Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?
I've never scanned any music to work with in Finale, so I guess I was
envisioning more rhythm and pitch errors than the type that you mention. I
realize that if elements are showing up in the wrong tool ("ties
misinterpreted as slurs and tempo markings misinterpreted as song verse")
different problems are encountered.
In the past, I've bailed on a number of midi files and started over, but if
they had needed only 5 bars out of a hundred fixed, most in the speedy tool,
I probably would have stuck with them. I guess all errors are not created
equal.
Don Hart
on 2/9/04 9:25 PM, Craig Parmerlee at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At 09:43 PM 2/9/2004, Don Hart wrote:
>> I would think that proofing by playback, at least in most cases, would
>> make
>> 95% accuracy work pretty well, as opposed to reentering
>> everything. Even if
>> both methods were a wash timewise, scanning would break the routine, and
>> that can sometimes be its own blessing.
>
>
> No. The problem is that you might have to take 5 actions to fix each
> problem. If a triplet is misread as a string of 8th notes with an
> extra rest inserted, you're better off wiping out that mess and
> entering it clean. Likewise for ties misinterpreted as slurs and tempo
> markings misinterpreted as song verse. I think the break even point in
> time is about 98%, but the break even point in terms of my patience is
> about 99.5%
>
> Sometimes SharpEye gets there, sometimes it doesn't. I haven't seen
> anything else even get closeto break even.
>
>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?
At 09:43 PM 2/9/2004, Don Hart wrote: I would think that proofing by playback, at least in most cases, would make 95% accuracy work pretty well, as opposed to reentering everything. Even if both methods were a wash timewise, scanning would break the routine, and that can sometimes be its own blessing. No. The problem is that you might have to take 5 actions to fix each problem. If a triplet is misread as a string of 8th notes with an extra rest inserted, you're better off wiping out that mess and entering it clean. Likewise for ties misinterpreted as slurs and tempo markings misinterpreted as song verse. I think the break even point in time is about 98%, but the break even point in terms of my patience is about 99.5% Sometimes SharpEye gets there, sometimes it doesn't. I haven't seen anything else even get closeto break even. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?
I would think that proofing by playback, at least in most cases, would make 95% accuracy work pretty well, as opposed to reentering everything. Even if both methods were a wash timewise, scanning would break the routine, and that can sometimes be its own blessing. Don Hart on 2/9/04 4:46 PM, Mark D Lew at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2004, at 9:44 AM, Phil Daley wrote: > >> Note bene: I am not familiar with note scanning software. >> >> I am _extremely_ familiar with character scanning software. >> >> "95% accuracy" in scanning conversion to text produces a useless >> document. It is more work to clean up that mess than to retype it >> from scratch. >> >> 95% "sounds" good. In reality, it produces an illegible (and >> unreadable) text document. > > That also matches my experience, from my days as typesetter for a > weekly journal that reprinted numerous press releases. Unless the > accuracy is up around 98% you're going to spend more time futzing with > the file than you would retyping it. Part of the problem is that you > don't know where the 5% errors are, so in addition to fixing the > errors, you have to double-check everything. > > Admittedly, an important factor in this equation is how fast a typist > you are. If retyping is a slow process for you, then your threshold of > accuracy to make scanning worthwhile is going to be lower. > > mdl > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?
On Feb 9, 2004, at 9:44 AM, Phil Daley wrote: Note bene: I am not familiar with note scanning software. I am _extremely_ familiar with character scanning software. "95% accuracy" in scanning conversion to text produces a useless document. It is more work to clean up that mess than to retype it from scratch. 95% "sounds" good. In reality, it produces an illegible (and unreadable) text document. That also matches my experience, from my days as typesetter for a weekly journal that reprinted numerous press releases. Unless the accuracy is up around 98% you're going to spend more time futzing with the file than you would retyping it. Part of the problem is that you don't know where the 5% errors are, so in addition to fixing the errors, you have to double-check everything. Admittedly, an important factor in this equation is how fast a typist you are. If retyping is a slow process for you, then your threshold of accuracy to make scanning worthwhile is going to be lower. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?
I believe he said 97%, but I don't recall the percentage with 100 % accuracy, or something like that. All I know is my violist friend, who has been using Finale for years, is now scanning rather than any of his other note entry choices, when it comes to entering a clean printed work. Enough said. (Hell, I don't get 95% accuracy with Speedy Entry!) RH - Original Message - From: "Phil Daley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Finale list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies? > At 2/9/2004 12:17 PM, Raymond Horton wrote: > > >"Lies" is a strong word, and here, unjustified. > > > >But I would have agreed with you on the scanning until last week. A friend > >of mine (a viola player and user of WinFin2003) astounded me, just a few > >days ago, by telling me that he has been having great success scanning. > >After some trial and error, he scans viola parts and up to four-part scores > >regularly, with what he estimates at something like 95 to 97% accuracy. > > Note bene: I am not familiar with note scanning software. > > I am _extremely_ familiar with character scanning software. > > "95% accuracy" in scanning conversion to text produces a useless > document. It is more work to clean up that mess than to retype it from > scratch. > > 95% "sounds" good. In reality, it produces an illegible (and unreadable) > text document. > > Phil Daley < AutoDesk > > http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley > > > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?
At 2/9/2004 12:17 PM, Raymond Horton wrote: >"Lies" is a strong word, and here, unjustified. > >But I would have agreed with you on the scanning until last week. A friend >of mine (a viola player and user of WinFin2003) astounded me, just a few >days ago, by telling me that he has been having great success scanning. >After some trial and error, he scans viola parts and up to four-part scores >regularly, with what he estimates at something like 95 to 97% accuracy. Note bene: I am not familiar with note scanning software. I am _extremely_ familiar with character scanning software. "95% accuracy" in scanning conversion to text produces a useless document. It is more work to clean up that mess than to retype it from scratch. 95% "sounds" good. In reality, it produces an illegible (and unreadable) text document. Phil Daley < AutoDesk > http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?
"Lies" is a strong word, and here, unjustified. But I would have agreed with you on the scanning until last week. A friend of mine (a viola player and user of WinFin2003) astounded me, just a few days ago, by telling me that he has been having great success scanning. After some trial and error, he scans viola parts and up to four-part scores regularly, with what he estimates at something like 95 to 97% accuracy. His main wish is that he could buy a low-cost 9 1/2 x 13 scanner to make large parts easier! I'll try to remember to get some of the particular settings he uses and post them here. And you are dead wrong about midi import being a lie. I import midi files into Finale all the time. Success depends entirely on the condition of the midi file. A clean, quantized midi file loads in as clean as a whistle. (Where in the world did that phrase come from?) For example (in addition to being a full-time symphony player) I am a part time Minister of Muisc in a United Methodist Church. Whenever I have an instrumental group of some kind, even an odd group of instruments, playing with the choir, I go to http://www.hymnsite.com/ and DL the midi files for the hymns for that service (all the PD hymns in the UMC hymnal are there). They nearly always load into Finale perfectly and I can rearrange them as needed. I can do these in a flash. If my junior high trumpet players are playing and the hymn is in E major I'll go the other way and transpose the hymn to Eb or F for the organist. For these I have to implode, so I have to do a bit of layer switching when the rhythm is different, etc., but it is still very fast. And, I _have_ used midi files of "great complexity". For example, last year my violinist/pianist daughter found herself in a one-year position as a music teacher, including directing a high school band with 9 players, some of whom were fairly advanced. The only published arrangements she could find that would work for her small instrumentation were too easy to keep them happy all year, so I did a few quicky arrangements for her, several of them courtesy of midi files I could find on the web. Bizet's "Farandole" from "L'arlesienne" was a big hit, as was their accompanying my daughter on a movement from a Mozart violin concerto. (I think legality is OK here, as the pieces are PD, and I didn't take any dough for my rearrange of someone's midi file.) I never would have the had time to type so many notes from scratch, and I am a rotten pianist. The files needed some editing before arranging, (like importing the Mozart at two different quantizations, and copying from both as I went along) but nothing like typing in every thirty-second note myself - the midi import saved countless hours. Ray Horton - Original Message - From: "David H. Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Darcy James Argue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 7:28 AM Subject: Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius > Finale has out and out lied, if you think that advertising a feature > that doesn't work very well constitutes a lie (I do.) > > Scanning, for instance -- Yes, it is possible to scan a perfectly > printed version of Mary Had a Little Lamb (as melody only) into Finale, > using its built-in scanning capability. However for any serious > scanning of, say, a complex piano score for arranging as a chamber work, > it won't work at all. That seems to be an out and out lie, when they > advertised that we could scan in music and work with it in Finale. Coda > knows that most users who use Finale are not working on Mary Had a > Little Lamb. > > MicNotator, for another instance: Play or sing your music into Finale? > C'mon! That was another out-and-out lie -- has ANYBODY gotten that to work? > > Importing of Midi files? Another lie, if you're working with midi files > of any great complexity. Hyperscribe is a partner in this travesty -- > playing of complex music does not result in exact notation, rendering > the feature useless for most advanced music entry. > > There's actually FOUR kinds of lies, to paraphrase Mark Twain (I think > he originated it): 1) Lies, 2) Damn Lies, 3) Statistics and > 4) Marketing. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying either company is worse in this > regard -- I'm just saying that Coda has done its share of > misrepresenting its product, too. Sibelius certainly does have a > chip-on-the-shoulder attitude in it's aggressive claims! It is a young > product still and they are gradually addressing complaints and bugs and > deficiencies. Admittedly with an attitude, it seems. > > But Sibelius has loosened up its overly rigid licensing so that both > Sibelius and Finale are equivalent in that regard for the latest version > -- both have call/response software registration and both allow > installation on two machines simultaneously without violating the > license agreement. > > David H. Bailey > > > > > Darcy James Argue wr
