Finale vrs Sibelius

[Dewitt]

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?

[Laurence Payne]

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.

[Jos Geluk]

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

[Dewitt]

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?

[Jon]

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

[Hal Laurent]

"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

[Daniel Mandic]

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
:-))

[Daniel Mandic]

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

[gunnar]

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. Don´t
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

[Daniel Mandic]

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. Don´t
> 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

[Laurence Payne]

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.

[Laurence Payne]

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 :-)

[Dewitt]

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?

[Daniel Mandic]

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