Poor MU4/Muse sounds
Here is a very simple example of a violin score - only the image is needed.
Also attached is a wav [converted to .ogg - but it sounds pretty much the same] file to demonstrate what it sounds like.
It sounds really bad.
Interestingly MU4 seems to generate Midi well enough, and if the resulting Midi is then used to drive a DAW - it can generate passable sounds.
MU4/Muse Sounds seems to have lost some of its wheels - assuming it ever had any - recently.
Comments
Interestingly enough, On my system, your .ogg sounds exactly like Basic sounds. The Muse Sounds it very different.
In reply to Interestingly enough, On my… by bobjp
I assume that .ogg sounds as I heard it, though I generated it as a .wav file, but then as this part of the support system doesn't support .wav I had to convert it to .ogg. To me it did sound like the MU4 version which I have objected to. Boring as it may be, the sound of Basic in MU3 is preferable - at least at the moment.
I just checked on this website, by clicking on the Play button for the file "here" and it sounds just like the dreadful version in MU4 - described as banshee in another post I just put up.
In reply to I assume that .ogg sounds as… by dave2020X
You could zip your wav and post that. But I feel it wouldn't make much difference. On any of my systems, the Muse violin doesn't sound like that. I don't know what that means for everyone else. And I'm not defending Muse Sounds. There are lots of problems. I'm just saying that I hear nothing that sounds like a banshee. I have BBC orchestra. Their sounds have problems also.
In reply to You could zip your wav and… by bobjp
What do you mean it doesn't sound like that? On my system it sounds exactly like that.
No convert needed, just export to .ogg from MS4 but can't be attached like that, so had to zip it. I wonder how to OP was able to attached .ogg.
And as Marc said, using the Violin 2 well change the sound slightly.
Are you referring to the slight portamento between some of the notes? This is part of how it was sampled apparently, meant to be "expressive". You can use violin 2 if you prefer a less expressive sound. There is an open issue on GitHub requesting this be toned down for future updates.
In reply to Are you referring to the… by Marc Sabatella
Perhaps I am - I wouldn't call that slight - sounds banshee to me. If that's an effect - well maybe keep it - but it ain't a violin.
I don't think the violins are the only instruments with this kind of oddity - though they are one of the worst.
Trying to track this down has really put me off MU4 - just as I was beginning to enjoy it.
In reply to Perhaps I am - I wouldn't… by dave2020X
It's a stylistic thing; in some styles it's more appropriate than others. but as I said, simply use violin 2 to avoid it. I'm not aware of other isntrument that use portamento like that, but if you find an example, feel free to post it so others can investigate. please, though, always attach the score itself, not just pictures or recordings. So much about playback depends on details that aren't always visible in pictures (like the tempo & dynamics, Mixer settings, etc). And it's far more work for someone to painstakingly enter your examples from a picture than to just download and open the file.
In reply to It's a stylistic thing; in… by Marc Sabatella
I believe it's a real mistake to call that a violin - at least without a health warning. Spitfire Labs have some strange violin effects libraries, but at least they make that fairly clear. Some of the free LABS libraries have experimental string sounds, but anyone trying those should be well aware that the sounds are not always conventional violin or other string sounds, or ensemble sounds. I have recordings of real orchestras doing portamento, and they don't sound like the appalling mess we have here. Some great ones are with Charles Mackerras doing Elgar symphonies.
Additionally, I'm not sure that is the only problem, but I'm checking other hardware issues on my system now. I have compared a whole bunch of different violin sounds recently, with the help of DAWs etc, and it does seem much more reliable to find a way to interface with a DAW and use a decent library there. However if MU4 works "properly" [something I'm not at all sure of right now] then there are clear convenience merits in using it, either with the available Muse Sounds or external VSTs - if they can be made to work. This MU4 violin issue has really put me off.
The point of the image was that it showed a very simple file - and the audio which went with it demonstrated pretty clearly the horrible sound and articulations. It doesn't have to be that example. Assuming that the issue wasn't something very specific to my system, then anyone should be able to reconstruct a similar score and do the test in about 3 minutes. I have spent many more hours on this just trying to get things to work well.
In reply to I believe it's a real… by dave2020X
Since Muse Sounds will only work in Musescore, there is really no way to determine if it is a problem with the samples or a problem with Musescore's audio engine. Frankly, I doubt that Muse Group is actually going into the studio and recording their own samples. I suspect they are buying samples from some other company, possibly Spitfire, and then using those samples to create their own proprietary sfz-like files.
In reply to Since Muse Sounds will only… by Jim Ivy
Actually, it's kind of a combination of both. Muse Sounds is pretty obviously adapted from StaffPad, which is part of Muse Group.
In reply to I believe it's a real… by dave2020X
As with many things in life, this is subjective. The internally-recognized composer and orchestra musician who created this library feels it worked well for enough of the genres in which he works to put together that way. Others may disagree and that's fine, just as some might prefer Haydn to Stravinsky and for some it may be the other way around.
Anyhow, again, if you find other things you believe might be bugs, please feel free to report them, but always do so by including the actual score for the reasons I stated. If you want to also include pictures or recordings that is fine to, but as a developer I can tell you, we want to spend our time fixing problems, not painstakingly trying to recreate them.
In reply to As with many things in life,… by Marc Sabatella
Musescore was never intended to create music. Musecore, from the beginning, was a way to create notation. Musescore does a pretty fair job of creating notation. There are plenty of good software packages that are capable of creating music. The best Musescore can hope for is that it produces a semi-characteristic timber and articulation for each instrument. Musescore should concentrate on notation and leave producing music to other better suited software packages.
In reply to Musescore was never intended… by Jim Ivy
Well, it depends on your definition of Music and Notation. I am fully able to create Music with MuseScore.
In reply to Well, it depends on your… by bobjp
No comment!
In reply to No comment! by Jim Ivy
Here is what I've learned over the many years of using various notation programs.
Notation itself is not music. It is up to the musician to make music from the notation. This is all obvious.
Notation software can not make music of the notation. Guess what, neither can a DAW. Nor any software package. The user is able to manipulate the notation using a DAW. Which is what a real player does. If you manipulate the notation with notation software, you can often get fine results. What does that mean? You might have to tell the software to speed up and slow down, many times. Or change dynamics many times. Things you wouldn't normally put in notation because a player would do them naturally. I find that MuseScore, staccatos are too short and wimpy. So, instead of a line of 1/8 note staccatos, I write regular 1/16 notes. Maybe with accents, or not. And frankly, if there is a sound you don't like, don't use it. Use something else that sounds better to you. Gasp. We seem to have decided that we can write whatever notation we want and expect that to be the end of it. Great if notation is the goal. If music is the goal, and we don't have real musicians at our disposal, we need to write music. Not just notation. The score you would write to get good playback is not the score you would hand to musicians. It's a skill, like any other skill.
The trick is to learn to work with what you have. Sure, we all want better sounds. But in the mean time there is music to be made.
In reply to Here is what I've learned… by bobjp
You wrote:
Notation software can not make music of the notation.
and:
You might have to tell the software to speed up and slow down, many times. Or change dynamics many times. Things you wouldn't normally put in notation...
and:
I find that MuseScore, staccatos are too short and wimpy. So, instead of a line of 1/8 note staccatos, I write regular 1/16 notes. Maybe with accents, or not.
Okay...
So, when you are done entering your 'special' notation - which, as you say, is not what you would hand to musicians - and then press play, does MuseScore (aka notation software) then "make music" upon playback of that notation?
A follow-up question::
Using MuseScore, if you were playing a notated score - i.e., one that you would hand to a musician (so not your 'special' notation) - and someone in the next room shouted: "Where's that music coming from?"
Would you answer: "That's not music, that's notation!" ;-)
In reply to You wrote: Notation software… by Jm6stringer
There is absolutely nothing special about "my" notation. I have listed a few of the ways that I can get better playback. And indeed there are those who would call that playback "music". Who knows if they know what they are talking about.
I have no need for MuseScore to play a score intended for musicians. That's the musicians job.
In reply to Musescore was never intended… by Jim Ivy
Musescore was actually doing rather well - considering - and some of the MU4 features were going in the right direction. It would be good if a positive direction could be maintained, and issues like the poor violin sound here could be overcome and eventually forgotten.
In reply to Musescore was actually doing… by dave2020X
I think it's more productive to not think of it as "poor" - just a different sound from what you want in your particular situation. That's part of why two different sounds exist - 1 & 2 - to give you that choice. Most people think of choice as a good thing...
In reply to Musescore was never intended… by Jim Ivy
You wrote:
Musescore was never intended to create music.
Perhaps you should have opened with:
Musescore was never intended to create professional recording studio quality audio. ;-)
I inferred your intended context/meaning of 'music', even without the contrast: Musecore, from the beginning, was a way to create notation.
That's true, and years ago the oft repeated mantra in these forums was: "MuseScore is first and foremost a scorewriter, and playback is of secondary importance."
That position seems to have shifted over the years - especially now that MuseScore is part of Muse.Group (https://www.mu.se/about).
What I find interesting about all this relates to the different expectations that people have, and the consequent requirements to meet all those expectations.
Example:
When MIDI first gained traction, some folk complained about its playback sounding 'too mechanizedl' and wanted a 'humanized' playback. So, a 'humanize playback' feature was added to some software. Then, when subsequently faced with converting that 'humanized' MIDI score back into notation, they complained about the too 'literal' notation transcription - displaying excessive ties, weird rhythms that combined 32nd, 64th, etc. durations of notes and rests - which was virtually unreadable by a human musician (but still easily playable by a machine). Quantization then came to the rescue to 'de-humanize' the MIDI prior to launching the conversion.
Presently, with the clamor for playback fidelity gaining momentum, no doubt peoples' expectations will come into play - along with their subjective preferences: e.g., violin is shrill, sax is not 'sweet' enough, flute is too legato,,, etc.
Of course this does spawn progress in MuseScore over time (despite MS4's current issues), but DAW's are made for this stuff. As you mention, currently there exist "better suited software packages" - expressly to produce studio quality audio.
In any event, MuseScore still rocks, and maybe the forum mantra nowadays should be:
"You can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."
The missing part - "please all of the people some of the time" - was intentionally left out, because that will never happen. Someone, somewhere, it seems, will always have a gripe.
In reply to Perhaps you should have… by Jm6stringer
👌
In reply to 👌 by SteveBlower
One huge favor that I owe Musescore 4 is that it forced me to explore other software packages that do come closer to allowing me to create what I want to create. More power to those that find MU4 to be a solution that suits their tastes and needs.
I still use MU4 for formatting pdf parts and scores. I just do not bother with it for anything more complex.
In reply to One huge favor that I owe… by Jim Ivy
The reason I've been trying MuseScore the last few years is because someday my old copy of Sibelius 7.5 won't work on some future version of Windows. I'm too cheap to buy software. I'm not a professional so I can't really justify the cost. Sibelius has 34 GB of sounds and to me seems much easier to use. The drum palette in MuseScore makes me crazy. I don't write drum kit parts if I'm using MU4. I wrote a piece for orchestra in MU3. It starts soft and ends very big. MU3 just didn't deliver the punch I was after. I opened it in Sibelius and I liked the results much better. Then MU4 came along. So as a test I opened that piece in it. The result was much better than Sibelius. That doesn't make MU4 better. MU4 sounds have a lot of problems. It just means I have another tool to use.
In reply to The reason I've been trying… by bobjp
Percussion parts vary a lot depending upon which sound set you are using. MU4 makes it very difficult to audition different sound sets (sf2, sfz). MU3 is easier than MU4 but not Ideal. Plogue's Sforzando in standalone mode can be helpful for previewing sound sets, as can Bassmidi VSTi. Plogue is VST3 so it can be used with MU4. Unfortunately, Bassmidi is VST2 but will work well in Reaper and other DAWs.
Creating drumset parts is easier if you use a drum editor like Hydrogen (free, as in beer), then simply import the drumkit into Musescore. You can always add specific hits using the MU drum editor but it eliminates the grunt work.
Do not overlook the Musescore drumline extension when you are choosing percussion sound sets. You can use it with MU4 if you use Plogue's Sforzando. Note also that any soundfont set will work in MU4 but, for some inexplicable reason, MU4 does not allow you to choose individual patches.
In reply to Percussion parts vary a lot… by Jim Ivy
Thanks for the tips.
The reality is that I'm just not that interested in a DAW and VST's. Or even MDL. One reason is I'm not interested in the learning curve. Another is different playback setups. I have spent a lot of time setting up a piece to sound just so. Then I mix down and play it on a different system. My home sound system. My car system. Headphones from my computer. The sound is different on each system. This is to be expected. But the delicate snare part I spent so much time on is gone on one of the other systems. The trumpet part is too loud on another And on and on.
It seems to me that if what I write is so dependent on particular sounds rather than the quality of what I write, that's a problem. I just want to open my software and start writing. I also don't write the way most people do. I don't write melodies and then go back and write accompaniments. I write the first few notes. Then I might start to harmonize what I've got. Then depending on where that harmony is leading, I'll write some more melody. And so on. That way everything is connected to each other. Dependent on itself. Every note is important because it helps define every other note.
In reply to Thanks for the tips. The… by bobjp
I would think that most composers work that way. I suppose tt depends somewhat on the genre or style of the music.
What you are describing about the different sound in different playback environments is a common problem. If you go into a recording studio to cut a track or CD, the recording engineer has the task of getting it recorded. But then the engineer will send the recording out for "mastering". The "mastering" process is where they adjust things so that they will sound acceptable when played on all sorts of different equipment. A well mastered track will sound different in your car, or a "boombox", from when it is played on your home stereo. But it will still be OK no matter what the environment.
If you have a track that you really like, but do not want to spend big bucks to have it professional mastered, there are several inexpensive services that you might want to consider. Soundcloud is one service that offers mastering at a very affordable price. But BandLab actually has an entirely free and unlimited mastering service. You do have to sign up for an account, but the account is also free.
To use Bandlab's mastering, all you do is login to your account and upload your file. It is best if your file has about 6db of headroom. After the file has uploaded, it will begin to play. BandLab has four buttons for different mastering profiles. You can switch between them as you listen. When you have decided which profile sounds best, you can then download the mastered copy to your computer and use it however you wish.
Mastering cannot fix every problem, and automated mastering is not the same as a professional sound engineer listening to your track and making judgements based upon exactly what you have recorded, but it can help you make your music sound better. There is no learning curve to speak of - all you do is upload your music and listen to it. Choose the profile that sound best to you , and then download it back to your computer. You can even download it with each of the four profiles if you want to see which will sound better in your car, etc.
In reply to I would think that most… by Jim Ivy
Thanks again. I may consider some of these things. Then again, much of the fun for me is to do what I can with what I have.
In reply to Thanks again. I may consider… by bobjp
Limiting yourself is a good learning technique. It allows you to fully explore your instrument. If you can write an interesting melody using only a single pitch, then you are far ahead of someone who has to use more than one pitch to make things interesting. The old Haskel Harr rudiment books are a great way to study music composition.
In reply to Limiting yourself is a good… by Jim Ivy
I have a university music education degree. Which includes composition. I'm not limiting myself as much as I am learning what I can do. It's what I enjoy. It's therapy for me.
In reply to I have a university music… by bobjp
Limiting yourself is not a bad thing. It is a way to focus. It is very difficult to compose an interesting melody using only a single pitch, or even only two pitches. But the discipline of doing so will certainly build a stronger concept of melodic composition.
In reply to Limiting yourself is not a… by Jim Ivy
Let me put it a different way. I'm not as concerned with melody as much as I am with the piece as a whole. I write melodies, but that is not my goal. When I start a new piece I seldom have any plan. I just start entering notes. I don't sketch things out on piano first then expand. I open an orchestra score and go for it.
Recordings sound different on different systems. Much like the same score sounds different when played by different groups. I listen to mine on different systems to help me see if I need to change something.
I'm not interested in writing a famous piece of music. That pressure would take the fun out of it. But I do want to write the best I can.
In reply to Let me put it a different… by bobjp
Good for you. It is your decision, so do whatever makes you happy.
In reply to Let me put it a different… by bobjp
Odd that we seem to have moved on from a specific issue with Musescore and the sounds available to more discussion about composition. I'm not sure this is the right place for it, but it's fun anyway.
To Bob - if you really want something different to play with, try modular synthesis and use free tools like VCVrack.
I'm also with you on sound quality. I have an almost passionate dislike of highly compressed music, music with very limited harmonics etc. I am amazed that there are now libraries for producing sounds such as VCR sound, gramophone scratch sound etc. OK - they might be fine for producing sound effects for drama productions, but I really don't want to listen to music with booming bass, or hiss, or with pumping due to compressors, or even just with a flattened dynamic. I have been to concerts in which I just about jumped out of my seat with a sudden change of dynamic - sit near the front of a concert hall to listen to some Tchaikovsky symphonies, and that can happen. I don't want to reproduce the compressed sound of jazz LPs from the 1950s, or even the 1970s - I want something much more vibrant.
With some libraries it is possible to get very good effects with MuseScore - but sometimes one seems to have to use other tools as well.
Also you mention you want to write "the best you can", but who is going to decide? I have similar ideas, but best for me may mean that I like it, not that it's voted on by others, or that it makes the most money etc. I have hardly any interest in that at all.
In reply to Odd that we seem to have… by dave2020X
Actually, composition has everything to do with Muse Sounds, for me. Several of the sounds are different depending on the range and volume. If I'm writing and the sound isn't what I like, I'll do something different at that point. Isn't that part of what composing is? If I'm writing for string quartet, I can't write whatever I want. What I write has to be able to work with the chosen instruments. In traditional type music, anyway. I'm sure there are other tools out there. As well as other sounds. They can be a bit of a pain to set up and use. I have BBC orchestra on one system. Not impressed. Pretty much the only person that listens to my stuff is me. It's a hobby. I have one thing on .com that is a piano reduction of a fugue for orchestra. I wrote a four part fugue for fun. Most of what I write is for small orchestra. I call it film score.
In reply to As with many things in life,… by Marc Sabatella
Subjectivity! I suppose your internally-recognized composer is just a gut feeling.
What I now want to know is whether the Muse Sounds libraries are included with nightly downloads or not.
It is important to know this to try to identify issues - whether they come from the code, the hardware, or the sample libraries.
I have a hunch that some of the problems I noticed may be due to other things, such as using other VSTs on my system. Other plugins should be kept separate, but maybe that doesn't always happen, so there could be corruption if one interacts with another - even if not explicitly invoked. I have very definitely observed strange and unwanted behaviour with MU4 on my machine - which is an Apple iMac running Ventura.
I still stick strongly to my assertion that the articulation of the "violin" as I heard it was not desirable nor pleasant, but if it was made worse by other problems within MU4 then that needs to be checked. Even the Basic violin in MU3 did not sound that bad - but then you can always blame my ears.
I am trying to separate out problems with the sound libraries, and also the code for the base program. It is presumably not possible to test out the Muse Sounds libraries with any other software, as I guess they are a niche product, so won't work with other tools such as DAWs. If problems are noticed with VSTs these can be cross checked with other software, as there is widespread compatibility betwen different systems, but Muse Sounds libraries seem to be out on a limb of their own.
In reply to Subjectivity! I suppose your… by dave2020X
Muse Sounds are download via Muse Hub and as such are not part of MuseScore itself - not the installed version or the experimental nightly builds. But Muse Sounds do work with both installed and nightly builds. You always have your choice between Muse Sounds, MS Basic, other soundfonts, or VST - and you can make that choice independently for each instrument, or quickly switch all instruments between Muse Sounds and MS Basic.
FWIW, I think there is some general agreement by many that the amount of portamento in violin 1 solo is exc essive - I agree as well for many uses. But it definitely sounds great in many cases, too - more Romantic-rtype works as opposed to Baroque, for example, also genres outside the realm of classical music. Anyhow, there is already an open issue on GitHub for this (submitted by me), and it has already been toned down considerably from the original beta release when I submitted the issue. See https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/issues/13878