Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[dhbailey]

A-NO-NE Music wrote:

One thing I know for sure.
Stoopid FinMac (2k6 and 2k7) loads all the AU V.I.s I have and disables
them if they are not Native-Instruments, and this costs me cpu/memory load.

For this reason, on my machines, Kontakt 2 standalone runs much better,
and I won't be surprised if it sounds better because of the lesser
resource taxing.



That is an interesting observation -- I wonder why anybody at either MM 
or NI would think that was a smart idea?


Well, I can think of why:
[/conspiracy theorist mode ON]
things will run better if not using the internal AU/VI, which requires 
the purchase of the full standalone version directly from NI or 
indirectly through MM.  In either case, the included version is simply a 
loss-leader to force those who want a better musical performance to 
spend more money, increasing NI and/or MM profits.

[/conspiracy theorist mode OFF]

One would hope this isn't the case, that it wasn't done intentionally, 
but with the programming prowess at both MM and NI, it seems that this 
couldn't have happened "by accident."



--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[dhbailey]

Randolph Peters wrote:
[snip]
I'm not trying to argue for the sake of argument (as we sometimes get on 
this list). I really want to find out what works and sounds better. So, 
let's keep an open mind and run these programs through a variety of 
tests. We may have to rethink our assumptions after all!


It sounds as if you've found what sounds better and what works better, 
on your computer.


Benchmarks mean nothing except to marketing types.  And even tests run 
on one computer mean nothing concerning what will happen on YOUR computer.


You have heard a difference, you know which one sounds better to your ears.

Let everybody else hide behind benchmarks, you'll end up with the 
musical product that you feel sounds best.


And besides, you'll save lots of time simply by using what works for you 
instead of chasing the chimera of trying to achieve what the benchmarks 
say you ought to be able to achieve.  ;-)


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Randolph Peters]

Hiro wrote:

One thing I know for sure.
Stoopid FinMac (2k6 and 2k7) loads all the AU V.I.s I have and disables
them if they are not Native-Instruments, and this costs me cpu/memory load.

For this reason, on my machines, Kontakt 2 standalone runs much better,
and I won't be surprised if it sounds better because of the lesser
resource taxing.


I wonder if all my AU components (GPO, GPO Finale, Kontakt 2, 
Symphonic Choirs, Akoustic Piano) are causing the NI AU playback to 
have a greater load than my standalone GPO Studio.


I'll test this by removing all but GPO and compare the RAM usage.

More soon...

-Randolph Peters

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[A-NO-NE Music]

One thing I know for sure.
Stoopid FinMac (2k6 and 2k7) loads all the AU V.I.s I have and disables
them if they are not Native-Instruments, and this costs me cpu/memory load.

For this reason, on my machines, Kontakt 2 standalone runs much better,
and I won't be surprised if it sounds better because of the lesser
resource taxing.

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Randolph Peters]

Steve Schow wrote:

ok.  first problem is that you can't compare GPO Finale to GPO Studio.
You need to make sure you're using the FULL version of GPO as an AU
plugin..the normal FULL GPO player...not the Kontakt2 player with
FinaleGPO.  (for the sake of a fair comparison).


Just to be clear, I agree that you have to compare apples with apples 
as much as possible. I own Kontakt 2, the full GPO, Finale GPO, 
Symphonic Choirs, Akoustic Piano and GPO Jazz Band. I AM making the 
comparison between the full GPO AU and GPO Studio. I've got the 
reverb settings the same and I've even done the comparisons without 
reverb.


Try it for yourself and note the differences between the AU version 
and GPO studio. They do not give you the same results.



If you do that..the difference SHOULD be nil.  THey are the same players
being hosted either by Finale or by GPO Studio.  There might be some
difference about how much you can control the send to reverb..I have a
feeling GPO STudio provides more control that way.  but
otherwise..should be exactly the same  ah well..not entirely true.
GPO STudio will be using the VST versions of the player..not the AU
version...I think...(don't quote me on that..I'm not sure about the
mac).  But it should not make a difference.  If it does, then Gary
Garritan needs to be told.


I don't know what the differences are "under the hood," but my ears 
tell me they are different and my RAM usage program also confirms 
that the AU version takes up more room than the Studio version. I was 
surprised by that result so I'm asking others to add their own 
observations, not just theories of what should happen.


-Randolph Peters
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Steve Schow]

ok.  first problem is that you can't compare GPO Finale to GPO Studio. 
You need to make sure you're using the FULL version of GPO as an AU
plugin..the normal FULL GPO player...not the Kontakt2 player with
FinaleGPO.  (for the sake of a fair comparison).

If you do that..the difference SHOULD be nil.  THey are the same players
being hosted either by Finale or by GPO Studio.  There might be some
difference about how much you can control the send to reverb..I have a
feeling GPO STudio provides more control that way.  but
otherwise..should be exactly the same  ah well..not entirely true. 
GPO STudio will be using the VST versions of the player..not the AU
version...I think...(don't quote me on that..I'm not sure about the
mac).  But it should not make a difference.  If it does, then Gary
Garritan needs to be told.

-steve

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:27:53 -0500, "Randolph Peters"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Darcy James Argue wrote:
> >Not all hosts are equal. For instance, on Mac the external host 
> >(Garritan Studio) uses VST while Finale (which as of Finale 2006 
> >requires no external host) uses AU.  Garritan Studio also requires 
> >extra system resources compared to loading the instruments directly 
> >in Finale. For these reasons, Garritan Studio does not perform as 
> >well (on Mac).
> 
> Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but I'm finding that the "received 
> wisdom" about Garritan Studio (v, 2.00) being a poorer performer than 
> the AU is just not what I'm finding on my system.
> 
> Even though what you say makes sense and is what I would have guessed 
> the reality to be, it just doesn't seem so when I test it.
> 
> Where is it documented that the AU in Finale 2007 is a better 
> performer than Garritan Studio 2?
> 
> My ears tell me that Garritan Studio does a better job of rendering 
> the MIDI data and it even sounds better. The AU gives me stuck notes, 
> accents that are way too loud and has a rougher sound in the solo 
> violin part that I'm testing, for example. (I do recognize that 
> something can sound better, but not be a more efficient user of 
> system resources.)
> 
> But here is the kicker: I just tried using a program called "Do I 
> Need More Memory?" which tells me how much RAM is being used at any 
> given time as well as the number of pageouts. When I use both 
> Garritan Studio and Finale 2007, the memory usage program says that I 
> don't need any additional RAM. (I have 1GB RAM on a 13.3 GHz PPC G4 
> Powerbook.) When I restart the computer and load the same 
> instruments, using the same parameters, into the AU, the program says 
> I need 44MB more. I'm trying to be as scientific as possible by 
> keeping the independent variables the same.
> 
> I'm not trying to argue for the sake of argument (as we sometimes get 
> on this list). I really want to find out what works and sounds 
> better. So, let's keep an open mind and run these programs through a 
> variety of tests. We may have to rethink our assumptions after all!
> 
> -Randolph Peters
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
-
 |"Music is a manifestation of the human spirit
Steve Schow  | similar to a language.  If we do not want such
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our
www.bstage.com   | upmost to make the greatest number of people 
 | understand their secrets" -- Zoltan Kodaly
-

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Randolph Peters]

Darcy James Argue wrote:
Not all hosts are equal. For instance, on Mac the external host 
(Garritan Studio) uses VST while Finale (which as of Finale 2006 
requires no external host) uses AU.  Garritan Studio also requires 
extra system resources compared to loading the instruments directly 
in Finale. For these reasons, Garritan Studio does not perform as 
well (on Mac).


Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but I'm finding that the "received 
wisdom" about Garritan Studio (v, 2.00) being a poorer performer than 
the AU is just not what I'm finding on my system.


Even though what you say makes sense and is what I would have guessed 
the reality to be, it just doesn't seem so when I test it.


Where is it documented that the AU in Finale 2007 is a better 
performer than Garritan Studio 2?


My ears tell me that Garritan Studio does a better job of rendering 
the MIDI data and it even sounds better. The AU gives me stuck notes, 
accents that are way too loud and has a rougher sound in the solo 
violin part that I'm testing, for example. (I do recognize that 
something can sound better, but not be a more efficient user of 
system resources.)


But here is the kicker: I just tried using a program called "Do I 
Need More Memory?" which tells me how much RAM is being used at any 
given time as well as the number of pageouts. When I use both 
Garritan Studio and Finale 2007, the memory usage program says that I 
don't need any additional RAM. (I have 1GB RAM on a 13.3 GHz PPC G4 
Powerbook.) When I restart the computer and load the same 
instruments, using the same parameters, into the AU, the program says 
I need 44MB more. I'm trying to be as scientific as possible by 
keeping the independent variables the same.


I'm not trying to argue for the sake of argument (as we sometimes get 
on this list). I really want to find out what works and sounds 
better. So, let's keep an open mind and run these programs through a 
variety of tests. We may have to rethink our assumptions after all!


-Randolph Peters
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[David W. Fenton]

On 1 Oct 2006 at 10:02, Steve Schow wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 12:53:23 -0400, "David W. Fenton"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On 1 Oct 2006 at 11:30, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
> > 
> > > So, what is this thread really comparing?  I am
> > > totally confused.
> > 
> > I thought it was comparing playback direct from Finale (via MIDI
> > data generated in real time by Finale) vs. playback from a MIDI file
> > saved by Finale. There has always been a difference between these
> > two, with the saved MIDI file sounding better (in my opinion) in all
> > cases.
>
> Hmm, that seems more plausible to me...though for the life of me I
> don't know why the midi file should be any better.  But I suppose
> that the midi playback engine in Finale may have timing issues or
> is just a very good playback engine..even if its attempting to
> playback exactly the same set of midi data that it would export to
> a midi file. 

I always thought the main reason was that Finale has some kind of 
default setting that makes it very non-legato in comparison to the 
MIDI files. That means it's a setting that Finale sends to the MIDI 
output that doesn't get saved in the MIDI file (thankfully!).

If MM would fix Finale so that playback was identical with the saved 
MIDI file, that would be a good thing.

-- 
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] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Darcy James Argue]

No. We were comparing two different methods of real-time MIDI  
playback using virtual instruments -- using an external application  
to host for the instruments (i.e., Garritan Studio) vs. using Finale  
to host the instruments.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



On 01 Oct 2006, at 12:53 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 1 Oct 2006 at 11:30, A-NO-NE Music wrote:


So, what is this thread really comparing?  I am
totally confused.


I thought it was comparing playback direct from Finale (via MIDI data
generated in real time by Finale) vs. playback from a MIDI file saved
by Finale. There has always been a difference between these two, with
the saved MIDI file sounding better (in my opinion) in all cases.

--
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

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Darcy James Argue]

On 01 Oct 2006, at 11:30 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:

And standalone V.I.s are equally AU/VST with a dedicated host shell  
same

as Finale functions.  So, what is this thread really comparing?  I am
totally confused.  Help!


Not all hosts are equal. For instance, on Mac the external host  
(Garritan Studio) uses VST while Finale (which as of Finale 2006  
requires no external host) uses AU.  Garritan Studio also requires  
extra system resources compared to loading the instruments directly  
in Finale. For these reasons, Garritan Studio does not perform as  
well (on Mac).


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Steve Schow]

Hmm, that seems more plausible to me...though for the life of me I don't
know why the midi file should be any better.  But I suppose that the
midi playback engine in Finale may have timing issues or is just a very
good playback engine..even if its attempting to playback exactly the
same set of midi data that it would export to a midi file.

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 12:53:23 -0400, "David W. Fenton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 1 Oct 2006 at 11:30, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
> 
> > So, what is this thread really comparing?  I am
> > totally confused.
> 
> I thought it was comparing playback direct from Finale (via MIDI data 
> generated in real time by Finale) vs. playback from a MIDI file saved 
> by Finale. There has always been a difference between these two, with 
> the saved MIDI file sounding better (in my opinion) in all cases.
> 
> -- 
> 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
-
 |"Music is a manifestation of the human spirit
Steve Schow  | similar to a language.  If we do not want such
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our
www.bstage.com   | upmost to make the greatest number of people 
 | understand their secrets" -- Zoltan Kodaly
-

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[David W. Fenton]

On 1 Oct 2006 at 11:30, A-NO-NE Music wrote:

> So, what is this thread really comparing?  I am
> totally confused.

I thought it was comparing playback direct from Finale (via MIDI data 
generated in real time by Finale) vs. playback from a MIDI file saved 
by Finale. There has always been a difference between these two, with 
the saved MIDI file sounding better (in my opinion) in all cases.

-- 
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] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Randolph Peters]

A-NO-NE Music wrote:

I am catching up late, and yet again this thread is so cryptic.  I am
not questioning people are hearing differences, but I simply don't
understand what are being compared.

First of all, there is no MIDI vs AU/VST.  AU/VST instruments _are_ MIDI
driven.  MIDI is just a standard protocol to communicate.


Hi Hiro,

Since I started this thread, I'll respond. I know that MIDI is a 
standard protocol that sends information to both the AU/VST plugin 
modules as well as any other virtual instrument or outboard gear.


We were simply comparing the differences in sound and computer 
efficiency between GPO as a plugin and the GPO Studio application.


I guess the language got sloppy because we can't access the MIDI 
stream going to the AU/VST plugin. It's a kind of short-hand 
reference that seems confusing. Sorry about that!


-Randolph Peters

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[A-NO-NE Music]

I am catching up late, and yet again this thread is so cryptic.  I am
not questioning people are hearing differences, but I simply don't
understand what are being compared.

First of all, there is no MIDI vs AU/VST.  AU/VST instruments _are_ MIDI
driven.  MIDI is just a standard protocol to communicate.

If anyone is wondering Virtual Instruments (V.I.) within Finale isn't
using MIDI then it is wrong.  The fact you can hear what you played on
your controller from AU/VST V.I. within Finale in real-time proves
Finale is in fact passing MIDI data to its AU/VST V.I.s just as passing
MIDI data to standalone GPO or other V.I.s outside of Finale.

And standalone V.I.s are equally AU/VST with a dedicated host shell same
as Finale functions.  So, what is this thread really comparing?  I am
totally confused.  Help!

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[dhbailey]

Apologies to the list for that meaningless reposting -- I had meant to 
close without sending and my brain is only half awake so I hit the wrong 
button.


Oops.

David H. Bailey

dhbailey wrote:

Randolph Peters wrote:

Darcy Argue wrote:
I'm talking about performance, specifically Mac performance. AU 

[snip]

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[dhbailey]

Randolph Peters wrote:

Darcy Argue wrote:
I'm talking about performance, specifically Mac performance. AU 
performance is objectively much better than performance via an 
external host, like Garritan Studio -- AU supports greater polyphony 
with fewer dropouts and less distortion on the same system. This is 
simply not up for debate.


Sorry, but I think the debate is still open. Here's a case where the 
standalone version performs better than the AU.


If you use the full standalone Kontakt 2 (not Kontakt Player 2), you get 
64 channels of output.


You can preserve CPU resources with K2 as a standalone by using, for 
example, only one convolution reverb for all instruments. Inside Finale, 
Kontakt can only take 8 of 16 channels of MIDI so you have to open 
multiple instances. As you know, lower CPU demands results in fewer 
dropouts and distortion.


So it really depends on how you plan to use your sound resources.

-Randolph Peters
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale




--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Randolph Peters]

Randolph Peters wrote:
If you use the full standalone Kontakt 2 (not Kontakt Player 2), 
you get 64 channels of output.


You can preserve CPU resources with K2 as a standalone by using, 
for example, only one convolution reverb for all instruments. 
Inside Finale, Kontakt can only take 8 of 16 channels of MIDI so 
you have to open multiple instances. As you know, lower CPU demands 
results in fewer dropouts and distortion.


Darcy James Argue wrote:
Not true -- both K2 and K2 Player work as AU plugins, and both allow 
16 channels per instance.


I made a mistake about saying that you only get 8 out of 16 channels 
per instance when using K2. You do get 16 channels, even though it 
shows 64 channels per instance.


But the standalone K2 does actually give you 64 channels, so 
depending on your needs, it could be more efficient to go with the 
standalone, as opposed to the AU/VST.


But I'm willing to be proved wrong. Let's do some real world testing 
and find out which approach uses more system resources the more 
channels you add.


-Randolph Peters
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Steve Schow]

Also, inside finale there is very little ability to control reverb...how
much reverb for each instruments, etc..  

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:49:16 -0500, "Randolph Peters"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Darcy Argue wrote:
> >I'm talking about performance, specifically Mac performance. AU 
> >performance is objectively much better than performance via an 
> >external host, like Garritan Studio -- AU supports greater polyphony 
> >with fewer dropouts and less distortion on the same system. This is 
> >simply not up for debate.
> 
> Sorry, but I think the debate is still open. Here's a case where the 
> standalone version performs better than the AU.
> 
> If you use the full standalone Kontakt 2 (not Kontakt Player 2), you 
> get 64 channels of output.
> 
> You can preserve CPU resources with K2 as a standalone by using, for 
> example, only one convolution reverb for all instruments. Inside 
> Finale, Kontakt can only take 8 of 16 channels of MIDI so you have to 
> open multiple instances. As you know, lower CPU demands results in 
> fewer dropouts and distortion.
> 
> So it really depends on how you plan to use your sound resources.
> 
> -Randolph Peters
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
-
 |"Music is a manifestation of the human spirit
Steve Schow  | similar to a language.  If we do not want such
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our
www.bstage.com   | upmost to make the greatest number of people 
 | understand their secrets" -- Zoltan Kodaly
-

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Steve Schow]

I'll ask around on the GPO forum.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:59:48 -0400, "Darcy James Argue"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 29 Sep 2006, at 4:26 PM, Steve Schow wrote:
> 
> > I don't think Finale actually SEES anything inside the AU plugin.
> 
> This was the case with Kontakt Player 1. My understanding (though I  
> could be wrong) is that this has changed with Kontakt Player 2.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> - Darcy
> -
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://secretsociety.typepad.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
-
 |"Music is a manifestation of the human spirit
Steve Schow  | similar to a language.  If we do not want such
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our
www.bstage.com   | upmost to make the greatest number of people 
 | understand their secrets" -- Zoltan Kodaly
-

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Darcy James Argue]

On 29 Sep 2006, at 4:26 PM, Steve Schow wrote:


I don't think Finale actually SEES anything inside the AU plugin.


This was the case with Kontakt Player 1. My understanding (though I  
could be wrong) is that this has changed with Kontakt Player 2.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY





___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Randolph Peters]

Darcy Argue wrote:
I'm talking about performance, specifically Mac performance. AU 
performance is objectively much better than performance via an 
external host, like Garritan Studio -- AU supports greater polyphony 
with fewer dropouts and less distortion on the same system. This is 
simply not up for debate.


Sorry, but I think the debate is still open. Here's a case where the 
standalone version performs better than the AU.


If you use the full standalone Kontakt 2 (not Kontakt Player 2), you 
get 64 channels of output.


You can preserve CPU resources with K2 as a standalone by using, for 
example, only one convolution reverb for all instruments. Inside 
Finale, Kontakt can only take 8 of 16 channels of MIDI so you have to 
open multiple instances. As you know, lower CPU demands results in 
fewer dropouts and distortion.


So it really depends on how you plan to use your sound resources.

-Randolph Peters
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Steve Schow]

Thanks for the clarification. That doesn't sound good at all. Is this 
something you've taken up with MM?


It has been brought up many times over the past couple years on their 
forum.  I suspect they are paying more attention to the Mac version and 
the windows version is an afterthought.  Not using low latency audio 
drivers is a school boy oversight, particularly since it has now been 
2-3 years since they started hosting VST plugins.




When running Garritan Studio or another external VST host, Human 
Playback has no way of knowing what instruments you have actually 
loaded -- what the keyswitches are, whether they are sustaining or 
non-sustaining, what controllers are available, etc. It has to guess 
based on the staff name. At least with Kontakt Player 2 via AU, my 
understanding is that HP can theoretically see which instruments are 
in use and adjust accordingly.


I don't think Finale actually SEES anything inside the AU plugin.  I 
think when you use one of the GPO templates, it is loading in the AU 
plugins and also loading in Human Playback settings that make sense for 
FinaleGPO.   As far as I know you could easily load one of the Finale 
GPO templates and then simply change the output of each staff to point 
to a midi port instead of the VST plugin..and the human playback should 
be the same as was being sent to the AU/VST plugin.  For the most part, 
that should work for GPO.  There are a couple of subtle differences 
between Finale GPO and regular GPO..but in general everything should be 
the same. 

If you use another library such as Kirk Hunter Emerald inside Kontakt, 
as an AU plugin inside Finale.  Then the GPO templates won't work at all 
and Finale is not going to automatically SEE anything to figure out what 
to do.  You would have to manually tweak all the Human Playback settings 
to work with that library.


That is my undestanding anyway.


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Steve Schow]

I'm not familar with the Mac to know the issues.  Sounds like the 
CoreMidi might not do a good job of getting midi events routed to 
external synths and does a better job of routing them to AU plugins.  
And also if you are talking about going over midi cables to actual 
external synths..that introduces more latency.  Using a virutal midi 
port driver SHOULD in theory be much much better and approach close to 
zero latency..low enough that you would not notice any difference 
between that and a plugin, whether it be AU or VST or whatever..  
Anyway, sounds like AU is working great on the Mac, so there is no point 
in using GPO studio.


Darcy James Argue wrote:
I'm talking about performance, specifically Mac performance. AU 
performance is objectively much better than performance via an 
external host, like Garritan Studio -- AU supports greater polyphony 
with fewer dropouts and less distortion on the same system. This is 
simply not up for debate.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



On 29 Sep 2006, at 2:32 PM, dhbailey wrote:


Darcy James Argue wrote:

On 29 Sep 2006, at 11:10 AM, Gerald Berg wrote:

The fact is AU/VST stinks in comparison.
That's utter nonsense. AU/VST playback has lower latency and is more 
efficient, allowing more simultaneous instruments/polyphony on the 
same hardware compared to a MIDI solution like Garritan Studio, 
which requires more computational overhead.

AU/VST playback also hooks into Human Playback much better.


"utter nonsense" may be a bit strong here -- how can you call "utter 
nonsense" something which someone else has heard with his own ears?  
I think this may be one of those "if the computer is set up one way A 
sounds better, if it's set up differently B sounds better."


But I am sure Gerald is able to distinguish what he has heard and 
knows which sounds better to him.  :-)



--David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Darcy James Argue]

I'm talking about performance, specifically Mac performance. AU  
performance is objectively much better than performance via an  
external host, like Garritan Studio -- AU supports greater polyphony  
with fewer dropouts and less distortion on the same system. This is  
simply not up for debate.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



On 29 Sep 2006, at 2:32 PM, dhbailey wrote:


Darcy James Argue wrote:

On 29 Sep 2006, at 11:10 AM, Gerald Berg wrote:

The fact is AU/VST stinks in comparison.
That's utter nonsense. AU/VST playback has lower latency and is  
more efficient, allowing more simultaneous instruments/polyphony  
on the same hardware compared to a MIDI solution like Garritan  
Studio, which requires more computational overhead.

AU/VST playback also hooks into Human Playback much better.


"utter nonsense" may be a bit strong here -- how can you call  
"utter nonsense" something which someone else has heard with his  
own ears?  I think this may be one of those "if the computer is set  
up one way A sounds better, if it's set up differently B sounds  
better."


But I am sure Gerald is able to distinguish what he has heard and  
knows which sounds better to him.  :-)



--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Darcy James Argue]

On 29 Sep 2006, at 2:44 PM, Steve Schow wrote:

I want to correct one thing you said though Darcy.  The GPO Studio  
setup

WILL in fact have much lower latency then the internal one


I have no experience with VST on Windows. I was referring to the Mac  
version.



(on
windows)...even though the midi events are being sent through a  
virtual

midi cable to another application.  The reason is because Finale as of
now does not have an ASIO or WDM audio engine inside to handle the VST
plugins.   It is routing the audio data from the plugins to the  
souncard
via the old Multimedia API..which has TERRIBLE latency.  That is  
why on

windows when you click on a note there is an audible delay until you
hear the sound with Finale GPO and why its virtually useless to do
Hyperscribe while using a VST plugin for sounds.  We're talking like
100ms here.  We need more like 10ms to be useable.  When going  
through a

virtual midi port, you will acheive less than 10ms easily.


Thanks for the clarification. That doesn't sound good at all. Is this  
something you've taken up with MM?



(NOTE on the mac it must be using CoreAudio which provies low latency
drivers, so yes the Mac version would be very subtly less latent with
the VST plugin, but not by much).


The Mac doesn't give the option of using VST plugins with Finale --  
it's either AU or or an external host like Garritan Studio, and AU  
has *much* lower latency with *much* better performance.


Secondly, I can't think of a single reason why Human Playback would  
hook
into the internal VST plugin playback any better than an external  
synth

running GPO or anything else.  Perhaps you can provide some more
information about why you think it would.


When running Garritan Studio or another external VST host, Human  
Playback has no way of knowing what instruments you have actually  
loaded -- what the keyswitches are, whether they are sustaining or  
non-sustaining, what controllers are available, etc. It has to guess  
based on the staff name. At least with Kontakt Player 2 via AU, my  
understanding is that HP can theoretically see which instruments are  
in use and adjust accordingly.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Steve Schow]

Darcy, how do you figure this?  I would expect that Finale is sending
midi note data through the VST interface to those VST plugins...not
anything else.  that's how every other VST application on the planet
works, so I would not expect Finale to be any different.  By that
reckoning..the playback SHOULD be identical.  But we're hearing from
some that they aren't.  Which is very odd.  It implies that Finale is
sending different midi data to the kontakt player plugin...or the VST
internal hostthan what it sends to external midi ports.  I can't
think of a single reason why they would want to do that...  We ought to
try to capture the two midi streams somehow into a file and see if we
can compare them, but I have no idea how to capture the stream from the
VST plugin.  Proably can't.

I want to correct one thing you said though Darcy.  The GPO Studio setup
WILL in fact have much lower latency then the internal one (on
windows)...even though the midi events are being sent through a virtual
midi cable to another application.  The reason is because Finale as of
now does not have an ASIO or WDM audio engine inside to handle the VST
plugins.   It is routing the audio data from the plugins to the souncard
via the old Multimedia API..which has TERRIBLE latency.  That is why on
windows when you click on a note there is an audible delay until you
hear the sound with Finale GPO and why its virtually useless to do
Hyperscribe while using a VST plugin for sounds.  We're talking like
100ms here.  We need more like 10ms to be useable.  When going through a
virtual midi port, you will acheive less than 10ms easily. 

(NOTE on the mac it must be using CoreAudio which provies low latency
drivers, so yes the Mac version would be very subtly less latent with
the VST plugin, but not by much).

Secondly, I can't think of a single reason why Human Playback would hook
into the internal VST plugin playback any better than an external synth
running GPO or anything else.  Perhaps you can provide some more
information about why you think it would.

cheers


On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:17:47 -0400, "Darcy James Argue"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 29 Sep 2006, at 11:10 AM, Gerald Berg wrote:
> 
> > The fact is AU/VST stinks in comparison.
> 
> That's utter nonsense. AU/VST playback has lower latency and is more  
> efficient, allowing more simultaneous instruments/polyphony on the  
> same hardware compared to a MIDI solution like Garritan Studio, which  
> requires more computational overhead.
> 
> AU/VST playback also hooks into Human Playback much better.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> - Darcy
> -
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://secretsociety.typepad.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 
> 
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
-
 |"Music is a manifestation of the human spirit
Steve Schow  | similar to a language.  If we do not want such
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our
www.bstage.com   | upmost to make the greatest number of people 
 | understand their secrets" -- Zoltan Kodaly
-

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[dhbailey]

Darcy James Argue wrote:

On 29 Sep 2006, at 11:10 AM, Gerald Berg wrote:


The fact is AU/VST stinks in comparison.


That's utter nonsense. AU/VST playback has lower latency and is more 
efficient, allowing more simultaneous instruments/polyphony on the same 
hardware compared to a MIDI solution like Garritan Studio, which 
requires more computational overhead.


AU/VST playback also hooks into Human Playback much better.



"utter nonsense" may be a bit strong here -- how can you call "utter 
nonsense" something which someone else has heard with his own ears?  I 
think this may be one of those "if the computer is set up one way A 
sounds better, if it's set up differently B sounds better."


But I am sure Gerald is able to distinguish what he has heard and knows 
which sounds better to him.  :-)



--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Daniel Wolf]

In general, I'm very happy with the playback in AU/VST, however, I do 
have one puzzle. When I add discrete pitch bends to each note of a midi 
file (I compose a lot in precise, alternative tunings) and then do an 
audio file rendering, the pitch bends are dragged out in time, becoming 
swoops or portamenti, and are thus impossible for me to use.


Daniel Wolf


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Darcy James Argue]

On 29 Sep 2006, at 11:10 AM, Gerald Berg wrote:


The fact is AU/VST stinks in comparison.


That's utter nonsense. AU/VST playback has lower latency and is more  
efficient, allowing more simultaneous instruments/polyphony on the  
same hardware compared to a MIDI solution like Garritan Studio, which  
requires more computational overhead.


AU/VST playback also hooks into Human Playback much better.

Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Randolph Peters]

Steve Schow wrote:

Lastly, please try to use the GPO player inside Finale instead of 
the FinaleGPO player.  It will work.  It would be nice to hear if 
you're assessment of these differences is related to using midi 
instead of built in VST.  I suspect using full GPO directly inside 
finale will sound exactly the same as in GPO Studio.
If you prefer full GPO over finale GPO, then there are advantages to 
using GPO studio however.For one thing, its an ASIO app, so very 
low latency.  Secondly, you can control how much reverb on every 
instrument.  But other than that...GPO should function exactly the 
same way inside Studio or directly inside Finale.


I would have thought that they would sound the same, but I was wrong.

For the record, I did compare the full GPO player AU/VST with the 
full GPO Studio with exactly the same instruments and other settings.


-Randolph Peters
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[David W. Fenton]

On 29 Sep 2006 at 9:37, Steve Schow wrote:

> As to why the overlap between notes is a tiny bit longer in the full
> version vs the Finale version..that is an interesting observation and
> it is possible that the legato programming is different...and again..I
> would encourage you to ask around on the GPO forum over there...
> actual guy that did all the GPO programming hangs out there.

That's historically been the case for all Finale playback vs. 
playback from the corresponding MIDI file. Finale does weird things 
with note separation, and it sounds terrible, and always has. It's 
one reason why it's hard to use the Finale MIDI editing tools, 
because the result is different from what you'll get from direct MIDI 
playback.

-- 
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] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Steve Schow]

The finale version of GPO only has a few small differences. Go to 
www.northernsounds.com and search around in their forums to find out 
what they are.  Mainly, the Finale version actually has a few small 
things setup slightly differently for playback...which make more sense 
for the way Finale works.  I can't remember any more than that.  I can't 
think of any reason why one version would sound better than the other.  
Its possible that the full version has a few more instruments (such as 
the steinway grand for example). 

As to why the overlap between notes is a tiny bit longer in the full 
version vs the Finale version..that is an interesting observation and it 
is possible that the legato programming is different...and again..I 
would encourage you to ask around on the GPO forum over there... actual 
guy that did all the GPO programming hangs out there.


Lastly, please try to use the GPO player inside Finale instead of the 
FinaleGPO player.  It will work.  It would be nice to hear if you're 
assessment of these differences is related to using midi instead of 
built in VST.  I suspect using full GPO directly inside finale will 
sound exactly the same as in GPO Studio. 

If you prefer full GPO over finale GPO, then there are advantages to 
using GPO studio however.For one thing, its an ASIO app, so very low 
latency.  Secondly, you can control how much reverb on every 
instrument.  But other than that...GPO should function exactly the same 
way inside Studio or directly inside Finale.



Randolph Peters wrote:
I've been noticing that playback is slightly different when you use 
MIDI as opposed to playing through the Native Instrument AU/VST.


I kept all the parameters the same, using the same instruments, same 
reverb, same HP etc. GPO was loaded in AU for one case and in the 
other, I used Garritan Studio connected via their inter-application MIDI.


I think I like the MIDI version better. HP worked better and was more 
noticeable (not always a good thing!). In one case the AU version 
simply would not play this one string harmonic within a passage of 
harmonics, but it played fine using MIDI. (I cannot figure out this 
strange anomaly. I've erased the passage and reentered it several 
times with the same result!)


I also notice that the amount of overlap between notes is a tiny bit 
longer in the MIDI playback as opposed to AU/VST playback.


YMMV,
-Randolph Peters
___
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] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Gerald Berg]

Ahh  I see the contrails of a problem I flew many months back and never 
was satisfied.  I could never get the sound from FIN 2006 that I 
received from FIN 2005.  Of course, ( I now understand) FIN 2006 sets 
up automatically to AU/VST and FIN 2005 doesn't even posses it.


The fact is AU/VST stinks in comparison.

Jerry


On 29-Sep-06, at 10:55 AM, dhbailey wrote:


Randolph Peters wrote:
I've been noticing that playback is slightly different when you use 
MIDI as opposed to playing through the Native Instrument AU/VST.
I kept all the parameters the same, using the same instruments, same 
reverb, same HP etc. GPO was loaded in AU for one case and in the 
other, I used Garritan Studio connected via their inter-application 
MIDI.
I think I like the MIDI version better. HP worked better and was more 
noticeable (not always a good thing!). In one case the AU version 
simply would not play this one string harmonic within a passage of 
harmonics, but it played fine using MIDI. (I cannot figure out this 
strange anomaly. I've erased the passage and reentered it several 
times with the same result!)
I also notice that the amount of overlap between notes is a tiny bit 
longer in the MIDI playback as opposed to AU/VST playback.


Yes, but in a way you're comparing apples and oranges, but at the very 
least comparing Courtlands with Granny Smiths.


When you do your midi route, you're using the FULL GPO and the extra 
capabilities built into Garritan Studio, whereas when you're using the 
Finale AU/VST output, you're using a lighter version of the GPO stuff, 
or even if you're using the same full GPO samples, the playback engine 
is different.


I'm not at all surprised that you find the midi output routed through 
GPO to be better.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale




Gerald Berg

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[dhbailey]

Randolph Peters wrote:
I've been noticing that playback is slightly different when you use MIDI 
as opposed to playing through the Native Instrument AU/VST.


I kept all the parameters the same, using the same instruments, same 
reverb, same HP etc. GPO was loaded in AU for one case and in the other, 
I used Garritan Studio connected via their inter-application MIDI.


I think I like the MIDI version better. HP worked better and was more 
noticeable (not always a good thing!). In one case the AU version simply 
would not play this one string harmonic within a passage of harmonics, 
but it played fine using MIDI. (I cannot figure out this strange 
anomaly. I've erased the passage and reentered it several times with the 
same result!)


I also notice that the amount of overlap between notes is a tiny bit 
longer in the MIDI playback as opposed to AU/VST playback.




Yes, but in a way you're comparing apples and oranges, but at the very 
least comparing Courtlands with Granny Smiths.


When you do your midi route, you're using the FULL GPO and the extra 
capabilities built into Garritan Studio, whereas when you're using the 
Finale AU/VST output, you're using a lighter version of the GPO stuff, 
or even if you're using the same full GPO samples, the playback engine 
is different.


I'm not at all surprised that you find the midi output routed through 
GPO to be better.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] differences in playback-MIDI vs. AU/VST

[Randolph Peters]

I've been noticing that playback is slightly different when you use 
MIDI as opposed to playing through the Native Instrument AU/VST.


I kept all the parameters the same, using the same instruments, same 
reverb, same HP etc. GPO was loaded in AU for one case and in the 
other, I used Garritan Studio connected via their inter-application 
MIDI.


I think I like the MIDI version better. HP worked better and was more 
noticeable (not always a good thing!). In one case the AU version 
simply would not play this one string harmonic within a passage of 
harmonics, but it played fine using MIDI. (I cannot figure out this 
strange anomaly. I've erased the passage and reentered it several 
times with the same result!)


I also notice that the amount of overlap between notes is a tiny bit 
longer in the MIDI playback as opposed to AU/VST playback.


YMMV,
-Randolph Peters
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale