I have a half note that plays a tenor voice, but one can hear the voice singing both quarters when played.
Could you guys fix this somehow?
If there's a better SoundFont out there that users should use, why not put it as default to MuseScore?
Thanks!
Comments
there are better soundfonts, better soundwise, but they are much larger and the sitze seems to be the main reason for not making them the default
However, I doubt that the soundfont is the problem here? Could you attacht the score?
No, I don't want to attach the score, I am not allowed to by copyright laws.
If you put a whole note in any measure on the Tenor Soundfont, you can hear the sound going around and starting again as if it's enunciating an other note.
That obviously also depends on how well one hears.
Can't you create a sample snippet? Because I don't see resp. hear this happening.
Oh, hold on, you may be right, I'm using a different soundfont, FluidR3_GM, reverting to MuseScore's default I can indeed hear what you describe.
Fix is easy though: get yourself a better soundfont. Google for Fluid Soundfont for example.
Adding this to MuseScore would be an enhancement rarter than a bug fix though...
Well, I thought this was a bug or something at the beggining...
Yeah, it would be nice for the future default MuseScore SoundFont to be a better one, because, if I want to present MuseScore to a friend of mine or a school, the first thing they will hear is the score being played, and when they hear the low quality SoundFont they will not be as enthusiastic about it...
Is that FluidR3_GM SF a lot bigger than MuseScores' default one? If not, let it be included as default then! (That is of course, if it's free)
144MB vs. 6MB. I'd call that a significant difference. Not only diskspace- but also RAM-wise...
Adding it to MuseScore would be nice, but not making it the default.
Well, in the end, there has to be some kind of default SoundFont that's going to fix everything.
I really, REALLY like MuseScore, but so far, I'm kind of shy to show it to other people, friends, schools because it's still a tiny bit buggy and I would always have to explain it to people and stuff like that...
MuseScore is actually helping people to NOT pirate Sibelius because they can use this freeware alternative to it, Avid should be thankful towards MuseScore!
And life is full of compromises, so is any piece of software...
I'm not shy showing it to other people, in fact I did several times.
Yes, there are some rough edges here and there, but then again it is for free and actively being developed and improved at high speed!
(And it actually saved me from commiting software piracy ;-))
Well, that's why the MuseScore community is here, to keep developers accountable to high standards, I mean, just look at Wikipedia and Wikileaks, they TOTALLY redefined the meaning of the word standard itself!
And yes, Sibelius could pay MuseScore some nice bucks 'cause because of it people aren't pirating Sibelius anymore!
Compromises are made by people, and, happily, not all people are the same, thus, you have software that is better than other software.
If the developer doesn't make compromises, than the software will come out without compromises, the software IS the developer behind it! :D :)
Developers have to make compromises, always!
Here for example it is the compromise between the size (in RAM mainly) and the qualtiy of the (default!) soundfont.
For basic usage the current one surely is good enough, esp. taking into account that MusScore's primary goal is to be a Note Editing program. If you want more and can afford it (read: if your computer can cope with it), you have the choice, but making that larger soundfont the default might exclude others from being able to use it (without changing away from that default). So I consider the small soundfont a 'sane default' but would agree that gibving more choices is a GoodThing (tm)
Why should Sibelius pay MuseScore? For taking away their potential customers?
Oh wow, I didn't get notified of this last post of yours, I just accidentally browsed here and saw that you wrote an other reply.
This HAS happened to me before, a year or so, so, this might be yet an other web design problem.
I think it's a given that people no longer run 486 computers, I'm on an Intel Core 2 Duo Proccessor right here with 3 GB of 800Mhz RAM, but that's not the point. The reaseon why I made reference to MuseScore being better is to praise it for such high performance.
Now, in regards to the SoundFont, come one, MuseScore users aren't that poor, if these guys want, they could do a totally anonymous poll to see what proccesor and how much RAM their users have, but I think I already know the answer to that, which is: "Way more than MuseScore will ever need in order to run because it's so well coded!"
Sibelius should "pay" MuseScore because due to the existance of MuseScore, users no longer pirate Sibelius, which I don't think they like. The part with taking away their customers I don't think is really happening, I don't think anyone who has enough money for a Sibelius license would give up their Sibelius license and just use MuseScore.
I would say MuseScore users have good computers but don't want to spend huge ammounts of money on software that could be free.
And in regards to compromises, yes, developers have to make them almost always, but the fact that they have to doesn't inherently imply that they also will do that. In a lot of cases, developers come up with brilliant ideas on how to fix something that is seen as impossible for others and create rather than compromise. That's what a "genius" is called! :D
Even now, after I completed a an SMTB score, the playback of it is terrible, one can't differentiate the rythm of what's being interpreted by the score.
I would at least expect a standard MIDI playback that Windows does.
Thanks!
(Actually, I think that what voice I choose in MuseScore kind of affect the Midi playback, because, I can hear the half note problem again even when I play the SMF file that I exported from MuseScore with the help of Windows Media Player.)
Sibelius would not like their software to be pirated, because they don't get money from that pirate. They don#t get the money without the prirate either, so no gain for them. But a possible loss: those pirtesa may eventually find this software worthwile being bought!
Get yourself a better soundfont and be doine with it.
The existing one is good enough for testing what you just entered, for a better 'real-life' sound the choice is there.
Standard MIDI palyback is (or can be, depening on setup) much worse than what MuseScore does (or can do)!
Could you post a direct download link to that soundfont that you're using please? I don't like browsing the whole Internet for one file, I've done it so many times before for files...
Thanks!
http://musescore.org/en/node/593
Also RTFM: http://musescore.org/en/handbook/soundfont
Yeah, I read all of that a long time ago, I just thought that by now something had been done about this.
MuseScore can definitely be a very good piece of notation software, but the output sound is like the cherry on top of the cake, and, so far, this chery is kind of sour and grudgy...
Even the default piano sound font isn't so good...
The thing is, if all of this would he been more intuitive and more towards the ideal of WYSIWYG, we would not be having this conversation.
Both music notation input AND output are of the same level of importance, for example what good is music notation software that only enables the user to input notation but not also hear back what ever it is that he wrote.
I'm using that point to stress the importance of the same level of quality for the output of MuseScore.
If there's some better SoundFont out there, I just don't get it why it's not being implemented as default, is it because of server bandwidth usage concerns? Does SourceForge.net charge you guys for hosting that? Is it because you guys are thinking that it would be too many megabytes for user's computers? I mean, come on, we're in the age of people having a 1 TB SPARE Hard drive, remember year '95 with the 486 and stuff like that when there used to be 2 mb hard drives?
Please don't make data size concerns so strict as to squash quality, that would kill the wings of this project!
Again: I'd agree that better soundfonts should be added to MuseScore, but not neccessaryily as the default one. Reasons for this are given in the Handbook.
Year '95 and 2MB HDs? Seems to be off by at least a decade. The smallest HD I ever saw had 20MB, in the mid '80s. My 1st one hat 105MB, late '80s
Well, that was Romania back then man, a post-communist country trying to emerge from the claws of communism for the life of it...
I clearly remember having it at my school and not being able to figure out why it was so small... We did also have bigger ones, but, that's how stuff was back then...
I couldn't find the reasons for that in the handbook, but, sincerely, I don't think they have a good enough reason for NOT putting a good soundfont in it, I mean, does MuseScore really have users with 6GB hard drives and would run out of space if a better SoundFont was put in by default?
If it's bandwidth charge issues, then I understand that, but other than that, what on earth could the reason be?
This would only improve MuseScore's image as an overall project, who DOESN'T like better sounds?
I mean, we're not in the 90s, people have plenty of HDD space to store stuff even if MuseScore would have a 200 mb size...
OK. let me read the handbook to you then ;-):
Larger SoundFonts often sound better but may be too large to run on your computer. If you find MuseScore runs slowly after installing a large SoundFont or your computer can't keep up during play back then look for a smaller SoundFont.
...
If playback stutters then you computer is not able to handle the SoundFont you are using.
...
So it is neither bandwith nor disk space being the reasons, but user experience.
(and yes, I forgot the iron curtain...)
Oh sorry, I'm tired and I just didn't realise that... oops
But still, I intuited correctly, computer performance is no longer a concern in today's age, I mean, MuseScore could work on a freakin Pentium S with 100 mhz worth of proccessor clocks!
This article should probably be written the other way around, use a less qualitative soundfont in case you really have a very old computer...
MuseScore is SO good at performance efficiency that a bigger SoundFont wouldn't really be a problem.
Don't let a poverty mindset squash software development guys, MuseScore really HAS a big future in front of it!
Of course I'm not talking about hundreds of MB worth of a soundfont, but it would be nice if it would be "amped up" just a little!
No probs about forgetting the iron courtain, I had a 486 at home back in '96 but I don't remember what the HDD storage space was, probably 4.3 GB or something like that....
People really have fast computers today, compared to what they really need to do on them, a lot of people have freakin' quad-core proccessors and all they do is IM............... how's that for an oxymoron... :D
I can definitely tell the diffeence in performance on my system between the default soundfont and Fluid, and my system is pretty typical. Many people are also concerned about download sizes; large applications are less likely to be downloaded on a trial basis.
However, one possible suggestion would be to offer two or three different download options, making it clear on the site that the only difference is the quality of the playback.
Btw, I wouldn't let copyright law stop you from posting a work of someone else's in the context of a bug report. Virtually all countries have the concept of "fair use", and this is the sort of thing that would easily qualify, espcially if you delete all but the relevant measures.
Your suggestion is very good in regards to the download options, that could be done with Java, I would ALWAYS go for the biggest soundfont quality.
I don't want to upload that anymore, it's too much work, the important thing is that I got the concept across which is what I was after.
Don't expect the developers to fix bugs if you hold back information needed to reproduce.
There is no needed information in order to reproduce this needed here, I have already given the easy steps up there, the fact that you still need a score for this kind of tells me you possibly have not understood what it is that I am trying to report.
No score needed here, indeed. I was speaking in general, not refering to this specific case, sorry for not having made that clear
Oh, OK, no problem man!
There are two reasons why only a small soundfont is delivered with MuseScore.
As someone highlighted, sound is a nice to have currently in MuseScore. The focus is on music notation. I'm currently in a music teacher conference in France, promoting MuseScore and showing it to all the teachers here and they are loving it. Don't be shy ;) Of course, I don't introduce MuseScore as a sound making software, but a music notation software because it's what it is.
FWIW, this sentence bothers me "Well, that's why the MuseScore community is here, to keep developers accountable to high standards". I'm one of the developer because I happen to be able to write code, and as the other developers, I'm part of the community. Anyone is welcome to become part of the community *and* a developer. There is not such a scission between the community on one side and the developers on the other side and there is accountancy by the community. You like MuseScore, you use it, you help to improve it if you want or can, if you don't like it, speak out if you want, if you don't want, use another software package....
Ok, back to the bug report now. Please, please, please, do proper bug reports with only one bug in it and no questions or we end up with long thread and it's nearly impossible to fix....
I use MuseScore 1.1 on Windows with the default soundfont. I did the following
And I do hear whole notes. So I can't reproduce this bug... Since it's now more a discussion than a bug report, I close it. Please open a new one with exact steps to reproduce, or open a discussion on the forum to find out a way to reproduce it
Strange, I could reproduce it and hear it (see #3 above), I can't though with your score.
Who on earth would complain about 35.9 mb?
What do they expect? MuseScore to have a size of 1 mb?
I don't understand that, to me, MuseScore seems extremely tiny, I mean, a DVD has 4.3 GB worth of size...
Wow, I just can not comprehend someone complaining to you guys about the current size of MuseScore.... WOW...
Not everyone on the planet has a 16Mbit/s DSL connection or better to the net
One doesn't need that, just use multi-part download technologies like SpeedBit implements in their Download Accelerator Plus and you'l get up to 8 multi-part streams per download.
I just have cable Internet, though this would be perfect on a 2Mbit/s DSL connection.
Oh well...
If a line is saturated, a multi-part stream ain't going to help
Whatever :D
The current size of MuseScore is TINY to me.
Re: # 25: "FWIW, this sentence bothers me "Well, that's why the MuseScore community is here, to keep developers accountable to high standards"."
I'm not a developer, but I too don't find this at all a helpful or courteous comment.
Personally, I post with 3 intentions:
1. To try and help the developers by pointing out what bugs or inconsistencies I find.
2. To REQUEST attention to something that I feel needs attention. The developers don't owe ANYONE anything. This is a FREE labour, a gift, and I, for one am grateful.
3. To try and relieve the developers by helping questioners where I can so that developers can spend their time where I think it needs to be spent - working on the program.
I also find personal exchanges irritating, especially as I try to read everything and try to ease the load on the developers. Too much clutter only reduces the efficiency of the process.
So it seems to me that these looong threads which are argumentative should be held off the boards between the parties interested and care taken with what is posted generally. If there comes a consensus through those personal exchanges then please share them.
Additionally, constant comparisons between attributes of various score-writing programs, while useful, need to be considered in a constructive manner, and I feel that this is sometime lost. Just because one feels that a different manner is preferable does not automatically make it so.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=define+internet+troll&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&a…
Regards,