Version 3 prints not beautiful as version 2.
Hi, I'm Linux user. I love musescore and have been using for many years.
My question is; version 3 doesn't print as beautiful as version 2.
So my computer has both versions, but I don't use version 3.6.2, instead, I'm using version 2.0.2.
Is this problem of Linux or font, or my setting...?
Version 3 prints very cheap looking.
eg.
ver. 3: note head and stem are not aligned, not head is too small, music sheet looks more white area, hard to read
ver. 2: prints perfect for me, very beautiful, enough size note head, good balance with white/black area, easy to read the score
Please give me the advice.
Thank you very much.
Comments
a) don't use 2.0.2, but 2.3.2, the last 2.x
b) score needed and PDFs generated with 2.x and 3.x to compare
In reply to a) don't use 2.0.2, but 2.3… by Jojo-Schmitz
Thank you very much for prompt response.
I was looking for screen shot.
Please compare between two.
In reply to Thank you very much for… by Roger Del Norte
Screenshots don't help here, in oder to investigate the reasons, score is needed
In reply to Thank you very much for… by Roger Del Norte
These detached notes/stems are definitly not normal.
As said: without the score there's no way to investate why this happens
In reply to These detached notes/stems… by Jojo-Schmitz
These files help?
In reply to These files help? by Roger Del Norte
No, the score itself, the mscz file
PDFs are just another type of images, basically
In reply to No, the score, the mscz file by Jojo-Schmitz
I see, mscz file.
Having "F" before ".mscz" is version 3.
In reply to I see, mscz file. Having "F"… by Roger Del Norte
Here's my 3.6.2 PDF export of Costumbres - F.mscz. No such issue to be seen.
So I'm at a loss to explain why you're having that issue...
In reply to Here's my 3.6.2 PDF export… by Jojo-Schmitz
I don't get same result like you.
I tried version 2 file on version 3, both "use old style", "apply new style".
But still version 3 gives bad looking.
So, what is the reason? It should be my computer setting...
Which section should I check...?
And, I still like version 2 than even your version 3. note heads are still small.
It's easy to compare the two notes in last bar ("F" and "A" harmony).
Also, this may my personal taste though...
Version 2 is more dense looking, version 3 is spread out (more space).
On my eye, version 2 is easier to read than version 3 (even your pdf)
Thank you very much.
In reply to I see, mscz file. Having "F"… by Roger Del Norte
Are you using the AppImage version of 3.6.2? If not: give it a try (it is the only supported version anyhow)
In reply to Are you using the AppImage… by Jojo-Schmitz
What is AppImage...?
Where to find?
I'd like to try your recommendation.
In reply to What is AppImage...? Where… by Roger Del Norte
https://musescore.org/en/download
In reply to https://musescore.org/en… by Jojo-Schmitz
Perhaps, my computer is too old?
AppImage is musescore version 2.1 (my laptop is 32bit).
So, I couldn't open version 3 files.
In reply to Perhaps, my computer is too… by Roger Del Norte
Yes, 32bit computers are antedeluvian...
Sure it is your Laptop, and not just your Linux distribution? Of the latter you could upgrade.
MuseScore 3 apparently is only available for 64bit Linux
In reply to Yes, AppImages nowadays are… by Jojo-Schmitz
I see...
For me, version 2 is very good printing, very beautiful layout and black/white contrast (dense) is very easy to read on my eyes. On the other hand, I liked version 3 in function-wise. I was using version 3 for several songs until notice printing/layout problem on my computer.
So I was looking for the solution to get printing quality like version 2 with the latest program version 3 (or 4).
It seems, I have to stick with version 2 for my old laptop computer...
I also will try version 3 on my 64bit desktop window. Let's see how the printing comes out.
Thank you very much for your time and support!
In reply to I see... For me, version 2… by Roger Del Norte
Is that PDF what you get using File / Export from within MuseScore, or did you try using some sort of third party PDF "printer" driver? Those are known to not work well. Always use File / Export to creates PDF's from MuseScore. Also, were those prints made directly from MuseScore via File / Print, or where they made from printing the PDF? The PDF is already bad, so printing it won't help. The question is, how did the PDF get to be bad.
If it's because you used a third party PDF "printer" driver, the fix is simple - don't do that.
But if you got bad a bad PDF directly from MuseScore with File / Export, then the problem is the "unstable" version of MuseScore you installed. Remove that and use the AppImage if possible. You say your laptop is 32-bit - but is it Intel or ARM? If ARM, there is a 32-bit build you can use - see https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZGbjuqmvplXIMJC3gxeKxMbf5YBJZW6x/view?…
This was meant originally for Chromebooks, but it should work for other Linux systems too. I don't know if there is a 32-bit Intel build though.
In reply to Is that PDF what you get… by Marc Sabatella
No, seems to be File > Export, as MuseScore 3.6.2 shows in the PDF's metadata
In reply to Is that PDF what you get… by Marc Sabatella
Thank you very much very specific and detailed explanation!
As you pointed out, I was using "Print to PDF". (When I use "export", it was for creating multiple parts score.) Reason is the "print" icon is in the menu, and I didn't have printer. So literally, i was single click to create PDF and I didn't have to look for pull-down menu. It was quick and very useful. (Now I got printer, so some steps to choose PDF...)
Yes, export PDF came like yours. (So unstable seems not the reason now)
(Honestly, I still like version 2 appearance, it's much easier to read than version 3)
My lap top is; HP Intel (i686), 32-bit, installed with ubuntu 16.04LTS.
My environment is in old setups.
In reply to Thank you very much very… by Roger Del Norte
Hmm, OK, not sure why that wasn't reflected in the PDFs' metadate then, strange,
Andway; you may want ot have a look at the Batch Convert plugin, may save a lot of time when trying to update all your PDFs to the latest score versions
In reply to Hmm, OK, not sure why that… by Jojo-Schmitz
It sounds, you know some magic wand...?
I could try, if available with my old setups...
After I found bad appearance printing by version 3, I hesitated to use newer version. Because, If I create the data in version 3, older version 2 cannot read. My spending time will be wasted... I'm very happy with printing appearance of version 2..., still I'm not happy with version 3 layout... :(. And my laptop is 32-bit... My feeling is to stick with version 2...
Thank you very much for your time and detailed explanation.
:D
In reply to It sounds, you know some… by Roger Del Norte
That plugin is available for all version of MuseScore
In reply to Thank you very much very… by Roger Del Norte
Can you explain what in particular you still like better? If it's that you've become used to quirks of the specific default font MuseScore used to use, you can tell MuseScore to use those, in Format / Style / Score - and MsueScore 3 gives you the option of keeping those old fonts when you load a score. Other than that, there should be very little different other than improved spacing.
In reply to Can you explain what in… by Marc Sabatella
I think, that's it for note appearance!!!
When I picked "Emmentaler", the notes shows bigger and nice balanced (note heads occupy nicely balanced with five-line). I also like shorter stem for small notes in version 3.
If you know how I can fix "2nd line" spacing (which has 8-measure rest)?
Version 2 is nicely dense, it's easy to read by single grasp.
Version 3 has space and spread (It's looked making balance with 8-measure rest as entire 2nd line. I understand 8-measure rest doesn't need that big though, I'd like to take the layout for easy reading).
I tried "Leading space" doesn't work...
How I can make 8-measure rest bigger to make other parts get squeezed for single grasp?
Thank you very much!
In reply to I think, that's it for note… by Roger Del Norte
Unfortunately, I'm not understanding all the specifics of what you are asking too well - a bit of a language barrier I fear. But, I think most of the things you are describing are just settings you can easily change.
The 8-bar rest is definitely way to too big in your v2 image, but if you prefer it larger in v3, just select the measure and use the "}" shortcut to increase the "stretch". Or use Format / Style / Score to set the minimum width of these rests in general.
In reply to Yes, AppImages nowadays are… by Jojo-Schmitz
The version on my computer says "3.6.2 unstable".
I installed long time ago. I don't remember when...
In reply to The version on my computer… by Roger Del Norte
"unstable" isn't good, indicates a bogus build
In reply to Perhaps, my computer is too… by Roger Del Norte
https://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/musescore/releases/MuseScore-2.3.2/ has a 32bit Appimage (for 2.3.2)!
https://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/musescore/releases/MuseScore-3.2.3/ has a 64bit Appimages only (for 3.2.3)
https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/releases has 64bit Appimages only
In reply to https://ftp.osuosl.org/pub… by Jojo-Schmitz
Thank you very much!