Classical guitar sound font with new version of Musescore
The classical guitar sound font with the old version of Musescore was fine. With the new one it is terrible - very harsh and percussive. Although one may use a better sound font on one's own computer, when uploaded to Musescore, it reverts to the poor one. From reading the other Forum postings, it seems that, at the moment, this cannot be overcome. As someone who writes almost exclusively for classical guitar, I find this very disappointing. I now have a situation where I would like to correct small errors in earlier posted pieces but can't do so because I know that when I re-post them they will have the dreadful new sound font attached to them. I'm sure that the new version of Musescore includes many improvements but the classical guitar sound font is not one of them. I would ask the service team to please, please, please do something about this.
Comments
If you mean the Default soundfont that Cale with MuseScore 1.3, TimGM6mb.sf2, you can still have that, check https://musescore.org/en/handbook/soundfont-0
In reply to If you mean the Default by Jojo-Schmitz
Sf3 compresses the samples and as the waves are slightly altered, the loop points within the sound may not match anymore. The solution - for now - is to still use sf2 if instruments are not playable anymore.
In reply to Sf3 compresses the samples by Davy7125
Do you mean Sf3 translate from the pure wav format to something like MP3? ???
If it is the case, any "translation" has controllable parameters.
Maybe, there is the reason about the bad sound.
In reply to Do you mean Sf3 translate by jotape1960
Yes it is encoded as ogg data (like mp3 but open source). Parameters are hardcoded in the library.
In reply to If you mean the Default by Jojo-Schmitz
That's true jojo but, when a piece is uploaded to Musescore, it reverts to the unsatisfactory default
Just to be clear—there are a few different alternative guitar sounds in the default SoundFont which you can switch to using the Mixer, and which will play back on musescore.com as well (unlike sounds from an actual different SoundFont). Is it possible you're using the patch called "Steel String Guitar"? If so, open the Mixer and switch it to "Nylon Guitar." I think you'll like that better.
In reply to Just to be clear—there are a by Isaac Weiss
Done all of that Zack.
Definitely check out the different sounds *within* the soundfont - eg, nylon versus steel - and listen through headphones or good speakers, not cheap computer speakers, when evaulating sounds. The nylon string guitar sound in the old default TimGM6mb was, I would agree, surprisingly good for how tiny a soundfont it is, and the nylon sound in the new FluidR3 soundfont is a bit more percussive and brighter, but to my ears not that much different, and through headphones, it sounds *much* more realistic to me than the old.
In reply to Definitely check out the by Marc Sabatella
I'm using good quality equipment Marc and I'm finding that the new sound font is much more percussive to the point of harshness. I suppose you could say that it realistically reproduces very harsh guitar playing but that is not usually the sound that I want.
In reply to I'm using good quality by Dave Brookes
Well, as I these things are usbjective. Most people really do find the new soundfont to be a gigantic improvement, but there are always a few who disagree. You are welcoem to use other soundfonts if you happen to find one you prefer. As you mentioned, currently msuescore.com uses the default soundfont always, but it's been requested to support alternatives, so that is being considered for the future.
Marc, I do hope that Musescore does make it possible for other sound fonts to be employed. I must say that I have the highest opinion of Musescore and think they provide a wonderful service. Up to now, this matter of the classical guitar sound font is the only cause for complaint that I've ever had.
Dave, I completely agree with your opinion about the sound of the classical guitar in MuseScore.
But I disagree with you that the old version had a better sound for a classical guitar.
Both versions are not even close to the sound a classical guitar produces.
I made an extensive search on the internet trying to get a good soundfont and was even willing to pay for it when the quality was good but did not succeed.
As in your case I also exclusively use MuseScore for producing classical guitar music sheets
but have stopped the quest for a good soundfont and take the MuseScore soundfont for granted.
MuseScore is a great program and version 2 is very, very satisfying for me!
In reply to Dave, I completely agree with by JoeAlders
I suspect you might fare better using JACK output to feed a VSTi - I use a free VSTi called Spicy Guitar which has emulation for a wide range of steel and nylon strung guitars, which also has controls for fine-tuning the sound - you even have control over the distance from the bridge the "instrument" is being played.
This certainly blows away any guitar soundfont I have found.
You can find it here......
http://www.spicyguitar.com/
In reply to I suspect you might fare by ChurchOrganist
Note that Spicy Guitar is free as in free beer, not as in free speech.
In reply to I suspect you might fare by ChurchOrganist
Visited the site and if the available sounds are those displayed in the upper right hand part, then I am not impressed.
Apart from the fact that I cannot download a linux version of this software.
I am running PCLinuxOS for about 8 months or so. Got rid of Windows, what a relief....
But ChurchOrganist, thanks for the info anyway!
In reply to Visited the site and if the by JoeAlders
Sadly if you've taken the Linux route you are not going to find many compatible VSTs - I know there is work being done on being able to use VSTs in Linux, mainly from the Ardour team I believe.
Using VST plugins with Linux is quite usable. I use dssi-vst to run windows vst plugins. A few plugins don't work.
In reply to Using VST plugins with Linux by mtarenskeen
Mr. Tarenskeen, can you be more specific please? Are you also playing classical guitar and if so, which (windows)soundfont are you using then?
Actually I was reacting on this:
Sadly if you've taken the Linux route you are not going to find many compatible VSTs - I know there is work being done on being able to use VSTs in Linux, mainly from the Ardour team I believe.
I just wanted to say Windows VSTi plugins can be used on Linux, with a little help from dssi-vst and wine. Isn't quite perfect, but usable. A soundfont (SF2, SFZ) is something else really, other technology. But these can be used with Linux also. My comment was slightly off-topic.
I was not commenting on your search for the best classical guitar sound, be it plugin or soundfont, or standalone sampleplayer, or whatever. I am not a guitarist. I use the Papelmedia soundfont. A big SF2 GM soundfont, that I bought long ago. I think it's not sold anymore. I like the guitar sound but I am not a guitar player.
I am a classically trained pianist. I think I understand what the real problem is. Very often people come to me saying: I have found this AMAZING digital piano, or multi-gigabytes piano sample library, and it sounds like a REAL Steinway/Bösendorfer/Fazioli/Yamaha, You can hear NO difference! Try it! Then I give it a try, but after playing a few notes and chords, after a few seconds I already know: NOT! Likewise, a sampled or computer-emulated guitar will never 100% completely convince a real guitarist.
And a keyboard instrument like a Piano is probably easier to reproduce by software than an intimate instrument that is played directly with human fingers like a guitar or violin. That's why I am convinced that real acoustic instruments and real human musicians will never disappear, no matter how fast technology advances. Off-topic, but that makes me happy :-)
Hi, Dave Brookes,
.
I used Musescore since Ver 1.2 (Now I'm on v.2.02) and joined musescore.com 3 years 24 weeks ago. But, as I'm new to this forum-thread, so "Hi @ all", first.
.
I use to play Guitar since 1967, and still do. I'm interested in good sounding guitar on MuseScore myself.
.
You don't like FluidR3Mono_GM.sf3 at the default settings? I agree at default setting, but with some old "Sound mixing" trick, you can polish it's appearance and performance very much.
.
Take a swift look at: > https://musescore.com/user/28092/scores/1221071, or download the attached file to your PC.
.
(Please, listen to 2nd Example, Etude Carcassi Opus 60#7)
.
There is nothing else than FluidR3Mono_GM.sf3, as you might proove by downloading this file...
.
If this is of interest, you (and anybody else) are invited to join a new discussion at:
.
https://musescore.com/groups/improving-musescore-com/discuss/1251526
.
Have fun, and set the music free!
Sincerely
FarrierPete
In reply to Hi, Dave Brookes, . I used by FarrierPete
Thanks FerrierPete for your reply. I certainly will read that discussion and may be joining....
Hi FerrierPete, thanks for your contribution. You attach some demonstrations of how you think the default classical guitar sound can be improved. I regret that, to my mind, they do not help a great deal. The classical guitar sound remains harsh and jarring. Blending it with other fonts (e.g. harp) certainly helps but all one is doing here is effectively drowning out an unattractive sound with a more attractive one. Why should the default classical guitar font be so poor that we have to resort to measures like this?
In reply to Hi FerrierPete, thanks for by Dave Brookes
Again, terms like "unattractive" and "poor" are subjective. Not everyone will share the same preferences. And in any case, this is open source software. In general, the answer to any question that begins "why...." is no one with the necessary expertise has yet found been bothered enough to volunteer their time to try to improve it.
In reply to Again, terms like by Marc Sabatella
Marc, there is a simple answer to your question: I have not the foggiest idea how to do this!
How to start, what kind of software do I need to accomplish such a task.
Of course I have a subjective taste on how a classical guitar should sound but one thing is for certain:
The sound available for classical guitar is far from the real sound. I am certain that almost every classical guitar player will agree on this.
In reply to Marc, there is a simple by JoeAlders
I didn't ask a question, or mean to suggest I thought you or anyone else in particular should venter. I was just trying to answer the question posed here.
Anyhow, the thing is, the sound used in FluidR3 almost certainly *is* the "real" sound in a quite objective sense. There is really only one way such a soundfont is made: someone records a person playing the instrument one note at a time, then loads the resulting audio into a program to build a soundfont out of. So it's almost never a question of being "real". One come question the quality of the real instrument being played, the skill of the real musician playing it, the appropriateness of the recording setup, the size of the sample used, the expertise of the person running the software, etc. Lots of ways for the sound to end up other than how you personally might prefer, despite the individual sounds being "real".
And then there is the simple fact that no sampled soundfont will ever capture the nuances and variations in real playing. Just like synthesized speech seldom sounds very natural either, even though it does involve recordings of real words and teal syllables being assembled on the fly, just as with music.
To me, the guitar sound is actually considerably more convincing than wind or string sounds, because the nature of the instruments is such that assembling music out of non-varying individually-recorded wind or string notes is even more artificial than it is for guitar. But still, the sounds themselves are real enough.
In reply to Hi FerrierPete, thanks for by Dave Brookes
Hi, Dave Brooks,
.
I began soundmixing in the computer-stoneage by programming ADSR-Envelopes and mixing Sawtooth-, Square-Waves, white Noise etc. on old C=64. Next, there was an AMIGA 2000 - there, I recorded the first sample of my own. I used "Protracker" plus "OctaMED". Already sample-based, but the 8-bit-samples weren't really very good. So, the "Backmix" was one method of choice to enhance the sound (may be, 'twas invented on Atari 520 ST ?).
.
I still use that kind of "Tracker"-Software: MED Soundstudio is still available (it's installed on my engine, and I still am registered user) - It has some very good sound-mixing features, a lot of Synth-PlugIns, and even some very good VStI that you can get "for free" from the net. (To be found on www.medsoundstudio.com . Might be, you could find the guitar-sound of your choice in some VSTi there - but I fear, they won't plug into MuseScore 2.02) As any testrun with the free demo-version of "MED" might show you: There is NO more notation and NO more Score window. There once was, but it was canceled by developers there... So, you have some difficulties, e.g. to edit "tuplets" or "swing". And, it's not very handy to use...
.
As GuitarPlayer, I also tested and still use "TuxGuitar". Do you wanna hear a REAL poor sound? Then you should test that "Java-Sound" there. (But, I use it still for editing, as it has the near perferct user interface for input from any fretboard-based instrument. If you prefer guitar-tabulature, use this for editing - the score will be automatically calculated, and you might export .mid- or "Guitarpro"-Files).
.
You see, MuseScore 2.0 wasn't planned as "SoundMixer" or as host for any VStI, or to be a special "Guitar-Track-editing-tool". It's first target has ever been: Editing Musical scores, typographically perfect, good to read, for printing to paper and into .PDF. IMHO, this target was hit. Scores 10/10 = Very good for this free "Open Source"-Software.
.
But what we are talking about here, is it's small classical guitar sound, and possible solutions to enhance that.
.
As Guitar Player since 1967, I think my ears still work good enough to hear "1 cent" in pitch.
.
IMHO, if the sound from "Tux" will score 35/100, the MuseScores Default Soundfont would score 85-90/100 (if you mix). Rather good, for a software you get for free.
.
If you want "perfect" guitar inside MuseScore, and you don't like "mixing" as I suggested, you'll should either
.
- search a better sounding font, as some other responses suggested. That may need some time...
.
or
.
- export your Guitar-Track as .WAV to Audacity, and use the enhanced Interface there to mix in some sophisticated surrounding. That may need some time longer...
.
or
.
- take your handbuilt master-guitar, a good microphones / pickup and record that real instrument (with Audacity). That may need much time longer ...
.
If you want THE PERFECT SOLUTION for all problems HERE AND NOW, you should visit
.
> www.finalemusic.com/
.
or
.
> www.native-instruments.com
.
... specialized in VStI, or
.
> www.sibelius.com
.
But, that's no more "free open cource", and might be expensive.
.
You asked: "Why should the default classical guitar font be so poor that we have to resort to measures like this?"
.
Let me ask in reply: Why should there be "perfection" in any case? The default-soundfont has only "dry" sounds stored, and that with some good reason. It's easy to mix in Reverb and Chorus in "post production", but there is no filter for too much "wet" sound (reverb/chorus). And, what do you expect from free Open Source software? Just click on "install.exe", and after 2 minutes there should be THE PERFECT SOUND- PLUS SCORE -solution for all your problems with your demo-CD?
.
Let me furter ask: What's wrong about some experiment with sound-development, mixing and polishing a soundfont? If you wanna say, "That's only a crook!"? Ok, your opinion and statement. Accepted. Mixing is no convict labour for me, as I like playing around with the sounds, and will do so further on. You state, you don't like and don't wanna do that. Accepted, too, you don't have to! Just a question of personal taste and preferences.
.
Thanks for your reply and critics
.
Sincerely
FarrierPete