8 months later and still: Unacceptable and BASIC sound ISSUES

• Jul 17, 2023 - 16:10

I've given up hoping for quality BASIC playback in MS4.
And quite frankly, I am tired of the rather apologetic, redundant, and sycophantic replies from staff.
As well as the lack of a response from Musehub.
MS4 was CLEARLY released FAR too prematurely, and without sufficient QA.
I laugh at the YouTube videos demonstrating the "magnificence" of MS4 sounds.
Legato pieces full of whole notes.
Pieces missing the sort of dynamics, articulations and tempos which clearly sound AWFUL.
You can't get much more demonstrably pathetic than the following:

Listen to the attached 5 measure .MP3. ( a BRIEF post-cadential Solo Violin figure, at 320 kBits/s), using MuseFx Solo Violin. (It's even WORSE with the native MS4 Solo Violin font.)
The following link is to the .MP3 on my Google Drive for your listening "pleasure":


The five measure screenshot is attached and text noted.
Inexplicable dynamic changes and sudden scratchyness.

I can assure you it's NOT my iMac, nor my Google Drive, nor the upload process, nor re-installing MS4, nor re-installing MuseHub, or any of the absurd non-answer suggestions given to frustrated COMPOSERS with eight months of similar LEGITIMATE complaints experiencing similar issues.

Composers and Musicians are simply trying to get FUNDAMENTAL EXPECTATIONS resolved.
Fundamental like no sudden and MEANINGLESS changes in dynamics

And it's just not happening.
I could not possibly be more disappointed after the wait.

Attachment Size
Pathetic Solo Violin.png 132.5 KB


By the way: The reason the String Section sounds acceptable, is that I am using Spitfire Audio's
"Epic Strings" VST3. INCREDIBLE AT $29 USD. It puts the Native MS4 and MuseFX offerings completely to shame.
Note: It's NOT cost effective to use their solo violin in MS4 unless you are using a DAW to manage articulations, etc. Mixer screenshot (Spitfire Strings) provided to authenticate:

Attachment Size
Spitfire Strings.png 26.13 KB

As I related elsewhere, we're sorry to hear you are having trouble, so please list the links to the GitHub issues you submitted and then we can check on their status. I see in an earlier post of yours I requested more information but never received it.

It is interesting to me that you are complaining about playback in notation software. Such playback has never, ever been intended as a final product. It is, however, intended as a reverence for those who know what they are doing. I have never said that any sounds in MuseScore are fantastic. Real sound libraries for real production software cost several hundred dollars each. And you need several. But you are a professional that already knows this. You are a professional expecting free software to behave like paid software. You are a professional that thinks it is OK to be rude. No one here is on staff. I thought a professional who has read past posts would know that. We are all here just trying to help each other. I though a professional would understand that.
I apologize for nothing. Sorry if people can't accept that. Either you want help or you don't.

Yes the staccato notes are strangely louder. So for playback you make them 16th notes. But leave them alone in the reading score. I only heard the one scratchy note. There is probably a way around that. But I'm no longer interested. In MuseSounds I didn't hear the uneven volume between the G and the A. That suggests a problem with Epic. Muse sounds are far from perfect. I never said otherwise. Only that they are better than Basic.

In reply to by bobjp

I'm gratified you find things interesting.

"It is interesting to me that you are complaining about playback in notation software. "
> It is interesting that you do not recognize I am PRIMARILY complaining about the PREMATURE RELEASE of MS4 with BASIC PLAYBACK ISSUES THAT DID NOT EXIST IN MS3. THAT IS RETROGRESSION.
"I have never said that any sounds in MuseScore are fantastic."
> Never said you did.
"But you are a professional that already knows this. "
> Wrong AGAIN. I am a retired Technology Executive. VP For a Fortune 50 Company. I know the alpha and beta development process, as well as the QA and release process intimately. The issue(s) I have brought up with MS4 were either (A) NEVER RESOLVED in MS3 and BROUGHT FORWARD ANYWAY, or (B) Introduced with the new code and/or the integration of MuseHub. Being an experienced helper, I assume you would have known this.
"You are a professional expecting free software to behave like paid software."
> Wrong again. COMPLETELY OFF TARGET. Expecting a semi-quaver to NOT change dynamic volume in the middle of a measure with ZERO attendant controls ( hairpins, markings, etc.) in MS4 IS NOT EXPECTING IT TO BEHAVE LIKE PAID SOFTWARE. Are you serious? Ooops, I take that back. Unlike you, I recognize saracasm. I don't mistake it for rudeness.
"No one here is on staff. I thought a professional who has read past posts would know that."
> Are you able to discriminate that I was being sarcastic? It's OBVIOUS you're not on staff. If you were I would have deleted MS4 after reading your first reply to me. Kindly consider working on recognizing sarcasm. It's not rudeness. Oh yeah: Tie that in to the assumptions thing. It seems -perhaps- you just might have a problem with recognition.
"I apologize for nothing"
Who is asking you to? Are you a developer? A marketing manager?
"There is probably a way around that. But I'm no longer interested. "
> (A) And I'm longer interested in workarounds. I have professional musicians who play through my drafts.
At the risk of repeating myself (but it might help you understand): I am not looking for anywhere near "professional level playback" I was not expecting such BASIC problems to be brought forward and/or new BASIC issues to be introduced.
>(B) That YOU are no longer interested means absolutely nothing to me.

Have I been sarcastic? Hell yeah. Rightly so.
But I haven't been rude.
But don't tempt me.
After looking at the Fugue, I have serious reservations about whether or not you have actually composed -or are even able to orchestrate meaningfully with Epic Strings.
Prove me wrong.
Unlike you, I will apologize.

I'll wait.

In reply to by gary23andrews

Sorry, but you claim that some of my previous answers are apologist in nature. Meaning to me that you think I'm making excuses for MU4. Not true. That is what my "apologize for nothing" comment means.

Ah yes, the fugue. That is a rough piano reduction of part of a piece for small orchestra. It was posted for a particular reason that has long past. You don't have to like it. No one has to prove anything to you,

Looking forward to more sarcastic remarks.

In reply to by bobjp

It would have been slightly more clear had you said "I am not apologizing for MuseScore"

I'm Ignoring the rest of that once again irrelevant reply, Maestro.

Alas, another assumption! Never said I didn't like it.
I actually thought it was charming.
Melodically and Harmonically Primitive.
But quite charming!

Since it was a reduction -and since you have suggested you've tried Spitfire's Epic Strings- should be a composition -or draft- somewhere in your autograph catalogue you can send along so I can arrange -and publish it here- with Epic Strings.
Anything will do. From a Quartet to a full Concerto Ensemble. Any key.
This will kill two birds with one stone:
1) Demonstrate the comparative superiority of Epic Strings to the MS4 Native, or Musehub offerings.
2) And at the risk of outright insulting you, you know damn well what else it will do.

I'll wait.

In reply to by gary23andrews

You seem genuinely offended that I might not like Epic Strings. Sorry.

Comments like " I have serious reservations about whether or not you have actually composed -or are even able to orchestrate meaningfully with Epic Strings." and "Melodically and Harmonically Primitive." are an odd way to say you like something. And "charming" in this case is another way to say you tolerate something. I am not interested in you shredding that piece, as I know you are chomping at the bit to do.

A font does not make or break a composition. Do you know what does? I have never been interested in composing anything complicated. It doesn't have to be complicated to be good.

In reply to by bobjp

Take solace, my good man.
Anything you've said -ever- has offended me.
It may confuse me-
But it's not offensive.
It may be completely irrelevant-
But not offensive.
It may be entirely WRONG-
But not offensive.

I find you entertaining at best.
Predictable and -I'm serious here- entertaining.
And you have an extraordinary perception of the obvious:
And -for whatever reason- you're pedantic about it.

Laughably pedantic:

" It doesn't have to be complicated to be good."
Absolutely brilliant, Maestro!

"You seem genuinely offended that I might not like Epic Strings. Sorry.."

> I'm not. Epic Strings has drawbacks and limitations.
I've discussed them with Spitfire.
At considerable length.
My point was obvious:
I remain skeptical about you even having downloaded and worked with them.

Once again
(AGAIN - what a surprise!)
you are completely wrong about something:

I'm not interested whatsoever in "shredding" your Fugue.
Redundancy is a waste of time.
I listened to it while following the score once.
The piece is self-shredding.

I'm outta here.
Read your eventual reply to this to yourself on my behalf.

In reply to by gary23andrews

Oh you will read my reply because you can't resist. You'll read it. You might not type anything because you want to think that you have won. Big deal. Besides, you've said you were out of here before. Typical. You impress me as a small minded, lonely individual. But it won't make any difference because you won't read this. Sure you will. I haven't looked yet but you will probably post something negative on the fugue page. Typical.

I had a lot of bad experiences with dynamics in piano compositions that I made in MS3 and opened in MS4. The reason is that I often fine-tune dynamics, i.e. not only using dynamic markings and hairpins but also by changing velocity property of notes. The semantic was changed between MS3 and MS4 and you have to add 64 to each value. For instance, if I made the left hand little more silent by using -10 in MS3, this becomes completely silent in MS4, where it should be changed to 54. I wonder if this is the reason for bad MS4 experiences for you and possibly many others? In 4.1, when I added 64 and for the first time was able to reduce reverb, I finally become satisfied with the playback of some of my piano pieces.

In reply to by bb94

On my MU4.1, your latter score plays with a slight gap between each note. None of the other things you mention. The other pedal markings (among them, PED and release symbol, which may be more proper) work just fine.
Grace notes do seem a bit fast.
"Sorry you are having trouble"

Two points:
1. I love MS4 and I disagree with the idea that it was published prematurely. The fact that playback is not perfect is maybe regrettable but it was correct to make these significant improvements in "engraving" available sooner rather than later.
2. I agree with some points in this complaint, but I recommend to keep your aggression in check.

In reply to by azumbrunn

Two points:

  1. My reading of tons of Bug Reports from years of MS3 -and now MS4- suggest overwhelmingly that it was released prematurely. Careful reading of the helpers that actually KNOW what's going on agree.
    MuseHub is was OBVIOUSLY insufficiently QAd. Here's a SIMPLE question for you. Are you aware that installing MuseHub gives that App direct access to your ROOT DIRECTORY? And if you are, how do you justify it?
    Be technically comprehensive in your reply.
    The engraving improvement is obvious. And excellent.
    They should have left everything else alone and integrated it after it had been properly tested and Quality Assured.

  2. May I politely recommend you open your lexicon in order to better discriminate the difference between "aggression" and VALID frustration with the months of pure BULLSH_T that's been purveyed to rationalize the problems. Problems which probably won't be solved unless - And I mean this literally- AI replaces some of the coding as well as the GUI for those elements of a composition which are more than a pretty placement of pretty semi-quaver on the staff. Elements like BASIC DYNAMICS.
    Take some time someday and acquaint yourself Wirth the complaint history and get back to me.

This. I'm so glad someone else can actually acknowledge these problems.

"I laugh at the YouTube videos demonstrating the 'magnificence' of MS4 sounds. Legato pieces full of whole notes."

YES. This is exactly what I said. How are we the only two people to notice this?? I put Tchaikovsky's entire violin concerto into MS3 a few years ago and it sounded fine. Now it sounds horrendous. The solo violin part (played by BOTH Violin 1 (solo) and Violin 2 (solo)) is ridiculous. I could play it better in real life right now and I haven't touched a violin since high school.

I find the excuse "playback was never intended to be the final product" just completely asinine. Such an effortless excuse. Why the hell does Muse Sounds exist then?

Don't even get me started with the 4.2 update. Bends only work on MS Basic and now caesuras are broken too. We're going to wait another year for this to be fixed when it shouldn't have been broken in the first place.

Any features/techniques that the average village idiot doesn't use for their crappy piano pieces which you can find littered throughout the community tab have been removed or broken.

I've used MuseScore for many years so I can get around most of the playback issues people are experiencing with MuseSounds but there are just some things that are, like you said, unacceptable.

In reply to by BeatsKEI

Sorry to hear you are having trouble! It's tough to come up with one violin sound that works equally well for all musical settings. The existing ones in Muse Sounds are great for some cases, not so great for others, as is the case with any other sound. Luckily, museScore doesn't limit you to just one, you can choose others via soundfonts or VSTi.

There are indeed a couple of known issues with bend and caesura playback in 4.2 that are on the list to have fixed in the coming 4.2.1 update - and no, it won't be a year :-). Regressions happen from time to time, it's just a fact of life that fixing one thing sometimes break another, but overall, as people are diligent about helping test beta and official releases and report problems, together the community can help make MuseScore better and better.

There are very few features deliberately removed, but in virtually all cases, it's been to make room for an improved version yet to come (or in some cases, as with selecting sounds within soundfonts, already added back). Meanwhile, if you rely on one of the features still missing, you f course can continue using MU3. Meanwhile, the millions of users who don't rely on these relatively obscure features are able to enjoy the tremendous advances already present in MU4. We all win!

In reply to by BeatsKEI

Not to mention the "Help". Pure Amateurs like "Bobjp" merely add to the obfuscation.
I've read tons of his replies. Less than half have actually been helpful.
People that know next to nothing about composition and perhaps even less about the internals of MS4 waste time with irrelevant -or rationalized- responses, spiced with pseudo-knowledge about coding.
"Unable to replicate, please send the score" has become amusing.
In other words, "I'm suggesting it's an issue with your platform without overtly saying it's an issue with your platform".
Fact: I continue to read his replies for sheer amusement. They're as amusing as his Fugue.

In reply to by gary23andrews

Gary, you are indeed a real piece of work.
I am honored that you have chosen me to vent on. Does that make you feel good? Superior? Why me? Is it because I won't put up with your baloney?
Sometimes there are things in a score that cause a problem. That isn't saying that the person's platform is at fault.
By all means, continue to waste the forum's time by posting this kind of thing. Would you like me to attach all my posts to this thread so that you don't miss any?
You claim to know me based on my posts. Do you want to know what your posts say about you?
Fact: I do hope you get over acting like a playground bully.

In reply to by bobjp

I have not "chosen" you.
You have indirectly chosen yourself.
In some cosmic (to be polite) way, your reply to me mirrors the poor marksmanship on display in so many of your replies to posts. Yet it retains its transparent patina of persecuted arrogance, and the faint air of superiority. And -alas- once again, it smacks of projection....

Simple Fact: I know nothing about you.
Simpler Fact: Many of your replies to posts are useless.
And yet another simple fact: I don't think you've learned to read carefully. And you tend to react emotionally rather than logically.
And -sigh- still another simple fact: Your plethora of useless replies is vastly more time wasting than me calling out your tendency to respond with pretentious nonsense.

Try reading this carefully, and thinking about it: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection

P.S. I'm not bullying you. I'm laughing at you. There's a difference.

In reply to by gary23andrews

And yet another P.S.:

Software is one thing. Music is another.

Your piece "Compassion_5", posted Feb 23, is quite interesting.
I've downloaded it and reviewed the score.
I trust you don't mind a few observations:
I'm not sure how it would be classified, but "tone-poem" seems in the ballpark.
> The introductory motion from Measure (M) 6 into the next few measures is captivating and excellent.
> I have mixed feelings about the quantity of fermatas, but they lend a feeling of momentary meditation to the conversation, and more-or-less function to help infuse a bit of sentence structure to the piece.
> The good use of dynamics helps offset the contemplative aspect of the somewhat narrow -but pleasing-melodic range.
> The diad in M-32 is stark - almost a tritone- and I'm not sure about the flow into the very nice pastoral section in Am, which commences in M 34. I might have considered hinting at it in one of the preceding measures.
> The harmony and orchestration in Ms 57-60 is wonderful!
> There are a few spots where I might consider adding some interest to the lower register while the upper register melody is flowing with half and whole notes. For example simple subdued quarter note arpeggios.
> All in all a piece worth listening to for its musicality; it shows a good understanding of harmony.

Well done.

In reply to by bobjp

I'm delighted you found it "amusing", Robert.
Its usefulness might have been over your head.
I regret that. I know you're trying very hard.
(All work and no play made Robert a very dull boy.)

So much for my attempt at being "compassionate" to one so obviously musically challenged.
(No pun intended).
I did my sincere best to find a few aspects worth considering in your compositional effort.
And yes, a listener does get to decide the impact any form of music has on them.
That's what music criticism is all about, Herr Robert.
But you knew that, didn't you...
I know you did.
I'm convinced your question was rhetorical at best.

In unabashed candor, I found most of it almost as primitive as your "Fugue".
It was repetitive and rather boring.
I'm actually anxious to see if you ever discover what a melody is.
(There is more melody in any Czerny Etude, than there is in that entire effort.)
Any third year student can harmonize whole and half notes ad nauseam.

Now that I've listened to a second piece of yours, I understand why you're obsessed with demonstrating your "expertise" at diagnosing the issues with Musescore....

You've obviously realized that you're wasting your time trying to use it for it raison d'être.

It was a challenge typing this. You got me laughing pretty hard!

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