"Human" playback sib/fin

[frivo]

I don't wish to start a new Sibelius/Finale war, but I have tried to find out which program of (sibelius or finale), is best for playback? I know Finale best, and they have HP, which plays back a lot of articulations, accents, tremolos, dynamics etc. I had also tried Sibelius (5), but I seems to me that they don't even playback staccato etc. Is Finale best in human playback? Or are Sibelius 6 better in playback?

[Oyvind]

I have never tried Finale, so I could not tell which is best. But I know one thing about Sibelius : You must look into Play/live playback. The so-called "live playback" is marked by default, and does not make the rendering alive at all. If you unmark it, you will get the program to follow your instructions for volume, ritardando and a lot of other things. Take a look at Play / performance .
I have not yet tried version 6 of Sibelius, perhaps you would like to read about the features there as well. Oyvind

[rbowser-]

Jon, you are the Sib Meister--as I can testify since you've helped me out with the program. So thanks for the good explanation of things on this thread.

When Oyvind said, "...The so-called "live playback" is marked by default, and does not make the rendering alive at all..." I was ready to jump in since that's at least One thing I get about Sib. So it was especially helpful when you corrected that misunderstanding about what Live Playback does.

If someone hasn't played their instruments to generate MIDI tracks, then the Live Playback isn't going to make any sense. But as I know from experience, if I want to hear playback which retains all the huge variety of velocity values that really make a natural MIDI recording, then I need that on. It's a well named function, and thanks for explaining that it's not doing what Finale's "Human Playback" is doing - since that utility is for introducing random elements in an attempt to make notated, quantized files sound more naturally sloppy.

Randy

[qccowboy]

in Finale, HumanPlayback does a whole lot of things (more than just "make it sloppy"). And HP has improved by leaps and bounds since Finale 2003.

I does randomize some note events.
However, it also creates swells and decrescendos on long notes, it tapers off phrases, it abbreviates notes (breathes) between phrases, it also correctly interprets all dynamics and most articulations as well as text expressions for keyswitching and expressive text, as well as all tempo marking including rit., accel., and a tempo.

I believe HP is also responsible for recognizing that when music is détaché at certain tempos it should use certain keyswitched sounds or attacks.

HP rolls chords when the articulation is placed, but will also automatically roll a chord for certain instruments - like harp, for instance, or harpsichord (when set to "Baroque" style).

HP also recognizes the word "solo" and will boost the volume on that instrument ever so slightly.

HP recognizes instrument names and will apply techniques to those instruments where applicable.

The advantage to HP, of course, is that you do not need to "play in" an interpretation to have Finale perform your score expressively.

Finale also allows you to include "invisible" indications (both articulations and expressions) where you can fine-tune the performance more to your liking. HP will recognize those and play them back.

This means that in the vast majority of cases, Finale is capable of expressively playing back a score that is ALSO of a high enough quality to satisfy any nit-picky engraver.

With a library of expressions and articulations (including your own added invisible or custom articulations and expressions), it then becomes easy to immediately create an expressive score in Finale.

[qccowboy]

not meaning to toss oil on the proverbial fire... but I have yet to hear as expressive a rendering performed by Sibelius as one done in Finale. Which I guess means kudos to Robert Piechaud who designed Finale's HumanPlayback plugin. Speaking of whom, we haven't heard much from him in many moons now... anyone know how he's doing?

[qccowboy]

haha!
well, to be quite honest, while I'm a die-hard Finale user (since version 3 - that's a LONG time), I have always advocated, when asked about the difference between Finale and Sibelius, that people TRY each program.

I believe both have flaws and strengths, unique to each one, and which will - in time - be fixed (the flaws I mean ~|).

Speaking only for myself, I am not an advocate of "letting the program decide what is right", so Sibelius, in that sense, appeals less to me (I feel the same way about Macs in general). I also just can't seem to wrap my mind around Sibelius' note entry methods. So, that's me.

I believe that as long as each program exists, it will keep BOTH companies on their toes and fighting to keep their market share. Which will translate to improvements on both sides, and advantages to us, the end users.

I say "long live both Finale AND Sibelius!" the others can go to hell... :p

[reberclark]

I can't believe I'm going to say this...but I agree with Michel!:)

In my limited experience, most Sibelius users are casual or entry-level users that when, after a couple of years, things "get serious" move to Finale anyway. Please, I don't intend this as a flame or trying to start anything. I am just stating my experience.

I agree that competition is a very healthy thing and that rivalries such as this serve to strengthen both programs.)(~

But I'm sticking with Finale.:)

[rbowser-]

It's an interesting thread.

I've noticed at Sib's site that they offer a significant discount for Finale users who want to switch - I wonder how many people take them up on the offer?

I think it's wild supposition to say Sib users are generally more entry level amateurs than Finale users--Don't see how that can be said, be that as it may.

I've had Sib for a year now, and long ago gave up on trying to get acceptable recordings from it. I'm sure it's possible, but way beyond the time and effort I'm willing to spend mastering it. For me it's strictly for getting printed scores when I need them - and I have a hard time grinning and bearing the pain of getting That right.

You all know me - I'm a sequencer guy, Sonar to be specific. Why I'd want to go through a process which seems like funneling down wide open sonic possibilities in a program like Sonar, so its coming out in the cramped, clumsy tools in a notation program like Sib--well, it's just not for me. It feels like using some gigantic, unwieldy Rube Goldberg machine to move a paint brush for me--when I'd much rather just grab the brush and paint!--ya know?

Very happy with the hard copies from Sib--Isn't that really what notation programs are for, but the companies are spending more and more time to satisfy people who want recordings also?--which is fine - but I think people interested in making solid recordings should just use the programs designed for that.

Randy

[marce]

Well, the same discussion is in the other side: users asking for notation in the recording programs.
I understand your point to use each thing for what is intended: Fin/Sib for print, Sonar/Cubase/etc for record.
But i like the efforts to have all in one place, since, after all, recording-notating is resumed in "make music". The Cubase score advances in this aspects has make me think about this again. And also Pro-tools integrating Sibelius in their software...

[reberclark]

I love you guys!:wow:)(~~|:)

[KeithW]

in Finale, HumanPlayback does a whole lot of things (more than just "make it sloppy"). And HP has improved by leaps and bounds since Finale 2003.

I does randomize some note events.
However, it also creates swells and decrescendos on long notes, it tapers off phrases, it abbreviates notes (breathes) between phrases, it also correctly interprets all dynamics and most articulations as well as text expressions for keyswitching and expressive text, as well as all tempo marking including rit., accel., and a tempo.

I believe HP is also responsible for recognizing that when music is détaché at certain tempos it should use certain keyswitched sounds or attacks.

HP rolls chords when the articulation is placed, but will also automatically roll a chord for certain instruments - like harp, for instance, or harpsichord (when set to "Baroque" style).

HP also recognizes the word "solo" and will boost the volume on that instrument ever so slightly.

HP recognizes instrument names and will apply techniques to those instruments where applicable.

The advantage to HP, of course, is that you do not need to "play in" an interpretation to have Finale perform your score expressively.

Finale also allows you to include "invisible" indications (both articulations and expressions) where you can fine-tune the performance more to your liking. HP will recognize those and play them back.

This means that in the vast majority of cases, Finale is capable of expressively playing back a score that is ALSO of a high enough quality to satisfy any nit-picky engraver.

With a library of expressions and articulations (including your own added invisible or custom articulations and expressions), it then becomes easy to immediately create an expressive score in Finale.

I have to say that I agree with this reply. I have both Finale and Sibelius, and have had them for a long time. HP is vastly superior (IMHO) to what Sibelius has if your goal is to hear a nuanced playback of what you think you entered with notes, tempos, articulations, etc. Of course, it's clearly not like having a live orchestra play your score. Nor is it like handcrafting a MIDI file in SONAR, Cubase, Logic, etc. It's a quick and dirty method of making sure you get roughly what you are intending.

People that intend to do full mockups of their work for soundtracks, backing tracks, Gary's Christmas CD, etc., still need to tweak in one of the sequencing packages.

I've said (and will continue to say to anybody who will listen) that the first company that can combine the two genres (notation and sequencing) into one program, and make it EASY to use, will make some $$$. Robert Piechaud (HP) has done a great job with that functionality, but it's only the beginning. There are still many PhD theses left to be written on "humanizing" computer approximations of what humans can do with real instruments in real orchestras.

There's also the magic that people like DPDan Kury do with the mixing and reverb in getting the sound "right." That's still more of an art than a science.

Keith Walls

[rwayland]

Well, my position is rather like Jon Loving. Sequencers such as Sonar are very good for playback and audio work. Sonar, at least, makes no pretense at being a full feature notation program. Notation programs that I have tried are not as good at playback, and are klutzy to use for this purpose. But some are quite good at notation (Sibelius, Finale). Now that I have Sib 6 and have learned to use my GPO with it, I won't do so. Compared to Sonar, it really is clumsy.

Last I knew, MTT was a Sibelius user, as is Sammy Nestico, and I don't remember how many others, but quite a few Sibelius users pass the entry level use!

Richard

[wst3ae]

I spent years (quite literally) trying the demo for each new version of Sibelius and Finale - probably the most difficult software choice I have faced. They are both quite capable tools, and they both have some really strange shortcomings<G>! I doubt that they could be more different if they tried.

I ended up choosing Finale in 2000 for the most obvious of reasons... I spent almost an evening with one of the Finale folks after a day of booth duty at NAMM. It was a crash course in the program, and while it reinforced some of my complaints, by the end of the session I was proficient in the things I needed to do immediately.

There was also the benefit of a pretty decent discount for educators that I had been unaware of. At the time Sibelius had not yet offered that discount.

So, 10 years, and 7 or 8 updates later I'm digging into Finale 2010 and I'm pretty impressed. Either I finally know where all the bugs are, or they've done a very good job on stability, because I've been using it fairly heavily for about a week without a single lockup or crash (last version I bought was 2008).

New features (to me) are working. Linked parts are working better (this was a huge one for me.)

I have, over the years, spent quite a bit of time messing around with HP. It has promise, but I've yet to be able to use it effectively, or more fairly, I've yet to be able to realize a piece as well using HP as I can with even brief tweaking in Sonar. Still, I love the concept, and I have heard pieces realized using HP that were spectacular. Part of my problem is my very limited library - mostly GPO and JABB.

If I were to invest in one of the monster mega libraries I suspect my output would improve accordingly. However, I can get close to the same result using GPO and JABB in Sonar, so I haven't been motivated to make that investment just yet.

While I think it probably is topic-creep, I think the difference between scoring tools and sequencers is significant, and deserves some air time. I'm not even sure I am looking forward to the day when one tool does both as well as the individual tools.

A scoring tool such as Finale or Sibelius is here to help us compose, arrange, and engrave. Some level of playback is nice, and really just an extension of sitting at the piano with a pencil and stack of manuscript paper. It's a very natural way to work - at least for me - and a very comfortable setting.

A sequencer, I use Sonar, is a designed to help one produce a finished track. I allows one to record and manipulate both audio and MIDI data. You can apply really stupidly powerful tools to fix any aspect of a recorded track.

To that end it is important to recognize what each tool is recording. A scoring package records data about our intended visual representation of a musical piece. A sequencer records data about our intended aural representation of a musical piece.

If we constrained a scoring tool to represent each note exactly as it was played in you'd end up with the ever popular fly specks.

If we constrained a sequencer to record each note only as we wished it to be represented we'd lose a tremendous level of expression.

What is needed it a language capable of representing multiple (at least two) levels of representation. By itself a fairly trivial task, but it is complicated by the fact that as one bounces back and forth between aural and visual domains the underlying structure has to understand when to make changes in one domain based on changes made in the other.

If you think that's confusing imagine coding it!

Bill

[frivo]

Thanks to all of you!
I had lost my internet-connection for couple of days (just after I started this thread, and now I got all your replies.

[jb2006]

Glad I stumbled on this topic as I am now trying to figure out to go with Finale 2010 or Sib 6. I have dabbled with 2008 and the human playback feature I found was a huge selling point for me, but with Sib 6 coming out with rewire made me lean 99% toward Sib 6. I was just about to buy it until I noticed that it didn't offer any such playback feature that Finale does. To help me decide can someone answer this question:

Can you playback using Human Playback and record to a MIDI file or is just strictly for playback?

Just so you know That I plan on arranging and orchestrating primarily while learning composition. I will start in a notation program then finish in Cakewalk Home Studio that is why the rewire application appeals to me.

thanks in advanced

[rpearl]

Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but you can export any file as a MIDI file. I believe that any Live Playback data will be included. You can ask this on the Sib site for confirmation.

[Jeff Turner]

Can you playback using Human Playback and record to a MIDI file or is just strictly for playback?

In Finale you can save any file as a midi file. And you have the choice to use Human Playback and have those effects included in the midi data. Then when you open the midi file up in Cakewalk, you have a better starting point from which to tweak your midi data.

JT

[jb2006]

Thanks for the feedback. I went ahead an demo'd Sib 6 and found that they do have a type of human playback in under "peformance" when you click the playback tab.

Uder Style tap it has:

Espressivo tab:
Espressivo, meccanico, senza espressivo, poco espressivo and molto espressivo.

Rutabo tab
Rubato, mecanico, senza rubato, poco rubato, piu rubato molto rubato.

Rythimc feel:
Straign, light swing, med swing, heavy swing, shuffle, light waltz, Samba, pop, rock reggae, funk, viennese waltz,notes inegales, dotted eighths, swing 16ths. No classical, romantic or 21st century as Finale but I would imagine that between the three tabs (espressivo, rubato and rythmic feel one would be able to duplicate)

So pretty much the same except in Finale looks like you can control with a slider the % of rubato, rythmic feel and accents whereas Sib 6 they are presets.

A few adds under playback for Sibelus 6 are:
> Reverb settings (cathedral, small room, med room , large room,ambient hall, dry and concert hall)

> Note duration adjustments of unslurred notes.

[qccowboy]

A few adds under playback for Sibelus 6 are:
> Reverb settings (cathedral, small room, med room , large room,ambient hall, dry and concert hall)

> Note duration adjustments of unslurred notes.


Yes, Finale has the same thing.
Reverb is set in the same window as the choices of VSTi.
Not duration for unslurred notes is, I believe, set from the Humanplayback window.