Pertaining to what Errikos said, and if we take notation off the equation, this VSL DAW becomes much more feasible. If composition is done elsewhere, let's say in Sibelius, or another notation package, and the user does not expect accurate playback from this package, he could then import the file to VSL DAW, in a manner that the notation (would have to be MusicXML) is automatically converted to the appropriate midi-data.

I for one, have gave up producing mock-ups for one reason. I can not put myself into the burden of setting up a DAW and then effectively recreating the score I already composed. To me this absolutey kills the joy of composition, and only recently I decided to try it again. If the DAW was already preconfigured to work with the VST I use (VSL in this case), half of the work would be already done, creating a track FOR an Oboe, would be akin to creating a staff in Sibelius for the Oboe of Sound Essentials, no setup required.

The other half of the work, if we come from notation, is getting notation symbols to become midi lanes, and I believe that can be achieved even without the VSL DAW, just by having an MusicXML to Midi translator which allows you to set how each articulation should be translated to midi.

Anyway, I agree, that without notation, the DAW becomes more closer to reality.

Although I would love to have better solutions to current DAW / Notation choices.  I'm not sure how this will work out, from the developers point of view.  At least for now, there are some pretty diverse methods put forth by sample companies regarding how they work.  Unless the idea is to have a VSL only DAW/Notator (seemingly risky)  then the hurdle of finding solutions toward commonality between leading sample instrument platforms would seem no small task. It may not be good timing, yet. (I'm mainly referring to the notation side)  

@ddunn said:

It may not be good timing, yet. (I'm mainly referring to the notation side)

I can agree with that. Good timing? Maybe not, I don't know. But do I think that Notation isn't offering what VSL users could be using? Absolutely. Do I think notation is important yes? Notation and DAW editors should get equal consideration imo. Many people use DAW's only because of notation offerings being sub-par with playback. More people come into this knowing notation than DAW's and many users turn away from this because they don't want to learn DAW's. Discounting the need for better notation integration would be flawed. Most users here haven't done that, but a few have stated that it is less likely to happen.

Personally, I don't care for that argument. If it's less likely, let VSL decide that... but whether it should happen, or whether users want it... that's the feedback we should be providing. If people say 'yeah but it will never happen', that is the very mentality that makes it never happen. No offense to anyone. [;)]

-Sean

Of course, who'd care about a DAW if you could go straight from notation to a great master?

@Tralen said:

In my imagination, the easiest way to provide better performance for notation would be adding a control lane below each staff, collapsable of course. Or better yet, a secondary type of notation that could send changes for the dictionary itself and not to the VST. Using the sfz example from above, let's say the dictionary has the sfz as an +10 increase in velocity. You could apply an extra symbol to the staff, not a number or a graphic, but a different symbol, that extra type of notation specifically for adjusting notation playback itself, maybe on different collor. These would not print or affect the layout of the score, but would affect playback, they would mimic specific decisions the live performer would have made.

Exploring this idea a little further, in the same example above, let's say the composer wants to lessen the sfz a bit, maybe by -2. He adds the -2 Velocity symbol, or maybe, even add it twice. For creating a drag in tempo, for instance, instead of adding a sequence of tempo changes to replace an abstract text instruction, he could add an inverted tempo hairpin, that drags the tempo precisely where he wants, just like a crescendo, he only places the starting tempo and the ending one.

Thus he achieves most actions through a type of notation, which saves the composer the hassle of dealing with yet another type of information: midi. Of course this only matters if the symbols are preconfigured, designed to take the place of every action that is commonly used in midi finetuning. The point is, every change to the performance is done through notation, even if of a different kind.

Yes, there does seem to be a need for a system of play symbols (for sequencing) that can coexist with print symbols (for both printing and sequencing). Having a property page for things like sfz could save key velocity, expression and crossfade editing and a tempo control hairpin would save alot of tempo track fiddling--great idea! If I had this stuff, I would NOT need to export from Notion to Cubase and could produce better sounding mockups, if you normalize out talent. [:)]

On second though, to mix in Notion I would need a few more aux buses and VST slots, and they could leave out the voice libraries and annoying always-on reverb.

@clruwe said:

The big problem lies in the fact that other notation softwares have been developing for a while and every new version is a patch on top of the old system. Thus it cannot be improved much because of the limitations of an outdated architecture (a bit like Windows if you don't mind me saying). A new construct, from the ground up, would actually be easier to produce than trying to make a car fly

Somehow I missed your post up until now. This is partly why I think VSL making the software would be more appropriate here. Whether it's notation or typical DAW editing, I think it's true in either case. Other programs are designed in a specific way, and each time we get an upgrade, we find disappointment in that these programs hardly ever produce new features that serve VSL users. Most of these programs main feature upgrades are very generally tailored. Without building from the ground up, in a way that supports playback in a functional way... part of me things that Sibelius will never be what we want it to be. Notion3 got a lot of it right, but enough of it wrong to still be problematic for many users or many applications. And fyi, "I'm a PC" and I agree with you about Windows and outdated architecture! [;)]

-Sean

On another thread relating to MIR Pro I saw a mention of "Vienna Ensemble 5" as being a paid upgrade. [:O]

Does anyone know anything about it? Is this the possible answer to what we've been talking about? Paid means big improvements and new features...right? Eh? EH? lol

-Sean

We just release the newest version of OpenOctaveMidi.

Tons of new features and tools for professional midi orchestration.

http://www.openoctave.org

 Is that only for Linux?

For now yes, but 2012 might change that. We would need to find some help with Windows and Mac porting.

If Cubase and VSL's software was available for Linux, I'd switch in a heartbeat. I'm sick of Windows and I think Apple is pure evil (but with a cool product)...

Sadly, VSL will likely never develope for Linux [:'(]

-Sean

VSL, Cubase (5, for VST expression), and Kontakt for me.

The problem is that everyone has 'the few' that they want, and all those combined add up. There simply isn't market for it. So I doubt a petition will change VSL's mind. But I'd gladly sign it anyway, lol. Linux isn't as great as it's made out to be. For developers, for standardized features and gui, etc- there are several problems that seem to never get worked out entirely. Windows isn't problem free by any means... but where most developers want certain things, most companies want certain things... So even if all users wanted linux (and I think enough really do), Windows 'does the job' for developers better than Linux, imo... so I doubt we'll see anything worthwhile soon.

Just imagine though, MIR Pro, VE5, Cubase, Kontakt, etc. running on Linux. I don't think I could contain myself! lol

-Sean

I'm interested in what you say... I've used Linux for over two years and I've found it to be excellent! Not that I'm contradicting you. But I have tried their softwares and synths and found them to be far more stable, less glitchy, almost zero latency and overall much easier to use/learn (thanks to customizing options). Now VSL has to be the most stable software I run on Windows, Cubase and Sibelius still crash from time to time.

I have been running Linux for 11 years and if the tools don't exist I code them.

As far as I can tell the real issue here is not the OS, but the dividing line which exists between notation programs

and sequencers. What falls into that gap, is the fine control which is need to bring the variations in sound libraries and

rigid text-to-midi rules together so that compositions sound as realistic as possible.

BTW, I have used linux for over a decade too, and have hated every poorly documented, committee designed and occasionally GUI phobic

moment of it.

@Another User said:

 On another topic, I would like to add that I've been trying MusicXML between Sibelius and Notion. I've been doing some tests, composing in Notion and then exporting everything to Sibelius for printing and I'm very happy with the results, at least for small ensembles, I'm yet to try a full orchestral score.

are there some preliminary tasks to accomplish? because I swear when I tried it was a mess ... all the note were on their own (no beams ...) a lot of hairpins and dynamics were not correctly placed and so on ... 

anyway a single solution would be great

there also a lot of people on the notion forum that dream of collaboration between reaper and notion ...

But I start to fear collaborationsand company acquisitions... nothing good from them

it seems that the needs of musicians are not very satisfied ... only the market needs ... look at PT and Sibelius ... at yamaha and steinberg ... did they have produced something near the expectation of the musicians ? leader companies united together only to produce toys for beatmaking .... 

@Another User said:

BTW, I have used linux for over a decade too, and have hated every poorly documented, committee designed and occasionally GUI phobic moment of it.

I think dshertz hit this right on the mark on each point. The democratic nature of Linux developement is great!I love the philosophy, but it isn't perfect either. The problems it poses, such as constistancy and other things are real issues that are largely ignored. I saw an MSDN page (Microsoft) that was part of an encyclopedia on Windows design. While there is a lot of clutter in Windows, it really has a great deal that other OS's don't. Aside from what windows includes, this page I came across talked VERY intelligently about dialog box's and windows and how they are text-formatted. They showed how things should be done a very specific way, that made users feel less intimidated, made the software feel more usable and readable, and when to break from this. It was brilliant. EVERY thing I have ever seen in linux has not followed this at all. I notice inconsistent formatting, shabby 'thrown together' design, and other problems that are heavily 'gui and user-friendly' nightmares.

The biggest problem with linux, is that when Ubuntu said 'we're upping the gui', a large chunk of Linux geek users/developers said 'uh, you're ruining linux'. Aesthetics are the last thing on many linux developers minds, but this deters a great deal of potential user base. There are plenty of logical reasons for aesthetics that are overlooked in favor of people who quite frankly should still be living in a dos enviornment by their mentality. If Linux can grow up and compete visually (and the recent Ubuntu changes are a start, not an end... they have catching up to do) then Linux could well take over the world for all I care... and they could probably even become a major player.

In the end, I really only think that gui (not just shiny looks, but intelligently functioning gui) is what we need for Linux to be mainstreem. Only then, I think companies like Steinberg and others start to develope Cubase and others. When that happens, THEN VSL will finally jump on. So I have no false hopes here. And I have no serious problems with Linux. I only wish that the development direction would focus more on things that will attract more users, because my sole thought process in that is "I want VSL on linux!!! NOW!!!... oh yeah, and Cubase!" lol

I hope that answers your question.

-Sean

@arkham said:

anyway a single solution would be great

there also a lot of people on the notion forum that dream of collaboration between reaper and notion

I'm a HUGE reaper fanatic. Great program. I love Notion, Sibelius looks georgious to me... but Notion is 10x more functional for what I need, with few Sibelius features I wish it had. Notion development has slowed to a crawl, so little may come here... but If I could have a Notion/Reaper/VSL hybrid setup that was a one-stop and shop sollution... that handled things the way that most comments earlier in this thread were suggesting... if I could have that, screw divisi, screw everything. I'd sign in blood and sell every last thing I had to get it! That 'dream program' essentially would save what I think are the majority of users, a LOT of time and headache! PLEASE! Someone from VSL or somewhere hear us out and by sympathetic on us! lol

-Sean