I’m very intrigued to see where this goes, hopefully more libraries added, and maybe kontakt as a whole. For an initial release it seems very stable, and I didn’t notice any major bugs
Logic Pro x is for production. Finale, Dorico and Sibelius is for notating music or writing scores. If you write music for the live stage it's a great bonus if Note performer makes it sound great. If you write for orchestra and not mockups for films and you're after printed scores for live performant, go for it. So the key question is if BBC orchestra playback option for Note performer 4 sounds better than Note Performer without 3rd party sample libraries. Nobody has to buy all these 3rd party libraries, many already have some of them, and you can buy one. Recording live orchestra cost a lot of money, so if you pay 70-90 bucks for the BBC third party option for Note Performer it's a great deal I should think. Traditionally the Sibelius, Finale and Dorico doesn't sound great in itself, all these new options are more than welcome to the musical table. Writing music without to many technical hacks in notation software is the future for live orchestra or other ensembles. I agree if you are less concerned about notation and score writing and the emphasise is mockups in your your DAW that's also a great option. This is the future of score-writing with much greater sounds and notation software performances. Question 1. Does BBC option with note performer 4 sound better then note performer 4 without 3rd party BBC? Question 2. What sounded better? Your Logic DAW or the BBC 3rd party with Note Performer 4? Thank you for your great video, all the best!
Some interesting info here but I think you are missing the key point of NotePerformer: * its primary purpose is to create audio directly from your score without any finetuning of sound or individual notes. If you want the flexibility of a DAW then by all means use a DAW but why criticize NP for taking away the flexibility of a DAW when this is exactly its purpose? * NP is not intended to render the final audio for, say, a movie but a high-quality mockup that gives your client a good idea about your music. * NP4's primary value proposition is that it allows you to use your already purchased expensive library without any time consuming finetuning. Comparing NP4's output with your optimized DAW version makes no sense - how many hours/days did it take you at what cost given your hourly rate? * $90 for an playback engine is expensive? Software developer hours are expensive and so are composer hours. This is a bargain for what additional value you can extract from your expensive libraries. * NP3 sounds are already great for most fast-paced music with short notes. Its lower-quality samples (especially strings) become more obvious when slow legato notes are played. * your example piece uses a lot of short notes which works already well with NP3. Try out a slow ballad with lots of long-held legato lines and you should see/hear a huge difference between NP3 and NP4. * NP4 seems to create a more muddy, blurred sound for fast-played strings which I believe is related to the baked-in reverb of the library samples whereas the NP-default samples are dry. This leads unfortunately to weaker attacks in NP4. I hope that Arne will be able to fix these imperfections. I think that we are perhaps a year or two away from when the next versions of NP are capable of generating movie-quality music audio. Dorico is gradually adding DAW functionalities and together with NP DAWs and large libraries may vanish at some point.
Thank you for taking the time to write out this comment! It’s given me a lot to think about, and the piece I actually showed does have a section of just string longs which in hindsight I should have added. In my own workflow to save time I normal bypass notation software and just work in a DAW, sending demos as I work, but this piece was first written in Sibelius and then translated into the mock-up shown which took about a day, and I sell it’s as library music. I’m very excited for the future and as you say in a couple of years it might just be cable of generating movie quality music. I’ll defiantly talk more about what you’ve mentioned above in part 2, a lot of people have brought up some great points and the more I work with NotePerformer 4 the more I learn. Thanks again!
Thanks for the video! Very helpful to see. As someone who loved NP3 for the revolutionary playback it provided, this update was a step in a different and rather disappointing direction for me. As you say, someone who's investing hundreds of pounds in sound libraries (which is not me!) is going to want to make the most of them in their DAW. I was hoping for improvements to the existing NP sounds and/or perhaps a more advanced control system control over the existing sounds. I listened to the demos provided on the NotePerformer CZcams channel and can't honestly say they sounded any better to me than than the NP3 sounds (and some were, to my ears, markedly worse). I'd be interested in hearing more comparisons between the regular NP playback and 3rd party libraries to see if I could be convinced...
Agreed. It took a bad turn in my opinion. People love NP because it provides a realistic playback (performance) not for having the most outstanding orchestra samples. I think Wallander really don't know its customers.
@@musiqueacoustique1I disagree. NP4 without additional player engines and sample libraries is a small improvement on NP3. But you didn't have to pay for the upgrade if you already had NP3. So, in that respect NP didn't change direction at all. they ADDED the ability to access 3rd party sample libraries, but they didn't take anything away that NP3 had. You don't need to use NPPE if you don't want to. Arne said they had reached the limit of how realistic they could get with the sample modelling. So this was a way to extend further. As we've seen from the minor versions (most recent 4.3), there are still decent improvements to be made - mostly around dealing with quirks of the sample libraries. I understand a main goal for NP4 was to provide an out-of-the-box ability to create a mockup that was better than most people could do in a DAW, and that without having to spend any time on it. I don't think Wallander has missed the mark here at all. More and more composers understand they will never get a real orchestra to play their works. A decent mockup with no time investment (because it takes forever to do a good mockup in a DAW) is a no-brainer.
If you think of NotePerformer Playback Engine having to effectively drive those VSTs, much in the same way as you drive a car, there's a ton of work for the individual playback engines to do to make it work. And each VST has to be driven differently, so each playback engine is a ton of work to develop. Which is why each is paid. Most of the cost goes to the sample library vendor. And I think the target market is people who learned to write scores, and don't want to be an audio engineer, or spend hours and hours and hours in a DAW massaging individual notes.
@TrensharoNotePerformer is $129. If you buy a library adapter for $69 you are still only out under $200. But check out how much you have to pay to get a sample library. BBCSO for example. Then decide who is dumb, and how smart it is to call people you don't know dumb on the internet.
NOOOOOOO!!!, they didn't touch the default sounds :(, I'm kinda sad to be honest, Wallander said yesterday that is impossible for them to improve the default sounds. Let's be honest, a little improvement on the default sounds could be a serious headache for the major VST's companies since the default sounds and performance are AMAZING already
Yeah, that is patently untrue. I have improved the sound of my NP3 renders significantly from stock (just compare my Jupiter render to theirs--it even sounds better than all the new NP4 renders), and I don't even have access to all the sample and synth level instrument controls that they do--there's so much more I could do with those, and I know they're there...
I think the magic they've created at the moment is the ability to mix and match libraries with the click of a button. I still use the native NP3/4 brass and woodwinds for a lot of things, but I can now easily layer them with HOOPUS percussion and strings, as well as having one line of horns being HOOPUS and another being NP4. HOOPUS is a good middle-ground since they have a very affordable subscription model. Ultimately, it's a bit more limiting than I would have liked but I enjoy being able to easily use the extra library I already have. Saves time and I don't mind writing idiomatically for this setup at the outset as opposed to spending more time tweaking it endlessly in a DAW.
Wasn't the whole point of NotePerformer to not have to deal with the 10,000$ worth of orchestral libraries? They should have just focused on their niche.
I'm confused as to why having the option of using orchestral libraries (which I think is obvious to any rational human being would be appealing to consumers that already own such libraries but wish to playback scores in their favorite notation software rather than the DAW), presents as some sort of fundamental flaw to Noteperformer's functionality as the same playback engine people have already been using? Outside of a paid option for those that *choose* to pay it, what has actually changed?
Well, in case with Dorico it seems that they just do the job of creating all those expression mappings and tweaking for you so, basically they offer you to pay extra for plug-n-play experience. Meanwhile, if you want Dorico to play your favourite sample library of choice some like BBC SO or Vienna for instance even have ready expression maps for you, you just insert Kontakt or their plugins and set appropriate expression maps, save as a template and you're golden. No need for noteperformer whatsoever. And there's even a proper reason for that because if you like to compose in notation software first and then bring it to DAW and finish the piece it is wise to use the same library you plan to finish with. Although, I don't know about Sibelius and Finale, but for Dorico there basically no need for adding extra software in between unless your library doesn't have expression maps out there and you can afford extra 100-400 bucks for a day or two of your work with expression maps.
@@R0bstar-YT have you find a way to switch to particular patches that require multiple markings at once? There're add-on expressions but somehow I failed to understand what to do if you have, say, con sordino sul pont tremolos, just con sordino tremolos and for instance con sordino sul pont longs. Maybe I did something wrong but it seemed like once I put one of the markings in add-ons it completely disregarded that for instance now there was no sul pont in the mix and still triggered cs sp trem patch. I ended up simply creating custom expressions like cs sp trem and cs trem. But now it requires to me go back to the score and put appropriate markings before engraving which is a bit of a bummer.
@@R0bstar-YT oops. Turns out that if you hold cltr on Win while selecting expressions in expression maps you can select more than one expression. Problem solved...
Oh man! Thank you so much for the video! You had a labor work in this indeed! I think with NP4 they loose their way, and the software loose its magic! Not to mention that native NP3 sounds almost as good as these libraries in this new player.
with this new update, it became clear that the audience Wallander wants to reach are soundtrack producers, and people who work in the area, and not those who really want to compose something, after all, notation software is for composition, not treatment and sound mixing, I even understand their intention to add more "detailed" sound libraries, but honestly, there won't be a future update that improves the lifeless timbres of those very expensive DAW libraries that they call "professional" simply for having thousands of sound samples from DAW use, there's no point in use notation software where you're limited to putting a staccato or an accent on a note, and expecting the best musical phrasing to come out of one of those sound libraries. thousands of samples, this is a service made for DAW's, not for software where you are going to edit scores for a real orchestra. Finally, I just wanted to improve Noteperformer's original sound library, which by far sounds much better than any of those sound libraries, it's a matter of fixing some details and timbres, like the woodwinds, which have practically the same dynamics thing throughout its dynamics range (0-127), and those strings that actually sound like they go from a ppp to an fff, seem to just turn up in volume without any extra dynamics or aggressiveness beyond the brass, which I could get all day talking details about them (please improve the trombone and horn, a "real orchestra" mezzo-piano has to use a fortissimo in the NP playback)
Very informative, thank you. I have BBC SO Core, Dorico Pro 4 and NP3, so I think I'll give it a go as I prefer score writing with Dorico rather than Logic/Cubase (I'm not very good with DAWs). I'm confident NP will improve rapidly with this playback engine idea, so all in all, well done NP. Really enjoyed your video too.
I got a say, that with everything I've heard, I'm sticking with the NP orchestral sounds over every other VST. Many other VST companies make much better solo VST instruments, but for orchestral work, my tick goes to NP.
I am a *Sibelius* user. This *NotePerformer 4* release is underwhelming at best. Could they not give their core users the same controls over their engine? 9:59 If anyone knows of a list of changes to their core engine/sounds (outside of integrating third-party engines and sounds), I'd very much appreciate a link.
Here’s a link to the Version History Notes that actually tells what was added to 4.0.0, apologies I didn’t show this in the video. www.noteperformer.com/media/NotePerformer%20-%20Version%20History.pdf
I appreciate the idea of what they're doing but they kind of threw their whole business model off. Maybe their last one was unsustainable, but we were promised updates with our license, things like sound and playback. It's incredibly frustrating because there are still huge holes in Noteperformer, the horns sound like crap, the strings sound like crap, percussion is missing a lot of instruments. Those things have been addressed in the past, that they were to be improved "shorty" pre covid, that never came, and now they're asking for us to buy stuff to improve playback. I respect that it's a business, but I think that this is kind of a disservice to what people initially invested in. You know?
Most composers I know are just waiting for NP to improve independent of any third-party libraries, especially to save space and RAM. Lots of software right now are getting upgrades due to AI and tech innovations, why is the music industry so behind?
For me NP 3 sounded more like a live orchestra whereas NP4 sounded like I was at the movies, high quality surround sound and clear. I can’t fault either 😊
I was a bit optimistic also, since I already use East/West Hollywood libraries. I enjoy Noteperformer 4 after the update from 3 but have no need to use the 3rd party VST feature. Rather I use Noteperformer in Sibelius to get a ballpark idea of what a work may sound like before I actually export files to my DAW.
This is mostly what I do! Especially if I want to get away from messing around/getting lost in all the sample library’s and just focus on the music, I’ll write in Sibelius and then move into a DAW.
The dynamics in NP4 does sound more natural. I still prefer musescore 4 sounds and combined with the free kontakt 7 player and any vst3 compatible orchestral library like bbcso you can use any vst libraries for free.
I was speaking to a techie at East West and he told me that NP never consulted East West about intergrating their Opus Edition. East West found out when customers asked them about running Opus Edition in NP4.
I feel that this as a whole is just a massive time-saver. You're gonna need to use a DAW to nitpick everything you want to, and as long as you can export to MIDI, you're able to do so. This is basically all I've wanted ever since I purchased HOOPUS. Let a program automatically work out the basics of the score, then I'll do the rest. In the future, obviously it'd be best to have everything be done automatically, but this is a great intermediary point.
NotePerformer was really never about providing a complete and fully usable sample library, especially for professional use. Their forte is enabling the playback of samples in such a way to make the result vastly more musical and which conforms to our expectations of proper and beautiful performance. That should happen even without any musical text in the score and yet be rather much enhanced where there is musical text written. The sample library included in NotePerformer was really only a stepping stone or means to an end...
Hello Joe! I saw your video and it is very interesting! I just installed the note performer 4 yesterday and wanted to ask one thing. I am currently using Sibelius for notating music, Pro Tools for audio, and the Opus Hollywood orchestra as a VST in pro tools. So, if I wanted to play the Opus (VST) sounds in Sibelius I would first need to 1) Open Sibelius 2) Set note performer 4 in the playback engine options 3) And then separately open the note performer 4 application with an Opus Hollywood template (the same instruments like in my score in sibelius?? I guess I am asking if you have a template open in note performer 4, these sounds will go in Sibelius, or are they not related? Thank you in advance.
Arne Wllander has stated many times that they have taken modeled sounds as far as they can. Everyone complaining and wanting the sounds to be drastically improved are asking for them to do the impossible. They have hit a dead end for now so no use complaining. Alot if people have been comparing NP to the Musescore 4 sounds but MS4 uses samples. It's apples to oranges. Im excited for this move even though it is in a different direction. I do think with updates it will become really good. The concept is a good business plan so maybe if there is a breakthrough in modeled the company will be around to capitalize. But for now this is the future. Hopefully it will help making mockups that much easier. If not well we still have the absolute cutting edge in modeled sounds even if it's not as great as we all hoped.
Art Conductor is almost GBP90 (although you get mappings for all the libraries for each DAW for that price) so the NP4 extensions seem to be in the same price range.
@DougHudsonEsq hi, Well, NP Playback Engines and Art Conductor are completely different products... The Art Conductor is just a package of Expression Maps sets and nothing more, while NPPE is far more than just expression maps. It's an AI system that is able to humanize the playback and even to perform techniques that are missing in the original library. Definitely NPPE needs more improvement in order to provide better playback for the libraries, of course support of more libraries and user controllable parameters in order to put a little bit of a personal fingerprint. 🙂
Art conductor only works in DAWs. DAWs are a completely different market than notation apps. The writing system for music is western standard notation, not piano rolls and controller lanes. It is highly evolved, and optimised over hundreds of years, and provides a rich, compact, efficient and versatile system for portraying music for performance by a musician. A lot of people prefer to write in notation, myself included. To date, NotePerformer has been notation-app only, and I've had discussions with Wallander about the reasoning behind this.
Not all Composers want to sound like Hollywood Composers. There are a lot of composers like me who compose for theatre and concert. So NP4 and NPPE are really enough.
Thanks for the vedio! I have a question. If I export the midi of my score (say I already have note performer), does it gonna reflect the work ie. "AI" humanize stuff generated by note performer (comparing to midi file directly generated by finale or whatever notation sofware). Since I usually write music from notation software, and I am very bad at tweaking the knobs in logic pro from zero. It would be great help if I can export the midi file generated by note performer and then enhance it in logic pro.
Sadly not, what we are hearing won’t be reflected in the MIDI CC data (if anything it puts some crazy stuff in you have to delete). That would be awesome if it did!
@@Joe-blogcomposer - Listening now.. do you have a download for the song? Also, what were the main plugins you went with? I'm sure Spitfire didn't make the cut.
After using it for the last few months, and with the updates, I think NP4 with the engines is quite marvelous. I tend to use a mix of the sampled and NP native sounds and have gotten really great results (tons of folks are asking me about my "daw" work and surprised when I tell them it's just the playback). NP4 (and 3) by itself is really great for a composer mock-up. I use the HOOPUS for everything except trumpets (trumpet samples stink in playback generally, except if you're going to create a stave just for trumpet legato solos - samples articulations don't render in the engine well). But man, getting the strings and percussion to playback this great is really a big difference for my ears. czcams.com/video/X3MPRPQVFwU/video.html&lc=UgwbZyP8C2u69eDGTlR4AaABAg This is a movement from a new work of mine and I think it really showcases what I'm talking about. Now, is it worth it to go out and buy all the libraries just because you now have NP4? Maybe not. I went out and got HOOPUS on sale and upgraded my computer to something with mega RAM so I could run it well and I have been happy with the results (but I needed a new computer anyway). I *do* think Finale playback, while having a few things that don't work with NP (like glissando), sounds better with NP4 than Dorico or Sibelius. At the end of the day, the engines give me more options for a mock-up that really helps my compositional process and people get a great sense of my work, and that (to me) is worth it. Not to mention it is SO fast to load them up and not having to use a DAW for anything....game changing for me. This isn't for media composers - this is all really just for mockups.
THANK YOU! I l’m surprised no one else has said anything (I’m very dyslexic) all corrected now 😂 yeah I’ve got 32GB never had a problem and ran massive orchestral templates in logic, Noteperformer 4 really hogs the RAM
If the playback engine for BBCSO Core sounds [even] better than NP's default sounds, I'll buy it like a shot. At present I can't test it because I haven't so far been able to get it working -- I don't agree that the instructions are clear. Anyway, since I don't like either piano rolls or Logic's score editor, for me the big question is not whether I can do as well with NP and its playback engines as I could in Logic, but whether I can do as well as I could with my sample libraries (but without NP) in Dorico. There is some amazing stuff out there that was done entirely in Dorico.
What seems to be the problem? Is Noteperformers own application opening at all, or is it not connecting to your notation software? I really need to spend some time with Dorico, I’ve heard a lot of great things about it but never used it.
@@Joe-blogcomposer The app is running OK, and it's playing some of my tracks, but not all of them. I don't understand how it's supposed to work, which makes it hard to trouble-shoot. This would be a good time to try a demo of Dorico, because they have at last started to release short introductory videos on version 4. The crossgrade from Sibelius is surprisingly cheap, especially if you wait for a sale.
@@zorkmarble thanks, when I get a free afternoon I might do that! I’ll have a mess with the app and see if I can make a video about switching out instruments and assigning/un-assigning instruments to different staves
When I listen to the demos of the new sample libraries that come with the Noteperformer 4 playback engines as options, they do not sound like the ones in the DAW library versions. My question: how hard to export all the midi after finishing the project on Sibelius and then to put it in the DAW project (cubase or logic)? Would it be practical do you think?
Hello! Not hard at all, I have done videos showing how to export scores from Sib into Logic Pro X. Personally I do it all the time, starting off in notation software then move everything into a DAW to get a better sound/to create a mock up. Yes it takes time but I feel it’s well worth it.
@@Joe-blogcomposer As you might already probably think, the main point is to use the DAW version of Opus, for example. I think the library versions of NP4 pb engines have really low sample variation capacity. That's why it sounds like midi. I would suggest the sample companies to give an option to export the sound of the project via using the original bank sample variation capabilities. That'd sound fantastic I think! What do you think?
No thanks, I'd rather be using a DAW instead of using noteperfomer as an intermediary for the VSTS. Really disappointed with this update, I'd prefer if they improved upon their original sounds intead of doing what they did; a major point about noteperformer for me was how light it was and no way I'll be using something that's asking me for 60gb of ram.
Let's be honest - NP4 was incredibly disappointing to anyone that had been using NP3. For those of us that do orchestral scoring, NP3 required NO work in a DAW tinkering around with midi triggers to get a great sounding mockup - and I mean GREAT to the point that in some conexts people would believe it's a live recording. They took a step backward by even associating themselves with sample libraries. It always sounds fake, and it always will. The path forward is going to be audio modeling like what SWAM has been doing for a decade or two, and what noteperformer was doing extremely well. They've lost their way.
One other thing I see a ton of. People who have been using DAWs and orchestral VSTs for years don't do string melodies. they limit themselves to shorts which sound great, or long pads. This is an example of how our writing is molded by the limitations of the tools, and it's a real shame.
I think that has more to do with emergent stylistic changes as a result of more mainstream accessibility of the products, by consumers less likely to have the compositional background to fully utilize what is given. I think current sampling technology can deliver lyrical strings. But let's not conflate what orchestral sampling was originally for, midi mockups to develop the score before actually recording. Granted, the budget to record a live orchestra isn't always afforded to tv series or games (of course, many low budget movies as well), and current sampling tech can, and do, deliver impressive results in those instances, I don't agree with the causal connection between the accessibility of libraries in their current form, and less sophisticated modern cinematic score writing.
@@R0bstar-YT Whilst I can imagine the idea that the tools dictate the work may not be able to be proven, I think it's still plausible. I know personally since I compose by ear, I avoid stuff that sounds bad. Getting new tools that sound better, allows me to write more to those tools. Legato strings (or even anything) sound pretty awful in most sample libraries. Most sample library demos also avoid it. It's hard to say what influences what, but certainly the products available apart from NotePerformer make it unsatisfying to write lyrical string melodies. Most individuals can't afford to hire an orchestra to record their work.
It's a matter of time: it's a good idea to have a score produced by a notation software and it's obvious that working in a DAW gives a better result, but it's very very time consuming. StaffPad demonstrates that from notation you can have something very good, so NotePerforme 4 in my opinion is a great delusion! They should have improved the sounds, create their own library, not force to pay to integrate other libraries that were not conceived for notation software.
NotePerformer uses statistical models for its playback engine, not AI. NP3 and NP4 are the same, apart from a new fake sul ponticello articulation and various bug fixes. How about "Do your homework before you vlog" ? 😂 I agree, though, there's no way I'm paying $70 per library. At $20 it would be a no brainer buy and I'm sure Wallander would sell the heck out of these engines, even if the core NotePerformer already sounds better than the 3rd party stuff, but at least it wouldn't hurt to have options to cover some of the weak base sounds. Anyway, the pricing is all wrong!
Thank you for the clarification! It’s just that on their front page they say “NotePerformer is the Artificial Intelligence-based playback engine for musical notation” (that’s where I got AI from), I guess I got little over excited with the update and was a little quick on the video :) but thank you for your comment, noted for next time! The pricing really is all over the place!
And listening to the demos, BBCSOP, and Berlin don't really sound that good. It's sort of inbetween the NP3 and a accurately programmed mockup in daw. Either you spend the time with the library fine tuning each line, or you let Np do the playback, but this inbetween thing seems pretty pointless imo
So, MS4 sounds or NP(4)’s own internal sounds … ? All things considered (and without spending $$ on sample libraries). MS4, still? Free sampled sounds in MS4. Inferior(?), modeled sounds in NP4, still - just now with the ability to spend even more money!! 🙃 Unless, of course - you’re trying to render a final sound from a notation app … 😏 Then, I guess, NP4 and spend a grand on sample libraries …
Honestly between MS4 and the amount of great free samples out their, I’m less inclined to spend the $$ on libraries. Looking at my more recent professional pieces, they’ve been 50/50 with free stuff/paid, and I’m sure if I wanted to challenge myself I could do 100% free stuff. MS4 sounds are underrated. I need to redo this test
I'm honestly disappointed. I was expecting considerably more. For example, a fully-fledged set of General MIDI (and GM2) instruments, and partnerships with Yamaha and Roland for their XG and GS sound libraries. Was also hoping for some .mid/.midi file integration ala VirtualMIDISyth, or again, some sort of partnership, not to mention some kind of integration with the falling note software Synthesia. I guess my hopes were set far, far, FAR too high. Oh well.
Considering that this is the first version of the playback engine, I think future is bright for NotePerformer.
I’m very intrigued to see where this goes, hopefully more libraries added, and maybe kontakt as a whole. For an initial release it seems very stable, and I didn’t notice any major bugs
Agreed. Essentially it's a playback engine hosting other playback engines within a notation program, so the feature itself is rather amazing
Logic Pro x is for production. Finale, Dorico and Sibelius is for notating music or writing scores. If you write music for the live stage it's a great bonus if Note performer makes it sound great. If you write for orchestra and not mockups for films and you're after printed scores for live performant, go for it. So the key question is if BBC orchestra playback option for Note performer 4 sounds better than Note Performer without 3rd party sample libraries. Nobody has to buy all these 3rd party libraries, many already have some of them, and you can buy one. Recording live orchestra cost a lot of money, so if you pay 70-90 bucks for the BBC third party option for Note Performer it's a great deal I should think. Traditionally the Sibelius, Finale and Dorico doesn't sound great in itself, all these new options are more than welcome to the musical table. Writing music without to many technical hacks in notation software is the future for live orchestra or other ensembles. I agree if you are less concerned about notation and score writing and the emphasise is mockups in your your DAW that's also a great option. This is the future of score-writing with much greater sounds and notation software performances.
Question 1.
Does BBC option with note performer 4 sound better then note performer 4 without 3rd party BBC?
Question 2.
What sounded better? Your Logic DAW or the BBC 3rd party with Note Performer 4?
Thank you for your great video, all the best!
Some interesting info here but I think you are missing the key point of NotePerformer:
* its primary purpose is to create audio directly from your score without any finetuning of sound or individual notes. If you want the flexibility of a DAW then by all means use a DAW but why criticize NP for taking away the flexibility of a DAW when this is exactly its purpose?
* NP is not intended to render the final audio for, say, a movie but a high-quality mockup that gives your client a good idea about your music.
* NP4's primary value proposition is that it allows you to use your already purchased expensive library without any time consuming finetuning. Comparing NP4's output with your optimized DAW version makes no sense - how many hours/days did it take you at what cost given your hourly rate?
* $90 for an playback engine is expensive? Software developer hours are expensive and so are composer hours. This is a bargain for what additional value you can extract from your expensive libraries.
* NP3 sounds are already great for most fast-paced music with short notes. Its lower-quality samples (especially strings) become more obvious when slow legato notes are played.
* your example piece uses a lot of short notes which works already well with NP3. Try out a slow ballad with lots of long-held legato lines and you should see/hear a huge difference between NP3 and NP4.
* NP4 seems to create a more muddy, blurred sound for fast-played strings which I believe is related to the baked-in reverb of the library samples whereas the NP-default samples are dry. This leads unfortunately to weaker attacks in NP4. I hope that Arne will be able to fix these imperfections.
I think that we are perhaps a year or two away from when the next versions of NP are capable of generating movie-quality music audio. Dorico is gradually adding DAW functionalities and together with NP DAWs and large libraries may vanish at some point.
Thank you for taking the time to write out this comment! It’s given me a lot to think about, and the piece I actually showed does have a section of just string longs which in hindsight I should have added. In my own workflow to save time I normal bypass notation software and just work in a DAW, sending demos as I work, but this piece was first written in Sibelius and then translated into the mock-up shown which took about a day, and I sell it’s as library music. I’m very excited for the future and as you say in a couple of years it might just be cable of generating movie quality music. I’ll defiantly talk more about what you’ve mentioned above in part 2, a lot of people have brought up some great points and the more I work with NotePerformer 4 the more I learn. Thanks again!
Thanks for the video! Very helpful to see. As someone who loved NP3 for the revolutionary playback it provided, this update was a step in a different and rather disappointing direction for me. As you say, someone who's investing hundreds of pounds in sound libraries (which is not me!) is going to want to make the most of them in their DAW. I was hoping for improvements to the existing NP sounds and/or perhaps a more advanced control system control over the existing sounds.
I listened to the demos provided on the NotePerformer CZcams channel and can't honestly say they sounded any better to me than than the NP3 sounds (and some were, to my ears, markedly worse). I'd be interested in hearing more comparisons between the regular NP playback and 3rd party libraries to see if I could be convinced...
I'm gonna be keeping NP3 for now. Thanks.
Agreed. It took a bad turn in my opinion. People love NP because it provides a realistic playback (performance) not for having the most outstanding orchestra samples. I think Wallander really don't know its customers.
@@musiqueacoustique1I disagree. NP4 without additional player engines and sample libraries is a small improvement on NP3. But you didn't have to pay for the upgrade if you already had NP3. So, in that respect NP didn't change direction at all. they ADDED the ability to access 3rd party sample libraries, but they didn't take anything away that NP3 had. You don't need to use NPPE if you don't want to. Arne said they had reached the limit of how realistic they could get with the sample modelling. So this was a way to extend further. As we've seen from the minor versions (most recent 4.3), there are still decent improvements to be made - mostly around dealing with quirks of the sample libraries. I understand a main goal for NP4 was to provide an out-of-the-box ability to create a mockup that was better than most people could do in a DAW, and that without having to spend any time on it. I don't think Wallander has missed the mark here at all. More and more composers understand they will never get a real orchestra to play their works. A decent mockup with no time investment (because it takes forever to do a good mockup in a DAW) is a no-brainer.
If you think of NotePerformer Playback Engine having to effectively drive those VSTs, much in the same way as you drive a car, there's a ton of work for the individual playback engines to do to make it work. And each VST has to be driven differently, so each playback engine is a ton of work to develop. Which is why each is paid. Most of the cost goes to the sample library vendor. And I think the target market is people who learned to write scores, and don't want to be an audio engineer, or spend hours and hours and hours in a DAW massaging individual notes.
@TrensharoNotePerformer is $129. If you buy a library adapter for $69 you are still only out under $200. But check out how much you have to pay to get a sample library. BBCSO for example. Then decide who is dumb, and how smart it is to call people you don't know dumb on the internet.
NOOOOOOO!!!, they didn't touch the default sounds :(, I'm kinda sad to be honest, Wallander said yesterday that is impossible for them to improve the default sounds. Let's be honest, a little improvement on the default sounds could be a serious headache for the major VST's companies since the default sounds and performance are AMAZING already
Why is it impossible?
Yeah, that is patently untrue. I have improved the sound of my NP3 renders significantly from stock (just compare my Jupiter render to theirs--it even sounds better than all the new NP4 renders), and I don't even have access to all the sample and synth level instrument controls that they do--there's so much more I could do with those, and I know they're there...
@@shalemloritsch9382 please make another comparison video! your Jupiter sounds fantastic
I think the magic they've created at the moment is the ability to mix and match libraries with the click of a button. I still use the native NP3/4 brass and woodwinds for a lot of things, but I can now easily layer them with HOOPUS percussion and strings, as well as having one line of horns being HOOPUS and another being NP4. HOOPUS is a good middle-ground since they have a very affordable subscription model.
Ultimately, it's a bit more limiting than I would have liked but I enjoy being able to easily use the extra library I already have. Saves time and I don't mind writing idiomatically for this setup at the outset as opposed to spending more time tweaking it endlessly in a DAW.
Wasn't the whole point of NotePerformer to not have to deal with the 10,000$ worth of orchestral libraries? They should have just focused on their niche.
I'm confused as to why having the option of using orchestral libraries (which I think is obvious to any rational human being would be appealing to consumers that already own such libraries but wish to playback scores in their favorite notation software rather than the DAW), presents as some sort of fundamental flaw to Noteperformer's functionality as the same playback engine people have already been using? Outside of a paid option for those that *choose* to pay it, what has actually changed?
Well, in case with Dorico it seems that they just do the job of creating all those expression mappings and tweaking for you so, basically they offer you to pay extra for plug-n-play experience. Meanwhile, if you want Dorico to play your favourite sample library of choice some like BBC SO or Vienna for instance even have ready expression maps for you, you just insert Kontakt or their plugins and set appropriate expression maps, save as a template and you're golden. No need for noteperformer whatsoever. And there's even a proper reason for that because if you like to compose in notation software first and then bring it to DAW and finish the piece it is wise to use the same library you plan to finish with. Although, I don't know about Sibelius and Finale, but for Dorico there basically no need for adding extra software in between unless your library doesn't have expression maps out there and you can afford extra 100-400 bucks for a day or two of your work with expression maps.
@@Grigoriy1996 For this reason, I use Dorico Pro + my libs anyway.
@@R0bstar-YT have you find a way to switch to particular patches that require multiple markings at once? There're add-on expressions but somehow I failed to understand what to do if you have, say, con sordino sul pont tremolos, just con sordino tremolos and for instance con sordino sul pont longs. Maybe I did something wrong but it seemed like once I put one of the markings in add-ons it completely disregarded that for instance now there was no sul pont in the mix and still triggered cs sp trem patch. I ended up simply creating custom expressions like cs sp trem and cs trem. But now it requires to me go back to the score and put appropriate markings before engraving which is a bit of a bummer.
@@R0bstar-YT oops. Turns out that if you hold cltr on Win while selecting expressions in expression maps you can select more than one expression. Problem solved...
Oh man! Thank you so much for the video! You had a labor work in this indeed! I think with NP4 they loose their way, and the software loose its magic! Not to mention that native NP3 sounds almost as good as these libraries in this new player.
with this new update, it became clear that the audience Wallander wants to reach are soundtrack producers, and people who work in the area, and not those who really want to compose something, after all, notation software is for composition, not treatment and sound mixing, I even understand their intention to add more "detailed" sound libraries, but honestly, there won't be a future update that improves the lifeless timbres of those very expensive DAW libraries that they call "professional" simply for having thousands of sound samples from DAW use, there's no point in use notation software where you're limited to putting a staccato or an accent on a note, and expecting the best musical phrasing to come out of one of those sound libraries. thousands of samples, this is a service made for DAW's, not for software where you are going to edit scores for a real orchestra. Finally, I just wanted to improve Noteperformer's original sound library, which by far sounds much better than any of those sound libraries, it's a matter of fixing some details and timbres, like the woodwinds, which have practically the same dynamics thing throughout its dynamics range (0-127), and those strings that actually sound like they go from a ppp to an fff, seem to just turn up in volume without any extra dynamics or aggressiveness beyond the brass, which I could get all day talking details about them (please improve the trombone and horn, a "real orchestra" mezzo-piano has to use a fortissimo in the NP playback)
Very informative, thank you. I have BBC SO Core, Dorico Pro 4 and NP3, so I think I'll give it a go as I prefer score writing with Dorico rather than Logic/Cubase (I'm not very good with DAWs). I'm confident NP will improve rapidly with this playback engine idea, so all in all, well done NP. Really enjoyed your video too.
I got a say, that with everything I've heard, I'm sticking with the NP orchestral sounds over every other VST. Many other VST companies make much better solo VST instruments, but for orchestral work, my tick goes to NP.
I am a *Sibelius* user. This *NotePerformer 4* release is underwhelming at best. Could they not give their core users the same controls over their engine? 9:59
If anyone knows of a list of changes to their core engine/sounds (outside of integrating third-party engines and sounds), I'd very much appreciate a link.
Here’s a link to the Version History Notes that actually tells what was added to 4.0.0, apologies I didn’t show this in the video. www.noteperformer.com/media/NotePerformer%20-%20Version%20History.pdf
@@Joe-blogcomposer Thanks!
Super ! Czekam na więcej saksofonu
I appreciate the idea of what they're doing but they kind of threw their whole business model off. Maybe their last one was unsustainable, but we were promised updates with our license, things like sound and playback. It's incredibly frustrating because there are still huge holes in Noteperformer, the horns sound like crap, the strings sound like crap, percussion is missing a lot of instruments. Those things have been addressed in the past, that they were to be improved "shorty" pre covid, that never came, and now they're asking for us to buy stuff to improve playback. I respect that it's a business, but I think that this is kind of a disservice to what people initially invested in. You know?
I really enjoyed your score with Spitfire BBCSO Pro. Sounds great 🙂
Thank you 😊
@@Joe-blogcomposer You are welcome 🙂
Most composers I know are just waiting for NP to improve independent of any third-party libraries, especially to save space and RAM. Lots of software right now are getting upgrades due to AI and tech innovations, why is the music industry so behind?
For me NP 3 sounded more like a live orchestra whereas NP4 sounded like I was at the movies, high quality surround sound and clear. I can’t fault either 😊
i don't get it, has np4 default sounds changed? i don't think so. so what r u talking about?
I was a bit optimistic also, since I already use East/West Hollywood libraries. I enjoy Noteperformer 4 after the update from 3 but have no need to use the 3rd party VST feature. Rather I use Noteperformer in Sibelius to get a ballpark idea of what a work may sound like before I actually export files to my DAW.
This is mostly what I do! Especially if I want to get away from messing around/getting lost in all the sample library’s and just focus on the music, I’ll write in Sibelius and then move into a DAW.
The dynamics in NP4 does sound more natural. I still prefer musescore 4 sounds and combined with the free kontakt 7 player and any vst3 compatible orchestral library like bbcso you can use any vst libraries for free.
I was speaking to a techie at East West and he told me that NP never consulted East West about intergrating their Opus Edition. East West found out when customers asked them about running Opus Edition in NP4.
I feel that this as a whole is just a massive time-saver. You're gonna need to use a DAW to nitpick everything you want to, and as long as you can export to MIDI, you're able to do so. This is basically all I've wanted ever since I purchased HOOPUS. Let a program automatically work out the basics of the score, then I'll do the rest. In the future, obviously it'd be best to have everything be done automatically, but this is a great intermediary point.
NotePerformer was really never about providing a complete and fully usable sample library, especially for professional use. Their forte is enabling the playback of samples in such a way to make the result vastly more musical and which conforms to our expectations of proper and beautiful performance. That should happen even without any musical text in the score and yet be rather much enhanced where there is musical text written. The sample library included in NotePerformer was really only a stepping stone or means to an end...
I liked your composition that you used for the demo. Is there anywhere I could get to hear the whole thing?
Hello! Heres a link to the full track on SoundCloud :) on.soundcloud.com/BSj8N glad you enjoyed it!
@@Joe-blogcomposer Thanks. I'll have a listen!
Hello Joe!
I saw your video and it is very interesting!
I just installed the note performer 4 yesterday and wanted to ask one thing. I am currently using Sibelius for notating music, Pro Tools for audio, and the Opus Hollywood orchestra as a VST in pro tools. So, if I wanted to play the Opus (VST) sounds in Sibelius I would first need to
1) Open Sibelius
2) Set note performer 4 in the playback engine options
3) And then separately open the note performer 4 application with an Opus Hollywood template (the same instruments like in my score in sibelius??
I guess I am asking if you have a template open in note performer 4, these sounds will go in Sibelius, or are they not related?
Thank you in advance.
Yes, you got that right you have to open the note performer application separate and they are linked!
@@Joe-blogcomposer Okay great!! Thank you so much!!
Arne Wllander has stated many times that they have taken modeled sounds as far as they can. Everyone complaining and wanting the sounds to be drastically improved are asking for them to do the impossible. They have hit a dead end for now so no use complaining.
Alot if people have been comparing NP to the Musescore 4 sounds but MS4 uses samples. It's apples to oranges.
Im excited for this move even though it is in a different direction. I do think with updates it will become really good. The concept is a good business plan so maybe if there is a breakthrough in modeled the company will be around to capitalize. But for now this is the future. Hopefully it will help making mockups that much easier. If not well we still have the absolute cutting edge in modeled sounds even if it's not as great as we all hoped.
I have to say this update seems most geared towards Dorico because of the playback and midi editing in it.
Art Conductor is almost GBP90 (although you get mappings for all the libraries for each DAW for that price) so the NP4 extensions seem to be in the same price range.
@DougHudsonEsq hi,
Well, NP Playback Engines and Art Conductor are completely different products... The Art Conductor is just a package of Expression Maps sets and nothing more, while NPPE is far more than just expression maps. It's an AI system that is able to humanize the playback and even to perform techniques that are missing in the original library.
Definitely NPPE needs more improvement in order to provide better playback for the libraries, of course support of more libraries and user controllable parameters in order to put a little bit of a personal fingerprint. 🙂
Art conductor only works in DAWs. DAWs are a completely different market than notation apps. The writing system for music is western standard notation, not piano rolls and controller lanes. It is highly evolved, and optimised over hundreds of years, and provides a rich, compact, efficient and versatile system for portraying music for performance by a musician. A lot of people prefer to write in notation, myself included. To date, NotePerformer has been notation-app only, and I've had discussions with Wallander about the reasoning behind this.
Have you had any issues exporting the stems using NPPE and finale with audio hanging up?
Sadly I haven't used NPPE and finale.
Not all Composers want to sound like Hollywood Composers. There are a lot of composers like me who compose for theatre and concert. So NP4 and NPPE are really enough.
Wow, what is NotePerformer 4 doing to the midranges? They're paper-thin! I wish I still had NotePerformer 3 installed...
Hi, what is this piece? I really liked it, would like to listen to the whole work. Can I? :) thank you
Hello! Heres a link to the full track on SoundCloud :) on.soundcloud.com/BSj8N glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks for the vedio! I have a question. If I export the midi of my score (say I already have note performer), does it gonna reflect the work ie. "AI" humanize stuff generated by note performer (comparing to midi file directly generated by finale or whatever notation sofware). Since I usually write music from notation software, and I am very bad at tweaking the knobs in logic pro from zero. It would be great help if I can export the midi file generated by note performer and then enhance it in logic pro.
Sadly not, what we are hearing won’t be reflected in the MIDI CC data (if anything it puts some crazy stuff in you have to delete). That would be awesome if it did!
Where is the link to the music that's played in the video? Or is it default for the software?
Hello! Heres a link to the full track on SoundCloud :) on.soundcloud.com/BSj8N it’s one of my own pieces
@@Joe-blogcomposer - Listening now.. do you have a download for the song? Also, what were the main plugins you went with? I'm sure Spitfire didn't make the cut.
After using it for the last few months, and with the updates, I think NP4 with the engines is quite marvelous. I tend to use a mix of the sampled and NP native sounds and have gotten really great results (tons of folks are asking me about my "daw" work and surprised when I tell them it's just the playback). NP4 (and 3) by itself is really great for a composer mock-up. I use the HOOPUS for everything except trumpets (trumpet samples stink in playback generally, except if you're going to create a stave just for trumpet legato solos - samples articulations don't render in the engine well). But man, getting the strings and percussion to playback this great is really a big difference for my ears.
czcams.com/video/X3MPRPQVFwU/video.html&lc=UgwbZyP8C2u69eDGTlR4AaABAg
This is a movement from a new work of mine and I think it really showcases what I'm talking about.
Now, is it worth it to go out and buy all the libraries just because you now have NP4? Maybe not. I went out and got HOOPUS on sale and upgraded my computer to something with mega RAM so I could run it well and I have been happy with the results (but I needed a new computer anyway). I *do* think Finale playback, while having a few things that don't work with NP (like glissando), sounds better with NP4 than Dorico or Sibelius.
At the end of the day, the engines give me more options for a mock-up that really helps my compositional process and people get a great sense of my work, and that (to me) is worth it. Not to mention it is SO fast to load them up and not having to use a DAW for anything....game changing for me. This isn't for media composers - this is all really just for mockups.
Yeah, only 16GB in my M2. By the way, the title of this lovely video is misspelled ;-)
THANK YOU! I l’m surprised no one else has said anything (I’m very dyslexic) all corrected now 😂 yeah I’ve got 32GB never had a problem and ran massive orchestral templates in logic, Noteperformer 4 really hogs the RAM
If the playback engine for BBCSO Core sounds [even] better than NP's default sounds, I'll buy it like a shot. At present I can't test it because I haven't so far been able to get it working -- I don't agree that the instructions are clear. Anyway, since I don't like either piano rolls or Logic's score editor, for me the big question is not whether I can do as well with NP and its playback engines as I could in Logic, but whether I can do as well as I could with my sample libraries (but without NP) in Dorico. There is some amazing stuff out there that was done entirely in Dorico.
What seems to be the problem? Is Noteperformers own application opening at all, or is it not connecting to your notation software? I really need to spend some time with Dorico, I’ve heard a lot of great things about it but never used it.
@@Joe-blogcomposer The app is running OK, and it's playing some of my tracks, but not all of them. I don't understand how it's supposed to work, which makes it hard to trouble-shoot.
This would be a good time to try a demo of Dorico, because they have at last started to release short introductory videos on version 4. The crossgrade from Sibelius is surprisingly cheap, especially if you wait for a sale.
@@zorkmarble thanks, when I get a free afternoon I might do that!
I’ll have a mess with the app and see if I can make a video about switching out instruments and assigning/un-assigning instruments to different staves
When I listen to the demos of the new sample libraries that come with the Noteperformer 4 playback engines as options, they do not sound like the ones in the DAW library versions. My question: how hard to export all the midi after finishing the project on Sibelius and then to put it in the DAW project (cubase or logic)? Would it be practical do you think?
Hello! Not hard at all, I have done videos showing how to export scores from Sib into Logic Pro X. Personally I do it all the time, starting off in notation software then move everything into a DAW to get a better sound/to create a mock up. Yes it takes time but I feel it’s well worth it.
@@Joe-blogcomposer As you might already probably think, the main point is to use the DAW version of Opus, for example. I think the library versions of NP4 pb engines have really low sample variation capacity. That's why it sounds like midi. I would suggest the sample companies to give an option to export the sound of the project via using the original bank sample variation capabilities. That'd sound fantastic I think! What do you think?
Could you please tell me the name of music that you played in order to make a contrast between different softwares？
Hello! Heres a link to the full track on SoundCloud :) on.soundcloud.com/BSj8N
Wonderful, thank you!🤩🤩🤩
No thanks, I'd rather be using a DAW instead of using noteperfomer as an intermediary for the VSTS. Really disappointed with this update, I'd prefer if they improved upon their original sounds intead of doing what they did; a major point about noteperformer for me was how light it was and no way I'll be using something that's asking me for 60gb of ram.
Let's be honest - NP4 was incredibly disappointing to anyone that had been using NP3. For those of us that do orchestral scoring, NP3 required NO work in a DAW tinkering around with midi triggers to get a great sounding mockup - and I mean GREAT to the point that in some conexts people would believe it's a live recording. They took a step backward by even associating themselves with sample libraries. It always sounds fake, and it always will. The path forward is going to be audio modeling like what SWAM has been doing for a decade or two, and what noteperformer was doing extremely well. They've lost their way.
I think this would be much, much better if it wasn't a black box, and instead results could be baked and edited.
One other thing I see a ton of. People who have been using DAWs and orchestral VSTs for years don't do string melodies. they limit themselves to shorts which sound great, or long pads. This is an example of how our writing is molded by the limitations of the tools, and it's a real shame.
I think that has more to do with emergent stylistic changes as a result of more mainstream accessibility of the products, by consumers less likely to have the compositional background to fully utilize what is given. I think current sampling technology can deliver lyrical strings.
But let's not conflate what orchestral sampling was originally for, midi mockups to develop the score before actually recording.
Granted, the budget to record a live orchestra isn't always afforded to tv series or games (of course, many low budget movies as well), and current sampling tech can, and do, deliver impressive results in those instances, I don't agree with the causal connection between the accessibility of libraries in their current form, and less sophisticated modern cinematic score writing.
@@R0bstar-YT Whilst I can imagine the idea that the tools dictate the work may not be able to be proven, I think it's still plausible. I know personally since I compose by ear, I avoid stuff that sounds bad. Getting new tools that sound better, allows me to write more to those tools. Legato strings (or even anything) sound pretty awful in most sample libraries. Most sample library demos also avoid it. It's hard to say what influences what, but certainly the products available apart from NotePerformer make it unsatisfying to write lyrical string melodies. Most individuals can't afford to hire an orchestra to record their work.
It's a matter of time: it's a good idea to have a score produced by a notation software and it's obvious that working in a DAW gives a better result, but it's very very time consuming. StaffPad demonstrates that from notation you can have something very good, so NotePerforme 4 in my opinion is a great delusion! They should have improved the sounds, create their own library, not force to pay to integrate other libraries that were not conceived for notation software.
But using BbCo in a DAW is still going to cost 800 pounds...
NotePerformer uses statistical models for its playback engine, not AI. NP3 and NP4 are the same, apart from a new fake sul ponticello articulation and various bug fixes. How about "Do your homework before you vlog" ? 😂 I agree, though, there's no way I'm paying $70 per library. At $20 it would be a no brainer buy and I'm sure Wallander would sell the heck out of these engines, even if the core NotePerformer already sounds better than the 3rd party stuff, but at least it wouldn't hurt to have options to cover some of the weak base sounds. Anyway, the pricing is all wrong!
Thank you for the clarification! It’s just that on their front page they say “NotePerformer is the Artificial Intelligence-based playback engine for musical notation” (that’s where I got AI from), I guess I got little over excited with the update and was a little quick on the video :) but thank you for your comment, noted for next time! The pricing really is all over the place!
And listening to the demos, BBCSOP, and Berlin don't really sound that good. It's sort of inbetween the NP3 and a accurately programmed mockup in daw. Either you spend the time with the library fine tuning each line, or you let Np do the playback, but this inbetween thing seems pretty pointless imo
So, MS4 sounds or NP(4)’s own internal sounds … ? All things considered (and without spending $$ on sample libraries). MS4, still?
Free sampled sounds in MS4. Inferior(?), modeled sounds in NP4, still - just now with the ability to spend even more money!! 🙃
Unless, of course - you’re trying to render a final sound from a notation app … 😏 Then, I guess, NP4 and spend a grand on sample libraries …
Honestly between MS4 and the amount of great free samples out their, I’m less inclined to spend the $$ on libraries. Looking at my more recent professional pieces, they’ve been 50/50 with free stuff/paid, and I’m sure if I wanted to challenge myself I could do 100% free stuff. MS4 sounds are underrated. I need to redo this test
I'm honestly disappointed. I was expecting considerably more. For example, a fully-fledged set of General MIDI (and GM2) instruments, and partnerships with Yamaha and Roland for their XG and GS sound libraries. Was also hoping for some .mid/.midi file integration ala VirtualMIDISyth, or again, some sort of partnership, not to mention some kind of integration with the falling note software Synthesia. I guess my hopes were set far, far, FAR too high. Oh well.
This tutorial suggests another way of linking sample libraries with Sibelius:
czcams.com/video/GPlBBwByp7s/video.html
Too many words and too little meaning!
Omg just pay $59
Sound likes a bad deal to me …obviously a cross party deal and not a good one ..for heavens sake so transparent
Useless. Done.
hey, I'm not rich like the rest of you guys. Can I borrow 50,000 so I can buy these libraries, pls?
Composer cloud by Eastwest is the answer, it can be used as an annual subscription and you can use all Eastwest libraries