Very good; thanks, lads!
Does this score need more Esotericism? ;)
It seems fairly laden with it already, but yes, why on earth not!
Well, I don't want to hoard more than my share ;)
Luke? Let me know when the Sibelius doctor is in : )
Quote from: ChamberNut on April 08, 2009, 10:05:33 AM
My question to Sibelius fans: Why is Sibelius' Symphony No. 7 constantly rising up the ChamberNut charts with every additional listen? Is it just a natural phenomena?
0:)
I wonder what they'll play on startup when Sibelius 8 comes out in the future? ???
hmmm I've been wondering how you can make cut-out scores with Sibelius. I remember someone (Mark, was it?) showing me how to do this with Finale a long time ago, but I don't use Finale any more.
It's not quite that way; the startup for Sibelius 5 is from the Third Symphony.
Is it? And I have Sibelius 3, with startup from the 5th! Though I turn it off, as I don't want such sublime music to start annoying me.
BTW, I'm in, Karl, as you can see! Though I'm sure you are every bit as Sibelius fluent as I am now, probably more so.
Greg - cut-out scores: when I did something of this ilk for Elegy and Ascent, it was a matter of hiding staves, which you can do by changing the staff type. But it's a bit labour intensive and fiddly, something I'd leave tlll last so that you don't make subsequent changes that will mean resetting the whole thing.
Well, but I wonder if you know off the cuff of a fix which I've set myself up for needing.
As you can see at the bottom of p.6 of the current draught (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,92.msg443187.html#msg443187) of Suspension Bridge, I set up the score with a single-line percussion staff to keep track of a rhythmic pattern while I compose through.
So my question is:
As a result, the document places tempo markings on the viola staff and the percussion staff . . . could you point me to where I redesignate that, and have the tempo markings on the piano staff? Thanks!
Ah, I was wondering what that was - envisaging all sorts of things!
Presumably when you get rid of the percussion line the tempo markings will realign themselves. But you can also manually drag a marking from the percussion part to the piano part, and the others ought to follow suit. Is that the sort of thing you mean? Problem with that is, when you get rid of the percussion part, it might wreak havoc with your layout again. Personally, I'd just leave it to do what it will until the time comes to delete the percussion part.
I get the feeling I've missed the point of what you are asking, though!
Quote from: Luke on August 23, 2010, 04:57:01 AM
Ah, I was wondering what that was - envisaging all sorts of things!
Presumably when you get rid of the percussion line the tempo markings will realign themselves. But you can also manually drag a marking from the percussion part to the piano part, and the others ought to follow suit. Is that the sort of thing you mean? Problem with that is, when you get rid of the percussion part, it might wreak havoc with your layout again. Personally, I'd just leave it to do what it will until the time comes to delete the percussion part.
I'll give that a go, when I get to the end. (I am keen to get to the end, but the piece feeling like a stretch (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,92.msg443264.html#msg443264), I feel I'm really working to get to the end.)Quote from: LukeI get the feeling I've missed the point of what you are asking, though!
Maybe this is something later than version 3? . . . but I have an idea there's a document settings page on which I might deselect one staff and select another. And it's characteristic of my 'knowledge' of the software that I have an idea I've been to that page, but have no inkling how I got there . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 22, 2010, 05:54:38 PM
It's not quite that way; the startup for Sibelius 5 is from the Third Symphony.
lol That's true- forgot about that.
Quote from: Luke on August 22, 2010, 11:15:44 PM
Greg - cut-out scores: when I did something of this ilk for Elegy and Ascent, it was a matter of hiding staves, which you can do by changing the staff type. But it's a bit labour intensive and fiddly, something I'd leave tlll last so that you don't make subsequent changes that will mean resetting the whole thing.
Well, I'll try it out...
Quote from: Luke on August 22, 2010, 11:15:44 PM
Is it? And I have Sibelius 3, with startup from the 5th! Though I turn it off, as I don't want such sublime music to start annoying me.
How do you switch it off? : )
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 23, 2010, 06:25:40 AM
How do you switch it off? : )
Well, in Sibelius 3, it's easy - File > Preferences > General, then unclick the 'play music at startup' box (or whatever it says). Recently, for some reason - a fault of my computer though, I suspect - it's being deciding to reinstate the music now and then, which is a little annoying. Much as I love those magical opening bars, it's starting to ruin them for me!
Thanks!
Quote from: Luke on August 23, 2010, 08:11:46 AM
Well, in Sibelius 3, it's easy - File > Preferences > General, then unclick the 'play music at startup' box (or whatever it says). Recently, for some reason - a fault of my computer though, I suspect - it's being deciding to reinstate the music now and then, which is a little annoying. Much as I love those magical opening bars, it's starting to ruin them for me!
Got it! The menu has gotten a little more involved, so I had to do a little searching, but you set me on the right path. Thank you, again!
Quote from: Luke on August 23, 2010, 04:57:01 AM
. . . Personally, I'd just leave it to do what it will until the time comes to delete the percussion part.
That was the ticket, exactly, Luke; drop that percussion staff, and all the tempo markings do appear (as they ought) on the piano staff.
I have a separate problem, also resulting from that dratted ; ) percussion staff, but which was not an automatic fix: As you see from comparing the scores of Fair Warning and Suspension Bridge, the staves in the latter are sized too small (a consequence of that percussion staff I front-loaded the score with) . . . what's your advice for re-sizing the staves? TIA ; )
Not sure I totally understand why they are the smaller size, but it sounds like they might be 'small stave' size, which on Sibelius 3 you can change from the default (75% I think) up to 100% by going - House Style > Engraving Rules > Staves > [changing small stave size]/ Alternatively, a rougher fix, you could simply make the staves bigger in the normal way - Layout > Document Setup > [change staff size]
Hope this helps!
Thanks!
How to change noteheads for just a portion of a staff?
Do you mean notehead shape? Have the Properties window open, select the Notes dropdown, select the notes you wish to change and then choose the notehead of your desire from the options offered!
Thanks, Luke!
TTT
Anybody around, who might field a question?
Quote from: karlhenning on July 22, 2012, 05:38:06 AM
Anybody around, who might field a question?
I reckon not!
: )Don't even remember what question I was thinking to pose, anyway....
I thought there was already a topic. Just a report on my recent experience. I had to get a new laptop, and reinstallation of Sibelius went fine, but I had trouble activating it. I didn't get any response from the Avid customer support e-mail address, which obviously I found annoying and unprofessional. Then, I had the thought of reaching out to them via both Facebook and Twitter, and they got back to me promptly on both channels.
Maybe that thread you had in mind,
@Karl Henning ?
https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,8955.0.html (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,8955.0.html)
Quote from: Papy Oli on May 25, 2023, 10:40:19 AMMaybe that thread you had in mind, @Karl Henning ?
https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,8955.0.html (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,8955.0.html)
Just so. I should have thought
Composing and Performing, rather than
Diner.
@DavidW ... merge 'em?
Never knew about this thread. Okay, now that it's here in Composing where I check regularly, I do have a question, and it concerns using Sibelius with 3rd-party libraries. I've been a happy NotePerformer user for three years now, running inside Sibelius, and I'm gratified that Arne has fixed some outstanding issues in NP4 and added support for selected 3rd-party libraries, but... there is always a but... the selection is limited. I'd like to prepare a mock-up of my first String Quartet that actually sounds realistic, and I've started on a second SQ (just yesterday in fact) that would REALLY benefit from this technology, but there seem to be few options for solo strings in the libraries currently available for NPPE - in fact, for a full string quartet, only the Cinematic Studios libraries currently. I've heard mock-ups of string quartets produced with CSSS (including one of my stalled Beethoven sketch variations), and it seems there would be a lot of work involved as the results are full of errors due to latency in the library, and the balance between the instruments is very different than in NP.
The other alternative in the running is VSL SYNCHRON-ized Solo Strings - which has no support via NP at present. My understanding is that for something that uses solo strings together with other instruments, this library would be useless without a supplemental library for the Synchron player as one cannot simply substitute individual instruments from an unsupported 3rd-party library for NotePerformer's native synth.
Is this correct, or can it be done anyway? If so, how? Please note that I'm new to MIDI terminology and do not yet fully understand what MIDI "devices" and "channels" are. NP is plug-and-play... now I'm going to have to actually learn something about this technology.
Quote from: krummholz on May 25, 2023, 01:10:01 PMNever knew about this thread. Okay, now that it's here in Composing where I check regularly, I do have a question, and it concerns using Sibelius with 3rd-party libraries. I've been a happy NotePerformer user for three years now, running inside Sibelius, and I'm gratified that Arne has fixed some outstanding issues in NP4 and added support for selected 3rd-party libraries, but... there is always a but... the selection is limited. I'd like to prepare a mock-up of my first String Quartet that actually sounds realistic, and I've started on a second SQ (just yesterday in fact) that would REALLY benefit from this technology, but there seem to be few options for solo strings in the libraries currently available for NPPE - in fact, for a full string quartet, only the Cinematic Studios libraries currently. I've heard mock-ups of string quartets produced with CSSS (including one of my stalled Beethoven sketch variations), and it seems there would be a lot of work involved as the results are full of errors due to latency in the library, and the balance between the instruments is very different than in NP.
The other alternative in the running is VSL SYNCHRON-ized Solo Strings - which has no support via NP at present. My understanding is that for something that uses solo strings together with other instruments, this library would be useless without a supplemental library for the Synchron player as one cannot simply substitute individual instruments from an unsupported 3rd-party library for NotePerformer's native synth.
Is this correct, or can it be done anyway? If so, how? Please note that I'm new to MIDI terminology and do not yet fully understand what MIDI "devices" and "channels" are. NP is plug-and-play... now I'm going to have to actually learn something about this technology.
You can definitely insert VST instruments into Sibelius but a warning, it seems like the capability should be used cautiously. It quickly adds awful latency. I've set it up to have 16 channels through kontakt VST. The other instruments are all NP. With these 16 channels in VST, my latency has gone to barely noticeable to maybe three or four seconds which might not sound like much but it's on the verge of unusable. You also have to manually insert CC1 modwheel to control dynamics because while NP has scripts to read the score, VST do not so plays ppp and fff at the same dynamic unless you put in modwheel. In short, it is definitely doable but not that well implemented. It is just barely usable. When I added 32 channels of VST, latency went up to 30 or more seconds. I quickly reverted back to NP.
Quote from: relm1 on May 26, 2023, 06:16:05 AMYou can definitely insert VST instruments into Sibelius but a warning, it seems like the capability should be used cautiously. It quickly adds awful latency. I've set it up to have 16 channels through kontakt VST. The other instruments are all NP. With these 16 channels in VST, my latency has gone to barely noticeable to maybe three or four seconds which might not sound like much but it's on the verge of unusable. You also have to manually insert CC1 modwheel to control dynamics because while NP has scripts to read the score, VST do not so plays ppp and fff at the same dynamic unless you put in modwheel. In short, it is definitely doable but not that well implemented. It is just barely usable. When I added 32 channels of VST, latency went up to 30 or more seconds. I quickly reverted back to NP.
Thank you for the cautionary note! This implies something quite different from the way I imagined it to work - I thought the notation software sends dynamics information to the playback device, in your case Kontakt. If dynamics have to be controlled manually through MIDI messages, even for dynamics changes within phrases (e.g. hairpins), then that is terribly inconvenient (as would be the latency, which is noticeable even with NP).
If I may ask, what library were you using for this? The Cinematic libraries use Kontakt and are now supported by NP4 and its NPPE, which is supposed to make this as transparent as with NP, assuming you're using a supported library. Notwithstanding the limited availability of supported libraries, I'm now thinking that might be my best option.
Quote from: krummholz on May 26, 2023, 07:09:02 AMThank you for the cautionary note! This implies something quite different from the way I imagined it to work - I thought the notation software sends dynamics information to the playback device, in your case Kontakt. If dynamics have to be controlled manually through MIDI messages, even for dynamics changes within phrases (e.g. hairpins), then that is terribly inconvenient (as would be the latency, which is noticeable even with NP).
If I may ask, what library were you using for this? The Cinematic libraries use Kontakt and are now supported by NP4 and its NPPE, which is supposed to make this as transparent as with NP, assuming you're using a supported library. Notwithstanding the limited availability of supported libraries, I'm now thinking that might be my best option.
Sibelius is NOT a mockup tool in any way. It does not send dynamic information to a sample. It just happens that NP wrote custom scripts to add midi controller data that only applies to NP. For example, they use panning to adjust vibrato for their samples. So if you switch an NP flute for example to Berlin Winds, all of NP control details will be ignored and you'll hear a vanilla Berlin Winds flute at a single dynamic and articulation sounding very mediocre unless you start adding the controller information separately. Sib doesn't have a native or intuitive way to do that, so you literally have to go phrase by phrase and craft it and I'll guarantee you it's a bazillion times slower than just using a DAW for the same purpose. That defeats the purpose of having high quality instruments entirely! So be selective on supplementing the right VST instrument in Sib. Strings...absolutely not good candidates because NP interprets performance text like legato, con sordino, tremolo, marcato, etc., none of which would apply to the VST instrument. In contrast, percussion works reasonably well because they have rather limited performance techniques. Even then, you'll get awful artifacts like timpani rolls having to trigger a different sample than timpani hits. So I loaded two different samples - one for hits and one for rolls which meant my score now had two timpani parts - hits and rolls. You start to see this is getting to be a real mess. The overall impression I came away with is the value of doing this is few and far between. I think it makes sense to replace the celesta with a VST celesta where I'm using a celesta sample library. That instrument will almost always be quiet and not much variation in how it gets read. Strings absolutely out of the question. You generally get the impression this clearly wasn't conceived in the best way to solve this problem but was pigeonholed into Sibelius.
I used some of Spitfire percussion and Berlin brass, I played around with some Berlin winds and some of Spitfire strings but realized it was a big mistake overall and just have a few percussion remaining. It is a reasonable approach on symphonic percussion like bass drum, tam-tam, etc., where most of what you need to do is send a dynamic rather than a CC1 modwheel. Was a horrible mistake for strings, woods and brass but an interesting experiment. Let's say you don't mind adding all these extra samples, then remember the issue I made earlier about horrible latency. I find 1 second very annoying and 4 seconds completely unusable. With 16 VST instruments, you are in the 3 or 4 second latency range and with 32 VST instruments 20 or 30 seconds depending on your library. Worthless waste of time to do this in Sib in this current iteration.
Quote from: relm1 on May 26, 2023, 05:12:04 PMSibelius is NOT a mockup tool in any way. It does not send dynamic information to a sample. It just happens that NP wrote custom scripts to add midi controller data that only applies to NP. For example, they use panning to adjust vibrato for their samples. So if you switch an NP flute for example to Berlin Winds, all of NP control details will be ignored and you'll hear a vanilla Berlin Winds flute at a single dynamic and articulation sounding very mediocre unless you start adding the controller information separately. Sib doesn't have a native or intuitive way to do that, so you literally have to go phrase by phrase and craft it and I'll guarantee you it's a bazillion times slower than just using a DAW for the same purpose. That defeats the purpose of having high quality instruments entirely! So be selective on supplementing the right VST instrument in Sib. Strings...absolutely not good candidates because NP interprets performance text like legato, con sordino, tremolo, marcato, etc., none of which would apply to the VST instrument. In contrast, percussion works reasonably well because they have rather limited performance techniques. Even then, you'll get awful artifacts like timpani rolls having to trigger a different sample than timpani hits. So I loaded two different samples - one for hits and one for rolls which meant my score now had two timpani parts - hits and rolls. You start to see this is getting to be a real mess. The overall impression I came away with is the value of doing this is few and far between. I think it makes sense to replace the celesta with a VST celesta where I'm using a celesta sample library. That instrument will almost always be quiet and not much variation in how it gets read. Strings absolutely out of the question. You generally get the impression this clearly wasn't conceived in the best way to solve this problem but was pigeonholed into Sibelius.
I used some of Spitfire percussion and Berlin brass, I played around with some Berlin winds and some of Spitfire strings but realized it was a big mistake overall and just have a few percussion remaining. It is a reasonable approach on symphonic percussion like bass drum, tam-tam, etc., where most of what you need to do is send a dynamic rather than a CC1 modwheel. Was a horrible mistake for strings, woods and brass but an interesting experiment. Let's say you don't mind adding all these extra samples, then remember the issue I made earlier about horrible latency. I find 1 second very annoying and 4 seconds completely unusable. With 16 VST instruments, you are in the 3 or 4 second latency range and with 32 VST instruments 20 or 30 seconds depending on your library. Worthless waste of time to do this in Sib in this current iteration.
Okay, I get the picture that supplementing NP's synthesized orchestra with 3rd party strings is probably not going to work too well. But as far as Sibelius not supplying dynamics information from the score, I'm confused to the point where my head is reeling. This completely contradicts Sib's own reference manual, and also what a composer on a different forum told me, which is that he used VSL solo strings with Sib "for over a decade" and never had to use MIDI messages to control dynamics or anything else. Not mixing and matching instruments, mind you - this was for writing and producing mock-ups of string quartets. VSL does supply their own soundsets, written specifically for Sibelius - I have no idea what Spitfire and Berlin supply with their libraries, if anything. I know that if I tried to use Cinematic Studios libraries without NPPE support I would be in uncharted territory, as Cinematic specifically disclaims that they offer no support for Sibelius. And I know that NP hooks into Sibelius and actually reads the score, so it could be that it gets info from the score that way and not from Sib... but still, why have playback dictionaries and all of these hooks to playback devices if this information is not sent from Sib's reading of the score?
If I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like Sib is useless for producing mock-ups without something like NP that essentially replaces Sib's entire playback engine. If that's true, then it means that Sib's functionality in that area has gone downhill compared to a decade ago when the composer I mentioned was using it with VSL.
Quote from: krummholz on May 27, 2023, 04:17:55 AMOkay, I get the picture that supplementing NP's synthesized orchestra with 3rd party strings is probably not going to work too well. But as far as Sibelius not supplying dynamics information from the score, I'm confused to the point where my head is reeling. This completely contradicts Sib's own reference manual, and also what a composer on a different forum told me, which is that he used VSL solo strings with Sib "for over a decade" and never had to use MIDI messages to control dynamics or anything else. Not mixing and matching instruments, mind you - this was for writing and producing mock-ups of string quartets. VSL does supply their own soundsets, written specifically for Sibelius - I have no idea what Spitfire and Berlin supply with their libraries, if anything. I know that if I tried to use Cinematic Studios libraries without NPPE support I would be in uncharted territory, as Cinematic specifically disclaims that they offer no support for Sibelius. And I know that NP hooks into Sibelius and actually reads the score, so it could be that it gets info from the score that way and not from Sib... but still, why have playback dictionaries and all of these hooks to playback devices if this information is not sent from Sib's reading of the score?
If I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like Sib is useless for producing mock-ups without something like NP that essentially replaces Sib's entire playback engine. If that's true, then it means that Sib's functionality in that area has gone downhill compared to a decade ago when the composer I mentioned was using it with VSL.
I'm about to head out the door but will give a more thorough response this evening.
Quote from: krummholz on May 27, 2023, 04:17:55 AMOkay, I get the picture that supplementing NP's synthesized orchestra with 3rd party strings is probably not going to work too well. But as far as Sibelius not supplying dynamics information from the score, I'm confused to the point where my head is reeling. This completely contradicts Sib's own reference manual, and also what a composer on a different forum told me, which is that he used VSL solo strings with Sib "for over a decade" and never had to use MIDI messages to control dynamics or anything else. Not mixing and matching instruments, mind you - this was for writing and producing mock-ups of string quartets. VSL does supply their own soundsets, written specifically for Sibelius - I have no idea what Spitfire and Berlin supply with their libraries, if anything. I know that if I tried to use Cinematic Studios libraries without NPPE support I would be in uncharted territory, as Cinematic specifically disclaims that they offer no support for Sibelius. And I know that NP hooks into Sibelius and actually reads the score, so it could be that it gets info from the score that way and not from Sib... but still, why have playback dictionaries and all of these hooks to playback devices if this information is not sent from Sib's reading of the score?
If I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like Sib is useless for producing mock-ups without something like NP that essentially replaces Sib's entire playback engine. If that's true, then it means that Sib's functionality in that area has gone downhill compared to a decade ago when the composer I mentioned was using it with VSL.
What I meant is that Sib doesn't supply CC1 modwheel simply from reading the score that drives VST instruments. If you want to put this crescendo in to a score:
cresc.jpg
A Kontakt VST will ignore the information just in the score. NP in contrast will read it as part of their custom scripts. To get a VST instrument to play this crescendo back, you need to insert midi controller data through this "Add Continuous Controller Changes" plug in. And the process is cumbersome. It requires a line to attach the controller data to (notice my line that I'll later make invisible in the score above the notes...that is only there to attach the controller data to). So above the notes, I added a line and then set the controller to CC1 (modwheel) starting at 20 and gradually reaching 127 through the course of the line. Now the Kontakt VST instrument will play this crescendo.
crescmidi.jpg
I wish there was a plug in that would automatically interpret dynamics and hairpins from the score into continuous controller data. So technically, the Sib marketing is correct, the software can do this but you see it is a very inefficient approach. Add to this the terrible latency and it's just not a great, elegant approach to doing this.
I don't know if I'd go as far as saying Sib is useless for producing mock-ups. Rather modern sample libraries are very large and rich and having access to those controllers and samples is definitely not native to Sib. If your goal is something immediately listenable, NP is a good option. If you want to enhance this further, you have ways to add additional kontakt VSTs but these are resource intensive and add significant latency...it is clearly not what Sib was designed to do which is in contrast to what a DAW does well - but what a DAW can't really do well is produce a finely engraved score. Yes, yes, they offer score engraving capabilities, but it won't be anywhere near as good as a notation software designed specially to do that task. If you want to make Sib mockup sound like DAW produced mockups simply by reading the score, look elsewhere or wait for something better. I think Musescore 4 has good out of box playback using NP approach so hope a new version of NP is in the works that can kick the can down the road to improve the out of box sound quality.
Quote from: relm1 on May 28, 2023, 06:19:27 AMWhat I meant is that Sib doesn't supply CC1 modwheel simply from reading the score that drives VST instruments. If you want to put this crescendo in to a score:
cresc.jpg
A Kontakt VST will ignore the information just in the score. NP in contrast will read it as part of their custom scripts. To get a VST instrument to play this crescendo back, you need to insert midi controller data through this "Add Continuous Controller Changes" plug in. And the process is cumbersome. It requires a line to attach the controller data to (notice my line that I'll later make invisible in the score above the notes...that is only there to attach the controller data to). So above the notes, I added a line and then set the controller to CC1 (modwheel) starting at 20 and gradually reaching 127 through the course of the line. Now the Kontakt VST instrument will play this crescendo.
crescmidi.jpg
I wish there was a plug in that would automatically interpret dynamics and hairpins from the score into continuous controller data. So technically, the Sib marketing is correct, the software can do this but you see it is a very inefficient approach. Add to this the terrible latency and it's just not a great, elegant approach to doing this.
I don't know if I'd go as far as saying Sib is useless for producing mock-ups. Rather modern sample libraries are very large and rich and having access to those controllers and samples is definitely not native to Sib. If your goal is something immediately listenable, NP is a good option. If you want to enhance this further, you have ways to add additional kontakt VSTs but these are resource intensive and add significant latency...it is clearly not what Sib was designed to do which is in contrast to what a DAW does well - but what a DAW can't really do well is produce a finely engraved score. Yes, yes, they offer score engraving capabilities, but it won't be anywhere near as good as a notation software designed specially to do that task. If you want to make Sib mockup sound like DAW produced mockups simply by reading the score, look elsewhere or wait for something better. I think Musescore 4 has good out of box playback using NP approach so hope a new version of NP is in the works that can kick the can down the road to improve the out of box sound quality.
Okay, yes this is in direct contradiction to what another composer has said who has used Sib with VSL. I have heard some of the results - though the renderings were made with Dorico, not Sib, but he reports similar experience with Sib and I trust that he is not lying.
So I have to assume that VSL supports notation software in a way that is closer to NP than Kontakt. From what I heard there are some things that NP gets better - specifically the dynamic shapes of notes, especially at their endings, and it certainly gets *expression* right over a large range of musical contexts without the composer having to do too much hacking. My main objection to NP is that their sound is synthesized rather than produced from samples. For most instruments that works well, but strings are a special problem. Their solo strings have a very limited range of timbres and their string sections sound scratchy and very unnatural.
BTW you're aware, I hope, that NP4 has a playback engine that supports several libraries that use Kontakt? I haven't tried it as it's an additional cost item and you have to buy the libraries themselves elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't need to control dynamics with MIDI messages. (I was hoping they would support VSL, but so far they don't.)
Quote from: krummholz on May 28, 2023, 10:27:58 AMOkay, yes this is in direct contradiction to what another composer has said who has used Sib with VSL. I have heard some of the results - though the renderings were made with Dorico, not Sib, but he reports similar experience with Sib and I trust that he is not lying.
So I have to assume that VSL supports notation software in a way that is closer to NP than Kontakt. From what I heard there are some things that NP gets better - specifically the dynamic shapes of notes, especially at their endings, and it certainly gets *expression* right over a large range of musical contexts without the composer having to do too much hacking. My main objection to NP is that their sound is synthesized rather than produced from samples. For most instruments that works well, but strings are a special problem. Their solo strings have a very limited range of timbres and their string sections sound scratchy and very unnatural.
BTW you're aware, I hope, that NP4 has a playback engine that supports several libraries that use Kontakt? I haven't tried it as it's an additional cost item and you have to buy the libraries themselves elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't need to control dynamics with MIDI messages. (I was hoping they would support VSL, but so far they don't.)
Perhaps he knows something I don't know (very possible) so if you have an opportunity to get further details. Also, how good are the results? I do not have VSL but still think they'll use CC1 as the standard modwheel controller for dynamic crossfading. NP is NOT using standard controllers so isn't particularly transferrable. Actually, one very important point that might explain the difference that I just realized while writing the prior sentence, perhaps my experience isn't normal because I've been using NP for years and tried to embellish the sample sounds by switching an instrument that used to be in NP to kontakt VST. Perhaps that actually screwed up the controller information because that's how NP reads the score and doesn't translate directly to other kontakt instruments.
Wait, no I didn't know that about NP4 and see I'm not on that one! I'm on NP3.2something. I haven't yet switched to Dorico. more accurately, I've purchased Dorico and haven't learned it.
Quote from: relm1 on May 28, 2023, 04:03:38 PMPerhaps he knows something I don't know (very possible) so if you have an opportunity to get further details. Also, how good are the results? I do not have VSL but still think they'll use CC1 as the standard modwheel controller for dynamic crossfading. NP is NOT using standard controllers so isn't particularly transferrable. Actually, one very important point that might explain the difference that I just realized while writing the prior sentence, perhaps my experience isn't normal because I've been using NP for years and tried to embellish the sample sounds by switching an instrument that used to be in NP to kontakt VST. Perhaps that actually screwed up the controller information because that's how NP reads the score and doesn't translate directly to other kontakt instruments.
Wait, no I didn't know that about NP4 and see I'm not on that one! I'm on NP3.2something. I haven't yet switched to Dorico. more accurately, I've purchased Dorico and haven't learned it.
The results - at least with Dorico - are VERY good sonically; the main drawback is that any extra shaping of phrases that NP does is missing. I noticed especially that there is less dynamic shaping of notes - apparently NP really does some of this without extra hairpins - e.g. when a note ends, it just ends, like the lifting of an organ key.
Yes, undoubtedly the VSL soundsets use MIDI messages to control things like dynamics and vibrato (how else could they be doing it?), and I'm not surprised that the semantics of those messages in NP are non-standard. Probably VSL assumes the standard meanings of the different CC messages and thus to mix and match, you would need to carefully assign the VSL soundsets to their instruments. I finally got an answer from Wallander (a very helpful tech support person named Alexander) to my query about this - he directed me to a section of their Sibelius support document that describes how to do this, though it calls the third-party VSTs "plug-ins", which I thought was confusing, since NP also uses "plug-in" to mean their own specialized scripts. I think you have to manually assign a playback device to each staff in the score in the mixer. He did not say whether this was practical, i.e. whether the added latency would quickly become intolerable, but I guess I'll find out if I decide to go this route. Right now my main concern is with how much "musicality" I would be giving up with VSL vs. NP.
Just so you know: since you already have a license for NP, there is no cost to upgrade to NP4. You'll get a link to a download page that's specifically tied to your email address. The download replaces the old NP3 files so you might want to rename the folder containing them just in case, so they aren't overwritten. There is no difference that I can tell in the quality of the sound - it's still all synthesized. But you do get the ability to add libraries that are supported by NPPE, which at least tries to give NP-quality playback for those libraries. If you have any of them already, you can try the NPPE playback extension for free - but you'd need to pay for it (the cost is between $69 and $89 depending on the library) if you wanted to export a rendering from Sibelius.
Quote from: relm1 on May 28, 2023, 04:03:38 PMPerhaps he knows something I don't know (very possible) so if you have an opportunity to get further details
I though I'd just chip in here as my first post on what is, to me, a new forum as I've been discussing this with krummholz. To use VSL libraries in Sibelius, you need to use the configuration files which are supplied free in your download area. This includes the critical soundset which instruct Sibelius in the CC's used for dynamics for instance so it's certainly not necessary, either for hairpins or straight dynamics to do anything more than write them in the score. Of course, using the Inspector, you can modify them as I frequently did with hairpins in particular as you'll want some to be stronger than others.
You can actually modify the soundsets with the editor but that can be hard work in Sib., unlike in Dorico -- just for clarity, I now rarely use Sib. as I moved to Dorico a good couple of years ago and the version I have is 7.1.3. But I don't believe core features would have suddenly been removed in recent updates! Dorico is much easier to achieve mockups in for at least a couple of reasons a) there is a piano roll editor which has most of the features of DAW equivalents and 2) the Expression Maps -- the soundset equivalents, are fairly transparent and can easily be created and edited by end users as well as having powerful features like patch automation by note duration. There can be different ones even for each instrument which makes it relatively easy to mix and match libraries.
Sibelius has one advantage over Dorico for NotePerfomer and that is a good glissando emulation which is still missing in the latter (although in the pipeline, apparently). And I agree with krummholz that NotePerfomer's phrasing (apart from some bizarre timing errors) can be very impressive and is one of the main reasons I myself invested in both the CSS and BBC SO plug-ins. Of course these can be used in Dorico, Sibelius (and Finale) interchangeably if desired
Quote from: krummholz on May 29, 2023, 05:21:35 AMThe results - at least with Dorico - are VERY good sonically; the main drawback is that any extra shaping of phrases that NP does is missing. I noticed especially that there is less dynamic shaping of notes - apparently NP really does some of this without extra hairpins - e.g. when a note ends, it just ends, like the lifting of an organ key.
Yes, undoubtedly the VSL soundsets use MIDI messages to control things like dynamics and vibrato (how else could they be doing it?), and I'm not surprised that the semantics of those messages in NP are non-standard. Probably VSL assumes the standard meanings of the different CC messages and thus to mix and match, you would need to carefully assign the VSL soundsets to their instruments. I finally got an answer from Wallander (a very helpful tech support person named Alexander) to my query about this - he directed me to a section of their Sibelius support document that describes how to do this, though it calls the third-party VSTs "plug-ins", which I thought was confusing, since NP also uses "plug-in" to mean their own specialized scripts. I think you have to manually assign a playback device to each staff in the score in the mixer. He did not say whether this was practical, i.e. whether the added latency would quickly become intolerable, but I guess I'll find out if I decide to go this route. Right now my main concern is with how much "musicality" I would be giving up with VSL vs. NP.
Just so you know: since you already have a license for NP, there is no cost to upgrade to NP4. You'll get a link to a download page that's specifically tied to your email address. The download replaces the old NP3 files so you might want to rename the folder containing them just in case, so they aren't overwritten. There is no difference that I can tell in the quality of the sound - it's still all synthesized. But you do get the ability to add libraries that are supported by NPPE, which at least tries to give NP-quality playback for those libraries. If you have any of them already, you can try the NPPE playback extension for free - but you'd need to pay for it (the cost is between $69 and $89 depending on the library) if you wanted to export a rendering from Sibelius.
Thanks for letting me know about NPPE and NP4. I wasn't aware of either and downloaded them and really like the results. I think this is a solid solution to the problem of using VST kontakt libraries within Sib because the end result is an improvement on NP sounds without needing to add controller data. The sample library keys you need to get are a small version of the full library but a really good intermediary between the comprehensive libraries and their massive ram and system resource overhead and having a notation software just sound better without adding too much more latency and some manual cumbersome controller process. Thanks again!
Quote from: lunar22 on May 29, 2023, 09:00:44 AMI though I'd just chip in here as my first post on what is, to me, a new forum as I've been discussing this with krummholz. To use VSL libraries in Sibelius, you need to use the configuration files which are supplied free in your download area. This includes the critical soundset which instruct Sibelius in the CC's used for dynamics for instance so it's certainly not necessary, either for hairpins or straight dynamics to do anything more than write them in the score. Of course, using the Inspector, you can modify them as I frequently did with hairpins in particular as you'll want some to be stronger than others.
You can actually modify the soundsets with the editor but that can be hard work in Sib., unlike in Dorico -- just for clarity, I now rarely use Sib. as I moved to Dorico a good couple of years ago and the version I have is 7.1.3. But I don't believe core features would have suddenly been removed in recent updates! Dorico is much easier to achieve mockups in for at least a couple of reasons a) there is a piano roll editor which has most of the features of DAW equivalents and 2) the Expression Maps -- the soundset equivalents, are fairly transparent and can easily be created and edited by end users as well as having powerful features like patch automation by note duration. There can be different ones even for each instrument which makes it relatively easy to mix and match libraries.
Sibelius has one advantage over Dorico for NotePerfomer and that is a good glissando emulation which is still missing in the latter (although in the pipeline, apparently). And I agree with krummholz that NotePerfomer's phrasing (apart from some bizarre timing errors) can be very impressive and is one of the main reasons I myself invested in both the CSS and BBC SO plug-ins. Of course these can be used in Dorico, Sibelius (and Finale) interchangeably if desired
Thanks - I haven't yet switched to Dorico but it of course makes sense that Sib has become bloated as it's had years of tweaks, fixes, features but might not have been conceived with these in mind whereas Dorico can be. But I haven't yet learned it so not yet my go to notation software.
although Dorico is, to quite a large extent, written by the same team which Avid sacked a few years ago, the design is totally different and takes some getting used to. In my view, it's worth persevering, though -- ever more people are making the switch.
Quote from: lunar22 on June 02, 2023, 08:31:59 AMalthough Dorico is, to quite a large extent, written by the same team which Avid sacked a few years ago, the design is totally different and takes some getting used to. In my view, it's worth persevering, though -- ever more people are making the switch.
One friend found the learning curve a bit of a chore.
I have a score in which I deleted the instrument names to the left of the staves (save for the first page) Is there a way to restore those names? I'm finding the reference PDF a bit visually impenetrable.
Did you play around with this?
For those of you using the new NotePerformer NotePerformer Playback Engine (NPPE) and Sibelius, have you encountered a problem where NPPE no longer plays back audio? Support is stumped and I've tried rebooting, uninstalling NPPE then reinstalling it, uninstalling Sibelius then reinstalling. Nothing worked. :'(