What sequencers have SOME notation capability? [Archive]

View Full Version : What sequencers have SOME notation capability?

BlueMax

11-13-2006, 01:23 AM

I'm just curious. :) More options...

Note! If you know a noteworthy sequencer with notable notation abilities, please note it here!

Rhap2

11-13-2006, 01:38 AM

BlueMax:

Logic has about the best notation features I have seen in a sequencer. I used to use Logic and started with V 1.X, but after Logic 6, I switched to Digital Performer. Why? Because Logic was a nightmare with GPO and I wanted to use GPO. DP is so great with GPO.

Even thought DP is my sequencer of choice, I would never recommend it for notation. Very small portion of a great program and hardly any notation editing capabilities at all. Logic is like Finale compared to DPs notation features.

Don't know about Sonar or Steinberg, but I used Steinberg a number of years ago and the notation portion wasn't bad, just not complete.

Jack

Reegs

11-13-2006, 02:36 AM

Sonar's notation is OK. I'm on Sonar 5, and if I need to input a few bars it won't give me much of an issue. I do most of my work in Sibelius and Overture and port it to Sonar, however.

It automatically fills rests and will place the note in the measure relative to where you click (click 3/4 through the measure and it goes on beat 3), kind of like Sib or Finale

There are hotkeys for the Stave view, so you don't have to keep clicking to select notes. 2 is halfnote, 4 for quarter, and so on.

Limitations
It'll only do simple triplets and single dotted figures and the only way I've found to create a tied note is to place the first one, right click, and up the duration to where I want it. All very workable, but no doubt not the best way.

Sonar has tablature support based on the notes on the staves too. Not sure if you need it, but it's there. I imagine it goes tab -> stave too but I haven't checked.

Not sure about the print quality, but I wouldn't expect much.

Ernstinen

11-13-2006, 03:15 AM

Hey guys,

I MAY need to totally change my software from MOTU's Performer and Mosaic. So would you recommend DP and Sibelius!? That seems to be the consensus that I've heard. I assume you can import MIDI files into Sibelius with no problems like into Mosaic!?

Ern :confused: :)

Jerry W.

11-13-2006, 03:16 AM

Hey Max,

I'd recommend Overture 4. It is a notation program that is ALSO a sequencer (for MIDI only) Its MIDI editing is REALLY nice and very much in-tune with what most sequencers offer as far as interface. You see the piano scroll view and can edit with drawing in CC data and all that jazz, but hit a key and you see the notation side of that. It is very nice. I am anxious for a Mac version of it.

BUT. if you need it to also allow for AUDIO wav tracks and that kind of editing, you need to stick to Logic, Cubase ( which is the only sequencer I have personally worked with that has notation, but not the greatest) or Sonar.

DP is probably the best sequencer out there, IMO - I have had some experience with it. But I personally use Tracktion most of the time - which has no notation whatsoever. But it fits nicely with my workflow. If I am going to "compose" a piece, i do it in Finale, then export that as a MIDI file to Tracktion, then edit the heck out of it, render and viola! When I am done, I have an excellent LOOKING score, and (if I am lucky), an excellent SOUNDING audio file. If I plan on doing something really quick, or plan to improvise parts in, I will skip the notation alltogether and just play in the parts. I "think" better in notation, and am way more organized in those thoughts than when working with MIDI piano scrolls view.

Hope this helps.

Jerry

Steve_Karl

11-13-2006, 08:16 AM

Richard N.

11-13-2006, 09:54 AM

I use Finale 2007 and Sonar 5 (soon to be upgrading to Sonar 6) and am very happy with my work flow.

I also have Overture 4 whihc I have had some early success with, but haven't even felt inclined to look at in the last six months because of workflow and functionality issues - this could be becuase I am so used to Finale, and also some my isues may have been fixed in more recent patches - I don't know.

I would suggest downlading demos of any program you are interested in to see which suits you best.

Cantabile

11-13-2006, 01:43 PM

I use Sonar/Finale. Sonar does have ok staff capabilities, however for the sake of pretty(enhamonic correct spelling) it is not recommended for "pretty" score layout and does lack specific kinds of special "tuplets" accept for common triplet types.

As far as sequencer VS notation. Well so far in my experience you can get much more out of a sequencer in terms of personalization of something. Granted notation is getting really good at interpretation and has added piano rolls. Still with a sequencer, you have just unsurpassed control from a huge selection of midi control to effects/plugins(most work well with just about any Dxi/vst) and audio mixing. Being able to route specific instrument groups to different "mic/mimic or impulse" reverbs ect is one of the biggest pluses to a sequencer in an audio mixdown(trying to run a bunch of impulses on live midi and a ton of instruments can really bog a system and create cracks/dropouts ect).

There is a wide opinion on what sequencer is best and I think it comes down to personal taste and will not go into a debate on what is better. I use Sonar because I like Sonar the best. Just my opinion.

So for pretty go with notation, but if you want a huge range of control from reverbs(multiple) and effects, midi data, routing, audio tracks ect ect, go with a sequencer you feel is to your likeing. I believe most have trial versions so you can test which "you" would prefer.

BlueMax

11-13-2006, 03:56 PM

Hmm... maybe I'll try out a couple of demos, but it's looking like Finale 2007 is still my best bet. I'd have liked to use other VST instruments though.

I know that Overture4 would work, but I've been so soured to the idea after the chief slapped me across the face. :(

qccowboy

11-13-2006, 04:03 PM

Jeff Turner

11-13-2006, 04:15 PM

If I remember correctly, Gary did mention that at some point in the future a notation program would be bundled with one of the Garritan products again.

It might be worth waiting a little while to see what this is.

JT

Reegs

11-13-2006, 04:50 PM

does Sonar have the ability to "record to audio file"?

also, what is the difference between the various versions of Sonar? I see a "studio" version, a "producer" version, and one that seems to be a "home" version.

Is someone who works in Finale and is happy with Finale's HP playback settings going to need the more expensive producer version? or would the lesser (well, at least from the price) home edition of Sonar be as functional?
Sonar can record to an audio, but it's a little more complicated than simply clicking a button. You select the track(s) and then select Bounce Track(s) from a menu bar. It renders a VST/DXi to an audio track, which you can then export or mix further. So, three clicks instead of one :)

Producer and Studio are SONAR flagships. Sonar Home Studio is a separate product. They all provide similar sequencing and VST/DXi hosting abilities. Sonar Producer and Studio have unlimited audio and midi tracks. Home Studio limits you to 64 audio, I believe. Studio and Producer come with a slough of plugins and synths not included with homeStudio (producer also adds built-in per-channel EQ, surround sound mixing, and an included vocoder), though HomeStudio does feature some content not included with the flagship ones, such as a loop CD. Not sure if HomeStudio will apply VST FX to tracks and buses (as SONAR will), or only buses.

If you're happy with HP playback you shouldn't need producer. If you want to mix in effects/reverbs to rendered audio tracks, any of the above should do nicely. I port notation midi's to SONAR Studio and it works just fine; I imagine I could get by with HomeStudio as well.

Wheat Williams

11-13-2006, 05:45 PM

I MAY need to totally change my software from MOTU's Performer and Mosaic.
Ern :confused: :)I'm curious. What versions of Performer and Mosaic are you using, and what sort of computer are you running them on? I'm guessing this is quite old, legacy equipment.

Nickie Fønshauge

11-13-2006, 09:10 PM

Is someone who works in Finale and is happy with Finale's HP playback settings going to need the more expensive producer version? or would the lesser (well, at least from the price) home edition of Sonar be as functional?
Michel, I suspect you would be quite happy with Sonar Home studio 4. It will probably offer anything you need, and it may be less complicated to get started with. And should you later reach the conclusion, you need the extra bells & whistles of Sonar Studio Edition, then there is a fine upgrade path from Sonar HS to Sonar SE.

BlueMax

11-14-2006, 02:49 AM

johnmarkpainter

11-14-2006, 03:27 AM

I use Nuendo and sometimes Cubase SX

The editing isn't as complete as Finale, but I can work to Video and Audio Files.

The quality is plenty good enough for Session work.

jmp

Ernstinen

11-14-2006, 04:01 AM

I'm curious. What versions of Performer and Mosaic are you using, and what sort of computer are you running them on? I'm guessing this is quite old, legacy equipment.Performer 6.03 and Mosaic 1.58.

Why do we always have to buy new computers and learn new programs when everything is working perfectly? I just don't understand it, except for making people spend a lot of money and time to buy new hardware and software to do the same damn thing that has been working perfectly for years.

The reason I'm trying to hold on to my "old" ways is that Mosaic took me a LONG time to master it. I just bought a refurbished G4, which will run these programs just fine. I can sequence on "old" Performer and notate on Mosaic with no problems. I don't record anything, except for mastering on Pro Tools on a PC. I have multiple PCs as sample playback computers: GigaStudio, Kontakt, etc. I just want my G4 to be the sequencer, and run Mosaic. Is that too much to ask!?

Yea, I'm getting grumpy --- :p

I'm getting a Mac techie to try and load my "old" programs into my G4 tomorrow --- Wish me luck!

Ern :|: :)

dko22

11-14-2006, 07:02 PM

I spent a week familiarising myself with the scoring in Cubase Studio (Cubase 4 is identical in scoring features). It's not that it lacks features -indeed it has the makings of a professional package but is let down quite badly in my opinion by instability, untidiness and an obvious lack of proper testing. Recording live directly into the score editor is the biggest issue --for people who use mainly step input which I find fairly logical and intuitive it may well fit the bill and of course you have all the sequencing features Cubase is known for. Remember that Cubase and other sequencers are project window track based and the score is subservient to this --this can cause issues when score tracks don't match project tracks. Handling of poyphony is quite advanced and can help you find ways round this. It's worth downloading the manual to find out about the features at
ftp://ftp.steinberg.net/Download/Cubase_Studio_4/Docs_English/Operation_Manual.pdf

Chinablu

11-15-2006, 04:26 AM

To me, Logic Pro is a very good compromise.

Recently I found also NoteAbility Pro (http://debussy.music.ubc.ca/NoteAbility/index.html), a more graphical-oriented notation software. It's similar to Overture and very ergonomic. It's a little buggy, yet, but IMO it's worth a try.

snorlax

11-17-2006, 03:05 AM

BlueMax

11-17-2006, 08:42 PM

What happened?????????

Read it all in this thread: http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48572

Maybe the boss was just having a bad day, but sheesh....

koolbass

02-10-2007, 05:10 AM

In reply to GCCOWBOY about the different versions of Sonar. The Producer version is the full function flagship program. The studio version has several new features missing, and accordingly costs less. Home Studio is similar to Pro Tools LE in that it's a much reduced version of the flagship program, Sonar Producer. I hope that helps.

lallis

02-10-2007, 03:27 PM

... The Producer version is the full function flagship program. The studio version has several new features missing...

That could be misleading

The two main Sonar versions are identical in their "functions". The Producer only comes with more plug-ins. Some think the extra softsynths and Fx are worth the extra cost. For my own purposes, I mildly regret having bought the Producer as a waste of money; I have separately acquired virtually all the plugins I actually use. The very good Sonitus Fx are the exception, but I could live without them, too.

Cakewalk Home Studio does have reduced functionality, as well as still fewer and lesser add-on plugs. It is nevertheless very competent. I think I will drop back to Home Studio myself -- if I ever upgrade again.

PabloMack

04-12-2007, 11:51 PM

That could be misleading
The two main Sonar versions are identical in their "functions". The Producer only comes with more plug-ins.

Apparently this is not strictly true either. See the page http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/SONAR/Exclusives.asp to see what is missing in the Studio Edition (and Home Edition as well). It may well be that all of these features are provided by the plugins that lallis is talking about. It was the Surround Sound Mixer that convinced me that I needed the Producer Edition. One of the promo videos I watched showed how sophisticated remote control and integration of midi devices were using what they called ACT in Sonar. I can't imagine many orchestral or even synthy composers needing a lot of midi input devices (maybe a keyboard-the ones with black and white keys). I can't conceive of them needing any midi output devices other than a sound card and speakers (but then I'm not a professional). The only keyboard I use is the QWERTY kind. :)