Help us improve the sounds in MuseScore

• Feb 27, 2018 - 17:33

Hello fellow MuseScorers! This is S. Christian Collins, virtual instrument designer and creator of the GeneralUser GS SoundFont. I have been asked by MuseScore to make some major upgrades to the default SoundFont for the next version of MuseScore (and beyond).

My goals for the new SoundFont include:
1. Improve the quality of the instrument sounds, starting with those most frequently used in scoring.
2. Address known issues with the current SoundFont, including notes that are out of tune, and the extreme volume difference between PP and FF dynamics.
3. Only freely-licensed samples will be used (e.g., MIT, CC0, CC-BY)

The plan is to gradually replace the instruments from the current FluidR3Mono SoundFont with higher quality samples and better programming. Instruments that continue to use FluidR3 samples will be updated to scale better with velocity changes (both volume and tone).

Development versions of the SoundFont will be shared on this forum to get feedback from the community regarding any changes we might make. I would like to avoid any functional regressions with the new sounds.

Ways that you can help:
1. Testing: Test out the instruments as they are developed, and let me know of any problems you encounter.
2. Create / Suggest Instrument Samples: One of the problems with using only free samples is that the available options can vary widely in quality. I will be posting to this message board with requests for samples as they are needed. We already have one generous user (ericfontainejazz) who has offered to record his saxophones.

I cannot guarantee that we will be able to use every sample we are sent. For every user-submitted sample included in the new SoundFonts, those users will be credited in the documentation that will accompany the release of the new SoundFont. The new SoundFont will published under a CC-BY-SA license, but many of the contained instruments will be usable under a less restrictive license. This licensing has no bearing on scores or recordings made with MuseScore, but only applies to those who want to redistribute the samples in some way. We are encouraging users to submit their samples under the CC0 license so that we can make as much of this "culturally free" as possible.

I will be posting a new SoundFont for you to try very soon, so keep your eye on this thread. I am very excited to be able to work with MuseScore--a project that I have long been passionate about--and I look forward to working with all of you along the way!


I share your excitement, both that this is happening at all, and also that you are involved. Your GeneralUser GS soundfont does great things with such a small size, and I know your feedback on synthesis issues within MuseScore has been invaluable in improving the program.

Can't wait to try the first new version!

is this going to be a General Midi-soundfont? with the Gunshot et all?
ridiculous, for a serious music notation application!
and a waste of time.

In reply to by bottrop

No one forces you to use the gunshot etc. I disagree that's a waste of time to start with the General MIDI standard - flute has has to have some program number, and the one used in GM makes as much sense as any. But I do agree it would be valuable not to stop there. Ideally, we'd add bass clarinet, baritone horn, and other musical instruments commonly written for but not part of GM. No idea if that's already planned or not, but I definitely support it!

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Correct. Nobody is going to be wasting time on a new gunshot sound. Yes, the bank 0 sounds will be GM, but that leaves 126 other banks to fill with "Violins 1", "Violins 2", etc. I already have plans for how this will be done, including future features such as true expression (e.g. cresc. on a single note) and a more accurate legato.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

the General Midi Standard has nothing to do with music, it is designed to add some noise to videogames, but even videogames left it long time ago (not enough Gunshots, not enough velocitylayers in the Kalimba).
i would say; leave General Midi to the chipset and Windows CT4MGM.SF2.
i guess the worlds most used music notatation application has the authority to set a new standard to bank 10 (to leave Generaal Midi some air) for instance a hiphop/pop/jazz-standard, and to bank 20 a symphonic standard, following the instrumentorder of a classic score.

Hi! I think your plan for the new SoundFont is AWESOME! Have you tried out my Violin SoundFont? You can use it to "REPLACE" the old FluidR3 Violin. Here's the link.

I would also like to replace the other FluidR3 Orchestra Instruments with the VSCO 2 CE Samples, as well as replacing the Harp SoundFont with Etherealwinds Harp, from B0 to G#7 as "STANDARD" range. Here are the links to these Instruments.

Replacing the 1st Piano Preset, Harpsichord Presets, and other Orchestral Presets with other high quality samples, etc.

I hope this works!!!

In reply to by s.chriscollins

Your welcome! I actually recorded some Violin Samples from my Violin SoundFont myself. And these samples of mine are CC0 Licensed samples.

Do you mind if I can help you put the VSCO 2 CE and Etherealwinds Harp II CE into your SoundFont for you? I need to know when the new SoundFont is going to be release, because it might take me forever to get it done.

In reply to by Arianna2001

Your violin samples sound very nice, Arianna! The only problem I can see is that the notes don't start fast (they fade in a bit), which means they can't be used in fast music. However, I might still find a way to work them in. If you have any samples that start quickly, those would be more useful for an all-purpose violin sound.

Please not CC-BY, the -BY requirements would kill many practical use, or rather, endanger those who think it easily fulfilled (it’s not; CC even have a really long FAQ on how to do it right because it’s so hard, and even with that, most fail).

MIT is good, so’s MirOS. CC0 is acceptable (it’s licencing the rights to licence, not the content).

In reply to by mirabilos

As a user of MuseScore, CC-BY wouldn't affect you in the least. The SoundFont is treated as software, and as such, it is MuseScore that must provide the proper attribution for its inclusion with the software. All of you composers and arrangers out there don't need to give attribution in your songs or anything crazy like that.

The reason to use CC-BY is due to the license of some of the source samples. It would be nice to be able to use only CC0/MIT samples, but that would severely limit our ability to improve the sounds in MuseScore. Perhaps if it is important enough to the MuseScore community, we could all work to create replacements for any samples that are licensed greater than CC0. Every sample source will be documented, so it will be easy to see which samples are individually CC0 vs. those with more restrictive licenses. I will share this list as the project moves along.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

No, it would affect mere users:

If a soundfont sample is CC-BY, and that sample ends up in the WAV/MP3/… file generated by MuseScore’s synthesiser using that soundfont, then CC-BY applies to that WAV/MP3/… file as well as all other terms that might already apply.

This might, no, this will be onerous.

I understand the desire for quality. Could there be two “flavours” of the new soundfont, one with the CC-BY samples, one “best effort” without them, that are drop-in compatible, at least?

In reply to by mirabilos

Thank you for your concern on this matter, mirabilos. My understanding after conversations with the MuseScore team and lots of research is that the SoundFont would be considered software, and attribution requirements for included content would fall to the software's documentation. Further reading has also suggested that a better license for the SoundFont would be GPLv3, as it would be one-way compatible with all of the licenses of the samples we would be using. This would also be consistent with the way the current SoundFont (FluidR3Mono.sf2) license is treated. Current users of MuseScore don't need to credit "Frank Wen (c) 2000-2002" for their generated MP3s, but MuseScore needs to include that information along with the redistribution of the FluidR3Mono.sf2. It would be the same with the new SoundFont -- license and sample credit would need to be included with any distribution of the SoundFont, but not with music generated using the SoundFont.

If this is not the correct understanding, then we need to get this figured out. Input from somebody who specializes in legal matters would be most appreciated.

I would love to be able to create a CC0 instrument collection, but that would be a tremendous mountain to climb unless Frank Wen agrees to release FluidR3 as CC0 and we can get lots of community involvement to create new, original samples. Things like VSCO2 Community Edition are nice, but many of the samples are not very usable, so we really have very little to go off of that is CC0 licensed.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

“license and sample credit would need to be included with any distribution of the /SoundFont/, but not with music generated using the SoundFont.”

This is only true if the generated music is not a derivative of the soundfont itself.

This is NOT true by default. You would need something like a Font Exception, for example is GNU’s, which would then allow embedding. You will also need additionally a waiver from the authors of the CC-BY samples that they agree that embedding the samples will not require attribution in the CC-BY sense, and not impact licencing of the generated music.

The mere existence of the GPL Font Exception should suffice as proof — the Free Software Foundation’s lawyers are anal enough to care about this.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Not implicitly, but I believe adding a statement “this exception also applies to both typographic fonts and soundfonts” to LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.rtf would suffice.

However, any and all contributors to the soundfont would need to agree to that, CC0 contributions excepted. This is especially valid for CC-BY contributors.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

Thanks, that would be best, and I do not see any problems with that plan, except for the problem of samples that are titled “public domain”, as you stated in

The problem with “public domain” is that ① it’s per-country, and ② many countries, including most EU countries, do not allow citizens to abolish their rights and place something voluntarily into the Public Domain.

There are ways out of this, though.

I have been assured by someone on the OSI mailing list who I know is a lawyer in the USA, although not as legal advice, that, if something (work “A”) is Public Domain in the USA, and that declaration is valid (that’s apparently not true for all PD declarations, but I don’t know the details), then any USA citizen residing in the USA is allowed to create a work “B” that’s a derivative work of “A” but also must include enough creative work of its own (which creating a larger soundfont from samples from multiple sources definitely qualifies as), and then that citizen is allowed to licence the entire work “B”, and that licence would also be valid “over here” in the EU.

Now I don’t know your legislation and residence (and I personally don’t even need to know), nor the legislation of these AKAI samples, but I assume that something similar holds true for other countries that do recognise the ability of right holders to put something into the Public Domain.

The next problem is cross-country. By the Berne Convention, something that’s created by person X in country Y is, in country Z, under the same protection as if a citizen of country Z created it; this is independent of whether it’s actually under protection in country Y.

For example, USA government workers’ works are automatically in the Public Domain in the USA, but there have been cases where an individual worker has successfully defended copyright in a different country on such a work. (This is why some groups in the USG are working on an Open Source policy and looking at ways to put CC0 on those works, even if the licence is only valid outside of the USA.)

I don’t know if we should resolve this in the forum. We could just take your word that you are legally allowed to incorporate the AKAI samples (work “A”) into your larger soundfont (work “B”).

If you wish to talk about this, feel free to contact me privately, too.

Thanks for your effort to make MuseScore sound better! (Although I personally deal mostly with vocal scores with piano/harpsichord accompaniments for rehearsal… on that note, are better choir voices on the TODO?)

Glad to hear about sample improvement and especially adding playback dynamics!
I can't offer any instrument sample recording myself. The only orchestral sample libraries I know that are free and possible ok to use for Musescore are:
Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra
Versillian Studios Chamber Orchestra 2 CE
Virtual Playing Orchestra (a "best of" Sontatina, VSCO2 CE, Iowa, No Budget Orchestra, etc.)

Good luck!

In reply to by jmcmillan73

According to… (the original website got replaced by a placeholder), Sonatina is also nonfree (CC Sampling Plus 1.0; see for some hints on that).

Virtual Playing Orchestra is nonfree (CC Sampling Plus 1.0, plus some other questionable statements on ).

VSCO2 CE is CC0 so acceptable as input.

Here is the first version of the new SoundFont:

IMPORTANT! This new SoundFont will not work correctly with the current version of MuseScore (2.1). Some instruments might function okay, but many won't. You will need to test it using a recent nightly development build:

Highlights include:
1. New pianos! (Grand Piano, Bright Grand Piano, Mellow Grand Piano, Honky-Tonk Piano): New, high-quality pianos based on the public domain "Splendid Grand" samples. These samples were originally created by AKAI for the AKAI S5000 sampler, and I was able to verify their public domain status via conversation with AKAI in 2007. The original close-mic sample set contained 250 MB of samples, but I have been able to program a very expressive instrument using only 94 MB of the samples. I also used the same sample-shifting technique as Roland to create "bright" and "mellow" versions of the pianos that actually have a different tonality to them rather than just using filter variance as the old pianos did. This same technique allowed me to create a honky-tonk piano that sounds somewhat legit, with none of the flanging effect that is typically heard on such presets.
2. New synth sounds: I have replaced most of the synth sounds with instruments I designed from raw analog synth waveforms. This approach allowed me to create high-quality synth sounds that "play" like a real analog synthesizer, but only take up a tiny bit of RAM.
3. Improved FluidR3Mono instruments: The rest of the bank consists of the original FluidR3Mono instruments. We will eventually be replacing most of these sounds, but I have made a number of improvements to the existing sounds in the meantime, including:
- clarinet: EQ'd samples, fixed weird note release
- acoustic guitars: fixed really long note release and reprogrammed the 12-string guitar to sound more like the real thing
- violin / recorder: improved the tuning

The full changelog is available inside the zip file. I will also be compiling notes on sample sources in this Google Doc:…

The document is a work-in-progress, but you'll be able to see per-instrument details on progress, samples used, samples in consideration (in gray), etc. Ignore the "MS_General_low" tab for now.

Please test and let me know what you think. I will be sharing more new instruments with you all in the coming days, so stay tuned to this thread!

In reply to by Arianna2001

Please read my description before getting upset. As I said, the only new sounds so far are the pianos and synths. I will be sharing the other instrument replacements as they are completed. And yes, while the other sounds are still based on FluidR3, there have been many improvements made. This is important, because mobile users will still need the smaller sound set, so I wanted to make sure that I could resolve a lot of the current issues with FluidR3Mono.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

Ok ok ok ok ok!!!!! I’m NOT upset about it, but I think you are right.

Let me tell you what I can do with the replacements.

I’ll use the Clarinet that ChurchOrganist has created to replace the Clarinet Preset in Bank 0, and use the VSCO 2 CE Clarinet in Bank 1. The rest of the instruments like the Solo Violin, Solo Contrabass Vibrato and Pizzicato, String Ensemble samples, Solo Winds and Brass Vibrato Samples, Percussion Presets, Keyboard and Organ Presets will be from VSCO 2 CE, as “STANDARD” GM” format. As for the Etherealwinds Harp, it will be in Bank 1 Preset 46.
I also found some good Recorder Samples from MSLP to replace the old out of tune recorder sounds. Not to mention some very GOOD Viola Samples from the “Alpine Project” for Kontakt. I would also say that Ethan Winer’s Solo Cello SoundFont is ok. I’ll also find better English Horn Samples for the English Horn Preset too. My Violin SoundFont will be in Bank 1 Preset 40. Right now I have adjusted the looping issues in my SoundFont, so it will be in the NEW SoundFont which I will help you with. The Fiddle Preset will contain some violin samples from ldk 1609, which are created under the CC0 License.
And believe it or not, I actually found a very good Celeste Sound to replace the old Celeste Preset, a good Harpsichord SoundFont from jOrgan Samples to replace the old Harpsichord Presets, even a BEAUTIFUL sounding Harp which I found from my Kontakt 5 Library, which I couldn’t find anymore, but still have the Samples and converted it into SFZ format, so this harp preset will be set to Bank 0 Preset 46, the VSCO 2 CE Strings will be separated in Bank 1. I must give credit to each of these instrument creators for their fabulous samples!!!

I think this SoundFont should be called “MS3_General_GM/GS.sf2”

In reply to by Arianna2001

Hey, calm down alright ;-)

VSCO 2 CE is CC0 so okay.

Etherealwinds Harp Ⅱ CE are CC-BY 4.0 which is not MIT compatible. We could try to contact them about relicencing… in fact, I think I’ll do that, since they’re apparently much-liked in here.

Would you please add some links to those…
• “I also found some good Recorder Samples from MSLP”
• “Alpine Project” for Kontakt
• Ethan Winer’s Solo Cello SoundFont
• Harpsichord SoundFont from jOrgan Samples
… you mentioned so we can check the licences on that for compatibility?

Also, under what licence would you contribute the samples from your Violin SoundFonts? On that matter, I’ve read somewhere in the forum that you were below 18; to be allowed to put a licence on your work, you will have to have parental consent in most legislations (see for an example form we use, in German though, and… (use Google Translate on it or something) for the background). If you’ve reached adulthood by now, I apologise in advance.

“I must give credit to each of these instrument creators for their fabulous samples” — unfortunately, you must not only give credit but also honour the licences. If we want a new soundfont to be the standard one for MuseScore, it will have to have a proper licence audit trail or it won’t be adopted by many (e.g. if the legal situation surrounding it is unclear).

I think this SoundFont should be called “MS3_General_GM/GS.sf2” — slashes are not valid in filenames.

In reply to by mirabilos

People, if you create samples and soundfont based on these samples, please, pretty please, put a license on them and choose it carefully. CC0 is very nice if you want your samples to be used freely.

In reply to by lasconic

Ethan Winer looks okay, I agree. He is also already a contributor to Fluid (R3) Mono.

Fiddle: if it says CC0, we can use that; as for honouring his attribution request (“request” as it’s not part of the licence), I’d attribute anyway (the MIT licence does require people to reproduce the copyright notices, so we just add people there as a means of attribution).

See, for example,… for the current list.

In reply to by rmattes

I agree… plastic recorders? That’s kiddie stuff. Us recorder lovers are fighting enough to get it recognised as a proper instrument…

As to the links:

  • Iowa: no licence (“freely available recordings” means Freeware, i.e. free for personal use only)
  • Freesounds: these three are CC0, so okay, but.

We’ve got some really good samples for at least the harpsichord promised…

In reply to by mirabilos

What’s the difference between a plastic and a regular Alto Recorder?

And think about it, ChurchOrganist used Clarinet Samples from the University of Iowa for the NEW Clarinet SoundFont, so we can use the New Viola and Cello Samples from the University of Iowa for the new Viola and Cello Presets in the New SoundFont. Also forgotten the Crotales that ChurchOrganist has also made to replace the Music Box Preset too.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

One thing I'd like to understand better is your disclaimer "This new SoundFont will not work correctly with the current version of MuseScore (2.1). Some instruments might function okay, but many won't. You will need to test it using a recent nightly development build". At first, I interpreted this to mean you were using different program / bank assignments for new sounds and so needed instruments.xml to sync with this. Which made me think this was something that would only apply to master, not to 2.2. But on further reading, I'm thinking you might mean, the tweaks you made to some existing sounds required some fluidsynth improvements, and I do know a bunch of those were made recently (by you and others). My sense is most of these fixes are in 2.2.

So, while I'm intellectually curious about the details, the bottom line is really, when you say one needs a development build to use your new soundfont, will 2.2 be good enough?

In reply to by s.chriscollins

Here is a list of the instruments so far, I would suggest that we could use like I said in a few comments before.

Bank 0 Preset 6: Harpsichord (Freesound Samples)
Bank 0 Preset 8: Celesta (Freesound Samples)
Bank 0 Preset 9: Glockenspiel (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 10: Crotales (Made by ChurchOrganist)
Bank 0 Preset 12: Marimba (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 13: Xylophone (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 14: Tubular Bells (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 19: Organ Loud (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 20: Organ Quiet (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 32: Double Bass Pizz (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 40: Solo Violin Arco (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 41: Viola Arco (University of Iowa Viola Post 2012)
Bank 0 Preset 42: Cello Arco (University of Iowa Post 2012)
Bank 0 Preset 43: Double Bass Arco Vib (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 44: All Tremolo Strings (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 45: All Pizzicato Strings (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 46: Harp (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 47: Timpani Hit (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 48: All Strings Sustain (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 49: All Strings Sustain Quiet (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 50: All Strings Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 55: Orchestra Hit (All Staccato Samples from VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 56: Trumpet Vib (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 57: Trombone Vib (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 58: Tuba Sustain (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 59: Trumpet Straight Mute (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 60: Solo Horn Sustain (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 61: Brass Section (All Sustained Brass Instruments from VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 68: Oboe Vib (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 70: Bassoon Vib (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 71: Clarinet (Made by ChurchOrganist)
Bank 0 Preset 72: Piccolo Sustain (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 73: Flute Vib (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 0 Preset 74: Alto Recorder (Freesound Samples)
Bank 0 Preset 110: Fiddle (Violin Vibrato Arco Samples by ldk 1609 from Freesound)
Bank 1 Preset 0: Upright Piano (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 1 Preset 1: Upright Nr 1 (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 1 Preset 19: Organ Loud Pedal (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 1 Preset 20: Organ Quiet Pedal (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 1 Preset 42: Ethan's Cello
Bank 1 Preset 46: Beautiful Orchestral Harp (2 SoundFonts and a SFZ File which I created that's part of this forum)
Bank 1 Preset 47: Timpani Rolls (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 1 Preset 71: Clarinet 2 (Sustain) (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 0: 1st Violins Sustain (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 1: 1st Violins Quiet (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 2: 1st Violins Pizzicato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 3: 1st Violins Tremolo (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 4: 1st Violins Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 5: 2nd Violins Sustain (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 6: 2nd Violins Quiet (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 7: 2nd Violins Pizzicato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 8: 2nd Violins Tremolo (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 9: 2nd Violins Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 10: Violas Sustain (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 11: Violas Quiet (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 12: Violas Pizzicato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 13: Violas Tremolo (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 14: Violas Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 15: Celli Sustain (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 16: Celli Quiet (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 17: Celli Pizzicato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 18: Celli Tremolo (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 19: Celli Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 20: Double Bass Non-Vib (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 21: Double Bass Quiet (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 22: Double Bass Tremolo (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 23: Double Bass Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 24: Flute Expressive Vib (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 25: Flute Non-Vib (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 26: Flute Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 27: Oboe Non-Vib (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 28: Oboe Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 29: Clarinet Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 30: Bassoon Non-Vib (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 31: Bassoon Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 32: Piccolo Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 33: Trumpet Non-Vib (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 34: Trumpet Harmonic Mute (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 35: Trumpet Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 36: Trombone Non-Vib (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 37: Trombone Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 38: Tuba Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 39: Horn Mute (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 40: Horn Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 41: Solo Violin Pizzicato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2 Preset 42: Solo Violin Tremolo (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2: Preset 43: Solo Violin Staccato (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 2: Preset 71: E♭ Clarinet (Made by ChurchOrganist)
Bank 8 Preset 6: Coupled Harpsichord (Freesound Samples)
Bank 8: Preset 40: Solo Violin Quiet (VSCO 2 CE)
Bank 8 Preset 71: Bass Clarinet (Made by ChurchOrganist)
Bank 127 & 128 Preset 48: Orchestral Percussion (VSCO 2 CE)

Almost all of these Presets I have listed have VSCO 2 CE Samples Options. I hope ALL of these instruments will be included.

You can find the links in my Previous Comments if you need help finding these instruments and samples.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

Thanks! When I was viewing the Updated 2.2 Version of MuseScore, so far I have noticed that you have the 1st Version of MS General, which is a little ok for me, but still sounds like the FluidR3 SoundFont from 2.1. I'm NOT mad about this, I'm just reminding you. I hope you can use my Instruments Requested in my list for the next version of the mS General SoundFont!!!

Here are the Links to these Requested Sounds that I've put down in my bank list


University of Iowa Viola and Cello:

Freesound Harpsichord, Celesta, and Alto Recorder,

Beautiful Orchestral Harp:

ChurchOrganist's Clarinets and Crotales:

Does this help you now?

In reply to by Arianna2001

We have several even better versions of some of these instruments upcoming. Please be patient.

The alpha version of the soundfont shipped with the 2.1 RC is already several days (almost 2 weeks?) old. I think Chris has already improved it further.

Stability is more important than quick changes, right now, especially as there’s a release coming Really Soon Now™.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

The pianos are definitely musically an improvement over the old ones. Thanks for that! I have one problem with them, however. They sound too mellow and wooden (like a xylophone) to me. A grand piano should be brighter and more powerful and more metallic. The sounds are ok if you try to imitate a small upright piano, but not a grand piano!

Will you include sounds that aren't mentioned in the general midi standard? If so, I would recommend adding the bowed vibraphone! I had trouble getting that to work in MuseScore.

In reply to by Okoyos

Yes, I intend to add variants for many of the instruments over time, including proper "Violins 1" "Violins 2", etc. to avoid sample flanging when both parts are playing the same note. I will definitely put bowed vibraphone on the list of instruments that we should include (eventually ;) ).

In reply to by s.chriscollins

Both Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra and Squidfont Orchestral SoundFonts have Violins 1, Violins 2, etc. VSCO 2 CE and Bellatrix Orchestra only has samples of the Violin Ensemble having both 1st and 2nd Violins mixed together in each sample, However, the Violas, Celli, and Bass are being separated. Are there any free CC0 Licensed samples of Strings with the 1st Violins and 2nd Violins Seperated from eachother? If not, we’ll have to go with the Squidfont Orchestral SoundFont instead of the VSCO 2 CE Violin Ensemble.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

Ok. Let’s say for example, if you want to have 2 Seperate Violin Sections from VSCO 2, Use the Left Channel Samples for 1st Violins, and the Right Channel Samples for 2nd Violins, use the rest of the left Channels Samples for Violas, Celli, and Bass, and for other instruments from VSCO, etc. These are supposed to be Mono Samples just like in the Original FluidR3 SoundFont, as well as the Alto Recorder, Harpsichord, Celesta, and Iowa Samples.

In reply to by Arianna2001

I will actually be using stereo samples for ensembles. I don't want to use mono samples for something that would normally fill a lot of acoustic space. To achieve the 2nd violins, I will likely use sample offset (starting the sample playback later in the waveform) to avoid flanging unisons between 1st & 2nd violins and simulate the note attacks using the staccato samples. We'll see. I'll have to play around with it to find the best method, but it's definitely possible to do this and have it sound good.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Yes, the issue was that MIDI pan (CC10) when set to extreme left or right would only pan a sample 50% of the total stereo field (measured -50% through +50%). If a sample was centered, a pan of -50% would result in that sample being heard in only the left speaker and +50% pan would result in it being heard in the right speaker as you would expect. However, when using stereo samples, the left sample is panned -50% inside the SoundFont and the right sample is panned +50%. If a user set the pan in the mixer to fully left, the left sample being still be panned at -50%, but the right sample would only be at 0 (center). This gives the impression that the sound is only half-panned to the left, instead of fully panned.

MuseScore solved this by doubling the pan sensitivity, which is why you only have to move mixer's pan knob half way in either direction to achieve full pan when using a mono instrument.

This could have also been solved at the SoundFont level by doubling the pan sensitivity there for stereo samples, but this is unnecessary since MuseScore has implemented their own fix.

In reply to by reddiesel41264


would you also be willing to consider the MIT licence? You would still get attribution, by means of the requirement of the MIT licence (and, perhaps, law) to retain all copyright notices.

In reply to by mirabilos

Hi, I'd be willing to license under CC0 if necessary. I'm a big fan of Musescore and definitely want to help with the soundfont if I can. I'm unsure that an MIT license is appropriate for audio samples, it's not a license I'm very familiar with though but I understood that it was intended for software with source code rather than multimedia, is this not so?

In reply to by reddiesel41264

Licensing under CC0 would be amazing, and the easiest to deal with as I know there is currently some uncertainty around how attribution should be handled with CC-BY (for example, do MuseScore users need to provide attribution in their rendered MP3s?). The reason we are considering the MIT license for the completed SoundFont is twofold: #1, our current SoundFont, FluidR3 is licensed as MIT, and we will continue using FluidR3 samples for instruments where we don't have a replacement yet. #2, SoundFonts are kind of a hybrid between software and samples. There is all the logic that goes into controlling instruments' behavior (the software part), and then the samples that are referenced. It would seem to me that the most appropriate license for a SoundFont would be a software license, but this is where I am waiting to hear some final guidelines from MuseScore.

Either way, all sample sources, authors, and original sample licenses will be listed per-preset in a spreadsheet that will accompany the release of the new SoundFont.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

Hm, interesting that a soundfont can be considered a program, thanks for the insight.

Not a MuseScore official, but I am arguing for MIT just so that we ① can reuse the existing soundfont and improve it incrementally (as opposed to having to start from scratch), while ② downstream recipients will have to follow only one set of licence terms.

Could you make it a plaintext file instead of a spreadsheet?

In reply to by mirabilos

That's probably a good idea, but I will keep it as a spreadsheet for now as it is easier for me to keep everything organized that way. I'll also need to figure out a way to present the information in plaintext without it being a mess to read. So you think providing the information as both a Google Doc and bundled OpenDocument spreadsheet would be problematic?

In reply to by s.chriscollins

OpenDocument is still a binary format and hard to read without special tools.

If you keep it in non-free Google Docs as original, you could export as CSV and put that into the release. CSV is readable to both spreadsheet software users and others, and takes up much less space with potentially harmful (think embedded virus macros) binary information.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

You mean like this?

Harder to create effortlessly from an external spreadsheet, harder to machine-parse, easier to human-parse. I won’t object either way.

My intended use case is collecting info to put into the licence file of the package (and the ICMT chunk, incidentally), so I’d probably parse it manually anyway, but plaintext is still preferred, although whether the plaintext is CSV or Markdown doesn’t matter much.

Another option would be to send the CSV to me ahead of time, and I’d send a plaintext proper licence file back, similar to the part after “Licence:” in this one:… (this is what I have to create for Debian already anyway)

Here's the new clarinet for you guys to play with, based on the VSCO 2 clarinet:

As with all the individual instruments I share here, it will be added to the core SoundFont, but I will only share new builds of the core SoundFont every so often to keep downloaded data volume in check.

Finding a good clarinet sound was difficult, as most of the quality, free samples out there start too slow to be of use in fast passages. I had to edit the attack on every sample to overcome this. Samples were also converted to mono and looped, and I fixed the note attack pitch bends on the higher notes. I hope you like it!

In reply to by Isaac Weiss

It is interesting to hear a clarinetist's opinion on this. Do you know of any good, freely-licensed clarinet samples that you find to be superior? Nothing I've found so far has been without one issue or another, and none of them have an attack that is suitable for fast passages.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

Good question! The issue is definitely less noticeable at forte and fortissimo, and in fact there is still a rather mezzo tone color. So you might shift the spectrum of velocities, so to speak, with good effect.

It's very true that almost all the free clarinet sounds I've come across have one issue or another. The one that I find closest to perfection is in SSO, but I understand the license is incompatible. Second to that, quite honestly, is your adjusted version of FluidR3's in the alpha (surprisingly, because I would have thought those samples were irredeemable). That currently has something of the opposite issue to the VSCO clarinet—at high velocities there's a little more edge than I would like—but its tone is much more rich and lifelike than others, and I think with a little more tweaking to the filters you could solve even that remaining problem.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

I'm a former clarinet player as well, and I agree with Isaac, the proposed new one is not a great choice. It's an oddly-flute-like sound in the middle/upper register (eg, written D on staff to A above), and very thin around middle C. And some notes are indeed too slow in the attack to be useful for fast passages. It's nice enough sound for special purposes, but it's not really the core clarinet sound I'd be looking for.

The one in FluidR3 is actually good to me except for the distortions that I have always assumed were digital artifacts that could potentially be corrected, which is what I assume you did originally. Also, I believe Michael (ChurchOrganist) had already worked on replacing these using sounds from, hmm, maybe University of Iowa? But I have kind of lost track of the current status of any of these developments.

In reply to by mdi1972

Michael's clarinet SoundFont is licensed as CC-BY-NC, which is not compatible with our current SoundFont license (MIT) as I understand. Furthermore, the UofI samples have their own issues, as I mentioned before.

David Healey of has kindly agreed to release a bunch of his solo wind and brass samples as CC0. His clarinet samples are quite promising, as they have a strong tone. They are also sampled every half step which means I could easily create "Clarinet 2", "Clarinet 3" presets to avoid unison flanging when writing for multiple clarinets. I will still need to shorten up some of the attacks, but it's looking like these will probably end up being our new clarinet samples :)

In reply to by Isaac Weiss

A5 = the A an octave above middle C? You'll have to be more specific about what you'd like fixed. The main problem I see with the clarinet is that the samples are incredibly short, reaching their loop point very quickly for a rather artificial sustained tone. Unfortunately, there isn't really anything I can do about this.

In reply to by Isaac Weiss

Isaac, the only difference between "MS_General.sf3" and the sf2 version you downloaded is that the .sf3 has been compressed using OGG audio compression. It sounds like the conversion might be introducing distortions into some samples, possibly due to not enough sample attenuation during the conversion process. I will investigate this.

In reply to by Isaac Weiss

So you were right about "MuseScore_General.sf3" actually just being FluidR3Mono. I'm not sure why they did that instead of using the updated SoundFont I had provided.

Anyway, all of the pops are caused by clipping during the sf2 -> sf3 conversion, and the weird distortions on the sustain loops are caused by the low OGG quality setting. I will propose better defaults to the team for the automated conversion process.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Using the 2.2 nightly AppImage from yesterday (201803240758), I see "MuseScore_General.sf3" loaded into the synthesizer, but the first preset in the mixer is "Yamaha Grand Piano". That preset name was changed to "Grand Piano" in my SoundFont along with the new piano samples. The sound I hear is clearly the old FluidR3Mono piano.

In reply to by Isaac Weiss

Here are conversions of MuseScore_General 0.1.1 to SF3 at three different OGG quality settings, 0.3, 0.6 and 0.8:…

Quality 0.3 is what MuseScore has been using previously, but as I mentioned, that introduces very obvious distortions into the sound, particularly affecting loops. Quality 0.6 is much better, with only the occasional loop still being a bit "off". Quality 0.8 eliminates all audible distortions.

These distortions show up quite noticeably when using the clarinet sound. At quality 0.3, many of the loops are buzzy or add weird harmonics to the sound. At quality 0.6, only a couple loops are faintly buzzy. At quality 0.8, no distortions are discernible.

In reply to by bottrop

You removed the important part of my statement : "except for the distortions". And I stand by that. I have listened to dozens of different soundfonts, which and each has their own strength and weakness. But of the ones actually under consideration, the Fluid one strikes me as the best starting point assuming the distortion can be eliminated completely.

In reply to by bottrop

Poetic description :-). I guess to me, though, comparedf to the two or three legitimate candidates for replacing it with, it is still preferable in terms of overall naturalness of sound (especially for long tones, where looping can make things sound more artificial), evenness across registers, speed of attack (a crucial component in getting legato passages to sound legato while also allowing fast passages to sound full volume). There is just that awful distortion getting in the way,

So I'm curious which of the alternatives being seriously considered you consider superior in each of those areas? I'm not saying there is no room improvement; just when I hear the actual candidates, their flaws seem worse to me - and probably harder to correct - than those in FluidR3.

In my opinion, the marimba, xylophone, and vibraphone sounds should be updated. The marimba sounds too harsh (like it's being played with xylophone mallets), the vibraphones are too quiet in the upper registers and barely resonate, and the xylophone sounds too "plastic-y" (not sure how to describe it). If anyone has any idea where to find good samples for these, let's continue with this.
Thanks for your hard work so far!

Here are the legato violins for you guys to test: (link removed--see comment below for update)

Please note that this is only violins so far, so the lowest playable note is G3.

To create this instrument, I used the VSCO2 samples, which required looping, normalization and some other edits. There was also a huge difference in the note attack between the soft and loud samples, which I was able to mitigate via a combination of SoundFont 2.01 modulators and layer crossfading techniques. Creating a "fast" variant of the instrument involved using sample offset on the sustained samples and then using the "spiccato" samples to provide a sharper attack. I hope the result is fast enough, because if I try to make the note attacks any faster, it starts to sound fake. The "slow violins" preset features the true attacks of the sustained samples, but it is too slow for use in fast passages.

Let me know what you think. Assuming there aren't any major issues, I will proceed with the rest of the ensemble.

In reply to by bottrop

Polyphone's playback doesn't support modulators, which I used quite heavily in creating this instrument. Creative Vienna may or may not play them back correctly depending on your sound card and driver version (will not work with SB Live!, works fine on my Audigy 2). The recommended way to test these sounds is either a recent nightly of MuseScore, any modern version of FluidSynth, or Swami (SoundFont editor).

In reply to by s.chriscollins

i play the Audigy 2 too.
the attacks are better, though i would have mixed them in the legatosamples to save voices.
i still see velocity 1 and 2 playing full range (attachment).
why not transpose the _Hi samples? now they are playing at very high bitrates, which can have an unpredictible impact on other instruments.

Attachment Size
vienna1.jpg 254.51 KB

In reply to by bottrop

Hi bottrop, thanks for the suggestions. Yes, the P and F samples play throughout the entire velocity range, but not at the same proportions. Each layer has a different velocity scaling to allow a partial crossfade between them. This is what allows the tone of the instrument to morph smoothly from low to high velocities, avoiding the abrupt sample switch present in the original SFZ/Kontakt versions. As we work toward supporting dynamic changes on a single note (cresc., etc.), this same crossfading technique can be used to allow CC11 to control dynamics while note-on velocity would control the speed of the attack.

Regarding transposing the _Hi samples, what problem would be solved by doing this?

Also, as far as mixing the attack samples in with the legato samples, I would like to save polyphony, but I need to make sure it won't interfere with my programming of the "violins 2" presets. It would also require me to do something different for the "slow violins", as that preset uses the beginning part of the sustained samples that are skipped via sample offset in the "fast violins" preset.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

Another issue with the VSCO 2 CE Violins is because they DON’T have 2 Seperate Violin Sections such as 1st Violins and 2nd Violins. For instance, if you are writing a string orchestra piece in MuseScore and use the VSCO 2 CE Violins Sounds for both 1st Violin and 2nd Violin parts, they would end up sounding the same rather than in 2 different sections. Can you please figure out this issue here?

In reply to by Arianna2001

well, Arianna, these violins are not Violins 1 (nor 2), these violins are the upper part of Strings, as General Midi ordered.
be patient until you hear a Gunshot; that is the sign project Bank 1 has started, in which you will find everything a serious composer needs.

In reply to by bottrop

There will be separate presets for Violins, Violas, Celli, Basses, and the combined String Ensemble. I will also try to create Violins 2, Violas 2, and Celli 2 using a later sample offset for the sustained samples and mixing with a different set of spiccato samples (the second round-robin samples). This will allow Violins 1 and Violins 2 to play the same note without any weird doubling or flanging effects.

In reply to by Isaac Weiss

Correct. All of the ensemble violins, violas, etc. will share the same preset number with "String Section", but will be on different banks. These instruments will fall back to the same preset number on bank 0 (String Ensemble) when a user loads a different SoundFont. Once issue #269939 ( is resolved, all instruments in a SoundFont that share a preset number will be displayed together, so you won't have to scroll past bottrop's favorite preset (gunshot) to see the individual string sections in the mixer preset selection--they'll be listed right after "String Ensemble".

In reply to by s.chriscollins

Hm, perhaps the dropdown should also show '(bank:preset)' in front of the instrument name… perhaps even the soundfont file from which it is taken… otherwise it’s so difficult to figure out what comes from where.

OK, but that’s off-topic for this thread. Can you take it to the developers, since you know more about it than I?

In reply to by s.chriscollins

I was able to create a preset with even faster note attack. Here is the updated SoundFont:

"Fast Violins" now has a faster note attack throughout the entire velocity range. Staccatos also work better and ring out in a more natural way. The old "Fast Violins" has been renamed to "Med Violins". "Slow Violins" is the same as it was before. I have also made the note release sound more realistic for all three presets.

Once I've worked out all the kinks with these instruments, I will attempt to create a "violins 2" preset that will solve the problems with note unisons between 1st and 2nd violin parts.

Here is version 0.1.1 of MuseScore_General.sf2:…

Some notes on this update:
1. I wasn't able to finish the new strings in time for release. These will be shared independently once they have been completed.
2. Due to concerns from our resident clarinet players, I have not included the new clarinet samples. I want to make sure that any new sounds we add do not cause any regressions in usability.
3. I was able to counter the pitch bend that was happening on a number of the violin and viola samples, hopefully fixing the tuning issues once and for all.
4. All of the weirdly panned and improperly sustained percussion samples have been fixed.
5. I have provided new recommendations for SF2 -> SF3 conversion settings that should eliminate the weird popping noises and other distortions that some were reporting with the SF3 version of the SoundFont. These issues also plagued the SF3 version of FluidR3Mono.
6. I made lots of other tweaks based on bug reports from users. Please see the included changelog for details.

As always, let me know if you run into any problems.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

Hi S. Chris Collins. I have just finished my new version of my own Violin SoundFont sf2. It has 2 Velocity layers, but these samples are NOT looped though like in the original version. You can adjust and loop these samples if you want to.

Here you go.

Can you please use it for the Updated Version of MuseScore General for the Next Nightly Build and for the Next Updated version of MuseScore too?

Some of the instruments in my opinion that need a bit of improvement are as follows:
1. The Oboe. It needs more of a "bright" sound.
2. The English Horn (Cor Anglais). It needs more of a sad, melancholy sound.
3. The Contrabassoon. It doesn't sound exactly like the bassoon, so it should have a distinct difference.
1. The French Horn. It needs to have more of a dynamic sound. At fortissimo, it needs to be more cuivré, and
at piano, it needs to be softer. Also more articulations would be awesome.
2. The Trumpet and Trombone. They need more mutes.
3. The Trombone. In general, it just needs a better sound.
4. The Bass Trombone. It needs more of a "buzz" in the lower register.
1. The Snare Drum. Needs more crisp of a sound.
2. The Bass Drum. It needs to have a sustained "boom". Maybe a percussion pallet from which you can
choose certain articulations for specific instruments would be ideal.
3. The Suspended Cymbal. Rolls, mainly. Also a Gong sound would be appreciated.
Just an overall better sound would be perfect.

I would like to compliment the sound of the other instruments, as the developers did a really good job on them. These include the Flute, Piccolo, Bassoon, French Horn, Trumpet, Tuba, and many others. Thanks for your work, I hope this helps!

In reply to by ThePianoGuy22

What about the Harpsichord? Needs better sounds than this.
Harp - I DON'T like the sound of it and that it actually sounds like a toy harp. It needs a better timbre or better samples.
Celeste - Needs better timbre or samples.
Strings - I would say that VSCO 2 should work, as well as my violin SoundFont too.

In reply to by dhfx

How about adding a Solo option for the Strings? For example, if you're writing a composition and want to put down a solo part for a string instrument, Edit the Staff text and change it to Solo, then go to the mixer and select the Solo String sound you want to use instead of the tremolo sound as the default setting, and you should have a Solo String Instrument Sound something like a Solo Violin, Solo Cello, etc.

In reply to by Arianna2001

The string sounds (e.g., violin) in Fluid (R3) seemed to be for a single instrument. I've been using these where I want an orchestral section (e.g., Violin I), because the instruments labeled "strings" sound to me like something I'd expect to hear at an amusement park. Would it be possible to get the "chorus" option working to simulate the effect of a small number of individual instruments playing as a section?

In reply to by dhfx

Once I am done creating the new marching percussion sounds, I will finish the strings I am working on, which will include proper sections for each individual string instrument (Violins 1, Violins 2, Violas, etc.). The synthesizer's chorus effect wouldn't really create the sound you're looking for anyway.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

Hi Collins! I have downloaded Version 2.2.1 of the MuseScore Software. I noticed that the Violin SoundFont in MuseScore General DIDN'T change!!!!!
I hope you can use my Violin SoundFont to replace the Old Violin SoundFont in the MuseScore General, as well as the Slow Violin and Fiddle Presets too.

Here's the Link to the SoundFont.…

I write a lot for UK style brass Band - I would be keen to test any sound fonts fro the following :

Tenor Horn
Baritone (Horn)
Tenor Trombone

The current Brass soundfont doesnt sound like brass instruments hardly at all, and you certainly dont get a brass band sound when you score it

While working on my own soundfont I had to redo a bunch of stuff from scratch with some of my presets to get them to work better. Since we're both happy opensource people I figured I share some work, since I based a lot of my stuff off of this soundfont anyways.

But I don't know 100% about the details on whether or not my work can be shared under a CC0 license...
Most of the Samples are CC-BY-SA, some are GPL with a exception allowing work created by these samples to be licensed by any means. The rest are already in your soundfont so I'm guessing they're ok.

Now what I did was make a SFZ using a bunch of these samples, mixed them according to velocity and whatnot, ran them through some filters, and rerecorded the output as new samples which I then used in a SF2 file. Do you think this qualifies as my own samples that I can license as I wish or do I still need to abide by the original sample's licensing requirements?

Here are some Choir Sounds that I re-sampled, feel free to use them if licensing permits...…

In reply to by Clint WJ Theriault

Hi Clint,

thanks for the information… unfortunately, CC-BY-SA and GPL (even with the exception) are both more restrictive than what we would like to use for the new soundfont.

Furthermore, they cannot even be combined in the same soundfont, as both the -SA part of CC-BY-SA and the GPL require that derivatives always be licenced under themselves (so, chances are your soundfont is illegal anyway). IANAL, TINLA.

In reply to by mirabilos

OK thanks for the clarification.
I'm gonna check the specific samples I used for the Choir samples to see what they had.
I was mostly just mentioning the licensing information from the most restrictive samples I had (Which is looks like I might have to exclude now :( ).

I was hoping that re-sampling them like I did would count enough towards being considered an entirely new work, but I guess that's a little too much to wish for.

In reply to by Clint WJ Theriault

CC0 is okay, but PD might pose a problem: are they PD in your country?

(In contrast to copyright, being in the public domain (= absence of copyright protection) does not cross country boundaries… so, in case of doubt, ask them to publish under CC0, or ask someone in the country in which it is PD to legally create a derivative of them and licence that under CC0. That being said, people often won’t bother with it, and by relinquishing copyright they somewhat lose the ability to sue… except for that US government official who successfully defended their copyright on a USG work in a different country.)

Fun side fact: if these samples are (legally) PD in the USA, then S. Christian Collins, being a US citizen (as far as I can tell), can legally create a derivative work of them by including them into the Musescore_General soundfont under MIT (and perhaps CC0 on part of the samples?), from which you can then take…

In reply to by mirabilos

The definition of public domain depends on the situation, like for example the country you live in. Since the site I downloaded it from specifically states their interpretation of Public Domain to mean the same as CC0, and since the users that uploaded these samples specifically chose that site's terminology for license, than in this case they are effectively CC0. It's not a perfect situation, but it's dang close.

I'm no lawyer though so I could very well be wrong about this...

also I will always be the guy who encourages paranoia so I'm not gonna say your wrong, cause honestly... who really knows? Copyright Laws nowadays seem to be dictated by whoever has the better laywers, so lets just hope we don't piss off Disney with this soundfont. ;) All I know is I'm willing to take the risk as it looks pretty cut and dry that these samples were intended to be used in other peoples soundfonts.

I've been checking into the other samples I've been using, I'm not using the CC-BY-SA licensed samples anymore, so I should be able to license my soundfont project as GPL with the exception stated earlier.
Thanks again for your advice on that, while I don't really care about all the copyright BS for my own use, if I'm sharing my work with others I'd like it to be legal to use (In Canada and the US at least).

I've already requested this in the forums a couple months ago now, but if their is one addition to the soundfont that could happen in a future update is adding in authentic bass clarinet and contrabassoon soundfonts. RIght now they are using the bassoon and clarinet sounds, would be appreciated if eventually these could be updated?

In reply to by Sallen112

Agreed. I'm not familiar with some of the low register instruments (I am a pianist and a percussionist) such as the bassoon and contrabassoon, but I do know that the Bass Clarinet and the Contrabassoon sound almost like a different instrument in respect to their higher counterparts: the Clarinet and the Bassoon. For me, the most notable difference is between the Contrabassoon and the regular bassoon.

In reply to by ThePianoGuy22

The big problem is the General MIDI which Musescore uses does not have the bass clarinet and contrabassoon included within their set, this is something that they would need to add in. I hope however maybe Musescore could somehow include this at some point because it would be nice to have. There is indeed a big difference between the contrabassoon and bassoon, and the bass clarinet and clarinet timbre wise.

I suggest adding sounds for marching brass and woodwinds. The technique and sound is very different compared to concert or orchestral settings, so a dedicated bank of these instruments would be awesome.
For brass, these would contain trumpets, mellophones, trombones, marching baritone horns, marching euphoniums, sousaphones, and contrabass tubas.
For woodwinds, these would contain piccolo, flute, clarinet, bass clarinet, and SATB saxes.
These would include various dynamics and articulations, of course.
If anyone has any suggestions on where to start finding sounds for these instruments, or if I left something out,
please reply.

I know I'm kind of late to this game with suggestions, but I did have one I have been meaning to place here. As we all know, musescore is a notation software, not a production workstation. Yet, we all love to pursue realism with better soundfonts etc. What I'm about to suggest seems really pointless, but hear me out. Before using any DAWs I like to write things out in musescore, and I often try to get the musescore playback as close to what's in my head as possible. For example, when writing for guitar (or as a simulated guitar) I use a regular guitar sound and then I add an instrument and, using the mixer, replace it's sound with a midi instrument called "Fret Noise" which sounds like fingers sliding on guitar strings. And I write notes for it in wherever real guitar shifts would occur. I know I'm not the only one who uses musescore like this, but if I somehow am, that would make the following suggestion completely pointless. Hahaha

So this would be very tedious, and maybe even somewhat unrealistic, but once all the samples are selected for instruments like Violin, Trumpet, flute and any other instruments that have a tonguing/slurring, bowing/slurring, and maybe even plucking/slurring variant (though the latter seems less practical), perhaps slurred variants of those samples could be provided as well. And I'm not talking about finding new samples with slurs for every instrument. I mean using the same exact samples, duplicating them, and cutting of the attack portion of the note. But rather than completely chopping it off, you would have to fade the sample in, but quickly. Similar to how producers chop, splice, and arrange samples with out getting clipping. I'm not sure if this would be too hard to realize, but if it is as simple as I hope it would be, (but probably won't be with so many samples varying by instrument, range, and source) one would be able to duplicate the relevant samples, determine the proper amount time to fade it in enough to [not completely] kill the attack so that it sounds like a slur, and apply that to all of the samples. Even if it can't be done, I'd love to see it attempted.

Just a thought.

In reply to by s.chriscollins

That's what i am looking for : per-note expression !
and, is it possible to add the spiccato channel for strings in the instruments.xml distributed file ?
are ther plans to add more channels by default also for timpani (tremolo (roll)) ? all are in VSCO2 CE samples.
Thank you for your work.

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