Working with large files

• Dec 4, 2021 - 16:59

My current project now extends to just over 1000 measures, and the response time of the program has slowed down to perhaps a second from keyboard click to screen response. Taking advice from this forum, I split the file into three sections, which worked fine to polish, and fix. However, putting it back together is not working. Tempo marks and Key changes must be manually chased down, and Timeline does not seems to be keeping track consistently. If you miss a Time Signature, the program automatically shifts notes to fit whatever signature was current; but it does not correct if you add back the correct signature.
I had thought to leave it in three sections, and reassemble in a pdf file, however measure numbers are an issue. With 371 measures in the first section, must I add 371 blank measures to the second section to get the measure numbers right? Or is there a way to force the first measure number to a given value?
Any help in managing this would be greatly appreciated.
Win10; MS 3.6.2; Quad i5 processor.


See the measure properties of the 1st measure of 2nd and 3rd score and there use "Add to measure number", to adjust for the previous measures of score 1 (and 2)

FWIW, response should be relatively independent of score size for most operations, especially if you work in page view. In continuous view we try our best, but the fact that the whole score is now one big long system does complicate things. There may be other tricks that can help with response time. If you attach your score we may be able to advise better.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Thanks Marc
I had not realized that there was a difference in performance between the two views. I tend to work in Continuous view because I have gotten myself into trouble when editing a group of measures that had unwanted changes to instruments that were not shown, since they were blank.
This is the large file that is the result of putting the three pieces together. Towards the end my note registration if off due to pasting in a section when the correct time signature was missing. The down beat shown is Not the first note in the measure etc.
I would great;y appreciate any feedback you can offer.

Attachment Size
12-04-21 Dalmar Score working draft.mscz 137.13 KB

In reply to by cwhitem

It's not clear what you mean about editing leading to unwanted changes in instruments; I'm not aware of any bugs that seem like they might fit that description. In general, page view is not only faster but also more reliable than continuous view, since it is the view designed to reflect the actual layout of your final score, where continuous view is kind of a specialized secondary thing that probably doesn't get as much use or testing since it isn't the default.

Anyhow, my system isn't particularly quick - Intel mobile "M3" processor - but even in continous view, most edits are only a fraction of a second. In page view it's too fast to tell it's not completely instantaneous. but edits that require a relayout of the entire score - say, transposing the entire thing up or down an octave - take several seconds indeed, regardless of view. And there are enough operations that do require layout of the entire score that I too would be considering breaking it up. But then, I'd probably just generate separate PDF's and not worry about joining them. I definitely wouldn't be thinking about trying to make measure numbering consecutive between movements - that's actually counter to standard practice, where they would normally be reset between movements. Which is to say, regardless of whether splitting the file into separate movements, I'd want each movement to restart with measure 1. A section break does that automatically if you do combine movements.

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