# Sibelius, Finale, or Dorico? (Reasons/Details in Post)



## Denerah Bathory

Currently, I am using Musescore as my sole notation software. I've become quite accustomed to its particularities that "mixing" therein is second nature at this point.

So far I am familiar enough with orchestration to compose with imperfect midi samples and knowing, trusting that with a real orchestra it will sound exactly as intended via notated articulations, dynamics, etc.

However, I still rely on audio playback to know how a piece will sound, so I'm looking to expand to more realistic sounding software.

I was recommended Note Performer, which allows you to simply export your score file therein and give it "virtual orchestra" samples for optimal realism. This program is only compatible with Sibelius, Dorico, and Finale.

Dorico at 900$ is beyond my current budget, and Finale is relatively unknown to me (and also expensive).

So far, Sibelius seems manageable because I can pay 16$ per month for a monthly license, which fits in with my budget of paying 130$ upfront for NotePerformer.

My questions/concerns are: I just want a software that acts as "middle man" to Note Performer, so it should be user-friendly and with simple menu, taskbar, imput, commands, interface, etc. Basically, I will still be writing in Musescore, and just exporting to [Sibelius/Finale/Dorico] then onward into Note Performer. I would also look into which one allows for good engraving of scores.

I am not tech-savvy and do not want to waste more time "programming" than actually writing music--so if Sibelius requires IT-level skills then tell me straight up, and I'll save my money to get an easier program to imput commands...I need a new laptop to install these programs anyway.


----------



## Vasks

I use Sibelius with NotePerformer. They work easily together. Yes, there's a learning curve for Sibelius (but then there will be for going to either of the alternatives), but when I was first exploring Finale vs Sibelius back in 2006, Sibelius was, for me, more intuitive. Plus I recommend joining Facebook and becoming a member of the "group" called Avid Sibelius Users to get and ask for tips and pointers.


----------



## mbhaub

It's funny how choosing notation software can get people into debates about as rancorous as Mac/PC arguments used to. I've used several and here's my take:

Musescore: this is one great package. For the casual user it's perfect. Intuitive and some things are so much easier than any of the big boys. But yes, the playback is lacking: midi isn't all that great.

I started using Finale 30 years ago and I still use it and prefer it. It's not perfect - but there isn't any that it. Finale works in the same way that I do. It mirrors what writing with pencil and paper does. And it allows a flexibility of the most minute details of a score or parts. I'm quite fast with it, and whether using a mouse, a midi keyboard or the computer keyboard to enter stuff, it's easy and relatively painless. It has two quirks that after all these years still annoy me: entering tuplets is a real pain and much, much more difficult than it should be. There are some triplet patterns that are ridiculously complex to enter. Then, multi-movement works should be automated. But all in all, Finale works great for me. And MakeMusic does seem to still be actively improving the program. Playback is excellent, and the newest release has a bunch of new percussion samples.

Sibelius I started to learn because everyone at music schools seemed to think it's the next great thing. It isn't. Sibelius seems to be happiest doing everything by typing; I do not work that way. I think it's counterintuitive and the menus are a mess. Then Sibelius sold out to Avid and the program seemed to be dead and not improving. I decided to bail.

Then came Dorico. I have not upgraded to the latest version. The one I have used is quite similar to Sibelius, but is better integrated, the work flow is easier, but still very reliant on the keyboard. With practice though, it starts to come naturally and entering complex rhythms and tuplets is a cinch. Playback is excellent.

Lilypond. Only the mind of an engineer could have conceived this. You cannot (or I can't for sure) look at Lilypond code and Name That Tune! It has to be rendered as music and that's how I like to enter it - as music, not computer code. Still, the printed results are superb if you know what you're doing. I don't. But a music librarian friend swears by it and uses it daily in his work. To each his own.

Needless to say, music notation is complex and so expecting any software to be simple and easy is a pipe dream. They all have steep learning curves and all suffer from at least a few flaws. They can all produce excellent, professional results. I'll stick with Finale for a long time since I am most familiar with it and it does everything I need (except for one nagging flaw in every notation package out there involving tremolos.) 

Another real challenge to any good package is learning how to get things done. Back in the day, there were many books published for Finale, but even the largest could only hit the highlights. The online manuals for any of them routinely gloss over things or make it so hard to get answers that you give up. Finale does have a large online community to help. 

Good Luck!


----------



## gerd.prengel

Hi Denerah,
I use NotePerformer with Finale under Windows and I absolutely love it! From a friend, however, I heard that he had serious problems using a Mac. If you want you could send me an XML-File created by Musescore and I could try to create a mp3 File using Noteperformer. However I have only experience with classical and early Romantic pieces...

Gerd


----------



## Denerah Bathory

gerd.prengel said:


> Hi Denerah,
> I use NotePerformer with Finale under Windows and I absolutely love it! From a friend, however, I heard that he had serious problems using a Mac. If you want you could send me an XML-File created by Musescore and I could try to create a mp3 File using Noteperformer. However I have only experience with classical and early Romantic pieces...
> 
> Gerd


Hello,

This is really helpful as I also use Windows. Thank you for warning me about issues with Mac even if I never intend to go down that road, I even refuse to buy Iphone or ipod, no apple products in this house! Since others seem to report issues with Sibelius, I will likely choose Finale.


----------



## Denerah Bathory

mbhaub said:


> It's funny how choosing notation software can get people into debates about as rancorous as Mac/PC arguments used to. I've used several and here's my take:
> 
> Musescore: this is one great package. For the casual user it's perfect. Intuitive and some things are so much easier than any of the big boys. But yes, the playback is lacking: midi isn't all that great.
> 
> I started using Finale 30 years ago and I still use it and prefer it. It's not perfect - but there isn't any that it. Finale works in the same way that I do. It mirrors what writing with pencil and paper does. And it allows a flexibility of the most minute details of a score or parts. I'm quite fast with it, and whether using a mouse, a midi keyboard or the computer keyboard to enter stuff, it's easy and relatively painless. It has two quirks that after all these years still annoy me: entering tuplets is a real pain and much, much more difficult than it should be. There are some triplet patterns that are ridiculously complex to enter. Then, multi-movement works should be automated. But all in all, Finale works great for me. And MakeMusic does seem to still be actively improving the program. Playback is excellent, and the newest release has a bunch of new percussion samples.
> 
> Sibelius I started to learn because everyone at music schools seemed to think it's the next great thing. It isn't. Sibelius seems to be happiest doing everything by typing; I do not work that way. I think it's counterintuitive and the menus are a mess. Then Sibelius sold out to Avid and the program seemed to be dead and not improving. I decided to bail.
> 
> Then came Dorico. I have not upgraded to the latest version. The one I have used is quite similar to Sibelius, but is better integrated, the work flow is easier, but still very reliant on the keyboard. With practice though, it starts to come naturally and entering complex rhythms and tuplets is a cinch. Playback is excellent.
> 
> Lilypond. Only the mind of an engineer could have conceived this. You cannot (or I can't for sure) look at Lilypond code and Name That Tune! It has to be rendered as music and that's how I like to enter it - as music, not computer code. Still, the printed results are superb if you know what you're doing. I don't. But a music librarian friend swears by it and uses it daily in his work. To each his own.
> 
> Needless to say, music notation is complex and so expecting any software to be simple and easy is a pipe dream. They all have steep learning curves and all suffer from at least a few flaws. They can all produce excellent, professional results. I'll stick with Finale for a long time since I am most familiar with it and it does everything I need (except for one nagging flaw in every notation package out there involving tremolos.)
> 
> Another real challenge to any good package is learning how to get things done. Back in the day, there were many books published for Finale, but even the largest could only hit the highlights. The online manuals for any of them routinely gloss over things or make it so hard to get answers that you give up. Finale does have a large online community to help.
> 
> Good Luck!


Thanks for this detailed reply. I would like to clarify that I do not use a midi keyboard to input notes, I simply drag/click/type. In fact, I prefer programs like Musescore where I just click on the Staff itself to enter a note (e.g. click third line treble clef for B natural).

When I emphasize easy format for typing/clicking methods, I do that because of a frustrating experience with Notion 6--which I uninstalled from computer after 2 months. Notion 6 claims "samples from London Symphony Orchestra" and I found it sounded more like a 60's Farfisa or Mellotron organ (worse than Musescore!), and the Notion 6 menu is ridiculous and stupid (when you enter a 1/4 note or 1/4 rest in 4/4, it assumes you want to do it repeatedly...you actually need to "undo" action in order to switch to another input command).
So I don't like programs where the command ends after it has been executed...in other words, all programs should do like this for example: click this to enter a F#4 in half-note value, then goes back to "blank slate" for me to choose any other function, like writing a 1/4 note G, and so on).


----------



## mbhaub

The best method of entering music using Finale for me is the mouse in the right hand clicking notes or whatever I need, and the left hand on the keyboard to rapidly change note/rest values, change notes to rests, hide things, etc. With practice it goes very quickly.

There's another reason I use Finale. An older version, no. 12, had a remarkably useful function: automatic scanning of sheet music. It would attempt to read the notes, dynamics, and all other musical symbols and enter them into the correct format. It would even read the instrument and set the score up. Apparently publishers didn't like that feature one bit and it was removed going forward. But I keep it on my PC - it's surprisingly useful! Not perfect, it always has questions about what something is, but it sure saved a lot of time.


----------



## adrien

I started out on Musescore 2.1 back in 2016. After a while I ran into issues with sluggy operation as my scores got bigger. I evaluated Finale and Sibelius (I think there was a beta of Dorico 1 available at the time). I discounted Finale for the basic reason that scroll wheel didn't work to scroll around the score how I wanted (backwards or something). This is the thing you do more than any other operation, so it was a show-stopper for me. So I bought Sibelius. I later bought Dorico, and have kept both licenses up to date. However I still use exclusively Sibelius. There are some things that annoyed me about Dorico and still do.

Anyway, I found moving to Sibelius from MuseScore not too bad. It was similar for note entry - keypad for number for duration first, then alphabetic characters for notes. up and down shifts notes up and down (diatonically instead of chromatically). In fact I think that of all those 4 products, Sibelius and MuseScore are the most similar in terms of basic keyboard (QUERTY) operation. Yes, there are some things you need to learn, like hot keys for various things (some are the same), but once you learn that, Sibelius is really quite quick to enter notes, make chords, enter duplets etc etc. I haven't tried the most recent version of MS (I tried a version of 3).

So honestly, I'd suggest giving it a go and seeing how painful it really is to actually write in Sibelius. The reason I suggest this, is that then you will hear the instruments in NotePerformer as you are writing, you will be able to quickly check articulations, chords etc etc. See which instruments you want to use etc.

Anyway, you can import MusicXML from MS to Sibelius. You will probably lose some things. Sibelius doesn't allow you to have multiple different articulations in different voices in a single stave like MS does so you can't e.g. do some celli pizz and some arco on the same stave. Dorico has a solution for this, but yes it's spendy, especially compared to the subscription version of Sibelius for a few months. But if you're only going to do this to render some scores and not really move to Sibelius then maybe you can get someone to do some renders for you. I'd be happy to do some MusicXML renders so you can see how it comes out with NP.


----------



## RobertJTh

I still use Finale 98, never felt the need to update.


----------



## Denerah Bathory

adrien said:


> I started out on Musescore 2.1 back in 2016. After a while I ran into issues with sluggy operation as my scores got bigger. I evaluated Finale and Sibelius (I think there was a beta of Dorico 1 available at the time). I discounted Finale for the basic reason that scroll wheel didn't work to scroll around the score how I wanted (backwards or something). This is the thing you do more than any other operation, so it was a show-stopper for me. So I bought Sibelius. I later bought Dorico, and have kept both licenses up to date. However I still use exclusively Sibelius. There are some things that annoyed me about Dorico and still do.
> 
> Anyway, I found moving to Sibelius from MuseScore not too bad. It was similar for note entry - keypad for number for duration first, then alphabetic characters for notes. up and down shifts notes up and down (diatonically instead of chromatically). In fact I think that of all those 4 products, Sibelius and MuseScore are the most similar in terms of basic keyboard (QUERTY) operation. Yes, there are some things you need to learn, like hot keys for various things (some are the same), but once you learn that, Sibelius is really quite quick to enter notes, make chords, enter duplets etc etc. I haven't tried the most recent version of MS (I tried a version of 3).
> 
> So honestly, I'd suggest giving it a go and seeing how painful it really is to actually write in Sibelius. The reason I suggest this, is that then you will hear the instruments in NotePerformer as you are writing, you will be able to quickly check articulations, chords etc etc. See which instruments you want to use etc.
> 
> Anyway, you can import MusicXML from MS to Sibelius. You will probably lose some things. Sibelius doesn't allow you to have multiple different articulations in different voices in a single stave like MS does so you can't e.g. do some celli pizz and some arco on the same stave. Dorico has a solution for this, but yes it's spendy, especially compared to the subscription version of Sibelius for a few months. But if you're only going to do this to render some scores and not really move to Sibelius then maybe you can get someone to do some renders for you. I'd be happy to do some MusicXML renders so you can see how it comes out with NP.


I'll consider that, thank you for your help. Please send me your email/contact with further instructions. And tell me how to export my Musescore file for you to make a NP sample for me. Message me here through profile. 

I do not plan on switching over completely, so maybe sibelius is better if it takes musescore with minimal issues, then again I seldom have separate dynamics in one staff, usually "divisi" is just to score chords in celli or violas. Likewise, I often write 2 identical winds per staff or 4 horns on 2 staves (2 voices). My question then is: does sibelius still preserve intact the rhythmic value of two voices if they be distinct. Like 1 horn holding a whole note while tue second ascends in arpeggio quarter note value (in 4/4)?


----------



## Denerah Bathory

Hey everyone, I'm closer to making a decision. Thanks for your input.
Another question:

I will definitely need a new windows laptop to run all these programs with more RAM and SSD. I might not be able to get one until October or November. There is a 50% off deal for Finale until September 4th. If this is my choice, Can I buy the license and download/install it later when I get the new laptop? I noticed I have to create an account, does this mean my license is stored on their site for me to install and reinstall as needed?


----------



## mbhaub

Denerah Bathory said:


> Hey everyone, I'm closer to making a decision. Thanks for your input.
> Another question:
> 
> I will definitely need a new windows laptop to run all these programs with more RAM and SSD. I might not be able to get one until October or November. There is a 50% off deal for Finale until September 4th. If this is my choice, Can I buy the license and download/install it later when I get the new laptop? I noticed I have to create an account, does this mean my license is stored on their site for me to install and reinstall as needed?


Once you buy a Finale license, you can download and install that version and it's updates using the key you are given basically forever. I use the same password and product ID for 30 years now. Very convenient. And you can install it on two machines. So I would assume you could buy now and install later without a problem. Every now and then, MakeMusic issues a new "major update" that they then hit you up for and to install that version you have to fork over more money. That gets irritating, but then Sibelius and Dorico do it, too.


----------



## dko22

if you're sure you want to use NotePerformer, then I suggest doing it with Sibelius as that's the platform it was designed for and is still the best supported. By far the best support for sample libraries in general is with Dorico which includes a fairly sophisticated, DAW-like pianoroll editor and support for Expression Maps which are more powerful and easier to programme yourself than something like the Sibelius soundsets. I would never consider going back to Sibelius from Dorico having used it for a couple of years now. 

Before committing to NotePerformer, you should do some research and listen to mock-ups done with it. It's strengths are in vitality and rhythmical articulation in full orchestral works plus the ease of use. The more important actual instrumental timbre becomes, the less successful it is in general (though clever use of reverb can hide some of the defects) becuase of the shallow actual sample depth. I wouldn't personally in general use it for chamber music.


----------



## Denerah Bathory

dko22 said:


> if you're sure you want to use NotePerformer, then I suggest doing it with Sibelius as that's the platform it was designed for and is still the best supported. By far the best support for sample libraries in general is with Dorico which includes a fairly sophisticated, DAW-like pianoroll editor and support for Expression Maps which are more powerful and easier to programme yourself than something like the Sibelius soundsets. I would never consider going back to Sibelius from Dorico having used it for a couple of years now.
> 
> Before committing to NotePerformer, you should do some research and listen to mock-ups done with it. It's strengths are in vitality and rhythmical articulation in full orchestral works plus the ease of use. The more important actual instrumental timbre becomes, the less successful it is in general (though clever use of reverb can hide some of the defects) becuase of the shallow actual sample depth. I wouldn't personally in general use it for chamber music.


I only write grandiose orchestral compositions of the wagnerian caliber so this will not be a problem for me


----------



## adrien

Denerah Bathory said:


> I'll consider that, thank you for your help. Please send me your email/contact with further instructions. And tell me how to export my Musescore file for you to make a NP sample for me. Message me here through profile.
> 
> I do not plan on switching over completely, so maybe sibelius is better if it takes musescore with minimal issues, then again I seldom have separate dynamics in one staff, usually "divisi" is just to score chords in celli or violas. Likewise, I often write 2 identical winds per staff or 4 horns on 2 staves (2 voices). My question then is: does sibelius still preserve intact the rhythmic value of two voices if they be distinct. Like 1 horn holding a whole note while tue second ascends in arpeggio quarter note value (in 4/4)?


The thing to remember with Sibelius is each stave is a single MIDI channel. On any one channel, there's a working articulation that any notes played will use. E.g. staccato, muted, tremolo, pizz, etc

This means you can't have one stave where 2 notes are played at the same time with different articulations. This means for example you can't have one note played normally and another staccato at the same time, even if it's in a different voice. You need to put those on separate staves so they get their own MIDI channel. I found when I moved my work from MuseScore to Sibelius I had to do a bunch of work around setting up extra staves to separate out voices that had different articulations.

But if you're just using it for chords etc it handles it fine.

Dorico has extremely interesting features around condensing staves for conductors' scores. What dko22 says about Sibelius (being what NotePerformer was designed and built for and around) and Dorico is spot on the money.

I would add to what he says in that the ease of use around articulations (which are a real pain with most VSTs, requiring key switches or CCs) are a real boost to composition. You can just try an articulation in seconds and get a pretty good idea of what it will sound like IRL. In a DAW it can be extremely difficult to get a melody line e.g. violin solo line which combines and intersperses staccato with legato etc. especially since most sample libraries don't balance dynamic between different articulations, so the staccato may be quieter than legato notes. All this pain is gone with NotePerformer, which frees you up to write in the styles that they used to instead of using blocks of legato followed by blocks of staccato etc which people tend to gravitate towards now due to the pain with articulation switching.


----------



## gerd.prengel

dko22 said:


> Before committing to NotePerformer, you should do some research and listen to mock-ups done with it. It's strengths are in vitality and rhythmical articulation in full orchestral works plus the ease of use. The more important actual instrumental timbre becomes, the less successful it is in general (though clever use of reverb can hide some of the defects) becuase of the shallow actual sample depth. I wouldn't personally in general use it for chamber music.


With DAW you may get better results for chamber music but still I love NotePerformer also for chamber music (if the tempo is not too fast) - only the piano sound of NotePerformer, I think, is not satisfying - the piano from Garritan/AriaPlayer (included in Finale) is better. But also the solo strings (Garritan, included in Finale) are pretty good.


----------



## dko22

adrien said:


> This means you can't have one stave where 2 notes are played at the same time with different articulations. This means for example you can't have one note played normally and another staccato at the same time, even if it's in a different voice. You need to put those on separate staves so they get their own MIDI channel. I found when I moved my work from MuseScore to Sibelius I had to do a bunch of work around setting up extra staves to separate out voices that had different articulations.


Dorico does now allow you to route different voices to different MIDI channels so this is one of many playback advantages over Sibelius.


----------



## mbhaub

Do the different voices have to be in different layers?


----------



## dko22

mbhaub said:


> Do the different voices have to be in different layers?


Afraid I'm not sure I understand the question. Say you have split 1st violins notated on the same staff then by using different voices you can indeed use different articulations. Dorico automatically increments the MIDI channel when you do a divisi in this way.


----------



## verandai

I can offer little comparison - regarding notation software I've started with Toccata due to financial reasons many years ago. Some years later I switched to Sibelius and I'm pretty fine with it!

Score writing works several times faster for me (compared to the old software), but I haven't tested other systems like Dorico yet.

I normally combine computer keyboard, midi keyboard and mouse when working with scores, and I'm happy so far. If I wouldn't use the midi keyboard as well, I think it would be less efficient for me.

Later on I also got NotePerformer and I also like to make pretty decent demos with it! It still sounds artificial in my examples, but maybe I've chosen too small instrumentation sizes until now.


----------



## frankG

Absolutely Dorico! I used Finale for almost 30 year and switched completely to Dorico. I save days for part layouts and everything is much smother, especially microtonality. I also have many friends who switched from Sibelius. The forum answers every question within hours.


----------



## pkoi

I have used Sibelius since 2008 and had no desires in changing to the other commercial notation programs. My only problem with them is the pricing model of Avid. I absolutely hate the monthly fee-system. I'm currently on a perpetual license, so I don't need to pay monthly, but every two years I have to purchase a very expensive update-plan if I want the program to run smoothly on the latest MacOS-systems. 

I tried Dorico a year ago, but the workflow felt too different for me, and I'm not currently too much interested in learning a new software. However, I'm sure it's a great program once you learn to use it properly. I also know Musescore very well through my work (I teach music in a music school). It's getting better with every version. My only complaints with it are the lack of vst support and quite poor layouting tools in comparison with the commercial programs. However, this should be fixed in Musescore 4, which adds tons of new features, like a full vst support. For the OP, waiting a few months for musescore 4 could be also a good idea. It should give you the possibility to use it with noteperformer. At least I'm remembering that the Noteperformer-developer said so in vi-control-forum.

Even with musescore 3, most of the orchestral libraries are accessible now via exporting a musicxml or midi file to a DAW. Naturally that creates an extra layer of work and you don't get to hear your music instantly with the neater sounds.


----------



## Owen David

I'm interested in this discussion as I am about to jump in the deep end. Was thinking Sibelius as the "industry standard" but happy to be dissuaded!


----------



## Rogerx

frankG said:


> Absolutely Dorico! I used Finale for almost 30 year and switched completely to Dorico. I save days for part layouts and everything is much smother, especially microtonality. I also have many friends who switched from Sibelius. The forum answers every question within hours.


Good to know we good for something, welcome by the way.


----------



## dko22

Dorico has now reached 4.3 and the pianoroll-style key editor now has (re)gained pretty well full functionality with multiple channel editing of MIDI possible. For playback control -- which for me is the most important --it's now in a completely different class from the competition but I find the engraving side simply works better more often as well. Dorico is now the industry standard and is still developing rapidly-- it's just that not everyone knows it yet! 

As FrankG says, the forum support is exceptional and its rare that that the members or developers cannot quickly solve an issue.


----------

