I can't say that I would want VSL to turn in the direction of doing a Notation program. Although the company has a remarkable record for producing quality products, which are enthusiastically accepted by professional composers, I feel that a Notation program would have VSL venturing too far from their core expertise and business model. And if I could put something at the top of their project list, it would be Dimension Strings.

If someone asked where is the biggest single  bottleneck, in the Notation Software to DAW workflow, it occurs at the generation and editing of key velocity and controller data. Every notation software, I have ever used, fails to scale dynamics properly. The translation of symbols like sfz and pf is too rigid. So I am forced to bring a composition from Notation to a DAW so I may use "better" controller editing to straighten out dynamics--that is, to balance the key velocity, expression and cross fade.  Sure, there are other issues but this is the one which uses up the bulk of my editing time.

But some well considered editing tools for controllers, either in the Notation software or the DAW,  would simplify composition work flow. This project is not so innovative or large that I would suggest that a company start from scratch building a Notation package, just to add this feature.

I'd venture that Dimension Strings must already be in the company's main priorities. I have also acknowledged the leap required of them to develop notation properly, that's why I suggested a) that maybe an acquisition or partnership with companies like Opus1Music or Lilypond might be a way to go, and b) that the DAW is the next natural step for VSL. My main problem so far with current notation programs is instrumental realism and colour in playback, although I empathize with your concerns as well, and there are of course others... 

The debate of notation/reduced notation/no notation is one of the endless discussions on the Sonar forum, with those desiring notation always losing (the "current" notation editor, roughly 10+ years old, cannot even correctly notate a triplet).  As for me, without excellent notation features, a VSL DAW would be of relatively little interest (though I would sure take a look at it to see if it might be better than what I am currently using).

That gets back to risk/reward.  Of course, that is a VSL company determination.  All I am trying to suggest is that users are all over the map in terms of workflow, needs, desired features, etc.  It would be very easy for VSL to make a mistake in that regard, and that would not be a good thing.  Again, would I like a full featured DAW/notation program from VSL?  Sure.  Again, the number of employees required to create and maintain a top flight DAW/notation program, might be more than VSL can safely manage.  It is no accident that most of the major DAWS are no longer made by small private companies as they once were.

Hi, Errikos:

To make engineering a new notational program possible, you will have to break "realism" and "colours" (or perhaps the failure to achieve these) into a dry objective mechanisms which fail in current Notational software. My example is about dynamics failures and how to turn that into a engineering problem.  It would likely advance your cause if you could do the same for "realism" and "colours". Well, at least I'd be curious.[:)]

First, I wouldn't discount the need for notation in a DAW. Cubase has it and look at what Pro Tools now has, a reduced-Sibelius hybrid. So I and some commenters on here are obviously not asking for something unreasonable. Whether a DAW should have have notation or not is really a moot point. Other DAW's have it so IMO, a DAW from an orchestral sample company would practically require it.

As to whether it would need to be fully Sibelius featured or not is where I think my main disagreement is. Would an all inclusive 'pen to publish' package be best? Absolutely! But in the case that we don't get that... I think that certain features of Sibelius quality programs aren't neccesary and that a 'better than other DAW notation editor' would be fine.

While I'm making points like "Does the DAW need page margin tools, etc? I am not convinced that it does."- please trust me when I say I would love having it. - So much that I would even prefer a) True Sibelius integration (meaning the types of VSL-related features we've mentioned in this thread) or b) a full fledged notation editor in the supposed VSL-DAW -- My previous comments are only directed at my thinking they wouldn't choose the 'B' option. I don't know that they need to for user demand, but if more of you disagree with me on that point, then obviously I'm wrong...lol In any case, if they did, I'd love it.

Does anyone know if it would be possible for VSL, without AVID's assistance or access to some of the Sibelius source-code, etc... if VSL could accomplish this without needing AVID to do anything? VSL would need to know what is going on notation-wise inside Sibelius, real-time. -- And please realize, I know Sibelius isn't the only notation editor, but as it's my favorite and certainly one of the most popular, if not the most (?) then I use it merely for reference. The same example applies to other companies.

-Sean

P.S. Thanks for your patience... It takes me forever to summerize, so I usually comment loooong. [:$]

@iscorefilm said:

Does anyone know if it would be possible for VSL, without AVID's assistance or access to some of the Sibelius source-code, etc... if VSL could accomplish this without needing AVID to do anything? VSL would need to know what is going on notation-wise inside Sibelius, real-time. -- And please realize, I know Sibelius isn't the only notation editor, but as it's my favorite and certainly one of the most popular, if not the most (?) then I use it merely for reference. The same example applies to other companies.

Sibelius is owned by AVID, so there can be no access to any sort of code without their permission.

The big problem with playback from a notation program such as Sibelius is that far too much of what needs to be done for a realistic performance comes from using real time controllers, and most of this comes from using ones ears, which is not something that Sibelius can do. However, I also think that playback could be much better, but that would require the Sibelius developers to work very closely with developers of all orchestral sample libraries, because each reacts differently when it comes to control of the dynamic curves. This would be a mammoth task and certainly not within their current purview.

As to whether or not VSL should develop their own notation program for use with their samples, all I can say is that I wouldn't use it, as it would be unlikely to as feature rich as Sibelius, using it would make my work incompatible with other composers/orchestrators who don't use VSL, and I have other things in my template than VSL.

DG

Like I said, the idea of a VSL DAW occured to me having observed how they had already developed most of the individual components.

The notation aspect was an after-thought (soon after mind you), and that came through the Notion SLE example, which did its job using relatively few computer resources. Realistic-as-possible playback during the composition/orchestration phase - a crutch I agree, ears should be enough - would save a lot of time not only because of fidelity, but also because a lot of the work that would be done during this first phase, would not need to be re-done/un-done during the MIDI/mixing phase. For me, interesting only if it is to be fully featured, maybe not with some of the publishing elements of Sibelius/Finale, but certainly armed with all the sophisticated composition tools and plug-ins. Many of us don't just write a railroad track of semi-quavers... XML should take care of most of the problems regarding collaboration, although I feel that should VSL take that road most porfessionals will follow suit, nullifying that problem for the most part.

Finally, when I posted that thread, foremost in my mind was integration. The more things under one hood, the better.

@Another User said:

foremost in my mind was integration. The more things under one hood, the better.

Notation editing with automatic integration and better integration for playback with VSL is what I think users want. Notion really succeeded here in many ways but it still wasn't integrated enough. Notion4 or 5 probably would have been... but that won't happen now. Being that they've abandoned development, I guess I was wrong about something you said.

You've mentioned VSL buying another notation program and I've typically dismissed it because I had Sibelius stuck in my mind and I figure AVID isn't selling it anytime soon. Also that it would be a lot of money for VSL to spend. But now that I'm looking at this again... with Notion leaving this platform... maybe it's not such an unlikely idea. Like you've said, VSL has most of the DAW built... simply add sequencing, a piano roll, and hopefully a full notation editor (I agree, fully featured at bare minimum with the compositional features)... plus Notion really is a piano-roll / notation / midi automation -hybrid anyway- which is why it served this crowd.

Although I still feel that VSL buying Notion is a bit of a dream that won't happen... I'd at least suggest to VSL that I'd buy such a thing without hesitation.

-Sean

@DG said:

As to whether or not VSL should develop their own notation program for use with their samples, all I can say is that I wouldn't use it, as it would be unlikely to as feature rich as Sibelius, using it would make my work incompatible with other composers/orchestrators who don't use VSL, and I have other things in my template than VSL.

With my previous comment, I forgot to mention that I had your statement in mind. If VSL either implemented something like Notion or actually bought Notion... then it could easily serve non-VSL libraries... as well as full integration with VSL... Notion's already built the platform for it too.

Plus, some of the extra features we mentioned earlier in this thread and in the 'Sibelius 7' thread could also be easily added at that point. I'm sure a lot more VSL-complimenting and/or time-saving features could be added if such a thing were to happen. hmm... [^o)]

-Sean

@Errikos said:

Like I said, the idea of a VSL DAW occured to me having observed how they had already developed most of the individual components.

It may be that notation-reliant people are not familiar enough with a real DAW to know any better. I require things of Cubase I would honestly imagine required serious coding time and design, the intricacies of its tempo track editor alone is no small matter. There are differences between SX3 and C4 in this one aspect that were not trivial.

I don't believe that channel strips from soft instrument plugins in a mixer paradigm is 'most of the components of' any DAW I would remotely be interested in. I don't think I'm any outlier in what I require. The people that use only VSL are the outlier for the DAW world. What demand there is for combining a more-useful-than-notation sequencer paradigm with a notation program is very likely reflected in Notion's sales. 

I wouldn't guess there is any market for VSL to justify any outlay towards R&D, let alone support for such an idea. I haven't noticed anyone from VSL showing any interest in this. I wouldn't get my hopes up here.

Civilization 3, you made two points I'll address:

1) The demand for notation/sequencing hybrid is reflected in Notion sales.

I disagree. If there was a DAW that kept notation and performance separate, similar to Notion in having a score in one hand, and a fine-tuned performance in another- and the notation was similar to what we are asking in it's integration with a sample library (more than Notion SLE, but how we've described)... then I think there would be more interest. Notion is a hybrid... but I didn't buy it and I'm all for the idea. I just don't think they did enough integration and enough work on making their hybrid style system into what people really want from the idea. I know other users online and in person that didn't go with Notion for that exact reason.

2) That VSL can't justify supporting such features, because of a lack of interest.

How many in the digital music world want notation composing with good sound? Count everyone in the Sibelius, Finale, Notion, VSL, EW, crowds, and more... who have tried to get both sides working together. How good Sibelius sounds are is a big deal to Sibelius users. How VSL works with Sibelius is certainly important to a respectable number of the VSL user-base. Maybe not the majority... but maybe because it simply hasn't been implemented very well so far

Consider this... When you write for a cello, you don't hand a cellist a piano-roll style print out of the score. You give them notation, why? It's the standard and what we are all most familiar with. So why would a digital cello be any different? Because notation doesn't serve performance in the way that computers will process and play it back to you. A piano roll is much more specific but less readable to people. Notation is more general and readable, but to strict to instruct a computer for good playback.

So I have two points 1) Can playback improve for the notation world? Yes, of course! It badly needs it. 2) If you could easily get the right cello performance out of notation, would you need the piano roll anymore? No. You wouldn't. Different users use notation, piano rolls, midi controllers, etc. But notation has suffered the worst in playback ability because of the nature of computers and how they only do what you tell them to do on a very basic level, etc. Why should this be of interest to VSL? Because VSL is an orchestral library. VSL would probably rather Sibelius get playback working in a VSL-friendly way... but as it is still far behind... users who prefer notation suffer from it. How many orchestral composers want notation? How many users do sample libraries loose because of their complexity and more 'sequencer-daw attitude'?

In the end, only VSL can really decide if it's in their interest... as I've stated on here. But pointing out the benefits and additional feature ideas to help this conceptual editor is certainly more than dreaming, it has it's productive benefits... If VSL does it... great! If they don't, then we've at least established a conversation online where VSL may reference later, or others may reference or find ideas that may still serve this purpose (in one way or another). So in the end, there is still a point in making certain problems and desired features aware. The more people talk about what they want from a product, the better... whether VSL develops it, or even if another hobbiest finds a way to help VSL users through other means or ideas. It's definately worth talking about. And the more users that chime in with their support... perhaps it will get attention.

And this isn't strictly a notation thread. I've just been replying frequently with Errikos about notation. You mentioned the Tempo track in Cubase. I wouldn't think that it's the most code-heavy feature of Cubase. (maybe I'm wrong, lol) VE really does have a lot of DAW features already. It has plenty of non-traditional DAW features also, that primarily only serve VSL users. Are there sequencing and editor features (both notation and otherwise) that could improve for VSL users alone? You bet!

-Sean

Not to mention how many sequencers/DAWs are offered for free on the Internet or very cheaply. I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of the necessary programming, but it seems to me that VSL has already developed the more demanding and expensive aspects of a DAW, and don't forget, a VSL DAW doesn't have to include those features that are necessary in pop music; it will be a symphonist's sequencer, not a ProTools competitor.

@Errikos said:

VSL has already developed the more demanding and expensive aspects of a DAW, and don't forget, a VSL DAW doesn't have to include those features that are necessary in pop music; it will be a symphonist's sequencer, not a ProTools competitor.

Well said!

 I don't know if the notation software would be a viable option for VSL.   It takes years and a lot of efforts to perfect and provide feature-rich software like Sibelius.   It's hard to compete with Sibelius unless VSL can come up with something that is sufficiently better.   Looking around,  it looks like Avid/Sibelius is the only company right now that has the technologies for this type of integrations (Notation, DAW, sample libraries).  So far, Sibelius have concentrated more on the notation/engraving side.   However, with Sibelius 7 they start providing their own sample libraries which is a baby step (maybe to avoid royalty) but they can get sophisticated quickly if they need to.   The danger of Sibelius providing their own sample libraries is that the integration for other third-party libraries can become a second thought.

I would suspect that the thrust of Sibelius' marketing has been to provide one stop shopping to education. I would not expect, even with their integration with Pro Tools, that aim has changed. So I would not expect to get a product from Avid that would be integrated enough to suit professional composers but rather it will provide a "good enough" package for educational institutions. After all they will follow the money, just as Notion has with the iPad development. Remember these are the folks who want $25 for a customer service call.

@Errikos said:

VSL has already developed the more demanding and expensive aspects of a DAW, and don't forget, a VSL DAW doesn't have to include those features that are necessary in pop music; it will be a symphonist's sequencer, not a ProTools competitor.

Well said!

In his thread there are those who think that a VSL DAW and/or notation editor would be useful, and others that don't. Put it this way:

My VSL-DAW argument:

Could a VSL-DAW include features that would serve VSL users in ways that currently aren't possible with 3rd party DAW's? Is it possible certain feature concepts are only achievable through VSL, or at least best achievable through VSL? I believe the answer to that is an obvious, all-around yes. If there are features out there to be had, then that should always be a goal. Whether the goal is met or not is simply the $$$ - If enough people show interest to VSL, then there you have it.

My Notation argument:

If VSL users could have features that would serve us better, then it's definately a goal. Then it's up to VSL to determine whether it's an option or not. If VSL did in fact build a DAW (whether into VE or not), then the next question is 'what features are essential to making it a VSL-tailored DAW?' - The examples mentioned earlier are all relevant to that question, but once I again I think notation is as well. Does notation benefit the DAW world? If it didn't, other general purpose DAW's wouldn't have it; therefore the answer is yes. Would you expect an orchestral-focued DAW to have a notation editor? I certainly would, without any doubt.

The point? If you're going to make a VSL daw, notation would practically be required. Think I'm wrong? There are certainly plenty of VSL users who's start pestering VSL until they did it. lol. Whether it needs to be as flexible as Sibelius or just above other DAW offerings is entirely up to VSL (assuming they made a DAW)... but if they did make a DAW, I think notation would happen in the long run, if not from the start. If they did, I'd want some of the features I mentioned earlier.

-Sean

@civilization 3 said:

I don't write pop music. I require demanding aspects of a DAW such as the ability to do things with the tempo, the timeline (such as to get the performance together and then conform or warp a grid to fit that rather than the other way around such as a notation bound person would have it, which is a cart to pull the horse), which VSL, having never made a sequencer at all has surely not developed. Given that it wasn't until Cubase 4 that the tempo track as it is today was developed at all, I do not have any notion that it is the cheaper part of the package to develop and it isn't a negligible consideration. I do not know what is a 'symphonist's sequencer'. I think it is made of straw same as your pop musician and her needs. It seems like a very insular notion out of an insular and to be frank ignorant world view.

My wanting a VSL-tailored DAW does not equate to an "insular and ignorant world view" [:'(] If all software was developed with guitarists in mind, how would a pianist fare using such software? Look, I mean this in the friendliest way you can take it; but if someone ignores the needs of other users, simply because they don't have the same need- that practically defines ignorance.

Onto productive discussion- A tempo editor is hardly a programming masterpeice. I know college students who aren't even the best programmers who could easily mimic the Cubase temp editor. I'm not discounting the work it would take, programming, support, testing, etc. but that's not a demanding aspect of a DAW, imo anyway.

How would a timeline-warping feature benefit an orchestral-oriented DAW? I'm not saying it couldn't, I just don't see how it would. Ultimately, if VSL made this DAW a reality, it certainly wouldn't negate the use of other DAW's for some people. I still own a copy of Cubase and have all it's great features. I'd just prefer to be using a VSL-tailored DAW, which imo is not an unreasonable request. Unlikely? Maybe, ask VSL. Unreasonable? Absolutely not. [8-|]

-Sean

BTW,  I don't think you can reasonably infer that VSL has built the lion's share of a Notation DAW. What they have built is a midi extention cord with VST plugs and sockets, a midi driven rompler and, of course, great sample libraries. There is not even a hint of sequencer engine or Notation-to-midi-event translation or graphics-to-print interface in VSL's portfolio.

@dshertz said:

I would suspect that the thrust of Sibelius' marketing has been to provide one stop shopping to education. I would not expect, even with their integration with Pro Tools, that aim has changed. So I would not expect to get a product from Avid that would be integrated enough to suit professional composers but rather it will provide a "good enough" package for educational institutions. After all they will follow the money, just as Notion has with the iPad development. Remember these are the folks who want $25 for a customer service call.

I somewhat agree with you.   Sibelius would like the students to use its software as early as possible because most people will stay with the software unless they have a very compelling reason to switch.   Avid/Sibelius have the technogies but it doesn't mean they are going to do anything anytime soon.   Which notation software are you using now for composing?