What software or DAW should I use to get a great sound out of my Musescore file?

• Jan 19, 2017 - 19:12

Hello: I have a hunch this question has been asked before, so please bear with me. Also, I'm completely ignorant about DAWs. Here's my situation/question.

I have some piano music notated using Musescore. I want to generate a very realistic-sounding, professional quality rendition. Recently I heard a piano score realized using Digital Performer. The quality was so high that one could barely tell it apart from a human performer.

What would be the best way to achieve this using my Musescore files? I know they can be exported to MIDI, so I assume it's a question of what software to use with the MIDI files. Should I plunk down the $$$ and use Digital Performer? Are there less expensive options with a shorter learning curve (I've heard DP is somewhat difficult to master). Basically the goal here is very straightforward: I want to start with the notated score made using Musescore, and end up with a professional-quality realization (for use in a portfolio).

Thanks in advance for any help!


Comments

For piano specifically, I'd try simply downloading a better piano SoundFont to use in MuseScore. See https://musescore.org/en/node/36171, especially the first one linked here: https://musescore.org/en/node/36171#specialised That will take care of making the sound realistic.

Then, if you want to "humanize" the playback, still within MuseScore, you can use invisible tempo changes or, if you're feeling adventurous, the piano roll (right-click on a staff to access).

In reply to by Isaac Weiss

Isaac -- I'll try it out, thanks! One question: is doing it entirely through MuseScore (i.e. by selecting a SoundFont and adjusting parameters) the simplest way to accomplish this? Or is it simpler to export to a MIDI editor?

And at what point would a DAW become useful or necessary, if at all? I'm just trying to get a clearer sense of what tools are used for which purposes. Up to now I've been mainly concerned with getting musical ideas down on (virtual) paper, so I haven't thought about optimizing playback all that much.

In reply to by r_adrian

I don't really use or know any DAWs, I'm afraid. However, in case I wasn't clear, I didn't adjust any parameters in the version I attached—it was literally plug-and-play entirely in MuseScore. The tempo adjustment idea was just something extra.

To your question lower down about other instruments, such as clarinet: There are free sound sets of varying quality compatible with MuseScore for just about every instrument there is, some of them linked at https://musescore.org/en/node/36171. In the upcoming MuseScore 2.1, compatibility will be greatly extended to include all of these: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WnbO2aUiqwH-b3TSpLT2s1FKJJPPBVe…

For clarinet specifically, someone has been working on a possible alternative to replace MuseScore's default, which you can download here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7cZM0RQwkwSZFVkeHJ5a1hObVE/view

In reply to by Isaac Weiss

That IS nice. Birthday's in August...but half-birthday is coming up. :)

Might be I just need to turn the volume down a bit on that instrument...it was sounding a bit intense amid the woodwinds. This thread has got me experimenting with the mixer, something I hadn't really investigated before.

if you want, try that free solution once (false humanization):

1. Save to midi
2. Open midi with Sekaiju (Freeware/Open Source midi editing software)
3. Save midi file as with another name ex: piano01-edit01.mid
3. Select both piano channels (Left and Right Hand).
4. in Edit menu:
....4.1 Select: Modify Event Velocity: [16 ] (*)Random up/down (*)Note on > [OK]
....4.2 Select: Modify Event's Time (TPQN based) : [6] (*)Random Tick > [OK]
5. Save
*values in 4.1 and 4.2 is experimental; you can try to change this values as fit to your needs.

6. Find some piano soundfonts (sf2)

7. Play with a midi player with soundfont and recording support. (free one: SoundFont Midi Player from Falcosoft)

extra step:
Test your midi file with different soundfonts.

---
Attached file: Humanized with same values at above.
same YDP Grand Piano SoundFont

Attachment Size
The_Man_I-Love_Sekaiju_Edited.ogg 1.14 MB

In reply to by Ziya Mete Demircan

Another possibility is ... :-D ... “Go ahead, be(!!) ‘a performer!!’”

Begin with the MIDI-or-MusicXML output from MuseScore, merely as your creative starting-point.   Export it to your DAW of choice, and regard it more-or-less as you might now do if you were a virtuoso, staring at this digital piece of paper in front of a vast paying audience at (by gawd, why not?) Carnegie Hall.

One good strategy is to continue to rely on digital crutches (ahem ...) such as “humanize.”

Another equally-good strategy is to ... after slowing the tempo down as far as you please ... perform(!).

After all, you have “a musical word-processor” at your disposal, so, “if you screw-up, no one will ever know!”   (In my humble opinion, nothing is as good as “an actual human performance,” no matter how many times you re-did it.)

And, of course, feel free apply both of these strategies at once, as you see fit.   If it feels good, it is good.

In a performance, Yanni quite-candidly admitted that he was not (yet ...) able to perform his own music when he first wrote it.   He quite-unabashedly leveraged digital technology to produce what his mind’s-ears heard, even though his physical-hands could not (yet ...) do it.

One way or the other, “Don’t let your music lessons ... or, lack thereof ... hold you back(!!) anymore ... “We have the technology ...”   Leverage today’s amazing digital-goodies to their fullest(!) extent, in order to realize every single sound that has ever been buzzing-around in your head.   (Trust me:   we will never know, nor care(!), just how many “takes” it took ...)

- - -
(P.S.: the test-pilot who contributed that “Six-Million Dollar Man™” crash survived, and thereafter preferred to forget his thirty-seconds of fame . . .)

In reply to by mrobinson

Thanks. I know this sounds dumb, but I'm not quite sure what a DAW is for (or whether I need one). That's partly what I'm trying to figure out. I generally compose music on paper (physical or virtual) so up to now I was more concerned with notation software. But now I'm thinking I'd like to create some high quality renditions that could be used in a portfolio. I'm not trying to replace a human performer or anything like that.

So would a DAW be a useful investment? What would it add that I can't do already with MuseScore and maybe a MIDI editor?

That's very interesting about Yanni, btw.

In reply to by r_adrian

DAW is "Digital Audio Workstation". Google should provide you with more information given that phrase :-) Basically, it provides lots of opportunities to tweak the sound of the piece.

Realistically, getting computer-simulated playback to sound good is a complex process that often requires not only an investment of money, but some expertise on how to sue the software. In general, most people probably would not manage to get noticeably better results than the default sounds from MuseScore without spending a *lot* of money and a *lot* of training and time. Realistically, depending on the purpose of the portfolio, it's doubtful it would be worth it. University composition programs, orchestra music directors, and professional musicians who might be interested in hearing the work of a new composer are almost always perfectly accustomed to hearing basic output from notation software, and also smart enough not to be too swayed by the quality of the demo recording one way or another.

BTW, a faster and perhaps cheaper way to get a higher quality recording might be to simply hire some musicians to make your demos. Or approach a local university etc.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Yes -- I know it can be exasperating when people ask questions that have been answered by Google. I did do some reading around before posting. What I couldn't quite determine was whether a DAW is something I need, or something I'd find useful, given that I write notated music (as opposed to using loops and so on).

I recently read some guidelines on a "Call for Submissions" that went on at some length about the importance of providing a realistic-sounding playback and that got me wondering whether I need to rethink how I am doing this.

And, yes, I've thought about hiring musicians, particularly for piano solo pieces or maybe ones for small ensembles. But then isn't there a need for recording equipment? Would that be a whole other rabbit hole to wander into?

Thanks much!

In reply to by r_adrian

You can get a decent portable recorder for $100. You can even use your computer with free software like Audacity.

Depending on the complexity of the music though, you might find that simply experimenting with different soundfonts and using the default playback in MuseScore otherwise is more than good enough. Like I said, most people are totally used to used to this sort of thing. MuseScore's playback won't stand out as obviously worse than people using the default playback from Finale or Sibelius Only those relatively few who spend the time and effort to tweak things beyond the defaults will tend to get better results.

In reply to by r_adrian

Is there any reason why you can't export the musescore performance as a wave file to be tweaked in something like Audacity (or any other you prefer)?

There's no need to mess about with midi files, which are only info files anyway, not end-product audio files.

In reply to by Roger v.d Velde

Exporting a WAV file would not allow you to swap out, for instance, a different clarinet sound, or tweak the amount of reverb on the piano independently from the amount on the voice, or make a single note crescendo, or any of the very many things you'd be able to do starting from a MIDI file in DAW. In general, if you are basically happy with the audio from MuseScore, then of course WAV makes more sense than MIDI for most purposes, but if the goal is specifically to *edit* the audio in any significant way, you'll need something like MIDI.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Well of course I know that. It looks to me as though he wants final performance files (for a portfolio apparently), not something that would be able to be tweaked afterwards. All that can be done in Musescore before exporting.
For piano renditions I don't think it's worth fiddling about with a midi file in a DAW when the possibility of very good Piano sf2s already exists within Musescore.

In reply to by Roger v.d Velde

I believe the point is that he wants to do the sort of tweaking that *cannot* be done in MuseScore. Or use sound libraries not compatible with MuseScore. So that he can get *better* sound than what MuseScore offers.

I agree there is little worth messing with in a solo piano score, and indeed, with a decent piano soundfont loaded, no point in looking to DAW software at all. For other scores it might be worth using third party software just to gain access to things like the Garritan sound libraries, even without any manual editing. This too, however, requires MIDI, not audio.

In reply to by r_adrian

Personally, I have a MacBook Pro, and some time ago I invested in Logic Pro X and quite frankly never looked back.   Nevertheless, I still use MuseScore to create my compositions.

Originally, I would export these compositions as MIDI.   However, since that time, I have most-cautiously become more adventurous.   ;-)

One day, at my favorite music store, I found an 88-key(!) controller gently-sobbing in the used-equipment case, and I snapped it up.   I dusted-off my music lessons, printed-off my MuseScores on my laser printer, clocked the tempo way-y-y-y down, learned how to make full use of the “takes” feature, and plowed ahead.   Now, I take my compositions and actually try to perform them.

Basically, I think, you need to finally come to grips with the fact that:   “you are ‘a human performer!’”   Only now, you have a musical word-processor at your disposal.   You do not have to be “perfect,” but I think that you do have to be “organic.”   Nobody really wants to hear a computer (yawn ...) perform something anymore.   We really do want the human element.   However, we can still take full advantage of computer technology to sponge away our clams and tpyos . . .

. . . knowing that our eventual audiences will be none the wiser.

In reply to by Ziya Mete Demircan

Thank you -- I'll experiment with the method you describe. Both of these Gershwin renditions sound pretty realistic.

Just out of curiosity, would this be workable for instruments beside the piano as well? The default clarinet sound on MuseScore leaves a lot to be desired, for instance.

In reply to by r_adrian

Yes, useful for some arrangements.
Of course: Velocity value (4.1) and Timing value (4.2), needs fine tuning for some files and/or instruments.

Clarinet (and many other) sounds is generally problematic or bad in most of free (even some commercial) soundfonts. Most of them has bad sustain (and loop) parts. And generally, hasn't enough sample parts to reflect for instrument's full range and dynamics (p, mf, f)

for good results: also use good mixing, equalization and reverb.

There are some open source solutions around such as Ardour, Rosegarden to name but two.

You can find a list of DAWs at Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_digital_audio_editors

IMO although the Open Source solutions are OK, they lack the polish and ease of workflow you get with a paid solution.

Personally I use Cakewalk's Sonar, having worked my way up to the Platinum edition over many years. For the money you not only get a professional quality DAW, but a library of effect and instrument plugins of a quality you rarely find for free.

All the commercial solutions worth taking seriously have demo editions, and what I would do is download and try them out before you spend your money - for Windows the big two are Cubase and Sonar, but there are others worth mentioning like Reaper, FLStudio, and of course Digital Performer.

Just my 2 pennorth :)

HTH

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.