@Tralen said:

2. Easy way of controlling midi, akin to what happens in a DAW CC lane.

@Tralen--This to me is the current achillies heel of the current DAW/Notation software. It falls just at the dividing line between DAW and Notation package. The Notation packages don't have enough editing control over velocity, expression and crossfade and the DAWs don't allow easy CC data thining or copying. Neither package really takes into account the fine tuning which must be done here to make a mockup as realistic as possible.

There is one basic difference between notation software and a sequencer. With notation software the MIDI information is derived from the notation, but with a sequencer the notation is derived from the MIDI information. Therefore notation software is not linear, which makes things like automation lanes well nigh impossible to implement (as I understand it).

DG

I think the culprit in this whole discussion is the expectation that DAWs (Piano Roll) are designed for composition. Somehow in the circles of digital composition, I often see people regarding this as a given. Well, they are not, they are designed primarily to handle audio files, and to "interact" with VSTs. Composition itself, happens trough the preference of the composer, which more often than not, includes experimentation through a midi-controller. This midi-controller is more aptly recorded in DAWs, and so I believe here is where that expectation starts.

If we were to accept that the Piano Roll is the main instrument of composition, becomes easy to delegate the role of notation software to an aftertought, to print the score for live performance. The point I make, and that several posters made here, is that this is not the case, the Piano Roll is a necessity we adhere to, only because we are unable to achieve the same results within our notation packages. And we are unable to achieve this because of a third part of the digital music pipeline: performance.

So, splitting the composition process into three segments, we have: composition, performance, publishing. The problem we face is simply that neither DAW or Notation Software covers the three segments adequately, precisely because they are not designed to do so. Notation Softwares are forcefully locked into the latter segment, with glimpses of the first, without ever touching the second. What is lacking is the acknowledgement that the second segment, "performance", is as crucial for "composition" as the ability to input notes itself, and much more important than "publishing", for certain. And that "composition", at least for me and others here, is more easily achieved through traditional notation than piano rolls.

Summing all up: in digital orchestral composition, there should be no distinction between the first two segments, composition and performance. And honestly, the only way I can see this division being removed is if a quality provider of "performance" (an orchestral library such as VSL) takes the whole of providing "composition" as well. There are two reasons for this: First, the library holds all the minutiae of how the samples work and how to make them sound good without hassle; Second, the big assumption I make that composition and performance must be united, only stands when we think about orchestral composition, which I doubt is the primary market for either DAWs or Notation Softwares, but it certainly is for a provider of orchestral samples.

Tralen! Where have you been all my life? lol

You have just provided a perfect summation of the problem. I can't add to it. 'I got nothin!' [:D]

-Sean

What makes performance tweaking difficult in a notation package is the fact that dictionary translations (in the current state  of the art) are static. For example, the dictionary may hold a rule that sfz may may boost the expression by 10 and the xfade by 5. If you wanted a bit more edge on the voice you would have to go edit the xfade value. After this edit, how would the change be reflected in the Notation since the sfz is no longer "standard"? And how would you be able to switch between a standard and a non-standard interpretation of sfz? I believe a better Notation/DAW solves this problem.

I'm glad people have taken this seriously and have started talking about specific advantages and hurdles towards that goal. However, some are saying that you can't get a proper mock-up through a notation editor alone (as they are at this time). Who said you could? I never said I wanted to mix The Phantom Menace on Sibelius or similar. I too will import it into the proposed VSL DAW in order to tweak. All I want is a much more faithful audio feedback than the one I'm currently getting from Sibelius or Notion. If VSL finds it feasible and worthwhile to develop an integrated notator for their platform that's great; that in fact would be a bonus on top of my expectations. All I asked for was a VSL DAW which I felt was closer to the company's achievements thus far. If they'd want to go all the way, so much the better. However, I don't work on Panorama in Sibelius, I tried it and didn't like it. I actually want to look at the closest possible approximation of the published page when I work; that's me, everyone's different. But to reiterate, who cares if the audio feedback won't be perfect on the proposed VSL notator? At least it would be 10 times better than what we're getting now.

@Errikos said:

who cares if the audio feedback won't be perfect on the proposed VSL notator? At least it would be 10 times better than what we're getting now.

I agree that we'd at least get a better result in notation, which would alone be a tremendous improvement. However, I do think it is entirely possible to have the same level of flexibility in notation as you can in a piano-roll / automation-lane editor. You simply add tools in notation that let you accomplish the same thing, like Notion does. I can actually think of several ways that would have been more effective and easier to get results- than how Notion even accomplished this. Either way, any notation performance improvements are welcome. With how bad of a playback experience we currently get with notation, I'd even say it's neccesary.

In the end, I can't see a valid argument against the idea of wanting the same company to provide the editor as who makes the sound. To me that's a fairly obvious advantage over what we currently have.

-Sean

Errikos is right on the point with this discussion: we are not striving for utopia, we are striving for an improvement, a better relationship between what the composer inputs on the score and the samples available. I speak for myself, of course, but I can assume such was the feelings of several VSL users with the release of Sibelius 7. There was no improvement to integration of VSTs, and I dare to say, no improvements AT ALL.

Some of my burden with the available notation software is precisely the focus which is placed on the publishing technology, I believe this is part of the expectation we face, that the composition must be brought from elsewhere (DAW). I would be happy with an abstract notation editor, where only the composition is in focus, with absolutely no need for page layouts, but I understand some people are more comfortable having the layout in place, which I believe is more similar to the natural notation on paper.

If VSL would take the helm and develop a notation software based on its libraries, of course, the result would be spectacular. If this is not possible, I can only hope another company will take the task of developing notation FOR orchestral samples, or that at least, the available notation packages allow the user to interact more friendly with the midi-data.

The problem with notation playback as it is now, is the extra step that midi information takes to access a sample. As said before in this thread, in DAWs the user communicates the midi data directly with the VST, while in Notation the user places symbols, which in turn are converted to midi-data and then reach the VST. These symbols, I believe, are the biggest difference between Notation composers and DAW composers. DAW composers want to input data, numbers or graphs, which will affect the sounds being played. Notation composers want to input Symbols and expect them to generate the data accurately.

Notion advanced this a little bit, allowing the user to have a set of interpretation rules per document, per score, which means for a particular performance, you can adjust your rule files without interfering with all rules for the VST, which is what a soundset does. Still, this is far from being able to adjust one specific instance of a symbol in the score, like dshertz said, what's the difference between a sfz and an altered sfz? I believe this is similar to what Sibelius Properties window achieve.

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.

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