 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ralph Katz
Date: 2010-02-05 23:53
Who can comment on using Sibelius vs. Finale?
There is not enough difference in their educator prices to be important to me.
Looking at varying aspects and needs:
- Scores of modest complexity
- Full band or orchestra scores
- Lead sheets
- input/ouput with midi devices
- resolution of midi input to tuplets
- execution speed
- memory requirements
- disk usage
- cost of support
- frequency of patches and updates
- web support
What is hard in each? What is difficult?
Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-02-06 01:11
I've used both. I was a Finale user long before Sibelius even existed, so my preference is Finale only because it's more familiar. I really don't think, given Finale's most recent versions, that there's really any difference in their ease of use and none at all (IMO) in the result they're capable of producing. The only one of your parameters in which there is a marked difference - for better or for worse - is that Finale puts out a new version annually at a cost of less than $100, but only if you keep fairly current. If you skip too many, the price goes up markedly. Maintenance patches and updates within a major version are free for both programs, although Sibelius really doesn't issue them very often, and major new version releases are years apart. Finale's annual version upgrades often involve new features, most of which I found more useful when I was teaching full time than I do now, but there's always a little tweaking in the user interface that makes it interesting. Support has always been free anytime I've had a question about either program.
One consideration is whether or not you expect to want to share your files with anyone else. Native Sibelius and Finale file formats are not compatible, although I think Sibelius will read (incompletely) older Finale files (meant to ease migration of old Finale users with collections of existing files over to Sibelius). Sharing is possible using third-party formats, principally Dolet MusicXML (from Recordare). Each has limited built-in XML import routines, but for greatest accuracy you need to buy the appropriate plug-ins (on each side of the Finale-Sibelius exchange) from Recordare, an additional expense. So life is easier, if you need to share your files, if everyone who needs access to them is using the same program - whether Finale or Sibelius.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TPeterson
Date: 2010-02-06 01:20
The other thing to consider is whether or not you ever intend to use SmartMusic with your students. SmartMusic is made by the Finale people, and therefore it is very easy to create exercises, tests, etc. for SmartMusic.
Tim Peterson
Band Director & Clarinetist
Ionia, MI
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gigaday
Date: 2010-02-06 09:05
Have you looked at Harmony Assistant?
http://www.myriad-online.com/en/products/harmony.htm
I really don't know how it compares to the others as I have never used them. But I use Harmony Assistant and find it to be a fully featured product for a very modest price.
The authors support it directly themselves as well as there being an excellent Forum. The overall level of support is A+.
The only thing I have found to be lacking is the scanning option OMer, which seemed pretty bad to me. However, I use SharpEye 2 for scanning, this is excellent and you then import the scores into Harmony Assistant.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2010-02-06 11:06
I use Sibelius and like the program a lot. The upgrade to version 5 was a genuine improvement, btw, for people still using early versions (which I also thought were excellent). I'm hearing good things about the more recent version.
I've delayed ordering that newest upgrade because of some doubts about the direction the company management is taking. A recent upgrade of the website where Sibelius composers post our music did not go smoothly, to say the least. Some new people in management rushed what amounted to a beta version of the new website design online way before it was ready for prime time. The bugs (some of them serious) are mostly fixed now, but fixing them took months and the site is still harder to navigate than it used to be. We're getting fewer visitors than before. Just this week, someone who had trouble viewing and listening to one of my pieces had to e-mail me for help. Nonetheless, whatever nonsense may be going on with the website, I still think the Sibelius program itself is a first-rate tool for composers.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Miller
Date: 2010-02-06 17:33
I used Finale for years until I picked up an arranging project where my employer wanted me to use Sibelius... the company even gave me a retail copy of the program.
After an hour, I decided I'd never go back to Finale. Sibelius really is that much easier to use.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CK
Date: 2010-02-07 05:55
I teach College Courses with Sibelius. I believe Sibelius is more
intuitive and much easier to learn Than Finale.
Download the free demo version , its now at 6.1 and see for yourself.
John Williams, Pat Methany and many other film, TV and other composers
and jazz composers (Phil Woods) use Sibelius.
Prof of Computer Music
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-02-07 06:11
I played around with the demo versions of Finale and Sibelius a while back and I remember liking Sibelius better. I seem to remember that it came with a pretty decent capability for making sound files from scores.
I don't actually use either one of them, though. I'm too cheap and far too geeky to use anything other than the free Lilypond music typesetting system and my trusty vi text editor to key in scores. 
Post Edited (2010-02-07 06:12)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gigaday
Date: 2010-02-07 07:05
mrn: I am cheap and geeky too but I do like quality as well. I have no commercial interest in Harmony Assistant, I just think it's great value at 85USD or 70euro and I like to support good products from smaller companies - otherwise we end up with little choice and inflated prices, from only the giant suppliers who buy and sell companies (I use Linux for everything that I can).
If you want some opinions on Harmony Assistant versus Sibelius go to:-
http://www.myriad-online.com/cgi-bin/bbs/YaBB.pl?board=news;action=search
Search the Melody Assistant/Harmony Assistant for "sibelius" specifying say 100 or 200 days.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2010-02-07 11:38
>> I believe Sibelius is more
intuitive and much easier to learn Than Finale.
>>
Yes. That was one of my main reasons for choosing Sibelius in the first place, when it was still version 1. I think it's well worth the extra money to buy the printed manual, btw. It's one of the best-written indexed manuals I've ever used.
The main thing I like about Sibelius is that it seems to be written for people who play and compose for real instruments, not just for computer-generated audio, although it performs the computer-generated audio so well that quite a lot of films and even live stage musicals today use Sibelius for orchestra fill, behind a few live soloists. Not that I advocate putting live musicians out of work -- I don't! -- but the playback has gotten good enough to fill out a thin (cheap...) band or orchestra.
Ritual disclaimer: I'm a film critic (staff writer for "Scarlet"). I'm not connected in any way with Sibelius or any other music company.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
Post Edited (2010-02-10 10:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-02-07 13:52
It is undeniable that at the time of Sibelius v.1 the learning curve was easier for new Sibelius users than for new Finale users. But one result of the appearance of Sibelius was that Coda (now MakeMusic) realized it had real competition on its hands and started making annual improvements in Finale's ease of use. The two programs are by now very similar in features, though certainly not identical, so that I'm not certain what Lelia and others say about Sibelius's greater "intuitiveness" is any longer true - certainly not as true as it was even four or five years ago.
I have to repreat, though, that I am very aware that my view of the two programs is prejudiced by my longstanding familiarity with Finale (since v.1). Every time I've made a serious attempt to do a project in SIbelius (including v.5, which I own) that was in any way time sensitive, I've ended up running back to Finale because I already knew how to do things there that needed to be done very differently in Sibelius. For example, one of my greatest frustrations with Sibelius was always that it made more decisions for me by default than Finale did about staff and page formatting, clefs, placement of signatures, etc. (with results that I didn't like) and I was always running to the help files to figure out how to change the distances between staves or to force a system break at a specific measure rather than the one Sibelius had chosen (I never went as far as to reset the defaults themselves). Obviously, if I'd started with Sibelius in the first place, these procedures would have become second nature more quickly, but I'm not sure they really qualified as "intuitive." I think Sibelius was, and may still be, more WYSIWYG compliant - more word-processor-like - than Finale even in its 2010 version. There is more that is draggable in Finale now than ever before, but sometimes you just have to change a value in a settings window, although I think that typing in settings can be much more precise than dragging-and-dropping (Sibelius can provide for precise numeric settings as well, but that's one of the things I always need the help files to find).
The bottom line is that those of us who are used to one over the other will probably not see the other as more convenient. For a new user, the choice is not nearly as clear as it once was. And since the price is similar, neither program will disappoint. But neither will do its best work out of the box with no need to learn its operating details over time. They're both very complex programs meant to produce publishing quality engraving as well as less demanding work for personal or teaching use.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-02-07 16:20
gigaday wrote:
<<mrn: I am cheap and geeky too but I do like quality as well. I have no commercial interest in Harmony Assistant, I just think it's great value at 85USD or 70euro and I like to support good products from smaller companies - otherwise we end up with little choice and inflated prices, from only the giant suppliers who buy and sell companies (I use Linux for everything that I can).>>
I haven't tried Harmony Assistant (indeed, I hadn't heard of it before now). I'll have to give it a try.
I really like the quality of the scores Lilypond produces (and the program has improved greatly over the years). I also like being able to type in scores as text files, because I don't like clicking and dragging with the mouse and I prefer that the program take care of the aesthetics of spacing and slurs, etc.
The potential drawbacks with Lilypond, as I see them, are the relatively steep learning curve (because everything is done with text-based commands), the fact that you still have to manually tweak things at times and this is harder to do with a text-based program, and the fact that "audio" output is limited to cranking out MIDI files and I'm not sure how good a job it does at that.
However, if all you need to do is make written scores, Lilypond works great.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2010-02-07 17:01
I was about to write about my own experience, but Karl has said everything that I was going to say!
If one program really was much better than the other, we'd all know about it. I've tried both and the truth is that both require a lot of of practice to master them, so best to choose one and stick with it.
I chose Finale Printmusic because the price was good and the scanning recognition software that came with it was great.
They're both good programs. But you have to be clear about what exactly you need it for. Paying a lot for Sibelius or the complete Final package may be overkill. It may be that one of the free ..or much cheaper programs are all you need.
Steve
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gigaday
Date: 2010-02-07 17:15
mrn:
You can input to Harmony Assistant in various ways - via piano style midi-keyboard, using the computer keyboard as a piano keyboard or using the mouse and function keys. As with everything there is a learning curve, as I don't play piano at all I have opted to use Function keys and number keys (left-hand) to select the action and the note length and the mouse to place the note on the stave. I zoom the stave so that the mousing action is relatively easy to hit the right spot - HA then does all the spacing, beams and bars lines.
I also use the computer keyboard shortcut keys to select accidentals and dots.
Once I got into the swing of it, it started to flow along quite easily.
HA has copious output formats:- xml, midi, kar, abc, wav, mp3, ogg, graphical and can import all these plus .sty (Yamaha and Band-in-a-Box styles), Encore, Finale; plus about as many more in and out that I don't know what they are.
You can play your scores either through the built-in synth (there is a high quality soundbase as an extra to the standard one) or through an external midi device, such as keyboard or whatever, or (as I do) through the computer soundcard using Soundfonts.
I'll be interested to know what you think if you do take a look.
Tony
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2010-02-09 16:51
I teach music technology and orchestration using various software tools.
I was a long-time Finale user but switched to Sibelius during a period where Finale failed to provide a functional Mac version. I've stuck with Sibelius ever since, and I've personally found it to be a superior tool for the ensembles that I write for (full orchestra, string orchestra, string quartet). Not being a keyboard player myself, I find the note entry system (left hand note names, right hand note durations) to be absolutely fantastic right from v.1, and nowadays I barely even touch the mouse when doing note input in the program.
I do have the latest version of Finale and I keep it installed so that I can easily transfer/print files that are sent to me by colleagues who use Finale; I'm really happy for the MusicXML support!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph Katz
Date: 2010-02-14 00:08
I have been trying to get off my ancient PowerMac with Music Prose and Concertware, if anybody remembers these. lately I have been using ABCExplorer 1.3, and it has been very handy to generate reasonably nice looking lead sheets with chords. The results have been very readable, and it is quick to enter pieces. I have limited control over the results, but the usability has been fine, now that I am past the brief learning process.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris_C ★2017
Date: 2010-02-14 12:32
For those who don't get educational pricing, Finale Printmusic is much more affordable than either Sibelius or full Finale, and does most of what I need.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-09-01 02:05
As a die-hard Finale user for six years who picked up a copy of Sibelius a year ago, I can't recommend Sibelius enough. I didn't really notice how big the difference was until I went back to Finale to edit some scores. There is no comparison.
Sibelius isn't perfect by any means and has its own annoyances and limitations. I've found the following an approximation of the differences:
Sibelius does 90% of things right, 7% wrong, and can't do 3%.
Finale does 50% of things right, 49.5% wrong, and can't do .5%.
Most of the time, I'll take a tradeoff of having things not go EXACTLY like I want them in exchange for 50 fewer hours trying to get it to work. Given that Sibelius' export to EPS is a heck of a lot smoother than Finale's, it's also easier to get it into Illustrator, should I find the last 3% crucial.
Sibelius will have annoyance like only allowing two sizes of staves on one score. Finale will have an annoyance like making me manually position all the rehearsal numbers on the score and each part to avoid collisions. Given the time and effort, I have a bit more control over making the Finale score look exactly like I want it to, but it is mind-bogglingly incompetent at making the score look even remotely acceptable without manual adjustments. LOTS of manual adjustments.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-09-01 11:39
EEBaum wrote:
> Given the time and effort, I
> have a bit more control over making the Finale score look
> exactly like I want it to, but it is mind-bogglingly
> incompetent at making the score look even remotely acceptable
> without manual adjustments. LOTS of manual adjustments.
>
Having been, like you, a "die-hard" Finale user for many years before trying Sibelius, I have to agree with at least some if not most of what you've said. But your last comment is the crux of why I still use Finale and not Sibelius, even though both are on my computer. Sibelius makes more layout decisions itself without asking, but when I want to override one of Sibelius's defaults, it's sometimes a major piece of detective work to find out how to do it. It's been awhile since my last experience with Sibelius, but I remember having trouble adjusting the spacing between specific staves, changing where line breaks and page breaks occurred, even re-positioning a single staff name without affecting the others. Finale gives me much greater access to the actual parameters - if drag-and-drop doesn't work, I can nearly always get a window that shows the measurements themselves and adjust those directly.
You're right - it's a trade-off that most of the time works in the user's favor, especially if the entire score works within a conventional layout, which Sibelius sets up without much user effort. I think Sibelius is a fantastic program. I think each annual edition of of Finale brings the two closer together (I see that Finale 2011 offers automatic generation and positioning of rehearsal markings, which as you point out has always been a tedious job that needed to be done by hand). Finale's advantage for me has always been the more detailed control and flexibility.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rsholmes
Date: 2010-09-01 12:32
Anyone interested in notation software, take a look at MuseScore: http://musescore.org/ . It won't do everything Finale or Sibelius will do, but if you don't need every single bell and whistle it might cover your needs. (If not, the next version might -- features are still being added.) It runs on Windows, Mac OS, and Linux, it's open source, it has (I think) a great, beautiful, easy user interface, it's available in 26 languages, and it's free. (As in beer.)
I used to use Finale PrintMusic for my admittedly not sophisticated or professional needs. The version I was using stopped working with the latest Mac OS version, and I was on the verge of paying for an upgrade when I discovered MuseScore. I dumped PrintMusic and haven't looked back.
(I have no affiliation with MuseScore or its developers except as a pleased user.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2010-09-01 12:54
+1 for MuseScore.
Another free/cheap (depending on the version you want) candidate is Forte; it is, however, for Windows only.
Of course, real musicians don't click and drag and drop. They code. If no learning curve is too steep for you, then LilyPond is the way to go.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2010-09-01 13:11
>> Sibelius makes more layout decisions itself without asking, but when I want to override one of Sibelius's defaults, it's sometimes a major piece of detective work to find out how to do it. It's been awhile since my last experience with Sibelius, but I remember having trouble adjusting the spacing between specific staves, changing where line breaks and page breaks occurred, even re-positioning a single staff name without affecting the others.
>>
I used to have the same gripe about Sibelius, although generally I've remained delighted with the program. Apparently he latest version of Sibelius has greatly improved the staff-spacing functions. I haven't got the latest version yet (I got 5.1 and prefer to leapfrog), but one thing I strongly recommend on the older versions is to go to the top of the page, go to House Styles / Engraving Rules / Staves, and change the default setting that justifies the staves (spaces them out evenly on the page) automatically. I think the default setting may be to justify the staves when the page is only half full. I change it to justify the staves when the page is 100% full. It's fairly easy to manipulate the page appearance after that by forcing line breaks or page breaks and then dragging and dropping individual staves to avoid impossible page changes, movements ending with one line at the top of an otherwise blank page, notes colliding between staves and so forth. Apparently the new version handles formatting so much better that it makes a lot of that work unnecessary.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-09-01 14:58
I've always said that Sibelius was the best thing that ever happened to Finale. The benefit at this point may be mutual between the two. As they each try to match the other's strong points, both programs have gotten better.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-09-01 15:18
Staff spacing and line/page breaks are easy in Sib 6.
There are still some things in Sibelius that I haven't found a quick way to do, like applying the same page formatting to all parts simultaneously without affecting the score. Bit of extra busywork, pisses me off. Then I look at my Finale parts where I have to move every single staff to get them not to collide with each other and I don't mind so much.
With the abysmal state of Finale, I shudder to think what that kludge would look like WITHOUT Sibelius. I do wish, though, that Sibelius would emulate Finale's interface as far as toolbars go. I have to move those windows around so much, it feels like a cluttered desk that I can't unclutter.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2010-09-01 15:52
I had great luck with MuseScore this past week. I have a paid version of Print Music that is no drawing cobwebs. The work around to bring in the Print Music parts is still a challenge but not impossible.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2010-09-01 16:32
I have used Finale and know a number of people who use it in the publishing industry. I know some who are adept at both and who have told me that the issue is mostly about what you are used to. I have tried the demos of Sibelius and found that I can't figure some things out at all. I am sure that I could eventually make sense out of it.
Finale is not necessarily hard to use and the documentation is great. Way back in the early versions it was cumbersome. Recent improvements have made it quite user friendly.
One thing to remember is that Finale can do absolutely anything, including completely custom score and notation. Many people get frustrated as it has more than the average person needs. I would strongly consider one of their lower products as there is less to get you confused.
(btw- avoiding staff collisions does not need to be done manually staff by staff)
Post Edited (2010-09-01 19:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: reedwizard
Date: 2010-09-01 17:00
I would like to know whether anyone has used the Sibelius 6 first program or the Finale PrintMusic and what your opinions were. Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-09-01 17:40
Ed: I beg to differ. Just a couple weeks ago, I was manually keeping one staff's dynamics from colliding with the next staff's rehearsal numbers in Finale 2010. Is there a feature I'm missing?
Finale is a bit more intuitive than Sibelius on the "where is everything?" end, and this almost stopped me from giving it a honest try. I've found, though, that once I can find out where Sibelius hid a feature, it is way, way easier and more effective. After one feature where a keystroke in Sibelius saved me three hours compared to Finale, I was intrigued. After the 27th such feature, there was no looking back. Heck, Finale doesn't even have auto-renumbering rehearsal marks!
I'm not saying Sibelius is better in all respects. Finale is quicker for the rare thing or two, like entering dynamics. At the moment, I'm editing scores and parts in both programs, and as a 6-year Finale user and 1-year Sibelius user, things are an order of magnitude quicker AND look a lot nicer in Sibelius. Even after I've tweaked the living daylights out of a Finale score, it still looks a bit... off...
Most people I know who currently prefer Finale have not tried Sibelius (at least a recent version) for more than a couple weeks. About half who prefer Sibelius are former Finale-ites.
I'd say Finale is more tedious than hard. It's a constant battle to get it to put things where they should go. In their default position, Finale scores are unpublishable and border on illegible in some cases, where Sibelius tends to just require a handful of tweaks. Sibelius is also rapidly catching up in the area of custom score and notation, which is the only edge that Finale still holds. Already, I find it less of a hassle to get 90% there in Sibelius and just draw the rest in with Illustrator (as opposed to Finale, where you get 98% there and draw the rest in).
I used Finale PrintMusic a while back. It has all the frustrations of Finale without the rich feature set.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
