Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
I've given Finale a run through on a trial basis and was pretty
content till I ran out of MIDI sends at only 8 instruments. Even the sound quality was good enough to represent a score but I'm like a hog with an orchestra say 127 instruments. I know I could open up Kontakt and transfer parts to Sonar or Pro Tools but I wanted a simple composistion setup. Can Sibelius run more than 8 instruments at a time buy itself? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
On 26 Mar 2007 06:52:27 -0700, "Dewitt" wrote:
I've given Finale a run through on a trial basis and was pretty content till I ran out of MIDI sends at only 8 instruments. Even the sound quality was good enough to represent a score but I'm like a hog with an orchestra say 127 instruments. I know I could open up Kontakt and transfer parts to Sonar or Pro Tools but I wanted a simple composistion setup. Can Sibelius run more than 8 instruments at a time buy itself? Yes, but so can Finale. Both ship with a basic software player. Both can be expanded with more advanced ones which typically offer 32 voices. You can also route tracks to external MIDI devices. But beware. 127 MIDI instruments sound like a recipe for sonic mud. Less is more. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
Laurence Payne schreef:
On 26 Mar 2007 06:52:27 -0700, "Dewitt" wrote: I've given Finale a run through on a trial basis and was pretty content till I ran out of MIDI sends at only 8 instruments. Even the sound quality was good enough to represent a score but I'm like a hog with an orchestra say 127 instruments. I know I could open up Kontakt and transfer parts to Sonar or Pro Tools but I wanted a simple composistion setup. Can Sibelius run more than 8 instruments at a time buy itself? Yes, but so can Finale. Both ship with a basic software player. Both can be expanded with more advanced ones which typically offer 32 voices. You can also route tracks to external MIDI devices. But beware. 127 MIDI instruments sound like a recipe for sonic mud. Less is more. He probably didn't mean all at the same time. If you write for orchestral percussion, instruments get used up very quickly. Jos. -- Ardis Park Music www.ardispark.nl |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
On Mar 26, 1:16 pm, Jos Geluk wrote:
Laurence Payne schreef: On 26 Mar 2007 06:52:27 -0700, "Dewitt" wrote: I've given Finale a run through on a trial basis and was pretty content till I ran out of MIDI sends at only 8 instruments. Even the sound quality was good enough to represent a score but I'm like a hog with an orchestra say 127 instruments. I know I could open up Kontakt and transfer parts to Sonar or Pro Tools but I wanted a simple composistion setup. Can Sibelius run more than 8 instruments at a time buy itself? Yes, but so can Finale. Both ship with a basic software player. Both can be expanded with more advanced ones which typically offer 32 voices. You can also route tracks to external MIDI devices. But beware. 127 MIDI instruments sound like a recipe for sonic mud. Less is more. He probably didn't mean all at the same time. If you write for orchestral percussion, instruments get used up very quickly. Jos. -- Ardis Park Musicwww.ardispark.nl- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 27 instruments sound better than 8. Why do I only see 8 in the manual and when I add new instruments I get a warning that the same channel is being used for more than 1 instrument in Finale Allegro? The demo version didn't say it had any limitations and the manual shows only 8 channels in MIDI setup? How do I get more in Finale? It's only mud when I want mud but the rest the time I need about 27 just not at the same time. Do you reccomend that I remove an instrument from the score if I'm not using it for more than a few minutes? Is Sibelius better than Finale? |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
Laurence Payne wrote:
127 MIDI instruments sound like a recipe for sonic mud. You'd probably be doubling a bunch of parts ... .... though, it is odd, so many years after the introduction of MIDI, that we don't have a standard protocol with a faster communication rate. -- "Coloured and animated, the concerts and spectacles are as many invitations to discover the universes of musicians and artists who tint with happiness our reality." To reach me reverse: moc(dot)xobop(at)ggeztran |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
"Dewitt" wrote in message oups.com... 27 instruments sound better than 8. Why do I only see 8 in the manual and when I add new instruments I get a warning that the same channel is being used for more than 1 instrument in Finale Allegro? The demo version didn't say it had any limitations and the manual shows only 8 channels in MIDI setup? How do I get more in Finale? Finale and Finale Allegro are not the same thing. You should be more precise in your problem statement. -- Hal Laurent Baltimore |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
Dewitt wrote:
It's only mud when I want mud but the rest the time I need about 27 just not at the same time. Do you reccomend that I remove an instrument from the score if I'm not using it for more than a few minutes? Is Sibelius better than Finale? Hi Dewitt! Make a cross-check with Cubase and report us how it works. 8 instruments??? There ought to be 128 pistes with Sibelius, as in Cubase. If you have 32voice machines for example, you can only connect four of them, using their multi-timbral fully. 4x32 = 128 Best regards, Daniel Mandic P.S.: Eight MIDI Channels, alla 16 tracks, is 128 tracks. (much cable :-)) |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
Jon wrote:
... though, it is odd, so many years after the introduction of MIDI, that we don't have a standard protocol with a faster communication rate. hmmmm, if you can show me a music-player who can play 960 notes in (into) one full-note (let's say in Andante. ...Beats per minute... what a farce, IMO), then it is time for something faster Best Regards, Daniel Mandic |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
Hmm. Both programs are foremost aimed at notation. You can use any of
them to write the score for a symphony and rather effortlessly extract the parts for all the players. In addition they offer you a preview of the music by playing it back. I will limit my comments to Sibelius as that is the program I have been using for the last several years. Sibelius in itself has no playback machine, ie it does not create any sounds. You can however use external midi equipment, the Windows built- in midi player (not the best sounds), export midi files for later playback, the Kontakt player that is delivered with Sibelius or the GPO sound sets. All midi based formats is limited to that a midi file can have a max of 16 channels. A channels is basically set to one sound, but you can have many notes playing at the same time. One example may be a piano, it uses one channel but can play many notes at the same time. Often a the first and second violins can share the same channels, even when going divisi. At least when they play arco, but if you need pizzicato sounds those often has to go to the next channel. Percussion often needs only one channel, the same sound has most of the common drums and crashes and triangles and so on. As for instruments, in an orchestra there are often many violins, all of those could possibly share one sound. Or if you preferr it, divide them on two channels for violin 1 and 2 in order to be able to pan them differently in the stereo picture. Sibelius does some smart mapping of channels, reusing channels when possible, so yes, you are often able to get 27 instruments from only 16 channels. If you elect to use the Windows built-in midi player you will hear the sounds (that has 16 channels). Rather ugly sounds though. To your rescue comes the (included) Kontakt Silver player. This has quite better sounds. A limited selection though, and you can only play 8 at a time. For an additional fee you can get the Gold version that can play 32 different sounds at the same time and has a larger selection. Above that you are into specialty country -- solutions are there but you need to gain a bit of knowledge to be able to select them and use them -- to me the plain vanilla solutions has never been a limitation in writing for the Symphony orchestra. So, yes Sibelius can be made to play your 127 different instruments at the same time. It is the best solution for writing scores for large orchestras (Finale users say Finale is this) and it is used daily by professional composer. It may not be the best solution to render your ideas into a CD sound file, the playback is foremost aimed at allowing you to have a preview in order to find errors and such, but some people does use the exported sounds as the final media, singing or playing back to them. All in all, do test the Sibelius demo! It does not give the full picture as Kontakt is not included, but it will be a start. Donīt expect it to be simple program although it is far easier to learn than Finale (personal opinion) but then writing music is not very easy. Gunnar |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
gunnar wrote:
All in all, do test the Sibelius demo! It does not give the full picture as Kontakt is not included, but it will be a start. Donīt expect it to be simple program although it is far easier to learn than Finale (personal opinion) but then writing music is not very easy. Gunnar Hi Gunnar! What gives me the pleasure :-)? However.... thanks for your reply! I've tried Sibelius some time, and yes, you said good. It's better for scoring music not playback, though it works fine for playback, too. As for me. I am still stucked to the Keyboard and have no time to study any Sequencer. When time is ripe, I'll get onto Cubase Score II on ATARI. I like the Sound of the ATARI midi :-) (no need for a digital implementation of real-human playing, like in Sibelius. Its pursuing midi-click is the warmest MIDI playback I ever heard and a solid stable Cubase Version as well) Also available for 128tracks.... (I think it's Cubase Audio, ...more for the Falcon ATARI series and its DMA PCM soundchip 56KHz. I prefer the ATARI TT and something with Score) Well, I have the orig. ATARI MIDI connectors, a PAR extender, makes Four and the MIDEX Bus-Extension. Total, eight MIDI-OUT and three MIDI-IN :-) Kind regards, Daniel Mandic |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
On 26 Mar 2007 23:02:55 -0700, "gunnar" wrote:
Sibelius in itself has no playback machine, ie it does not create any sounds. You can however use external midi equipment, the Windows built- in midi player (not the best sounds), export midi files for later playback, the Kontakt player that is delivered with Sibelius or the GPO sound sets. Sibelius ships with Kontakt Silver. It integrates closely with Sibelius, and can only be used from within Sibelius. That's close enough to make "Sibelius in itself has no playback machine" a misleading technicality, I think. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
On 27 Mar 2007 07:46:14 GMT, "Daniel Mandic"
wrote: As for me. I am still stucked to the Keyboard and have no time to study any Sequencer. When time is ripe, I'll get onto Cubase Score II on ATARI. I like the Sound of the ATARI midi :-) (no need for a digital implementation of real-human playing, like in Sibelius. Its pursuing midi-click is the warmest MIDI playback I ever heard and a solid stable Cubase Version as well) Yeah, if you've still got an Atari lying around, it does MIDI just as well as it ever did. Not sure what you mean about the "sound" - it hasn't got any! Outboard MIDI synths are required. Also available for 128tracks.... (I think it's Cubase Audio, ...more for the Falcon ATARI series and its DMA PCM soundchip 56KHz. I prefer the ATARI TT and something with Score) Don't go there. Cubase Audio on the Falcon was a worthy first attempt, but never really matured. Even with the clock modification, it wasn't stable (in the timing OR the computing senses). But if you're determined, I think I still have the extra hardware available for sale :-) |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
On Mar 27, 6:25 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote: On 27 Mar 2007 07:46:14 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" wrote: As for me. I am still stucked to the Keyboard and have no time to study any Sequencer. When time is ripe, I'll get onto Cubase Score II on ATARI. I like the Sound of the ATARI midi :-) (no need for a digital implementation of real-human playing, like in Sibelius. Its pursuing midi-click is the warmest MIDI playback I ever heard and a solid stable Cubase Version as well) Yeah, if you've still got an Atari lying around, it does MIDI just as well as it ever did. Not sure what you mean about the "sound" - it hasn't got any! Outboard MIDI synths are required. Also available for 128tracks.... (I think it's Cubase Audio, ...more for the Falcon ATARI series and its DMA PCM soundchip 56KHz. I prefer the ATARI TT and something with Score) Don't go there. Cubase Audio on the Falcon was a worthy first attempt, but never really matured. Even with the clock modification, it wasn't stable (in the timing OR the computing senses). But if you're determined, I think I still have the extra hardware available for sale :-) I had the demo version of Finale and it had reasonable sounds to work with even without me opining my Kontakt 2 or sequencer. I like the just sit down and score ability but the high cost of the top version of the produce is outrageous. I wonder if anybody uses Finale Printmusic and if they coudl tell me the differance between the full featured version before I move on to a trial of Sebius? |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Finale vrs Sibelius
Laurence Payne wrote:
Yeah, if you've still got an Atari lying around, it does MIDI just as well as it ever did. Not sure what you mean about the "sound" - it hasn't got any! Outboard MIDI synths are required. Good Day! The ATARI ticks better. (probably the real-time OS, TOS and the MIDI in ROM, uploadable to Fast-RAM 32bit, via MMU, because DOS and selected Hardware-and-Software, ticks also good. NT is runnig forward with the sound... ATARI seems something slow, but it never ends.... Sorry, I cannot explain it other :-). Maybe you should listen a groovy sequence via ATARI ST and the same on a high power NT=5 Machine, then you will know what I mean. The buffering tricks of NT4 [maybe the better choice for serious MIDI tasks] and higher is nice for multitasking and multi-threading, having handles everywhere, but it does not improve the MIDI tick. It distorts, IMO. [The system does all the time something]) Don't go there. Cubase Audio on the Falcon was a worthy first attempt, but never really matured. Even with the clock modification, it wasn't stable (in the timing OR the computing senses). But if you're determined, I think I still have the extra hardware available for sale :-) Do you mean just the Audio features (Falcon soundchip), or is Cubase Audio 3.1 at all unstable? Kind regards, Daniel Mandic |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Sibelius Annoyance | Pro Audio | |||
Sibelius latency | Pro Audio | |||
annoying problem in Sibelius 3 | Pro Audio | |||
Early Music in Sibelius? | Pro Audio | |||
Sibelius Opinions | Pro Audio |