Integration with Cubase

Discussions about our next-generation scoring application, Dorico.
Post Reply
Rob Tuley
Senior Member
Posts: 2872
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 12:41 am

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by Rob Tuley » Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:20 pm

I think I'm missing something here, but the way I see it, unless your proposal only does "display this fixed SVG image for x seconds and then switch to the next fixed image" you must have some semantic information about the images hidden somewhere.

For example what happens if you want to display the images on a device with an inappropriate resolution for their content? Either you just say "well, it's just too bad you can't actually read anything useful here" to the user, or you have split up or scroll the image somehow - but how? Scroll it vertically, bottom to top or top to bottom? Horizontally, right to left or left to right? Rotate it in a circle, clockwise or counterclockwise ? Semantics, semantics ....

And on the MIDI side, somehow you have to define what patches to use from what sample libraries - or encapsulate the playback libraries in the file, and then define the semantics of exactly how a player should interpret MIDI commands like note velocity, channel control data, etc - the MIDI standard doesn't do that, except in the most vague terms (what exactly is a "synth drum" supposed to sound like, for example...)

Or, you build something like the app you linked to, which only works in a couple of web browsers on one OS, and demands that the user install an exact list of other software components that it knows how to talk to (and by implication, any composer using it is constrained to realize their score using only what is available in those specific apps?). That's fine for people who go want to along with it, but it's not exactly a general purpose solution. It might hide the semantics, but it they are still there.

User avatar
PaulWalmsley
Steinberg Employee
Posts: 1658
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 9:24 pm
Location: Steinberg, London
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by PaulWalmsley » Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:23 pm

As you will appreciate, with very complex software bases It's Not Quite That Simple. Although you see the score scrolling in time with the music, that in no way implies that the playback code 'knows' about the drawn notation data in any way -- they are completely separate subsystems. However there are a handful of isolated interfaces that do convey some limited information between the two, such as the playback line.

For a start there's a many-to-many relationship between a drawn note and a played MIDI note...
Architect & Developer - Steinberg London

wcreed
Junior Member
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:01 pm
Location: Berskshires, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by wcreed » Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:04 am

>many-to-many relationship

Ahhh, a database man
Bill Reed
Dorico, Cubase, Overture, Sibelius, Finale, Notion
Win10 x64, 32GB RAM; iPad2; Focusrite Scarlett 18i20
Kontakt, VSL VI Pro, VE Pro, EWQL Orch, Choirs and Pianos
August Forster 190

notator
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:29 am
Location: Cologne, Germany
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by notator » Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:12 am

Rob Tuley wrote:I think I'm missing something here....
Thanks for joining this discussion and giving me the chance to explain myself better. Thanks to Steinberg too for that! :)
Rob Tuley wrote:...but the way I see it, unless your proposal only does "display this fixed SVG image for x seconds and then switch to the next fixed image" you must have some semantic information about the images hidden somewhere.
My proposal is very simple. An SVG+MIDI format allows applications to be written that "display [and play] this fixed SVG image for x seconds and then switch to the next fixed image". But not only that: if a DAW could read such files, then it could change the temporal information inside the symbols and write the file back out.
Rob Tuley wrote: For example what happens if you want to display the images on a device with an inappropriate resolution for their content? Either you just say "well, it's just too bad you can't actually read anything useful here" to the user, or you have split up or scroll the image somehow - but how?
Begin Edit 21.10.2016: My first answer to this wasn't very good (sorry, nobody's perfect).
The best way to solve the screen resolution problem is for the authoring application to supply the score in various versions designed for the appropriate screen sizes. This is the way web sites are, or should be, handled for widely different screen sizes. The client application then just has to check the user's screen resolution, and select the appropriate score. Once the bars-per-system distribution is correct, it is trivial for an application to add scroll bars or change the display scale to fit a particular screen. Which score the app decides to use, and what it does with it, is up to the app.
Rob Tuley wrote:Scroll it vertically, bottom to top or top to bottom? Horizontally, right to left or left to right? Rotate it in a circle, clockwise or counterclockwise ? Semantics, semantics ....
All SVG elements can have class attributes that indicate which type of object the element represents. These can be abstract container classes ("system", "staff", "chord" etc.) or CWMN objects such as "slur", "tupletBracket" etc. The SVG namespace mechanism is used to tell the client application which classes exist in the file, and how they nest. There can also be code in the file that lets the application know whether the notation is read top to bottom or right to left etc. Defining such things would be done in the process of defining the standard. Not all SVG+MIDI scores need to be written in CWMN, but those that are might well use class names taken from MusicXML.
End Edit 21.10.2016
Rob Tuley wrote: And on the MIDI side, somehow you have to define what patches to use from what sample libraries - or encapsulate the playback libraries in the file, and then define the semantics of exactly how a player should interpret MIDI commands like note velocity, channel control data, etc - the MIDI standard doesn't do that, except in the most vague terms (what exactly is a "synth drum" supposed to sound like, for example...)
Think of the MIDI in an SVG+MIDI file as being equivalent to a MIDI file. Its just that the MIDI info is written in plain text (like SVG), and is distributed around the file in various containers. Just as with MIDI files, its up to applications to decide when to send MIDI commands, and to which MIDI device they are going to be sent.
Rob Tuley wrote: Or, you build something like the app you linked to, which only works in a couple of web browsers on one OS, and demands that the user install an exact list of other software components that it knows how to talk to (and by implication, any composer using it is constrained to realize their score using only what is available in those specific apps?)
Begin Edit 24.10.2016: Here, my first answer was simply wrong! Sorry, I was writing in too much of a hurry.
First, Web apps:
My app uses both the WebMIDIAPI and the WebAudioAPI. Support for these in the various browsers can be checked at http://caniuse.com/#feat=midi and http://caniuse.com/#feat=audio-api.
Currently, the WebMIDIAPI is only supported natively in Chrome, Opera and the Android browsers. More browsers than that already implement the WebAudioAPI.
The Jazz plugin can be used in Firefox and other browsers as a shim for the WebMIDIAPI.
If the WebMIDIAPI is implemented somehow, then the app automatically recognises any (software or hardware) MIDI input or output devices attached to the computer. The user can direct the MIDI output to any output device attached to their machine.
Since not everyone has a (software or hardware) MIDI output device attached to their computer, I adapted an existing body of code for use as a resident soundfont synthesizer. This uses the WebAudioAPI, resides on the web site next to the app, and does not have to be installed on the user's computer. Its a bit primitive (I'm not an audio expert), but demonstrates that the technology works in principle. Hopefully, someone more expert than me will improve it sometime. Someone at Steinberg maybe? ;)
This all works (if it works at all) on any operating system supported by the browser.
I designed this app for the web, not only because I want my scores to be playable there, but also so that I wouldn't have to write an SVG graphics renderer. However, web apps are not the only apps that could use SVG+MIDI files.
Other apps (such as Cubase) can use them too. There are actually lots of applications for such files: The academic world could use them for adding arbitrary annotations or using coloured highlighting; different performances can be stored in the same score in order to learn/demonstrate/study different ways of playing the score; scores can be synchronized with existing recordings or videos in any format etc., etc.
Performance practice is learned by listening in real time. Using such techniques, composers can provide performers with accurate temporal renderings of a new piece before the first rehearsal thus reducing expensive rehearsal time. That's important, not only to those parts of the industry that use CWMN, but also to the learning of less common notations (e.g. classical Asian notations) and for the healthy development of new notations for New Music.
Music notation is, and always has been, an aide memoire.
End Edit 24.10.2016
______________________________________________________________________
PaulWalmsley wrote:As you will appreciate, with very complex software bases It's Not Quite That Simple. Although you see the score scrolling in time with the music, that in no way implies that the playback code 'knows' about the drawn notation data in any way -- they are completely separate subsystems. However there are a handful of isolated interfaces that do convey some limited information between the two, such as the playback line.
Begin Edit 21.10.2016 I can't see your code, of course, but it sounds to me as if you are fighting a problem with your time paradigm. If tempo is a fundamental concept, and symbols have fixed meanings in a temporal ether, then temporal information is going to leak into the graphics and you are going to have to start using fictitious time layers...
Begin Edit 22.10.2016 Sorry, but your problem is still going through my mind. Here are some more thoughts:
Looking at the beginning of the video at
http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2016/09/ ... preadbury/
I see that the playback cursor takes up positions between the symbols. This is, I think, a mistake. Dorico, like other contemporary CWMN editors, is trying to treat symbolic music notation as if it were space=time notation. Its a legacy problem in the time paradigm. CWMN developed in the 19th century under the assumption that there is a temporal ether (from which real performances are supposed to deviate). The continuously moving cursor represents that (non-existent) ether.
Things get much simpler if all the duration information is stored inside the chord symbols (separately from their graphics). If you do this, you can probably replace some large, complex chunks of code by a few simple calculations.
This means that the cursor should jump from symbol to symbol, waiting on each symbol until the next symbol is scheduled to begin. There is no time between the symbols. That may look a bit odd at first, but I think your users would soon get used to the new behaviour, just as they have to the behaviour of digital clocks. (I'm old enough to remember the introduction of digital clocks, and how strange it looked to see the second hand jumping from marker to marker.)
End Edit 22.10.2016
As I said, I think its very important to consider the long term goals in order to get Dorico's architecture right. And its important to get the architecture right as early as possible.
PaulWalmsley wrote: For a start there's a many-to-many relationship between a drawn note and a played MIDI note...
My prototype SVG+MIDI format supports ornamented chord symbols. I see no problem there.
Also, it is, in principle, possible both to save different performances of a score in parallel layers of temporal info in the same file, and to have different scores (graphics) for identical temporal info. (See the following post.)
End Edit 21.10.2016

All the best,
James
--
http://james-ingram-act-two.de
https://github.com/notator
Last edited by notator on Mon Oct 24, 2016 2:41 pm, edited 4 times in total.

notator
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:29 am
Location: Cologne, Germany
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by notator » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:18 pm

Winston Churchill wrote:If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
I've been away from my computer since my previous posting (Fri Oct 07), and am a bit surprised that there have been no more contributions since then. Maybe this forum is just not the best place for airing programming ideas. However, before giving up, I'd like to take a leaf out of Winston Churchill's book. For the record, and hoping to make the occasional point clearer, here's a summary of what I'm thinking:
Begin Edit 21.10.2016: The Dorico team released their first public version this past week, so they are obviously very busy with user's reactions. (Congratulations, by the way!!) They, and/or the Cubase team, will doubtless come back to this thread when things have settled down.
End Edit 21.10.2016

Integrating Dorico with Cubase implies a common file format that is both readable and writeable by both programs. If such a format existed, its content could also form the basis of an API connecting the two programs running simultaneously.
The file format has to contain both music symbols and annotations. Music symbols have both a graphic appearance and a temporal meaning. Annotations are just symbols that contain no machine-readable meaning.

SVG is a mature eXtendable Markup Language for graphics that can easily be extended to include arbitrary (non-graphical) information. Arbitrary semantic information can be added to an SVG element by giving it a "class" attribute. More complex information can be defined using a custom "namespace". Information in custom namespaces is simply ignored by graphics renderers, such as those built in to browsers, but is of course accessible to applications that know what they are looking for.

It is extremely important that the spatial and temporal information in the file be kept synchronized but otherwise strictly independent.
Dorico (or its representative inside Cubase) should have read+write permission on the graphics in the file, and read+perform permission on the temporal information.
Cubase (or its representative inside Dorico) should have read+write permission on the temporal information, and read+display permission on the graphics.
Synchronisation can be achieved by grouping related spatial and temporal elements inside an SVG <g> element, and giving the group a class attribute (e.g. class="chord").

My prototype browser application only uses MIDI information in its temporal elements. Also, it does not define any graphic objects specifically for containing continuous controller information (CC info is currently defined inside score:midiChords so that shunting is simplified.).
These are not fundamental restrictions. It would also be perfectly feasible for Cubase to write VST info into the file, and for envelope symbols to be defined ("hairpin", "slur", "pitchBendEnvelope", "lowPassFilterEnvelope" etc.).

I think its time for such temporal SVG extensions to be standardized, and that this should be an open, W3C effort.
Experts in all the related areas should be involved -- especially the Steinberg programmers, and those who developed SVG. My expertise/experience is not in Steinberg programs (though I have used Cubase and Sibelius in my time) or in SVG, but in music notation itself - especially non-standard music notation (which cannot be ignored in a W3C standard).
Begin Edit 23.10.2016:
Something that needs thinking about: Instead of immediately going for an official W3C standard, Steinberg could, instead, define an open file format of their own. However, the format should then still be defined with the same requirements and care as if it were a W3C standard, otherwise problems (unnecessary restrictions, re-programming etc.) are going to arise further down the line.
I still think the W3C route would be best, even though it would probably take a couple of years (not more).
End Edit 23.10.2016.

The recently developed WebMIDIAPI has removed a great deal of redundancy/complexity from the original (1983) MIDI standard. In particular, durations are measured purely in milliseconds, and there is no concept of tempo. I think an SVG+MIDI standard should follow that lead. Simplification, without loss of functionality, can only be a good thing. Being a CWMN editor, Dorico should handle tempi in its GUI, but the underlying temporal unit should be whole, indivisible milliseconds.

Hope that helps,
All the best,
James

notator
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:29 am
Location: Cologne, Germany
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by notator » Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:14 am

Hopefully, this thread has only gone quiet because it has a lower priority than dealing with users' responses to Dorico 1.0, and not because you all think I'm a troll! :|
I now have very little to add to the above proposal, but (in the interest of any future discussion) may as well add any further thoughts here as they occur.

Here's a little digression about: the underlying temporal unit in Dorico should be milliseconds:
Integrating with Cubase ought to be much easier if the interface doesn't include the concepts of tempo or MIDI ticks.
These concepts crept into the 1983 MIDI standard because CWMN was (and still is) the dominant paradigm. But tempo was a badly understood concept at the time (it still is), so the original MIDI standard ended up being confused: It makes no distinction between a "quarter note" (a graphic object) and a "beat" (a temporal event). In fact MIDI doesn't need the concept of tempo (or MIDI ticks) at all, and it has been removed from the WebMIDIAPI. Browsers have to be as economical as possible with their code.

Perfomances of any kind of music can be measured in milliseconds, so that's the unit that should be used by any application when interfacing to Cubase. But CWMN includes the concept of tempo, so Dorico has to handle it in its GUI.

There is an issue as to whether the milliseconds should be represented as integers or floating point numbers. My own opinion is that integers are perfectly adequate, and that their use prevents a lot of hassle with rounding errors. The most common operation one does with durations is to add them...

GTBannah
Member
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by GTBannah » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:14 pm

notator wrote:....
Perfomances of any kind of music can be measured in milliseconds, so that's the unit that should be used by any application when interfacing to Cubase. But CWMN includes the concept of tempo, so Dorico has to handle it in its GUI.
....
:shock: This is interesting. I know nothing about writing code, but I would like to hear more about this thinking.

I will continue to lurk .... :)
Derrkins

If that's really what you hear, Play It, Sing It, Write It or Program It!

Mac Mini, 2.6 GHz Intel Core i7, 16 GB RAM; OS X Mojave 10.14.6; Nuendo 8.3.20.345; Sibelius 7.5; iPad Pro 13"; Cubasis, WaveLab 9.00; Dorico V3.0.0.1038 (Loving it).

DG
Member
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by DG » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:18 pm

There have always been problems in Cubendo when it comes to MIDI and milliseconds. Some have been workaroundable (is that a word?) and some haven't, particularly when tempo tracks are involved. I think that a high level discussion between the developers of both SB sequencers and notation program is needed.

DG
Nuendo 6.07
Intel Xeon 3.0GHz 10 Core 20 Threads
32GB RAM
Windows 7 (x64)Pro
RME Multiface II
Intensity
nVidia GT 640 graphics card

notator
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:29 am
Location: Cologne, Germany
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by notator » Wed Oct 26, 2016 1:38 pm

Thanks, GTBannah and DG! Its great to know that I'm not talking to myself! :D

User avatar
odlumb
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: Shaw Island WA and Ferreirola Spain
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by odlumb » Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:06 pm

Hi Everyone. I'm really just adding my two cents because I know the Dorico team pays attention to this forum, and they need user input to have a better idea of where they're going, and where their clients want them to go.

My personal and highly subjective perspective is that the world of traditional notation is the “old world”, and the world of the DAW (MIDI + Audio + virtual instruments + automation + all the rest) is the “new world”. Most of my compositions were never conceived to be performed by humans, but instead were intended to be realized only by the computer. I compose in the DAW environment and usually have no need for traditional music notation.

However, occasionally I DO write for real instruments, intended to be played by real people. In those cases I need a good notation program. I still do all my creative work within the Cubase/DAW environment, but when I'm done I have to “reduce” my work to a set of MIDI tracks suitable for representation in traditional notational form.

My first (early) attempts were with the score editor built into Cubase. I was never able to get this sub-application of Cubase to produce the results I wanted. I should add that I played in a professional symphony orchestra for thirteen years, so I have some idea of what “good” (and “bad”) notation looks like. I was never successful with the score editor. Maybe it can do better than I was able to achieve, but after much effort I gave up. Looking around for an alternative, I decided on Sibelius, which does a decent job, but has a UI designed by aliens IMHO.

With Sibelius and a LOT of work I am able to produce satisfactory scores of my compositions intended to be played by humans. I basically export MIDI files from Cubase and import them into Sibelius, and then work for HOURS to hammer the notation into the shape I want. As a final step I export MIDI files from Sibelius and import them back into Cubase to check the results in the Cubase/DAW environment, to be sure everything “translated” correctly.

So I am already using two application in two environments, and IMO it sucks. I always wished the score editor in Cubase had the capability of Sibelius, so I could quickly and easily switch back and forth between the two worlds. I still hope that Dorico will eventually integrate into Cubase in this manner, as a much better and more sophisticated version of the score editor, allowing me to realize this seamless work environment. I will pay good money for that solution.

But until that integration is available, I'm not purchasing Dorico. I acknowledge that Dorico, when compared with Sibelius, has a superior UI, a better workflow model, better engraving, integration with the Cubase audio back end, and many other features which make it a better tool than Sibelius. But I already own Sibelius, and I'm satisfied with the results I can achieve with it, albeit with a great deal of effort and swearing. But the advancement which Dorico currently offers is not sufficient to motivate me to abandon a very expensive tool I already own for a very expensive tool I don't. When Dorico can integrate into Cubase as a “plug-in” (or perhaps Rewire) and function “in step” with the Cubase/DAW environment seamlessly, I will reach for my wallet.

I should add in closing that I think Dorico shows signs of already being halfway (at least) to this goal, and I remain enthusiastic and hopeful. As a stated above, this is my personal and subjective perspective, based on the way I work. It doesn't necessarily have validity for anyone else. The world of music is incomprehensibly large, there is room for every opinion.

Mike Dunn
Junior Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:46 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by Mike Dunn » Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:59 pm

odlumb wrote:Hi Everyone. I'm really just adding my two cents because I know the Dorico team pays attention to this forum, and they need user input to have a better idea of where they're going, and where their clients want them to go.

My personal and highly subjective perspective is that the world of traditional notation is the “old world”, and the world of the DAW (MIDI + Audio + virtual instruments + automation + all the rest) is the “new world”. Most of my compositions were never conceived to be performed by humans, but instead were intended to be realized only by the computer. I compose in the DAW environment and usually have no need for traditional music notation.

However, occasionally I DO write for real instruments, intended to be played by real people. In those cases I need a good notation program. I still do all my creative work within the Cubase/DAW environment, but when I'm done I have to “reduce” my work to a set of MIDI tracks suitable for representation in traditional notational form.

My first (early) attempts were with the score editor built into Cubase. I was never able to get this sub-application of Cubase to produce the results I wanted. I should add that I played in a professional symphony orchestra for thirteen years, so I have some idea of what “good” (and “bad”) notation looks like. I was never successful with the score editor. Maybe it can do better than I was able to achieve, but after much effort I gave up. Looking around for an alternative, I decided on Sibelius, which does a decent job, but has a UI designed by aliens IMHO.

With Sibelius and a LOT of work I am able to produce satisfactory scores of my compositions intended to be played by humans. I basically export MIDI files from Cubase and import them into Sibelius, and then work for HOURS to hammer the notation into the shape I want. As a final step I export MIDI files from Sibelius and import them back into Cubase to check the results in the Cubase/DAW environment, to be sure everything “translated” correctly.

So I am already using two application in two environments, and IMO it sucks. I always wished the score editor in Cubase had the capability of Sibelius, so I could quickly and easily switch back and forth between the two worlds. I still hope that Dorico will eventually integrate into Cubase in this manner, as a much better and more sophisticated version of the score editor, allowing me to realize this seamless work environment. I will pay good money for that solution.

But until that integration is available, I'm not purchasing Dorico. I acknowledge that Dorico, when compared with Sibelius, has a superior UI, a better workflow model, better engraving, integration with the Cubase audio back end, and many other features which make it a better tool than Sibelius. But I already own Sibelius, and I'm satisfied with the results I can achieve with it, albeit with a great deal of effort and swearing. But the advancement which Dorico currently offers is not sufficient to motivate me to abandon a very expensive tool I already own for a very expensive tool I don't. When Dorico can integrate into Cubase as a “plug-in” (or perhaps Rewire) and function “in step” with the Cubase/DAW environment seamlessly, I will reach for my wallet.

I should add in closing that I think Dorico shows signs of already being halfway (at least) to this goal, and I remain enthusiastic and hopeful. As a stated above, this is my personal and subjective perspective, based on the way I work. It doesn't necessarily have validity for anyone else. The world of music is incomprehensibly large, there is room for every opinion.
Well put !

Mike
Dorico Pro 3, Nuendo 10, Intel i7, 32GIG RAM, Windows 10 pro 64bit, (2nd machine - Win10 64bit 6 Gig ram, VE Pro), (Also 3rd Machine - Windows Surface Pro for transcribing to Dorico, particularly), EWQLSQ, EWQLSO, VSL, VEPro, Sibelius 8.4, Kontakt, Absynth, Omnisphere 2, Trilian, Reaktor 6 etc etc.

http://www.mldunn.net

Rob Tuley
Senior Member
Posts: 2872
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 12:41 am

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by Rob Tuley » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:01 pm

When a trial version of Dorico appears, I think you should look at how "insert mode" might be useful for this kind of task.

For example you can make arbitrary changes to the duration of notes without getting tripped up by bar lines, etc. The music which follows the note you edit shuffles right or left as required, and is automatically re-notated.

And you can re-bar the music any way you like (or not at all), with or without time signatures, without having to think about the program inserting rests (to complete a bar) that you don't want, etc.

I'm not claiming it's a perfect solution, but it might be a lot better than what you have already.

olamo
Junior Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by olamo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:56 pm

David Tee wrote:
jorisdeman wrote: And I would be astonished if Steinberg haven't considered a cut down version of Dorico as Cubase's score editor at some point in the future..
This is what I hope for.
Being a Finale, Sibelius and Nuendo user for years, the cubase score editor was never an option to me..

User avatar
Alberto Maria
Junior Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by Alberto Maria » Sat Nov 12, 2016 11:08 pm

I've been a Finale and Sibelius user in the past, but Cubase Score has been more than an option for me ;) Nevertheless I also hope a complete integration between Dorico and Cubase. Hopefully a full version ;) Dorico has very high objectives, so all or nothing!
AmM
Alberto Maria


wXpPro SP3 still working in C6.5] W10pro 64b et al. like Mac.., SX1.0.6.78, SX2.2.39, SX3.1.1.944, C4.5.2.274, C5.5.3.651, C6.5.5.176, C7.0.7.2276, C7.5.40.315, C8.0.40.623, C8.5.30.192, C9.0.40.292, C9.5.50.345, C10.0.30.288, TgSe 3.1.0.196, VidEng 1.2.1.12, H5.2.2.6.87, HsonicSe3.2.20.194, D1.2.10.139, D2.2.10.1286

olamo
Junior Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by olamo » Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:47 pm

Alberto Maria wrote:I've been a Finale and Sibelius user in the past, but Cubase Score has been more than an option for me ;) Nevertheless I also hope a complete integration between Dorico and Cubase. Hopefully a full version ;) Dorico has very high objectives, so all or nothing!
Each to his own ;)
Find it very cluttered, unintuitive.
Actually liked the Pro Tools score editor better..

But then again, I highly missed the VST expressions!

Peter Roos
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 7:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by Peter Roos » Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:05 pm

odlumb wrote:Hi Everyone. I'm really just adding my two cents because I know the Dorico team pays attention to this forum, and they need user input to have a better idea of where they're going, and where their clients want them to go.

My personal and highly subjective perspective is that the world of traditional notation is the “old world”, and the world of the DAW (MIDI + Audio + virtual instruments + automation + all the rest) is the “new world”. Most of my compositions were never conceived to be performed by humans, but instead were intended to be realized only by the computer. I compose in the DAW environment and usually have no need for traditional music notation.

However, occasionally I DO write for real instruments, intended to be played by real people. In those cases I need a good notation program. I still do all my creative work within the Cubase/DAW environment, but when I'm done I have to “reduce” my work to a set of MIDI tracks suitable for representation in traditional notational form.

My first (early) attempts were with the score editor built into Cubase. I was never able to get this sub-application of Cubase to produce the results I wanted. I should add that I played in a professional symphony orchestra for thirteen years, so I have some idea of what “good” (and “bad”) notation looks like. I was never successful with the score editor. Maybe it can do better than I was able to achieve, but after much effort I gave up. Looking around for an alternative, I decided on Sibelius, which does a decent job, but has a UI designed by aliens IMHO.

With Sibelius and a LOT of work I am able to produce satisfactory scores of my compositions intended to be played by humans. I basically export MIDI files from Cubase and import them into Sibelius, and then work for HOURS to hammer the notation into the shape I want. As a final step I export MIDI files from Sibelius and import them back into Cubase to check the results in the Cubase/DAW environment, to be sure everything “translated” correctly.

So I am already using two application in two environments, and IMO it sucks. I always wished the score editor in Cubase had the capability of Sibelius, so I could quickly and easily switch back and forth between the two worlds. I still hope that Dorico will eventually integrate into Cubase in this manner, as a much better and more sophisticated version of the score editor, allowing me to realize this seamless work environment. I will pay good money for that solution.

But until that integration is available, I'm not purchasing Dorico. I acknowledge that Dorico, when compared with Sibelius, has a superior UI, a better workflow model, better engraving, integration with the Cubase audio back end, and many other features which make it a better tool than Sibelius. But I already own Sibelius, and I'm satisfied with the results I can achieve with it, albeit with a great deal of effort and swearing. But the advancement which Dorico currently offers is not sufficient to motivate me to abandon a very expensive tool I already own for a very expensive tool I don't. When Dorico can integrate into Cubase as a “plug-in” (or perhaps Rewire) and function “in step” with the Cubase/DAW environment seamlessly, I will reach for my wallet.

I should add in closing that I think Dorico shows signs of already being halfway (at least) to this goal, and I remain enthusiastic and hopeful. As a stated above, this is my personal and subjective perspective, based on the way I work. It doesn't necessarily have validity for anyone else. The world of music is incomprehensibly large, there is room for every opinion.
If Dorico is going into the direction I hope and think it's going, you won't need Cubase for the majority of the work -- you'll already have one integrated environment with both notation and midi, with very decent playback (good enough for mockups, hopefully).

That said, going from a mockup to a live recording, you'll always have to use your musical judgment. Some VSTs are programmed to give a "huge" sound, even in a range where they naturally sound mellow (e.g. French horns in low registers). You'll be in for a surprise if you assume the live orchestra is going to sound the same as your mock-up, without altering or adding to the instrumentation.

That said, that's one of the area where I think the "flow" thing will come in - in one project you could have one flow for the mockup, and another one with altered instrumentation for the live recording. Heck, you could even have several flows, if the budget for the recording isn't entirely set in stone and if e.g. the producers "find" some extra money allowing for extra players. All of which is pretty cool.

mikhail
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:40 am
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by mikhail » Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:58 am

odlumb wrote: My personal and highly subjective perspective is that the world of traditional notation is the “old world”, and the world of the DAW (MIDI + Audio + virtual instruments + automation + all the rest) is the “new world”. Most of my compositions were never conceived to be performed by humans, but instead were intended to be realized only by the computer. I compose in the DAW environment and usually have no need for traditional music notation.
So many people say that... but it's wrong IMO. Every contemporary piece of written music I've seen performed recently mixes lots of computer programming and live performance, both of them relying more than ever on paper scores (using most of time specific notation, of course).
odlumb wrote: With Sibelius and a LOT of work I am able to produce satisfactory scores of my compositions intended to be played by humans. I basically export MIDI files from Cubase and import them into Sibelius, and then work for HOURS to hammer the notation into the shape I want. As a final step I export MIDI files from Sibelius and import them back into Cubase to check the results in the Cubase/DAW environment, to be sure everything “translated” correctly.
I have been using that method. Now, I compose my pieces from A to Z in a score editor, print them when I'm finished and plays every part in Cubase with my master keyboard or my wind controller (except the parts I may record with a real instrument). This is the fastest way to make music I've experienced until now.
Help save the planet : recycle junk music !

FlowerPower
Junior Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by FlowerPower » Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:19 am

I think I read somewhere on this forum that they had "big plans" for integration between Cubase and Dorico. And while I think that's good and that it's also good that Dorico exists as a standalone is great (for all those who don't use Cubase), I think a solution where one uses only one app is the only good solution. That would either be a new product - or a solution where Cubase/Dorico behave as if they were one app only. This, along with a way to disable the parts of the program you don't need would offer something much better than anything which means export/importing files back and forth between two apps. And if Steinberg doesn't make such a solution first, someone else will.

notator
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:29 am
Location: Cologne, Germany
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by notator » Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:03 pm

How Steinberg eventually organises the relations between their apps is up to them. Continuing to have two separate programs probably makes sense, but I very much agree that it must be possible to work with them running simultaneously.
I think a common file format would be useful for workflows in which there are two people cooperating on the same project -- a Dorico specialist, and a Cubase specialist.
The one app solution just means that the "common file format" also exists as a common API (Applicaton Programming Interface) between the two apps running in parallel.

User avatar
odlumb
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: Shaw Island WA and Ferreirola Spain
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by odlumb » Sun Nov 27, 2016 10:11 am

mikhail wrote: So many people say that... but it's wrong IMO. Every contemporary piece of written music I've seen performed recently mixes lots of computer programming and live performance, both of them relying more than ever on paper scores (using most of time specific notation, of course).
Well, right and wrong don't really apply IMHO. As I stated in my original post, this is all highly subjective.

But you reveal your hand when you say "Every contemporary piece of written music I've seen performed". Most of my compositions will never be "seen performed", they can only be heard - human beings cannot "play them". Many things cannot be captured in traditional music notation. Many things can theoretically be captured, but cannot be realized in real life, e.g. a two octave chromatic scale played on timpani. My DAW has no problem with this. Supposing I wish to extend the range of the cello down a perfect fifth? My DAW has no problem with this.

People's own experience and imagination are usually also the limits of their comprehension. Usually, someone who is still fundamentally rooted in the "old world" of traditional music notation has not yet grasped the degree to which that notation limits creativity. If you compose on a piano, you will never create anything that cannot be played on a piano. There is nothing wrong with this, but some of us have moved on to a newer musical environment, in which imagination and sound come first, and the technical limitations of real instruments and real people count for very little, if at all.

This is a new branch on the tree of Music. All the old branches are still there, but only those who have experienced the new branch can claim to understand it, and you apparently do not. That's fine, but your lack of comprehension doesn't make me "wrong". Your reply to my original post is just a statement of your reality - from my perspective your reality appears extremely limited, but it's not "wrong", just "old". ;)

Mark Johnson
Junior Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:58 am
Location: NYC

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by Mark Johnson » Sun Nov 27, 2016 11:31 pm

At first I took odlumb to be implying that the Old World is going away, to be supplanted by the New, and I think that’s what mikhail was saying is untrue. But now I see that’s not what odlumb is saying. — However …
odlumb wrote:I compose in the DAW environment and usually have no need for traditional music notation.
So what are you doing here, then? (Serious question.)

User avatar
odlumb
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: Shaw Island WA and Ferreirola Spain
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by odlumb » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:02 am

Mark Johnson wrote:At first I took odlumb to be implying that the Old World is going away, to be supplanted by the New, and I think that’s what mikhail was saying is untrue. But now I see that’s not what odlumb is saying. — However …
odlumb wrote:I compose in the DAW environment and usually have no need for traditional music notation.
So what are you doing here, then? (Serious question.)
Usually doesn't mean never. I use Sibelius for my compositions which are written with real instruments and real musicians in mind (see my original post).

I revere the "old world", much as Ivan Karamazov revered the great artistic works of the "Christian Age" in Dostoyevsky's novel. I also believe it will never disappear. But humanity marches on. Almost no-one is seriously composing works in the Baroque style anymore. The automobile has replaced the horse. The computer has assumed a place in the world of future music similar to the one occupied by the piano in the music of the past.

Here is a little mental exercise with which one can entertain one's self. What percentage of the music you listen to does NOT involve electricity? About 100 years ago it was 100%, for everyone. Nowadays, it's a rare occurrence. Even when sitting in a small bar listening to Flamenco, there is usually a mic or two around, or a caja wired to an amp, or something of that sort. The radio displaced Music in terms of space. Recording displaced Music in terms of time. When music is delivered via a purely electronic media, the people and instruments involved become less important, the cult of personality evaporates. If any sound can be created and delivered by electronics, why use people and notation?

This is still a big psychological step for most people. As a species we evolve very slowly (perhaps not even quickly enough to survive). A few of us have stepped into the "new world" and can't go back. But the "old world" is still there, still far better understood and appreciated, and it's never going away.

My original post was written to be read (mostly) by the Dorico team, feedback so to speak. I hope I have earned a place in this forum ;-)

billyroberts111
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by billyroberts111 » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:06 pm

Lot's of great insights into the problem from users here, but does Steinberg have an official specification or at least position on this?

User avatar
Daniel at Steinberg
Moderator
Posts: 14182
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:35 am
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by Daniel at Steinberg » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:33 pm

We can't possibly answer every idea that has been expressed in this most epic of threads, but as Dorico matures we will certainly be looking to provide integration between Dorico and Cubase in whichever ways make most sense from a technical and workflow perspective. It is a long-term aim rather than something you should expect in one of the next few updates, however.

Mike Dunn
Junior Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:46 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Integration with Cubase

Post by Mike Dunn » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:02 am

Daniel at Steinberg wrote: It is a long-term aim rather than something you should expect in one of the next few updates, however.
Actually, even though this was one of my biggest aims for Dorico when it was first announced (years ago) now that it has been released, I think it makes sense to wait a bit with this particular (hoped for) feature anyway. I have already started doing transcriptions of music that I thought would have to wait until Dorico and Cubendo had full integration, and the task is different to what I expected it to be, because Dorico is different to what I expected it to be (better, in many ways). Some excellent ideas have been expressed in this thread, and maybe the way to action this won't be the way we expected, but it will still happen, and it will still be a milestone. I think we should let Dorico, and our way(s) of working with Dorico, mature and develop a bit and then move forward with developing the outside integration for what, I think, is going to be a flexible and trailblazing notation app in the modern world of DAW's, Analogue vs Digital recording and Virtual vs Real instrumentation.

Just my two penn'orth :)

Mike
Dorico Pro 3, Nuendo 10, Intel i7, 32GIG RAM, Windows 10 pro 64bit, (2nd machine - Win10 64bit 6 Gig ram, VE Pro), (Also 3rd Machine - Windows Surface Pro for transcribing to Dorico, particularly), EWQLSQ, EWQLSO, VSL, VEPro, Sibelius 8.4, Kontakt, Absynth, Omnisphere 2, Trilian, Reaktor 6 etc etc.

http://www.mldunn.net

Post Reply

Return to “Dorico”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: András at Steinberg, Google [Bot], L3B, LSalgueiro and 8 guests