Lies is a strong word, and here, unjustified.
But I would have agreed with you on the scanning until last week. A friend
of mine (a viola player and user of WinFin2003) astounded me, just a few
days ago, by telling me that he has been having great success scanning.
After some trial and error, he
At 2/9/2004 12:17 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
Lies is a strong word, and here, unjustified.
But I would have agreed with you on the scanning until last week. A friend
of mine (a viola player and user of WinFin2003) astounded me, just a few
days ago, by telling me that he has been having great
.
(Hell, I don't get 95% accuracy with Speedy Entry!)
RH
- Original Message -
From: Phil Daley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Finale list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?
At 2/9/2004 12:17 PM
I would think that proofing by playback, at least in most cases, would make
95% accuracy work pretty well, as opposed to reentering everything. Even if
both methods were a wash timewise, scanning would break the routine, and
that can sometimes be its own blessing.
Don Hart
on 2/9/04 4:46 PM,
At 09:43 PM 2/9/2004, Don Hart wrote:
I would think that proofing by playback, at least in most cases, would
make
95% accuracy work pretty well, as opposed to reentering
everything. Even if
both methods were a wash timewise, scanning would break the routine, and
that can sometimes be its own
I've never scanned any music to work with in Finale, so I guess I was
envisioning more rhythm and pitch errors than the type that you mention. I
realize that if elements are showing up in the wrong tool (ties
misinterpreted as slurs and tempo markings misinterpreted as song verse)
different
