[Finale] Does PDF require Finale Fonts?
I made a PDF of a Finale file on my PC using CutePDF. Then I eMailed it to someone who uses a Mac. They said it looked unreadable, like hieroglyphics, *except* for the lyrics. It so happens I used Arial for the lyrics. The rest were Finale fonts. This makes me think that the problem is something like the Mac needing to have all the Finale fonts installed in order for the PDF file to work properly. I was under the impression that a PDF file was totally self-contained and that someone who didn't have Finale could view a PDF. Does a PDF file require the fonts that are used in the original Finale file to be installed on any computer being used to view the PDF file? I was thinking of having the person download and install Finale NotePad on their Mac in order to get those fonts. Would that work? Of course the whole reason for my sending them a PDF in the first place was so that they wouldn't need to download NotePad. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 5 Apr 2006 at 14:06, Karen wrote: This is how it all works...it is quite interesting. http://tinyurl.com/fknzx [as an aside, I find it helpful when you're providing a tinyurl citation to also provide the original URL. There are two reasons for this: 1. the actual URL tells the reader what the actual source is, which can help determine whether or not to follow the link. 2. if tinyurl goes out of business someday, you'd still have a record of the real URL, which might still be valid. This is especially important for any discussions that are archived.] Apparently, a virtual partition is created and that is where XP lives. . . . I'm not sure what's virtual about the partition -- the article certainly doesn't say that. Perhaps you're interpreting the nondestructive repartioning as an indication of this? That wouldn't be correct, as Partition Magic and other partitioning products have been able to do nondestructive repartioning of active volumes for over a decade (that's how long I've been using it, since 1996). . . . My only question is if this firmware update that allows Window to run on the Intel Macs poses potential virus/worm etc. issues that up until now we have been immune from. (yes..yes...I know. It is partially that there aren't as many people trying to write nasty little pieces of code for the Mac.) But Open Firmware was more secure than the Microsoft BIOS. So I am really curious as to how exactly the firmware update changes EFI in it's current state. So far as I can tell, I can't see how this BIOS support would have any effect on your OS X partition. Perhaps a WinXP virus that corrupts the BIOS could cause problems with WinXP, but I don't see how that could affect OS X, since OS X doesn't use that BIOS support in the first place. Now, if there were a partition that was visible to both OS X and WinXP, a WinXP virus could damage data there or plant a nasty that could run on OS X in addition to its WinXP payload. I don't know where OS X stores its user-level startup routines, but if it's in /usr filespace and you put your /usr folder on the partition that is accessible from both OS's, that could allow a clever WinXP virus to drop an OS X-only payload that could cause problems in OS X. But the answer to that is to never store your /usr folders (or any other data associated with OS X startup or operations) on a partition that is read/write accessible to both OS's. I believe that OS X can read but not write NTFS, and Windows can't do either with OS X's file system. I believe there are utilities for the Mac that can make NTFS volumes read/write, so that would be a requirement to make this work. But my guess is that this would have to be a third partition, outside either the OS X or WinXP partitions, for it to work. Thoughts? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 5 Apr 2006 at 15:55, Karen wrote: Naw...I understand the concept that was in the linked article that's why I put virtual in parenthesisbut maybe that was a poor way of saying it. By virtual I meant a partition that can be created without having to reformat the whole drive like we did in the past. I guess non- destructive covers that though. The word virtual implies that it's not a normal partition, when in fact, it's a perfectly normal partition. Nondestructive repartitioning of Windows/DOS drives has been available for over a decade, so there's nothing at all surprising about such a feature, and no call at all for the use of the term virtual. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 5 Apr 2006 at 20:18, Mark D Lew wrote: On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:32 AM, David W. Fenton wrote: This is not going to last long, though. Microsoft recently announced that Windows Vista (the next major release of Windows, the release of which was recently delayed into 2007) will not boot under EFI (or whatever the Apple equivalent to the BIOS is). Of course, I wouldn't have thought that WinXP would be able to, either, so maybe it will work after all. But presumably if one is considering switching from Windows to Mac, one doesn't care as much that the Mac will run *tomorrow's* Windows apps, so long as it runs the ones that one already owns. Well, as long as you're happy to stay with the old generation of Windows apps. Vista (and then the second Longhorn iteration, the server counterpart to Vista, which I hope will implement the file system innovations that had to be dropped from Vista to get it released within the current decade) is a whole new version of Windows. The graphics engine is completely re-written (mostly to copy things from OS X's Quartz, seems to me), and the UI is changed extensively. This latter is the important part. The Windows UI has remained quite constant since the release of Win95. Vista is a huge change. Microsoft is extensively rewriting its Office programs to take advantage of the new UI innovations (I'm not sure how I feel about them -- they look pretty in the screenshots, but I don't know if they will really have that much more utility for experienced users), and this will, I think, constitute a huge leap forward in interface design. This is one of those rare moments, I think, when the innovation trumpeted by Microsoft actually has some substance to it, and where the upgrade to get the new UI will be worthwhile. I know that Vista will have a standard Windows Classic UI (just like WinXP), but I don't know what kind of support there will be for the ribbon UI and the new menu structures under Windows Classic, or for Office 12 (and other Vista-oriented applications) running under WinXP. I do know that Win2K will basically be out of the loop for these new apps (they won't be supported, so far as I can tell, which is a shame, as the relationship between WinXP and Win2K is much like that between Win98 and Win95 -- mostly cosmetic differences and only a few underlying technologies that differ and that could easily be installed in the older OS to make it have the same features as the newer version). An inability to run Vista will be no real problem for Mac users who want a sometime Windows box to run Windows programs. But for Windows users who would buy a Mac to dual boot, but would still maintain their strong commitment to Windows (I'm one of those users -- a MacIntel Mini looks *very* attractive to me right now), this becomes a long-term problem, as Vista is due out in about a year from now. My needs are often driven by those of my clients (I have to be able to program for the systems they have in place), and after 2007, it's unlikely that any of them will any longer be buying WinXP systems. I'll need to adapt to that. So, in 2008, the ability to dual boot Mac/Vista would then become essential. I don't know the level of difficulty of the 32-bit EFI problem (i.e., perhaps it's relatively trivial for Apple to solve with the add-on BIOS support), or if, perhaps, the availability of 64-bit MacIntels would eliminate the problem entirely. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
At 4/6/2006 08:20 AM, David W. Fenton wrote: I believe that OS X can read but not write NTFS, and Windows can't do either with OS X's file system. I believe there are utilities for the Mac that can make NTFS volumes read/write, so that would be a requirement to make this work. But my guess is that this would have to be a third partition, outside either the OS X or WinXP partitions, for it to work. I believe there are programs that will mount a unix/linux disk in windows, but I haven't used them. There is a program that will write NTFS from DOS so it could be done from OS X. I am not familiar at all with OS X. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
At 08:32 AM 4/6/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote: [...good information...] The biggest issue for me (aside from the political) is hardware. Will the Windows on the Mac use its own drivers to support the additional range of hardware? Add-in cards and other devices that now only have Windows drivers? I'm one of those looking speculatively at this unit because I'd like to have some Mac knowledge, be able to use Mac files that I receive, and still be able to do what I do now, all in one box. A complete dual-capable system, hardware and software, would be great. Like can I still buy those $40 200GB hard drive specials at Staples and put them in? Does it have slots that will accommodate my high-end sound cards? Or is this dual-boot a software support system only? Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Finale 2006 Win - not possible to run it withoutadministrator rights?
You need to first activate it as an Administrative user. Then your normal user accounts should be able to access it. Finale only requires Admin rights to register it. Allen From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of themarkSent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:10 AMTo: finale@shsu.eduSubject: [Finale] Finale 2006 Win - not possible to run it withoutadministrator rights? I installed Finale 2006 on a Win 2000 Pro system using administrator rights. I need to run it from a normal user account. I try to run it and I get "finale encountered an error. please reinstall Finale". I had not yet registered the prog. Should I register it first with administrator rights then run it from normal user account? Or is it not possible to run it without adm rights? Really weird! Thank you themark ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] TAN: Unsupported midi driver fix for Intel Macs
Another Tip: Try plugging in your device BEFORE installing drivers. There is a chance that your device may support the MIDI part of the USB spec. Granted, you won't have some of the bells and whistles that the installed driver provides, but you can still use it. We have an Maudio KeyStation 49e, and you can plug it into an Intel Mac and it works just fine without the drivers. I do have to admit, Network MIDI is cool. --Allen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:23 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: [Finale] TAN: Unsupported midi driver fix for Intel Macs Here is a fix if anyone has a midi interface that isn't yet supported on the new Intel Macs. http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2006012807001 -K ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Really hiding rests
I always thought it stood for obfuscate :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carl Dershem Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 12:57 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Really hiding rests Aaron Sherber wrote: Hi all, I found this setting in previous Finale versions, but now in 2006 I can't seem to find it. When I hide a rest, it displays on screen as grey. Where is the setting to *really* make it hide? Ummm... in the Speedy Entry Tool click the rest and then 'o' (for obscure) works for me. cd -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/# ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Finale 2006 Win - not possible to run it withoutadministrator rights?
On 6 Apr 2006 at 8:57, Fisher, Allen wrote: You need to first activate it as an Administrative user. Then your normal user accounts should be able to access it. Finale only requires Admin rights to register it. Shouldn't the registration process know this, and activate the RunAs service if running as a regular user? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 06 Apr 2006, at 8:52 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: The biggest issue for me (aside from the political) is hardware. Will the Windows on the Mac use its own drivers to support the additional range of hardware? Before you install WinXP, Boot Camp burns a CD-ROM of the custom drivers you will need (mostly stuff like graphics drivers, Bluetooth, and volume/brightness key support, sound drivers -- stuff that requires a slightly different configuration for the XP side). Of course, you can install any additional drivers you need (for printers, mice, etc) once you have Windows up and running. Add-in cards and other devices that now only have Windows drivers? It's not really possible to say yet, since none of the current MacIntel models are desktop machines with empty PCI slots. Like can I still buy those $40 200GB hard drive specials at Staples and put them in? Of course. You can do that with non-Intel Macs as well, obviously -- Apple has been using standard ATA hard drives for over 10 years. Does it have slots that will accommodate my high-end sound cards? If they are PCI-based, at the moment, no. But of course eventually there will be a MacIntel Power Mac with a bunch of free PCI slots. Or is this dual-boot a software support system only? No. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
At 10:38 AM 4/6/06 -0400, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 06 Apr 2006, at 8:52 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: Or is this dual-boot a software support system only? No. Excellent. Now we're talkin! Thanks, Darcy! My current hand-built PC is starting to get a little long in the tooth (1.4GHz Athlon), so I'm looking around for an all-bases-covered option at last. In my lifetime! :) Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
David W. Fenton / 2006/04/06 / 08:20 AM wrote: as Partition Magic and other partitioning products have been able to do nondestructive repartioning of active volumes for over a decade (that's how long I've been using it, since 1996). Which isn't possible (at least not reliable thing to do) on Mac file system. I don't want to sound negative but non-Mac file systems are much more loose, and Mac users, at least I, have been envy about that. On the other hand, Mac file system made multiple boot from any volume possible. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 6 Apr 2006 at 10:50, A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 2006/04/06 / 08:20 AM wrote: as Partition Magic and other partitioning products have been able to do nondestructive repartioning of active volumes for over a decade (that's how long I've been using it, since 1996). Which isn't possible (at least not reliable thing to do) on Mac file system. I don't want to sound negative but non-Mac file systems are much more loose, and Mac users, at least I, have been envy about that. On the other hand, Mac file system made multiple boot from any volume possible. I was just sure that Partition Magic had a Mac version. I also know for a fact that the professional version used to support Linux, but since they've been bought by Symantec (ARGH!!!), they seem to have made it a Windows-only product. Since it seems that they've eliminated the Linux support, I wonder if that implies that my memory of the Mac support was correct? Then again, Linux support only requires the ability to read/write the volume, not the capability to run on Linux (since it reboots its own OS, rather than rebooting in the installed OS). From Googling, I can't see any evidence that Partition Magic can work with Mac volumes. That's too bad -- it's such a great thing to be able to do. I'm constantly resizing partitions on existing drives for myself and for clients. It's something I've come to consider as standard practice. Of course, once Windows is on a dual-boot MacIntel, I wonder if Partition Magic can then work from WinXP? While Googling I definitely saw instructions for using Partition Magic in Windows to resize partitions for installing Darwin on Intel hardware (this predates the MacIntel). But that was also allocating a partition to install OS X on, rather than dynamically resizing after the OS X installation. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 06.04.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: My thought is that if I went with a dual-boot Mac, I'd use OS X for Finale and audio. Why would you use the Mac for Audio? Win XP has much better Audio software than the Mac imo. It is currently my biggest problem with the Mac and one good reason to dream of a new intel Mac, so I can boot Windows and run Samplitude or Sequoia (once I can afford it). But this raises a question for me: Are there as many free tools for this as there are for Windows? I'd hate to give up Exact Audio Copy (for burning CDs), or LAMEBatch (for batch conversion of WAV to MP3), or MIDI2Wav for recording WAV files from MIDI files, or Audacity (general wave-based audio editing). Audacity I believe is available for OS X. If you just need simple copying of Audio CDs, with quite a bit extra, iTunes will happily do the job, but it isn't for pro-use. iTunes will also convert from Wav to MP3, not sure it does batch conversion. iTunes can also convert Midi to Wav, but I am not sure the quality will please you - it uses the built in Quicktime synthesizer, which is, well, not great. Are there free counterparts, or applets included with OS X that allow you to do this? I don't really like iTunes, to be honest, and wouldn't want to use it for the first two tasks. Well, then you might have to search a little. Not sure what else there is, but perhaps iTunes on the Mac is better than on the PC? And does the Mac have hardware-based synthesizer cards, or is it basically a choice of outboard synthesizers or software synthesis? To my knowledge the latter. But aren't hardware synths becoming a thing of the past anyway? I'm not at all thrilled about the performance-hungry profile of VPO -- What is VPO? I like to do other things while letting slow processes run in the background, but if the system is already heavily taxed, the result would be flawed output files. Basically I don't want to have to walk away from the computer while these things are running. I don't know why people still think the Mac is better for Audio. Imo it isn't, simply by the lack of decent software. Certainly for professional classical music mastering the PC has a lot more to offer. Sequencers are ok, but the choice on Win is just as good if not better. This might change when SonicStudio brings out their new mastering soft, but this would still leave the Mac with one option, while there are at least three on the PC (Sequoia, Pyramix, Sadie). So then it comes down to Finale. Would you really ever switch to OSX for Finale? I really can't see the big advantage of having a dual boot machine for anyone who is happily running Windows today. I love the Mac and OS X, but in the last two years I have been very close to going over to Windows several times. For me the dual boot is a god sent, but perhaps not in the way that Apple intended it. For me it may very well end up being the smoothest way to slowly start converting to Windows. And I sort of fear that I won't be the only one. Johannes Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 06.04.2006 A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 2006/04/06 / 08:20 AM wrote: as Partition Magic and other partitioning products have been able to do nondestructive repartioning of active volumes for over a decade (that's how long I've been using it, since 1996). Which isn't possible (at least not reliable thing to do) on Mac file system. I don't want to sound negative but non-Mac file systems are much more loose, and Mac users, at least I, have been envy about that. On the other hand, Mac file system made multiple boot from any volume possible. Hiro, so what does this new Apple Software actually do? It does precisely what you say can't be done. And so do at least three other software packages. Go to versiontracker and search for partition. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
David W. Fenton / 2006/04/06 / 11:32 AM wrote: I wonder if that implies that my memory of the Mac support was correct? Nope. I was a long time PQMagic user, too, and I have been a Mac lover since 1987. Do you remember System Commander? That was another troublesome app! -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
Johannes Gebauer wrote: I don't know why people still think the Mac is better for Audio. Imo it isn't, simply by the lack of decent software. Certainly for professional classical music mastering the PC has a lot more to offer. Sequencers are ok, but the choice on Win is just as good if not better. Logic, Digital Performer, Protools would be the reason. The latest version of Digital Performer really sets a high standard. This might change when SonicStudio brings out their new mastering soft, but this would still leave the Mac with one option, while there are at least three on the PC (Sequoia, Pyramix, Sadie). So then it comes down to Finale. Would you really ever switch to OSX for Finale? Yes. Cleaner user interface. No need to have a subscription to a virus protection company (or Mafia company). Using both Finale on Mac and PC, I still think the Mac version generally looks and runs better. The PC version is faster, but once MakeMusic ships an Intel version, things will be interesting. I really can't see the big advantage of having a dual boot machine for anyone who is happily running Windows today. I love the Mac and OS X, but in the last two years I have been very close to going over to Windows several times. For me the dual boot is a god sent, but perhaps not in the way that Apple intended it. For me it may very well end up being the smoothest way to slowly start converting to Windows. And I sort of fear that I won't be the only one. Why would you convert to Windows from Mac? Close to switching due to what? Cause you can't get iTunes to batch convert things? (which, if you did a little playing around or reading, you can do). Or because you have stuck yourself with Quicktimes sound and haven't looked for that freeware program that will allow you to use Garageband instruments instead of Quicktime? Or that you want to indulge yourself in Creative Labs sound cards? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
Um, there have been a couple of products that will let you repartition without reformatting. There was one in OS 9 made by Alsoft, and there is one currently being made by Coriolis systems that has been running on OS X for about two years now, maybe longer. http://www.coriolis-systems.com/iPartition.php A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 2006/04/06 / 08:20 AM wrote: as Partition Magic and other partitioning products have been able to do nondestructive repartioning of active volumes for over a decade (that's how long I've been using it, since 1996). Which isn't possible (at least not reliable thing to do) on Mac file system. I don't want to sound negative but non-Mac file systems are much more loose, and Mac users, at least I, have been envy about that. On the other hand, Mac file system made multiple boot from any volume possible. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 08:32 AM 4/6/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote: [...good information...] The biggest issue for me (aside from the political) is hardware. Will the Windows on the Mac use its own drivers to support the additional range of hardware? Add-in cards and other devices that now only have Windows drivers? I'm one of those looking speculatively at this unit because I'd like to have some Mac knowledge, be able to use Mac files that I receive, and still be able to do what I do now, all in one box. A complete dual-capable system, hardware and software, would be great. Like can I still buy those $40 200GB hard drive specials at Staples and put them in? Does it have slots that will accommodate my high-end sound cards? Or is this dual-boot a software support system only? Dennis Well, since the three current Intel Macs hardly have room for another hard drive (Mac Mini uses a laptop drive, MacBook is a laptop, and the iMac has an internal drive already), it doesn't make sense to even think about an internal drive. Assuming that the forthcoming desktop Intel Macs will have ATA hard drive (or that $40 staples drive you mentioned) then you can easily add another drive to your Mac. But, I'd expect Apple's new desktops will have Serial ATA drives, like the current Powermacs dueso.an ATA drive won't work right out of the box. And sound cards. M-Audio's stuff has always worked on Macs. Not sure about Creatives stuff, but M-Audio's stuff is better in my opinion. Plus, you can run a version of protools on M-Audio's hardware (since they are the same company). ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 6 Apr 2006 at 17:39, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 06.04.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: My thought is that if I went with a dual-boot Mac, I'd use OS X for Finale and audio. Why would you use the Mac for Audio? Win XP has much better Audio software than the Mac imo. It is currently my biggest problem with the Mac and one good reason to dream of a new intel Mac, so I can boot Windows and run Samplitude or Sequoia (once I can afford it). Well, I thought the Finale experience was better on OS X. But this raises a question for me: Are there as many free tools for this as there are for Windows? I'd hate to give up Exact Audio Copy (for burning CDs), or LAMEBatch (for batch conversion of WAV to MP3), or MIDI2Wav for recording WAV files from MIDI files, or Audacity (general wave-based audio editing). Audacity I believe is available for OS X. If you just need simple copying of Audio CDs, with quite a bit extra, iTunes will happily do the job, but it isn't for pro-use. iTunes will also convert from Wav to MP3, not sure it does batch conversion. iTunes can also convert Midi to Wav, but I am not sure the quality will please you - it uses the built in Quicktime synthesizer, which is, well, not great. I am very anti-iTunes for anything other than as a media player (which I use it for). I won't use it for anything else because I don't like the choices that have been made for me. For MIDI-to-WAV conversion it's useless, since it uses the horrid QT instruments. Are there free counterparts, or applets included with OS X that allow you to do this? I don't really like iTunes, to be honest, and wouldn't want to use it for the first two tasks. Well, then you might have to search a little. Not sure what else there is, but perhaps iTunes on the Mac is better than on the PC? I don't know. It would have to be substantially better, completely different, in fact, for me to consider replacing all the special-use tools that I have for those tasks. And does the Mac have hardware-based synthesizer cards, or is it basically a choice of outboard synthesizers or software synthesis? To my knowledge the latter. But aren't hardware synths becoming a thing of the past anyway? They may be, but I consider that a stupid trend. Systems are moving towards handing off all the graphics processing to dedicated devices, so I don't quite understand why the trend in audio is going in the other direction. There was a time when there was a move to share video and system memory, but that obviously didn't work out very well for the new graphics-heavy OS's, so that's ending. It just makes sense to have a separate device for this and I just think it's bloody stupid for the industry to try to move towards all- software synthesis. Soundfonts are great, but they can just as easily be loaded into the synthesizer card's RAM as into the PC's. I'm not at all thrilled about the performance-hungry profile of VPO -- What is VPO? Brain fart -- I reached into my memory for GPO and retrieved VPO instead. I like to do other things while letting slow processes run in the background, but if the system is already heavily taxed, the result would be flawed output files. Basically I don't want to have to walk away from the computer while these things are running. I don't know why people still think the Mac is better for Audio. Imo it isn't, simply by the lack of decent software. Certainly for professional classical music mastering the PC has a lot more to offer. Sequencers are ok, but the choice on Win is just as good if not better. OK. I didn't really know that was the case. This might change when SonicStudio brings out their new mastering soft, but this would still leave the Mac with one option, while there are at least three on the PC (Sequoia, Pyramix, Sadie). So then it comes down to Finale. Would you really ever switch to OSX for Finale? Well, I don't know. I really can't see the big advantage of having a dual boot machine for anyone who is happily running Windows today. I love the Mac and OS X, but in the last two years I have been very close to going over to Windows several times. For me the dual boot is a god sent, but perhaps not in the way that Apple intended it. For me it may very well end up being the smoothest way to slowly start converting to Windows. And I sort of fear that I won't be the only one. Well, I'm not completely happy with Windows. Secondly, I've coveted the Mac's better UI for as long as I've been a computer user. Third, I would like to become Mac-proficient so that I could offer broader service in my consulting business. Fourth, I do substantial graphics work with my web clients and the Mac would be better for that in terms of graphics editing. If my finances had not gone bad in the last 3 years, I likely would have acquired a Mac as a second platform for certain things. As it is now, I can't afford a second machine. A
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
Phil Daley wrote: At 4/6/2006 08:20 AM, David W. Fenton wrote: I believe that OS X can read but not write NTFS, and Windows can't do either with OS X's file system. I believe there are utilities for the Mac that can make NTFS volumes read/write, so that would be a requirement to make this work. But my guess is that this would have to be a third partition, outside either the OS X or WinXP partitions, for it to work. I believe there are programs that will mount a unix/linux disk in windows, but I haven't used them. There is a program that will write NTFS from DOS so it could be done from OS X. I am not familiar at all with OS X. You can READ NTFS volumes just fine. But writing is an issue, even in Linux from what I understand. http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20050521110452194lsrc=osxh Though FAT works both ways... ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] MusicXML.dll cannot be found?
Hi all, Has this topic been covered? I just received Finale 2006b and installed it on my Win98SE PC specifically because I was sent MusicXML files to import. I installed the Finale 2006c update as well. The default directories and a typical installation were used. I did the usual reboot. After getting this error message I reinstalled Finale and the update. No change. Here's the message: Files cannot be imported or exported through MusicXML because the necessary file MusicXML.dll could not be found in the Component Files directory. You must reinstall the missing file from your Finale CD to use this feature. There's nothing in the readme about this, nor on the Finale support site's knowledge base. The only part not installable on Win98SE is Garritan, and that doesn't interest me. It works on my WinXP laptop, but I like my desktop dual screens. Where do I get the missing file (the Finale setup is all one big not-zipped file). Any clues? Thanks, Dennis -- Please participate in my latest project: http://maltedmedia.com/waam/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
Another nice thing to note about Mac OS X however, is that it is a unix based OS, which means that a LOT of Unix utilities will run through the terminal, especially for file management/conversion functions. Perl comes installed standard to the Darwin Kernel on OS X and so you also have all of the free utilities built in Perl, and open source, (as that's how Perl works), completely available to you. Granted, nothing that runs in a Unix terminal is as pretty as it could be...but for old DOS lovers like myself, it's kind of nostalgic. --- Scot Hanna-Weir Music Engraver A-R Editions, Inc. Middleton, WI www.areditions.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 4/6/06 10:32 AM, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Apr 2006 at 10:50, A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 2006/04/06 / 08:20 AM wrote: as Partition Magic and other partitioning products have been able to do nondestructive repartioning of active volumes for over a decade (that's how long I've been using it, since 1996). Which isn't possible (at least not reliable thing to do) on Mac file system. I don't want to sound negative but non-Mac file systems are much more loose, and Mac users, at least I, have been envy about that. On the other hand, Mac file system made multiple boot from any volume possible. I was just sure that Partition Magic had a Mac version. I also know for a fact that the professional version used to support Linux, but since they've been bought by Symantec (ARGH!!!), they seem to have made it a Windows-only product. Since it seems that they've eliminated the Linux support, I wonder if that implies that my memory of the Mac support was correct? Then again, Linux support only requires the ability to read/write the volume, not the capability to run on Linux (since it reboots its own OS, rather than rebooting in the installed OS). From Googling, I can't see any evidence that Partition Magic can work with Mac volumes. That's too bad -- it's such a great thing to be able to do. I'm constantly resizing partitions on existing drives for myself and for clients. It's something I've come to consider as standard practice. Of course, once Windows is on a dual-boot MacIntel, I wonder if Partition Magic can then work from WinXP? While Googling I definitely saw instructions for using Partition Magic in Windows to resize partitions for installing Darwin on Intel hardware (this predates the MacIntel). But that was also allocating a partition to install OS X on, rather than dynamically resizing after the OS X installation. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
David W. Fenton wrote: I am very anti-iTunes for anything other than as a media player (which I use it for). I won't use it for anything else because I don't like the choices that have been made for me. For MIDI-to-WAV conversion it's useless, since it uses the horrid QT instruments. This is true about Quicktime Instruments, but, seriously, way would you render a Midi using it? iTunes does allow you to CHANGE settings. Not sure what you mean by I won't use it for anything else because I don't like the choices that have been made for me. iTunes doesn't encode your files with DRM. That is totally FUD. They may be, but I consider that a stupid trend. Systems are moving towards handing off all the graphics processing to dedicated devices, so I don't quite understand why the trend in audio is going in the other direction. There was a time when there was a move to share video and system memory, but that obviously didn't work out very well for the new graphics-heavy OS's, so that's ending. It just makes sense to have a separate device for this and I just think it's bloody stupid for the industry to try to move towards all- software synthesis. Soundfonts are great, but they can just as easily be loaded into the synthesizer card's RAM as into the PC's. Soundfonts pale in comparison to all the great sample players out there. And there are cards available that will take some of the audio processing away from the computer, though its more for plug ins. As horsepower increases, why do you need a card to handle the task. You could probably easily run a full 30 piece band using an intel version of GPO or something, and it would sound more convincing than using soundfonts. Seriously though, soundfonts are a thing of the 90s. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Does PDF require Finale Fonts?
You have to make sure you embed the fonts. I have no idea if CutePDF does that. It sounds like your program blotched the job. Richy wrote: I made a PDF of a Finale file on my PC using CutePDF. Then I eMailed it to someone who uses a Mac. They said it looked unreadable, like hieroglyphics, *except* for the lyrics. It so happens I used Arial for the lyrics. The rest were Finale fonts. This makes me think that the problem is something like the Mac needing to have all the Finale fonts installed in order for the PDF file to work properly. I was under the impression that a PDF file was totally self-contained and that someone who didn't have Finale could view a PDF. Does a PDF file require the fonts that are used in the original Finale file to be installed on any computer being used to view the PDF file? I was thinking of having the person download and install Finale NotePad on their Mac in order to get those fonts. Would that work? Of course the whole reason for my sending them a PDF in the first place was so that they wouldn't need to download NotePad. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 6 Apr 2006 at 9:28, Eric Dannewitz wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I am very anti-iTunes for anything other than as a media player (which I use it for). I won't use it for anything else because I don't like the choices that have been made for me. For MIDI-to-WAV conversion it's useless, since it uses the horrid QT instruments. This is true about Quicktime Instruments, but, seriously, way would you render a Midi using it? The point is that I *wouldn't*, but it's the only option. That's why I have a separate program that allows me to capture the output of any of the MIDI synthesizers on my system (soft or hard). iTunes does allow you to CHANGE settings. Not sure what you mean by I won't use it for anything else because I don't like the choices that have been made for me. iTunes doesn't encode your files with DRM. That is totally FUD. I've tried changing settings and they don't allow me the same flexibility as the other tools that I've been using. They may be, but I consider that a stupid trend. Systems are moving towards handing off all the graphics processing to dedicated devices, so I don't quite understand why the trend in audio is going in the other direction. There was a time when there was a move to share video and system memory, but that obviously didn't work out very well for the new graphics-heavy OS's, so that's ending. It just makes sense to have a separate device for this and I just think it's bloody stupid for the industry to try to move towards all-software synthesis. Soundfonts are great, but they can just as easily be loaded into the synthesizer card's RAM as into the PC's. Soundfonts pale in comparison to all the great sample players out there. . . . From my point of view, a soundfont and a sample are the same thing -- you're taking a synthesizer and loading a selection of sounds into it, rather than being stuck with the ones it came with. This can be done either in software or in hardware. If it were done in hardware, it would make the system much more efficient. If GPO's instruments could be offloaded to a separate DSP on a soundcard, you'd not have the awful problems that occur with loading up too many of them at a time. . . . And there are cards available that will take some of the audio processing away from the computer, though its more for plug ins. As horsepower increases, why do you need a card to handle the task. You could probably easily run a full 30 piece band using an intel version of GPO or something, and it would sound more convincing than using soundfonts. I don't distinguish between soundfonts and samples. Seriously though, soundfonts are a thing of the 90s. Well, I've never used any. I don't know the terminology. All I meant was that you're loading your instrument sounds from data stored in files, rather than hard-encoded into a particular soft synth or ROM on a soundcard. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 06.04.2006 Eric Dannewitz wrote: Johannes Gebauer wrote: I don't know why people still think the Mac is better for Audio. Imo it isn't, simply by the lack of decent software. Certainly for professional classical music mastering the PC has a lot more to offer. Sequencers are ok, but the choice on Win is just as good if not better. Logic, Digital Performer, Protools would be the reason. The latest version of Digital Performer really sets a high standard. ProTools runs on the PC, too. None of these three are in any way suited to editing classical music recordings. Anyone who has seen SonicSolutions or Sequoia, and does a lot of classical music will agree. Besides, there are no real options for DVD-A mastering, and DDP file sets have only just become possible. Mac for Audio? Well, if all you do is sequencing, then yes, there are good options. If you want to do mastering on a serious pro level, forget it, you are wasting precious studio time. This might change when SonicStudio brings out their new mastering soft, but this would still leave the Mac with one option, while there are at least three on the PC (Sequoia, Pyramix, Sadie). So then it comes down to Finale. Would you really ever switch to OSX for Finale? Yes. Cleaner user interface. No need to have a subscription to a virus protection company (or Mafia company). Using both Finale on Mac and PC, I still think the Mac version generally looks and runs better. The PC version is faster, but once MakeMusic ships an Intel version, things will be interesting. What, you are saying you will use Word on the PC, and restart and boot into OS X to work in Finale, just to avoid viruses? That's what I understood David was thinking of. (You might just as well unplug your internet connection, that is quicker, and safer.) And I really can't see the point of it. The Finale user interface is hardly different on Mac from Windows, if anything Windows beats it for it's keyboard commands, for Jari's plugins, for keyboard customizability. I really can't see the big advantage of having a dual boot machine for anyone who is happily running Windows today. I love the Mac and OS X, but in the last two years I have been very close to going over to Windows several times. For me the dual boot is a god sent, but perhaps not in the way that Apple intended it. For me it may very well end up being the smoothest way to slowly start converting to Windows. And I sort of fear that I won't be the only one. Why would you convert to Windows from Mac? Close to switching due to what? Cause you can't get iTunes to batch convert things? (which, if you did a little playing around or reading, you can do). Or because you have stuck yourself with Quicktimes sound and haven't looked for that freeware program that will allow you to use Garageband instruments instead of Quicktime? Or that you want to indulge yourself in Creative Labs sound cards? Well, I think you didn't really read my post. For the lack of serious Audio mastering software. There simply is no 4-point, source-destination editing on the Mac. Considering it all started on a Mac (Sonic Solutions was actually the first) this is a pretty major problem if you are serious about Audio, and work in classical music. There are other reasons, too: One of the few reasonably good CD mastering applications is Waveburner Pro. However, when Apple bought Emagic, they made Waveburner Pro a part of Logic. Now, I as a long time Waveburner Pro owner (OS 9 version) have to get the full Logic if I want to continue using it. A pretty hefty upgrade considering I have absolutely no use for Logic. I feel fooled by Apple (and Emagic, who told me over two years that an OS X version of Waveburner was under development, but didn't mention I would have to get Logic to get it). Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 6 Apr 2006 at 18:39, Johannes Gebauer wrote: I fully understand your other reasons, being a better consultant, prefering OS X to Windows (as I do, too). But for the average user, who knows Windows well, and who can do all he needs and wants on the Win side, I really cannot see any benefit owning a fancy IntelMac for Dual Booting. Just to look at the pretty Aqua Interface once every week? Well, the fact is, if I were to dual boot, I'd probably spend most of my time when not doing my Access programming booted in OS X, using it for web browsing, email, and so forth. My programming work is the only thing that is tied ineluctably to Windows. I've been doing a lot of data processing in Access the last 3 days, but I'm doing all of it remotely, with Windows Terminal Server logons, so I could do that just as easily running OS X as running Windows. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 06 Apr 2006, at 12:38 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: From my point of view, a soundfont and a sample are the same thing -- you're taking a synthesizer and loading a selection of sounds into it, rather than being stuck with the ones it came with. This can be done either in software or in hardware. If it were done in hardware, it would make the system much more efficient. If GPO's instruments could be offloaded to a separate DSP on a soundcard, you'd not have the awful problems that occur with loading up too many of them at a time. The Core Duo processors found in the new Macs are more than adequate to play back large numbers of GPO samples simultaneously. The only problem with GPO is that the demands of the software were ahead of the hardware most people own. But if you're talking about a new Intel Core Duo at 1.8-2 GHz, that's a massive improvement over a similarly clocked G4 or G5. A 2.0 GHz MacBook Pro with 2 GB of RAM would run GPO like a champ in either Windows or (once a Universal version is released) Mac OS X. Whether you like it or not, hardware-based sounds are a complete anachronism. One of the many reasons they are vastly inferior to software-based samples is that you're stuck with the hardware samples and can never upgrade them, whereas upgrading your software samples is as easy as buying a new library. And there are simply no hardware- based soundcards that offer anything like the quality and flexibility you get with GPO or Garritan JABB. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
At 09:12 AM 4/6/06 -0700, Eric Dannewitz wrote: Well, since the three current Intel Macs hardly have room for another hard drive (Mac Mini uses a laptop drive, MacBook is a laptop, and the iMac has an internal drive already), it doesn't make sense to even think about an internal drive. Assuming that the forthcoming desktop Intel Macs will have ATA hard drive (or that $40 staples drive you mentioned) then you can easily add another drive to your Mac. But, I'd expect Apple's new desktops will have Serial ATA drives, like the current Powermacs dueso.an ATA drive won't work right out of the box. I haven't looked at the Mac boxes, so I really don't know what they look like or what fits in them, hence my questions. The Maxtor drives are SATA now, and I have my various drives in ATA caddies, USB caddies, 1394 caddies and an X-drive ... making up just shy of a terabyte of project storage in hard drives that I presently exchange among three machines. As long as the Windows-formatted drives would work in some way or another, even with two or three steps to do it, that's good. Please remember I'm truly Mac-ignorant, and these answers may seem obvious to you, but not me. I used an Apple II at a Vermont Computer Club meeting sometime about 1980, had some brought to my shop (Apple wouldn't sell internals), and I have a few times browsed with my mother-in-law's machine. Basically I was TRS-80 from 1977 through 1992, and PC from 1992. And sound cards. M-Audio's stuff has always worked on Macs. Not sure about Creatives stuff, but M-Audio's stuff is better in my opinion. Plus, you can run a version of protools on M-Audio's hardware (since they are the same company). Egosys Waveterminal 2496 PCI cards. I don't use Protools because of its hardware-centrism, and all my audio (Sonar, AudioMulch, Audition, etc.) is Windows-only. What really interests me is the integration of the two OSes, even if through these tentative steps, and the ability to share files, etc., convert one to another as needed, and at last be able to talk with Mac clients over the phone. It doesn't happen often, but I have one Mac client who's as ignorant of PC as I am of Mac, and we're always struggling over installed font issues (my default Finale template is very modified) and what keystrokes and menu items do what. It's some fancy scoring (next question in following post). Dennis -- Please participate in my latest project: http://maltedmedia.com/waam/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
David W. Fenton wrote: On 6 Apr 2006 at 9:28, Eric Dannewitz wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I am very anti-iTunes for anything other than as a media player (which I use it for). I won't use it for anything else because I don't like the choices that have been made for me. For MIDI-to-WAV conversion it's useless, since it uses the horrid QT instruments. This is true about Quicktime Instruments, but, seriously, way would you render a Midi using it? The point is that I *wouldn't*, but it's the only option. That's why I have a separate program that allows me to capture the output of any of the MIDI synthesizers on my system (soft or hard). No it's not. There are a number of ways to convert a Midi to a Wave NOT using Quicktime. From my point of view, a soundfont and a sample are the same thing -- you're taking a synthesizer and loading a selection of sounds into it, rather than being stuck with the ones it came with. This can be done either in software or in hardware. If it were done in hardware, it would make the system much more efficient. If GPO's instruments could be offloaded to a separate DSP on a soundcard, you'd not have the awful problems that occur with loading up too many of them at a time. Synthesizer is a Synthesizer, not a sample player. Two different things. I don't distinguish between soundfonts and samples. Which is the problem. They are two different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundfont akin to sampling. Akin is not the SAME as sampling. GPO and others have extensive samples of instruments in different ranges, dynamics, etc. Soundfonts do not have all this detail. Well, I've never used any. I don't know the terminology. All I meant was that you're loading your instrument sounds from data stored in files, rather than hard-encoded into a particular soft synth or ROM on a soundcard. Which is what a sample player does. But it is cheaper to dedicate a separate computer to doing playback. Cause, basically, you are trying to load as much stuff in memory and/or access it from a disk to allow for seamless playback. I don't see how a card is going to help with that, as it's really a memory/cpu thing. Unless you are proposing some sort of card that holds its own storage medium, and processor to allow you to upload and store all the samples. For me, since I work with this stuff for a living, I dedicated a whole computer to do it. I can easily run 30+ instruments on my Pentium 4 machine, and they sound great. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Partial tuplets
Hi folks, I have a new client assignment, and it requires partial tuplets. I can do this graphically, but it bugs me that I can't figure out a way to do it so it's real. Here's a sample measure description: Time signature is 8/4. Measure contains a 7:4 quarter-note tuplet, a 5:4 eighth-note tuplet, and a 3:2 quarter-note tuplet. Easy so far, right? EXCEPT... The tuplet pieces are separated from each other, with the pieces spread out so: 7 7 5 7 5 3 7 5 3 7 5 3 7 5 7 The composer wants each tuplet segment numbered. I can do it all graphically with a time signature of 25/8 (hidden, showing 8/4) and numbers placed above as expressions. I can also do it by creating the tuplets and dragging the pieces into place and breaking the eighth-note stem connections, hiding the tuplet numbers, and placing new ones graphically. Neither plays back correctly. But I just don't like the kluges. Any way to do this as written? Thanks, Dennis -- Please participate in my latest project: http://maltedmedia.com/waam/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
I fully understand your other reasons, being a better consultant, prefering OS X to Windows (as I do, too). But for the average user, who knows Windows well, and who can do all he needs and wants on the Win side, I really cannot see any benefit owning a fancy IntelMac for Dual Booting. Just to look at the pretty Aqua Interface once every week? Speed?? The IntelMacs are faster running some apps (namely Photoshop CS2) on the Windows XP platform than a built specifically for Windows machines. And these benchmarks were done with the hacks..not with Boot Camp. So I'm looking forward to seeing some more benchmark tests now. -K ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: Egosys Waveterminal 2496 PCI cards. I don't use Protools because of its hardware-centrism, and all my audio (Sonar, AudioMulch, Audition, etc.) is Windows-only. Waveterminal does not seem to be a current product from Egosys, and was released in 1999. M-Audio makes cards that are better, and can be had for really cheap. And if you got an M-Audio card, you can RUN Protools. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 6 Apr 2006 at 10:03, Eric Dannewitz wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: On 6 Apr 2006 at 9:28, Eric Dannewitz wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I am very anti-iTunes for anything other than as a media player (which I use it for). I won't use it for anything else because I don't like the choices that have been made for me. For MIDI-to-WAV conversion it's useless, since it uses the horrid QT instruments. This is true about Quicktime Instruments, but, seriously, way would you render a Midi using it? The point is that I *wouldn't*, but it's the only option. That's why I have a separate program that allows me to capture the output of any of the MIDI synthesizers on my system (soft or hard). No it's not. There are a number of ways to convert a Midi to a Wave NOT using Quicktime. I cannot find any such method. In any event, the best synthesizer on my system is my soundcard, and iTunes can't capture its output, so I can't use iTunes for this purpose. From my point of view, a soundfont and a sample are the same thing -- you're taking a synthesizer and loading a selection of sounds into it, rather than being stuck with the ones it came with. This can be done either in software or in hardware. If it were done in hardware, it would make the system much more efficient. If GPO's instruments could be offloaded to a separate DSP on a soundcard, you'd not have the awful problems that occur with loading up too many of them at a time. Synthesizer is a Synthesizer, not a sample player. Two different things. Well, then lets call the synthesizer on my soundcard a sample player, one that is hard-wired to the samples in that soundcard's ROM. I don't distinguish between soundfonts and samples. Which is the problem. They are two different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundfont akin to sampling. Akin is not the SAME as sampling. GPO and others have extensive samples of instruments in different ranges, dynamics, etc. Soundfonts do not have all this detail. If the soundfont was produced from samples, it *is* the same thing. The technical differences don't matter to me because the issue for me is offloading the processing to a dedicated card rather than bogging down the system's CPU and RAM with the same processing. Well, I've never used any. I don't know the terminology. All I meant was that you're loading your instrument sounds from data stored in files, rather than hard-encoded into a particular soft synth or ROM on a soundcard. Which is what a sample player does. But it is cheaper to dedicate a separate computer to doing playback. Cause, basically, you are trying to load as much stuff in memory and/or access it from a disk to allow for seamless playback. I don't see how a card is going to help with that, as it's really a memory/cpu thing. Unless you are proposing some sort of card that holds its own storage medium, and processor to allow you to upload and store all the samples. Oh, puh-leaze. For years Creative has sold $100 soundcards that do exactly this. For me, since I work with this stuff for a living, I dedicated a whole computer to do it. I can easily run 30+ instruments on my Pentium 4 machine, and they sound great. Well, I *don't* do it for a living. A $100 hardware device that could load and play samples would be much better for my needs. Which was my whole point all along, that I think it's a mistake that the industry has moved away from that model. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
Except for GPO, your DSP rig would need, at minimum, a gig of RAM. And its own embedded processor. Your proposed product starts to get very expensive, very quickly. Not even the latest graphics cards on the market have 1 GB of RAM available, and they can cost upwards of $600. Not to mention that most sample libraries are much, much, much larger than GPO, requiring constant streaming from the HD. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY On 06 Apr 2006, at 12:56 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: No, no, no. That is not the kind of hardware-based sound I'm talking about. If a soundcard has a DSP at its heart it can take over processing. If it has built-in RAM, the samples being played by the DSP can be loaded into that RAM, instead of into the main system RAM. That would offload both the RAM and the processing to a separate device, and leave the system RAM and processor available for all the other tasks it has to accomplish. You'd initialize the soundcard by loading the samples, then send it the MIDI data. The only difference between this and the traditional soundcard with samples stored in ROM is that this kind of soundcard isn't limited to the samples stored in its ROM. And Creative and Turtle Beach were selling that kind of sound card nearly 10 years ago. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] OT - Premiere of ballet score
Hi Folks, I want take the opportunity to let the Finale Mail List community know about the premiere of the new ballet The Velveteen Rabbit for which I composed the score. I guess it's taken up a little too much of my life not to mention it to you, so I'll ask your indulgence and try to be brief. For nearly a year and a half I've been working on this project, collaborating with Nashville Ballet artistic director Paul Vasterling. A good overview of the ballet can be heard if you go to: http://wpln.org/ and in Recently on WPLN in the right hand column, click on Nashville Ballet's The Velveteen Rabbit. Incidentally, the music heard in that feature is from Finmac'05-generated mp3s, using Finale's internal sounds. The Nashville Symphony will be performing. I wrote for a chamber sized configuration: WW pairs, 4 horns, 2 trumpets, trombone, tuba, 2 percussion, harp, piano/celesta and strings (6-5-4-4-2) The music encompasses a range of idioms stretching from late romantic and early twentieth century passages that are somewhat traditional in nature, to period jazz moments, such as a Charleston and a dixieland piece. The chromaticism varies but the work stays tonal. This piece culminates an 18 month period in which I've seen my work (arranging) performed in Carnegie Hall, been nominated for a Grammy award, and composed over an hour and a half of music. Nearly an hour of that total is found in my score for the ballet, the largest work I've ever composed. The performances are this weekend, April 7, 8, and 9 at Tennessee Performing Arts Center's Jackson Hall; Fri. and Sat. at 7:30 and a matinee on Sun. at 2:00. Everyone is welcome, of course, but my expectations are built on realism. If any one *can* make a performance please let me know so I can say hello. Thanks for readiing, Don Hart http://hartmusic.com/ P.S. My website bio page is basically last year's info and needs to be updated. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] RE: MusicXML.dll cannot be found?
Hi Dennis, Is there a musicxml.dll file in your Finale 2006 Component Files folder? If not, then you need to install Java 1.4 or 5.0 on your machine, then rerun the DoletLight.exe file in your Finale 2006 folder. Most likely the MusicXML.dll file is there, and this is a misleading error message caused by an installer problem on Windows 98SE. The solution is on the Finale forum at: http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=5m=139620 To quote the relevant part from James in customer support: If you have the current version of Java installed and have tried re-installing MusicXML, then what we found is this: In Windows 98, you need to edit C:\autoexec.bat - it has an entry containing a path to Java, and you need to put quotation marks in this file around the pathname: C:\Program Files\Sun Micro...\ etc. I don't have 98 and don't know the exact text, but it should be obvious when you open autoexec.bat to edit it. We're working on fixing this for a future release. Best regards, Michael Good Recordare LLC ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets
Do you know any human musician who can play that exactly as written? On 6 Apr 2006, at 19:06, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: Hi folks, I have a new client assignment, and it requires partial tuplets. I can do this graphically, but it bugs me that I can't figure out a way to do it so it's real. Here's a sample measure description: Time signature is 8/4. Measure contains a 7:4 quarter-note tuplet, a 5:4 eighth-note tuplet, and a 3:2 quarter-note tuplet. Easy so far, right? EXCEPT... The tuplet pieces are separated from each other, with the pieces spread out so: 7 7 5 7 5 3 7 5 3 7 5 3 7 5 7 The composer wants each tuplet segment numbered. I can do it all graphically with a time signature of 25/8 (hidden, showing 8/4) and numbers placed above as expressions. I can also do it by creating the tuplets and dragging the pieces into place and breaking the eighth-note stem connections, hiding the tuplet numbers, and placing new ones graphically. Neither plays back correctly. But I just don't like the kluges. Any way to do this as written? Thanks, Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets
At 11:42 AM -0600 4/6/06, Bruce Petherick wrote: Michael Cook wrote: Do you know any human musician who can play that exactly as written? this question hoes a long road. There are pianists that I know (Michael Finnissy, Ian Pace par example) that can, but perhaps the point is that it is not supposed to be exactly, but written out rubato. devil's advocate Bruce Petherick Not arguing one way or another, but there comes a point when a composer's anal retentive compulsion to take all choice away from the performer no longer makes any sense, and that composer would do better to do without living performers. I play in a community band in which the saxes cannot swing, and the trombones have to be tricked into it. No amount of icky-picky notation bending would change that in my lifetime. One of the things I try to teach in my vocal arranging class is that it is basically useless to try to capture every jot and tittle on a singer's CD when you are transcribing the performance. Some things that singers do very naturally simply cannot be notated in any way that a living singer could read and duplicate. It's called style, it's very personal and individual, and it's an inherent quality of any music; the better the performer, the more s/he contributes to the performance. That said, what the client wants, the client should get! John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
David W. Fenton wrote: I cannot find any such method. In any event, the best synthesizer on my system is my soundcard, and iTunes can't capture its output, so I can't use iTunes for this purpose. Lets see, a quick Google search of midi to wav ended up with with a ton of results. Well, then lets call the synthesizer on my soundcard a sample player, one that is hard-wired to the samples in that soundcard's ROM. It's not in the same class as a Sample player. It's like saying your 64 VW bug is a race car. If the soundfont was produced from samples, it *is* the same thing. The technical differences don't matter to me because the issue for me is offloading the processing to a dedicated card rather than bogging down the system's CPU and RAM with the same processing. But you are missing the point. A soundfont has a sample, but then it uses that to synthesize. It's different that what GPO does. Did you READ the article? A sample player does not do this. Which is what a sample player does. But it is cheaper to dedicate a separate computer to doing playback. Cause, basically, you are trying to load as much stuff in memory and/or access it from a disk to allow for seamless playback. I don't see how a card is going to help with that, as it's really a memory/cpu thing. Unless you are proposing some sort of card that holds its own storage medium, and processor to allow you to upload and store all the samples. Oh, puh-leaze. For years Creative has sold $100 soundcards that do exactly this. Again, you have it wrong. Creative doesn't do anything like that. They are not producing a Sample player. If you equate Soundfont=Sample Player then, yeah, sure. But they are two separate things. For me, since I work with this stuff for a living, I dedicated a whole computer to do it. I can easily run 30+ instruments on my Pentium 4 machine, and they sound great. Well, I *don't* do it for a living. A $100 hardware device that could load and play samples would be much better for my needs. Which was my whole point all along, that I think it's a mistake that the industry has moved away from that model. And we come to the issue again, since you DON'T know what you are talking about, how can you say the things you do? The industry has moved the way it has because it simply does not make sense to have a card that would do what you think a $100 Creative card does. To be a SAMPLE player, you'd need a card that has it's own RAM, storage for gigabytes of samples, and a CPU to handle it. It is just simpler, faster, and cheaper to have a dedicated PC for that. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets
That's completely beside the point, Michael, and most unhelpful. It's not even his piece, it's work he has to do for a client who has very clear ideas about how he wants it notated. Many of us need to do unusual things in the course of our work with Finale, even incorrect things, and we need tactics to accomplish this. I'm working on this Dennis. Something that might work is creating a series of nested tuplets, I have entered 15 quarter notes in the space of 8 quarters, displaying nothing. Then double click with the tuplet tool over the first note, creating a nested tuplet of 7 eighths in the space of 4 eighths. This displays correctly with a bracket and 7:4. Double click the third note and set it to display as 5 dotted 32ds in the space of 4 sixteenths. This is not mathematically correct, but it will display properly as 5:4, the bracket can be eliminated, though on my machine it doesn't display for only one note. On the 4th note, only 7 32nds in the space of 4 32nds would display properly, as I can't get the math to work out perfectly. No doubt this will NOT play back properly, but at least it will space correctly. Keep going like that, and I think it will work out. Kludge, but a workable one. Christopher On Apr 6, 2006, at 1:29 PM, Michael Cook wrote: Do you know any human musician who can play that exactly as written? On 6 Apr 2006, at 19:06, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: Hi folks, I have a new client assignment, and it requires partial tuplets. I can do this graphically, but it bugs me that I can't figure out a way to do it so it's real. Here's a sample measure description: Time signature is 8/4. Measure contains a 7:4 quarter-note tuplet, a 5:4 eighth-note tuplet, and a 3:2 quarter-note tuplet. Easy so far, right? EXCEPT... The tuplet pieces are separated from each other, with the pieces spread out so: 7 7 5 7 5 3 7 5 3 7 5 3 7 5 7 The composer wants each tuplet segment numbered. I can do it all graphically with a time signature of 25/8 (hidden, showing 8/4) and numbers placed above as expressions. I can also do it by creating the tuplets and dragging the pieces into place and breaking the eighth-note stem connections, hiding the tuplet numbers, and placing new ones graphically. Neither plays back correctly. But I just don't like the kluges. Any way to do this as written? Thanks, Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Premiere of ballet score
On Apr 6, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Don Hart wrote: Hi Folks, I want take the opportunity to let the Finale Mail List community know about the premiere of the new ballet The Velveteen Rabbit for which I composed the score. Great news! I can't speak for everyone, but I am glad to hear about my colleagues, even virtual ones, doing so well! And you have been a very busy and effective boy in the last 18 months! May we all be so productive and successful. Congratulations, Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: MusicXML.dll cannot be found?
At 10:23 AM 4/6/06 -0700, Michael Good wrote: http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=5m=139620 Thanks, Michael. That worked, once I found the right path. The java path had been inserted several times by different programs. I removed all but one, and put it in quotes (even though the path is is DOS filenames). Many thanks, Dennis -- Please participate in my latest project: http://maltedmedia.com/waam/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets
Crap. That will teach me to read properly. I completely missed that it was 5:4 EIGHTH notes. My answer below is for 5:4 QUARTER notes, which of course does not work out, either mathematically or notationally. Sorry, but maybe my idea will work anyway, with adjustments. Christopher On Apr 6, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: That's completely beside the point, Michael, and most unhelpful. It's not even his piece, it's work he has to do for a client who has very clear ideas about how he wants it notated. Many of us need to do unusual things in the course of our work with Finale, even incorrect things, and we need tactics to accomplish this. I'm working on this Dennis. Something that might work is creating a series of nested tuplets, I have entered 15 quarter notes in the space of 8 quarters, displaying nothing. Then double click with the tuplet tool over the first note, creating a nested tuplet of 7 eighths in the space of 4 eighths. This displays correctly with a bracket and 7:4. Double click the third note and set it to display as 5 dotted 32ds in the space of 4 sixteenths. This is not mathematically correct, but it will display properly as 5:4, the bracket can be eliminated, though on my machine it doesn't display for only one note. On the 4th note, only 7 32nds in the space of 4 32nds would display properly, as I can't get the math to work out perfectly. No doubt this will NOT play back properly, but at least it will space correctly. Keep going like that, and I think it will work out. Kludge, but a workable one. Christopher On Apr 6, 2006, at 1:29 PM, Michael Cook wrote: Do you know any human musician who can play that exactly as written? On 6 Apr 2006, at 19:06, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: Hi folks, I have a new client assignment, and it requires partial tuplets. I can do this graphically, but it bugs me that I can't figure out a way to do it so it's real. Here's a sample measure description: Time signature is 8/4. Measure contains a 7:4 quarter-note tuplet, a 5:4 eighth-note tuplet, and a 3:2 quarter-note tuplet. Easy so far, right? EXCEPT... The tuplet pieces are separated from each other, with the pieces spread out so: 7 7 5 7 5 3 7 5 3 7 5 3 7 5 7 The composer wants each tuplet segment numbered. I can do it all graphically with a time signature of 25/8 (hidden, showing 8/4) and numbers placed above as expressions. I can also do it by creating the tuplets and dragging the pieces into place and breaking the eighth-note stem connections, hiding the tuplet numbers, and placing new ones graphically. Neither plays back correctly. But I just don't like the kluges. Any way to do this as written? Thanks, Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 6 Apr 2006 at 10:57, Eric Dannewitz wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I cannot find any such method. In any event, the best synthesizer on my system is my soundcard, and iTunes can't capture its output, so I can't use iTunes for this purpose. Lets see, a quick Google search of midi to wav ended up with with a ton of results. I don't lack the software to do this on Windows -- I've already purchased it (very cheaply), and it works quite reliably. I was just asking what I'd have to buy it again if I were using a Mac, or if there were free alternatives. I, too, could Google, but I thought I'd ask a community of Mac users before doing so, since it's a very theoretical problem. Well, then lets call the synthesizer on my soundcard a sample player, one that is hard-wired to the samples in that soundcard's ROM. It's not in the same class as a Sample player. It's like saying your 64 VW bug is a race car. You seem to be determined to miss the point. I don't dispute that they are technically different. But they are completely identical in regard to the issue of offloading processing and RAM. If the soundfont was produced from samples, it *is* the same thing. The technical differences don't matter to me because the issue for me is offloading the processing to a dedicated card rather than bogging down the system's CPU and RAM with the same processing. But you are missing the point. A soundfont has a sample, but then it uses that to synthesize. It's different that what GPO does. I DON'T CARE THAT IT'S DIFFERENT. The point is whether or not the computer's CPU and RAM are used, or the processor and memory in an off-board device. Did you READ the article? What article? A sample player does not do this. I DON'T CARE. Which is what a sample player does. But it is cheaper to dedicate a separate computer to doing playback. Cause, basically, you are trying to load as much stuff in memory and/or access it from a disk to allow for seamless playback. I don't see how a card is going to help with that, as it's really a memory/cpu thing. Unless you are proposing some sort of card that holds its own storage medium, and processor to allow you to upload and store all the samples. Oh, puh-leaze. For years Creative has sold $100 soundcards that do exactly this. Again, you have it wrong. Creative doesn't do anything like that. They are not producing a Sample player. If you equate Soundfont=Sample Player then, yeah, sure. But they are two separate things. Not from the standpoint of the problem I'm discussing, which is offloading processing/temporary storage to a dedicated device. For me, since I work with this stuff for a living, I dedicated a whole computer to do it. I can easily run 30+ instruments on my Pentium 4 machine, and they sound great. Well, I *don't* do it for a living. A $100 hardware device that could load and play samples would be much better for my needs. Which was my whole point all along, that I think it's a mistake that the industry has moved away from that model. And we come to the issue again, . . . No, this is the only issue I've ever been talking about. . . . since you DON'T know what you are talking about, how can you say the things you do? \/\/HATEVER. The industry has moved the way it has because it simply does not make sense to have a card that would do what you think a $100 Creative card does. To be a SAMPLE player, you'd need a card that has it's own RAM, storage for gigabytes of samples, and a CPU to handle it. It is just simpler, faster, and cheaper to have a dedicated PC for that. So you say. The results are that computers are being tasked with too much and the only option is to run multiple PCs. That's bloody stupid for the kind of user that I am. You can have the last word. I have nothing more to say to you. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets
On 6 Apr 2006 at 14:28, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 07:29 PM 4/6/06 +0200, Michael Cook wrote: Do you know any human musician who can play that exactly as written? This is interesting. I didn't expect this to generate any controversy at all ... well, I expected some from John Howell. :) I held my tongue on the topic -- I'm surprised you wouldn't have expected me to address it! -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets
At 02:48 PM 4/6/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote: On 6 Apr 2006 at 14:28, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 07:29 PM 4/6/06 +0200, Michael Cook wrote: Do you know any human musician who can play that exactly as written? This is interesting. I didn't expect this to generate any controversy at all ... well, I expected some from John Howell. :) I held my tongue on the topic -- I'm surprised you wouldn't have expected me to address it! I thought you might have been otherwise occupied with the MacWin box thread. :) Never too much multitasking, though! Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
Eric is right -- if you want to offload the processing of modern sample libraries (with all of the bells and whistles like authentic slurring, sampled performance techniques, etc), the memory and processing demands of this task are such that you're better off getting an entirely separate computer to handle it. (Which is, of course, what the pros do.) However, for the average user, this is not necessary, provided they have an up-to-date computer like the MacIntel. That's the beauty of OS X's multi-threading and Intel's Core Duo -- it's entirely possible to have one processor core handle the sample playback, while the other handles everything else. Given enough memory, upon the release of Fin2007, GPO playback should not be a problem on any of the new MacIntels (except perhaps the low-end, single core Mac mini). - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac OSX on Windows Machine?
The reverse will never happen. Because the reason for bringing Windows to the Mac was to sell more Macs. They want to entice people to try Macs and buy Macs. Apple will not license the Mac OS to be used on non-Apple hardware. This would just hurt sales of Apple hardware. It's not in their interest to do that. They want to force you to buy Apple hardware in order to run Apple software. This is their business model. And they will not deviate from that. Any increased sales of Mac software that would run on a PC would be more than offset by decreased sales of Apple hardware. They tried that once before. They won't go down that road again. On 4/6/2006 12:24 PM Kurt Gnos wrote: Hi, how about the reverse? If I could run Mac OSX on my windows machine, I might buy the logic windows to mac update, since I liked the program very much. I might also give Bandstand a try. But I would not by an Intel Mac to run XP, or vista, on. I have all the software I need on my XP machine, and some of the best programs, like wavelab, don't exist for macs. Many of the good programs exist for PC and Mac, anyway, and while I would like two or thre Mac specific programs, I would miss the hundreds of PC alternatives and lots of shareware or freeware programs. Also I like the feeling of XP, I am accustomed to it, and I know where to look if a problem arises, which hardly ever happens. OK, there are less viruses for OSX, but there are, and there would be more if more macs were out there. Is there also a solution out there, or in sight? I'm not talking about an OSX emulator, but about being able to select XP or OSX while booting. And I would just hope OSX would take care of all my external Firewire and USB2 drives (NTFS), soundcards (Hammerfall DSP and Creative Labs X-Fi), W-Lan, Wireless keyboard and mouse, Pocket PC, and and...) How about the flexibility of OSX to adress PC hardware? I guess my iPod would not be a problem...;-) Any hints? Kurt ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac OSX on Windows Machine?
At 21:44 06.04.2006, you wrote: Apple is never going to support OS X on non-Apple hardware. Certainly not now that they've got a monopoly on dual-boot hardware. As was Microsoft, some days ago...;-) Kurt ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
Hi David, This is REALLY great info. Thank you! Now, if there were a partition that was visible to both OS X and WinXP, a WinXP virus could damage data there or plant a nasty that could run on OS X in addition to its WinXP payload. I don't know where OS X stores its user-level startup routines, but if it's in /usr filespace and you put your /usr folder on the partition that is accessible from both OS's, that could allow a clever WinXP virus to drop an OS X-only payload that could cause problems in OS X. The XP partition isn't visible to OS X so that is good. And the user startup routines are not in the /usr folder as far as I know. I haven't read much about the boot sequence on the new machinesI know it is different in some ways but I've been searching for info and there isn't much out there yet. Also, the partition scheme is different on the Intel machinesso I have a lot of questions about how this all works now too. They will probably preview the next version of the OS (Leopard) at WWDC...which is later than usual this year as they will not be ready by June. A lot more information will be public of course by then. But the answer to that is to never store your /usr folders (or any other data associated with OS X startup or operations) on a partition that is read/write accessible to both OS's. This is GREAT information. I was messing around with MySQL for awhile...this could be an issue depending on where things are installed. I also temporarily hid my main user folder (/Users/ yournamehere) in /usr when I took one of my machines in for repair just for privacy's sake. I'll have to find another place to do this next time (hopefully there won't be a next time ;-)) as far as working with the new machines. I believe that OS X can read but not write NTFS, and Windows can't do either with OS X's file system. I believe there are utilities for the Mac that can make NTFS volumes read/write, so that would be a requirement to make this work. But my guess is that this would have to be a third partition, outside either the OS X or WinXP partitions, for it to work. Thanks again David. This makes a lot of sense and also is good to know as things progress with the new hardware and software. I feel much better now having more of an understanding of what would have to take place for there to be issues. Now I know who to ask too about potential problems!...I'll send along boot process info for the new systems if when I find it. Best, Karen ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Premiere of ballet score
Congratulations Don! I agree with Christopher that it is always great to hear about the accomplishments of friends and collegues! Enjoy the weekend...the work is over, now time to enjoy the fruit of your labor! Keep us posted! Best, Karen On Apr 6, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Don Hart wrote: Hi Folks, I want take the opportunity to let the Finale Mail List community know about the premiere of the new ballet The Velveteen Rabbit for which I composed the score. I guess it's taken up a little too much of my life not to mention it to you, so I'll ask your indulgence and try to be brief. For nearly a year and a half I've been working on this project, collaborating with Nashville Ballet artistic director Paul Vasterling. A good overview of the ballet can be heard if you go to: http:// wpln.org/ and in Recently on WPLN in the right hand column, click on Nashville Ballet's The Velveteen Rabbit. Incidentally, the music heard in that feature is from Finmac'05-generated mp3s, using Finale's internal sounds. The Nashville Symphony will be performing. I wrote for a chamber sized configuration: WW pairs, 4 horns, 2 trumpets, trombone, tuba, 2 percussion, harp, piano/celesta and strings (6-5-4-4-2) The music encompasses a range of idioms stretching from late romantic and early twentieth century passages that are somewhat traditional in nature, to period jazz moments, such as a Charleston and a dixieland piece. The chromaticism varies but the work stays tonal. This piece culminates an 18 month period in which I've seen my work (arranging) performed in Carnegie Hall, been nominated for a Grammy award, and composed over an hour and a half of music. Nearly an hour of that total is found in my score for the ballet, the largest work I've ever composed. The performances are this weekend, April 7, 8, and 9 at Tennessee Performing Arts Center's Jackson Hall; Fri. and Sat. at 7:30 and a matinee on Sun. at 2:00. Everyone is welcome, of course, but my expectations are built on realism. If any one *can* make a performance please let me know so I can say hello. Thanks for readiing, Don Hart http://hartmusic.com/ P.S. My website bio page is basically last year's info and needs to be updated. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets
I think he's free nowyou might want to hit him up again ;-) Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: I thought you might have been otherwise occupied with the MacWin box thread. :) Never too much multitasking, though! Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets
At 02:24 PM 4/6/06 -0400, Christopher Smith wrote: I'm working on this Dennis. Something that might work is creating a series of nested tuplets [...] Yes, thanks much, Christopher. This is something I tried, and you confirm the issues that it presents. I've finally come up with the simpest way, I think. It does not play back (the composer doesn't need this; he has sequenced it in a language he wrote, as he's a programmer). I created the full tuplets because every tuplet is complete, but interleaved with other notes. After all the measures were entered that way, I went into page view, spaced the measures and updated and locked the layout. Then I distinguished the different tuplets by temporarily changing their stems in special tools. Next, I dragged each note where it belonged, and spaced with salt pepper to taste. I broke the beams on the eighth (and in other measures, sixteenth) tuplets, restored the stem length, deleted the tuplet brackets and numbers, and added numbers over each note (as the composer has written) as expressions. This method eliminates getting lost in nested tuplets, which is where I found myself first. It also revealed a typo in one measure of the manuscript. :) Dennis -- Please participate in my latest project: http://maltedmedia.com/waam/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] MusicXML.dll cannot be found?
Dennis-- I think you need to have Java 1.4 installed in order to use MusicXML on Win98. I'm guessing Michael Good will correct me if I'm wrong... --Allen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Bathory-Kitsz Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:22 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: [Finale] MusicXML.dll cannot be found? Hi all, Has this topic been covered? I just received Finale 2006b and installed it on my Win98SE PC specifically because I was sent MusicXML files to import. I installed the Finale 2006c update as well. The default directories and a typical installation were used. I did the usual reboot. After getting this error message I reinstalled Finale and the update. No change. Here's the message: Files cannot be imported or exported through MusicXML because the necessary file MusicXML.dll could not be found in the Component Files directory. You must reinstall the missing file from your Finale CD to use this feature. There's nothing in the readme about this, nor on the Finale support site's knowledge base. The only part not installable on Win98SE is Garritan, and that doesn't interest me. It works on my WinXP laptop, but I like my desktop dual screens. Where do I get the missing file (the Finale setup is all one big not-zipped file). Any clues? Thanks, Dennis -- Please participate in my latest project: http://maltedmedia.com/waam/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac OSX on Windows Machine?
On 06.04.2006 Kurt Gnos wrote: Is there also a solution out there, or in sight? In one word, no. Apple already made very clear that they will not allow this to happen, and will take anyone to court who even attempts to do this. They do actually want to sell their hardware. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 06.04.2006 Eric Dannewitz wrote: Unbelievable as always..I'm amazed you can make it through a day. But whatever. Eric, I actually think this was uncalled for. I can sort of see David's point. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Subject: Re: [Finale] music literacy
Yes, as I said previously, GS patter songs are notated pitches, and usually performed that way, or as close to that way as the performer can get (I play in the orchestra for NY Gilbert Sullivan Players)... Good example with My Fair Lady, but I wonder if the song was notated with pitches? I'm guessing yes and Rex Harrison just did not have the ear for it (or he chose to speak not sing pitches)... anyone know that score? -Steve NYC In a message dated 4/6/06 4:53:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: "Peter Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Finale] music literacy To: finale@shsu.edu Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original David W. Fenton wrote On 1 Apr 2006 at 0:05, Robert C L Watson wrote: And their origins are GS patter songs and Noel Coward. They are both words spoken rhythmically to musical accompaniment, where the delivery may have definite pitch contours at times and less definite at others. Not wishing to ignite any flames here, but I have been through all my GS scores and, without exception, all the patter songs have a written note for each syllable. What's more, in my (amateur) experience, the songs are always sung (pretty quickly, that's true), but never spoken. In the Major General's song the spoken words "lot of news, lot of news" etc, are actually not written in the score, just a grand fermata, so that may have been a later development. But of course, traditions may be different where you are. Whenever the "speaking" of songs instead of singing them is the topic, I'm always reminded of Rex Harrison as Professor Higgins in the London stage production of My Fair Lady. He had a wonderful speaking voice, but you get the definite impression he couldn't sing a note. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
And I can't. If I had fog lights, a million watt search light, and infrared technology, I still couldn't. He has no experience in the area, as he admitted, yet will argue a position that is based on his lack of understanding. He did not even bother to research anything. Again. Do we need to go back to rehashing the who Read the manual thing again? No. He doomed himself when he put soundfonts and sample players in the same group. But, to quote him That's bloody stupid for the kind of user that I am. Pretty much sums it up there. Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 06.04.2006 Eric Dannewitz wrote: Unbelievable as always..I'm amazed you can make it through a day. But whatever. Eric, I actually think this was uncalled for. I can sort of see David's point. Johannes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 6 Apr 2006 at 14:15, Eric Dannewitz wrote: He has no experience in the area, as he admitted I have experience in the field. I just don't do it for a living. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac OSX on Windows Machine?
Kurt Gnos wrote: Hi, how about the reverse? If I could run Mac OSX on my windows machine, I might buy the logic windows to mac update, since I liked the program very much. I might also give Bandstand a try. But I would not by an Intel Mac to run XP, or vista, on. OK, there are less viruses for OSX, but there are, and there would be more if more macs were out there. Is there also a solution out there, or in sight? I'm not talking about an OSX emulator, but about being able to select XP or OSX while booting. There was a link on digg.com the other day to a rumour that Apple was somehow going to make it much easier for developers to develop dual-platform software directly on the Mac, i.e. provide the necessary libraries or something. So it may be easy(ier) in the future for Digital Performer to create a Windows version or whatever, or to develop their Windows apps directly in OS X. As a user, what I would want to see would be either: * a fully transparent virtualization of Windows apps within the OS X framework: i.e. I just double click on Respondus.exe and it opens as its own application in OS X, or failing that: * a very easily accessible virtual desktop containing Windows so that we could switch to and from Windows without having to reboot - also with shared folders etc. Let's see. Matthew ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] MusicXML.dll cannot be found?
At 03:40 PM 4/6/06 -0500, Fisher, Allen wrote: I think you need to have Java 1.4 installed in order to use MusicXML on Win98. Yes, I do. I always keep that current, as I run some little Java standalones for varous WiFi and Midi stuff (the FCB1010 pedal board has one). (I know I get scorn heaped on me for running that OS, but aside from software that specifically won't run on it, it's stable, with most MS glop cleaned out of it, and very fast. Side by side, my hand-built 2001 Win98SE Athlon 1.4GHz desktop outperforms almost every aspect of my 2005 WinXP Pentium 1.6GHz laptop.) Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
